• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

List of Annexes

1- Project Design Summary

2- Detailed Project Description

3- Estimated Project Cost

4- Incremental Cost Analysis

5- Financial Summary

6- Comments on the STAP Review

7. Selection of Protected Areas and their Profile - 39 -

Annex 1: Project Design Summary Peru: Participatory Management of Protected Areas

Key Performance Hierarchy of Objectives Indicators Monitoring & Evaluation Critical Assumptions Sector-related CAS Goal: Sector Indicators: Sector/country reports: (from Goal to Bank Mission) Supporting sound - Poverty headcount in INEE household surveys - Macroeconomic situation environmental rural areas and around improves management, reducing Protected Areas - Political stability is poverty and extreme - Management SINANPE monitoring and maintained in Peru poverty effectiveness of SINANPE evaluation system and - Socioeconomic conditions scorecards improve among rural populations GEF Operational Program: Support long term Global ecosystem International reports and protection of globally indicators. scientific studies. important ecosystems GEF Program M&E To ensure biodiversity Adoption of collaborative System conservation by increasing public/private sector the involvement of civil management approaches National reports to CBD society institutions and the to PAs and biodiversity and through the Clearing private sector in the conservation/management House Mechanism (CHM) planning, management and sub-sectors sustainable use of Peru’s INRENA and NGOs biodiversity resources annual reports and scorecards

Global Objective: Outcome / Impact Project reports: ((from Objective to Goal) To improve the Indicators: management effectiveness Increased management Parkguard reports/ INRENA policies and conservation of effectivenss infraction records. promoting collaborative biodiversity in 6 protected public/private sector areas of the SINANPE Reduction in illegal Management approaches remain through increased social activities threatening effectiveness scorecards consistent; other related participation biodiversity conservation sectors adopt this approach in the 6 project areas to management of protected Increase financial areas sustainability for the financing of PA recurrent Reduced number of Annual socio-economic costs non-sustainable M&E reports development activities in PA buffer zones Annual bio-physical M&E Increased indices of reports biodiversity richness in 6 PAs

Increased stakeholder Setting up of PAMC and participation in the proper functioning management of six according to management protected areas effectiveness scorecard

Increased capacity to finance recurrent costs - 40 -

Output from each Output Indicators: Project Reports: (From Outputs to Objective) Component: Improved management of 6 - 5 updated master plans Project implementation - Economic and technical PAs by PY 4 reports solutions to replace non- - 5 PAMCs created by PY1 Project M&E reports sustainable land use and - 3 PAs administered totally Bank supervision reports extractive practices in buffer or partially by private Mid-term evaluation zones are available sector organizations - PAMCs make decisions on - 50% of PA management the basis of technical rather activities contracted out to than political criteria, remain private sector in 3 transparent, and manage remaining PAs areas according to - 150 small-scale activities conservation and business implemented in 5 PAs over principles 6 years - Special interest groups not able to disrupt sustainable management systems - Local communities are willing to adopt biodiversity- friendly technologies and initiatives are socially viable - 60% INRENA field staff Increased institutional trained over life of project Project implementation Private participation in capacity of public/private - 85% PROFONANPE staff reports management will sectors to work trained over life of project Project M&E reports lead to more efficient collaboratively in the - 150 representatives of Bank supervision reports conservation management of the national civil society trained over life Mid-term evaluation system of protected areas of project - 25 local civil society receiving assistance from project

- National public Increased public awareness awareness strategy Project implementation Educational authorities are of the importance of Peru’s prepared by PY 2 reports willing to participate in biodiversity and the role of - Media campaigns Project M&E reports environmental awareness protected areas in its implemented in proximity to Bank supervision reports campaigns conservation and 5 PAs by PY 3 Mid-term evaluation management - 1 million school-age children to receive educational materials

Improved efficiency in the - Establishment of an MIS Project implementation MIS and M&E reports will management of SINANPE. in PY 4 reports be used to improve Project M&E reports sustainable management of Bank supervision reports SINANPE Mid-term evaluation

Improved basis for - Increase of the Project implementation Cofinancing in place and financing the costs of endowment fund by US$6 reports other institutions make biodiversity conservation million in PY 1 Project M&E reports contributions Bank supervision reports Mid-term evaluation

Dissemination of project- - Creation of a project Project reports - 41 - related experiences and website Project M&E reports lessons learned to other - 50,000 hits/year over life Bank supervision reports SINANPE PAs and regional of project Mid-term evaluation projected area systems

Project Components / Inputs: (Budget for each Project Reports: (From Components to Sub-components: Component) Outputs) Component 1.

Participatory preparation of US$17.55 M, out of which Project implementation Proper area management PA master plans GEF will finance US$9.47 reports procedures and plans are million Project M&E reports implemented Bank supervision reports Mid-term evaluation Participatory master plan Proper designs lead to good implementation management

Concession contracts for Private sector will be interested the management of PAs in concessions

Small-scale, Beneficiary organizations environmentally sustainable capable of administering economic activities resources provided

Component 2.

Training of INRENA / US$4.88M, out of which Project implementation PROFONANPE staff and GEF will finance US$1.51 reports staff of national and regional million Project M&E reports civil society institutions/ Bank supervision reports organizations Mid-term evaluation

Capacity-building among local environmental institutions /organizations in proximity to project- supported PAs Communications and school Development and programs are interesting for implementation of a the public and students biodiversity conservation- based public awareness program

Design and implementation of SINANPE Management Information System (MIS)

Component 3.

Increasing the Endowment US $ 8.28M, out of which Project implementation Available information Fund GEF will finance US$3.82 reports properly gathered and Implementation of a million Project M&E reports processed and indicators monitoring and evaluation Bank supervision reports developed suitable for - 42 -

(M&E) plan Mid-term evaluation feedback GEF external evaluations Design and implementation of an information dissemination Strategy. - 43 -

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas

By Component: Project Component 1: Participatory Protected Area Management (US$17.55 million, 57.1% of total project cost).

The objective of this component is to engage civil society, private sector organizations and local communities in active participation in the decision-making process and management of PAs, and share the benefits resulting from the areas. There are four sub-components: (i) participatory preparation of PA master plans; (ii) participatory master plan implementation; (iii) concession and management contracts for PA management; and (iv) small-scale, environmentally sustainable economic activities in PAs and buffer zones.

Sub-component 1. Participatory Preparation of Master Plans (US$2.39 million; 7.8% of total project cost).

Expected Outputs: (i) five updated PA master plans; (ii) studies and data collection for management, monitoring and evaluation; and (iii) instruments to implement the master plans.

Activities.- To produce the above outputs, the component would finance the following activities: (i) collection and/or completion of basic information such as biodiversity studies, social and economic baseline studies, ecological indicators and score card development and other field- based assessments necessary for master plan preparation and subsequent monitoring and evaluation; (ii) natural resources inventories, market research and other studies in support of small, economically sustainable initiatives; (iii) legal and land tenure studies; (iv) participatory design of master and management plans; (v) development of natural resources and public use programs in support of the aforementioned plans; (vi) preparation of financing plans for each PA; and (vii) development of implementation procedures and complementary operating rules for the establishment and functioning of PAMCs and other participatory activities.

In all cases, studies will involve local people with detailed knowledge of sites and resources. Local people also need to be aware of results of all studies and consequently the project will finance results presentation events catering to local audiences (municipalities, producer associations, local NGOs, etc).

The design of PA master plans will be contracted out to specialized agencies but will also strongly involve PA managers, local institutions and local people. The project supports INRENA policies to develop clear, simple and complete guidelines, standards and criteria for master plan preparation. Draft TORs for the preparation of master plans have been developed and are available in the project files. The master plans will include physical infrastructure planning, the estimated financial needs of the PAs and timetables for efficient performance.

This subcomponent will also design and develop the instruments which will enable NGO/private sector involvement in master plan implementation. These instruments include: working procedures of PAMCs, concession contracts (based on international experience), subcontracts covering PA management activities and services, community resource use plans, and overall community PA protection and control systems. - 44 -

Sub-component 2. Participatory Master Plan Implementation (US$5.77 million; 18.8% of total project cost).

Expected Outputs: (i) three PAs would be managed directly by civil society and/or private sector organizations/consortiums through contracts with INRENA, guided by approved master plans and under direct PAMC oversight; (ii) at least 50% of all management activities identified in the master plans in the remaining PAs would be provided by civil society, private sector or communities through contracts with INRENA; (iii) increased management and enforcement capacity; (iv) establishment of basic infrastructure, equipment and staff requirements to ensure the conservation of biodiversity of international importance; and (v) PAMCs functioning in each participating PA.

Activities.- The subcomponent will finance the following activities: (i) physical demarcation of PA boundaries and classification (where necessary); (ii) management and concession contracts with the private sector; (iii) salaries for park rangers and administrative personnel; (iv) vehicles and equipment; (v) small-scale infrastructure; (vi) PA staff training with specific activities oriented to support improved communication and cooperation skills of private sector and civil society in the management of PAs; and (vii) some PAMC operational costs.

The physical demarcation of PAs will be very rudimentary and will only be done where it can help resolve conflicts. Limited zone reclassification is also being envisaged. The management and concession contracts between INRENA and the private sector and communities (designed under subcomponent 1) can take various forms. They will include service contracts (studies, technical assistance, basic infrastructure development, PA vigilance and control), exploitation and conservation concessions as well as biodiversity, wildlife management, tourism development and resource use management, training and other related activities.

Field staff will be trained in specific ranger abilities and knowledge, fine-tuned to local circumstances, as well as in best practices for “good neighbors with surrounding communities/institutions.”. Training and advisory services must be used to design a general framework for rangers’ professional careers and subsequent training.

The operation of PAMCs faces the potential for conflicts of interest among member organizations, and the PAMCs’ operational rules will be designed to minimize such conflicts. The operational costs financed under this subcomponent refer to the costs of the organization of conflict resolution processes (in particular, meetings, capacity building and study travel to other PAs).

Sub-component 3. Concession/Management Contracts for the Management of Protected Areas (US$3.61 million; 11.8 % of total project cost)

Output. Three PAs managed through concession contracts with the private sector and/or international NGOs.

Activities.- The sub-component will remunerate private sector and/or international NGOs to carry out conservation and management activities in three PAs. Under the project, proposals will be invited from the national and international NGOs and private sector, or from consortiums of NGOs and local private sector to take up specific concessions or manage specific PA areas. The concession contracts will be conceived as longer-term commitments and will be signed between INRENA and the concessionaires. Activities to be financed under the concession contracts include: construction and maintenance of PA infrastructure (visitor centers, walking paths, etc.), studies, biodiversity research, wildlife management, protection against invasions by farmers and - 45 - loggers, and activities with local communities (including initiatives of a social, anthropological and educational nature to foster local conservation). It also includes the organization of touristical activities by private eco-touring companies. Where appropriate and environmentally acceptable, concessionaires will be invited to propose inclusion of the PAs into special touristicaltourist circuits and tours. The objective of this subcomponent is to get the parks more financially sustainable over time, and the local and international private sector can obviously contribute to this endeavourendeavor.

Sub-component 4. Small-scale, Environmentally-Sustainable Economic Activities in PAs and Buffer Zones (US$5.78 million; 18.8 % of total project cost)

Output. An estimated 150 small-scale economic initiatives or development programs (subprojects) implemented in the buffer zones or PAs, financed under a matching grant scheme with matching contributions.

Activities.- The subcomponent will finance the following activities: (i) planning and preparation of pre-investment activities, including environmental screening and mitigation; and (ii) implementation of productive investment initiatives and development programs by communities, local governments, private sector and civil society.

An illustrative list of activities which could be financed under this subcomponent includes: eco- tourism projects - development of ecological excursion tracks, hiking trails, overnight rooms, camping; sustainable economic use of flora and fauna - medicinal plant production, captive wildlife management and reproduction, collection and selling of renewable non-timber forest products; promotion of sustainable grazing practices (e.g., cut and carry); replacement of old mining technology with low-impact, artisan mineral processing technology; agricultural research and extension programs for environmentally sustainable crop and livestock breeding technologies; etc.

Within PA core areas, economic activities would only be allowed where activities are compatible with the master plans in the designated use, following the INRENA environmental assessment procedures. The selection of subprojects will be on a competitive basis, a system which is being successfully implemented in several development projects. Two or three times a year, communities, indigenous groups, women’s associations, municipalities, NGOs and private sector institutions will be able to present proposals for small-scale initiatives and programs and a committee will do the selection. When necessary, the project would financially participate in the appraisal of the subprojects, in particular for the evaluation of environmental impact and mitigation. The subprojects will be small at the local level but may cover a large area. The GEF would finance a maximum of 50% of the subproject cost, except where the subproject increases biodiversity and resource conservation, in which case the GEF ceiling would be 90%. The cofinancingco financing should come from the beneficiaries and/or other institutions. A subproject operational manual will be developed before appraisal and the adoption of the manual by PROFONANAPE will be a condition of Board presentation.

Project Component 2: Institutional Development (US$4.88; 15.9% of total project cost).

The main objective of this component is to consolidate SINANPE through: (i) the strengthening of INRENA, PROFONANPE, civil society and private sector organizations to work collaboratively in the management of SINANPE; (ii) increased public awareness of the importance of Peru’s - 46 - biodiversity and the role of protected areas in its conservation and management; and (iii) the development and implementation of a SINANPE management information system.

The component has four sub-components: (i) training and advisory services for INRENA and PROFONANPE staff to enhance closer collaborative relationships in PA management; (ii) capacity building of local civil society institutions/organizations in the proximity of project- supported PAs; (iii) development and implementation of a biodiversity conservation-based public awareness program; and (iv) design and implementation of SINANPE’s Management Information System (MIS).

Sub-component 1. Training and Advisory Services for INRENA and PROFONANPE (US$0.68 million; 2.2 % of total project cost).

Expected Outputs: (i) 60% of INRENA field staff and 85% of PROFONANPE staff trained over the life of the project; (ii) INRENA and PROFONANPE improve their performance in management, coordination and administration; (iii) INRENA strengthened in the processes of planning, supervision and implementation activities requiring active, participatory management by local communities, civil society and the private sector; (iv) INRENA’s central office staff and selected PA personnel trained in participatory resources evaluation and planning, cultural approaches to policies and strategies, conflict resolution, social relations and related subjects; (iv) PROFONANPE's capacity and implementation efficiency increased to deal more effectively with INRENA, PA personnel and PAMC representatives.

Activities will include: training seminars, study tours, training of staff in local training institutions and non-degree university courses, such as management, rural development, resource conservation and communication courses, on-the-job training in foreign countries, organization and management re-engineering studies and advisory services, training in management information systems and in monitoring and evaluation. The training will focus on the General Directorate of Natural Protected Areas. Scorecards will de developed as tools for monitoring and evaluation of effective management. It will also include advisory processes such as seeking better coordination of supporting agencies, following the Mexican experience mentioned in section D3 (lessons learned from other countries).

Sub-component 2. Capacity Building of Local Civil Society Institutions/Organizations (US$1.5 million; 4.9% of total project cost).

Outputs. (i) 150 representatives of civil society trained over the life of the project; (ii) 25 local civil society organizations receiving technical assistance through the project; (iii) civil society organizations and PAMCs strengthened; and (iv) civil society organizations provided with equipment to support project objectives and to manage and administer small-scale subprojects.

Activities: Through this component, the project will finance the training, technical assistance, and equipment needed to strengthen the capacity of local institutions and civil society organizations located in the proximity of the PAs to enable them to play a more substantive role in project implementation. Special training activities will provide organizations with the necessary tools and knowledge to formulate and implement subprojects.

Although a significant number of NGOs and local organizations have implemented small projects, usually with the support of multilateral and bilateral assistance agencies, the vast majority of these organizations still lack competence in subproject design and implementation. In addition to - 47 - the larger and better equipped private sector and civil society organizations/institutions located in the proximity of project areas, there are is host of smaller institutional entities that have neither the institutional competence nor equipment needed to support a meaningful role in achieving project objectives, yet they can provide substantially increased sustainability of project outcomes due to their closer ties to local problems and realities.

Sub-component 3. Public Awareness Program (US$1.77 million; 5.8% of total project cost).

Outputs: An environmental behavioral change through a national public awareness strategy; a series of media campaigns, Internet home pages, and school program materials developed and implemented in the areas in proximity to the project PAs.

Activities: (i) design and implementation of a strategy for a national awareness program, applying a systematic process including: awareness assessment, design and planning of awareness programs, pre-testing and fine-tuning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation; (ii) media campaigns implemented in the proximity of the project PAs; (iii) one million school-age children receiving educational materials dealing with protected areas.

In a recent analysis of Peru’s environmental issues, increasing public environmental awareness was identified as a first priority in improving environmental conditions in Peru (Peru: Environmental Issues and Strategic Options, an sector work paper prepared jointly by the World Bank and FAO Investment Center, June 2000, Lima). Although the strategy could be applied nationally, due to financial constraints it will only be initially implemented in areas in proximity to the project’s sites.

