Financing healthy oceans Options for Sustaining the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor Disclaimer This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contri- butions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this note do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The mention of private companies in the report is for illustration only, from a very large potential field, and does not necessarily imply endorsement or recommendation. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorse- ment or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting a portion or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. Citation Please cite this publication as follows: World Bank. 2025. “Financing Healthy Oceans: Options for Sustaining the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ma- rine Conservation Corridor.” Washington, DC: World Bank. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permis- sion to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978- 750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org Cover and page 36: Photo by chrwittm (Adobe Stock) Left: Gorgona Beach , Colombia. Photo by pabloacruz (Adobe Stock) Acknowledgments This report summarizes the outcomes of technical assistance provided by the World Bank to the governments of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama in 2023 and 2024 to strengthen regional management of Corredor Marino del Pacífico Este Tropical (CMAR), the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor. We owe deep thanks to each country’s environmental ministry for their support and guidance in this work, which complements ongoing World Bank engagements to safeguard the region’s oceanic biodiversity while advancing its blue economy. This report is based on analytical outputs developed under the technical leadership of Roger Madrigal (Environmental Consultant) and Mariano Castro (World Bank). Production of this report was led by a World Bank team consisting of João Moura, Gabriela Encalada, Claudia Serrano Cordova, and Mariano Castro under the leadership of Cary Anne Cadman (all from the Latin America and Caribbean unit of the World Bank’s Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy Global Practice). We would also like to thank Jose Julio Casas, Maria Fernanda Cuartas, and Adriana Ng (all from the CMAR Secretariat) for their support in preparing this report. The technical assistance that led to the publishing of this report was funded by PROBLUE, an umbrella trust fund that supports the development of integrated, sustainable, and healthy marine and coastal resources. The team would like to thank all PROBLUE donors for making this work possible. Coiba National Park, Panama. Photo by crist.cort (Adobe Stock) Key Messages • The 500,000-square-kilometer Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conser- vation Corridor (CMAR, after Corredor Marino del Pacífico Este Tropical) was established by the governments of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama in 2004 to facilitate cooperation for the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine resources. • The corridor includes four UNESCO World Heritage Sites with more than 6,700 reported species. It is also home to 37 million people. • World Bank analyses conducted in 2023 and 2024 identified several opportunities for improving regional management of CMAR by strengthening the functioning of the CMAR Secretariat. • The CMAR Ministerial Committee has already actioned two key opportunities, namely, replacing the temporary CMAR Secretariat with revolving membership and leadership with a permanent Secretariat with four permanent staff members. • The new permanent Secretariat will be based in Panama City and has secured funding for its first three years of core operations. • Further World Bank technical assistance will focus on strengthening CMAR’s governance, coordination, and capacity, including supporting: (i) the participatory and inclusive development of CMAR’s 2025–2035 Action Plan, and (ii) the development of a communications strategy to raise awareness about CMAR’s relevance. • The next steps for the permanent CMAR Secretariat will be to secure financing for implementing its 2025–2035 Action Plan. World Bank analyses suggest that public debt swaps, project finance for permanence, official development assistance grants or loans, and/or blue bonds would be appropriate financing mechanisms. • Action Plan financing could be structured to include funding for the permanent Secretariat’s core activities over the medium term, provided the Secretariat carries out further functions such as project administration and monitoring. Sea lions in Galapagos, Ecuador. by The Ocean Agency (Adobe Stock) Contents About the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor 8 Focus Areas and Objectives 11 Challenges 14 Steps to Strengthen the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor 16 Steps already taken 17 Phase 2 World Bank commitments 17 Further recommended step 18 Conclusions 24 References 26 Annexure 30 Gorgona Island, Pacific Ocean Colombia. Photo by David Otálora (Adobe Stock) Abbreviations and Units Climate COP Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change CMAR Corredor Marino de Conservación del Pacifico Este Tropical (CMAR, Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor) COP Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity IUU Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (usually with reference to fishing) km Kilometer km2 Square kilometer MPA Marine protected area NGO Nongovernmental organization PFP Project finance for permanence Galapagos, Ecuador. Photo by Chris (Adobe Stock) 1. 