Project Document

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF LATIN AMERICA (CAF)

PROJECT DOCUMENT

FOR A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND OF USD 10.1 MILLION

TO THE

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER OF BOLIVIA

FOR THE PROJECT

AMAZON SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE APPROACH IN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS AND STRATEGIC ECOSYSTEMS OF BOLIVIA (INTEGRATED PROJECT AS PART OF THE AMAZON SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES 2 SFM IMPACT PROGRAM)

Revised 19 April 2021

EQUIVALENT VALUE (Official exchange rate as at 2 March 2020; source: BCB) 6.86 bolivianos (BOB) = 1 US dollar (USD) FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASL Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Pilot Program – Programa Piloto de Impacto Territorios Sostenibles Amazónicos (GEF-6) ASL2 Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program, Phase II – Programa de Impacto Territorios Sostenibles Amazónicos, Fase II (GEF-7) BCB Banco Central de Bolivia – Central Bank of Bolivia BOB Bolivian, currency – Boliviano, moneda C Carbon – Carbono

CO2 Carbon dioxide – dióxido de carbono CAF Development Bank of Latin America – Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina; Corporación Andina de Fomento CIPOAP Association of Indigenous Amazonian Peoples of Pando – Central Indígena de Pueblos Originarios Amazónicos de Pando CNAMIB National Confederation of Indigenous Women of Bolivia – Confederación Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas de Bolivia

CO2 Carbon dioxide – Dióxido de carbono CBO/OCB community-based organisation – organización comunitaria de base DGBAP General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas – Dirección General de Biodiversidad y Áreas Protegidas EBB Beni Biological Station Biosphere Reserve – Estación Biológica del Beni ECLAC/CEPAL Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean – Comisión Económica para Latina América y el Caribe EGEM Management Status and Effectiveness (Tool) – (Herramienta de) Estado de la Gestión y Efectividad de Manejo ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation – Patrón de Circulación del Pacífico Sur EOP End of project – Fin de proyecto FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation – Organización para la Agricultura y la Alimentación de las Naciones Unidas

GAD Departamental Autonomous Government – Gobierno Autónomo Departamental GAM Autonomous Municipal Government – Gobierno Autónomo Municipal GDP/PIB Gross Domestic Product – Producto Interno Bruto GEB Global environment benefits – Beneficios para el medio ambiente mundial GEF/FMAM Global Environment Facility – Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial GEFTF Global Environment Facility Trust Fund – Fideicomiso del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial GFW Global Forest Watch (Hansen et al., 2013) ha hectare – hectárea INE National Institute of Statistics – Instituto Nacional de Estadística INRA Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria – National Agrarian Reform Institute IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático IWRM/GIRH Integrated Water Resources Management – Gestión Integral de Recursos Hídricos km2 Square kilometre/s – Kilómetro /s cuadrado/s km3 Cubic kilometre/s – Kilómetro/s cúbico/s M&E Monitoring and Evaluation – Monitoreo y Evaluación MDG/ODM Millennium Development Goals – Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio MDRyT Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras – Ministry of Rural Development and Land Tenure MMAYA Ministry of Environment and Water – Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua MPD Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo – Ministry of Development Planning NDC Nationally Determined Contribution – Contribución Nacionalmente Determinada NGO/ONG Non-Governmental Organisation – Organización No Gubernamental OECD/OCDE Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo OTB Territorial Basic Organisation – Organización Territorial de Base PA Protected Area – Área Protegida Pg Petagram/s – Petagramo/s PIF Project Identification Form – Ficha de Identificación de Proyecto; GEF

PMU/UGP Project Management Unit – Unidad de Gestión del Proyecto PNM Madidi National Park – Parque Nacional Madidi PNNKM Noel Kempff Mercado National Park – Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado POA Annual Work Plan – Plan Operativo Anual ProDoc Project Document – Documento de Proyecto PSC/CDP Comité Directivo del Proyecto – Project Steering Committee PSD-SB Basic Sanitation Sector Development Plan 2016-2020 (Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo de Saneamiento Basico 2016-2020) PY Project year – año de proyecto RAISG Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socioenvironmental Information – Red Amazónica de Información Socioambiental Georreferenciada RIOCC Iberoamerican Network on Climate Change – Red Iberoamericana de Cambio Climático RNAM Manuripi Heat National Amazonic Reserve – Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica Manuripi Heat SDG/ODS Sustainable Development Goals – Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible SERNAP National Protected Area Service – Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas SFM/GFS Sustainable Forest Management – Gestión Forestal Sostenible SLWM/GSTA Sustainable Land and Water Management – Gestión sostenible de la tierra y el agua SNIP National System of Public Investment – Sistema Nacional de Inversión Pública SNAP National System of Protected Areas – Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas SNAP ECOS National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems – Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas y Ecosistemas Estratégicos SRCCL Special Report on Climate Change and Land – Informe Especial sobre Tierras y Cambio Climático (IPCC, 2019) SRES Special Report on Emission Scenarios – Informe Especial sobre escenarios de Emisión (IPCC, 2000) STAR System for Transparent Allocation of Resources – Sistema para la asignación Transparente de Recursos T Tonne (metric system) – Tonelada tbd to be determined – por determinar

TCO Originary Community Land – Tierra Comunitaria de Origen tCO2e tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – toneladas de dióxido de carbono equivalentes TIPNIS Isiboro - Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park – Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro - Sécure TIRBPL Pilón Lajas Indigenous Territory and Biosphere Reserve – Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas ToC Theory of Change – Teoría de cambio UN-E UN Environment, formerly United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) – Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (antes PNUMA) UN/ONU United Nations (Organisation) – Organización de las Naciones Unidas UNFCCC/CMNUCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático USD United States dollar – Dólar de los Estados Unidos de América VMA Deputy Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest Development – Viceministerio de Medio Ambiente, Biodiversidad, Cambios Climáticos y de Gestión de Desarrollo Forestal WASH/APSB Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation – Agua Potable y Saneamiento Básico WB/BM World Bank – Banco Mundial WWF World Wide Fund For Nature – Fondo Mundial para la Vida Silvestre

Contents DATA SHEET ...... 9 1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND BASELINE ...... 10 1.1. Country and Sectoral Context ...... 10 (a) Expansion of land use and unsustainable practices in the agricultural, livestock, mining sectors sensu lato (incl. oil & gas) ...... 16 (b) Illegal activities ...... 17 (c) Infrastructure ...... 19 (d) Climate Change ...... 20 1.2. Rationale for CAF participation and competitive advantage ...... 23 1.3. Consistency with policies and priorities (national, GEF, SDGs, Aichi) ...... 25 1.4. Stakeholders ...... 26 1.5. Baseline ...... 42 (a) Madidi Integrated Management Natural Area and National Park ...... 49 (b) Noel Kempff Mercado National Park...... 50 (c) Beni Biological Station Biosphere Reserve (Estación Biológica del Beni – EBB) 51 (d) Manuripi Amazon National Wildlife Reserve ...... 52 (e) Isiboro - Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro - Sécure – TIPNIS) ...... 53 (f) Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Communal Lands ...... 54 (g) Subnational protected area Bruno Racua Wildlife Reserve ...... 54 (h) Río Yata RAMSAR site...... 55 (i) Río Matos RAMSAR site ...... 56 (j) Río Blanco RAMSAR site ...... 57 (k) CIPOAP territories ...... 57 2. PROJECT FRAMEWORK AND EXPECTED RESULTS...... 62 2.1. Barrier analysis, theory of change, strategic rationality and scope ...... 62 Theory of change ...... 62 2.2. Objectives, expected results and key indicators ...... 67 Key indicators ...... 69 (a) Core Indicator 1: Terrestrial protected areas created or under improved management for conservation and sustainable use ...... 71 (b) Core Indicator 4: Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares; excluding protected areas) ...... 71 (c) Core Indicator 6: Greenhouse gas emission mitigated ...... 72 (d) Core Indicator 11: Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co- benefit of GEF investment ...... 72 2.3. Components, products and schedule ...... 73 Chronogram ...... 78 2.4. Co-financing projects ...... 78 2.5. Global environmental benefits and incremental reasoning ...... 83 3. IMPLEMENTATION ...... 85

3.1. Financing instrument and associated conditions ...... 85 3.2. Institutional arrangements ...... 86 3.3. Implementation arrangements ...... 87 3.4. Monitoring, reports and evaluation ...... 89 3.5. Dissemination of results and visibility ...... 91 3.6. Risks and mitigation measures ...... 91 3.7. Safeguards ...... 91 4. SUMMARY OF THE EX ANTE EVALUATION ...... 98 4.1. Economic, financial and fiduciary analysis ...... 98 4.2. Learning from past experience ...... 99 4.3. Social analysis and stakeholder participation ...... 99 Beneficiaries ...... 100 4.4. Environmental impact ...... 102 4.5. Gender analysis ...... 103 4.6. Innovation ...... 105 4.7. Sustainability and replicability ...... 105 References APPENDICES Appendix 1. Forest Cover Loss Maps Appendix 2. Logical and Results Framework Appendix 3. Detailed Budget & Disbursement Schedule Appendix 4. Co-financing Letters Appendix 5. Incremental Cost Matrix Appendix 6. Public Consultation Process & Stakeholder Engagement Plan, with Special Attention to Indigenous Peoples Appendix 7. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Plan Appendix 8. Key Terms of Reference Appendix 9. Gender Evaluation & Action Plan with a Gender Approach Appendix 10. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures Appendix 11. Environmental and Social Management Framework Appendix 12. Letters of Endorsement (OFP, Executing Agency)

Tables Table 1. Project Stakeholders ...... 29 Table 2. Project sites...... 48 Table 3. Demographic detail, CIPOAP ...... 58 Table 4. Demographic summary, project sites...... 59 Table 5. Tree cover loss on previous year (2009-2018, ha; baseline) ...... 59 Table 6. Threats, Management Objectives and Key Indicators (%) ...... 60 Table 7. Barrier analysis ...... 63 Table 8. Tree cover loss on previous year (ha; GEF alternative) ...... 70 Table 9. Co-financing summary ...... 78 Table 10. Project chronogram ...... 80 Table 11. Financial indicators, GEB ...... 84 Table 12. Project Summary Budget ...... 86 Table 13. Major risk analysis ...... 93 Table 14. Project beneficiaries (by audience) ...... 100

Figures Figure 1: Annual Tree Cover Loss in Amazon Countries 2001-2018 ...... 13 Figure 2: Annual Tree Cover Loss in Bolivian departments 2001-2018 ...... 13 Figure 3: Annual Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon with the Main Influencing Events ...... 14 Figure 4: Total burn-scar, 2019 season (in Spanish) ...... 22 Figure 5: SERNAP, funding categories 2011-2019 (& est. through to 2021), current USD ...... 43 Figure 6: Six protected areas, budget & funding allocation 2020 (current USD) ...... 44 Figure 7: Deforestation in eleven sites in the Bolivian Amazon 2009-2018 (%) ...... 46 Figure 8: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Madidi (ha) ...... 50 Figure 9: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Noel Kempff (ha) ...... 51 Figure 10: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 EBB (ha) ...... 52 Figure 11: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Manuripi (ha) ...... 53 Figure 12: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 TIPNIS (ha) ...... 54 Figure 13: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Pilón Lajas (ha) ...... 54 Figure 14: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Bruno Racua (ha) ...... 55 Figure 15: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Río Yata RAMSAR site (ha) ...... 56 Figure 16: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Río Matos RAMSAR site (ha) ...... 56 Figure 17: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Río Blanco RAMSAR site (ha) ...... 57 Figure 18: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 CIPOAP territories (ha)...... 58 Figure 19: Threats, Management Objectives and Key Indicators ...... 61 Figure 20: Design METT Scores at inception, midterm and completion, project sites ...... 70 Figure 21. Project organigram ...... 90

DATA SHEET Country/countries: Bolivia Project Title: Enfoque Territorial Sostenible Amazónico en el Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas y Ecosistemas Estratégicos de Bolivia – Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia (Integrated project as part of the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes 2 SFM Impact Program) GEF Project ID: 10295 CAF Project ID: CAF/GEF 005 Implementing Agency: Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) Executing Agency: MMAYA (Ministry of Environment and Water) Co-executing Agency/Agencies: SERNAP (National Protected Area Service) GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity GEF Strategic Objective(s): BD STAR - IP SFM ASL CAF Priority Environment and Climate Change Duration 48 months Estimated start date January 2021 Estimated completion date December 2024

[The figures in this document use the Decimal Metric System and the full stop (.) as a decimal separator unless otherwise indicated. Blank space (000 000) is used to separate thousands unless otherwise indicated]

Financing Plan (USD) USD % GEF Allocation: GEFTF 10 056 189 20.77 Co-financing: Governments (in kind) 25 858 551 Governments (cash) 1 891 602 CAF (loan) 10 561 105 CAF (donation) 60 000 Subtotal co-financing: 38 371 258 79.23

Total Project Budget 48 427 447 100.00

Estimated Disbursements (USD million) PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 Total

Annual 1.71 2.42 3.75 2.18 10.06

Cumulative 1.71 4.13 7.88 10.06 10.06

1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND BASELINE 1.1. Country and Sectoral Context 1. The loss of biodiversity is a critical problem. Protected area systems continue to be the main mechanism for combating this, both in terms of species and ecosystems. Bolivia aims to ensure the conservation of the Amazon through an improved National System of Protected Areas (SNAP)1 and better management of strategic ecosystems outside protected areas through the SNAP Strategic Ecosystems Program (SNAP ECOS)2. 2. The Amazon rainforest is an important component of the biosphere and a global public good, benefiting the international community by providing a set of ecosystem services. It hosts up to a quarter of terrestrial species, and about 15% of the world's terrestrial photosynthesis takes place here. It is an important carbon reservoir and sink and has a bearing on atmospheric circulation and precipitation throughout South America. However, the Amazon rainforest is also one of the most threatened environments in the world, with deforestation the most immediate problem, due mainly due to agricultural expansion. Since 1970, around 15% of the Amazon rainforest - an area larger than France - has been lost, and it is expected that deforestation will continue despite efforts to control it (Siikamäki, Krupnick, Strand, & Vincent, 2019). The Amazon is the largest hydrological and jungle system in the world (WWF, 2016), with 6.7 million km2 of forest and one million km2 of riparian ecosystems. On other account, the Amazon basin is anyway the largest in the world at 6.118 million km2, constituting 44% of South America.3 It is spread over eight countries (Brazil 59%, Peru 11%, Colombia 8%, Venezuela 7%, Bolivia 6%, Guyana 4%, Surinam 2% and Ecuador 2%), as well as the overseas territory of French Guyana (1%). The Amazon hosts several ecosystems (jungle, savanna, river, wetland) with exceptional and largely unknown biodiversity. The population of the Amazon is estimated at 34 million people and includes more than 350 indigenous groups. The region has 2.1 million km2 of protected areas and approximately 3000 indigenous territories covering more than two million km2. In terms of land use the Amazon is approximately four fifths forest and 4one fifth agriculture and livestock5. Proportionally small areas of other land use include cities6, industry and infrastructure. 3. The conservation of the Amazon is of critical importance at local, regional and global levels. Its biodiversity is a treasure of exceptional wealth, with some 40 000 species of plants, more than 2 500 of freshwater fish, 1300 bird species, 427 mammals, 400 amphibians and 370 known reptile species (WWF, 2018). These include many emblematic endemic and endangered species, such as the jaguar (Panthera onca), the boto or bufeo (Inia geoffrensis) and the paiche, pirarucú or

1 SNAP: National System of Protected Areas (in Spanish). 2 SNAP ECOS: Program for the Integral Management of the SNAP Strategic Ecosystems (in Spanish). 3 ACTO (2018) Strategic Action Program - Regional Strategy for Integrated Water Resources Management in the Amazon Basin. 205pp. 4 The TerraClass project in Brazil mapped land-use changes in Legal Amazonia over the 2004-2014 period. Forest is by far the most important landcover (3,287,928 km2 of the total 3,947,016 km2 in 2004 i.e. 83%, down to about 81% in 2014). 5 “Approximately 22% of the Amazon’s surface is used for agriculture and livestock production.” (ACTO, op.cit.). 6 The main cities in the Amazon are Iquitos in Peru and Manaus, Santarem, and Belem in Brazil, three of them being inhabited by more than 1 million people.

arapaima (Arapaima gigas), and species that have evolved in floodplain environments feeding on fruit and other elements of trees. In addition to its intrinsic and option values, it provides numerous ecosystem services. 4. Regarding carbon sequestration and climate change, the carbon dynamics of tropical ecosystems are still being debated, but regardless, the quantities stored in the forests and soils of the Amazon are enormous. The figures differ, but it is estimated that the aerial carbon of the Amazon forests constitutes 90-140 billion tons of carbon (340-510 billion tons of CO2). The release of that carbon into the atmosphere through deforestation and forest degradation could significantly accelerate climate change. In dynamic terms, top-down atmospheric approaches suggest a role as a sink (Pan et al., 2011), which makes the conservation of these forests an important tool for tackling climate change. However, ecological approaches imply that as a result of accelerated deforestation and reduced tree density, tropical forests in the Americas, including the Amazon, could be acting as a source rather than a sink, releasing 325 ± 73 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year (Baccini et al., 2017). 5. Amazonian forests also contribute to regulating the local and regional climate. The Amazon strongly influences water cycles and the movement of air masses. Its evapotranspiration is key in hydrological cycles and regional climatic patterns. Amazonian ecosystems return approximately 9 600 km3 of rainwater to the atmosphere per year. They play an active role in precipitation patterns, from the formation of raindrops (Pöhlker et al., 2012) to triggering the rainy season and regulating its patterns, and even influencing the patterns of winds coming off the Atlantic Ocean (Wright et al., 2017). Between 30 - 50% of the precipitation over the Amazon basin is recycled evaporation, and part of that water vapor is transported by winds to other parts of the continent where its role in feeding seasonal rains in distant places is significant - for example in the River Plate and the Argentine Pampa (Wolosin & Harris, 2018); (Marengo & Souza, 2018). In addition to its role in biodiversity conservation, carbon storage and climate regulation, the complex biogeographic interactions of the Amazon provide numerous ecosystem services. These include: a) provision of raw materials (wood, medicines), food (fruits, fish7) and fresh water; b) regulation of the hydrological and biogeochemical cycles, providing energy and contributing to the deposition of sediments in the floodplains; c) as the basis of cultural practices and d) support. The extensive river network also plays an important role as a transport system. 6. At the end of the 15th century, the total number of indigenous inhabitants in the Amazon was an estimated six million8. Today there are 390 indigenous peoples and 66 in voluntary isolation, making up more than 2.5 million indigenous people with a unique and different relationship to the land9 and worldview. The forests and waters of the Amazon have provided the basis for the development of local knowledge and practices facilitating habitation by indigenous peoples for

7 In 1998, annual fish production was estimated at 425 000 tons in the Amazon (Bayley, 1998 cited in Castello et al., 2013). 8 Amazon Aid website: https://amazonaid.org/indigenous-people/ 9 Declaration of Quito - Indigenous peoples of the Amazon basin in defence of their rights and their lands for a full life and their contribution to address global climate change (2018) (http://coica.org.ec/declaracion-de-quito-pueblos-indigenas-de-la-cuenca-amazonica-en-defensa-de- sus-derechos-y-sus-territorios-para-la-vida-plena-y-su-aporte-para-enfrentar-el-cambio-climatico- global/).

centuries. This knowledge has intrinsic value and is also useful for identifying species useful for medicine and in other areas, and can contribute to the conservation of forests and aquatic ecosystems. For example, the Tsimane people of Bolivia use 47 different species with 20% of the plants consumed for medicinal uses (Reyes García, Huanca, Vadez, Leonard, & Wilkie, 2006). Although the ecosystem services provided by the Amazon are extremely important, their economic valuation is poor. The Amazon contributes around USD 8.2 billion to Brazilian GDP (Strand et al., 2018). Of this, three billion comes from private forests and three billion from protected areas (strict protection, areas of sustainable use and indigenous lands). Another USD 1.9 billion comes from undesignated forest areas. The change in land use can affect agricultural production due to its impact on the decline in rainfall, for which losses of USD 422 million per year have been estimated, equivalent to 35% of the net profit of the soybean industry in the state of Mato Grosso, the state with the highest production. In Peru, tourism has generated around 82 million soles (USD 24.55 million) in 18 protected areas over 8 years. Fishing for migratory species is the source of more than two thirds of the protein consumed by Amazonian riverine communities. Willingness to pay studies show the widespread value attached to the Amazon and its components (Siikamäki et al., 2019). The sustainable management of these forests would preserve their biodiversity and ecological processes and also ensure the high productivity of agricultural activity. 7. The Amazon rainforest and aquatic ecosystems, together with the ecosystem services they provide, are at risk of decline and deterioration. Trends for forest loss continue or see further increases (see Figure1). In Brazil, after 10 years of successful efforts to curb deforestation the trend has again become upward over the past four years10 (see Box 1; Soares-Filho & Rajão, 2018). Similarly, IDEAM (the Colombian Institute of Environmental Studies) estimated through its forest and carbon monitoring system a loss of 6.7 million hectares (ha) between 1990 and 2017, the worst year being 2017 with 219 973 ha lost (23% more than in 2016). In Bolivia, the Ministry of Environment and Water estimates a loss of 554 232 ha between 2016 and 2017 (see Figure 2). Forest degradation is another important challenge, due to the difficulty of defining and monitoring it.