The effectiveness of this program will be measured through the changing of environmental behavior as opposed to a change only in awareness or knowledge. Target groups and desired results will be defined. Various tools will be considered, including an environmental media campaign, the development and utilization of the Internet (in particular as a means to enhance communications between INRENA headquarters and field staff who could in this way download, print and prepare specific awareness materials that have been tailored to local realities), and facilitate stakeholder involvement at the local level through consultations and consensus-building to enhance awareness of the importance of conservation of biodiversity. It will also prepare educational materials aimed at schoolchildren (e.g., teaching aids and school kits would be produced, teacher training programs instituted and youth events organized). Printed and audiovisual materials would be produced and distributed using national and local media. Open access Internet pages will also be designed and maintained. Cross-site visits of key stakeholders to view successfully-managed conservation activities would also be supported under this sub- component.

The stakeholder involvement program must also consider a regular scheduling of field visits by critical decision-makers including mixed groups of congressmen, the Ministries of Agriculture and Economy, and INRENA.

The awareness campaign may also hahve a positive impact on eco-tourism. Willingness to pay studies have been done for selected parks (not included in the project) and there is a positive public attitude towards payment of park fees, which could contribute to the sustainability of park management. - 48 -

Sub-component 4. SINANPE-based MIS Sub-component (US$0.93 million; 3% of total project cost).

Outputs. The projected output of this activity would be an enhanced decision-making process through better and updated information, providing feedback to national administrators as well as to stakeholders and civil society organizations.

Activities to produce the above outputs are: (i) design and implementation of information sharing, (ii) standardization, (iii) dissemination of processed information, including GIS data produced by INRENA or national/ local organizations, and (iv) resource assessments and socioeconomic studies.

The lack of a centralized management information system (MIS) has impeded SINANPE’s effectiveness and poses a risk to its long-term viability. Through this sub-component, the project would support the design and establishment of a SINANPE-based MIS in INRENA. The MIS would be used to support informed and more efficient management decision-making related to allocation of resources, status of field-based management units, and budgetary issues. The system would also complement INRENA’s existing M&E system and provide technical data (e.g., status of biodiversity conservation, the results of natural resource inventories, indicators and threat alert information) to the public at large.

The design will include an assessment of MIS training needs and training programs at local levels, rules for net access and participation, and the system’s architectural design (see project files under “Lineas de Guía para el Sistema de Información Gerencial”). Both government and non-government data collection entities are expected to be major information sources. The system would support the sharing of online information with all SINANPE stakeholders.

Project Component 3: Protected Area Financing, Project Administration, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Information Dissemination (US$8.28 million; 27% of total project cost).

This component includes three main sub-components: (i) increase and management of the PROFONANPE endowment fund; (ii) project implementation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E); and (iii) design and implementation of an information dissemination strategy.

Sub-component 1. Increase and management of the PROFONANPE Endowment Fund (US$6.1 million; 19.9% of project costs).

Outputs. (i) a wellfunctioningwell functioning increased endowment fund; and (ii) increased private sector contributions in at least two PAs.

Activities: A replenishment of the endowment fund and additional fund-raising for individual PAs and SINANPE in general.

To increase financial sustainability of SINANPE, the PROFONANPE endowment fund will be increased from US$5.7 million to US$13.7 million through three contributions: GEF (US$3 million); Finland (US$2.5 million) and another donor (at least US$500,000 and probably four times this amount). Bringing the endowment fund up to at least $13.7 million will provide a return of about $550,000 per year for PROFONANPE’s financing of the recurrent costs in the Protected Areas. The complement endowment fund will be placed through and asset manager in non- - 49 - emerging markets. At project effectiveness, the GEF will disburse the amount of US$2.5 million into the endowment fund , after having received proof that the counterpart endowment is available in the endowment account. Once the additional endowment counterpart of US$500,000 has been received, GEF will transfer the complement. The returns of the endowment fund brought in by Finland will be used exclusively for the recurrent costs of Macchu Picchu. The returns on the endowment fund financed by GEF will not be earmarked. While the use of the returns of the complementary endsowment funds from the other donor is now under negotiation. The Bank will supervise the performance of the PROFONANPE portfolio with the asset manager twice a year. Moreover the strategy designed during preparation to increase revenues for the protected areas will be implemented in the PAs covered under the project. In the mean time, PROFONANPE will undertake additional fundraising activities in particular with the private sector. For this, PROFONANPE will recruit a specialized agent to investigate where additional funds are available and how they could be attracted for the sustainable finaincing of the protected areas.

Sub-component 2. Project Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$2.05; 6.7% of total project cost).

Outputs. The main output will be a project implemented in an efficient and timely manner and an operational Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) sSystem applied to this project. Specific outputs include: (i) an improved institutional capacity in PROFONANPE to support and monitor projects; (ii) an M&E manual for PROFONANPE; and (iii) timely M&E reports conforming to GEF and World Bank monitoring and reporting requirements.; and (iii) an improved institutional capacity in PROFONANPE to support and monitor projects.

Activities are: (i) recruitment of additional staff for PROFONANPE (project coordinator, procurement specialist, environmental specialist and support staff) and purchasing of equipment; (ii) updating of a draft design of a Monitoring and Evaluation program; (iii) implementation of the updated/refined M&E program; and (ivii) contracting out of new personnel and procurement of equipment.

One of the principal recommendations stemming from the mid-term evaluation of PROFONANPE I was to design and implement a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program. As a response, PROFONANPE formed a working group and hired a consultant to prepare an M&E manual to guide the future monitoring of PROFONANPE-assisted projects. The draft product from this exercise will be refined and applied to this project to support an effective M&E process in compliance with Bank and GEF requirements throughout the life of the project.

Under the Indigenous Management oOf Protected Areas Project (GEF) a biodiversity monitoring and evaluation system has been designed and will be implemented soon. Based on the methodology and experience under that project, the monitoring of the biodiversity aspects will be carried out in the five protected areas covered under this project.

Sub-component 3. Information Dissemination (US$0.12 million; 0.4% of total project cost).

The objective under this sub-component will be to promote involvement of the private sector and other possible sources in the financing of SINANPE.

Outputs. (i) private sector and other agencies support project activities; (ii) enhanced relationships with national, regional and local civil society and private sector through dissemination of results and lessons learned using reports and workshops; and (iii) adoption of relevant experiences and - 50 -

“lessons learned” from this project by other PAs in Peru’s SINANPE and other national systems of protected areas.

Activities in this subcomponent will disseminate the results of project-supported activities to national, regional, and global stakeholders through written reports, workshops and available information systems and will include the establishment of a project web home page. The sub- component will also cover the costs of identifying and disseminating best practice guidelines to INRENA staff and PAMCs. - 51 -

Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs (US$) PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas

Participatory Management of Protected Area Project Costs

Project Cost By Component US$ million

I. Participative Protected Area Management 17.55 1. Preparation of master plans 2.39 1.1 Master plan formulation and related studies 2.39 2. Participatory implementation of management plan 5.77 2.1 Staffing in PA 2.09 2.2 Vehicles and equipment in PA 0.74 2.3 Stations and visitor centers in PA 0.95 2.4 PA management operational costs 1.07 2.5 Training of PA staff 0.47 2.6 PAMC support 0.45 3. Concession contracts for management of protected areas 3.61 4. Small-scale, environmentally-sustainable productive investments ** 5.78 4.1 Demand formulation, planning and pre-investment 0.65 4.2 Productive investments 4.98 4.3 Follow-up and monitoring 0.15 II. Institutional Development 4.88 1. Training and advisory services to INRENA and PROFONANPE 0.68 2. Capacity building of local civil society in PA 1.50 3. Biodiversity conservation public awareness program in PA 1.77 4. SINANPE-based MIS 0.93 III. PA Financing, project administration, project M&E and Info dissemination 8.28 1. Increase of the Endowment Fund 6.11 2. Project implementation, management, monitoring, and evaluation 2.05 3. Information dissemination (lessons learned) 0.12 Total Project Costs 30.71 * Estimated costs for parallel Morona Pastaza project to be financed by Germany allocated mapping components of Morona Pastaza to the components of the GEF project. ** Morona Pastaza project will capture US$2.75 million, to be financed by Germany. - 52 -

Annex 4: Incremental Cost Analysis Peru: Participatory Management of Protected Areas

Overview The global objective of the proposed project is to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity of global importance by increasing the involvement of civil society institutions and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of Peru’s protected areas. The project’s objective is to improve the management and conservation of biodiversity in five protected areas (PA) and one PA to be created, of the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE). These are: Tambopata-Candamo NR and Bahuaja-Sonene NP (Amazon rainforest), Salinas and Aguada Blanca NR and Huascarán NP (Central Andean and Wet Puna), Manglares de Tumbes NS (Pacific mangrove ecosystem), and the soon-to-be-created PA of Morona-Pastaza (humid ecosystem). Support will also be provided to INRENA’s central office.

In the incremental cost analysis, costs were estimated over the six-year life of the project (LOP) and have been broken down by project component. In the calculation of baseline costs within the PAs, only ongoing protection-relevant activities and their respective buffer zones were used.1 While some of the support for these projects/activities may end prior to the completion of the proposed project, it was assumed that they would be offset by new activities, as a number of national and international NGOs are developing new proposals for several of the proposed project sites.

The total project costs of the GEF Alternative represent the sum of the baseline and incremental costs associated with proposed additional actions required to secure biodiversity conservation objectives of global importance within the five PAs, the prospective PA and central interventions. The scope of analysis captures existing and proposed interventions broken down into the proposed Alternative’s three components. These are: (i) participatory protected area management, (ii) institutional development, and (iii) project administration, M&E and information dissemination.

Baseline Scenario

The GOP, through INRENA with assistance from PROFONANPE and a number of donors, has made great strides in expanding and consolidating Peru’s SINANPE. Nevertheless, in light of the system’s size and diversity, existing and growing threats, and the current financial crisis in the public sector, the long-term conservation of the ecosystems of global importance proposed in the GEF Alternative does not appear credible under the baseline scenario. At present, there is virtually no presence or management effort in the two PAs created to protect large portions of the country’s Amazon rainforest (Tambopata-Candamo NR and Bahuaja-Sonene NP) and in the prospective PA (Morona-Pastaza). While a number of management efforts are currently being supported in PAs protecting portions of the Central Andean and Wet Puna (Salinas and Aguada Blanca NR and Huascarán NP), the magnitude and range of threats far exceed existing institutional capacity. Peru’s last remaining representative sample of mangroves receives virtually no support from any quarter and remains at risk. Moreover, all proposed PAs under the GEF Alternative are increasingly subject to growing threats associated with non-sustainable land use and other extractive pressures in their adjacent buffer zones. Under the baseline scenario, these practices are likely to continue and expand into the PA core areas. The failure to support the newly-called for protected area management committees (PAMCs) also signifies that little

1 The exception was AECI assistance for Manglares de Tumbes NS to be implemented by ProNaturaleza which appears highly likely to be approved. - 53 - progress will be made in these same areas in addressing the aforementioned threats by incorporating local stakeholders into the management of these critically important PAs. Despite GOP’s shift in policy and good intentions to establish a collaborative relationship with civil society and the private sector in managing PAs, no other project is presently dedicated to supporting this much needed and laudable objective. This will likely remain an unimplemented policy under the baseline scenario. Finally, the lack of support under the baseline scenario for addressing the constraint associated with information management will signify that INRENA’s effectiveness in managing and responding to the needs of SINANPE will remain relatively slow and inefficient.

Baseline Cost Analysis

Size Preselected Sites has. % PN Bahuaja-Sonene 1,091,416 25.1% RN Tambopata Candamo 254,358 5.8% RN Salinas – Aguada Blanca 366,936 8.4% PN Huascarán 340,000 7.8% Manglares de Tumbes NS 2,972 0.1% Morona-Pastaza PA , to be created 2,300,000 52.8%

Project’s Total Surface 4,355,682.00 100.0% % of total surface of SINANPE 24.5% Total Surface of SINANPE * 17,764,513.28 100.0%

* includes 217,594 has of sea surface; does not include PA to be created

All proposed project PAs, except the prospective PA of Morona-Pastaza, receive a variable level of technical and/or financial assistance at present. Sources of this assistance vary: GOP, bi- and multilateral organizations whose funds are typically channeled through national NGOs and PROFONANPE, and international NGOs. The GOP’s contributions to baseline costs are mainly to cover central and field staff salaries, central and field infrastructure maintenance and small efforts for awareness activities in the PAs’ zones of influence.

Project Component 1: Participatory Protected Area Management. Baseline Cost US$3.5 million

Under this component, an estimated 80% of the baseline comes from the efforts of various international agencies while the remaining 20% comes from the GOP’s contribution through INRENA’s support for park management.

Baseline-supported Protected Areas

Approximately 56% of baseline costs under this component come from ongoing activities in the PA cluster, PN Bahuaja-Sonene and RN Tambopata Candamo. This comes primarily in the form of support from Conservation International (CI) which is financing studies and research in support of improved management; and from INRENA for staff salaries and small operational activities. - 54 -

The USAID BIOFOR project is also providing support for a series of small, environmentally- friendly economic activities in the PA buffer zone.2

An additional 25% has been calculated from assistance derived from Spanish Technical Cooperation (AECI) for RN Salinas – Aguada Blanca. Through the Aracauria-Colca project, Spain is supporting a wide range of activities including the preparation of a PA Master Plan, support for community-based management of vicuña populations, domestic cameloid management, and management of protected species. Support will continue until the end of 2001 but an extension of at least two more years is presently under consideration. PROFONANPE is also providing support to this PA through the administration of funds provided by German Technical Cooperation to INRENA. These pay for salaries and small-scale infrastructure through 2003.

PN Huascarán represents approximately 16% of baseline support to component 1, consisting primarily of salaries and small-scale infrastructure from the aforementioned German Technical Cooperation grants to INRENA which are administered by PROFONANPE. The USAID- supported BIOFOR project is also supporting small-scale, environmentally-friendly economic activities in the Park’s buffer area.

Finally, the Manglares de Tumbes SN, while a recipient of significant support in previous years, is currently only receiving funding from INRENA primarily for the financing of staff salaries and small operational activities.

Project Component 2: Institutional Development . Baseline Cost US$4.1 million.

Under this component, only 7% of estimated baseline financing comes from INRENA while the remaining 93% comes from donors and NGOs.

Baseline-supported Protected Areas

The Bahuaja-Sonene NP and Tambopata Candamo NR cluster receives an estimated 60% of total baseline support calculated under component 2. It comes mainly from Conservation International-supported activities designed to promote, train, and build capacity in local communities, civil society and the private sector located in the buffer zone. CI will maintain this level of support through the LOP of PROFONANPE II. Additional support comes from the Netherlands Technical Cooperation through ProNaturaleza to assist local communities in the development of practices for sustainable use of natural resources located in the PA buffer area.

An additional 25% of baseline costs under component 2 comes from the Salinas – Aguada Blanca NR through the aforementioned Aracauria-Colca project financed by the Spanish Technical Cooperation (AECI). This consists of funding for activities designed to strengthen local civil society’s capacity to participate in the management of PA and buffer zone resources and for the development of a strong communications and awareness program. Support will continue until the end of 2001 but an extension of at least two more years is under consideration.

The Huascarán NP accounted for 11% of baseline costs under component 2. The German Technical Cooperation through PROFONANPE, with an estimated completion date in 2003, is financing activities in support of increased communication and public awareness among local communities for purposes of biodiversity conservation. In addition, this PA is receiving support

2 While this support is projected to end under the present phase of BIOFOR before this project implementation, it has been used for baseline calculations since it is currently under consideration for an extension. - 55 - from the Mountain Institute which is financing local capacity strengthening in resources management in the Park’s buffer zone. INRENA’s support to component 2 goes mainly to this PA which is considered a high priority PA in the national system.

ProNaturaleza is developing a proposal to obtain support from the Spanish Agency AECI to finance communications and public awareness activities for 2001-2002 for Manglares de Tumbes NS. This probable support is estimated at 4% of total baseline support to component 2.

Baseline Support for INRENA’s Central Office

Under this component, there is some relevant financing for the strengthening of SINANPE’S central administration. It mainly covers provision of advisors, support for operational costs (German Technical Cooperation: 2-3 projects) and support for the design, equipment and staff of SINANPE's central Monitoring & Evaluation system (GEF Indigenous Management of Protected Areas in the Peruvian Amazon Project and USAID through BIOFOR project).

Project Component 3: Project Administration, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Information Dissemination. Baseline Cost: US$50,400

Baseline cost is the cost of PROFONANPE's Project M&E system.

Global Environmental Objectives

The goal of GEF assistance would be to support long-term protection of globally important ecosystems by increasing the involvement of civil society institutions and the private sector in the planning, management and sustainable use of protected areas and resources within the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE).

GEF Alternative

By financing the incremental costs of the activities proposed under the GEF Alternative, INRENA would be able to address a number of major constraints affecting its capacity to mitigate threats to biodiversity of global importance. These would be through: (i) increasing the role of civil society and the private sector in the design and implementation of PA plans; (ii) increasing financial resources to manage the selected protected areas in a sustainable manner; (iii) increasing environmental awareness for biodiversity issues; and (iv) developing an adequate information management system.