7 1. About the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor On April 2, 2004, the governments of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama established the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor (CMAR, after Corredor Marino de Conservación del Pacifico Este Tropical) under the San Jose Declaration to ensure the collaborative, effective management of oceanic natural resources. This voluntary regional cooperation mechanism covers more than 500,000 square kilometers (km2) of marine and coastal ecosystems, including coral reefs and mangroves, which provide habitats to highly diverse and endangered marine life. From a climate perspective, the ocean corridor is a powerful carbon sink.1 About 37 million people live within 50 kilometers (km) of the Eastern Pacific coast. These people are highly dependent on coastal and marine natural resources for food, energy, timber, climate regulation, tourism, and economic activities such as fishing and tourism. Structures and governance CMAR is collectively managed by its member countries with facilitation support by the CMAR Secretariat. Until recently, this Secretariat consisted of a revolving membership of regular staff from the four participating govern- ments, under a rotating presidency (held by Panama from 2022 to 2025). The CMAR Secretariat is supported by a Regional Technical Committee (consisting of technical officials from each member country) with oversight by a Ministerial Committee (consisting of the environmental ministers of each member country). The interim CMAR Secretariat has traditionally relied on funding from philanthropic entities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and multi- lateral institutions (such as the World Bank). 1 The Revillagigedo Islands (Mexico) and Clipperton Island (France), while in the vicinity of CMAR, are not included in this analysis. Page 7: Coiba National Park, Panama. Photo by crist.cort (Adobe Stock) Left: Cocos Island National Park, Costa Rica. Photo by vijay (Adobe Stock) 8 Box 1: Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor: Key characteristics Corredor Marino Also known as CMAR, after the Spanish de Conservación del Pacifico Este Tropical Includes four UNESCO World Heritage Sites: the Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve (Ecuador), the Cocos Island National Park (Costa Rica), the Coiba National Park (Panama), and the Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Colombia) two of Includes Encompasses the three major 16 important seabird sites seasonal outcrops in the Eastern Topical Pacific Contains Has one of the 92% highest rates of endemism of the coral reefs in the Eastern Tropical Pacific in the world Has more than 6,700 reported species Is the only site in the world two species frequented by of humpback whales Mangroves are well developed due to high rainfall and tidal variations . Source: Adapted from ACRXS (2016) 9 2. 10 2. Focus Areas and Objectives In terms of CMAR’s 2019–2024 Action Plan, the CMAR Secretariat’s short- term objectives were to: • Consolidate and strengthen coordination and information-sharing mechanisms between various stakeholders and interest groups. • Create enabling conditions within CMAR member countries to acceler- ate achieving longer-term objectives for the marine corridor (listed below). • Develop and promote mechanisms for the control and surveillance of biodiversity across the CMAR. • Guide scientific research, with special emphasis on biodiversity conservation at multiple scales and connectivity in the CMAR region. • Promote strategies for the sustainable use of fishing and tourism resources within the CMAR. Longer-term objectives are to: • Promote the management and conservation of CMAR’s biodiversity and marine and coastal resources, with an emphasis on ecosystems and endangered, endemic, and ecologically and economically important species. • Improve and consolidate the protection and management of the marine protected areas (MPAs) that make up the corridor. • Establish an adequate regional framework to facilitate the development and management of CMAR in line with the policies, legislation, and related agreements of the four member countries, as well as applicable international conventions and agreements. • Promote cooperation and collaboration between member governments, NGOs, and international development organizations for effective management of the corridor. • Identify and promote appropriate financing mechanisms to support integrated management of CMAR and the MPAs within it. Page 10 and 11: Malpelo Island, Colombia. Photo by hakbak (Adobe Stock) 11 • Support technical and financial cooperation at the national and international levels, based on the countries’ stated priorities. • Promote responsible tourism that supports the conservation objectives of member countries while contributing to sustainable development in communities within the corridor. • Secure environmental goods and services at the local, regional, and global level. • Promote the transparent dissemination of information relating to the scope, objectives, actions, and progress of the corridor’s implementation. • Promote the participation of all sectors and stakeholders involved in the comprehensive management of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor. Parque nacional isla Coiba, Panama. Photo by crist.cort (Adobe Stock) 12 3. 