10 The reference http://www.ccst.inpe.br/inpe-registra-6-947-km2-de-desmatamento-na-amazonia-em- 2017/ is no longer available on the INPE website (search date: 23-08-19).

Figure1: Annual Tree Cover Loss in Amazon Countries 2001-2018 6.000.000

5.000.000

4.000.000

3.000.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Brazil Bolivia Colombia Peru Venezuela Ecuador Guyana Suriname French Guiana

For technical reasons, full stop is used to separate thousands in this figure. Source: Hansen et al., 2013

Figure 2: Annual Tree Cover Loss in Bolivian departments 2001-2018 500.000 5.000.000

450.000 4.500.000

400.000 4.000.000

350.000 3.500.000

300.000 3.000.000

250.000 2.500.000

200.000 2.000.000

150.000 1.500.000

100.000 1.000.000

50.000 500.000

0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Santa Cruz El Beni La Paz Cochabamba Pando Tarija Chuquisaca For technical reasons, full stop is used to separate thousands in this figure. Source: Hansen et al., 2013

Box 1: Deforestation Trends in the Brazilian Amazon Brazil reversed the increasing trends of deforestation with a reduction of 84% between 2004 and 2012 (see Figure 2). It did so through the expansion of protected area by 60%, with much of it established as a green barrier in regions of land use conflict; recognition of indigenous lands; land titling and federal land allocation (Terra Legal Program); satellite monitoring and strengthening of oversight; sanctions and closures to reduce illegal cuts, driven by IBAMA; the prosecution of counterfeit environmental licenses and improvement of oversight to ensure that the meat industry excludes illegal deforesters from its supply chain, banning access to credit for rural owners in the municipalities on the so-called “black list” due to high deforestation rates, made public in 2007; a moratorium on soybean cultivation in recently deforested land; and, recently, the enforceability of the rural environmental registry (CAR) included in the Forest Code. In general, environmental regulations were strengthened and environmental damage was designated a crime. Figure 3: Annual Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon with the Main Influencing Events

Key: data from the official monitoring program (PRODES), 2000-2017 with positive events in green and negative in red. PPCDAm is the Portuguese acronym for the action plan for the oversight and prevention of deforestation in the legal Amazon.

8. Deforestation leads to a dramatic loss of biodiversity. For example, a recent study (ter Steege et al., 2015) links prevailing deforestation rates with the existence of red list threat criteria (IUCN, 2019) for 36-57% of Amazon tree species. Loss can occur directly, through the unsustainable extraction of valuable resources, but also indirectly through the reduction of habitat of terrestrial and aquatic species, and through the degradation of forests. The ability of forests and other habitats to sustain biodiversity depends on their size, quality and connectivity (see graph of deforestation and forest degradation; Haddad et al., 2015), as well as their response to climate change and invasive species. 9. More than half of the Amazon is designated as protected area or indigenous land (WWF, 2016), although certain forest types and aquatic ecosystems are underrepresented and there are ecological connectivity problems. Although the designated areas have lower deforestation rates than the rest of the territory, these are not insignificant, with 80% of the protected areas and 95% of the indigenous lands affected by some combination of roads, oil and gas, mining, energy, fires and deforestation (RAISG, 2012). The 2018 update of the RAISG report shows 36 million hectares

of indigenous lands and 22 million hectares of protected areas overlapping mining concession areas; 4.8 million hectares of indigenous territories and 5.5 million hectares of deforested protected areas; and 16 900 km and 9 100 km respectively of roads in indigenous territories and protected areas. 10. Another consequence of deforestation and forest degradation is the release of carbon into the atmosphere. Gross carbon emissions from deforestation in the Amazon basin (aerial and soil biomass) have been calculated at 666 ± 269 million tons of CO2 equivalent annually (0.18 ± 0.07 Pg C) for the period 2000-2010 (Song , Huang, Saatchi, Hansen, & Townshend, 2015). The situation may be reaching a breaking point (Nepstad, Stickler, Soares-Filho, & Merry, 2008). 11. The contamination of the fresh waters of the Amazon system is another growing problem. Mercury used in gold alluvial mining is the main pollutant of water, soil, sediments and air11, and it is estimated that small-scale artisanal mining (MAPE) produces 71% of the more than 200 tons of mercury emissions per year. In Guyana, (WWF, 2018) it is estimated that MAPE-related emissions have already contaminated 6000 km of water bodies (the water of Paramaribo in Suriname contains high levels of mercury although it is far from mining activity). Another problem is oil spills. For example, in 2016, 3000 barrels of oil were spilled in the Peruvian part of the Marañón river, following another spill in the region in 2014. Meanwhile Texaco/Chevron projects in Ecuador spilled oil for almost 30 years, including in Yasuni National Park (Azevedo-Santos et al., 2016). Other sources of water pollution can be found in the agricultural industry (pesticides and other agrochemicals), and turbidity can be caused by activities including earth moving and domestic and industrial effluents. Water pollution impacts aquatic biodiversity and public health, regardless of borders. 12. The Amazon is experiencing a warming process estimated at 0.6-0.7 °C mean annual temperature, and projections show an increase of 4° C and a 40% fall in precipitation by the end of the 21st century. The data already show an increase in the number of droughts and the length of the dry season (Marengo & Souza, 2018), which is directly related to the intensity and frequency of fires. This increases the degradation and fragmentation of forests and with time could make their existence unfeasible (Lovejoy & Nobre, 2018). 13. Deforestation and forest degradation along with water pollution have significant consequences in terms of loss of biodiversity, climate change and the supply of fresh water in the Amazon and South America. Given that 80% of the Amazon is still forest, it is here that efforts should be concentrated. Furthermore, as half of the Amazon is under some form of legal protection, that protection must be reinforced against anthropogenic and climatic risks. Better territorial planning and sustainable management are necessary across the whole of the territory to avoid the loss of forest (zero net deforestation, ZND) and provide livelihoods for indigenous peoples and local communities. Both lines of action will improve the resilience of the Amazon environment, reducing the risk of reaching a catastrophic tipping point. 14. Root causes of deforestation and forest degradation in the Amazon. The global environmental problem described above is the global environmental problem addressed in this

11 ACTO (2018) Strategic Action Program - Regional Strategy for Integrated Water Resources Management in the Amazon Basin. 205pp.

project. The causal chain of the project is organized based on the following root causes, or drivers12: a) Expansion of land use and unsustainable practices in the agricultural and livestock sectors and mining, in the broadest sense (including the oil/gas industry); b) Illegal activities (land occupation, wood, gold, illicit crops, fauna); c) Infrastructure (roads and hydroelectricity); d) Events related to climate change (extreme weather events, fires). These root causes are found to different degrees in the countries that share the Amazon and are exacerbated or attenuated in each country, creating different obstacles which are analyzed below. (a) Expansion of land use and unsustainable practices in the agricultural, livestock, mining sectors sensu lato (incl. oil & gas) 15. Farming. Illegal logging followed by expansion of the agricultural frontier is the principal change in land use associated with deforestation in the Amazon and other tropical rainforests in the world. The clearing of pastures for raising cattle occurs in areas where mature forests have been previously degraded by the “cherry-picking" of precious woods, or cleared by initially itinerant small-scale farmers. Extensive livestock farming continues to be an immediate cause of significant deforestation, even deprived of the policies that promoted it. Due to the growing demand for soy protein for human and animal consumption, extensive livestock farming is shifting towards the agricultural frontier, away from the productive land, thus contributing to deforestation. The effect of this displacement is intensified by the price difference between the initial land and the prospective agricultural land. Deforestation caused by extensive livestock farming in the whole of the Amazon is responsible for the release of some 340 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually, according to WWF, equivalent to about 3.4% of current global emissions. “Cherry-picking” trees for cutting and extensive pastures also increase fire risk and are an immediate cause of degradation of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, causing soil erosion, the clogging of channels and eutrophication. Illegal crops such as coca present added ecological and health risks and are an immediate cause of deforestation and chemical contamination in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia. 16. Amazonian countries face the great challenge of managing these complex sources of pressure to turn forests into agricultural land in the Amazon. Land use models (IPCC, 2019) indicate that deforestation decreases the Amazon’s role as a carbon sink and triggers reductions in precipitation, with negative effects on the productivity of pastures and soybean crops. The reduction would be 30-34% in 2050 in two analysed scenarios – governance implementing environmental laws and “business as usual”, where difficulties to reduce conversion rates and create protected areas continue as before. In the case of soybeans, the negative impact of rising temperatures on agricultural performance would be 24% and 28% under those same scenarios. This study estimates a reduction of up to 65% for aerial biomass between 2040 and 2060 as a result of forest conversion and negative feedback on the primary productivity of the ecosystem. 17. Livestock Farming Around 83% of the expansion of the Brazilian livestock population - from 147 million head in 1990 to about 200 million head in 2007, took place in the Amazon. In Brazil, although the most important region of livestock production in terms of volume and scale is still the central western region, there is a clear migration of the livestock population to the northern states,

12 The current version of the RAISG study is available at https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/maps/#!/pressure

as former livestock lands are used for soy, corn and other crops. Similar regional trends are taking place in other countries of the region, with the logical idiosyncratic and short-term differences. The relationship between livestock farming and deforestation has been the subject of debate for decades. Over the last 25 years, livestock farming has become a greater immediate cause of deforestation in large areas of the Amazon due to the lack of viable alternatives (agriculture, forest management, agroforestry) and the extractive, productive and fiscal mechanisms necessary to generate economic value. Livestock farming in the Amazon has a specific set of characteristics where land markets, the indirect benefits of production, macroeconomic context and the decisions of economic agents act against public policies promoting efficiency and law enforcement in the value chain. More recently, in the context of the “land sparing/land sharing” debate (Perfect & Vandermeer, 2012; Kull et al., 2013), the intensification of livestock production was considered an important strategy to reduce deforestation at the agricultural frontier and to free agricultural land for the production of soybeans and other grains. This strategy however does not resolve the difference in the profitability and net present value of extensive livestock farming when access to land is through occupancy, and as such the policies that encourage intensification (concessional loans for pasture restoration, technical assistance for grassland management, improvements in productive efficiency) can be counterproductive if they do not come with technical support and institutional strengthening in terms of land tenure and protection, discouraging speculation and improving traceability and responsible production. 18. Mining (sensu lato, v.g. Including Oil and Gas). The importance of extractive industries as an immediate cause of deforestation, GHG emissions and threats to the rights of local communities has been increasing in the world's tropical forests, including the Amazon. Extractive industries and infrastructure trigger feedback cycles, enabling immigration and agricultural expansion in forest areas. (b) Illegal activities 19. Land Occupation There are various definitions generally used for the large-scale acquisition of land for commercial or industrial purposes (agricultural or biofuel production, mining and timber concessions, tourism development) without adequate access and procedures for safeguarding environmental rights and impacts. In those cases, the occupation processes are a mix of legal and vitiated/illegal procedures: Most of the transactions are carried out on a legal basis using legal structures and procedures, but incorrectly applied. These methods are not common in the Amazon. Here the occupation process is mainly illegal and concentrated in public areas. It comes with a high social and environmental cost and has been an ongoing threat, generating conflict and undermining efforts to establish land use planning initiatives for a sustainable development environment. There are no figures to illustrate the magnitude of the problem due to the difficulty of gathering information on illegal activities. Official Brazilian estimates for 1999 put the number at 211 821 km2 for the 100% Amazon states. In 2006, another estimate put the figure at 300 000 km2 for the state of Pará alone, approximately a quarter part of these same states. Due to the mismanagement of land supply and demand, this threat is present throughout the agricultural frontier. It is caused by a vicious cycle that includes corruption and weak governance and results in criminals taking possession of lands belonging to the public or local communities and replacing forests with pastures, and in farmers migrating to these regions in search of large tracts of cheap land. The conversion of forests into less productive grasslands usually begins with the illegal

“cherry-picking” extraction of precious wood. It continues with the irregular division and sale of land at high prices which very often finances the cost of startup agricultural/cattle production. Throughout the Amazon there is poor governance of land tenure, caused by multiple factors such as the lack of public land management; land registers that are outdated and/or missing spatial information; different land registers for public and private land; and regularisation and territorial planning processes that are incompatible with demand and inconsistent across different levels (local, regional, national). 20. Illegal Logging Illegal logging is a significant factor leading directly to forest degradation and indirectly to deforestation. The spatially diffuse “cherry-picking" of precious woods is one of the first processes leading to the change of land use. This selective cutting adopts logging practices such as clearing for forest roads and stockpiles, and has a high impact on the remaining forest, creating conditions for the depletion process to begin with the destruction of lower strata that increases vulnerability to fires and invasive species After a few years, this process ends in the complete conversion of land use, particularly towards low productivity livestock. Sourcing wood this way destroys ecosystems, damages local communities and distorts trade. It takes place due to the high demand for wood, lack of the rule of law, difficulties in forest surveillance and poorly implemented trade regulations in national and world markets. Illegal logging is the biggest barrier to establishing a sustainable forest management value chain that contributes to the improvement of local living conditions and environmental objectives. 21. To illustrate the challenge, a 1 503 km2 area of felled trees was detected in the Brazilian state of Pará between August 2015 and July 2016, of which 44% were illegally cut in private areas (81%) and public or unallocated lands, representing a 62% reduction in illegal cuts compared to 2011-12. For the state of Mato Grosso, an estimated 1 956 km2 (41%) of felling was illegal, 66% carried out on private land and 24% on unallocated land. In Colombia it has been estimated that 42% of wood is of illegal origin13, of which 20-40% would come from the Amazon (RAISG, 2012). The improvement of forest and business oversight in the timber value chain has been helping reduce illegality, but current levels remain a significant element in aggravating or impeding legal trade to the degree that makes it economically viable and more attractive than non-forest uses. 22. In response to increased regulatory and oversight pressure, more sophisticated forms of illegal behaviours have appeared. For example, the extraction of precious wood has been carried out using fraudulent permits, which represents a serious and widespread threat of overuse of species key to forest structure. The practice of inflating inventories and the inclusion of less valuable timber species provides legal coverage for the transportation and trading of illegal timber, although in aggregate it is detectable by discrepancies between permit values and national forest inventories. The ability of regulatory agencies to audit the inventories included in the documentation they receive is limited at best. 23. Gold. Illegal mining has increased with gold prices. According to RAISG, there are at least 2312 sites (mostly in Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru, in that order) in 245 mining areas in the Amazon where gold, diamonds and coltan are mined; Three of them are located in Bolivia. Mining is often carried out by small-scale illegal operations, from individual miners to mechanized

13 https://www.eltiempo.com/vida-de-hoy/ecologia/mitad-de-la-madera-en-colombia-es-ilegal_10244945-4 (in Spanish).

equipment. These practices have a cumulative impact due to their use of mercury and the disruption of riverbeds and riverbanks, with serious sanitary and environmental impact and the indirect consequences of national migration, chaotic expansion of human settlements, clearing roads without authorisation and the development of agricultural and livestock activities for local consumption. 24. Illicit Crops. According to the United Nations Office of Narcotics Control (UNODC), in 2016 there were more than 400 km2 of coca plantations in the Amazon. In 2001 it was estimated that 52% of the 145,000 ha of coca plantations in Colombia were located in the Amazon. Since these crops are planted within the forest with illicit access to land ownership, and are easily abandoned, they become an arrowhead for the aforementioned forest degradation and deforestation processes. 25. Wildlife. Beyond the traffic of precious wood, the capture and illegal trafficking of fauna and flora is a significant risk to Amazonian biodiversity. Obstacles to the oversight of this trafficking include remote and poorly controlled borders; small-scale, fluid smuggling operations; corruption; soft legislation which is difficult to apply and is therefore often not applied; poor investigative capacity of public security forces; poor interagency coordination and insufficient international cooperation. As such the risks of lawbreaking are low compared to the benefits. Inconsistencies and differences in legal and administrative treatment between regions and countries spread problems from one country to another instead of preventing their spread. 26. Collaboration between public institutions at all levels has a great potential to improve the overall perception of environmental governance in the Amazon, which is neither positive nor encourages sustainability. This improvement can be beneficial in the fight against the loss of biodiversity. (c) Infrastructure 27. Highways and Rural Roads. There are 96 500 kms of known roads in the Amazon, with plans to increase this significantly in the Peruvian and Bolivian Amazon. Clearing for rolled roads is, spatially, explicitly related to the illegal “cherry-picking" of precious woods, land occupation and illegal mining. As such its planning and implementation should take account of lessons learned and carefully consider their direct and indirect effects. For example, in Brazil provisional administrative limitation areas have been established on a pilot basis, whereby there is a limited suspension period for potentially harmful activities to allow time for a zoning agreement to maintain a balanced landscape mosaic (Laurance et al., 2015). 28. Hydroelectricity. The Amazon is being profusely exploited through dams, in a way that is overlooked and poorly understood and set to continue under current planning cycles (Anderson et al., 2018). A few hundred existing dams have been recorded with about 150 in the pipeline. There is consensus that the effect of ecological fragmentation caused by dams is not well known for at least six of the eight main Andean tributaries, with effects in the connectivity of at least five of eight main courses (Napo, Marañón, Ucayali, Beni and Mamoré). In terms of biodiversity, 671 species of ichthyofauna have been identified. In the Andean headwaters of the Amazon, over 500 meters above sea level, there are large information gaps in this regard. Endemic and/or migratory species are especially threatened by the construction of dams and also by the development (dredging) of waterways, the blocking of rivers and their contamination by mercury and other