The design of the proposed Alternative reflects a fundamental strategic choice leading to an increased role for the private sector and civil society in the management of the country’s PAs. The GOP can no longer afford to cover all costs associated with the management and conservation of biodiversity of global importance. Instead, through the establishment of strategic partnerships, it will call upon the skills and resources of civil society organizations and the private commercial sector. The project will therefore use a significant amount of resources to finance the design and implementation of PA management plans based on a substantially increased role for the private sector and civil society, facilitated through the building of capacity among civil society organizations, INRENA and PROFONANPE.

Without the GEF Alternative, INRENA will be able to maintain only a minimal presence in the two large PAs created to protect portions of the Peruvian Puna. - 56 -

Incremental Costs

The matrix below summarizes the baseline and incremental expenditures during the six years project period. The total requested GEF funding amounts to US$11.8 million plus an amount of US$3 million for the endowment fund. Out of this total, US$9.47 million would strengthen the Participatory Protected Areas Management in the five selected PAs; US$1.51 million would go to capacity building of organizations involved in the project, and US$0.81 million would allow proper project implementation in PROFONANPE. Morona Pastaza would be fully financed by German parallel funding while the other five PAs will receive funding from the Netherlands in addition to what is provided by the GEF.

Incremental Cost Matrix for the Participatory Management of Protected Areas Project Component Cost US$ Domestic Benefit Global Benefit Category Mill. Minimum staff assured; basic operations underway; Partial conservation of some training; some scientific work in very few of globally significant the selected PAs. Basic management, monitoring biodiversity. Baseline 3.50 and evaluation info flowing from some PAs of the system. Few experiences in competitive funding underway in very few of the selected PAs. PAMCs formed mainly with Government institutions. Enhanced operations in selected PAs; number of About 25% of Participatory park rangers trained; better qualified staff; SINANPE’s area is Protected infrastructure for control and visitors improved. under improved Area Baseline and other info is flowing regularly. conservation of globally Management Important number of civil society organizations are significant biodiversity. GEF concession holders or are contracted for activities The base support to 21.05 Alternative in management of PAs, including visitor guides, national authorities has and are developing experiences in use of natural been widened. resources for economic revenues. Improved Generation of experiences of competitive funding spreads over revenues supports the buffer areas of selected PAs. PAMCs in selected reduction of poverty PAs have improved local stakeholder participation. and extreme poverty. Increment 17.55 Institutional Basic management info flowing from some PAs to Development the system. Good participatory processes in surroundings of a few PAs. Levels of national decision-makers receive info of doubtless quality; quantity of the same is scarce. Info for media is Baseline 4.09 mainly available as info for tourists, shadowing other values such as economic and ecological ones. Some important efforts concentrated in a few PAs with private enterprises facing more access difficulties than other civil society organizations. GEF 8.97 Improved info flowing from selected PAs and from MIS grows as a model Alternative some other SINANPE PAs; other organizations for PAs’ central networked to improve quality and quantity of info administrations. It is for management. System has been generalized for part of global systems entire SINANPE. Increased numbers of PAs are such as the WCMC. supporting local media programs; national levels of Increased public decision-making are receiving updated info from environmental SINA NPE with emphasis on info from selected awareness is improving PAs. Schools and youth organizations around environmental selected PAs are using the info and facilities of PAs conditions in Peru. for enhanced environmental educational purposes. Much greater public Civil society organizations and private sector are awareness has been capable of funding and conducting the responsible fostered among use of natural resources, they are also key decision-makers. elements in spreading the values and benefits of - 57 -

biodiversity protection Increment 4.88 Endowment Annual returns of invested endowment fund is Preservation of world Fund about US$220,000. Which allows PROFONANPE biodiversity in the Baseline 5.7 partial financing of the recurrent costs in some 11 Amazon, Sierra and PA and reserves. Coastal areas. Annual returns of invested endowment fund is Additional preservation GEF about US$550,000. Which allows PROFONANPE of world biodiversity in 13.7 Alternative partial financing of the recurrent costs in twice the the Amazon, Sierra number of PA and reserves and Coastal areas Increment 6.0 Project Baseline 0.05 Administration PROFONANPE is carrying out proper project , Project M&E implementation; including proper management of and Info endowment fund in non-emerging markets and GEF Dissemination 2.32 proper procurement processes. In addition, Alternative PROFONANPE’s relationships with national, regional and local civil society and private sector is enhanced. Increment 2.27 Total Baseline 13.34 GEF Alternative 43.05 Increment 30.71 Netherlands Cofinancing 4.45 KfW Cofinancing 6.81 Finland endowment 2.50 Other donors 0.50 GEF Funding 14.80 - 58 -

Annex 5: Financial Summary PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas

PROTECTED AREAS PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT PROJECT

COMPONENTS BY SOURCE OF FUNDING

COMPONENT GEF NETHER- GERMANY INRENA ENDOWMENT BENEFI- TOTAL LANDS * FUND DONORS CIARIES US$ M US$ M US$ M US$ M US$ M US$ M 1. Participatory Protected 9.47 2.17 4.27 0.74 0.91 17.55 Area Management A. Preparation of Master Plans 0.70 1.11 0.58 0.00 0.00 2.39 B. Master Plan Implementation 3.05 1.04 0.94 0.74 0.00 5.77 C. Concession Contracts for the 3.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.61 Management of PAs D. Small-Scale, Environmentally 2.11 0.02 2.75 0.00 0.91 5.78 Sustainable Economic Activities

2. Institutional Development 1.51 1.86 1.51 0.00 0.00 4.88 A. Training and Advisory 0.12 0.24 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.68 Services to INRENA B. Capacity Building of Local 0.69 0.66 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.50 Civil Society C. Biodiversity Conservation- based 0.00 0.73 1.04 0.00 0.00 1.77 Public Awareness D. SINANPE-based MIS 0.70 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93

3. PA Financing, project 3.82 0.42 1.04 0.00 3.0 0.00 8.28 administration, M&E and Info Dissemination A. Increase and management of 3.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.0 0.00 6.11 Endowment Fund B. M&E Project Implementation 0.61 0.41 1.04 0.00 0.00 2.05 C. Information Dissemination 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12

Total Project Cost 14.80 4.45 6.81 0.74 3.0 0.91 30.71 * Preliminary estimates - 59 -

Annex 6: STAP Comments PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas

TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT

Prepared by

Hernán Torres, Consultant STAP Reviewer

1. Assessment of the scientific and technical soundness of the project.

The main goal of the project is to ensure biodiversity conservation by increasing the involvement of civil society institutions and the private sector in the planning and sustainable management of five protected areas of the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE), and one protected area to be created during project implementation.

The selected protected areas are Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve, Bahuaja-Sonene National Park, Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve, Huascarán National Park, Manglares de Tumbes National Sanctuary, and Abanico de Morona Pastaza (proposed protected area).

The scientific value of the proposed project is based on the fact that the six protected areas were selected on the basis of their importance to the regional and global biological diversity. Each of the ecological regions represented by the protected areas is distinct and will present different challenges for its effective management.

Technically, the project is well structured in order to achieve the main goal intended. It is organized in three components well articulated among each other, and therefore, their contents should allow the achievement of the desired goal.

From a conceptual point of view, the project proposes the use of an important tool, which is the involvement of civil society institutions and the private sector in the planning and sustainable management of five protected areas of the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas, and one protected area to be created during the implementation of the project. In addition to this, the project will look for appropriate technical approaches, institutional strengthening and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Although PROFONANPE has already had experience in managing large GEF projects, it was decided to limit the number of national parks to six in order to keep the project size manageable by the existing institutional capacity.

2. Identification of the global benefits of the project.

Following Dinerstein et al3 the major sensitive eco-regions of global importance covered by the selected protected areas are shown in the next table:

3 Dinerstein, E., D. M. Olson, D. J. Graham, A. L. Webster, S. A. Primm, M. P Bookbinder y G. Ledec. 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank, Washington D.C. - 60 -

Ecoregion Status Central Andean puna Vulnerable; regionally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Central Andean wet puna Vulnerable; regionally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Sechura desert Vulnerable; bioregionally outstanding; moderate priority at regional scale Gulf of Guayaquil-Tumbes mangroves Endangered; globally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Southwestern Amazonian moist forest Relatively stable; globally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Beni Savanna Endangered; bioregionally outstanding; high priority at regional scale Peruvian yungas Endangered; globally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Bolivian yungas Endangered; globally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Western Amazonian swamp forest Relatively stable; globally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale Jurua moist forest Relatively intact; regionally outstanding; moderate priority at regional scale Varzea forest Vulnerable; globally outstanding; highest priority at regional scale

3. Evaluation of the project compliance with GEF objectives, operational strategy and guidance in biodiversity focal areas.

The project will strengthen the management of key protected areas in Peru with increased participation of local communities and civil organizations for the purpose of conserving biological diversity of global importance. This will be achieved through the promotion of a closer integration of the communities located adjacent to the selected protected areas in the conservation and management of biodiversity, increasing their participation in the management of these areas.

It will also facilitate the adoption of sustainable productive activities among inhabitants of buffer areas, consistent with core area conservation objectives; and will increase the management capacity among relevant local institutions including civil society and the private sector.

This coincides with the overall GEF Operational Strategy for the conservation of biological diversity and with the operational programs N° 2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, by supporting through conservation activities, the functions of freshwater and coastal ecosystems at risk; N° 3 Forest Ecosystem, in promoting in situ protection of primary/old growth and ecologically mature secondary forest ecosystems; and N° 4 Mountain Ecosystems, in promoting conservation activities in sub-alpine, mountain grasslands, and/or mountain forest zones. - 61 -

4. Assessment of the project´s significance and potential benefits.

The project is significant because it will increase and improve the existing protected areas management capacity with new skills needed to manage and conserve important biological diversity.

The improvement of the existing management capacity will be achieved by implementing the following management strategies:

 Increasing and strengthening the role of civil society and the private sector in the design and implementation of protected areas management and development plans

 Increasing financial resources to manage the growing numbers of protected areas in a sustainable manner

 Increasing environmental awareness for the biological diversity conservation

 Strengthening the biodiversity management information system

The effective implementation of these management strategies is an adequate way to conserve critical habitats and to enhance the probability of their long term conservation. It will also make it possible to establish an effective management capacity to develop incentives to maintain protected areas in the long term and to introduce the private sector participation as a new protected area management approach.

5. Potential replicability of the project to other sites.

The conceptual and strategic framework of this project proposal is similar to the one been implemented by the Government of Bolivia. The Government of Ecuador is in the process of putting together a strategy which will include the creation of an endowment fund to support the effective management of protected areas.

The experience gained by Peru will certainly serve as a stimulus to other South americanAmerican countries to look for this type of financial solution to deal with the persistent lack of government financial support to the management of protected areas.

6. Estimation of the project´sproject’s sustainability in institutional, financial and technical terms.

The main government policy for in-situ biologically diversity conservation has been based on the establishment of Peru’s Natural Protected Areas System (SINANPE) whose purpose is to conserve representative samples of the country’s biological diversity by creating and managing protected areas efficiently while guaranteeing that environmental, social and economic benefits to the society at large.

To assist with the financing of SINANPE, the National Trust Fund for the Natural Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) was created with support from the GEF/The World Bank. Since its creation, PROFONANPE has in turn served to catalyze additional funding from both the national treasury and bilateral and multilateral sources. These resources have been channeled directly to protected areas to support increased staffing levels and better operational support. The continuation of this strategic approach is a guarantee that the project will be sustainable in institutional, financial and technical terms. - 62 -

7. Extent to which the project will contribute to the improved definition and implementation of the GEF strategies and policies.

The project is an important attempt in the strengthening of protected areas management as a means to achieve the conservation of biological diversity in Peru. This is an important strategy in the implementation of the GEF policies.

The project will be an additional World Bank/GEF conservation effort in the country and will certainly contribute to increase awareness and global support for the management of Peruvian protected areas. In addition to this, the project has been developed in close consultation with other international cooperation organizations, which at present are working with the Government of Peru in strengthening the conservation of biological diversity through the effective management of protected areas.

8. Linkages to other focal areas.

The project design and implementation is meant to support natural habitat conservation and is aimed at integrating the conservation of natural habitats and the maintenance of ecological functions into national and regional development. The project also promotes the restoration of degraded natural habitats.

In addition to this, the project will serve as important tool for the country´scountry’s response to international conventions such as Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

9. Degree of involvement of relevant stakeholders in the project.

This is the key element of the project. The design of the proposed project reflects a fundamental strategic choice leading to an increased role for the private sector and civil society in the management of the country’s protected areas. The national organizations can no longer afford to cover all costs associated with the management and conservation of biodiversity of global importance. Rather, it will call upon the skills and resources of civil society organizations and the commercial private sector through the establishment of strategic partnerships.

The project will therefore use a significant amount of resources to finance the design and implementation of protected area management plans based on a substantially increased role for the private sector and civil society facilitated through efforts to build a capacity among civil society organizations, governmental organizations, and PROFONANPE.

10. Role, potential and importance of capacity building elements and innovativeness of the project.

The project will establish operating models to improve protected area management and build management capacity at the local level in order to replicate this experience and mainstream biological diversity conservation in other national protected areas and natural resources management projects.

The participation of multiple stakeholders in the management of selected protected areas is the main innovativeness of the project. As a matter of suggestion, the actions for public awareness should be focused both on the local communities in and around the selected protected areas and the local authorities in order to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain a participatory approach for the management protected areas. - 63 -

Suggestions to Strengthening the Monitoring and Evaluation Subcomponent

Although the monitoring and evaluation of the project will be based on the strategies proposed in Component 3, it is suggested to indicate a more appropriate general performance indicators to measure the progress in the implementation of the project on the ground. As a means of discussion, the following general guidelines are suggested:

A. Background

Monitoring and evaluation is the measurement through time that indicates the movement toward the objective or away from it. Monitoring and evaluation provide information about the status and trends of protected areas resources or ecosystems. However, it should not be used to determine cause and effect, which are more suited for a research study.

Monitoring and evaluation are essential components for taking an ecological approach to the management of protected areas. Since there is much that it is not known about ecosystems and how management actions will affect them, it is important to learn as the management develops.

Within the framework of ecosystem management, the monitoring and evaluation mechanism should be designed to determine whether or not management actions are moving the ecosystem toward the desired future conditions and trajectories, i.e., objectives and expectations.

The design, development, and maintenance of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms require commitment and long-term vision. In the short term, monitoring and evaluation often represent an additional cost and are particularly difficult to maintain when budgets are tight and where personnel is temporary or insufficient. Yet it must be clear that a lack of consistent support for long-term monitoring and evaluation will hinder progressive project management.

In this context a potential monitoring and evaluation mechanism for this project would be prepared according to the following outline:

B. Scientific monitoring and evaluation.

Phase 1.Setting Monitoring objectives.

The primary purpose of monitoring is to collect information with which to assess and guide management decisions. The monitoring objectives should be set bearing in mind the following questions:

 Will these objectives help protected area managers make an informed decision?  How can these objectives be fairly evaluated?  What is the cost of obtaining these objectives? Do the costs outweigh the benefits?  What is the appropriate scale of these objectives, e.g., entire national park, watershed, habitat, ecosystem, community?  What time frame is needed to achieve these objectives (months, years)?  Can these objectives be obtained by one organization or is inter-organization input needed?  Are the objectives ecologically and socially possible?

Phase 2.Preparing Indicators:

The setting of indicators should follow the review of the monitoring objectives. Indicators will give repeated measurements over time to see if the project is moving toward or away from the - 64 - monitoring objectives. Some of these indicators are presented in the project proposal, but a full list of them could be prepared as soon as the monitoring objectives are set.

This list would include the selection of indicators to evaluate communities, animal and plant populations and other processes identified as priorities within the six protected areas involved in the project. As an example, the following general indicators may be considered:

 Climatic monitoring:

In certain cases, the lack of climatic information of protected areas makes it difficult carry out management activities, therefore there is a need to install meteorological stations and to complement those already existing and current data processing, if any.

 Monitoring of animal and plant populations:

The objective is to make a record of specific populations important for conservation, based on the abundance and biology of some species. This work should be carried out mainly by protected area personnel and should concentrate on key species. However, there should be a need for support from specialized personnel.

 Monitoring of human activities:

A follow up of local communities use of resources and commercial activities, including tourism, should be carried out to prevent and to control their environmental impact, based on the appropriate indicators.

 Monitoring of ecosystems and sensitive sites:

A monitoring of ecosystems and sites defined by zoning, fragility and ecological importance should be designed.

Phase 3. Evaluation:

Evaluation will give the opportunity to assess if the monitoring results indicate the project is getting closer to a successful performance. It will also help to decide if there is a need to change objectives or if everything should be kept as it is. Under this approach, departures from expected conditions or other qualities should not be treated as failures, but rather as new information. The new information should lead to changes in management. Management changes could be mitigation, change of future actions, or revised objectives, or some mix of these.

Phase 4. Decision Making:

This phase will provide feedback on both the monitoring mechanisms and on the management plans. The assessment of the monitoring system itself must be performed in order to ensure that it is providing the appropriate kind of information at the right level of detail. If not, then the monitoring mechanism should be modified and monitoring continued. If the project objectives were met, then no change is required. If they were not met, then either the management activities should be modified to meet the objectives, or the objectives themselves should be modified. - 65 -

C. Evaluation of the Project Implementation

Evaluating the Participation of Stakeholders: The evaluation strategy of stakeholder participation would include the setting of evaluation objectives and the review of the correspondent indicators.