13 3. Challenges The CMAR benefits from more than 20 years of collaboration between its member countries. With the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frame- work (GBF)2 and subsequent Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) emphasizing the need to protect and restore marine biodiversity and ecosystems across the globe, there is a need to further strengthen the CMAR Secretariat’s capacity for regional coordina- tion in support of effective ecosystem management. In 2023 and 2024, the World Bank provided the governments of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama with technical assistance to strength- en regional management of CMAR, including the functioning of the CMAR Secretariat. Under this assistance, interviews were conducted with people working with or in the CMAR Secretariat, as well as the members of simi- lar secretariats from other parts of the world, to identify the key challenges experienced. These challenges included: • The short-term rotation of Secretariat membership and leadership, which required periods of adjustment and caused a loss of institu- tional knowledge, internal processes, and internal regulations after a rotation. • A lack of dedicated Secretariat staff. Because Secretariat staff were also national office holders, it was difficult for the Secretariat staff to gain momentum due to members’ competing national responsibilities. The number of people assigned to the Secretariat also varied. Despite these challenges, the Secretariat’s efforts in support of collaborative corridor management have been commendable. • A lack of internal and external communication strategies to raise the profile of the CMAR Secretariat’s work and highlight the activities and objectives as set out in its Action Plan. • Financial uncertainty. Due to various interrelated factors, many of which were linked to the Secretariat’s low profile, the Secretariat has struggled to secure longer-term financial support for its core operations and, as a result, has had to rely on the country assuming chairmanship for much of its operating budget. 2 Especially GBF goals A (protect and restore) and B (prosper with nature), and targets 1 (reducing threats to biodiversity), 3 (conserve 30 percent of land, waters, and seas), 4 (halt species extinction, protect genetic diversity, and manage human-wildlife conflicts), and 8 (minimize the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and build resilience). Page 13 and 14: Galapagos, Ecuador. Photo by Chris (Adobe Stock) 14 4. 15 4. Steps to Strengthen the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor The technical assistance provided by the World Bank to CMAR’s member governments included the following assessments, which were based on desktop analysis backed by interviews with relevant stakeholders: • An analysis of existing natural capital assessments pertaining to the corridor (summarized in Appendix A) • A cost-benefit analysis of potential arrangements for staffing and equipping the Secretariat • A comparative cost estimate for establishing the Secretariat at one of two potential locations in CMAR • A rapid assessment of possible options for financing the Secretariat over the near and medium term. These analyses served to identify the following key steps for enhancing management of CMAR and the functioning of the CMAR Secretariat: • Establish a permanent Secretariat based in one of the CMAR member countries • Take a collaborative, inclusive approach to developing and imple- menting the CMAR 2025–2035 Action Plan • Develop and implement a communication strategy to raise CMAR’s profile and disseminate findings of future research • Identify appropriate medium-term financing options • Build the knowledge base. This section discusses progress taken towards achieving these steps and World Bank commitments to supporting the rollout of these actions. It also provides more detailed recommendations for recommended actions yet to be deliberated. Page 15 and 16: Malpelo Island, Colombia. Photo by Janos (Adobe Stock) 16 Steps already taken With support from the World Bank’s technical assistance, CMAR’s Ministerial Committee took a significant step forward in 2024 by evolving the temporary Secretariat into a permanent structure, now supported by four dedicated staff members. The World Bank supported the drafting of terms for these positions. A permanent Secretariat overcomes challenges experienced due to the temporary, part-time nature of the previous Secretariat (Chapter 3). The new Secretariat’s location—in Panama City—was announced at COP16 in late 2024. The Government of Panama has committed to funding two of the four Secretariat posts. The office’s location in Panama offers a high level of political stability and connectivity within the region. The Bezos Earth Fund has committed to financing the Secretariat’s core operations (including the two positions not funded by Panama) for the next two to three years, taking care of short-term financing needs. Phase 2 World Bank commitments Ongoing technical assistance by the World Bank (Phase 2, Building Durable Governance Across the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor) will focus on strengthening CMAR’s governance, coordination, and capacity. A key aspect of this will be supporting the participatory, inclusive development and imple- mentation of CMAR’s 2025–2035 Action Plan to ensure that conservation and management strategies are aligned with regional priorities. The second phase of World Bank technical assistance will also support the development of a communications strategy that aims to: • Raise awareness about CMAR’s relevance • Foster engagement between the users of ecosystem services, governments, and key stakeholders to promote regional cooperation, secure long-term support for conservation initiatives, and ensure that CMAR’s vision is widely understood and embraced by diverse audiences • Disseminate the outputs of future research to expand the knowledge base. Galapagos, Ecuador. Photo by Chris (Adobe Stock) 17 Further recommended steps Identify appropriate medium-term financing options The World Bank analyses identified the following potential sources of financing for implementing CMAR’s 2025-2035 Action Plan (once finalized) and the Secretariat’s core operations over the medium term: country quotas (if member countries agree), public debt swaps, project finance for permanence, official development assistance grants or loans, and/or blue bonds. A small portion of these financial resources could be allocated to funding Secretariat activities if the Secretariat