pollutants, which put at risk not only their intrinsic value and ecological functionality, but also their economic and nutritional value. As the Andean chain is the main source of sediment in the lower part of the Amazon, disruption of the continuity of the courses can affect the physiography of the river network and the geomorphology of the Amazonian alluvial plains, with unknown effects on the local and global provision of ecosystem services. (d) Climate Change 29. Several of the root causes of deforestation that have been identified are accentuated by climate change. There is recurring evidence (e.g. Meade et al., 1985; Sioli, 1984) of an intricate relationship between vegetation and climate in the Amazon, which has focused discussion on the extent to which deforestation triggers a tipping point that changes the hydroclimatic cycle until the existence of tropical rainforest becomes unfeasible, with the ensuing effects on the circulation of air masses in the South American region. Conversely, climate change is already affecting the Amazon (Esquivel-Muelbert et al., 2019). Without taking into account the multiplicative effects, an increase of 4 °C in the average global temperature would lead the central, southern and eastern Amazon to a savanna type bioclimatic configuration with the consequent impact on the resilience of the forest mass. The combination of this factor with those mentioned above makes the region highly vulnerable to forest degradation, fragmentation, fires and invasive species. 30. The transition from a sink to a source of GHG emissions that this would imply would cause massive increases of GHG, accelerating the process of climate change and its negative socioenvironmental impact. The sequence of extreme weather events (floods in 2009, 2012 and 2014; droughts in 2005, 2010 and 2015-16) and two decades of longer dry seasons may be the first signs of a general shift of the whole system's equilibrium, which may not be reversible. Safeguarding the functions of the Amazon in South America’s hydroclimatic cycle and its agricultural productivity would require the restoration of part of the mass already lost in order to protect the system with regards to the uncertainty concerning the exact turning point. 31. The increasing frequency of fires in the Amazon has been the subject of global public debate, with its steady growth over the past thirty years. Fires change the forest structure in the long term (Silva et al., 2018), increasing the presence of drought-adapted species and drying out the lower layers of the vertical strip, thus increasing its susceptibility to fire. Flammability increases with droughts (Aragão et al., 2018) and the shift in large-scale seasonal variability (warmer dry seasons) caused by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and other atmospheric regional phenomena (Alencar, Asner, Knapp, & Zarin, 2011), while on the side of initiating causes there appears to exist a positive relationship between human activity (forest fragmentation, agricultural activity, human settlements) and burnt area (Souza da Silva et al., 2018). For the last fire season (2019), the total burn-scar for Bolivia, which occurs mainly outside protected areas and indeed outside of the Bolivian Amazon, is shown in Figure 4. New agricultural practices and land management systems and procedures will be required to reduce vulnerability to fire and forest fire occurrence, as part of a wider shift towards sustainability. 32. The most significant external problems for biodiversity and ecological integrity of protected areas are the increase in unsustainable practices in agriculture and livestock farming, conflicts due to rights of land use (land grabbing) and the loss and fragmentation of forests. Threats related to climate variability and change that affect both life systems and species are related primarily to

an increase in floods, droughts, heat and other extreme weather events. Clearly these threats are widespread outside protected areas and also within them, and as such the real solutions will necessarily be systemic. 33. Institutional weakness, which extends to land use planning and sectoral regulation (forestry, agriculture, mining) and also includes the protected areas system, makes planning, governance, monitoring and enforcement problematic. Communities lack opportunities, examples, knowledge and skills for sustainable livelihoods, and revert to unsustainable practices, while protected areas remain institutionally weak with monitoring and enforcement problems. Mercury is used for the amalgamation of gold in a way that is not environmentally friendly and affects riparian species and areas with little known impact. 34. Within this framework, specific factors such as the proximity of roads (Pilón Lajas, Madidi), gold mining (Manuripi, Madidi, Bruno Racua) or indeed remoteness (Noel Kempff, Bruno Racua) mean that planning is theoretical, governance disorderly, monitoring uncertain, and law enforcement limited for forestry, agriculture and mining. This, amid a gold fever atmosphere that brings with it deforestation and habitat fragmentation through land use change, over-exploitation of species and their trafficking, and pollution. Although deforestation reports for protected areas and within AIOC entities (autonomous indigenous farmers) indicate that deforestation levels in both are significantly lower than outside, consistent with broader findings (Porter-bolland et al., 2012), both protected areas and communities need incremental support to strengthen and scale up their capacity for stewardship.

Figure 4: Total burn-scar, 2019 season (in Spanish)

Source: MMAYA

1.2. Rationale for CAF participation and competitive advantage 35. The project objectives are aligned with CAF’s Climate Change Mitigation Programme and CAF’s agenda for Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change under its Integrated Vision for Sustainable Development. CAF plays a key role in climate change abatement in Latin America since 1999, when the Institution established its Latin American Climate Change Programme (PLACC in its Spanish acronym). The activities undertaken by the programme target actions related to the severe problem of climate change phenomena and their impacts. CAF supported the establishment and strengthening of institutions in an effort to integrate both the public and private sectors of the countries in the region into emerging activities that entail Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emission reductions markets through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and within the scope of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As PLACC strengthened its lines of action, CAF positioned itself as a leading regional development bank in the GHG emission reduction market in Latin America. Two high-ranking GHG emission reduction purchase and sale arrangements were articulated by CAF: i) The CAF- Netherlands CDM Facility, accounting for ten million tons of GHG, and ii) the Ibero-American Carbon Initiative between CAF and the Spanish Government, accounting for nine million tons of GHG. 36. Regarding climate change adaptation, and through its Risk Management and Prevention Programme, CAF has attended the prevention, abatement and socio-economic and environmental impacts associated to natural disasters and climate change. The programme targets four working areas: risk management and abatement of El Niño Phenomenon, contingencies derived from natural disasters, risk prevention, and support to countries in the identification of vulnerabilities and climate change adaptation actions. Through the CAF- Netherlands CDM Facility and the Ibero-American Carbon Initiative, CAF promoted CDM projects in the LAC region. Projects, all of them coming from the Latinamerican region, that achieved reductions of 12.1 million tons of CO2 and represented additional revenues in the projects for around EUR 120 million. After the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, CAF made a review of the scope of PLAC and as a result of this review, launched a new programme with a broad approach for Adaptation and Mitigation. 37. This project is also consistent with CAF’s Institutional Gender Equity Guidelines14. CAF promotes the development and safeguarding of gender equity through studies and financing of projects and programmes with the overall objective of closing existing gaps between men and women through enhanced equal access to opportunities and competences. 38. CAF has progressively diversified its portfolio and looks to further do so in Bolivia in sectors directly and indirectly relevant to the objectives of this project: climate change mitigation and adaptation, natural resource management, waste and pollution management, institutional strengthening, and natural disaster response. CAF also manages the Latin American Programme on Climate Change fund, which focuses on mitigation of climate change, adaptation to climate change and carbon markets. Specifically, CAF has been instrumental in the development of policy instruments for the mitigation of greenhouse gases, nationally appropriate mitigation actions

14 Available (in Spanish) at https://www.caf.com/es/actualidad/noticias/2015/11/caf-se-adhiere-a-la- eliminacion-de-la-violencia-contra-la-mujer/?parent=41373.

(NAMA) in the sectors of public transport, municipal solid waste, agriculture, the refrigeration industry, energy efficiency (demand), and in power generation. 39. Consistent with the above, CAF is a strategic partner for the national government of Bolivia to build local, regional and national capacities needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Mitigation of and adaptation to climate variation and change both for impact assessment and for policy development, for low carbon development paths, for increasing resilience to face the effects of global climate change and for the sustainable use of natural resources are key initiatives CAF is currently working on within the cross-section of public and private sectors and partnered, among others, with Ministries of Environment, Energy, Transport, Agriculture, Trade and Finance. CAF has a unique present and background record in supporting and implementing projects, programmes and financial operations not only aimed for single countries, but also to enhance sound regional integration between CAF country members. CAF´s success in the region is linked to 50+ years of work with governments, private sector and social organisations at multilateral, national, subnational and local levels, complying successfully with CAF´s mission to promote sustainable development and integration in partnership with country members. 40. Current similar investments implemented in the South American Region include the Improvement of water supply and sanitation systems for 109 municipalities in Colombia (COL/00133), the Neighbourhood for Better Live (Barrio para Vivir Mejor) Programme in Ecuador (ECU/9117), the Daule river conservation plan for Ecuador (CAF/0510/16), the Reduction of the Toachi Pilatón hydroelectric plant´s vulnerability to the effects of climate change with a focus on Integrated Adaptive Watershed Management (MATCH) Project in Ecuador (CAF/AF003), the Reduction of the climate vulnerability and flood shed risk in semi urban areas (CAF/AF002) Project in Ecuador, the Irrigation and Agricultural Drainage Projects of Olmos, Chavimochic II and Majes-Siguas II (PER/CFA7705) Project in Perú, the National Forest Sustainable Development Programme in Peru, the Water Resources Integrated Management Programmes for the watersheds of Huancabamba, Olmos, Jequetepeque, Chinchipe, Majes, Lurín, Chillón and Rímac rivers in Peru (PER/CT320), the El Niño (ENSO) Prevention Integrated Programme (CFA8903), the Ayninacuy project to strengthen livelihoods in climate change vulnerable high Andean communities in Peru (CAF/AF001), the Water and Sanitation Integrated Approach Programme (MIAGUA-IV) in Bolivia (CAF/9334), the Irrigation Integrated Approach (MIRIEGO) in Bolivia (CAF/8795), the Bio trade Andean Programme in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, the CAF Climate Change Vulnerability index project for Latin America, and the CAF Credit Line for Green Business and Energy Efficiency Programme for Financial Institutions in Latin America. 41. Furthermore, the project is aligned with CAF’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals by taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, and foster knowledge and technology transfer across countries. The project contributes to alleviate the stress imposed by climate change on vulnerable population in a gender-sensitive way. 42. The five components of the project are fully aligned with the four components of the ASL2 program, and knowledge management, learning and lessons learned will be shared between PAs, RAMSAR sites and indigenous lands participating in the project in Bolivia. The project will be coordinated with ASL2 program administrators and all other national integrated projects to

promote and encourage the participation of PAs and indigenous peoples and local communities in different cross-border and regional activities. 43. The project will strengthen local capacities among project stakeholders and support their participation in key regional events. Key knowledge sharing activities will also be coordinated with neighbouring protected areas (for example Tambopata and Bahuaja Sonene in Peru with Madidi in Bolivia, or Pampas del Heath in Peru with Manuripi in Bolivia). Accordingly, sustainable use practices in the project will assess and use information and knowledge generated in the other countries participating in the ASL2 program. 44. The project will monitor and report and assess input, pace of work and results, providing opportunities for knowledge sharing through the systematisation and communication of activities, best practices and learning. The project should produce or encourage innovation and early adoption of water sanitation, political innovation (given that the alignment of different areas of public policy, including sustainable financing of protected areas, is central to the project), and innovations in governance (new institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks will be developed and implemented).

1.3. Consistency with policies and priorities (national, GEF, SDGs, Aichi) 45. Protected areas are recognized in the Bolivian constitution (article 385), which establishes them as a common good and national and cultural heritage, and their shared management when they overlap with indigenous territories. The importance attached to the Bolivian Amazon is also reflected in the constitution (article 390), that declares the Bolivian Amazon Basin a specially protected strategic space for the integral development of the country due to its high environmental sensitivity, biodiversity, water resources and ecoregions. Protected areas constitute a common good, essential for the conservation of the country's natural and cultural heritage and are an important factor that contributes significantly to local, regional and national sustainable development, mainly through the conservation and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources, tangible and intangible, that they contain, as well as through their constitutionally- granted social, environmental and cultural functions. 46. Bolivia is part of three large river basins: 1) The Amazon basin (Madera, Mamoré, Madre de Dios rivers); 2) Endorheic basin (Lake Titicaca, Desaguadero rivers, Lake Poopó, Uyuni salt flat); and 3) Río de la Plata basin (rivers Pilcomayo, Bermejo, Paraguay). The Amazon basin is a complex aquatic ecological system. Abiotically it is made up of networks of rivers and streams (of clear and black waters), lakes, lagoons, alluvial plains and extensive seasonal and permanent floodplains. Geographically, it is the largest in the country, covering an area of 71 813 700 ha, or 65.4% of the national territory, including five departments and 115 municipal jurisdictions. Bolivia defines wetlands as ecosystems in which the hydrological cycle is the fundamental factor for generating, driving and sustaining the ecological dynamics between the soil, biodiversity, and its relationship with the human population. To date there are 11 designated wetlands making up 14.8 million hectares, or 13% of the country's territory. In the Amazon basin, five RAMSAR sites were prioritized, namely Bañados de Izozog and the Parapetí River, Laguna Concepción, Río Blanco, Río Matos and Río Yata, the latter three sites being part of the project.

47. The project is well aligned with priorities of the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area, and specifically: ▪ BD STAR (68.62%). Specific Objective 2. Reduce drivers of biodiversity loss, Expected Outcome 8: The area of protected areas under effective and equitable management is significantly increased, including development of sustainable financing ▪ BD SFM IP ASL (31.38%). Specific Objective 1. Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as within production landscapes and seascapes, Expected Outcome 4: Loss, fragmentation, and degradation of significant natural habitats, and associated extinction debt, is reduced, halted or reversed, and conservation status of known threatened species is improved and sustained, including through monitoring, spatial planning, incentives, restoration, and strategic establishment of protected areas and other measures 48. The project advances Bolivia’s contribution to the Aichi Targets, in particular Targets 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14 & 19. 49. The project also contributes to SDG targets 1.4, 1.5, 2.4, 3.9, 4.5, 4.7, 5.5, 6.3, 6.6, 10.2, 12.2, 12.4, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 15.9, 16.7, 17.3 & 17.7.

1.4. Stakeholders 50. It is estimated that the Bolivian Amazon has 1 266 379 inhabitants made up of indigenous people, farming communities, ‘interculturals’ (mixed communities) and Afro-descendants. Regarding the indigenous population of the Bolivian Amazon, 26.5% of the Amazon territory is acknowledged to be populated by a total of twenty-nine (29) distinct indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are immersed in the political constitution of the state, an instrument that widely recognizes the diversity of indigenous ways of life as nations and the collective rights for the exercise of self-determination, autonomy and self-government, as expressly indicated in the Article 2 of the constitution. 51. Another important factor is that approximately 28% of the Bolivian Amazon is covered by protected areas (135 352 km2), with more than 30% (41 898 km2) overlap with indigenous peoples' lands. It should be borne in mind that Bolivian regulations take care of the development of indigenous peoples, determining that where there is an overlap of protected areas and indigenous-aboriginal-farming community lands, shared management will be carried out subject to the rules and procedures of indigenous-aboriginal-farming community nations and peoples. Of the 29 indigenous peoples in the Bolivian Amazon, members of 1815 will be part of this project: - Baure (2 sites) - Cavineño - Cayubaba (3 sites) - Chacobo - Chiquitano - Esse-Ejja - Guarasugwe

15 There exists confirmed (Shelton et al., 2013) evidence of one or more un-contacted or isolated group/s in three areas (TIPNIS, Madidi, & EBB). Bolivia’s Constitution grants these groups (Art. 31) that ‘their individual and collective ways of life [are] protected and respected’ and that they ‘enjoy the right to remain in isolation or un-contacted’.

- Itonama - Joaquiniano - Lecos - Machineri (2 sites) - Mosetén - Movima (2 sites) - Moxeño - Takana (3 sites) - Tsimane (4 sites) - Yaminahua (2 sites) - Yuracaré

52. Project stakeholders are found in the following realms: ▪ Decision makers. Ministry responsible for the environment, forests and water, including the National Protected Area Service ▪ Decision makers. Subnational institutions responsible for the environment, forests, protected areas, agriculture and livestock, water, public works and spatial planning ▪ Beneficiaries/affected parties. Donors and other co-financing parties ▪ Beneficiaries/affected parties. Other agents with whom activities are coordinated ▪ Beneficiaries/affected parties. Local inhabitants within and around Pas, who receive resources and/or knowledge intended at specific project outcomes 53. The identification and engagement of stakeholders during project preparation is guided by those who could have or receive the most relevant and direct impact on project activities and outcomes, as well as those who will be direct project beneficiaries. A synopsis of project stakeholders, their jurisdiction/competencies, and their intended responsibilities in the project lays out in Table 1, showing the results of the stakeholder mapping exercise conducted to identify key project stakeholders, their present relevance or role in the project’s area of intervention, and the potential impact they may have during and beyond project implementation. While the Ministry of Environment and Water will be the key Ministry, the cross-sectorial nature of the project activities will require that the project is implemented in partnership with other ministries as well, in cases where the role of said ministries is key to the delivery of project outcomes. 54. A total of ninety (90) stakeholder organisations/representative bodies/groups of actors have been identified. A synthetic analysis follows. ▪ Ten are national institutions (state ministries or other governmental bodies), including the Executing Agency and SERNAP, which is both organically dependent from the Viceministry of Environment and functionally autonomous. ▪ Up to four Autonomous Departmental Governments (GAD) will be involved, with those of Beni (4 PAs) and Pando (2 PAs) having stakes in more than one protected area, while those of Santa Cruz and La Paz will intervene in one area each. ▪ A total of twenty-six Autonomous Municipal Governments (GAM) have jurisdiction over intervention sites and will participate in project activities with varying degrees of

involvement. Those of Apolo, Puerto Rico, Santa Ana de Yacuma and San Borja have stakes in more than one intervention site, while the other 23 will present site-specific concerns. ▪ Two key indigenous organisations have been identified: the Great Tsimane Council and the Movima People, which hold stakes in three and two intervention sites, respectively. A third organisation, the CNAMIB (National Confederation of Indigenous Women of Bolivia) has a relevant role to play in supporting the participation of indigenous women in project activities and outcomes. ▪ Apart from these key actors and nodes, forty-seven local other stakeholders have been identified, whose participation in project activities is relevant. They include indigenous organisations, community-based organisations, private companies, subnational protected areas overlapping intervention sites, NGOs, universities, sectoral organisations and other actors. Six project areas count with formally established and functional management committees: five national areas and the subnational area Bruno Racua. In the case of the TIPNIS, an assembly of Corregidores (community chiefs) acts as deliberative body, while the Subcentral TIPNIS acts as executive liaison with the communities for the PA management. The RAMSAR sites will establish formal engagement mechanisms as part of their strengthening during the project. Other subnational areas participating in the project and counting with an active management committee will join this category, the listing of which is not exhaustive here. 55. The project design here outlined requires thorough and continued engagement with this multiplicity of stakeholders during the execution stage (see Appendix 6). The project plans to establish and use multi-level participative governance mechanisms, and the structure of its Management Unit considers the participative inception and implementation of multi-stakeholder engagement mechanisms during the execution phase. Project risk stemming from COVID-19 has been analysed and mitigated (see 3.6. Risks and mitigation measures below and Appendix 10).