Example: Development and implementation of management plans with the active participation of local communities including additional financing mechanisms, database on biodiversity and number of families participating in alternative livelihood projects.

Evaluating the Performance of the project management: The indicators for the project´sproject’s performance should be adjusted at the beginning of the project. Progress reports should be prepared every reasonable amount of time and should include the performance monitoring indicators including physical, outcome and financial progress indicators. The project should have an in-depth mid term review. The review would assess progress and redesign project elements as necessary.

Example 1: Stabilization or improvement of demographic status of key bio-indicators specific to each protected area (vegetative cover and distribution; local animal/bird populations)

Example 2: Reduction in adverse impacts of resource use (grazing, forest products, etc.) on the biological diversity of the protected areas.

Comments of the Staff on the technical review

We thank the STAP reviewer, Mr. Hernan Torres for the very useful and to the point comments made on the document. His comments on the Monitoring and Evaluation component are particularly useful, and will be taken into consideration. The design of the Protected Areas monitoring and evaluation system is now being undertaken through the Indigenous Management of Protected Areas in the Peruvian Amazon. The comments of the STAP reviewer have been incorporated into the terms of reference of the establishment of the Monitoring and Evaluation system and the letter inviting specialized firms to present proposals to INRENA/PROFONANPE is now also under preparation. This project will adopt the M&E system and apparatus being set up in INRENA to the six protected areas under consideration. This project will however have its own project monitoring system to measure in how far project objectives have been met in the areas of park management, communications, financial return, sustainability, community participation and other areas under review and important for the success of the Project. - 66 -

Annex 7: Protected Area Profile Participative Management of Protected Areas

I. SELECTION OF PROTECTED AREAS

1. Selection criteria

The PA selection criteria have been defined with representatives of PROFONANPE, World Bank, and INRENA, taking into account:

(i) Protection of important biological diversity, based on (i) location and representative-ness of the PA, biological content, uniqueness of biological content, and (ii) size of the PA, connectivity potential and biological information gaps. (ii) Imminence of threats and conflicts existing within PAs to species categorized as being vulnerable or in the process of extinction. Deforestation maps as well as oil exploration concessions were used. Road infrastructure was considered. IUCN and CITES categories were also taken into account. (iii) Socioeconomic importance in relation to the area’s potential for generating income for the national treasury from tourism or for improving the well-being of local people. (iv) Importance of management needs and requirements, based on the assessment of each area’s present management capacity and management needs. Six considerations were taken into account: (i) legal status, (ii) staffing and levels of competency, (iii) infrastructure, (iv) planning, (v) participatory levels, and (vi) comparative advantages.

2. Application of the selection criteria

The selection criteria were applied to all PAs in SINANPE, using the weights presented in Table 1. A comprehensive matrix for the entire system was then developed based on the weighted average of score points assigned to each criterion.

Table 1: Component scores and weights Scope Partial weight Unit weight Scores Component 1 1, 3, 5 Representativity 1 1,2,3,4,5 Biological value Importance of 1 1,3,5 Uniqueness 30% Biological Diversity 1 1,2,3,4,5 PA size 1 1,2,3,4,5 Connectivity 1 2,3,4,5 Information gaps 3 1,2,3,4,5 Regional threats Threats 30% 3 1,2,3,4,5 Threats to species 1 1,2,3,4,5 PA Income potential Socio Economic 15% 1 1,3,5 Resource management 1 1,3,5 Indigenous local groups 1 1 to 5 Legal recognition 0.5 1,2,3,4,5 Infrastructure 0.5 1 to 5 Staff Management 25% 0.5 1,2,3,4,5 Management plans 0.5 1,3,5 Participatory planning 2 1,3,5 Manageability - 67 -

An additional criterion was then introduced, to take into account ongoing and/or available funding from all sources for each PA. Table 2 shows the twelve top PAs that would qualify to receive funding from the GEF project according to the application of the selection criteria.

Table 2: Top 12 selected PAs ranked by Total Points f s s s y s y y s s e e e e e f n g D t t t t r i s i i p e z c p n u a o n l i i l a i i m r t E u i v v e a u t a i i t c i l a e n S o u t t b T S n g o r c e v n p

c n c o r a a

e

H h u t E p l A g t n n s a t e g r e u l I

s n t a G o n P o l e n G

g q i I p s e c i c t e a s i n o A a R A s a E t n t e y a n u g o

r n P r m r e R f n

o o o U s r a W l C m i e o l t n E e t r n p I

a g g o a M i a o V e e L m g e a f e p g B r A e e i i n R n A R I h c g L d a T i t T a n r I M O n a T a P m Category PA Name Nat. Park Huascarán 3 5 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 86.0 Tambopata- Nat. Reserve 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 5 5 3 3 3 2 3 3 84.5 Candamo Nat. Reserve Junín 3 1 5 3 4 2 5 5 1 5 5 3 2 3 4 5 3 75.0 Nat. Park Bahuaja-Sonene 5 2 5 3 5 4 2 5 2 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 5 74.5 Yanachaga- Nat. Park 3 5 5 3 5 2 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 74.0 Chemillén Nat. Tabaconas- 3 3 5 2 1 4 5 5 1 3 1 5 2 3 2 3 5 73.0 Sanctuary Namballe Salinas y Aguada Nat. Reserve 3 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 1 3 5 1 2 3 3 1 3 69.5 Blanca Nat. Manglares de 5 1 5 1 3 2 2 5 1 3 1 5 3 3 3 5 5 65.0 Sanctuary Tumbes Protection San Matías-San 1 3 3 3 5 2 4 5 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 58.0 Forest Carlos Communal Yanesha 1 3 3 2 5 2 3 3 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 56.0 Reserve Historic. Chacamarca 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 3 5 5 1 3 1 1 3 48.0 Sanctuary Nat. Huallay 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 3 5 3 1 3 2 1 3 44.5 Sanctuary

The first eight PAs are those with highest score in the entire SINANPE system, and which show neither special support nor projects planned or operating, except the very first: NP Huascarán. The latter was included after discussions with representatives of PROFONANPE’s Board of Directors and the World Bank, because its financial and technical needs are greater than the current and planned support. Surrounded by a large population and with significant pressures from mining and tourism, the NP Huascarán needs additional support.

The last four PAs in Table 2 were included after their proximity to first eight highly-rated PAs were taken into account, giving rise to clusters of PAs. It was found that three of the first eight selected areas are contiguous or very close to some of last four PAs in Table 2, making three clusters on a project spatial scope: NR Tambopata-Candamo is contiguous to NP Bahuaja-Sonene (also selected) NR Junín is very close to NS Huayllay and to HS Chacamarca (the last two ranked PAs) NP Yanachaga-Chemillén is contiguous to CR Yanesha and to PF San Matías-S.Carlos (these two also among the lower-ranked PAs). - 68 -

It may be observed that NR Tambopata, NR Junín and NP Yanachaga-Chemillén have the highest score in terms of connectivity.

3. PAs Selected

Following the initial selection of the PAs presented in Table 2 above, budget constraints (the GEF grant amount was reduced from $16 million to $8 million) required a subsequent selection round and further prioritizing. In accordance with the project’s main objective of increasing the participation of the private sector, NGOs and local groups in the management of protected areas, emphasis was given to those PAs characterized by a strong presence of private sector, NGO and producer groups with the capacity to manage protected areas.

A final list of five PAs and one prospective PA (presented in Table 3) were identified for inclusion in the GEF project. Table 3 below also indicates the SINANPE and IUCN categories as well as other categories established for these areas by other organizations.

Table 3: Categorization of pre selected project intervention areas Area Category IUCN Others Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve I Strict Nature Reserve, IV Managed Nature Reserve Bahuaja-Sonene National Park II National Park Parks in Peri (TNC) Salinas & Aguada National Reserve I Strict Nature Reserve, Blanca IV Managed Nature Reserve Huascarán National Park II National Park Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO) Manglares de Tumbes National Sanctuary III Natural Monument, Ramsar Site IV Wildlife Sanctuary

Morona Pastaza TBD TBD

It should also be noted that some of the highly-ranked PAs were not included in the final selection. This is because it was determined that these excluded PAs would require additional time to develop increased local capacity to manage their protected areas and/or interest the private sector in participating due to the PAs’ difficult accessibility.

Finally, Morona Pastaza has been included because studies financed by German cooperation, at the request of the Peruvian government, indicate that the Morona and Pastaza river basins contain rich and unique biodiversity that merit protection. The studies were implemented under the framework of the Bi-National Plan for Development, agreed in 1998 between the governments of Ecuador and Peru. The Germans will finance the establishment of a PA under a concept that fully coincides with the Participative Management of Protected Areas Project. The Project’s definition includes protecting an extensive natural area by developing economically and environmentally sustainable activities in the buffer zones. Morona Pastaza would easily rank at the top of the list had the selection criteria been applied; it is very large (more than 2.2 million of hectares) and has unique species, information gaps, indigenous populations, economic potential in prostpective buffer zones, etc. The inclusion of Morona Pastaza will further provide a learning opportunity to the GEF project by participating in the setting up of a protected area based on sound environmental and economic sustainability principles from the very start. - 69 -

SELECTED PROTECTED AREAS PROFILE

The unique features of five PAs and one prospective PA will be presented. Each is different, facing unique problems, and in need of very specific approaches to solve its problems, under the same institutional framework provided by SINANPE and the context of recently-approved Laws and By-laws for the management of the PAs.

II. Bio-Physical Profile

1. Manglares de Tumbes National Sanctuary (MTNS)

The Sanctuary was established in 1988 and is located in the province of Zarumilla in the department of Tumbes in northern Peru. It covers an area of 2,972 hectares with a rich ecosystem that produces a number of directly and indirectly useful products. The MTNS was established to protect the only representative example of mangrove forests existing in Peru, the Tumbes crocodile, and the populations of invertebrates of economic significance. Its objectives also include support to tourism and recreation.

Biodiversity characteristics: The Sanctuary shelters a wide diversity of hydro-biological resources with high economic significance for local populations: the ecosystem permits and protects the presence of shrimp larvae, “conchas negras”, crabs and fish. 93 fish species, 33 gastropod species and 24 bivalve species have been reported. 57 bird species have been identified, of which 8 are exclusive to the mangrove ecosystem (Nyctanassa violacea, Rallus longirostris, Aramides axillaris, Buteogallus subtilis, Tigrisoma mexicanum, Eudocimus albus, Dendroica petechia and Quiscalus mexicanus), and 26 species are migrants from North America. The area also serves as a refuge for the Tumbes crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), which is, along with other species, in danger of extinction.

Table 4: Threatened species in TMNS Species Legal Situation Crocodylus acutus, Procyon cancrivorus, Phoenicopterus chilensis Danger of extinction Larus dominicanus, Pelecanus occidentalis, Sula nebouxii, Brotogeris Vulnerable pyrropterus, Ajia ajaja, and Lepidochelys olivacea. Mollusks and crustaceans species: Atrina maura, Anadara grandis, Vulnerable (according Ostrea corteziensis, Ostrea columbiensis, Cardisoma crassum to other evaluations)

Other values of this ecosystem are: (i) refuge for wildlife, especially during the dry season, and (ii) natural barrier against erosion. The TMNS is a wetland of international importance or RAMSAR Site and also one of the places under the protection of the Bonn Convention.

Main threats to biodiversity. An increasing population largely dedicated to exploitation of fish resources and shrimp farming, with some providing tourist services, such as boat trips and guides. Illegal fishing and mollusk collection, shrimp farming, and some mangrove harvesting, added to the limited capacity for control and law enforcement, threaten the PA’s ecosystem. Sewage and garbage from villages, shrimp farms or other settlements are polluting waters and beaches. Many of the shrimp farms (in the PA and in its buffer zone) were abandoned or are have very limited activity as a result of the shrimp crisis (spread of viral disease) since 1999. Recent measures, taken by the GOP in July 2001, to deal with the shrimp farming crisis include - 70 - financial support for rebuilding the capacity to deal with the viral disease and to expand experiences with “Tilapia roja” brought from Ecuador.

Infrastructure, equipment and others: The Sanctuary has a main structure called the Center for Conservation and Development of the Mangrove Ecosystem (CECODEM) which provides areas for the Visitors’ Center, Main Administrative Office, kitchen, dining room, warehouse, two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Water must be transported from a nearby town. This structure belongs to the NGO ProNaturaleza and has been given for shared use to INRENA. It also has a small shelter at the end of a short footpath, and a small wharf. There are only a few, low-quality signs in the entire PA. Equipment includes two small boats and a motorcycle needing replacement, and a VHF radio. Financing for operational costs was unavailable in the first half of year 2001, making it impossible for boats to patrol illegal fishing.

2. Huascarán National Park (HNP)

UNESCO recognized the Huascarán National Park as a Natural Heritage Site in 1985, furthering its recognition as a Biosphere Reserve in 1977, shortly after it was established in 1975. It encompasses 340,000 hectares, nearly the entire Cordillera Blanca in Huaráz, Yungay, Carhuaz, Recuay, Bolognesi, Pomabamba, Huari, Mariscal Luzuriaga and Asunción provinces in the department of Ancash. Altitudes range from 2,500 to 6,768 m.a.s.l. It includes the country’s highest mountain (Huascarán) and several other famous Peruvian mountains.

Biodiversity characteristics: The HNP protects the largest portion of the Central Andean Humid Puna in Peru. The HNP is uniquely rich in flora and fauna. There are 779 species of flora, in 340 genera and 104 families, of which the Puya (Puya raimondi) is of particular interest. Remnant forests of queñoas (Polylepis spp.) are also a biodiversity asset. Mammals include taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis), spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) and puma (Felis concolor). The Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), ducks such as Merganetta armata and the puna partridge (Tinamotis pentlandii) are among the 112 bird species in the HNP. The principal conservation objectives include protecting flora and fauna as well as geological formations and archeological remains. Improvement of the living conditions of local inhabitants has also been established as an important objective for HNP administration.

Principal threats to biodiversity: A large poor population is settled in the HNP’s surrounding areas, dedicated to cattle ranching and subsistence agriculture and using local technologies. A small number of peasants live from mining. As a result, overgrazing increases land degradation and mining are contaminating the environment. Some villagers obtain part-time income from tourism-related activities. There is illegal hunting due to limited control and law enforcement. Trout fishing is another important activity. This is an exotic, introduced species which needs to be replaced by native species.

Infrastructure, equipment and others: Table 5 shows the existing equipment in HNP, and its basic conditions.

Table 5: HNP existing infrastructure and equipment Category No. Condition Available equipment

General Communications: 01 Telf, 1 Fax, 01 Radio Headquarters. In the Information: 05 Computers, 02 Ink-jet printers, 03 matrix printers Ministry of 1 Regular Audio-Visual: 01 Color TV, 01 VHS, 01 TV camera, 01 Megaphone Agriculture facilities, Furniture: Desks, file cabinets, chairs Huaraz City. Vehicles: 02 double cabin 4x4 (01 in regular condition) - 71 -

Radios, portable radios Motorcycles (some in regular condition and some non-working), Control Posts 6 Regular Furniture, kitchen. (Not all posts have listed equipment) Refuges with good equipment and facilities to receive and assist Refuges 2 Good visitors. Refuges under control of the NGO Matogrosso.

Ongoing infrastructure and equipment initiatives: The Huascarán NP is one of six PAs supported by the KFW “Protection of Natural Areas” project. Project implementation includes the improvement of the six posts in year 1 (2001-2002). It also includes the construction of 17 class B posts (for 2 rangers): four in year 2, three in year 3, five in year 4, and five in year 5; and the construction of two class A posts (for four rangers) in year 3 of project implementation. Investment estimates are close to US$1,203,800. The KFW project also considers support to blueprints for sites, circuit construction and signs, concessionaires’ sales points, and others for an estimated US$113,000. Support for the Visitors’ Center and the central administration includes construction, improvements, furniture, computers, communications and one 4x4 vehicle, totaling around US$286,600.

There is also support for studies for self-financing considerations, for Master Plan updating and support to PAMC. Estimated total investments for the Huascarán NP over the next five years total US$1,603,400.

3. Bahuaja-Sonene National Park (BSNP)

Established in 1996 as a redefinition of the boundaries of the Tambopata-Candamo Reserved Zone which was carried out with the full participation of the area’s civil society institutions. Located in the departments of Madre de Dios and Puno in Tambopata and Sandia provinces, the Park was re-delimited in the year 2000 to cover a final area of 1,091,416 hectares including an altitudinal range from 220 m.a.s.l to over 3,000 m.a.s.l.. It is the country’s second-largest national park. The Park borders the Madidi National Park in Bolivia.

Biodiversity characteristics: The Park protects the entire Beni savanna ecoregion. It also protects the second-largest exaample of Southwestern Amazon Humid Forest. Among existing species, otters (Ptenonura brasiliensis), wild mountain dogs (Speothos venaticus) and eagles (Harpya harpyja) are considered threatened. Other species include Alouatta seniculus, Chrysocyon brachiurus, Myrmecophapga tridactyula, Tapirus terrestris, Felis onca, Sciurus sandborni, Dasyprocta kalinowski; various species of the genus Ara; Melanosuchus niger, Caiman sclerops, Paleosuchus trigonatus, and Eunectes murinus. Protection objectives include conservation of tropical flora and fauna and species such as the swamp deer (Blastocerus dichotomus).