carries out further functions that might include project administration and monitoring; fundraising and proposal writing; and knowledge dissemination and awareness raising. However, this would need to be agreed as part of the respective funding agreement. Table 1 provides more detail on the potential financing options that could be explored. In most cases, successfully accessing the type of financing requires an appropriate technical justification backed by strong, defined leadership to carry the process forward. Other types of financing not explicitly discussed (such as environmental taxes, fines and penalties for breaches of environmental laws, loans, and funding from users) were contemplated in the analysis that informed this report. While these financing avenues may form part of a future, longer-term financing strategy for the permanent Secretariat and the rollout of the 2025– 2035 Action Plan, these were not included in the analyses. Cocos Island, Costa Rica Photo by Michael Bogner(Adobe Stock) 18 Table 1. Options for additional Secretariat financing and CMAR 2025–2035 Action Plan rollout ADDITIONAL SECRETARIAT FINANCING Grants • Refers to non-refundable financing from private sector (<1 year) foundations or partners Source: private • The Bezos Foundation has offered to finance the operation of CMAR’s permanent Secretariat • Grants from private foundations tend to have more accessible guidelines and shorter management cycles compared to public agencies or national or international banks (CMAR-PACIFICO, 2018) • Foundations may choose to provide support through existing public-private partnerships. For example, in 2022, the Connect Coalition to Protect the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor committed US$118.5 million for the management and protection of the CMAR. The coalition is a multisector partnership that includes prominent private foundations, government departments, and development banks • Grants from high-net-worth individuals and their trust funds may present a potential income stream in the medium to long term. Direct • Refers to the direct provision of assets and services (such as office contributions space, furniture, and basic services like electricity, water, and (<1 year) internet access). Source: public Official • Refers to contributions from member countries based on the development country’s interest in undertaken initiatives assistance (Quotas for • Follows similar funding models used elsewhere in the world medium-term (such as the Wadden Sea Transboundary World Heritage Site, financing) the Sargasso Sea Commission, and the Standing Commission for Source: public the South Pacific, who draw on member contributions/quotas supplemented by earnings from providing other services) • Has potential to partly cover Secretariat’s main expenses (salaries and committee meetings) in both the short and medium term • Carries risk of non-payment by countries. Costa Rica Photo by Gian (Adobe Stock) 19 ACTION PLAN FINANCING Debt swaps • Refers to a voluntary agreement in which a country’s external Source: public debt is forgiven in exchange for investments into conservation (Friends of Ocean Action, 2020) • All four CMAR member countries have experience with obtaining and administering debt-for-nature swaps • Swaps depend on creditor’s willingness to forgive, at least partially, the monetary value of the debt • Could be used to secure financing over the medium to long term for implementation of the CMAR 2025–2035 Action Plan, with a small budget set aside for Secretariat activities, as negotiated. Blue bonds • Blue bonds are debt issues used to finance projects aimed at the Source: public or conservation and protection of marine ecosystems private • Depending on the credit rating of the issuer, bonds are freely bought and sold by investors, making them an attractive product • Most blue bonds to date have been issued by countries or international financial institutions (Friends of Ocean Action, 2020), although some private sector players have dabbled in bonding • Blue bonds are a subset of the green bond market, a rapidly growing, $200 billion global market. Official • When countries, especially members of the Organisation for development Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), allocate part assistance of their public financing to other countries’ official development (grants) assistance Source: public • Can be delivered bilaterally (on a government-to-government basis through cooperation agencies) or multilaterally (through national agencies or institutions such as the United Nations or the World Bank) • Generally disbursed as grants for public goods-focused projects in developing countries • Often combined with private capital to mitigate risk and expand the range of bankable projects (Friends of Ocean Action, 2020). Costa Rica Photo by Gian (Adobe Stock) 20 Project • A type of blended finance (which combines capital from various finance for sources for sustainable development projects to reduce risks and permanence increase the scale of investment) (PFP) Source: mixed • Disbursements are based on fundamental policy changes being made and predefined conservation milestones being met over an extended period of time (Cabrera et al., 2021) • There are several PFP initiatives across Latin America that can be used as a model for CMAR • A PFP could include debt swaps or other options in this table • Could be used to secure financing over the medium to long term for implementation of the CMAR 2025–2035 Action Plan, with a small budget set aside for Secretariat activities, as negotiated. Concessional • Refers to obtaining credit at preferential rates from development loans banks Source: public • Could be combined with grant financing • Requires authorization from member states. Build the knowledge base Current limits on the availability of robust, current, and accessible data