Table 1. Project Stakeholders Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 1 Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua National authority Executing Agency (Project Steering Committee) MMAYA (Ministry of Environment and Directs project activity. Conducts M&E. Coordinates co- Water) financing Viceministry of Environment, Forest Resources and Climate Change 2 Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas Management of protected areas and the Executing Agency (Project Steering Committee) SERNAP (HQ, PA Managers and staff) protected area service Receives technical assistance, is supported for institutional strengthening, receives staff training. Contributes co-financing funds

National stakeholders (in alphabetical order) 3 Aduana Nacional (Customs) Regulates and controls import-export of Institutional partner goods and resources Controls mercury imports for alluvial gold extraction 4 Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria Rural Cadaster Institutional partner INRA (National Institute of Agrarian Reform) Coordinates the assignment of proprietary rights on land in full compliance with PA and SNAP statute 5 Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo y Regulates commerce of goods and services Institutional partner Economía Plural (Ministry of Productive and fosters transformation and The Ministry can support and promote the access to markets Development and Plural Economy) commercialisation of products, SMEs and of sustainable products and services and incentivise its supply industry from within SNAP ECOS sites 6 Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras Supports productive development Institutional partner MDRyT (Ministry of Rural Development and The institution undertakes development projects in full Land) compliance with PA and SNAP statute 7 Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo Establishes planning guidelines for Institutional partner MPD (Ministry of Development Planning) governmental institutions The MPD establishes guidelines and procedures for planning at all scales nationwide in compliance with PA and SNAP statute 8 Ministry of Finance Financial management of the State Institutional partner Supports the financial sustainability of the SNAP ECOS 9 Ministry of Mining Regulates mining Institutional partner Supports that the environmental regulation of mining activities is in compliance with PA and SNAP statute 10 National Women’s and de-patriarcalization Autonomous public service ascribed to the Institutional partner Service “Ana María Romero” Ministry of Justice that monitors, follows up The institution ensures full compliance between policies under and evaluates compliance with public its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute. It monitors & policies towards depatriarchalization in favor ensures adequate generational, gender and indigenous of the effective exercise of women's rights representation

Subnational authorities

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 11 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental (GAD) Subnational authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Blanco del Beni The institution ensures full (Autonomous Departmental Government of compliance between RAMSAR Rio Matos Beni) departmental policies under its EBB jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute Pilón Lajas

12 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental (GAD) Subnational authority Institutional partner Manuripi de Pando The institution ensures full (Autonomous Departmental Government of compliance between Bruno Racua Pando) departmental policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 13 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental (GAD) Subnational authority Institutional partner Noel Kempff de Santa Cruz The institution ensures full (Autonomous Departmental Government of compliance between Santa Cruz) departmental policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 14 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental (GAD) Subnational authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas de La Paz The institution ensures full (Autonomous Departmental Government of compliance between La Paz) departmental policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 15 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Apolo The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Madidi Apolo policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 16 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Manuripi Puerto Rico The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal CIPOAP Puerto Rico policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 17 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas San Borja The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of San compliance between municipal EBB Borja policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 18 Municipal authority EBB

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Yata Santa Ana de Yacuma The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Santa Ana de Yacuma policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 19 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Blanco Baures The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Baures policies and PA and SNAP statute 20 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Curva The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Curva policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 21 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Yata Exaltación The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Exaltación policies and PA and SNAP statute 22 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Manuripi Filadelfia The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Filadelfia policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 23 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner CIPOAP Gonzalo Moreno The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Gonzalo Moreno policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 24 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Yata Guayaramerin The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Guayaramerin policies and PA and SNAP statute 25 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Blanco Huacaraje The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Huacaraje policies and PA and SNAP statute

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 26 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Ixiamas The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Ixiamas policies under its jurisdiction · Ixiamas Civic Committee and PA and SNAP statute 27 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner TIPNIS Loreto The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Loreto policies and PA and SNAP statute 28 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Blanco Magdalena The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Magdalena policies and PA and SNAP statute 29 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Bruno Racua Nueva Esperanza The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Nueva Esperanza policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 30 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Palos Blancos The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Palos Blancos policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 31 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Pelechuco The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Pelechuco policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 32 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Yata Riberalta The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Riberalta policies and PA and SNAP statute 33 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Rurrenabaque The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Rurrenabaque policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 34 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi San Buenaventura The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of San compliance between municipal Buenaventura policies under its jurisdiction · San Buenaventura Civic Committee and PA and SNAP statute 35 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner TIPNIS San Ignacio de Moxos The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of San compliance between municipal Ignacio de Moxos policies and PA and SNAP statute 36 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner Noel Kempff San Ignacio de Velasco The institution ensures full (Autonomous Municipal Government of San compliance between Ignacio de Velasco) departmental policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 37 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Blanco San Javier The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of San compliance between municipal Javier policies and PA and SNAP statute 38 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner CIPOAP San Pedro de Bolpebra The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of San compliance between municipal Pedro de Bolpebra policies under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute 39 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Yata Santa Rosa The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of compliance between municipal Santa Rosa policies and PA and SNAP statute 40 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal (GAM) de Municipal authority Institutional partner TIPNIS Villa Tunari The institution ensures full Autonomous Municipal Government of Villa compliance between municipal Tunari policies and PA and SNAP statute

Key indigenous organisations 41 Gran Consejo Tsimane SR Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Pilón Lajas (Great Tsimane Council) area They receive training and support in SLWM practices EBB

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) RAMSAR Rio Matos

42 Subcentral de Pueblos Indígenas Movima Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries RAMSAR Rio Matos SPIM (Movima Indigenous Peoples area They receive training and Subcentral) support in SLWM practices EBB Pueblo Movima SR (Movima People) 43 Confederación Nacional de Mujeres CNAMIB includes women from indigenous Institutional partner Indígenas de Bolivia (CNAMIB). This peoples in Bolivia’s lowlands,with a bond to The institution monitors & ensures adequate generational, umbrella organisation confederates, among forests gender and indigenous representation and supports adequate others, the following relevant organisations: women participation in project activities. - OMINAB (Organización Mujeres Indígenas del Norte de la Amazonía de Bolivia) - CIMAP (Central Indígena de Mujeres Amazónicas de Pando) - CMIB (Central de Mujeres Indígenas del Beni) - Gender Secretary, CPEMB (Central de Pueblos Etnicos Mojeños del Beni) PA Management Committees (in alphabetical order)

Consejo de Administración Permanent PA governance mechanism Beneficiaries Bruno Racua (PA Management Committee) Participants in the Committee are the The Committee interacts with linkage between communities and PA management and the PMU institutions and the PA management for the project's day-to-day coordination with stakeholders Participant organisations receive training on sustainable resource management Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance mechanism Beneficiaries EBB (PA Management Committee) Participants in the Committee are the The Committee interacts with linkage between communities and PA management and the PMU institutions and the PA management for the project's day-to-day Decisions in which the Tsimane people are coordination with stakeholders mainly affected are taken by their Participant organisations organisation (the Great Chimane Council) receive training on sustainable resource management

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance mechanism Beneficiaries Madidi (PA Management Committee) Participants in the Committee are the The Committee interacts with linkage between communities and PA management and the PMU institutions and the PA management for the project's day-to-day coordination with stakeholders Participant organisations receive training on sustainable resource management Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance mechanism Beneficiaries Manuripi (PA Management Committee) Participants in the Committee are the The Committee interacts with linkage between communities and PA management and the PMU institutions and the PA management for the project's day-to-day FSUTCP, GAMs of Filadelfia and Puerto coordination with stakeholders Rico and GAD of Pando should attend Participant organisations meetings, but this has not been so by now receive training on sustainable resource management Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance mechanism Beneficiaries Noel Kempff (PA Management Committee) Participants in the Committee are the The Committee interacts with linkage between communities and PA management and the PMU institutions and the PA management for the project's day-to-day coordination with stakeholders Participant organisations receive training on sustainable resource management Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance mechanism Beneficiaries Pilón Lajas (PA Management Committee) Participants in the Committee are the The Committee interacts with linkage between communities and PA management and the PMU institutions and the PA management for the project's day-to-day The PA has not been assigned a formal coordination with stakeholders status within the SNAP. GAD of Beni and Participant organisations GADs of Rurrenabaque, San Borja, Apolo & receive training on sustainable Palos Blancos participate in meetings along resource management with the Great Tsimane Council and two representatives from communities on the Quiquibey and Beni rivers, and from communities by the road Local stakeholders (by PA in alphabetical order)

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 44 4 campesino communities (Nueva Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Bruno Racua Esperanza, OTB Alto Madera, Arca de area They receive training and Israel/Gran Cruz & Puerto Consuelo) support in SLWM practices Affiliated to Federación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Pando FSUTCP (Sole Union Federation of Campesino Workers of Pando) 45 Maderera Boliviana Etienne SA MABET (Etienne Wood Company) 46 Universidad Amazónica de Pando The university has three campuses in Institutional partner Pando Amazonic University Pando Supports knowledge management and contributes research 47 TCO Machineri - Yaminahua Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries CIPOAP · President of the Yaminahua People area They receive training and · Machineri Clan Chief support in SLWM practices 48 Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos (TIM II) Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Tacana - Cavineño - Esse Ejja area They receive training and · Capitanía Indígena del pueblo Esse-Ejja support in SLWM practices (Esse Ejja Captainship) · Organización Indígena de Cavineños de la Amazonía (Cavineño Indigenous Organisation) · Organización Indígena Takana de la Amazonía (OITA, Takana Indigenous Organisation) 49 Asociación de Ganaderos de San Borja Landowners with livestock breeding activity Partners who implement EBB ASOGABORJA (Livestock Breeders sustainable practices Association of San Borja) Federated within Federación de Ganaderos del Beni (FEGABENI) 50 Universidad Técnica del Beni Institutional partner Technical University of Beni Supports knowledge management and contributes research 51 Central Agraria Mohima Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Madidi Mohima Agrarian Central area They receive training and support in SLWM practices 52 Central Atén Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Atén Central area They receive training and support in SLWM practices

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 53 Central Indigena del Pueblo Tacana Community with activities in the protected Beneficiaries CIPTA (Indigenous Central of the Tacana area They receive training and People) support in SLWM practices 54 Federación Agraria Especial de Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Colonizadores y Campesinos de Larecaja area They receive training and Tropical support in SLWM practices Special Agrarian Federation of Colonisers and Campesinos of the Tropical Larecaja 55 Federación de Productores Agropecuarios Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries de Abel Iturralde area They receive training and FESPAI (Abel Iturralde Farmer Federation) support in SLWM practices 56 Federación Provincial Única de Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Trabajadores Campesinos de Apolo area They receive training and Sole Provincial Federation of Apolo support in SLWM practices Campesino Workers 57 TCO Leco de Apolo Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary area They receive training and Community Land) support in SLWM practices Central Indígena del Pueblo Leco de Apolo CIPLA (Indigenous Central of the Leco de Apolo People) 58 TCO Lecos Larecaja Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary area They receive training and Community Land) support in SLWM practices Pueblos Indígenas Lecos y Comunidades Originarias de Larecaja PILCOL (Lecos Indigenous Peoples and Originary Communities Larecaja) 59 TCO San Jose de Uchupiamona Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary area They receive training and Community Land) support in ecotourism development 60 Wildlife Conservation Society International NGO Institutional partner WCS Contributes new, additional co- financing funds (tbd) 61 10 campesino communities Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Manuripi Affiliated to Federación Sindical Única de area They receive training and Trabajadores Campesinos de Pando support in SLWM practices FSUTCP (Sole Union Federation of Campesino Workers of Pando)

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 62 37 barraca sites Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Affiliated to Asociación Agroindustrial y de area They receive training and Recursos Naturales del Río Manuripi-Pando support in SLWM practices AARENARMAPA (Agroindustrial and Natural Resource Association of the Manuripi-Pando River) 63 Asociación Boliviana para la Investigación y National NGO Institutional partner Conservación de Ecosistemas Andino- Contributes new, additional co- Amazónicos financing funds (tbd) ACEAA (Bolivian Association for the Research and Conservation of Andean- Amazonian Ecosystems) 64 Machineri communities Community with activities in the protected Beneficiaries area They receive training and support in SLWM practices 65 World Wildlife Fund International NGO Institutional partner WWF Contributes new, additional co- financing funds (tbd) 66 Yaminahua communities Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries area They receive training and support in SLWM practices 67 Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza National NGO Institutional partner Noel Kempff FAN (Friends of Nature Foundation) Contributes new, additional co- financing funds (tbd) 68 Guarasug’we communities (Bella Vista, Community with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Remanso, Florida, Porvenir, Piso Firme, area They receive training and Esperancita de la Frontera & San support in SLWM practices Francisco) Affiliated to Central Indigena del Bajo Paraguá CIBAPA (Bajo Paraguá Indigenous Central) 69 Central Indigena del Pueblo Tacana Community with activities in the protected Beneficiaries Pilón Lajas CIPTA (Indigenous Central of the Tacana area They receive training and People) support in SLWM practices 70 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (intercultural local centrals) area They receive training on Affiliated to Asociación de Productores Agro sustainable resource Ecológicos management ASPAE (Ecoagricultural Producers Association)

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 71 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (intercultural local centrals) area They receive training on Affiliated to Asociación de Productores sustainable resource Apícolas de Biomiel management APABIO (Apicultural Producers Association) 72 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (intercultural local centrals) area They receive training on Affiliated to Asociación Integral de sustainable resource Productores Agropecuarios management ASIPA (Integral Farmer Association) 73 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (intercultural local centrals) area They receive training on Affiliated to Federación Especial de sustainable resource Colonizadores Agropecuarios de management Rurrenabaque FECAR (Special Federation of Rurrenabaque Farmer Colonisers) 74 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (intercultural local centrals) area They receive training on Affiliated to Federación Especial de sustainable resource Productores Agropecuarios de Yucumo management FEPAY (Special Federation of Yucumo Farmers) 75 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (intercultural local centrals) area They receive training on Affiliated to Federación Integral de sustainable resource Colonizadores de Alto Beni management FAICAB (Integral Federation of Alto Beni Colonisers) 76 TCO Tsimane Mosetén Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary area They receive training and Community Land) support in SLWM practices Consejo Regional Tsimane – Mosetene CRTM (Tsimane – Mosetene Regional Council) 77 Parque Departamental y Área Natural de Subnational protected area Beneficiaries RAMSAR Rio Blanco Manejo Integrado Iténez Permanent PA governance mechanism They receive training on PD-ANMI Iténez (Departmental Park and Participants in the Committee are the sustainable resource Natural Area of Integrated Management) linkage between communities and management and equipment Comité de Gestión (Subnational PA institutions and the PA management Management Committee)

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 78 Reserva Científica, Ecológica y Subnational protected area Beneficiaries Arqueológica Kenneth Lee They receive training and RCEAKL (Kenneth Lee Scientific, Ecological equipment and Archaeological Reserve) 79 TCO Baures Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary area They receive training and Community Land) support in SLWM practices 80 TCO Itonama Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary area They receive training and Community Land) support in SLWM practices 81 Asociación de Ganaderos de San Borja Landowners with livestock breeding activity Partners who implement RAMSAR Rio Matos ASOGABORJA (Livestock Breeders sustainable practices Association of San Borja) Federated within Federación de Ganaderos del Beni (FEGABENI) 82 Asociación de Ganaderos de Santa Ana de Landowners with livestock breeding activity Partners who implement Yacuma (Livestock Breeders Association of sustainable practices Santa Ana de Yacuma) Federated within Federación de Ganaderos del Beni (FEGABENI) 83 Área Protegida Municipal Grandes Lagos Local protected area Beneficiaries RAMSAR Rio Yata Tectónicos de Exaltación (Municipal They receive training and Protected Area Exaltación’s Great Techtonic support in SLWM practices Lakes) 84 Área Protegida Municipal Área Natural de Local protected area Beneficiaries Manejo Integrado Pampas del Rio Yacuma They receive training and (Municipal Protected Area Pampas of the support in SLWM practices Yacuma River) 85 Cayubaba communities Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries area They receive training and support in SLWM practices 86 Chacobo communities Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries area They receive training and support in SLWM practices 87 Indigenous & campesino communities Communities with activities in the protected Beneficiaries (San Pedro, Coquinal, Rosario del Yata, area They receive training and Exaltación, El Porvenir, San Bartolomé, El support in SLWM practices Triunfo, Picaflores, Alto Ivon, Las Abras, Paraíso, Australia, San Juan, among others)

Intervention area ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project (if site-specific) 88 TCO Isiboro Secure Indigenous communities with activities in the Beneficiaries TIPNIS (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, Originary protected area They receive training and Community Land) support in SLWM practices Asamblea de Corregidores (decision- making assembly) · Subcentral TIPNIS (CPEMB) · Subcentral Sécure - Mojeño - Yuracaré – Chimán (CPIB) · CONISUR (CPITCO) 89 Miners organisations Gold mining cooperatives close by or within Beneficiaries PAs They receive technical assistance to implement mercury-free mining practices 90 Environmental organisations Environmental NGOs with activity nearby or Institutional partner within SNAP ECOS areas Contributes new, additional co-financing funds (tbd)

1.5. Baseline 56. Bolivia has approved rules and regulations to guide the management of biodiversity and protected areas. All protected areas of the Bolivian Amazon have approved management plans, though not all PAs fully implement the planned programs and activities due to budgetary constraints and governance problems. In general, governance of the system needs to be improved, as well as monitoring systems and the adaptive management of management effectiveness. Management committees have been established, but not all operate adequately. Although there are clear territorial planning policies at different levels and in all sectors, there are still coordination problems, especially at and between sub-national levels. Shared management is underdeveloped in the SNAP. 57. There exist drivers and pressures (see section 1.1 above) that threat protected areas and ecosystems more widely. In a BAU scenario, the existing enabling environment is insufficient to expand sustainable agriculture practices and fully contain these threats. The legal and regulatory framework for protected areas, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land use, such as Law 777 of January 21, 2016 of the State Integral Planning System (Sistema de Planificación Integral del Estado - SPIE), Law 1333 on the Environment and others, offers a strong framework to ensure a territorial approach and sustainable use, but, on the ground, the implementation of this legal framework with regards to protected areas is insufficient due to a lack of capacities, funds and personnel. The coordination of public bodies at national, sub-national and local levels is very necessary for activities involving public investment, to integrate the production of environmental services, sustainable development and poverty reduction. 58. The regulatory structure of the bodies responsible for the protection and conservation of biodiversity of the protected areas of the Bolivian State is organized from the Ministry of the Environment and Water (MMAYA), which is the highest regulatory and oversight body on natural resources and of the protected areas, as established by the Law 1333 of the Environment (23 March 1992), which also establishes the SNAP (later regulated through Supreme Decree 24781, 31 July 1997). Within MMAYA, delegated policy authority resides in the Deputy Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest Development (Viceministerio de Medio Ambiente, Biodiversidad, Cambios Climáticos y de Gestión de Desarrollo Forestal, VMA), and technical responsibility within it in the General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas (Dirección General de Biodiversidad y Áreas Protegidas, DGBAP). 59. Supreme Decree 24781 widens the concept of shared management to include NGOs, public, private, academic institutions and consortia on a non-profit basis. In its articles 47-53, it defines the Management Committee as the body through which these institutions participate in the management of the protected area. 60. SERNAP is created and regulated in the Supreme Decree 25158 (4 September 1998), which establishes it as a National Service with its own structure and functional dependency of the Deputy Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest Development. SERNAP is thereby entitled to budgetary allowances, internal and external cooperation and financing and revenue from service provision and other via specific regulation as its sources of funding. The Service’s annual budget for the last decade is shown in Figure 5 and represents a remarkable achievement in PA financial sustainability. In terms of the SNAP, however, the picture is one of a

reactive structure, that barely compensates for the fading cooperation income while consistently, maybe by design, making it difficult for any non-SERNAP actor to become part of the SNAP.

Figure 5: SERNAP, funding categories 2011-2019 (& est. through to 2021), current USD

TGN Revenue International Cooperation 12 000 000 Total Gap

10 000 000

8 000 000

6 000 000

4 000 000

2 000 000

0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Source: SERNAP

61. As a result of staggering inefficiencies in the administration of income that are present throughout SERNAP’s sources of funding, the six involved national protected areas for which financial data exist have unstable and uneven sources of funding (see Figure 6). This problem is already being tackled at the system level by SERNAP, which works (and will further do so thanks to incremental funding) in a financial sustainability strategy, with its current work being developed under another new framework provided by WWF16, which has already produced a number of consultant reports. 62. SERNAP also works in a decentralisation strategy in the framework of its Master Plan (2012), which establishes a strategic framework and general and specific objectives within a 10-year framework that has been proven compatible with subnational protected areas (MMAyA, 2012). Within this framework, SERNAP seeks to enhance the mechanisms, capacities, management and sustainable funding of national and subnational protected areas and strategic ecosystems (RAMSAR sites and indigenous territories) in the Bolivian Amazon, with a view to promote the sustainable management of the represented ecosystems. This approach will boost the existing,

16 Project Finance for Permanence (PFP) has been applied for the last decade to secure donations and governmental commitments to protected area management. It is currently championed by the Conservation Finance Alliance (www.conservationfinancealliance.org), an informal US-based group.

currently undervalued protected areas and opportunities for the management and integrated conservation of landscapes.