Main threats to biodiversity: The very poor population is dedicated to subsistence agriculture, gathering of wild resources, cattle raising and gold mining. In the western portions, the BSNP allows the gathering of wild resources by the resident indigenous peoples, and Brazil nut gathering by peasants living in the buffer zones. In the upper eastern portions of the BSNP, near Putina Punku, the presence of some peasants dedicated to small-scale agriculture and gold mining (in the small tributaries of Tambopata river) is pressuring the region. Considering the size of the BSNP, these are small-scale threats, but they are enough to exceed the enforcement capacity of staff and their equipment. - 72 -

Infrastructure, equipment and others: According to Table 6, the BSNP PA has five control posts in good condition, with sufficient furniture and some equipment They have radios powered by solar panels, boats and motors. Fuel is always insufficient for patrolling. Food supplies are also insufficient.

Table 6: BSNP’s existing infrastructure and equipment Category Number Condition Equipment and condition 4 computers (regular); NP 2 ink-jet printers (regular); 1 matrix 1 in Puerto Maldonado MDD Good Headquarters printer (poor); 1 scanner (poor); Telefax (regular); 1 radio (regular) 1 computer (regular); Puno Sector 1 in Putinapunco Poor 1 ink-jet printer (regular); Headquarter 1 radio (poor) In each CP: Radio; solar panels; water Control Posts 2 (MDD Sector) Good pump; desks, some furniture, small kitchen 2 Good Refuges 1 shelter Regular Others 2 warehouses (MDD) Good structures 1 warehouse (Puno) Regular

Boats 2 boats, 11 m Good 2 peques (Briggs-Stratton) Regular 2 motors 18 Regular 2 motors 55 HP Regular 1 motor 65 HP Regular

Ongoing infrastructure and equipment initiatives: NP administration is considering the construction of six new Control Posts: (i) for Madre de Dios sector, on the Malinowski River, Briolo creek, and Tavara river; (ii) for Puno Sector, in San Gabán, Colorado River and Putinapunco.

4. Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve (TCNR)

Established in 2000, this National Reserve is located in the department of Madre de Dios and Puno Tambopata, Carabaya and Sandia provinces. It covers a total of 254,358 hectares.

Biodiversity characteristics: Together with the Bahuaja-Sonene and Manu National Parks, the TCNR is one of Peru’s most researched protected areas. Available data show the existence of 575 bird species, 1200 butterfly species of which 26 are endemic, and 135 ant species. Bertholletia excelsa forests are very significant in surface area and as a source of income for local populations. Flora, fauna and threatened species are similar to those found in the Bahuaja- Sonene National Park. Conservation objectives include, inter alia, soil protection and development of sustainable economic activities for the area’s inhabitants.

A preliminary inventory/report on the flora and fauna of the Tambopata Reserve Zone (TRZ), known today as TCNR, was presented in 1996 based on a three-week field evaluation mission in November 19794. Dr. Gary S. Hartshorn (Tropical Science Center, Costa Rica) led the vegetation

4 Centro de datos para la Conservación, Reporte Tambopata – UNALM, 1995 - 73 - survey and he concluded that “the forest vegetation ranges from impressively tall trees down to the various types of low, stunted vegetation which develops under scattered emergent trees”. Dr. David L. Pearson (Pennsylvania State University, USA) coordinated the survey on invertebrates, and he concluded that: “in general, little is known of the invertebrate fauna of the TRZ”. However, certain groups have been well studied:  Ann L. Rypstra reports that less than half of the species of spiders found in the lower strata of the forest can be identified at species level. However, she estimates that about 44 species belonging to 33 different families have been found in areas of 15m²;  Ronald L. Huber identified 20 tiger beetle species (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) collected in the TRZ; nine of them found in the forest and 11 around the river. So far, only Borneo (Indonesia) is known to be as rich in beetle species as Tambopata (Pearson, previous survey);  Drs. John Heppner and David L. Pearson added 15 species to the list of Odonata previously known in the TRZ (Dr. Dennis R. Paulson and colleagues: 88 species belonging to 11 families). The total number, 103 species (10% recently identified), is a world record for any locality of comparable area;  Eric M. Fisher identified 21 species of Asilidae flies (Diptera), 12 of them probably not described;  Drs. John B. Heppner and Gerardo Lamas collected moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), but the identification and counting of species will take some time. Based on these preliminary collections, Heppner has estimated that there must be a total of 20,000 species of Lepidoptera in the TRZ.

Knowledge of reptiles and amphibians in the TRZ is relatively limited. The inventory directed by Dr. Roy McDiarmid (National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Washington, D.C., USA) revealed the existence of 80 species of reptiles and amphibians (many of them new to science), including 3 species of tortoise (Chelidae), 3 caymans (Crocodylidae), 14 lizards, 1 amphisbaenid, 16 snakes and 43 toads and frogs (Anura). It is estimated that the total number of existing reptile and amphibian species may reach 200. The black cayman (Melanosuchus niger), currently in danger of extinction, is well represented in the TRZ.

The bird life of the TRZ is extremely rich in species and unusual forms. The total list of species recorded under the direction of Theodore A. Parker (Louisiana State University, USA) includes 509 species and constitutes the largest inventory of birds recorded in any locality in the world. This exceptional diversity is in part due to the presence of species characteristic of three different systems within the Amazon basin: the high forest of the eastern slopes of the Andes; the basin of the Ucayali River and the upper Amazon; and the basin of the Madre de Dios and Madeira Rivers. The unusual abundance and diversity of parrots (18 species, including 6 macaws, Ara spp.), and toucans (8 species) indicate that the disturbance of bird life by human activities has been minimal (except for some cracids, particularly Mitu mitu); even Harpia harpyja is still found in this locality.

The organization of the inventory on mammals was in the hands of Dr. Louise H. Emmons (Smithsonian Institution, USA). Most of the species found in the TRZ have a wide distribution in western Amazonia. Some, such as Dasyprocta variegata yungarum and Marmosa cinerea cf. rapposa, are characteristic of the southern, drier part of Amazonia. Another unusual species is Speothos venaticus, which has been observed several times in the vicinity of the lodge; other noteworthy species are the giant river otter Pteronura brasiliensis and Tapirus terrestris, 4 species of Felidae, 15 and 9 species of primates.

Main threats to biodiversity: The poor population is spread among very small villages along the Malinowski and Tambopata Rivers. The main economic activities are subsistence agriculture, - 74 - cattle ranching, gathering of Brazilian nuts, and gold mining. Some local people (some of the indigenous Ese-Eseja group living in Infierno) are dedicated to tourist activities. Brazil nut overexploitation and gold mining threaten the area. In the buffer zones deforestation for agriculture and extensive cattle ranching is heavy. In addition, wood extraction, especially of mahogany, is heavy and increasing.

Table 7: TCNR existing infrastructure, equipment and others Category Number Condition Equipment and condition NR 1 in Puerto Maldonado Good 4 computers (regular); 2 ink-jet printers Headquarters (regular); 1 matrix printer (bad); 1 scanner (bad); Telefax (regular); 1 radio (regular)

Control Posts 3 Good In each CP: Radio; solar panels; water pump; desks, some furniture, a small kitchen

Visitor centers 2 as rooms in CP La Torre Bad Few and inadequate displays and Malinowski Other structures 2 warehouses Good Boats (shared 2 boats 11 m Good with NP 2 peques (Briggs-Stratton) Regular Bahuaja- 2 motors 18 HP Regular Sonene) 2 motors 55 HP Regular 1 motor 65 HP Regular

The NR administration is considering the building of new control posts in two sites, for NR: Malinowski River (shared with NP Bahuaja-Sonene) and Lake Sandoval.

Infrastructure and equipment: There are various important tourist lodges inside the PA, most of them with fair management. The main enterprise moving tourists inside the NR is Rain Forest Expeditions which conducts the Tambopata Research Center lodge around the “collpa de guacamayos” and the Posada Amazonas lodge, the latter a joint venture with the Ese-Eja community of Infierno. Some of these tourist enterprises support their activities through strong scientific programs, in particular the previously mentioned enterprise and Peruvian Safaris. Scientific evaluations and other studies have also been supported by the many NGOs presented in Puerto Maldonado. In this field the NGO Conservation International (CI) stands out.

5. Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (SABNR)

This Reserve was established in 1979 and covers 366,936 hectares of Arequipa and Caylloma provinces in the department of Arequipa, and General Sanchez Cerro province in the department of Moquegua. Altitudes range from 3500 to over 6000 m.a.s.l. Landscape includes a very important chain of volcanoes and lakes of scenic beauty within its boundaries, among them Misti (5,821 m), Chachani (6,075 m) and Pichu Pichu (5,440 m).

Biodiversity characteristics: The high plateau surrounded by the mountains includes a diverse life typical of the Arid Puna. Adaptations to severe daily temperature changes have been developed and even with the very cold temperatures an important diversity can be found in SABNR: 24 out of 470 mammal species in Peru; 141 out of 1729 bird species in Peru; 4 out of 365 reptile species in Peru; 4 out of 332 amphibious species in Peru; and 3 out of 797 fish species in Peru. Birds are the most numerous species and they can be seen in two outstanding - 75 - locations: Salinas Lake and in El Indio (also known as Dique de los Españoles) lagoon; but almost nothing is known about invertebrates. Of the three fish species, two are native and the third, the introduced trout, is a very important source of food for local populations.

Table 8: Threatened animal species: NR status (according to authorities of the NR) Scientific name Common name Official SABNR status* status** Thylamys pallidior Ratón marsupial R NA Oncifelis colocolo Osjollo E E Puma concolor Puma - E Mammals Lama guanicoe Guanaco E E Lama vicugna Vicuña V V Hippocamelus antisensis Taruca E E Phalacrocorax olivaceous Pato chancho V R Theristicus melanopis Bandurria V E Phoenicopterus chilensis Parihuana común V NA Phoenicoparrus andinus Parihuana andina E E Phonicoparrus jamesi Parihuana James E E Anas speculariodes Pato cordillerano I I Merganetta armata Pato de los V R Birds torrentes Vultur gryphus Cóndor V E Falco peregrinus Halcón peregrino V V Fulica gigantea Ajoya V V Recurvirostra andina Aboceta andina R V Larus serranus Gaviota andina V NA Colaptes rupícola Pito R NA Fish Tricomycterus cf. Rivulatus Bagre - V Amphibious Bufo arequipensis Sapo de Arequipa - R

Official categories (D.S. 013-99-AG): E= Endangered; V= Vulnerable; R= Rare; I= Indeterminate. ** (Zeballos et al. 2000): NA= Non-endangered, stable populations in NR.

Highly valuable plant communities such as remnant forests of Buddleia sp. Polylepis sp and Puya (Puya raimondi) are also protected. A total of 358 plant species has been identified, Calamagrostis (with 15 species), Senecio (with 12 species) and Werneria (with 10 species) are the most numerous genus. Many domestic species of both plants and animals occur in the SABNR, mainly because most of the land belongs to peasant communities or small farmers.

Table 9: NR status of SABNR’s threatened flora species (according to NR authorities) Species by scientific name Common name Official* SABNR** Polylepis rugulosa (besseri) Queñoa E E Azorella compacta and Azorella yareta Yareta - E Myrosmodes nubigenum Orquídea - V Lepidophyllum quadrangulare Kcapo blanco - V Parastrephia lepidophylla Tola romero - V Parastrephia phylicaeformis Huishui tola - V Parastrephia lucida, Baccharis tricuneata, Baccharis Tola - V buxifolia, and Baccharis emarginata Baccharis incarum China t’ula - V Leucheria daucifolia Sasawi - V Stangea rhizantha Chijuro - V Echinopsis pamparuizii Sank’ayo - V Distichia muscoides Thurpa - V - 76 -

Alchemilla pinnata Sillu sillu - V Cantua candelilla Cantuta - R Calycera pulvinata Porke chijuro - R Acaulimalva engleriana Phujllay t’ika - R Crocopsis fulgens Cebolla de los abuelos - R Oxalis petrophylla Yawar chunga - R Achyrocline peruviana Coronilla sacha - R Hieracium mandonii Taruca ninri - R Pycnophyllum weberbaueri Pesque pesque - R Astragalus dielsii Garbancillo - R Lupinus misticola and Lupinus paruroensis Tarhui - R Calamagrostis vicunarum Crespillo - R Poa carazensis, Senecio mathewsii, Valeriana globularis, Erigeron incaicu, Senecio adenophylloides, Werneria, Poa aequigluma, Poa No common names pearsonii, Poa spicigera, orbignyana, Draba available for these - R mathioloides, Corryocactus cf. Puquensis, species Astragalus dillinghamii, Stipa rigidiseta, Novenia accaulis, Viola sp. Berberis lutea Espino amarillo - I * D.S. 013-99-AG. E = Endangered; V= Vulnerable; R= Rare; I= Indeterminate. ** Zeballos et al. 2000.

Main threats to biodiversity: A large population living in acute poverty is located in small villages inside and outside the PA. The main activities are cattle ranching, including wild and domestic camelids; as a result of overgrazing, slash-and-burn practices are degrading land coverage. Illegal hunting of wild camelids (vicuña and guanaco) is increasing and heavily reducing vicuña numbers in the SABNR. Poor peasants and bakeries in Arequipa are heavily pressuring wild populations of tola; this shrub is facing the risk of extinction in the SABNR area. Water damming, for power generation, without notice or environmental impact evaluations known by the SABNR administration, is reducing wetlands (bofedales) which are the natural water storage and habitat for numerous species of wild fauna and flora. The paving of the road between Arequipa and Juliaca, which crosses the SABNR, without any environmental impact assessment and with very low quality and quantity of signs or speed control, will increase the number of vicuñas killed by passing vehicles. Mining activities and road construction activities inside the SABNR territory also present significant threats.

Infrastructure, equipment amd others: Table 10 presents the existing infrastructure and equipment and their general condition.

Table 10: SABNR’ existing infrastructure and equipment Category Number Condition Equipment and condition NR 1 Arequipa Good Computer, telefax, furniture. Headquarters 1 pickup truck in regular condition

Control Posts 1 Pampa Cañahuas Very poor 1 Imata Poor 1 Salinas Poor

Ongoing infrastructure and equipment initiatives.- The NR administration is considering the building of new Control Posts in 2 more sites: Pati-Tarucani y Toccra. - 77 -

6. Abanico de Morona Pastaza

An area for the Project entitled “Land Planning and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in the Morona and Pastaza River Basins (“Proyecto de Ordenamiento Territorial y Uso Sostenible de los Recursos Naturales en las Cuencas de los Ríos Morona y Pastaza") has been determined after intense consultations with Peruvian authorities, including the Ministry of Agriculture, INRENA, PROFONANPE, and MEF. The area, part of a larger 6,000,000 has. (Abanico del Pastaza, 10% in Ecuador and 90% in Peru), formed by volcanic sediments over thousands of years, covers an estimated 2,300,000 has. It includes both sides of the Pastaza River and the eastern part of the Morona basin from the Ecuadorean border down to the Marañon River; and left bank of the Marañon River between both basins. The area includes 3 district administrations (Pastaza, Barranca, and Morona) in the province of Yurimaguas, Loreto Department. Its geomorphology and its wealth of fauna and flora merit protection from alterations stemming from uncontrolled and predatory exploitation of natural resources. The pristine state of the “Abanico del Pastaza” provides the opportunity to implement sustainable management of natural resources, based on knowledge of ecology and good planning practices such as those proposed in the Protected Areas Participatory Management Project.

Biodiversity Characteristics: The majority of ecosystems, including humid ecosystems of high global value, contain unique flora and fauna. It is estimated that 95% of ecosystems are intact5. According to an ongoing study6, Morona Pastaza contains four types of forests rich in rarely studied flora and wildlife (see Table 11#?). Birds include (i) 43 identified species of birds of economic significance, 35% of which are endangered species, (ii) migratory species, 25% of which are endangered species according to the CITES convention. Jabiru mycteria and Ara ararauna, in Morona Pastaza, are strictly protected species. Mammals and reptiles including small terrestrial mammals, small flying mammals, 4 species of aquatic mammals in the Pastaza and Uritayo River basins; 44% of identified mammals are under some category of threat according to the CITES, CMS, and/or UICN conventions, and according to local legislation (D.S. No. 013-99). Fish species include 165 species identified in 32 fish families, which is richer than the fish diversity in Pacaya Samiria, including the paiche (Arapaima gigas) which is reported in the Apendix II of the CITES.

Specific endangered species include: Priodontes maximus, Lutra longicaudis, Panthera onca, Trichechus inunguis, Scolomys melanops, Ateles paniscus, lagarto negro (Melanosuchus niger), manatí (Trichechus inunguis), charapa (Podocnemis expansa), maquisapa (Ateles belzebuth). Endemic species include: Marmosops noctivagus.