relating to CMAR and the ecosystem services it provides points to a need to strengthen data, with a particular focus on relevant economic and ecological indicators that contribute to CMAR’s funding strategy. New and existing partnerships with universities and research centers could play an important role in collecting and maintaining such data, especially when it comes to longitudinal data that can be used to quantify the value of ecosystem services derived from the CMAR over time. Gorgona Island, Pacific Ocean Colombia. Photo by David Otálora (Adobe Stock) 21 Data relating to the following areas would be of use: • Blue carbon. A detailed assessment of carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems (mangrove forests and seagrass beds), potentially accom- panied by a study of potential markets for carbon trading, would enable policy makers to prepare their countries to take advantage of these markets. Such studies should actively engage communities and other stakeholders. • Sustainable fisheries. Most economic valuations of fisheries in CMAR focus on the extractive value of a fishery over a given period. Additional study could usefully focus on the effects regulations have on sustain- able fisheries management. Improved fisheries management, invest- ment in sustainable aquaculture, and protection of key marine-coast- al habitats would help restore the region’s productivity, generating significant economic benefits for member countries while ensuring fu- ture growth, food security, and employment for coastal communities. • Sustainable tourism. An assessment of how the public’s willingness to pay for tourism activities would vary based on changes in marine regulations or MPA management (for example, improvements in basic services, less congestion, and greater conservation of sensitive natural areas) would support the business case in favor of establishing and extending MPAs. • A holistic natural capital assessment that captures the economic value of a diversity of interrelated ecosystem services across the entire marine corridor in the context of climate change would substantially support the evidence-based collaborative management of this shared ocean resource. At the very least, natural capital assessments of adjacent MPAs should be conducted in a coordinated and systematic manner. Ecosystem services linked to changes in coral reef and seagrass conditions (and how these protect vulnerable coastlines from storms and floods linked to climate change); habitats for resident and migratory bird species; options for bioprospecting; alternative energy sources (e.g. wind, solar, waves); and sustainable aquaculture could be especially useful. A fully capacitated Secretariat with sufficient funding to analyze further financing mechanisms and draw in additional technical and legal expertise as needed will present a strategic lever for identifying, negotiating, and securing further financing to implement CMAR’s 2025–2035 Action Plan over the next 10 years. Gorgona Island Pacific Ocean, Colombia. Photo by David Otálora (Adobe Stock) 22 5. 23 5. Conclusions This report provides background on CMAR’s objectives and governance structures, and sets out the reasons for establishing a well-resourced, permanent Secretariat to support ongoing collaborative management of CMAR. A well-resourced Secretariat with adequate facilities to evaluate and access financing options will support the implementation of CMAR’s 2025–2035 Action Plan. Based on this, the CMAR’s member governments have already decided to appoint a permanent Secretariat with four staff members based in Panama. Ongoing technical assistance by the World Bank will focus on strengthening CMAR’s governance, coordination, and capacity, including supporting the participatory, inclusive development and implementation of CMAR’s 2025–2035 Action Plan and the development of a communications strategy that aims to raise awareness about CMAR’s relevance and foster engagement between the users of ecosystem services. The next step will be for the permanent Secretariat to secure financing for implementing its 2025–2030 Action Plan. Debt swaps, PFPs, grants, and blue bonds have been identified as potential mechanisms for financing the implementation of the 2025–2030 Action Plan over the medium to long term (three to five years). These financing options involve a much higher level of design and implementation complexity. Action Plan financing could be structured to include a small budget for core permanent Secretariat activities over the medium term if the Secretariat carries out additional functions such as project administration, monitoring, fundraising, drafting proposals, and awareness-raising. There may be a need to invest in capacity-building for the CMAR Secretariat to enable the team to execute these functions. Page 23: Gorgona Island Pacific Ocean, Colombia. Photo by David Otálora (Adobe Stock) Left: Costa Rica Photo by Gian (Adobe Stock) 24 6. 25 6. References ACRXS (Asociación Costa Rica por Siempre-Forever Costa Rica Association). 2016. “PACIFICO Conservation Plan.” San José: Costa Rica. https://redpacifico.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Plan-Conser-Paci%CC%81fi- co-WEB-FINAL-INGLES.compressed.pdf Barrera Orjuela CA and Maldonado JH. 2013. “Valoración económica del subsiste- ma de Áreas Marinas Protegidas en Colombia: un estudio enfocado a turistas espe- cializados.” Center for Studies on Economic Development (CEDE) Document 11937. Bogotá, Colombia: University of the Andes, Faculty of Economics, CEDE. http://hdl.handle.net/1992/8461 Bucaram S and Cárdenas S. 2018. “Evaluación económica para la creación de la Migravía Galápagos-Cocos.” Mexico City, Mexico: MigraMar. https://media.migramar.org/assets/uploads/institutional_reports/Bucaram%20 &%20Cardenas%202018%20Evaluacion%20Economica%20MigraVia%20Coco-Gala- pagos.pdf Cabrera H, Planitzer C, Yudelman T, and Tua J. 2021. “Securing sustainable financing for conservation areas: A guide to project finance for permanence.” Washington, DC: Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program and WWF. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/1z0aqa0cl9_PFP_ ASL_WWF_REPORT_2021_March_22_final_.pdf Cedeño JV, Valladares AG, and Gallegos VL. 2020. “Estimación de la disposición a pagar de visitantes al ACMC y sus aguas adyacentes, de manera adicional al gas- to actual, por una posible ampliación de la protección de sus ecosistemas y espe- cies.” Internal report. San José, Costa Rica: National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and Cocos Marine Conservation Area (ACMC). FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2020. “FAO’s Blue Growth Initiative: Blue finance guidance notes - Blue bonds.” Rome, Italy: FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca8745en Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group. 2010. “Payments for Ecosystem Services: Getting Started in Marine and Coastal Ecosystems: A Primer.” Washington, DC: Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/marine-coastal-pes- getting-started_2010-pdf.pdf Parque Nacional de Isla Coiba, Panama Photo by notsunami (Adobe Stock) 26 Friends of Ocean Action. 2020. The Ocean Finance Handbook: Increasing finance for a healthy ocean. Friends of Ocean Action. https://greenfinancelac.org/resources/publications/the-ocean-finance-handbook- increasing-finance-for-a-healthy-ocean/#wef_foa_the_ocean_finance_handbook_ april_2020/1/ IDB Invest (Inter American Investment Corporation) and UN Global Compact. 2021. Accelerating Blue Bonds Issuances in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washing- ton, DC: IDB Invest. https://greenfinancelac.org/resources/publications/accelerating-blue-bonds-issu- ances-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/#accelerating-blue-bonds-issuances/1/ IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2019. “Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Edited by Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, and Ngo HT. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 López-Rivas J and Cárdenas JC. 2024. “What is the economic value of coastal and marine ecosystem services? A systematic literature review.” Marine Policy. 161: 106033. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X24000319?via%- 3Dihub Lynham J, Costello C, Gaines S, and Sala E. 2015. Economic valuation of marine- and shark-based tourism in the Galápagos Islands. Washington, DC: National Geographic - Pristine Seas. https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/file/GalapagosEconReport_Nov15.pdf Maldonado JH, Moreno-Sánchez R, Zárate TG, Barrera CA, Cuervo R, Gutiérrez CA, Montañez AM, and Melissa Rubio M. 2013. Valoración económica del subsistema de Áreas Marinas Protegidas en Colombia: un análisis para formuladores de política servicios y multi­ desde un enfoque multi­ agentes. Center for Studies on Economic Development (CEDE) Document 11933. Bogotá, Colombia: University of the Andes, Faculty of Economics, CEDE. http://hdl.handle.net/1992/41020 Malpelo Island, Colombia Photo by Janos (Adobe Stock) 27 MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Synthesis.” Washington, DC: Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf Medina C, Aravena C, and Vásquez F. 2012. “Valoración económica de la conservación de tiburones en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos.” Working paper Series No. 34. Turri- alba, Costa Rica: Latin American and Caribbean Environmental Economics Program (LACEEP). Montenegro, R. 2007. “Valoración Económica de los Recursos Turísticos y Pesqueros del Parque Nacional Coiba.” Panamá: Conservation Strategy Fund. https://www.conservation-strategy.org/sites/default/files/field-file/16_Coiba_ Panama_MMAS_final_report.pdf Naber H, Lange G-M, and Hatziolos M. 2008. “Valuation of marine ecosystem ser- vices: A gap analysis.” Interim Report. Montreal, Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). https://www.cbd.int/marine/voluntary-reports/vr-mc-wb-en.pdf Perez Loyola R, Wang E, and Kang N. 2019. “Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands.” Tourism Economics. 27(1): 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166198852 Tanner MK, Moity N, Costa MT, Jarrin JRM, Aburto-Oropeza O, and Salinas-de-León P. 2019. “Mangroves in the Galapagos: Ecosystem services and their valuation.” Ecological Economics. 160: 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.024 Torres C and Hanley N. 2017. “Communicating research on the economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services.” Marine Policy. 75: 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.017 Zarate-Barrera T and Maldonado JH. 2015. “Valuing Blue Carbon: Carbon Sequestration Benefits Provided by the Marine Protected Areas in Colombia.” PLoS ONE. 10(5): e0126627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126627 Cocos Island, Costa Rica. Photo by Michael Bogner (Adobe Stock) 28 7. 29 7. Annexure Annexure A. Analysis of Natural Capital Assessments in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conservation Corridor This annexure presents a summary of a World Bank analysis of existing natural capital assessments in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Conser- vation Corridor (CMAR). Overall, the analysis found that, even though there are disparate assessments of a selection of ecosystem services at the marine protected area (MPA) level, there is no holistic and comprehensive natural capital assessment at the corridor level. Moreover, the methodologies used for the existing MPA-level valuations differ from assessment to assessment and give little consideration to either the long-term impacts, uncertainty, and the broader dynamics associated with climate change or how negative externalities stemming from terrestrial activities (such as pollution) impact marine ecosystem services. These factors could influence ecosystem benefit flows over time and potentially affect the economic valuation of these services. Introduction to ecosystem services Ecosystem services can be defined as the benefits that the natural environment provide to humans (MEA, 2005). These can be classified into provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services (Table A1). 