Figure 6: Six protected areas, budget & funding allocation 2020 (current USD)

(In the background, anonymised data for all SERNAP-administered protected areas) Source: SERNAP

63. Amongst the bilateral and multilateral initiatives, the regional initiative for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands in the Amazon basin stands out, an initiative framed in the RAMSAR convention and launched in 2017 by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela, emphasizing the importance of joint action for wetland conservation. There is also support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which supports conservation units, land use planning and protected area systems, primarily through financing NGO projects. 64. The Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organisation (Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica - ACTO, 1978) is an intergovernmental organisation that provides a platform for regional dialogue to encourage sustainable development and social inclusion in the Amazon. Its 2010-2018 strategic agenda for Amazonian cooperation has given rise to the strategic action program for Amazon basin water resource management. Action is geared to strengthening forest cover monitoring in the Amazon, a regional project for management, monitoring and control of wildlife species threatened by trade, capacity building for ecologically responsible forest management, a project that seeks to support indigenous peoples in border regions through health standards and protocols for the use of traditional knowledge and other activities to promote knowledge exchange and cooperation in the region. 65. Several thematic networks also stand out. The Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socioenvironmental Information (Red Amazónica de Información Socioambiental Georreferenciada - RAISG), established in 2007, collects information including contributions from NGOs from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French

Guyana). The Latin American network for technical cooperation in natural parks, protected areas, wildlife and wild flora (Redparques, 1983) includes public and private institutions from 19 countries, including Bolivia. The network implemented the projects Integration of the Protected Areas of the Amazon Biome (Integración de las Áreas Protegidas del Bioma Amazónico – IAPA), until 2018, and the Protected Areas, Natural Solutions to Climate Change (Áreas Protegidas, Soluciones Naturales al Cambio Climático – SNACC), until 2016. The Network of Environmental Funds in Latin America and the Caribbean (Red de Fondos Ambientales de Latinoamérica y el Caribe - RedLAC, 1999) promotes linkage between environmental funds in the region through capacity building and knowledge management initiatives. 66. The GEF has invested significantly in innovative approaches to advance the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Amazon basin. This has been done primarily at national level. While these efforts have produced significant reductions in deforestation and tangible results in biodiversity, they need to exceed the immediate aim of reacting to spatially explicit deforestation and attack root causes and existing barriers. Since these causes are common to Amazonian countries, integrated action is required, which is why in GEF-6 the fund supported the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program (ASL) Program. The Program, approved by the GEF Council in October 2015 as a Pilot Impact Program, encouraged a regionally integrated approach focused on a sustainable forest management strategy. That first phase sought to reduce deforestation and fragmentation of habitats, improve efficiency in land use and promote regional cooperation and learning, preventing the extinction of threatened species and improving their conservation status. 67. Even so, the last decade has still seen significant deforestation in the protected sites, as shown in Figure 7, and mapped in Appendix 1. Specific policies and statutes have been approved to guide and improve the management of biodiversity and protected areas. All SNAP sites in the Bolivian Amazon have developed management plans, but not all of them can carry out all the planned programs and activities due to budgetary constraints and governance problems. Monitoring systems and management effectiveness methodologies are rarely implemented in the areas included in the project, and without additional support the SNAP budget and capabilities will remain limited. 68. Management committees are the main governance mechanism for ensuring participation in the management of Bolivian protected areas, but the mechanism needs strengthening and improvement. In a broader sense, and despite the clear policies for planning at all levels and sectors, coordination still needs improvement, especially with and within sub-national levels such as the one addressed in this project. This applies to both protected areas and indigenous peoples and local communities. The participation of knowledge providers in capacity-building processes is necessary to strengthen the capacities of local stakeholders and protected area staff. 69. While government agencies promote sustainable agricultural practices, the favourable local environment is not yet adequate to expand those practices and requires incremental support to catch up. Meanwhile, as an increasing footprint of mercury contamination is detected in the Bolivian Amazon, due to the extraction of gold, Bolivia will assess the issue and support the extraction of gold without mercury, as part of the commitments of the Minamata convention. This, however, will take place in a general framework in which there is a lack of law enforcement in the field, and without incremental support their scope will remain limited.

Figure 7: Deforestation in eleven sites in the Bolivian Amazon 2009-2018 (%) 0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2009 2.50% 2010 2011 3.00% 2012

2013

3.50% 2014

2015

4.00% 2016

2017

4.50% 2018

5.00% Área Natural de Parque Nacional Reserva de la Reserva Territorio Territorio Reserva de Vida Sitio RAMSAR Sitio RAMSAR Sitio RAMSAR Territorios Manejo y Patrimonio Biosfera Nacional Indigena y Indigena y Silvestre Bruno Río Yata Río Matos Río Blanco Indígenas Integrado y Natural de la Estacion Amazonica Parque Nacional Reserva de la Racua CIPOAP Parque Nacional Humanidad Noel Biologica del Manuripi Isiboro Secure Biosfera Pilon Madidi Kempff Mercado Beni (EBB) (TIPNIS) Lajas Source: prepared by the project formulation team with data from Hansen et al., 2013

70. Over the last decade, women's organisations in Bolivia have joined the political debate and participate at different levels of government. Clearly, gender inequality has ancient roots and eliminating it is a long-term task. The Bolivian Amazon notoriously has a gender balance similar to that found in frontier and other gender-stressed environments (the general proportion of women to men is below 48-52%), so the baseline is very low and intervention in this field will have to adapt to this point of departure. 71. The boundaries of the Bolivian Amazon can be defined by several criteria, the three main criteria being hydrographic, ecological and political. The area of the Amazon varies according to the criteria used. The hydrographic criterion is based on the microbasins and sub-basins of the great Amazon basin, with some 716 370 km2 in Bolivian territory, equivalent to more than 65% of the surface of the country. According to biogeographic or ecological criteria, the area corresponds to the South American tropical and subtropical rainforest biome located east of the Andes Mountains, of which 475 278 km2 belongs to Bolivia, a little more than 43% of the Bolivian territory. According to political criteria, meanwhile, boundaries correspond to the area defined in the political constitution of the state for administrative political purposes, which includes the entire Pando department, the province of Iturralde of the department of La Paz, and the Vaca Diez and Ballivian provinces of the department of Beni, totalling 141 923 km2, almost 13% of the national territory. For this project, the biogeographic criterion is used (tropical forests cover 475 278 km2,

43% of the country). Project sites include up to seven areas protected under Bolivian law, three RAMSAR sites in the Bolivian Amazon and indigenous community lands, making them central instruments for the conservation of the Amazon. The Bolivian Amazon is threatened by land use changes, crimes against wildlife, deforestation, land grabbing, illegal activities, illegal mining activities, unplanned tourist activities and climate change. 72. SNAP in the Bolivian Amazon, along with other strategic areas for conservation (in this case RAMSAR sites and indigenous lands), is the framework through which Bolivia will provide its important co-financing support for financing of the GEF. Internal statutes and technical standards have already been developed to strengthen the management and sustainable financing of protected areas and to ensure the strengthening of the SNAP. With project support, SNAP and SNAP ECOS strategic planning, SERNAP Master Plan, PA Management Plans and technical regulations and procedures will be designed and implemented in the framework of policy established by the National Government. 73. The project will increase the forest area under integrated sustainable management, based on the framework of established policies, focusing on forests where agricultural expansion and forest resource extraction activities are common. A dual emphasis approach to strengthen the management of protected areas is proposed, consistent with prioritizing policy frameworks on protected areas as an engine for sustainable development, together with the sustainable use and management of natural resources both within and outside of protected areas, strategic ecosystems and indigenous territories. Environmental governance will be improved by strengthening the capacities of a wide range of stakeholders, both men and women, to achieve conservation benefits that will go beyond SNAP and the project's lifespan. 74. In the Bolivian Amazon forest, six national protected areas will initially be part of the project, totalling 6 127 537 ha. The most biogeographically representative subnational protected area will initially be part of the project (74 152 ha) along with three RAMSAR sites totalling 6 941 173 ha. Outside designated protected areas, an indigenous territory (CIPOAP) of approximately 367 484 ha is also initially selected. The total project implementation area is 13 510 346 ha. The project will seek to augment its impact through the opening of its knowledge management, training and demonstrative activities to suitable protected areas and indigenous territories and its stakeholders that may contribute to the improvement of its core indicators. 75. The six national protected areas that will be part of the project are: ▪ Madidi Integrated Management Natural Area and National Park ▪ Noel Kempff Mercado National Park ▪ Beni Biological Station Biosphere Reserve ▪ Manuripi Amazon National Reserve ▪ Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park ▪ Pilón Lajas Indigenous Territory and Biosphere Reserve

76. The project will also include subnational protected areas such as the Área Protegida Municipal Grandes Lagos Tectónicos de Exaltación (Municipal Protected Area Exaltación’s Great Techtonic Lakes), the Reserva Científica, Ecológica y Arqueológica Kenneth Lee (RCEAKL,

Kenneth Lee Scientific, Ecological and Archaeological Reserve), the Parque Departamental y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Iténez PD-ANMI Iténez (Departmental Park and Natural Area of Integrated Management), the Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Pampas del Rio Yacuma (Municipal PA Pampas of the Yacuma River) and the Bruno Racua Wildlife Reserve. This latter PA has been added to expected results on its own (74 152 ha), while the other subnational protected areas are included in RAMSAR sites, so their areas are not counted separately from those of RAMSAR sites. 77. The project includes three RAMSAR sites that contribute to the conservation of the Madera basin, corresponding to the river basins of the following rivers: ▪ Río Yata ▪ Río Matos ▪ Río Blanco

78. The project will provide a boost to conservation and sustainable management activities carried out by indigenous peoples within, around and outside protected areas. Within and outside designated conservation areas, indigenous territories are recognized as important for biodiversity conservation. The recognized indigenous territories populated by Yaminahua, Tacana, Esse ejja, Machineri, and Cavineño peoples are specifically counted, separately from other project sites where these supporting activities will take place. These are organized communities making part of the Association of Indigenous Amazonian Peoples of Pando (Central Indígena de Pueblos Originarios Amazónicos de Pando - CIPOAP). 79. Basic figures for initial project sites follow in Table 2.

Table 2. Project sites Project site (official names) Area (ha) Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional Madidi 1 895 750 Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad Noel Kempff 1 646 756 Mercado Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni (EBB) 135 274 Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica Manuripi Heat 747 000 Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (TIPNIS) 1 302 757 Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas 400 000 Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua 74 152

Subtotal protected areas 6 201 689

Río Yata RAMSAR site 2 813 229 Río Matos RAMSAR site 1 729 788

Project site (official names) Area (ha) Río Blanco RAMSAR site 2 404 916 CIPOAP indigenous territories 367 484

Subtotal strategic ecosystems 7 315 417

Total 13 510 346

Source: MMAYA

80. Description of the intervention areas selected for the project: (a) Madidi Integrated Management Natural Area and National Park Created on September 21, 1995 by Supreme Decree 24123, it is located in the northwest region of the department of La Paz, in the provinces Franz Tamayo, Abel Iturralde and Bautista Saavedra. The protected area overlaps with the municipalities of Apolo, San Buenaventura, Ixiamas, Curva and Pelechuco, and has a functional relationship with Guanay. It has a total area, according to the Supreme Decree that created it, of 1 895 750 ha.; 1 271 500 ha categorized as national park and 624 250 ha as integrated management natural area. The management plan mentions an overlap with four claims or titled TCOs and the Madidi. The TCO San José de Uchupiamonas is located east of the protected area and is made up of a single community with a population of 406, entirely within the protected area. To the south is the Lecos Apolo TCO, made up of 15 communities and a population of 2 303. It is outside the protected area, but nevertheless overlaps with the claim of a significant part of the southern area of the protected area under the park category. To the south is the Lecos Larecaja TCO claim, with just a small overlap in the Huajra Orko area. It is made up of 31 communities with a population of 5 373 inhabitants. To the east of the protected area is the Tacana TCO, titled to CIPTA and made up of 20 communities, with a population of 2 914. The community of Tacana I TCO is totally outside the boundaries of the protected area but there is an overlap with the ancestral use protected area. Using Landsat data from Global Forest Watch – GFW (Hansen et al., 2013), it has been estimated the amount of tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for the officially-sourced project site delimitations (see Appendix 1), which for Madidi National Park is represented in Figure 8. The data show growing tree cover loss and its volatility, and a singular event that nearly tripled the trend loss in 2014.

Madidi Figure 8: Annual Tree Cover Loss 2009-2018 Madidi (ha) 3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(b) Noel Kempff Mercado National Park Initially declared Parque Nacional Huanchaca de Flora y Fauna, through Supreme Decree 16646 of 06-28-1979, changed its name to Noel Kempff Mercado National Park through Law No. 978 of March 4, 1988. It has an area of 1 523 446 ha (15 234 km2) and is located to the northeast of the department of Santa Cruz, in the Velasco Province, with a small part to the east of the department of Beni, in the Iténez province. The municipalities involved are San Ignacio de Velasco, in Santa Cruz, and Baures, in Beni. The eastern edge borders the Republic of Brazil. The park management plan states that within the area there are only two, minor, communities - Bella Vista and Esperancita de la Frontera (on the Iténez River), with a population of 56 people. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for Noel Kempff Mercado National Park is represented in Figure 9. As it stands, there seems to be a stable trend, with a singular event in 2012. The series also shows hints of a recursive cycle of 6 years of growing losses, ending in either a catastrophic event that more than quadruples the trend loss (2012) or reduced (near-zero) deforestation (2018).

Figure 9: Annual Tree CoverNoel Loss Kempff 2009-2018 Noel Kempff (ha) 3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(c) Beni Biological Station Biosphere Reserve (Estación Biológica del Beni – EBB) It was declared a protected area in 1982, through Supreme Decree 19191. It is located in the Ballivián and Yacuma Provinces of the department of Beni and has an area of approximately 135 274 hectares, of which some 30 000 hectares were recognized as part of the Tsimane Indigenous Territory in 1990. It belongs to the municipalities of San Borja and Santa Ana de Yacuma. Its Management Plan establishes that within the EBB, the highest concentration of human population can be found to the west and northwest on the lower Maniqui River. There are eight communities, of which seven are within the Tsimane TCO area (six are of Tsimane origin and a Camba farming community), with a total of 180 families and 1 008 inhabitants. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for the EBB is represented in Figure 10. There appears to occur a trend towards slightly diminished cover loss, which also seems to trend towards diminished volatility of the indicator year on year.

Figure 10: Annual Tree CoverEBB Loss 2009-2018 EBB (ha) 2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(d) Manuripi Amazon National Wildlife Reserve Created through Supreme Decree 11252 of December 20, 1973 and confirmed by Supreme Decree No. 25906. It covers an area of 747,000 ha and is located in two municipalities of the Manuripi Province of the Department of Pando - Puerto Rico (Victoria) and Philadelphia (Arroyo Grande). There are around 1 800 people in the reserve, organized in two types of productive units, shanties and rural farming communities. In available reports, 59% were male and 41% female. The Manuripi Amazon National Wildlife Reserve Management Plan establishes the existence of 10 rural farming communities with OTB legal status, though they identify themselves as unions affiliated with the union Federación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Pando (FSTCP). Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for Manuripi National Wildlife Reserve is represented in Figure 11. Baseline cover loss oscillates between around 200 and 400 hectares per year, with an upwards overall trend caused by the growing number of high- loss years, while individual yearly losses seem to mark a downward trend except for 2017- 2018.

Figure 11: Annual Tree CoverManuripi Loss 2009-2018 Manuripi (ha) 450 400 350

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(e) Isiboro - Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro - Sécure – TIPNIS) Created as a national park through supreme decree DS 7401 of 22-11-1965 and declared an indigenous territory through supreme decree 22610 of 09-24-1990, with an approximate area of 1 236 296 ha. It is located between the Departments of Beni (Moxos province) and Cochabamba (Chapare province). The municipalities involved are San Ignacio de Moxos and Loreto in Beni, and Villa Tunari and Morochata in Cochabamba. The human population in the Protected Area is distributed along the most important rivers, Isiboro and Sécure. The Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park Management Plan (2005) makes reference to the 1994 indigenous census on the composition of the population. It states that the total population was 4 563 inhabitants, of which 52% were male and 48% female. From the same source it was established that ethnic affiliation was as follows: 68% Moxeño, 26% Yuracaré, 4% Tsimane. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for the TIPNIS is represented in Figure 12. It shows a clear downward trend, albeit indicator volatility seems to grow by the end of the series.

Figure 12: Annual Tree CoverTIPNIS Loss 2009-2018 TIPNIS (ha) 6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(f) Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Communal Lands Created on April 9, 1992 by Supreme Decree 23110, it is located between the Sud Yungas and Franz Tamayo provinces of the department of La Paz and the General José Ballivián province in the department of Beni. The Protected Area overlaps with the municipalities of Rurrenabaque, San Borja, Palos Blancos and Apolo, covering an area of approximately 400 000 ha. The Management Plan establishes that there are 25 indigenous communities within the Reserve and its area of influence. The plan puts the indigenous population at a total of 1394 people distributed over more than 238 families, of which 47.6% are women. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for the Pilón Lajas site is represented in Figure 13, showing no visible drift. A catastrophic event in 2014 is remarkable.

Figure 13: Annual Tree CoverPil óLossn Lajas 2009-2018 Pilón Lajas (ha) 4 500 4 000 3 500

3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013 (g) Subnational protected area Bruno Racua Wildlife Reserve

Created by Law 3158 dated August 25, 2005, it is located in the northeast region of the department of Pando in the province of Federico Román, within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Nueva Hope, covering a surface area of 74 054 ha. The territory officially denominated Reserva de vida silvestre Bruno Racua has a partial overlay with the Nueva Esperanza rural community (made up of the Nueva Esperanza and Alto Madera OTBs) and with the Nueva Esperanza 1 urban area and the Nueva Esperanza 2 urban area, with a population that varies between 149 and 262 inhabitants according to the time of the year. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for Bruno Racua Wildlife Reserve is represented in Figure 14. A catastrophic event in 2014 is remarkable within a slightly growing overall trend.

Figure 14: Annual Tree CoverBruno Loss Racua 2009-2018 Bruno Racua (ha) 2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(h) Río Yata RAMSAR site It is a wetland located about 260 km to the northwest of the city of Trinidad. The nearest towns are Riberalta, Reyes, Santa Rosa del Yacuma and Exaltación. This wetland is shared by the municipalities of Exaltación, Santa Rosa, Riberalta and Guayaramerín. The main communities are San Pedro, Coquinal, Rosario del Yata, Exaltación, El Porvenir, San Bartolomé, El Triunfo, Comunidad Picaflores, Alto Ivon, Las Abras, Paraíso, Australia and San Juan. Demographic and socioeconomic information of interest has not been found. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for Río Yata is represented in Figure 15. It shows a clear trend towards diminished cover loss and indicator volatility.

Figure 15: Annual Tree Cover LossR 200ío Yata9-2018 Río Yata RAMSAR site (ha)

12 000

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(i) Río Matos RAMSAR site This wetland is located in the department of Beni, west of the city of Trinidad; Municipalities of Santa Ana del Yacuma (54.53% of surface area), San Ignacio (28.64%) and San Borja (16.69%). Demographic and socioeconomic information of interest has not been found. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for Río Matos site is represented in Figure 16. It shows a stable trend with the exception of a catastrophic event in 2010, without which the trend would mark a slightly upwards drift.

Figure 16: Annual Tree Cover LossR í200o Matos9-2018 Río Matos RAMSAR site (ha)

9 000 8 000 7 000 6 000 5 000 4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(j) Río Blanco RAMSAR site This site is a wetland located in the northeast of the department of Beni, belonging politically to the Iténez Province. It is about 220 km northeast of the city of Trinidad. The closest communities are San Ramón, San Joaquín, Bella Vista, Baures and Magdalena. The wetland is shared with the municipalities of Magdalena, Baures, Huacaraje and San Javier and a smaller area is shared with the municipality of Concepción in the department of Santa Cruz. Demographic and socioeconomic information of interest has not been found. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for Río Blanco RAMSAR site is represented in Figure 17. It shows an upwards trend when a catastrophic event in 2010 is excluded from the series.

Figure 17: Annual Tree Cover LossR 200ío Blanco9-2018 Río Blanco RAMSAR site (ha) 9 000 8 000 7 000 6 000 5 000 4 000

3 000 2 000 1 000 0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

(k) CIPOAP territories The Association of Indigenous Amazonian Peoples of Pando (Central Indígena de Pueblos Originarios Amazónicos de Pando in Spanish), was created on August 21, 1998. Its legal status was not recognized until March 23, 2009, however, by prefectural resolution 55/2009, and updated by departmental supreme resolution 005/2016 of February 23, 2016. CIPOAP is a parent organisation that represents five indigenous communities from the Pando department, namely: Yaminahua, Machineri, Tacana, Esse Ejja and Cavineño. Machineri - Yaminahua Communal Lands. Titled with 25 675 ha, with Title Deeds No. TCO - NAL - 0901 - 0001 issued on July 27, 2001, this is a single territorial unit shared by the Machineri and the Yaminagua. The lands are located in the municipality of Bolpebra, on the banks of the Acre River, northwest of the department of Pando. The Yaminahua number about 188 people who live in rural and urban areas, and the Machineri have a population of 180 in Bolivia.