5 Conservation International. 1999. Rapid assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the Rio Pastaza, Ecuador y Perú. Preliminary Report. 6 WWF-CDC.2001. Evaluación Ecológica Rápida del Abanico del Pastaza: 2do Informe de Avance (octubre 2001) - 78 - &

s e a e

Table 11: Biodiversityc in Abanico de Morona Pastaza a a r b Fabaceas, including: shimbillos (Inga sp.and Zygia sp.) and Cecropiaceas a o f l s

F (Cecropia sp.). Palm especies, including: Chelyocarpus ulei, Astrocaryum m l jauari, Bactris maraja, and Bactris concinna, Mauritia sp., Calycophylum a

P spruceanum, Renealmia alpina, Pouteria guianensis, Cardulovica palmata and Trichilia sp. s

e “ Quillosisia” Vochysia venulosa, “caupuri” Virola pavonis, “yacushapana” i c Terminalia dichotoma, “marupá” Simarouba amara, “chambira” Astrocaryum e p

s chambira, “huacamayo caspi” Simira cordiflora, “gutapercha” Sapium marmierii,

a

r “quinilla” Pouteria guianensis, “remocaspi” Aspidosperma nitida, “uña de gato” o l

f Uncaria guianensis, “quillosisa” Vochysia nenulosa, “vino huayo” Stylogyne

r

e longifolia, “culantrillo” Lindsaea sp., “cumala” Virola sp., “machimango” h t Eschweilera sp., “ocha baja” Sterculia sp., “tortuga caspi” Guatteria microcarpa, O “espintana” Anaxasorea pachipetala y “apacharama” Licania elata. n

o “ shiringa masha” Micandra spruceana, “guariuba” Pseudolmedia laevigata, i t

a “almendro colorado” Caryocar glabrum, “yesca caspi” Ruizterania trichanthera, t

e “masaranduba” Chrysophyllum argenteum “quinilla” Pouteria guanensis, g

e “remocaspi” Aspidosperma nitida, “Hungurahui” Oenocarpus batahua, “favorito” v

e Osteophloeum platyspermum “punga negra” Pachira insignis, “yacushapana” z i

s Buchenavia congesta, “caupuri” Virola pavonis y “requia” Trichilla sp., “cumala”

e Iryanthera sp., “machimango” Eschweilera sp., “pashaco” Schizolobium sp., e r

T “shimbillo” Inga sp., tornillo Cedrelinga catenaeformis y “amasisa” Erythina sp., Parkia sp., Ocotea sp., Cariniana decandra y Nectandra sp. Commercial trees including: cedar(Cedrela sp.), lupuna (Chorisia sp.), mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), capirona (Calycophyllum spruceanum) and bolaina (Molia sp.) s

e Leucipus chlorocercus (endemic specie), Nonnula brunnea, Grallaria dignissima, i c Heterocercus aurantiivertex, Todirostrum calopterum, Myiphobus cryptoxanthus, e p

s Caccicus sclateri, Thamnophilus praecox, and Myrmoborus melanurus. Birds of

d

r economic significance: 43 identified species, 35% of which are endangered i

B species. Migratory species: 38 identified austral species distributed among 17 families as well as 9 neotropical species in 5 families; including the Ardeidae family with 6 austral species and 3 neotropical species. s

e Small terrestrial mammals including: Marmosops noctivagus, Neacomys minutus, l i t

p Proechymys cuvieri, Oryzomys megacephalus, Micoureus regina, y Oecomys e r roberti. Small flying mammals including: Carollia perspicillata, Artibeus planirostris &

s and Sturnira lillium. Rare mammal species including: Priodontes maximus, Tapirus l a terrestris, and Tapirus terrestris. Aquatic mammals in the Pastaza and Uritayo m

m basins: Inia geoffrensis, Sotalia fluviatilis, Lutra longicaudis, and Trichechus a

M inunguis. Reptiles include: taricaya (Podocnemis unifilis), charapa (Podocnemis expansa), cupiso (P. sextuberculata).

h 165 species identified in 32 fish families, which is richer than the fish diversity in s i

F Pacaya Samiria.

Threats to biodiversity: Uncontrolled economic activities of indigenous and mixed-race peoples fully depend on the natural wealth of Morona Pastaza all along the banks of the Morona, Pastaza and tributaries. But the major threat is presented by oil exploration and exploitation under permission granted by the Peruvian Government to Pluspetrol, an international oil company. In - 79 - addition, the Morona Pastaza region is very rich in underground mineral resources with high economic value, such as gold and iron.

Infrastructure, equipment and others: Infrastructure and equipment are not available for the promotion of sustainable economic activities based on natural resources and for the conservation, protection, and monitoring of rare species. Morona Pastaza is not yet in the SINANPE system. - 80 -

Matrix 1. Selected Bio-physical Characteristics of Protected Areas Proposed for the PMPA Project Area (000 ha) Percent of Ecoregion of Global Ecoregion/ecosystem of Importance protected by PA Protected Area Flora and fauna of special importance Other Global Importance7 included Of Ecoregion Portion of Protected in PA in Perú Ecoregion 340 Threatened species: UNESCO National Heritage Site. Huascarán 90% Central Andean Wet 3% Largest portion Puya raimondi; Hippocamelus antisensis, Huascarán Biosphere Reserve National Park Puna Tremarctos ornatus and Vicugna vicugna Third largest NP 1 % Peruvian Yungas 0.2% 1091 Threatened species: Borders Madidi NP (Bolivia) 10% Bolivian Yungas ≈ 20% Largest Ptenonura brasiliensis, Speothos venaticus and Second largest NP Bahuaja-Sonene 2% Beni Savanna 100% Largest Harpya harpyja National Park 11% Peruvian Yungas ≈ 0.7% sixth largest 77% Southwest Amazon 3.6 % second largest Moist Forest 254 Threatened species: Ptenonura brasiliensis, Borders Madidi NP (Bolivia) Tambopata 100% Southwest Amazon 1.1% fourth largest Speothos venaticus and Harpya harpyja. Fourth largest NR Candamo Moist Forest Reported wealth included 575 bird species, National 1200 butterfly species with 26 of them Reserve endemic, and 135 ant species. Forest of Bertholletia excelsa Salinas Aguada 366.9 Threatened species: Second largest NR Blanca National 81% Central Andean Puna 4.4% Second largest Phoenicopterus jamesi, Lama guanicoe and Reserve 19% Sechura Desert 0.4% second largest Vicugna vicugna Tumbes 3 Species in danger of extinction: Crocodylus Close to Northwest Biosphere Mangroves 100% Gulf of Guayaquil- 12% Largest acutus. Reserve (its official inclusion is National Tumbes Mangroves Reported wealth includes 33 species of snails, under way Sanctuary 34 crustaceans and 105 fish species 2300 Threatened species: Priodontes maximus, Abanico de 38% Abanico de Morona N/A N/A Lagarto negro (Melanosuchus niger), manatí Based on ongoing WWF study. Morona Pastaza Pastaza (Trichechus inunguis), charapa (Podocnemis 95% of ecosystems are intact Prospective Humid ecosystem expansa), maquisapa (Ateles belzebuth), Lutra according to Conservation Protected Area longicaudis, Panthera onca, , Ateles paniscus . International Endemic species: Marmosops noctivagus.

7 Dinerstein,D., D.Olson, D.Graham, A.Webster, S.Primm, M.Bookbinder y G.Ledec. 1995. Una Evaluación del Estado de Conservación de las Ecoregiones Terrestres de América Latina y el Caribe. WWF, World Bank, Washington D.C., 135 p. . III. Socio-Economic Profile

1. Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary (TMNS)

Population. The TMNS, its buffer zones, and its area of influence have an estimated population of 15,656. There is only one small village, El Bendito, with a population of 276 people, located within the BZ, but migrantion from various regions and various cultural backgrounds brought by the shrimp boom increased and continues to increase the populations beyond the buffer zones. There are also peasants beyond the buffer zones whose activities impact the BZ and the TMNS. People from El Bendito and other towns benefit from economic activities in the TMNS and its BZ, and fish and shrimp farming entrepreneurs are located in and around the TMNS.

Land Tenure.- The Ministry of Fisheries has allocated licenses to develop shrimp farms to 27 private enterprises; three of them with legal facilities inside the TMNS. The total area allocated to shrimp companies is 8636 Has, of which 98 has (3.5% of TMNS) fall inside the Sanctuary and 2814 has fall in its BZ, according to information in Table 12. 1879.7 has of land inside the NS (63% of TMNS) are registered with the Navy for national defense purposes; the naval infrastructure is deployed over 100 has, 35 of which were dedicated to shrimp farming until 1995 and the other 65 has. to military infrastructure and for sporadic exercises. Under these circumstances, INRENA ends up having effective control of only 994.13 has (33.5%) of the TMNS. It should also be noted that around 66-67 has. of the privately-owned shrimp farms are not currently under production, and are in the process of being legally returned to NS ownership. Maps and surface quantification have been developed to support this legal process.

Table 12 : TMNS land tenure status Within the TMNS Buffer Zones Communities, private firms Land tenure Communities. # Has (%) Pop. # Has. Pop. Cities, towns, - - - El 250 276 village Bendito Navy 1 1879.7 - Owns - - - (63.%) Shrimp farms 3 98.13 - License 22 2814 - (3.5%) Under INRENA 994.13(33.5 - State property - %) Total 2972 - 3014 276

It is important to note that shrimp farm entrepreneurs own over 2,814 has in the BZ, an area almost as large as the total size of the TMNS (2972 has) and three times as large as what INRENA controls inside the TMNS (994.13 has.). It is also important to note that the Navy controls an area twice as large (1879.7 has.) as what INRENA controls inside the TMNS (994.13 has.).

Main economic activities.- The main economic activity of the population in and around the TMNS is shrimp and fish production. The Ministry of Fisheries promotes the development of a shrimp and fish production industry and for this purpose has issued licenses to 27 private companies which are allowed to work within the TMNS and its buffer zone. The main - 82 - commercial species is shrimp and now the Ministry of Fisheries is trying to promote Red Tilapia. Shrimp production has experienced a boom in the past, but it has exhausted natural resources by the use of chemicals; however, after the local population, sponsored by the NGO PRONATURALEZA, has succeeded in restoring natural resourcesgrowth, the shrimp industry is ready to return to the TMNS. The migrant population dedicated to fishing also uses predatory practices that are beyond INRENA’s control. Some villagers provide limited tourist services, such as boat trips and guiding.

Poverty Issues.- The incidence of poverty is not extreme as in the other protected areas. Infant malnutrition reaches 30.9% and infant mortality is 43 per thousand.

Conclusions: Large stakeholders (mainly private business interests and the Navy), backed by government institutions (Ministry of Fisheries), and with well-defined economic interests, with enormous negative environmental impacts in the form of waste water pollution that damages the mangroves, coexist with small local artisan fishermen, usually pro-conservation (due to their small production capacity). The depredatory fishing practices of the migrant population that came into the area during the shrimp boom also present a threat to the conservation of the mangroves. The Government (INRENA) will need to find policy and legal instruments to balance the interests of involved economic interests with the interest of preserving and restoring life to the TMNS.

2. Huascaran National Park (NPH)

Population and indigenous peoples: The NPH, its BZ and its area of influence have a population of about 300,000 people, dominated by peasant populations, with indigenous Quechua and mixed cultural backgrounds. Indigenous people in the highlands (Huari and Chavin) have a Quechua tradition and speak mostly Quechua, while people in the lower areas are of mixed (Spanish-indigenous) descent and are bilingual, speaking Spanish and Quechua. Another important group is that formed by the local technocracy organized in NGOs and municipalities.

Land Tenure: According to information in Table 13, 98% of NPH is under INRENA control as a protected area. 1.62% is under the legal domain of three communities inside the NPH, and 0.38% is under 75 concessions for private mining activities inside the borders of the NPH. According to Table 13, there are also shepherd families within the NPH who raise their cattle and benefit from natural pastures in the NPH. After the creation of the NPH and as part of the agrarian reform (DS No 0622-75-AG), property rights have been granted to communities willing to be relocated in the NPS’s buffer zone. Current mining concessions were granted prior to the creation of the NPH. According to a mining activities diagnostics performed in 1977 by the National Directorate of Protected Areas (DGMAR-INRENA), 39 mining concessions are fully inside the NPH and 36 are partially inside. Accepted petitions for concessions after 1991 total 6095 has, most of them in the buffer zones. Mining concessions in the above table do not include mega-projects such as Antamina and Pierina whose impacts on the NPH are not well known.

Table 13: NPH land tenure status Within the NPH Buffer Zones

Communities, private firms Land tenure Communities. # Has (%) Pop. # Has. Pop. Communities 3 5492 (1.62%) 10,645 Legal title 36 88,756 41,015 Cities, towns, village - - - 32 107,177 253,919 - 83 -

Shepherd families 74 - 349 State property - - - Service associations 8 - - 18 - - Mining 75 500 840 Concession 350 - - concessions (0..38% rights ) Under INRENA 33,4347 - State property - (98%) Total 340,000 11,834 195,933 294,934

Main economic activities and social conflicts: Peasants inside the NPH are dedicated to small-scale subsistence agriculture, especially on slopes and terraces, using traditional technology to grow basic staples (potato, lima beans, olluco, oca). Cattle ranching is also an important activity in and around the NPH. Mining activities are by far the most economically significant activity but their various impacts (positive and/or negative) on the NPH are not well known. Under this circumstance, new tourism facilitation activities have become a feasible option for local people to raise their incomes; however, as tourism opportunities are limited, many competing interests (including those of municipalities, communities and organized service associations) are resulting in conflicts over the holding of rights to carry out various services and rights to charge entry fees overall. Recently, an organized community (800 members of Cátac) has taken by force the right to collect entry fees to Pastoruri. It should also be mentioned that the promotion of conservation of biodiversity in the NPH and of sustainable economic activities in and around the NPH (such as eco- tourism) has become an important service activity – fueled by donations and international organizations - that attracts a number of professionals through civil society organizations, NGOs, service associations, and municipal governments. However, in the meantime public services and infrastructure to ensure a sustainable tourism industry (or sustainable economic activities) in and around the NPH is insufficiently provided, and is absent as a proper economic activity. Discharges from mining processing are affecting wetlands in the NPH.

Poverty issues. Agricultural and cattle ranching activities by poor peasants are unable to generate the surplus necessary to sustain economic growth and improve living standards. The incidence of poverty and extreme poverty in the NPH is high as expressed by infant malnutrition of 66.8% and infant mortality of 66.7 per thousand.

Conclusion. Although there is a clear majority of Government-owned lands in the NPH, conservation of biodiversity and natural landscapes is by no means easy. Difficulties stem from economic activities in the buffer zones that have exhausted growth possibilities, resulting in pressure to use natural resources inside the NPH. On the other hand, tourism cannot utilize all available labor in and around the NPH. Thus, sustainable economic activities should include the promotion of alternative activities, including activities related to the promotion of improvement of productivity and the environmental friendliness of current economic activities in the buffer zones, including mining and agriculture. There are obviously various economic interests behind the options for handling activities that can help improve the conservation of NPH, including those of large mining companies, profit-driven tourism promoters, local municipalities and communities, and international environmental organizations.

3. Bahuaja – Sonene National Park (BSNP)

Population and indigenous peoples:. The BSNP, its buffer zone and its area of influence have an estimated population of 73,232 people, including 6 district administrations. The estimated population in and around the BSNP includes indigenous peoples, known as “non- contacted” or under “voluntary isolation,” and settlers who migrated mainly from Puno, - 84 -

Cuzco, and Madre de Dios. Numerical records of “non-contacted” indigenous people are as diffused as numerical records of settlers. Indigenous peoples are suspected to be mostly around the higher parts of the Tambopata River and around the banks of its tributaries Las Piedras, Los Amigos and Purus. Settlers migrated from Puno, pushed by droughts in 1980 and 1990, before the BSNP’s border was defined in 1996.

Land Tenure: There is no titled land inside the BSNP (see Table 14). However, native communities which have titles in the buffer zones (Kotzimba community) usually go inside the BSNP to hunt, fish and perform other extractive activities beyond sustainable levels, which give rise to conflicts with INRENA. Inside the BSNP there are also concessions to settlers for Brazil nut gathering and for other agricultural activities.

Table14: BSNP land tenure status (LTS) (requires more precise information from Roberto) Communities, private farms, private firms, mining concessions Within the BSNP Border BSNP & BZ Buffer Zone Number LTS (has.) Numbe LTS (has.) Numbe LTS (has.) r r Tourist firms - - 2 Titled (-) Private farms - - - - Mining ? ? - - ? ? Native comm. - - - - 1 Titled (28,606) Settlers (families) Conc. 17 (20,000) - - 8 Titled (-) 228 Undefined (-) Identified land use - 20,000 has. - - - 28,606 Has.

Main Economic Activities: Gold mining locally traded but driven by international markets. Trade of flora and fauna in the local markets by indigenous peoples (Ese-éja communities). Indigenous people and settlers are dedicated to Brazil nut gathering, on allocated land in the form of concessions; however, low productivity and low international prices for Brazil nuts are problems for achieving sustainability. Indigenous people and settlers, pressured by extreme poverty, are returning to predatory practices; e.g., cutting down productive Brazil nut trees for wood. Settlers in the Colorado region, which includes micro-basins within the BSNP, grow coffee, coca leaves, wood, and also are laborers for small-scale gold mining activities.