3 The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) builds on this definition to propose that ecosystem services are the “contributions that humans receive from nature”. This reflects that nature does not always receive benefits; in some cases, the contributions may be negative. For more details, see IPBES (2019). Page 29: Sea lions in Galapagos, Ecuador. Photo by The Ocean Agency (Adobe Stock) Page 30: Gorgona Beach, Colombia. Photo by pabloacruz (Adobe Stock) 30 Table A1. Ecosystem services provided by marine and coastal ecosystems TYPE OF COASTAL MARINE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE ZONE ZONE Provisioning Food (fishing) and fuelwood Food (fisheries) services Natural fibers Biochemicals, natural medicines, Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals Genetic products Genetic products Regulatory services Climate regulation Food (fisheries) Regulation of air quality Biochemicals, natural medicines, Regulation of natural hazards pharmaceuticals Water purification and Genetic products waste disposal Support services Primary production Primary production Fertile soil formation Nutrient recycling Nutrient recycling Cultural services Tourism and recreation Tourism and recreation Religious or spiritual value Religious or spiritual value Education Education Sense of belonging Sense of belonging Cultural heritage Cultural heritage Source: Adapted from Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group, 20104 4 The shared classification is based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) and remains valid as a global reference under the IPBES framework. 31 An economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by protected ar- eas could help governments better understand the benefits of investing in such areas and the tradeoffs and synergies across decision-making process- es, so helping to justify budget allocations (Torres and Hanley, 2017). For ex- ample, it could be possible to know how investments in better conservation of ecosystems and basic services within MPAs can be offset by contributions to the gross domestic product (GDP) through tourism. This may reduce the misperception that MPAs do not pay for themselves and fail to contribute to countries’ development. Similarly, determining the gains from the expan- sion of sustainable tourism versus the potential losses to fishers who might be excluded from a site earmarked solely for tourism could help deepen un- derstanding of the redistributive effects of policies that mitigate negative im- pacts on especially vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the economic valuation of ecosystem services can help strength- en the business case for the private sector and donors. Economic valuation is especially useful for providing a cost-benefit evaluation that identifies pub- lic and private returns on investments into sustainably managed ecosystems. This could help private businesses and donors to identify the most attractive opportunities for investments or grants. Assessments of ecosystem services in CMAR Globally, the marine ecosystem services that are most frequently valued are those associated with: (i) habitats for commercially important fish species; (ii) coastal protection (in the case of mangroves and coral reefs); (iii) carbon storage, especially by mangroves; and (iv) recreation and tourism services (López-Rivas and Cárdenas, 2024). Very few assessments have been done on the deep seabed (Naber et al., 2008). This pattern is repeated in the scientific literature relating to CMAR, where there is a concentration of economic valuation studies on relatively few eco- system services, typically focusing on particular MPAs within CMAR. There is no comprehensive economic valuation study of ecosystem services across CMAR. The sites of greatest attention have been, in order of valuation, the Galapagos Marine Reserve National Park, followed by the Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, and Gorgona National Natural Park. The least studied sites are Cocos Island National Park and Coiba National Park. Parque nacional isla Coiba, Panama. Photo by crist.cort (Adobe Stock) 32 The following section outlines key findings of economic valuation studies of MPAs within CMAR, focusing on capture fisheries, carbon sequestration, and tourism and recreation. Provisioning services: Capture fishery Galapagos and Cocos Marine Protected Area: A 2018 assessment of the eco- nomic value of three commercial species of tuna in the MigraVia Cocos-Gala- pagos, a proposed cross-border marine migration corridor between Costa Ri- ca’s Cocos Island and Ecuador’s Galapagos islands, found that these deep-sea fisheries had an annual average net present value of US$155.1 million between 2007 and 2016 (Bucaram and Cárdenas, 2018). Galapagos: Meanwhile, a 2019 study found that the net present value of small- scale fisheries that depend on Galapagos islands mangroves for their habitats was about US$245 per hectare per year—and that there are about 3,690 hect- ares of mangroves in the Galapagos islands alone (Tanner et al., 2019). Gorgona National Natural Park and Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary: An economic valuation of the Subsystem of Marine Protected Areas of Co- lombia, which includes the Gorgona National Natural Park and the Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, found that the annual value of catch for four com- mercial fisheries