Multiethnic Indigenous Territory (TIM) II TCO. This is an area currently occupied by the Tacana, Cavineño and Esse Ejja peoples, titled in 2005 with 407 585 hectares through deeds title TCONAL000192, dated July 30, 2008. Located between the departments of Beni and Pando, Nicolas Suarez Province, San Pedro de Bolpebra Municipality, this communal land is made up of three indigenous peoples: the Tacana, Cavineño and Esse Ejja, whose population is shown in Table 3. Tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 for CIPOAP territories is represented in Figure 18. It shows a downwards trend, even when a catastrophic event in 2010 is excluded from the series.

Figure 18: Annual Tree Cover LossCIPOAP 2009-2018 CIPOAP territories (ha) 8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0 2008201020122014201620182020

Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

Table 3. Demographic detail, CIPOAP People Communities Families Women Men Total

Yaminahua - - - - 188

Machineri - - - - 180

Tacana 51 1 600 5 040 5 400 10 440

Esse Ejja 5 210 495 528 1 023

Cavineño 4 230 630 648 1 278 - : no data. Source: CIPOAP

81. Available population, communities, and gender distribution data are summarized in Table 4. Different surveys estimate indigenous communities to be around 2/3 of the population, but certainty over a figure can be only pretended on current data.

Table 4. Demographic summary, project sites Project site Communities Inhabitants % female Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque 67 10 996 - Nacional Madidi Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la 2 56 - Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del 8 1 008 - Beni (EBB) Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica 10 1 800 41.00% Manuripi Heat Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro 54 4 563 48.00% Secure (TIPNIS) Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón 25 1 394 47.60% Lajas Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua 3 149 - Subtotal protected areas 19 966 45.53% Río Yata RAMSAR site - - - Río Matos RAMSAR site - - - Río Blanco RAMSAR site - - - Subtotal RAMSAR sites 2 000 40.00% CIPOAP indigenous territories 60 13 109 48.39% Total 35 075 - : no data. Estimations in italics. Source: MMAYA

82. A summary of deforestation data for project sites is presented in Table 5. Table 5. Tree cover loss on previous year (2009-2018, ha; baseline) Average 2009– Baseline Project site 2018 (ha trend per year) Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional Madidi 1 171 ⇧ Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad Noel 645 ⇨ Kempff Mercado Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni (EBB) 586 ⇧ Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica Manuripi Heat 278 ⇧ Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (TIPNIS) 3 179 ⇩⇩ Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas 874 ⇨ Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua 269 ⇧

Río Yata RAMSAR site 4 622 ⇩⇩ Río Matos RAMSAR site 3 117 ⇩ Río Blanco RAMSAR site 3 039 ⇩ CIPOAP indigenous territories 1 491 ⇩

Total 19 270 Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

83. A thorough analysis of current management plans (or lack thereof) has been carried out. Where no current management plan has been available, which is for example the case of RAMSAR sites, it has been substituted with interviews and indirect sources, therefore representing an estimation of how an updated management plan would look like for the baseline situation. In the case of CIPOAP indigenous territories, five integrated development plans (one for each of the five peoples) have been analysed to obtain a synthetic approximation. A synthesis of that analysis is presented in Table 6 and Figure 19.

Table 6. Threats, Management Objectives and Key Indicators (%) Threats Management Key Indicators Objectives Deforestation, degradation and land use 14% 27% 27% Resource use and socioeconomic development 55% 68% 27% Freshwater ecosystems 23% 5% 16% Key species and populations 5% 0% 18% Wildfires 5% 0% 7% Invasive species 0% 0% 4% 100% 100% 100% Source: own elaboration with data from SERNAP

84. A coherent logic chain can be generally observed between main threats, main management objectives and key indicators, with Madidi and Manuripi possibly outstanding the rest of sites in this regard. Deforestation, degradation and land use (27%) and resource use and socioeconomic development (68%) are the most frequent realms for management objectives, responding to their perception as major threats (14% and 55%, respectively). Freshwater ecosystems, which are identified as a relevant threat domain (23%), appear little, however, in current management objectives (5%).

Figure 19: Threats, Management Objectives and Key Indicators

Threats Management Objectives Key indicators Threat 1 Threat 2 MO 1 MO 2 Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4 Indicator 5 Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional Madidi Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado Reserva de la Biosfera Estacion Biologica del Beni Reserva Nacional Amazonica Manuripi Territorio Indigena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure Territorio Indigena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilon Lajas Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua Río Yata RAMSAR site Río Matos RAMSAR site Río Blanco RAMSAR site CIPOAP indigenous territories

Legend Deforestation, degradation and land use Resource use and socioeconomic development Freshwater ecosystems Key species and populations (incl. trees) Wildfires Invasive species

2. PROJECT FRAMEWORK AND EXPECTED RESULTS 2.1. Barrier analysis, theory of change, strategic rationality and scope 85. As mentioned earlier, the lack of opportunities and conflicts at landscape level are generated by weak local governance for integrated landscape management, shortcomings in the SNAP institutional framework, shortcomings of national policies and legal frameworks, poor capacities and coordination to enforce policies and regulations among stakeholders, badly connected sectoral strategies and plans, and insufficient technical outreach and networks for SLWM. This is reflected in poverty and marginalisation of (often indigenous) populations within and nearby protected areas and strategic ecosystems, on one side, and in land grabbing, illegal logging, species trafficking and mercury pollution, on the other. 86. Barriers to maintaining the ecological resilience of the Amazon and to achieving environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development in the Amazon, identified here and to overcome which the theory of change is designed, are as presented in Table 7.

Theory of change 87. The theory of change is based on the premise that the ecological resilience of the biogeographic Amazon can be maintained if a) the size, effectiveness and funding of protected areas increases, so that a representative area is conserved under different protection schemes (protected areas, indigenous lands, RAMSAR sites and others); b) the management of productive territory improves, in particular that of agricultural, forest and degraded lands and water systems, with zero tolerance of illegal deforestation, improvements in productivity and more protected land within it; c) governance and incentives improve with the adoption of national policies and strategies that foster the sustainability of development by minimizing the loss of ecosystem services; and d) the capacities of technical institutions and regional cooperation are strengthened. 88. The project aims to improve the management, capacities and sustainable financing of the protected areas and strategic ecosystems (RAMSAR sites) of the Bolivian Amazon (national and sub-national) and the sustainable management of natural resources in the ecosystems that the protected areas represent, providing a boost to existing areas that are currently undervalued and unsustainably managed, and opportunities for integrated landscape management and conservation. The project will do this through direct intervention in and around protected areas, in the national system (Components 1 and 2) and in and around other conservation sites (Components 3 and 4), and through systemic intervention to modernise the institutional framework, regulatory scenario, institutional scope, competencies, staff and other assets, which will aim for adequate levels of governance and capacities to develop the perceived sustainable management opportunities provided by protected areas and the important ecosystems they represent.

Table 7. Barrier analysis Barrier Description

Weakness in the management, Parts of the Amazon still have ecosystem types that are under-represented in the protected financing and institutional area system, such as RAMSAR Convention sites of interest. Aspects of connectivity between framework of protected areas areas and with the surrounding landscapes require more attention. The adaptation of the forest to the already present impacts of climate change must also become part of the prioritisation and management of protected areas. The institutional framework must be updated and completed. On-site management capacity needs to be adapted to the management requirements of each unit and have steady and sustainable financing. The ability to generate income (tourist concessions, entry payment etc.) must also increase.

▪ Weak oversight capacities Enforcement of legislation and regulation is difficult in the region. There are limited monitoring and coordination and detection capacities and insufficient personnel and equipment, especially in remote areas. Corruption makes these tasks even more difficult. The legal frameworks and capacities for the prosecution of offences are also poor. The legislation is complex and challenging to implement, and inconsistencies in its application between different public institutions and jurisdictions create a disincentive to enforce it. The risk of illegal activity is perceived as small in relation to its profitability. There is little coordination between institutions at different levels of government (national vs. local), between institutions of different sectors (protection and management of nature vs. police and legal) and between similar institutions in different countries, which generally prevents the effective combating of wood and species trafficking.

Lack of mechanisms to The economic incentives for farmers and ranchers do not promote efficiency, restoration of encourage sustainable degraded areas or connectivity. Agricultural subsidies are not targeted according to these production in a zero-net criteria and end up providing general support for capacity building. Funding providers lack deforestation (ZND) framework criteria and tools to identify and support sustainable value chains that reduce deforestation.

Barrier Description

▪ Shortcomings in legal and Sectoral policies and the legal framework do not provide enough incentives for sustainable regulatory frameworks for development, particularly in the sectors most related to forest degradation and deforestation, sustainable development and do not place value on ecosystem services. The cumulative impacts of different and ZND development projects are not considered in planning and impact assessment mechanisms.

▪ Difficult access to Innovative products are emerging in forest and river-friendly value chains, but they need to be sustainable production strengthened and supported. Small and medium-sized producers, cooperatives and sectoral markets and local associations have difficulty accessing knowledge about market access, production efficiency and business development. NTFPs, coffee and cocoa, aquaculture products and ecotourism have been identified as promising fields. As for established value chains, the process of regulatory progressivity in environmental matters has been slow.

Weak inter-institutional, cross- Problems with procedures, policies and governance for integrated territorial planning, land use sectoral and cross-level management and biodiversity conservation. The consequent lack of planning, together with integral governance insufficient participatory mechanisms for the private sector, indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups, make environmentally compatible uses scarce and increase the risk of fragmentation and loss of ecosystem resilience. Weak governance of land tenure, caused by factors such as lack of control over public property, rudimentary and unreliable property records with incomplete and out-of-date coverage, and inconsistencies between public and private records. Planning and regularisation processes are incompatible with demand, lack a multi-scale perspective (from local to regional Amazon levels) and do not address land tenure insecurity, increasing short-termism in its management. Issues of common concern have not been fully identified and mechanisms and capacities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation are weak in the region.

Barrier Description

▪ Lack of coordination of Public policies are generally implemented in self-contained compartments, with weak or non- sectoral strategies and existent communication, coordination and cooperation. In addition, cost-benefit analysis and plans at different levels monitoring of results (adaptive management) remain scarce, making it difficult to implement long-term changes. Sectoral policies do not address the unique characteristics of tropical forest territories or the indirect and cumulative effects of their implementation.

Knowledge and innovation Individuals and organisations do not have access to actionable information and knowledge in gaps and slow circulation of technical and specific areas (biodiversity, sustainable forest management, agri-innovation, knowledge markets, legal, etc.), except for fledgling mechanisms that require strengthening. There is little systematisation and assessment of results. The opportunities provided by interoperability and data analysis and other innovations are being missed due to the lack of learning channels at all levels, but strengthening existing promising initiatives offers an effective and rapid means for delivering results in this area. The limited and slow circulation of knowledge in protected areas and agricultural frontier areas in general impacts on people's lives and is a major obstacle to the adoption of sustainable practices in the Amazon. The management of renewable natural resources (agriculture, livestock, agroforestry, forestry, tourism, oversight and public services) requires levels of technical training and funding that are not common in the region. Outreach services have limited capacity and as such provide a generally weak service. This problem forms the basis of the current situation for the Amazon and its inhabitants.

89. The Project will facilitate the modernisation and institutionalisation of the legal framework and sectorial policy for the SNAP and strategic ecosystems, to be formalized by the MMAYA and with a focus on the Bolivian Amazon but replicable throughout the rest of Bolivian protected areas. Sustainable use activities within and around protected areas will serve as demonstration and dissemination models, thereby constituting a mixed-land-use model that will enhance functional continuity beyond protected areas. The participating sites will enhance management effectiveness and financial sustainability along with social participation, sustainable production and transformation, income generation and resilient conservation. Networking within the project and programme will allow the identification of successful experiences and their replication in the wider SNAP (national and subnational areas). 90. Communities that implement project activities outside protected areas will learn and share experiences and knowledge so that successful management experiences can be replicated by improving functional continuity between neighbouring ecosystems. The private sector will have an important role as collaborative partners in building local capacities, specifically in tourism activities. This partnership model can be replicated where local communities develop a tourist attraction or other sustainable product, acquiring knowledge and experience from private entrepreneurs and networks. 91. The project will prioritize activities that strengthen the well-being of women in the community and in their families, with women participating at all levels to internally strengthen equality approaches within executing partners and participating communities, within the framework provided by the existing inclusion and gender, generational and diversity equality policies. To monitor this commitment, all people-related project indicators (community participation, beneficiaries, staff) will be broken down by gender and assessed on a progressive (with respect to baseline) basis. 92. The objective and proposed activities of the project are well aligned with the programming priorities and the ToC outlined for the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program - Phase II (ASL2) Impact Program. The project will produce the higher-level outcomes of increased strengthened management capacity in the SNAP and strategic ecosystems, increased actors and capacity for ZND production, improved land use landscape planning and strengthened policy frameworks for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and increased knowledge and awareness on conservation and SLWM in the Bolivian Amazon. 93. Cross-border activities will focus on improving coordination between the project's protected areas and RAMSAR sites with those in neighbouring countries (Madre de Dios department in Peru; the states of Acre, Rondônia and Mato Grosso in Brazil, among others). 94. Consistent with the above, this project will embrace the following principles through-out its implementation: ▪ Inclusive development: It is important that poor households and small businesses can perceive the benefits from the project activities. For this, the equitable distribution of benefits is a requirement for long term inclusive development and community support. ▪ Systemic Change: Bringing together stakeholders from different levels (national, regional and local) and establishing a joint agenda will be key to address and resolve underlying systemic constraints.

▪ Local Initiative: Experiences show that whereas effective and sustainable solutions can only be achieved if local actors shape and drive their own agendas, a bottom up approach will be fundamental for long term sustainability. ▪ Contextualized shared solutions: Working through an active knowledge management and capacity development platform, will assure that throughout the project, information, tools, know-how and resources are properly applied to different contexts and needs, improving the generation of effective and economically viable processes committed to impact on scale and a responsible value for money rationale.

2.2. Objectives, expected results and key indicators 95. GEF funds will specifically finance incremental activities oriented towards valuing biodiversity and increasing capacities for its conservation and sustainable management. The project contributes to the strengthening of Bolivia’s protected area system, supporting an strengthened and updated institutional framework, enhanced monitoring capacities and a more open, multi- stakeholder governance that is also better coordinated with other government departments (Specific Objective 1); a more sustainable and accountable financial structure (Specific Objective 2); and enhanced capacities for sustainable management in both national protected areas and other conservation objects (Specific Objective 3) and their local stakeholders (Specific Objective 4), including through knowledge management (Specific Objective 5). 96. Specific Objective 1. Effective management of the SNAP, based on shared management, community participation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Bolivian Amazon METT scores are expected to enhance (by 16% on weighted average by midterm, and by 38% on weighted average by EOP) in seven protected areas (Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional Madidi, Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado, Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni, Reserva Nacional Amazónica Manuripi, Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas, Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure, and Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua). METT scoring will be carried out at project inception and during Midterm and Final Evaluations. Work under this SO will also seek to augment the number of governance structures (PA Management Committees, interinstitutional committees, interinstitutional information exchange mechanisms) in place. Action under this specific objective is expected to produce the following outcomes. • Outcome 1.1. Improved institutional framework allowing for enhanced management effectiveness of the SNAP by PY2 • Outcome 1.2. Improved monitoring and management effectiveness of SNAP as of PY3 • Outcome 1.3. Enhanced governance structures across the SNAP by PY3 97. Specific Objective 2. Improved Financial Sustainability of the SNAP Under SO2, SNAP funding gap will be reduced by 10% by EOP, thanks to new revenue and fees obtained from sustainable activities and other sources. Simultaneously, at least 3 500 persons

will benefit from increased opportunities for SLWM and ecotourism, of whom at least 1 575 will be women. This includes at least 80 persons belonging to protected areas’ staff, of whom no less than 12 will be women. Action under this specific objective is expected to produce the following outcomes. • Outcome 2.1. Evaluation of funding baseline and gaps of the SNAP by PY1 • Outcome 2.2. Investigation of new revenue mechanisms for PA financing by PY3 • Outcome 2.3. Development of frameworks for sustainable income and revenue- generating activities that are compatible with the management objectives of the protected areas by PY4 • Outcome 2.4. Sustainable financing of the SNAP increased by 10% above the baseline by EOP 98. Specific Objective 3. Capacity Building in support of effective management and improved financial sustainability of the SNAP Indicators for this SO include that the trend of tree cover loss on previous year shows a reduction of 20% (weighted average) with respect to baseline in 7 PA sites by EOP; and that the trend of tree cover loss on previous year shows a reduction of 52% (weighted average) with respect to baseline in 3 RAMSAR sites by EOP. It is aimed at that at least 690 persons benefit from enhanced opportunities from more sustainable production practices in or around seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites. Of them, at least 298 will be women. Finally, the number of communities participating in project activities will be tracked. Action under this specific objective is expected to produce the following outcomes: • Outcome 3.1. Enhanced capacity for effective management of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3 • Outcome 3.2. Strengthened capacity in achieving the financial sustainability of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3 99. Specific Objective 4. Sustainable use of biodiversity The SO results will be measured against an enhanced METT score (30% on weighted average by midterm, 104% on weighted average by project completion) in 6 947 933 ha in 3 RAMSAR sites (Río Yata, Río Matos and Río Blanco) from PY2. At least 2 000 persons will benefit from project activity in 3 RAMSAR sites by PY3, of whom at least 800 will be women. At least 183 742 ha of productive ecosystems within CIPOAP indigenous territory will benefit from improved SLWM practices by EOP, with at least 1 000 persons benefitting from project activity within CIPOAP indigenous territory by EOP, of whom at least 480 of them are women. The number of communities participating in project activities will be tracked. Action under this specific objective is expected to produce the following outcomes: • Outcome 4.1. Improved sustainable use practices by indigenous communities in CIPOAP and other territories

• Outcome 4.2. Enhanced capacity for effective management of freshwater ecosystems (in particular RAMSAR sites) starting in PY2. 100. Specific Objective 5. Project Management, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Knowledge Management At least 150 persons (Government staff), at least 44 of whom are women will benefit from adequate project management. More broadly, at least 5 760 persons (of whom at least 2 540 women) will benefit from correct project management and systematized information and knowledge. Action under this specific objective is expected to produce the following outcomes. • Outcome 5.1. Effective project management, monitoring & evaluation, as per the technical, administrative, and fiduciary standards defined by CAF/GEF and the Bolivian legal framework, through-out project implementation • Outcome 5.2. Systematisation of lessons learned, experiences and results, on a continuous basis through-out project implementation.