Poverty issues: Poor people from Puno migrated to the BSNP as settlers, seeking better living conditions, pushed by droughts in 1980 and 1990; they mainly carried out agricultural activities that at one point caused soil erosion. Currently, they are allowed to perform subsistence activities related to the conservation of the BSNP. However, subsistence activities seem non sustainable as they do not allow the necessary surplus to be achieved in order to improve living standards and growth prospects. Infant malnutrition is 60.4% and infant mortality is 82.3 per thousand.

Conclusion: Pressure on the BSNP comes basically from the department of Puno, where settlers come from, due to extreme poverty that makes its population vulnerable to natural events such as droughts. Under this circumstance, government institutions such as CTARs Puno, Madre de Dios, and Cusco, should be involved in planning alternative development activities to deter migration to the BSNP area.

4. Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve (TCNR)

Population and indigenous peoples: The TCNR, its buffer zone, and its area of influence have an estimated population of 43,399 people, including two district administrations, of - 85 - which local indigenous populations total about 1141 people in the communities of Sonene (105), Puerto Pardo (133), Infierno (400), Palma Real (253), El Pilar (92), and Tres Islas (158).

Land Tenure: Two commercial organizations operate inside the TCNR, Sandoval Lake Lodge (titled land) and Rainforest Expeditions (under concession); see Table 15. For two other commercial organizations, Peruvian Safaris and Tambopata Reasearch Center (TRC) located in what used to be the Tambopata Reserve Zone (TRZ), their borders are pending delimitation with the TCNR. All titled native communities are located in the buffer zones. Rights to underground resources are under conflict between indigenous and mining laws, which is now complicated by environmental law. There are also two current mining concessions (Fatima and Playa Tauro GC), located on the border of the TCNR and its buffer zone. These concessions’ front loaders are a concern to local communities in Mazuko. Artisan miners along the Malinowski River are becoming involved in agro-forestry and tourism, and are trying to negotiate with INRENA and involved NGOs a stance against large- scale mining which is pressing for appropriation of their respective concessions. Additionally, settlers dedicated to agriculture in the buffer zones are pressing to expand their legal entitlements in direct negotiations with the Ministry of Agriculture, without involving INRENA, which is legally permitted by DS 038.

Table 15: TCNR Land tenure status (LTS) ( more precise information from Roberto) Communities, private farms, private firms, mining concessions Within the TCNR Border TCNR and BZ Buffer Zone Number LTS (has.) Numbe LTS (has.) Numbe LTS (has.) r r 1 Titled (-) 5 Undefined (-) Tourist firms 1 Concession 2 Pending (-) Private farms 1 Titled (-) - - - - Mining - - 2 Concession (-) 133 Concession (-) Native comm. - - - - Undefined 6 (60,759) Settlers (families) Concession 50 - - 722 Titled (35,928) (50,000) Identified land use - 50,000 has. - - - 96,687 has.

Main Economic Activities: Tourism, promoted by two tourist companies inside the TCNR, two inside the border, and five in its buffer zones, involves people from all strata, including indigenous peoples. Agricultural activities and Brazil nut gathering, through concessions in favor of settlers within the TCNR and its buffer zones. Native communities perform various extractive activities in the buffer zones. Gold mining, although not allowed in the TCNR, takes place on the Malinowski River in areas neighboring the TCNR and on the Madre de Dios River which is adjacent to the buffer zone.

Poverty issues: The poverty and extreme poverty prevalent in the area impel populations to become involved in activities of high monetary liquidity, including trade of flora and fauna in local markets and employment in gold mining and logging. The infant malnutrition rate is 47.2% and infant mortality is 46.9 per thousand.

5. Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (SABNR)

Population and indigenous peoples: SABNR, its BZ, and its zones of influence have an estimated population of 94,705, including 7 district administrations. This population includes 4,743 inhabitants within the PA, and 8,315 in the BZ. The population in the SABNR and its - 86 -

BZ consists of peasants working communal lands, private landlords, laborers, entrepreneurs, local and central government public appointees. Laborers work on private farms and mining activities. Peasants and laborers have indigenous, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, while landlords, entrepreneurs, and public officials are dominated by mixed and white backgrounds.

Land Tenure: According to information in Table 16, 61% of the SABNR’s lands are under the legal ownership of 12 communities, 24% under the legal ownership of 103 private farms, leaving under PA INRENA control only 15% (54,795 out of 366,936 hectares) of the National Reserve. In addition, within the SABNR there is one mining company (Minera Ubinas) with well-established exploitation rights and 23 mining concessions with rights that are not well-defined.

Table 16: SABNR’s land tenure status Within the SABNR Buffer Zones Communities, private farms, and private firms Land tenure status Communities. Has (%) Pop. Number Pop. 12 Communities 223,715 (61%) 2,706 Communal property 1 8,315 103 Private farms 88,426 (24%) 2,037 Titled property - - Under INRENA 54,795 - State lands - - (15%) 1 Minera Ubina - - Rights of exploitation - - 23 Concessions - - Undefined rights - - Total 366,936 4,743 - 1 8,315

Main Economic Activities: Peasants’ main economic activities are agriculture, cattle ranching (including native camelids), informal hunting (vicuña and guanaco), and vicuña wool production. Their production technology is based on local/traditional knowledge for agriculture, natural resources management, health, and animal raising; and their products are traded in local and provincial markets. Income from agricultural activities is, however, not enough to reverse the poverty trends of the SABNR’s populations. Mining is another very important activity, and 23 concessions and 1 well-established mining company are active, producing mainly gold and other precious metals (what do they produce?). The SABNR is also being targeted to build two dams (Chalhuanca and Pillone) to increase production of the Charcani Hydroelectric enterprise in Arequipa. Additionally, road construction seems to make economic sense for various stakeholders inside and outside the PA, but it imposes a high cost in terms of the loss of wetlands with various species.

Poverty Issues: Poor populations inside and outside the PA live in small villages and perform subsistence economic activities, some of which conflict with PA objectives. The infant malnutrition rate is 54.4% and infant mortality is 64.2 per thousand.

Conclusion: Land tenure status (85% in private and community hands) implies that enforcement of the SABNR’s National Reserve status must be done through legal regulations on land use, taking into account the ongoing income-generating economic activities of various parties in SABNR. To do so an intensive consultation and consensus- building process needs to be put in motion; and policy-making that takes into account the streams of monetary income and environmental impacts of economic agents working in agriculture, mining and hydropower activities needs to be in place. Thus, protection of the SABNR also has to be done through a combination of legal and policy instruments that take into consideration market forces. As a result, market-based instruments (MBI) can be developed to enhance financing availability while protecting SABNR. - 87 -

6. Morona Pastaza

Population and indigenous peoples: There is an indigenous population of about 10,230 people including the Quechua, Candoshi, and Achuar ethno-linguistic groups.

Land Tenure: Exploration and exploitation rights have been allocated to Plus Petrol over an area of (place figure).. Indigenous peoples have community titles over 718,257 has and have usage rights to 210,086 has. Indigenous peoples’ rights may be used to create a Communal Reserve, which is a form of Natural Protected Area, under the sponsorship of German cooperation.

Table 17 goes here

Main economic activities: Large-scale business related to oil exploration and exploitation takes place in the Morona Pastaza region, with limited spillover into the local economy. People in Morona Pastaza are dedicated to small-scale, subsistence agriculture, cattle ranching, hunting, gathering and fishing. San Lorenzo is the main commercial center where people from all over the region trade their produce. San Lorenzo is also a supply center for exploration activities, including oil exploration, and has a small airport. Small boats (“peque-peques”) and large cargo and passenger ships go in and out of San Lorenzo, and through the Pastaza and other rivers. Small communities located on the banks of the various rivers trade with small businessmen (“regatones”) who travel by boat to their communities from time to time. Trade is done basically under a barter economy system, where the communities usually obtain less than what they should under normal conditions.

Poverty issues: Most towns have economic subsistence activities and households generally lack basic services. Construction material is wood with roofs made of palm leaves. Households close to the oil exploration camps are made of wood and metal roofing sheets which give excess heat year-round. Electricity is not available except for Andoas Nuevo and Los Jardines where Petro Peru provides oil for the electrical generators to work several hours a day. San Lorenzo, the main commercial center, has electricity for several hours a day. Some towns have sidewalks.

Conclusions: The Morona Pastaza Protected Area may be established based on indigenous peoples’ rights, although conflicts with oil companies may arise. Financing of conservation and sustainable exploitation of natural resources may be negotiated with those who deplete or hamper natural resource preservation. In this case a kind of “depleter pays” principle may be used. - 88 -

IV Institutional Profile of Protected Areas

1. Sector Organization

SINANPE’s activities are governed by INRENA, a public autonomous8 central government body under the Ministry of Agriculture. INRENA has a sector policy and strategic planning function, as well as a function of financing protected areas. Sectoral policy and strategic planning is performed by the General Directorate of Natural Protected Areas and Wildlife (DGANPFS). Financing includes the use of various instruments (e.g., treasury allocations, grants, concession contracts, debt for nature swaps); it is administered directly by INRENA, and is successfully complemented by PROFONANPE.

Each PA is under the administration of DGANPFS through the appointment of a PA Chief. Recently-approved legislation9 indicates that management of PAs will take into account local stakeholders’ interests through Protected Areas Management Committees (PAMC) which will support PA management, with voluntary cooperation and oversight functions. PAMC members will be relevant stakeholders in each PA, including local governments, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, civil society, and the private sector. In this way, PA management will be carried out jointly by INRENA and local stakeholders.

2. Profile of sector’s institutional agents

INRENA.- INRENA’s core objective is the promotion of sustainable use and management of renewable natural resources and their ecological surroundings, while contributing to agricultural development. According to its organic law (DL 25901), INRENA operates at the central, regional and local level through its general directorates. One of these directorates is the General Directorate of Protected Areas and Wildlife.

DGANPFS.- main functions include:  Sectoral Strategic Planning.- establishment of new PAs and preparation of national strategic planning tools and instruments for the administration of all protected areas in SINANPE10. Strategic planning is intended to provide a sense of direction to SINANPE and link with other sector national plans rather than to provide a specific management plan for each PA. Each PA’s long-term plan (Master Plan) should be prepared and implemented under the leadership of the Chief of the PA, in coordination with its respective Protected Area Management Committee (PMAC)11. This plan is approved by INRENA upon favorable opinion by DGANPFS. Annual management plans for all PAs are also approved by DGANPFS.  Policy Making.- As a policy maker, DGANPFS prepares norms and rules for the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural renewable resources in the PAs and buffer zones. Policy making becomes more important for PA management because of the participation of various stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the PA’s management plans.

8 It has technical, administrative, economic, and financial autonomy, within the limits imposed by the Peruvian public administration. 9 Natural Protected Areas Law (Ley No 26834) and bylaw (DS No 038-2001-AG). 10 Plan Director del SINANPE: National Strategy for Natural Protected Areas (DS 010-99-AG) is one of these strategic planning tools. 11 PAMCs are organizations with no legal jurisdiction, formed to involve local stakeholders in the management of PAs. - 89 -

 Monitoring and Supervision.- DGANPFS monitors and supervises implementation of strategic planning and policies by each PA administration. In this capacity, DGANPFS can correct policies if they do not work.  Information Gathering and Dissemination.- DGANPFS is also in charge of data collection and dissemination of public information to improve PA management.

PROFONANPE.- Is a non-profit organization under private law, in charge of raising complementary financing to cover recurrent and investment costs for the conservation and protection of PAs. PROFONANPE was created in 1992 to administer the National Fund for Protected Areas (FONANPE), and currently channels financing from various donors including multilateral organizations (GEF), bilateral organizations (e.g., SIDA, CIDA, KFW, Holland, Finland). In its ten years of existence, PROFONANPE has channeled US$28 million to finance Pas’ recurrent and capital costs, and capacity building at all institutional levels of SINANPE. PROFONANPE’s success is in part due to:  Implementation of rules of good corporate governance: PROFONANPE has an independent management (general director) in charge of day-to-day administration, reporting to a Board of Directors whose members have a two-year tenure. The Board of Directors includes three representatives of INRENA (including the Chief Executive Officer, who presides over the Board), three representatives of environmental NGOs, and one representative of the international community (in its capacity as provider of technical and financial assistance);  Flexible implementation of various financing instruments to raise funds: Financial instruments used by PROFONANPE include: grants, debt for nature swaps, endowment funds, sinking funds and financial income from the administration of the endowment fund formed with a GEF grant. Currently, PROFONANPE is updating its financial engineering of sinking funds to generate additional financing for the conservation and protection of PAs. The design of new financial instruments for raising additional funds is an active concern of PROFONANPE management.

3. Profile of sector-related institutions

Civil Society Organizations.- NGOs play an important role in PA management from various perspectives. They participate as main decision-makers on PROFONANPE's Board of Directors. Many are vehicles for technical expertise in PA management. Some are proactive in biodiversity conservation and the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. In contrast, community-based organizations focus their activities on the implementation of specific PA management tasks, using local resources (mostly labor), and presenting cost-effective alternatives to implement project tasks. Civil society organizations play a broader role, including the transfer of technical expertise as well as the development of PA policy concepts and implementation. Therefore, the involvement of civil society organizations will have a more long-term effect by developing the knowledge base for proper PA management and disseminating it.

Private sector agents have specific interests in activities that might sometimes present difficulties in PA management. They usually have financial resources for alternative project development in PAs, that may be in conflict with PA objectives. Private sector agents normally work under licenses issued by sector ministries other than the Ministry of Agriculture or INRENA. Those licenses sometimes date from before the creation of the PA, which can present legal conflicts with present PA objectives.

Indigenous Peoples. Some protected areas have indigenous peoples with legal or customary land rights. Indigenous peoples’ interests are often not easy to assess to take into account in the PAs’ management. - 90 -

Protected Areas Management Committees (PAMC) are infant institutions thought to be the main participation vehicle, in the management of PAs, for all non-governmental institutions. Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary, a PA in the PMPA project, has set up its PAMC.

Other Ministries can also be involved or have interests to be taken into account when plans for PA management are being prepared. For example, the Ministry of Fisheries issues licenses for shrimp farming in Tumbes which conflicts with the conservation of the Tumbes Mangroves PA. The Ministry of Energy and Mines issues concession rights to miners in Puno and Madre de Dios, and Ancash which is in conflict with the objectives of Tambopata Candamo National Reserve, Bahuaja-Sonene National Park and Huascaran National Park.

4. Stakeholder Analysis, Participatory Management of Protected Areas Project

Each stakeholder has an interest in PA management and therefore can have a positive or negative influence on PA management. The stakeholder analysis will be performed using two matrixes: the first, Matrix 1, includes agents with nationwide coverage (e.g., INRENA, DGNAPFS, PROFONANPE) and will be presented as Stakeholder Analysis I; the second, Matrix 2, presents institutional agents specific to each PA and will be presented as Stakeholder Analysis II.

Matrix 1: Stakeholder Analysis I Stakeholder Interests Resources and Mandate Problems Ministry of 1. Improved R1. Annual budget; * PAs reduce the boundaries Agriculture environmentally R2. Political influence; of agricultural development; (MoA) sustainable agricultural R3. Approves SINANPE’s * MoA has poor technical activities. strategic plan (plan director) assistance capacity for M1. Facilitates activities of farmers. private agents in agriculture. National Institute 1. Improved R1. Autonomous annual * PM of PA is new to Peru; of Natural management of PA; budget; * Too few officials trained in Resources 2. Improved ecology of R2. Administrative autonomy; formulation of participatory (INRENA) PA; R3. Approves Pas’ Master management plans; 3. Improved Plan; * Other sectors’ participatory environmentally R4. Approves Env. Impact management not available; sustainable agriculture. Assessment of projects in PA; R5. Participates on Board of PROFONANPE; M1. Promotion of sustainable and environmental management of renewable natural resources. General 1. Improved leadership R1. Built technical expertise; * Authority of PA chiefs are Directorate of for the management of R2. Direct relationship with not always acknowledged by Natural Protected PAs; current PA administration; other stakeholders; Areas and Wildlife 2. Effective involvement R3. Approves set up of PAMC; * DGANPFS officials’ skills (DGANPFS) of various stakeholders; R4. Recommends the approval are not enough to conduct PM 3. Improved policy- of PAs’ Master Plans; of PA; making capacity; R5. Approves PAs’ operating * Limited capacity for 4. Improved capacity of plans; strategic planning, policy- stakeholders to M1. SINANPE’s strategic making, environmental and participate in plans; biodiversity information participatory M2. PM of PA policy-making; system management; management of M3. Administration of PA; * Insufficient funding for protected areas. M4. Gathering and management of PAs. - 91 -

dissemination of information. Manager of the 1. Increased financial R1. Accumulated technical * Poor absorption by National Fund for resources to cover PAs’ expertise for raising funds from SINANPE of funding Protected Areas recurrent and capital international donors; capacity; (PROFONANPE expenses; R2. Accumulated technical * Small local consultant base ) 2. Increased financing expertise in the financial to support SINANPE’s for strengthening administration of funds; endeavors; technical capacities of R3. Channels large share of * Too few local consultants SINANPE. financing of PA; qualified to prepare sound M1. Manages FONANPE. funding proposals; * Fiscal constraints of treasury to leverage debt for nature swaps. Global 1. Conservation of R1. Provider of Grants; * PAs lack sufficient Environmental biodiversity of global R2. Easy access to World Bank financial, technical and Facility (GEF) importance; technical expertise; human resources for their and The World 2. Economic growth and R3. Influential; adequate management; Bank (WB) poverty alleviation. M1. Assist in preservation of * Limited human resources to environment and biodiversity; implement new legislation M2. Assist developing enabling participatory countries to achieve management of PAs. development Netherlands 1. Conservation of R1. Provider of grants, debt for * Limited capacity of Bilateral biodiversity of global nature swaps; stakeholders to participate in importance; R2. Technical expertise on management of PAs. environment issues.