in the Colombian Pacific and Caribbean sea—white shrimp (Litopeneaeus occidentalis), Cachema weakfish (Cynoscion phoxocephalus), southern red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), and horse mackerel (Caranx hip- pos)—totaled between US$202,000 and US$286,000 per year, averaged over 50 years (Maldonado et al., 2013). Coiba National Park: In Coiba National Park, fishing directly generated 275 jobs at an average monthly income of 266.30 balboas (B) (US$266) per person and B 332 (US$332) per fishing family (against an average family income of B 150, or US$150) in 2007. Overall, the activity generated B 7.4 million in the same year (Montenegro, 2007). Malpelo Island, Colombia Photo by Janos (Adobe Stock) 33 Regulatory services: Carbon sequestration Galapagos Islands: More than 778,000 tons of carbon are stored in the sedi- ments of 3,700 hectares of mangroves in the Galapagos Islands. Using the av- erage price of carbon credits in the Latin American market, this translates to more than US$10.8 million, or US$2,940 per hectare of mangrove. Alternatively, using the social cost of carbon estimated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the value increases to more than US$84 million for total coverage, or US$22,838 per hectare (Tanner et al., 2019). Colombian MPAs in general (including Gorgona National Natural Park and Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary): Across all MPAs in Colombia, including CMAR, the value of carbon capture and storage was estimated at between €16 million and €33 million (about US$16.6 million and US$34.2 million, respective- ly) per year over the period 2013 to 2020 (Zarate-Barrera and Maldonado, 2015). Cultural services: Tourism and recreation Galapagos Marine Reserve: Maritime tourism to Galapagos National Park generated US$154 million in revenue in 2014, representing 58 percent of the total tourism revenue in Galapagos for that year. Indirectly, marine tourism generated a total of US$236 million for the local economy by employing 5,019 people, representing 37 percent of jobs on the islands. Creating dedicated ar- eas for non-extractive use within the marine reserve could increase tourism income in the area by between US$14 million and US$90 million each year (Pe- rez Loyola et al., 2019). About 97 percent of Ecuadorans reported being familiar with the Galapagos islands, yet only 11 percent had visited them and 4 percent reported having plans to do so. Despite this, Ecuadoran households expressed willingness to pay about US$1.49 per month for shark conservation in the Galapagos Ma- rine Reserve, representing about US$62 million over three years (Medina et al., 2012). On average, tourism based on shark sightings contributed US$360,105 per shark per year (Lynhman, 2015). Over the 15-year lifespan of a shark, that would amount to about US$5.4 million. Based on visitor occupancy data from 84 tourist sites that offer various recre- ational activities such as hiking, snorkeling, kayaking, boating, and camping, the value of mangrove-based tourism was estimated at about US$62.5 million, or US$16,958 per hectare of mangroves, in 2016. This equates to US$95,816 per hectare at present values over a 10-year horizon (Tanner et al., 2019). Costa Rica Photo by Gian (Adobe Stock) 34 Ecuadoran visitors to the Galapagos National Park also reported being willing to pay an extra US$26.90 per visit for increased protection and visibility of endangered species and an extra US$111.20 for a reduction in litter levels. This would result in extra income of about US$31 million per year for Santa Cruz Island alone. The opposite was also true, with fewer endangered species and more litter meaning a loss of up to US$444.30 per visit, or US$100 million per year, for Ecuador’s Santa Cruz Island (Perez Loyola et al., 2019). Colombian MPAs in general (including Gorgona National Natural Park and Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary): Based on a study that found that divers would be willing to pay an additional US$14.40 per dive day for the expan- sion of MPAs—including Gorgona National Natural Park and Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, but without making a special distinction for these—it is possible, in principle, that divers would collectively be willing to pay about US$3.4 million per year for the protection of 4.4 percent of Colombia’s total marine area, US$5.8 million a year for protection of 10 percent of the country’s total marine area, and US$7 million a year for the protection of 20 percent of the country’s total marine area (Barrera Orjuela and Maldonado 2013; Maldo- nado et al., 2013). At the same time, it was found that households would be willing to pay between US$4.14 and US$5.97 per month for five years for the expansion of MPAs, provided they improved conditions for fishing commu- nities (Maldonado et al., 2012). Although 60 percent of these households were unaware of MPAs, 94 percent supported the concept that marine-coastal ar- eas have value simply because they exist (Maldonado et al., 2013). Cocos Marine Conservation Area: More than half of tourists would be willing to pay between US$36 and US$50 extra for the protection of the Cocos Marine Conservation Area and adjacent waters, for a total annual willingness to pay between US$83,000 and, more optimistically, US$230,000, based on 2018 visi- tors’ data. However, 45 percent of tourists surveyed said they were currently paying enough and were not able or willing to pay an additional fee (Cedeño et al., 2020). Coiba National Park: Tourists spend an average of B 1,200 per trip to Coiba National Park, contributing about B 889,000 to the area each year, creating 50 direct jobs linked to tourism. The net present economic value of tourism ac- tivities projected for 20 years was found to be B 15.3 million (Montenegro, 2007). Cocos Island, Costa Rica Photo by Michael Bogner (Adobe Stock) 35