Key indicators 101. The design quantification model foresees that, as result of Project activities, overall METT score will enhance by 16% by midterm and 38% (weighted averages) by project completion for the seven protected areas (Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional Madidi, Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado, Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni, Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica Manuripi Heat, Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas, Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure and Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua). Equally, it foresees that overall METT score will enhance by 30% (weighted average) by midterm and 104% (weighted average) by project completion for the three RAMSAR sites (Río Yata, Río Matos and Río Blanco). Site- by-site scorings at inception and foreseen by midterm and EOP are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Design METT Scores at inception, midterm and completion, project sites 100

Project start-up

90 Midterm (projected)

Project Completion (projected)

0 Madidi NoelKempff EBB Manuripi TIPNIS PilonLajas BrunoRacua RioYata RioMatos RioBlanco Source: own elaboration with data from SERNAP

102. Impact indicators for the project envisage that the trend of tree cover loss on previous year should show a reduction of 20% (weighted average) with respect to baseline in the seven protected area sites by EOP; and a reduction of 52% (weighted average) with respect to baseline in the trend of tree cover loss on previous year in the three RAMSAR sites by EOP. A summary of deforestation figures used in project design, inclusive of project modelling targets for 2025, is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Tree cover loss on previous year (ha; GEF alternative) Moving Mean average, METT 2009-2018 Target Project site improvem (ha per 2025 ent EOP year) (ha per year) Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque 1 171 40% 1 100 Nacional Madidi Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la 645 34% 500 Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado

Moving Mean average, METT 2009-2018 Target Project site improvem (ha per 2025 ent EOP year) (ha per year) Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del 586 41% 350 Beni (EBB) Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica 278 33% 250 Manuripi Heat Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro 3 179 43% 1 800 Sécure (TIPNIS) Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera 874 31% 700 Pilón Lajas Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua 269 110% 250 Río Yata RAMSAR site 4 622 169% 1 500 Río Matos RAMSAR site 3 117 125% 1 500 Río Blanco RAMSAR site 3 039 13% 2 000 CIPOAP indigenous territories 1 491 900 Total 19 270 10 850 Source: own elaboration with data from Hansen et al., 2013

103. In the design scenario, GEF Core indicators receive contributions from the project as follows. (a) Core Indicator 1: Terrestrial protected areas created or under improved management for conservation and sustainable use Indicator 1.2: Terrestrial protected areas under improved management effectiveness Management effectiveness of the seven protected areas targeted by the project will be improved by the implementation of the Management Status and Effectiveness Tool (EGEM in Spanish). The EGEM implementation will strengthen and update the monitoring protocols, management effectiveness tools, PAs management plans, governance schemes and enhancing sustainable alternative livelihoods for communities inside and near protected areas. The cumulative area of the seven protected areas is 6 201 415 ha, broken down as follows: Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional Madidi (1 895 750 ha), Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado (1 646 756 ha), Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni (135 274 ha), Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica Manuripi Heat (747 000 ha), Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (1 302 757 ha), Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas (400 000 ha), Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua (74 152 ha). (b) Core Indicator 4: Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares; excluding protected areas)

Indicator: 4.1: Area of landscapes under improved management to benefit biodiversity RAMSAR sites under national planning schemes are not formally considered PAs, but within the scope of the SNAP ECOS programme. The implementation of the integrated planning approach, under Bolivia’s planning system, and the systematic monitoring of biodiversity in the three RAMSAR sites (total area: 6 941 173 ha) will help safeguard the associated globally significant biodiversity. Participatory planning processes and the training of community organisations to strengthen sustainable practices will reduce the risk of habitats being degraded. The three RAMSAR sites are: Río Yata (2 813 229 ha), Río Matos (1 729 788 ha) and Río Blanco (2 398 156 ha). Indicator 4.3: Area of landscapes under sustainable land management in production systems The integrated development plan for the CIPOAP indigenous territories (total area: 367 484 ha) will include the implementation of Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices and the strengthening of sustainable agriculture practices in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP. Under the project at least 50% of the indigenous territory will benefit from the implementation of SLWM practices (183 742 ha) (c) Core Indicator 6: Greenhouse gas emission mitigated Indicator 6.1: Carbon sequestered, or emissions avoided in the AFOLU sector The application of the EX-ACT tool to the design projections of the project, using 5 years implementation time and 20 years capitalisation time, provides a net balance of - 8 367 958 -1 tCO2e·yr as the estimation of the project’s carbon benefits. A Tier 2 estimation for monitoring and indication purposes has been carried out, of the minimum avoided emissions from forest cover loss avoidance resulting from project activities. -1 It yields an estimation of - 5 282 619 tCO2e·yr for the period 2025-2045. (d) Core Indicator 11: Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co- benefit of GEF investment Direct beneficiaries are: ▪ Participants in project activity from local communities within and nearby the seven protected areas (est. 3 500 persons of a total of 19 000, of which 45% women) that will benefit from safeguarding the ecosystem services and biodiversity upon which they depend and from promotion of sustainable alternative livelihoods. ▪ The staff working in the seven SNAP protected areas (est. 80, of which 15% women). ▪ Local communities within and nearby RAMSAR sites are estimated at 2 000 people, of which directly benefitting from the project is estimated that will be around 1 000 (of which 40% women). ▪ CIPOAP indigenous peoples are a total population of 13 109 (48% women) and the project direct beneficiaries are estimated at around 1 000 people.

▪ Beneficiaries working for government institutions are estimated at 70 (45% women, 55% men), while other 210 beneficiaries (48% women, 52% men) are not only within the nature conservation and forest management sector, but also in other sectors including academia, tourism, agriculture, rural development, freshwater management and mining. The total number of beneficiaries in the project will be approximately 5 860 persons (2 600 women, 3 260 men). 2.3. Components, products and schedule 104. The use of GEF funds has been structured to finance incremental activities that contribute to mainstreaming the value of biodiversity and to increase capacities for its conservation and sustainable management. Project activity contributes to the reform of Bolivia’s protected area system, supporting an improved institutional framework, enhanced monitoring capacities and a more open, multi-stakeholder governance that is also better coordinated with other government departments (Component 1); a more sustainable and accountable financial structure (Component 2); and enhanced capacities for sustainable management in both the protected areas and strategic ecosystems (Component 3) and their local users (Component 4), including through knowledge management (Component 5). 105. Component 1. Effective management of the SNAP based on shared management, community participation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Bolivian Amazon. This component makes part of the Integrated Protected Landscapes Program component. 106. Outcome 1.1. Improved institutional framework allowing for enhanced management effectiveness of the SNAP by PY2 To obtain this outcome, works for the participative strengthening of an updated, multilevel, multi- stakeholder SNAP will be supported, standardized monitoring protocols developed and a standardized management effectiveness monitoring tool (fully compliant with METT) updated and validated. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 1.1.1. Updated SNAP and strategic ecosystems program prepared by PY2 ▪ Output 1.1.2. Standardized monitoring protocols developed for at least four protected areas by PY2 and for the remaining 3 until EOP ▪ Output 1.1.3. Standardized Management Effectiveness Tool updated and validated in four protected areas by PY2 and for the remaining 3 until EOP 107. Outcome 1.2. Improved monitoring and management effectiveness of SNAP as of PY3 To obtain this outcome, tools and capacities for systematic monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness will be provided and implemented, and accurate technical data on the flora and fauna populations of globally significant, endangered or threatened species will be made available to the management of at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites through support to the development of a permanent research program. Concrete output is envisaged as follows.

▪ Output 1.2.1. Systematic monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness implemented in at least seven protected areas in PY3 to EOP ▪ Output 1.2.2. Accurate technical data available on the flora and fauna populations of globally significant, endangered or threatened species in at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by EOP 108. Outcome 1.3. Enhanced governance structures across the SNAP by PY3 Governance will be enhanced by updating the seven Management Plans of SNAP protected areas in the project to ensure coordination and alignment with other planning documents and to include specific attention to the inclusion of indigenous people and women; by the development of a specific tool to integrate different Land-Use Planning tools from Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria (INRA), Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras (MDRyT), and Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo (MPD) with the protected areas’ zoning and management; and by supporting agreements among the SNAP and communities, national and regional institutions, public and private companies to strengthen the integrated management of protected areas and the sustainable development of local communities in and adjacent to protected areas. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 1.3.1. Management Plans of protected areas updated to ensure coordination and alignment with other planning documents in at least seven protected areas, including specific attention to the inclusion of indigenous people and women in protected area’s governance structures by PY3 ▪ Output 1.3.2. Specific tool developed to integrate the different Land-Use Planning tools from Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria (INRA), Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras (MDRyT), Ministerio de Planificación del Desarrollo (MPD) with protected area management, within the framework of the updated SNAP and strategic ecosystems, by PY2 ▪ Output 1.3.3. At least four agreements signed among the SNAP and communities, national and regional institutions, public and private companies to strengthen the integrated management of protected areas and the sustainable development of local communities in and adjacent to protected areas by EOP 109. Component 2. Improved Financial Sustainability of the SNAP The component is part of the Integrated Protected Landscapes Program component. 110. Outcome 2.1. Evaluation of funding baseline and gaps of the SNAP by PY1 To obtain this outcome, a detailed assessment of current funding from all sources, needs, and gaps, at the system level and for each protected area will be completed. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 2.1.1. Detailed assessment of current funding from all sources, needs, and gaps, at the system level and for each protected area performed by PY1 111. Outcome 2.2. Investigation of new revenue mechanisms for PA financing by PY3

To obtain this outcome, at least two funding mechanisms, designed to fill funding gap, will be developed and validated. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 2.2.1. At least two funding mechanisms, designed to fill funding gap, developed by PY3 112. Outcome 2.3. Development of frameworks for sustainable income and revenue generating activities that are compatible with the management objectives of the protected areas by PY4 To obtain this outcome, guidelines and protocols will be developed and implemented for an increased uptake of SLWM practices (agroforestry, sustainable cattle ranching and freshwater fisheries, and eco-tourism among others), improvements in operational and tourism infrastructure completed and a tourism development, marketing & networking Plan for targeted protected areas developed. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 2.3.1. Guidelines and protocols for increased uptake of SLWM practices (agroforestry, cattle ranching, fisheries, biotechnology entrepreneurship, and eco-tourism among others) developed and implemented in at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by PY4 ▪ Output 2.3.2. Prioritisation of protected areas conducted by PY2, with improvements in operational and tourism infrastructure completed within at least 4 protected areas by PY4 ▪ Output 2.3.3. Tourism development, marketing & networking Plan for targeted protected areas developed and under implementation by PY4 113. Outcome 2.4. Sustainable financing of the SNAP increased by 10% above the baseline by EOP As a result of revised protected areas entrance fees, increased number of visitors, increased natural resource use fees and additional revenues, it is envisaged a reduction of the SNAP funding gap of 10% by EOP that will be specifically monitored. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 2.4.1. Reduction of the SNAP funding gap through an increase of SNAP sustainable financing of 10% above the baseline by EOP, because of revised protected areas entrance fees, increased number of visitors, increased natural resources use fees and additional revenues derived from two newly developed financing mechanisms 114. Component 3. Capacity Building in support of effective management and improved financial sustainability of the SNAP This component lays within the Policies/Incentives for Protected and Productive Landscapes Program Component. 115. Outcome 3.1. Enhanced capacity for effective management of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3 To obtain this outcome, the project will conduct capacity building activities in the development and implementation of management plans (integrated planning in case of RAMSAR sites), protected areas monitoring, and assessment of management effectiveness for personnel of protected areas and partner agencies. Also, essential equipment needed to conduct systematic

monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness will be provided. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 3.1.1. Training in the development and implementation of management plans (integrated planning in case of RAMSAR sites), protected areas monitoring, and assessment of management effectiveness, conducted for personnel of protected areas and partner agencies for at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites between PY3 and EOP ▪ Output 3.1.2. Essential equipment needed to conduct systematic monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness provided to at least seven targeted protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by PY3 116. Outcome 3.2. Strengthened capacity in achieving the financial sustainability of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3 In the same vein, it will be provided training in the design and implementation of management plans (tourism, natural resources use) and to introduce or strengthen sustainable practices in production models currently in place within or adjacent to protected areas to community organisations, with special attention to the provided opportunities reaching women. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 3.2.1. Training of community organisations to introduce or strengthen sustainable practices in production models currently in place within or adjacent to protected areas (agroforestry, cattle ranching, coffee, cacao, sustainable mining, fire management, among others), within at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites starting in PY3 ▪ Output 3.2.2. Training in the design and implementation of management plans (tourism, natural resources use), in at least 7 protected areas by PY3 117. Component 4. Sustainable use of biodiversity This component is framed within the Integrated Productive Landscapes Program Component. 118. Outcome 4.1. Improved sustainable use practices by indigenous communities in CIPOAP and other territories A comprehensive training and support program for Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices will be implemented in selected communities within and around protected areas and, outside them, initially in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP, with a view to geographically expand this line of work as existing and functional governance mechanisms allow. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 4.1.1. Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices implemented in at least selected communities in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP ▪ Output 4.1.2. Training of selected community organisations in at least the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP implemented to increase uptake or strengthening of sustainable agriculture and SLWM practices

119. Outcome 4.2. Enhanced capacity for effective management of freshwater ecosystems (in particular RAMSAR sites) starting in PY2. Within this subcomponent, local agreements for aquatic resources use (in agreement with the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands) will be signed and enforced, basic water sanitation projects leveraged with the correspondent authorities to reduce water pollution, and agreements signed with the customs, Commerce Ministry, Mining Ministry, local mining organisations and environmental organisations (public and private) to control mercury imports and promote sustainable mining practices. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 4.2.1. Local agreements for aquatic resources use (in agreement with the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands) signed and enforced in selected communities ▪ Output 4.2.2. Basic water sanitation projects leveraged with the correspondent authorities to reduce water pollution ▪ Output 4.2.3. Agreements signed with the customs, Commerce Ministry, Mining Ministry, local mining organisations and environmental organisations (public and private) to implement a comprehensive program to control mercury imports, promote sustainable mining practices and diversify production systems in the framework of life systems as stated in the law 300 120. Component 5. Project Management, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Knowledge Management This component is part of the Capacity building and regional cooperation Program component 121. Outcome 5.1. Effective project management, monitoring & evaluation, as per the technical, administrative, and fiduciary standards defined by CAF/GEF and the Bolivian legal framework, through-out project implementation Annual Work Plans, Biannual Progress Reports, Budgeted Monitoring &Evaluation Plan, Mid- Term Evaluation Report, Terminal Evaluation report drafted, and GEF Tracking Tools will be completed according to established deadlines. Concrete output is envisaged as follows. ▪ Output 5.1.1. Annual Work Plans, Biannual Progress Reports, Budgeted Monitoring & Evaluation Plan, Mid-Term Evaluation Report, Terminal Evaluation report drafted, and GEF Tracking Tools completed according to established deadlines

122. Outcome 5.2. Systematisation of lessons learned, experiences and results, on a continuous basis through-out project implementation. To obtain this outcome, systematized information on lessons from the seven targeted protected areas will be continuously disseminated using web-based tools (among others), targeting lessons with replication potential in remaining protected areas of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems. Also, a Communication Strategy for the SNAP and strategic ecosystems, including project- specific actions, will be developed and under implementation by beginning of PY2. Concrete output is envisaged as follows.

▪ Output 5.2.1. Systematized information on lessons from the seven targeted protected areas continuously disseminated using web-based tools (among others), targeting lessons with replication potential in remaining protected areas of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems ▪ Output 5.2.2. Communication Strategy for the SNAP and strategic ecosystems, including project-specific actions, developed and under implementation by beginning of PY2

Chronogram 123. A chronogram for the production of project outputs is presented in Table 10.

2.4. Co-financing projects 124. investment mobilized comes from public loans from CAF to the Bolivia’s Government by the Mi Agua Program. This Program is active in several municipalities in the same geographic area of the Project. In Addition, donation funds from the government of Italy and estimated future income from SISCO SNAP were considered. Table 9 summarises the following contributions: ▪ Recipient Country government (SERNAP & SISCO, Other; USD 27 750 154): a conservative estimate of new income to be generated for the project areas as a result of improved planning and participative management capacities. SISCO assigns this income to each PA, so income generated in project areas will be retained in each of them. ▪ GEF Agency (CAF, Loan; USD 10 561 105): investment in a new phase of the MiAgua Program will be coordinated with activities in the project area to ensure that water- infrastructure investments align with the project´s environmental requirements. ▪ GEF Agency (CAF, Grant; USD 60 000): CAF is willing to provide a grant for the strengthening of sewage treatment capacities in the project area.

Table 9. Co-financing summary Sources of Co-financing Name of Co- Type of Co- Investment Amount financier financing Mobilized (USD) Recipient Country SERNAP In kind 25 858 551 government Recipient Country SISCO Cash 1 891 602 government GEF Agency CAF Loan Investment 10 561 105 Mobilized GEF Agency CAF Grant Investment 60 000 Mobilized

Total Co-financing 38 371 258

Table 10. Project chronogram Com Outco Project Outputs Chronogram (by quarters) pone mes nts 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 Project Objective: Strengthening the management effectiveness and financial sustainability of the Plurinational System of Protected Areas (SPAP) and strategic ecosystems, based on social participation and on the sustainable production of natural resources, focusing on the Bolivian Amazon 1. Effective management of the SPAP, based on community participation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Bolivian Amazon (Program component: Integrated Protected Landscapes) Outcome 1.1. Improved institutional framework allowing for enhanced management effectiveness of the SPAP by PY2

Output 1.1.1. Updated SPAP and strategic ecosystems program prepared by PY2 Output 1.1.2. Standardized monitoring protocols developed for at least four protected areas by PY2 and for the remaining 3 until EOP Output 1.1.3. Standardized Management Effectiveness Tool updated and validated in four protected areas by PY2 and for the remaining 3 until EOP Outcome 1.2. Improved monitoring and management effectiveness of SPAP as of PY3

Output 1.2.1. Systematic monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness implemented in at least seven protected areas in PY3 to PY5 Output 1.2.2. Accurate technical data available on the flora and fauna populations of globally significant, endangered or threatened species in at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by PY5 Outcome 1.3. Enhanced governance structures across the SPAP by PY3

Output 1.3.1. Management Plans of protected areas updated to ensure coordination and alignment with other planning documents in at least seven protected areas, including specific attention to the inclusion of indigenous people and women in protected area’s governance structures by PY3 Output 1.3.2. Specific tool developed to integrate the different Land- Use Planning tools from Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria (INRA), Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras (MDRyT), Ministerio de Planificacion del Desarrollo (MPD) with protected area management, within the framework of the Updated SPAP and strategic ecosystems, by PY2 Output 1.3.3. At least four agreements signed among the SPAP and communities, national and regional institutions, public and private companies to strengthen the integrated management of protected areas and the sustainable development of local communities in and adjacent to protected areas by PY4 2. Improved Financial Sustainability of the SPAP (Program component: Integrated Protected Landscapes)

Outcome 2.1. Evaluation of funding baseline and gaps of the SPAP in accordance with the updated SPAP-ECOS program by PY1

Output 2.1.1. Detailed assessment of current funding from all sources, needs, and gaps, at the system level and for each protected area performed by PY1

Com Outco Project Outputs Chronogram (by quarters) pone mes nts 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4

Outcome 2.2. Investigation of new revenue mechanisms for PA financing by PY3

Output 2.2.1. At least two funding mechanisms, designed to fill funding gap, developed by PY3 Outcome 2.3. Development of frameworks for sustainable income and revenue generating activities that are compatible with the management objectives of the protected areas by PY4 Output 2.3.1. Guidelines and protocols for increased uptake of SLWM practices (agroforestry, cattle ranching, fisheries, and eco-tourism among others) developed and implemented in at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by PY4 Output 2.3.2. Prioritization of protected areas conducted by PY2, with improvements in operational and tourism infrastructure completed within at least 4 protected areas by PY4 Output 2.3.3. Tourism development, marketing & networking Plan for targeted protected areas developed and under implementation by PY4 Outcome 2.4. Sustainable financing of the SPAP increased by 10% above the baseline by EOP

Output 2.4.1. Reduction of the SPAP funding gap through an increase of SPAP sustainable financing of 10% above the baseline by EOP, as a consequence of revised protected areas entrance fees, increased number of visitors, increased natural resources use fees and additional revenues derived from two newly developed financing mechanisms 3. Capacity Building in support of effective management and improved financial sustainability of the SPAP (Program Component: Policies/Incentives for Protected and Productive Landscapes) Outcome 3.1. Enhanced capacity for effective management of the SPAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3

Output 3.1.1. Training in the development and implementation of management plans (integrated planning in case of RAMSAR sites), protected areas monitoring, and assessment of management effectiveness, conducted for personnel of protected areas and partner agencies for at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites between PY3 and EOP Output 3.1.2. Essential equipment needed to conduct systematic monitoring and assessment of management effectiveness provided to at least seven targeted protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by PY3. Outcome 3.2. Strengthened capacity in achieving the financial sustainability of the SPAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3

Output 3.2.1. Training of community organizations to introduce or strengthen sustainable practices in production models currently in place within or adjacent to protected areas (agroforestry, cattle ranching, coffee, cacao, sustainable mining, among others), within at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites starting in PY3 Output 3.2.2. Training in the design and implementation of management plans (tourism, natural resources use), in at least 7 protected areas by PY3 4. Sustainable use of biodiversity (Program Component: Integrated Productive Landscapes)

Com Outco Project Outputs Chronogram (by quarters) pone mes nts 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4

Outcome 4.1. Improved sustainable use practices by indigenous territories of CIPOAP in their territories

Output 4.1.1. Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices implemented in selected communities in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP Output 4.1.2. Training of selected community organizations in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP implemented to increase uptake or strengthening of sustainable agriculture and SLWM practices. Outcome 4.2. Enhanced capacity for effective management of freshwater ecosystems (in particular RAMSAR sites) starting in PY2.