Matrix 2a: Stakeholder Analysis II, Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary Stakeholder Interests Resources and Mandate Problems PRONATURA- - Integrated management R1. Experience/expertise in -Weak public relations; LEZA of PAs; biodiversity and environment; - Difficult to make strategic - Training of park R2. Management; alliances; guards; R3. Relationsgips: WB, BID, - Weak involvement with - - Organization of small WWF, .... scientific community. shrimp producers. M1. Strives for sustainable use of biodiversity and development ACECTUM - Reforestation and R1. Ecotourism experience; - Lack of funds and “Tumpis”. educational extension R2. Design and implement equipment; Conserv., Educ., env.-related activities; - Infant institution; Culture, and R3. Relationships: GEF, - Experience in dry forests Tourism Assoc. NGOs; M1. Awareness raising. Hydro-bio product -Sustainable R1. Experience in replenish- - Contract for PMPA is too Extractor Assoc. aquaculture; ment of Mangroves and sea slow; ASEPROHI, San - Family ecotourism water species. Pedro-Zarumilla M1. Consensus work to achieve ecological balance. Wood producers’ - Sust. BZ management; R1. Experience with - Non-permanent settlers in cooperative - Conservancy of the dry sustainable management of NR; allocated areas; biological corridor Mandate: Sustainable - PA is not projected to dry development of dry forests. forest. “El Bendito” Dev. -Hydro-bio resources; R1. Experience in sustainable - Unemployment; Committee. - abandoned shrimp farm management of hydro-bio.; - Lack of access to basic concessions M1. Sust. development services. Pro- - Organization and env. R1. Practical experience; - Initial infrastructure and environmental education for children M1. Sustainable mgmt. of NR capacity. Group “Genesis” - 92 -

DGANPFS - Stakeholder Analysis I - Stakeholder Analysis I INRENA, - Reforestation and R1. Forest specialists. - Budget too small; Regional forest control in PA M1. DL 25902 - Lima centralism Operating Unit Navy - Control and Security of R1. Military power. - Priority border problems 1880 has of NNRR. - Predatory practices. Private Sector -Short-term gains; R1. knows how to exploit NR; - Chemical inputs contami- -Shrimp farms and R2. Economic power; nate and deplete NR; lumber M1 Makes profits - Lack of capital.

Matrix 2b: Stakeholder Analysis II, Huascaran National Park Stakeholder Interests Resources and Mandate Problems Mountain Institute - Community ecotourism R1. Experience/expertise in -Weak local public - Pasture management; biodiversity and environment; relations; - Env. capacity dev.; R2. Relationships: Bilaterals, - Weak involvement with - Reforestation USAID local communities. M1. Mountain ecosystem conservation. Kuntur Institute - Partnerships with R1. Experience with municipal - Lack of information; Andean Research peasant communities for conservation (Huari); - Lack of equipment; and Development environmental R2. Relationships: UNDP-PPD, - Lack of funding and govt. management; USAID, GEF, NGOs; cooperation - Promotion of Mun. M1. Provincial development. PAs. Hurpichallay -Agro-biodiversity R1. Water quality and bio- - Weak technical Association mgmt.; diversity management; background. - Affirmative action; M1. Env. conservation with cultural identity. Tourism service - Cooperate with HNP; R1. Tourism management; - Lack of equipment and associations - Reforestation, R2. Capacity development; know-how on mountain recycling, native plants Mandate: Service providers to activities. reforestation. tourism industry in HNP. 39 peasant -Small agribusiness, R1. Legal land titles in HNP; - Vicious circle of poverty; communities including alpaca; M1. Represent their peasant - Non-awareness of env. - Tourism services. community in legal conflicts. laws; - Low prices for products. UNASAM -Env. Planning; R1. Dissemination of know- - Lack of laboratories and - EIA, SIG. how; Internet. M1. Sissemination of knowledge. Huari - Env. planning and co- R1. Markajirca Eco- - Small municipal budget; Municipality management of Archeological System; - Quechua is the main ecotourism. M1. Local development language. AMUNIH Water quality, env. R1. Multisectoral councils for - Political instability makes planning; ecotourism co- development; plans irrelevant. management. M1. Sustainable development DGANPFS - Stakeholder analysis I. - Stakeholder analysis I. INRENA, - Reforestation and R1. Forest specialists. - Budget too small; Regional forest control in PA M1. DL 25902 - Lima centralism Operating Unit Regional Director - ? R1. Power to approve EIA, - Depends on the of Energy and PAMA for mining companies; profitability of mining Mines R2. Budget from mining canon; industry in HNP. M1: Regulation and promotion of mining sector Private Sector: -Development of nearby R1. Legal concession within - Wetlands affected by Pierina, Antamina areas for mining HNP; mining effluents. and California activities. M1: Make profits while taking care of the environment. - 93 -

Matrix 2c: Stakeholders Analysis II, Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve

Stakeholder Interests Resources and Mandate Problems AECI, - Improve quality R.1. Access to international - Market size for alpaca Spanish Agency for and production of cooperation; products too small. International alpacas; R.2. Financial resources; Cooperation - Small dams and R.3. Technical know-how; tourism. M.1. Sustainable development. Peasant Communities - Vicuña raising; R.1. Land tenure of 61% of - Extreme urban-rural - Alpaca SABNR; differences; improvement. R.2. Ethnoecology; - Overgrazing; M.1. Legal representation of - Low-quality cattle raising. population within SABNR. DESCO - Alpaca and vicuña R.1. Capacity-building center; - Lack of social specialists improvement; M.1. Sustainable development in the region. - Water infrastructure. Alpaca Associations - Wetland and grass R.1. Alpaca herds; - Illegal hunting and trade of conservation. M.1. Sustainable alpaca raising. alpaca.

Vicuña - Sustainable vicuña R.1. 1,417,000 vicuñas in - Illegal hunting and trade of Committee raising. SABNR; vicuña. M.1. Sustainable vicuña raising. NGO PRODEMA - Alpaca, tourism, R.1. Sponsorship of large - Weak participation and reforestation and private companies; consultations. hydrology. M.1. Sustainable development. DGANPFS Same as in previous Same as in previous matrix. Same as in previous matrix. matrix. INRENA, Regional Reforestation and R.1 Forest canon, budget; -Small government budget; Operating Unit forest control. M.1 Same as in previous Weak env. laws. matrix. Charcani - Hydro resources in R.1 very large investments; - Dams will destroy wetland Hydropower El Fraile and AB. M.1 Energy production. in SABNR. Regional Directorate - Regulation and env. R.1 Mining canon and budget; - Lack of socio-economic of Mining and Energy mitigation. M.1 Mining development. and env. impact studies. Regional Directorate Water quality monit- R.1 National budget. of Water oring, water resources. Private farms Tola, vicuñas, etc. R.1 Land tenure. Same as peasant c. M.1. Profits. Mining companies Social work and R.1 23 concessions in SABNR; Lack of infrastructure, and UBINAS Co, mitigation env. prob. M.1 Sustainable development social conflicts.

Note: Stakeholder analysis for Tambopata-Candamo and Bahuaja-Sonene: see project files.

5. Selected Management Features of Protected Areas in the PMPA Project

A summary of selected features of PA management is presented in Matrix 4. This matrix has the advantage of simultaneously presenting such features for all PAs selected for the PMPA project.

Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary (TMNS) - 94 -

The TMNS has headquarters with personnel including a Chief of PA (who also acts as chief of the other three PAs), an office administrator, and three park guards (one rotating in the other three PAs). Vehicles and equipment are limited to one motorcycle, two boats, and one radio. It annual budget is US$4600, financed by the national treasury. Registry of land property rights is well established. The TMNS set up its PAMC in 1999, and prepared a master plan in 2001; however, the MP is still in need of precise scheduling and operating plans. Its PAMC includes 15 institutional representatives. The TMNS also has a hydro- biology producers’ committee. PRONATURALEZA and other NGOS are active in the TMNS.

Huascaran National Park (HNP)

HNP has headquarter with personnel including a Chief of PA, six professionals, one administrator, one secretary, and 13 park guards. The HNP has two 4x4 pickups and seven radio units. Its annual budget is US$60,000, financed by the national treasury, directly collected revenues (entry fees), and KfW. The registry of land property rights is underway. The HNP developed a Master Plan in 1990 that needs to be updated, and has a tourist plan that was prepared in 1996. The HNP has no PAMC; however, there is a proposal for it awaiting confirmation from Lima. It has 59 community committees to handle conflicts over natural pasture use.

Bahuaja – Sonene National Park (BSNP) and Tambopata Candamo National Reserve (TCNR)

The BSNP has shares its headquarters with the TCNR. The headquarters includes one Chief of PA, three professionals plus two administrators, and eight park guards. Its motorized vehicles and equipment are limited to four boats and four radios. It has a combined annual budget of US$26,000 financed by the national treasury and the Government of The Netherlands. PAMCs in both BSNP and TCNR have been established, but are awaiting resolution from DGANPFS. Land property rights are fairly well established. The BSNP has no Master Plan or plans of any other nature. Both the BSNP and TCNR have received the attention of 16 NGOs (three of them international), and BSNP has four bilateral coordination programs with Bolivia’s Maididi National Park.

Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (SABNR)

SABNR has headquarters with personnel including one Chief of PA, no professionals, one administrator, and four park guards. It has a 4x4 pick up and one radio. Its annual budget is US$30,000, financed by the national treasury and KfW. Land property rights are partially defined. Zoning was defined and a Master Plan was ready in 2001. The PAMC is not yet set up, although members have been identified. There are 13 Vicuña Management Committees, national NGOs, one bilateral program and one government program in the SABNR. - 95 -

Matrix 4: Selected Management Characteristics of Protected Areas Proposed for the PMPA Project Tambopata Bahuaja Sonene Salinas Aguada Blanca Huascarán National Park Manglares de Tumbes National Natural Protected Area (NPA) National Reserve National Park National Reserve (SABNR) (PNH) Sanctuary (MTNS) (TNR) (BSNP) s

e NPA Chief 1 1 1 1 (sharing 3 more PAs) c r

u Professionals 3 + 2 administrative none + 1 administrator 6 + 1 administrative. + 1 secret 1 administrator in INRENA Tumbes o s

e Park Guards 8 4 + 2 detached 13 3 (1 rotating in the other 3 PAs) R Motorized mobile units 4 boats. 1 pickup 4x4 2 4x4 pickups 1 motorcycle + 2 boats l a

c Radios 4 radios 1 7 1 o L

Annual Budget 2000 $26,000 (GoP, Gov. Holland) $30,000 (GoP, KfW) $60,000(GoP, KfW, DCR (c)) $4,600 (GoP) t n e m e g a n a M s t Property Registry (a) Yes Yes Partial In progress Yes n e Zoning No No Yes (2001) Yes (1990) Yes (2001) m u

r Master Plans No No Yes (2001) Yes (1990) Yes (2001) t s

n Visitors Plan No No No No No I

t

n Natural Resources e Management Plan No No No No No m e

g Other Plans No No No Tourist plan (1996) a

n a M n

o Management Committee Established, Established, No, members identified No, a proposal is waiting Ok Yes (1999) i t

a awaiting OK from awaiting OK awaiting OK from Lima from Lima. p i

c Lima from Lima i t r

a Other committees (b) 13 Community Vicuña 59 Community Committee Hydro-biology producers’ committee P

l Management Committees Natural Pastures a c o L

Research, training, dissemination, Reforestation, alpaca and Research, training, planning, Research, natural resources Complementary and natural resources management vicuña management programs dissemination, tourist management by 1 NGO, 1 bilateral Conservation by 16 NGOs (3 international and 13 by 5 national NGOs, 1 management by 6 NGOs (2 program, and 1 local producers’ Activities national) and 4 bilateral bilateral program and 1 international) and 2 bilateral association. coordination programs with government-community programs. - 96 -

Bolivia’s National Park Maididi. program. (a) Inscription of the NPA in the public real state property registry (b) Local population committees (or related) promoted by NPA authorities (c) Directly collected revenues (NPA entry fees) - 97 -

V Summary of identified problems and objectives

1. Identified Problems

Identified problems in the administration and conservation of the PA are presented in summary form in Matrix 5. Problems were identified using information in sections II through IV of this Annex (Annex 7), and are presented as threats to biodiversity conservation in the Protected Areas.

Root causes for the existence of problems were then identified, using information in the referred sections of this annex. The purpose of the identification of the root causes was to design project activities that attack the root causes instead of the symptoms of the problems. Identified problems and root causes could also have been presented in a problem tree form, which gives a much more visual cause-and-effect relationship between problems and their causes.

2. Project objectives and activities

Project objectives were defined, responding to the identified problems and the elimination of their root causes. The logic here was to focus on the problems and ask what outputs we need the project to deliver so that the problem is eliminated (or the objective of the project is achieved). Once the needed outputs were defined, we asked what activities the project should finance so that the outputs can be produced.

This way of presenting activities (to produce outputs) and outputs (intended to result in the achievement of the objective) gave us a straightforward way of developing the log frame from the project description. Additionally, it presented us with a good starting point to identify the performance indicators to monitor the project.

97 - 98 -

Matrix 5. Major Threats to Conservation of Biodiversity in Protected Areas Proposed for the PMPA Project Protected Threats Sources Underlying Causes/Constraints Possible Project-Supported Activities to Address Threats Area Huascarán grassland degradation/ overgrazing unclear land tenure clarification of tenure NP bush fires illegal occupation lax enforcement of existing PA regulations domestic and wild camelid management in buffer zones within PA unknown carrying limits wild resources management and/or rearing in buffer insufficient PA financial sources zones clarification of mining rights water contamination mining rights and weak GOP sectoral coordination promotion of mining cooperatives – introduction of low- operations insufficient PA financial sources for impact processing technologies enforcement awareness program implementation of tourism management plan land degradation/ solid heavy and poorly failure to implement existing tourism waste planned tourist management plan construction of necessary support infrastructure use insufficient or inadequate infrastructure support study of tourism carrying capacity unknown tourism carrying capacity implementation of controls and patrolling wild fauna population illegal hunting insufficient PA financial sources for decreasing enforcement Tambopata- water contamination and gold mining poor knowledge of better environmental clarification of mining rights, promotion of mining Candamo loss of plant cover activities approaches cooperatives NR lack of respect for PA from other public sectors introduction of low-impact processing technologies poor coordination between GO institutions, awareness program enterprises, INRENA indigenous and peasantssettlements follow loss of biodiversity deforestation “traditional markets” information for productive decisions illegal hunting ignorance of regulations reforestation with rapid-growth trees bush fires low-income agricultural practices research for productive activities with wild resources poor knowledge of resource potential for development of agrotourism/ nature tourism. productive opportunities research for productive activities with aquatic resources in buffer zones

Bahuaja- loss of biodiversity - deforestation indigenous and peasant settlements follow development of agrotourism/nature tourism-research for Sonene NP - illegal hunting “traditional markets” / ignorance of regulations / productive activities with aquatic resources in buffer - bush fires low-income agricultural practices / poor zones knowledge of resource potential for productive opportunities water contamination mining poor knowledge of better environmental introduction of low-impact processing technologies approaches awareness program lack of respect for PA from other public sectors / poor coordination between GO institutions, enterprises, INRENA / insufficient PA financial sources for enforcement Salinas/ soil and vegetation overgrazing poor knowledge of resource potential for information for productive decisions on grassland Aguada degradation / bush fires / confused land productive opportunities management Blanca NR introduction of exotic tenure lack of respect for PA from other public sectors research for productive activities with wild resources / grasses poorly-planned domestic camelid use / wild camelids management economic development of agrotourism/ nature tourism development research for productive activities with aquatic resources in buffer zones insufficient PA financial sources implementation of controls and patrolling heavy loss of vicuña illegal hunting poor population unaware of collection limits / wild resources management and/or rearing - 99 -

populations poor knowledge of resource potential for management of wild vicuña loss of animal species productive opportunities management of domestic alpaca unclear NR status in local populations lack of respect for PA from other public sectors awareness program water use interference / power generation water management program contamination activities inside clarification of mining rights PA territory introduction of low-impact processing technologies mining activities implementation of controls and patrolling

Manglares overexploitation of increasing non-enforcement of existing regulations increase of nature and sport tourism activities de Tumbes marine resources and population poor population unaware of collection limits management of marine resources ( NS mangroves poor knowledge poor knowledge of resource potential for fishes) in buffer zones of resource productive opportunities potential for productive opportunities non-enforcement of existing regulations mangrove conversion shrimp/tilapia insufficient PA financial sources implementation of existing mangrove management plan / farms inside and public awareness surrounding PA

Load more

  62

Copy Link