Output 4.2.1. Local agreements for aquatic resources use (in agreement with the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands) signed and enforced in selected communities. Output 4.2.2. Basic water sanitation projects leveraged with the correspondent authorities to reduce water pollution Output 4.2.3. Agreements signed with the customs, Commerce Ministry, Mining Ministry, local mining organizations and environmental organizations (public and private) to implement a comprehensive program to control mercury imports, promote sustainable mining practices and diversify production systems in the framework of life systems as stated in the law 300 5. Project Management, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Knowledge Management (Program component: Capacity building and regional cooperation)

Outcome 5.1. Effective project management, monitoring & evaluation, as per the technical, administrative, and fiduciary standards defined by CAF/GEF and the Bolivian legal framework, through-out project implementation Output 5.1.1. Annual Work Plans, Biannual Progress Reports, Budgeted Monitoring &Evaluation Plan, Annual Financial Audit Reports, Mid-Term Evaluation Report, Terminal Evaluation report drafted, and GEF Tracking Tools completed according to established deadlines. Outcome 5.2. Systematization of lessons learned, experiences and results, on a continuous basis through-out project implementation.

Output 5.2.1. Systematized information on lessons from the seven targeted protected areas continuously disseminated using web-based tools (among others), targeting lessons with replication potential in remaining protected areas of the SPAP and strategic ecosystems. Output 5.2.2. Communication Strategy for the SPAP and strategic ecosystems, including project-specific actions, developed and under implementation by beginning of PY2.

2.5. Global environmental benefits and incremental reasoning 125. As mentioned above, the lack of opportunities and conflicts at landscape level are generated by weak local governance for integrated landscape management, shortcomings in the SNAP institutional framework, shortcomings of national policies and legal frameworks, poor capacities and coordination to enforce policies and regulations among stakeholders, badly connected sectoral strategies and plans, and insufficient technical outreach and networks for SLWM. This is reflected in external protected areas, in strategic ecosystems, in poverty and marginalisation, and within them in land grabbing, illegal logging, species trafficking and mercury pollution. The project provides an incremental effort to address climate change and its impacts, unsustainable land and water use practices, unsound land tenure, and widespread weaknesses in planning, governance, monitoring and enforcement. SNAP sites in the Bolivian Amazon, along with strategic areas for conservation (in this case RAMSAR sites and indigenous lands), are the frameworks through which Bolivia will provide its important co-financing effort for financing of the GEF. 126. Baseline analysis. Without GEF’s intervention, it is anticipated that current trends will continue, as a result of conservation efforts being isolated and insufficient to significantly change the trends of ecosystem degradation. Within protected areas, these efforts will also be insufficient to protect the existing biodiversity, so habitat loss and fragmentation and loss of connectivity will remain threatening the unique sites included in the project. Climate change-related problems, with their threat of imminently reaching a tipping point with irreversible consequences, and the degradation of available freshwater, will continue unabated. 127. This scenario is due to barriers to the development of integrated solutions: ▪ Weakness in the management, financing and institutional framework of protected areas o Weak oversight capacities and coordination ▪ Lack of mechanisms to encourage sustainable production in a zero-net deforestation (ZND) framework o Shortcomings in legal and regulatory frameworks for sustainable development and ZND o Difficult access to sustainable production markets ▪ Weak inter-institutional, cross-sectoral and cross-level integral governance o Lack of coordination of sectoral strategies and plans at different levels ▪ Knowledge and innovation gaps and slow circulation of knowledge

128. The project will be based on recently completed initiatives and the current political will to consolidate the SNAP in the framework provided by the Law 1333. The project will expand, refine and validate the progress made in different initiatives implemented by SERNAP and the DGBAP with EU funds (completed projects) and will contribute to refine, validate and disseminate current national policy with respect to the SNAP. More broadly, the project will contribute to the ASL2 program, which builds on previous GEF initiatives. MMAYA and SERNAP commit that the SNAP strategic plan, PA management plans and internal statutes and technical standards will be designed and implemented to strengthen the sustainable management and financing of protected areas and to safeguard the SNAP strengthening process.

129. The project will provide a measurable boost to existing but currently undervalued opportunities for integrated landscape management and conservation. The project will do this through direct involvement in protected areas and their surroundings, and through systemic intervention to improve planning, governance and the capacities of the actors most able to develop the perceived sustainable management opportunities provided by protected areas and the valuable ecosystems they represent. In doing so, the project will provide systematized knowledge and best practices to be shared both at national level and within the program. 130. The GEF Alternative. GEF resources will specifically finance incremental activities oriented towards enhancing management effectiveness in both the SNAP and individual protected areas and other sites (subnational protected areas, RAMSAR sites) on a basis of shared management, community participation and sustainable use of biodiversity; improving the financial sustainability of the SNAP; building capacities for the management of sustainable, income- generating practices that benefit both the protected areas and the involved stakeholders; fostering relevant examples of those activities through direct support and measures to enhance the business climate in which they thrive or die; and systematizing and disseminating lessons learnt, best practice and other knowledge generated in the process. 131. MMAYA is willing to promote (where changes are out of its reach) and introduce (where they are within its competencies) the required regulatory changes with incremental technical assistance. 132. Global Environmental Benefits. The project will contribute to GEF Core Indicators 1, 4, 6 and 11, as well as to other key measures of sustainability, as outlined in paragraphs 101. to 103. above. An incremental cost analysis has been carried out, that sustains the project’s theory of change and design. Its synthesis is presented in Appendix 5. Under its assumptions, quantifiable direct project impact in the period 2025-2045 has positive present value and ROI as in Table 11.

Table 11. Financial indicators, GEB NPV (current USD, annual net increase 2025- 11 428 500 2045) ROI (% on GEF Investment) 113.65% ROI (% on Project total) 24.46%

3. IMPLEMENTATION 3.1. Financing instrument and associated conditions 133. On October 21, 2016, Bolivia's MMAYA designated CAF as the implementing agency of a project to provide funds from the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) from the 6th GEF replenishment. On June 14, 2017, MMAYA requested the completion of the Project Identification Form (PIF), which was undertaken in October 2017 when the project was submitted to the GEF Secretariat. Despite being technically approved, in November 2017 the GEF Secretariat stated that the project could not be executed due to a lack of fund resources. On July 12, 2018, MMAYA requested CAF adapt the project to the STAR funding allocated to the country in the seventh GEF replenishment (GEF-7). The PIF was adapted to the requirements of the seventh replenishment and in October 2018 was submitted to the GEF Secretariat. 134. An e-mail sent to the CAF - GEF Focal Point, on December 31, 2018 by the GEF Focal Point operative in Bolivia, the Vice Minister for the Environment, Biodiversity, and Climate Change, MMAYA Forest Management and Development, requested that CAF integrate the project into the sustainable forest management impact program phase II (Amazon Sustainable Landscapes, ASL2) during the seventh GEF replenishment. The GEF Executive Committee approved the participation of the project in this program, which would allow it to access non- reimbursable financial resources complementary to the national STAR. In an e-mail sent on February 22, 2019 to the CAF - GEF Focal Point, by the GEF Operational Focal Point of Bolivia, the Vice Minister of Environment, Biodiversity, and Climate Change, MMAYA Forest Management and Development requested that CAF, upon approval of the Expression of Interest (EOI) document, proceed with the preparation of the project, to be integrated into the SFM - ASL2 Impact Program. 135. The GEF General Assembly of June 12-15, 2019 (dated June 13, 2019) approved the ASL2 Impact Program and its integrated projects, including this one, with the final title ‘Enfoque Territorial Sostenible Amazónico en el Sistema Plurinacional de Áreas Protegidas y Ecosistemas Estratégicos de Bolivia – Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the Plurinational System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia’. According to the guidelines provided by the MMAYA, the project formulation process has fully followed the guidelines provided by the project’s identification as presented and approved in its PIF and will take the final title ‘Enfoque Territorial Sostenible Amazónico en el Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas y Ecosistemas Estratégicos de Bolivia – Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia’. 136. The GEF funding for the project is shared between Bolivia's STAR allocation, under Specific Objective 2 of the Biodiversity Focal Area (USD 7 521 246, 68.62%) and the SFM ASL2 Impact Program, under Specific Objective 1 of the Biodiversity Focal Area (USD 3 440 000, 31.38%), with a total allocation of USD 10 961 246, of which USD 10 056 189 are project costs. These resources are given on a non-reimbursable basis (grant) by the GEF to Bolivia, with CAF acting as the GEF Implementing Agency. 137. In order to maximize the impacts and sustainability of activities, the Project will seek to coordinate its actions with existing government programmes and policies, as well as programmes and projects financed by CAF. In particular, the project formulation develops a comprehensive

Gender Action Plan project approach to address the identified gender differences and gaps, gender-differentiated impacts and risks, and opportunities to promote the empowerment of women that support project objectives and outcomes. In particular, this means at least the implementation of gender-disaggregated indicators for all possible project elements (M&E and MRV implementations) and a focus on women engagement (positively-discriminated, progressive participation) in stakeholder participation (decision focus), knowledge management and capacity development activities (process focus), and any resulting new employment (impact focus). 138. The proposed Project comprises five components and will be implemented over five years. 139. The Project has obtained GEF financing for USD 10.06 million. The resources will be devoted to technical assistance and investment. The MMAYA, as leading executing agency, will contribute resources in the form of cash and generated income, staff time, logistic support, thematic expertise and overhead costs to the extent of USD 25 858 551, while CAF will contribute resources to the amount of USD 8 889 268 million (loan) and USD 35 000 (grant). 140. The Project’s analytical Summary Budget is as presented in Table 12. A detailed budget and disbursement schedule are included in Appendix 3. Co-financing letters are included in Appendix 4.

Table 12. Project Summary Budget GEF Project Project Component Co-financing Total Financing 1. Effective management of the SNAP, based on community participation and 1 874 100 18 894 988 20 769 088 sustainable use of biodiversity in the Bolivian Amazon 2. Improved Financial Sustainability of the 1 608 000 5 269 463 6 877 463 SNAP 3. Capacity Building in support of effective management and improved financial 2 088 200 1 486 259 3 574 459 sustainability of the SNAP 4. Sustainable use of biodiversity 2 489 500 10 561 105 13 050 605 5. Project Management, Monitoring & 1 537 523 60 000 1 597 523 Evaluation, and Knowledge Management Subtotal 9 577 323 36 271 815 45 849 138

Project Management Costs 478 866 2 099 443 2 578 309

Total Project Cost 10 056 189 38 371 258 48 427 447

3.2. Institutional arrangements 141. MMAYA designated CAF as Project Implementing Agency on 21 October 2016. MMAYA also asked on 14 June 2017 for the structuring of the Project for its current total budget. During

the GEF General Assembly that took place in 12-15 June 2019, the SFM Impact Program ASL2 (Sustainable Forest Management – Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program) and its Child Projects were approved. 142. Per agreement in official letters submitted by the GEF focal point to CAF, CAF has been designated as the implementing agency responsible for implementing the technical and fiduciary aspects of the Project. It will be the GEF agency responsible for monitoring and providing overall implementation advice during project implementation and for the financial and operational implementation of the project. This implies that CAF will be responsible for providing and delivering services for the project, following CAF rules and procedures, while caring that the project counts on reliable financial services to manage GEF resources. 143. SERNAP will execute the project on behalf of MMAYA for national protected areas. In the case of subnational areas, RAMSAR sites and other sites, SERNAP will propose and the VMA will delegate mandates as appropriate. The general design and institutionalisation of shared- management processes for RAMSAR sites and other novel situations will be proposed by SERNAP and instituted by VMA in close consultation with the involved municipalities, TCOs and other relevant stakeholders.

3.3. Implementation arrangements 144. A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established in order to monitor and support the smooth development of the project from the national level. It will be composed by five members and consider gender and other representation considerations. Its members will be: ▪ A representative from MMAYA-VMA, who chairs the Committee ▪ A representative from SERNAP ▪ Two representatives from the participating Management Committees (see below), elected by their assembly ▪ A representative from CAF Of the five persons conforming the PSC, at least two must be of indigenous origin and at least one woman. MMAYA convenes and chairs meetings, which will occur at least twice per year to review progress reports, approve workplans and make recommendations. The Project Director (see below) acts as Secretary, with the assistance of the Project Coordinator, both with no vote. Procedures and mechanisms will be adopted at the first meeting. 145. Each intervention area will oversee its project activities through its Management Committee. Assignment of responsibilities to members of these local Committees, a detailed description of project roles and responsibilities within each site and other project- and site-specific arrangements will be adopted at each Committee’s first project-relevant meeting with support from the PMU and according to the Project’s Operational Manual and applicable Annual Work Plan/s (Plan Operativo Anual, POA). In the case of project sites lacking stablished Management Committee and/or during the period of lack thereof, the equivalent to the Management Committee per project effects will be composed

by a representative designated by the VMA, a PMU member and a representative of relevant local stakeholders, elected by their assembly (facilitated by the PMU), with at least one of them female. Local representatives that participate in the Committee will not receive project funding. The PMU (see below) will provide staff members for participating in these Committees (with voice and vote), who will always act as its Secretaries. If lacking, chairpersonship, procedures, meeting frequency and other necessary procedures will be adopted at each Committee’s first meeting with support from the PMU. 146. The Director of SERNAP will be the Project Director. This person will oversee the PMU (see below) and daily project activity, with his/her signature needed for any commitment/expenditure above a low threshold that will be established in the Project Operations Manual. 147. Therefore, the institutional implementation structure is divided into two collaborative levels, local (see para. 145. above), and national. At the national level there is a steering body (Project Steering Committee – PSC) and a Project Management Unit (PMU). The PMU team will be composed of the Project Director (who oversees it), a Project Coordinator, consultant staff and external contractors (legal persons or individuals). The PMU will be established in SERNAP’s headquarters. 148. The PMU will ensure that the project keeps a subsidiary, incremental role with respect to existing and new institutional arrangements in each protected area and in the SNAP and SNAP ECOS. To that end, the PMU will participate in planning coordination mechanisms defined at the national, subnational or site level in order to facilitate new co-financing and to ensure that the project fulfils its aims with the maximum uptake and sustainability. 149. A summary organigram is included as Figure 21. More details about the specific tasks and composition of the collegiate bodies and PMU are available in Appendices 6, 7, 8 & 9, and a full description will be included in the Project’s Operational Manual. 150. All activities related to financial management will follow the Financial Procedures Agreement (inclusive of all annexes) between the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) as Trustee of the Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund (GEFTF), signed on September 28th, 2015. This agreement contains provisions for project operations to meet and exceed all internationally accepted financial and fiduciary management standards, to be evidenced in annual, final independent audits, and other periodic audits of the project accounts, as may be necessary. Relevant staff involved in the day-to-day management of project resources will be trained in financial management policies consistent with the provisions of the above-mentioned agreement, during and after the Project’s Inception. 151. All activities related to procurement will follow the Procurement Policies of CAF as defined in the Procurement and Contracting of Goods, Services and Works Manual, published on March 17th, 2015 by the Directorate of Physical Infrastructure, Logistics, and Administration, Version MN/DIOFLA 038 of February 2016. These policies contain provisions for operations to meet and exceed all internationally accepted financial and fiduciary management standards, to be evidenced in annual and final independent audits of the project’s procurement and disbursement processes. PMU and Executing Agency Staff that are involved in the day-to-day management of

project resources will be trained in CAF’s procurement policies as described above and in procurement planning during and after the Project’s Inception.

3.4. Monitoring, reports and evaluation 152. Based on past experiences, especially in adaptation projects, data collection, assessment and analysis are envisaged as an integral part of all components and activities therein. Given the need for ongoing collection of data and information, insights and knowledge and their incorporation in practice as defined by the project description, the project institutional and implementation arrangements include specific provisions for Monitoring and Evaluation, Knowledge Management and Lessons-Learning. The project will act as a coherent device in the origination of data, refinement of information and knowledge being obtained from its activity. 153. CAF will be responsible for the overall monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the Project through independent experts, CAF offices and/or partners. 154. M&E of Project implementation will be conducted through three main mechanisms (i) assessment of progress at the activity level (specific M&E systems will be developed for the different investment activities) which will generate data required for the purpose of the project (e.g., validate relevance of activity and provide feedback to management instruments); (ii) the measurement of progressive achievement of expected project outputs and results (outcomes) as per indicators defined in the Project Results Framework; status of progress will be reported every six months as part of the project progress reports; and (iii) evaluation of the project at certain moments of its implementation: a) progress reviews during CAF implementation support missions; b) mid-term review of project implementation; c) final evaluation report to be carried out by the PMU with input from the PSC; and d) the Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR). The ICR will be prepared within six months after closing of the Grant based on the final evaluation and the final report prepared by the PMU. 155. The results monitoring framework of the project is presented in Appendix 2. 156. To increase country ownership, the Project will seize opportunities, where available, to align Project required M&E with Government-led M&E systems, already used and operational in participant institutions. This may not only help to reduce costs, but this approach will ensure post- project sustainability and the maintenance of established systems. A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Project is provided in Appendix 7.

Figure 21. Project organigram

Implementing Agency Executing Agency Executing Partner Contract CAF MMAyA SERNAP Support Report

Project Steering Committee (PSC) Management Committee Madidi Project Management Unit (PMU) Project Director Management Committee Noel Kempff

Project Management Committee EBB Coordinator Management Committee Manuripi Conflict resolution Technical Specialist Specialist Management Committee TIPNIS

Systematisation Management Committee Pilón Lajas Specialist Administration Council Bruno Racua

Management Committee equivalent Río Yata Communication Training Financial Specialist Specialist Specialist Management Committee equivalent Río Matos

Management Committee equivalent Río Blanco Communication Indigenous Agency (external) Liaison Management Committee equivalent CIPOAP territories

3.5. Dissemination of results and visibility 157. The project is equipped with mechanisms for the wide diffusion of its activities and dissemination of its outputs and results. In first place, it is envisaged that Management Committees or equivalent bodies, one for each project site, provide a medium for the engagement of local communities, which will also serve the exchange and transfer of information and knowledge. Each training activity is provided with resources and capacities for its evaluation and systematisation. Furthermore, specific capacity has been designed and budgeted for the systematisation and dissemination of learning products beyond activity-specific ones. Finally, a communication strategy (embedded within a wider one for the SNAP, but equipped with enough capacities to cover project-specific needs) is designed to be in place from PY1 to EOP.

3.6. Risks and mitigation measures 158. The project’s conceptual approach to risk (Renn, 2012) and vulnerability (Adger, 2006) follows the DPISR framework (Smeets & Weterings, 1999) and takes into account not only the execution period, but also the expected period of GEB production. The project formulation stage of this project has been a risk show, with political17, natural18 and health19 hazards materializing in concrete difficulties at every step of the process. Logically, risks have been identified in the state and response realms of the DPISR logic chain, since existing and foreseeable drivers, pressures and impacts are what motivates the project in first place and have been studied previously, during the identification phase. Specific risk analysis and measures for the COVID-19 contingency and its feasible impact on the star of project execution has been taken into account. 159. Risks, risk analysis and measures to be taken by the project are detailed in Table 13 and Appendix 10. The project has no or minimal potential negative environmental or potential negative social impact that have not been adequately addressed. Design measures have been taken to assure that it contributes to the resilience of affected ecosystems and population in different scenarios and that it will be minimally controversial in terms of stakeholder interests. It will not adversely affect ecosystems or environmental quality; moreover, it has a positive impact by eliminating drivers of its degradation. Therefore, the project is globally classified under the category of Low Risk.

3.7. Safeguards 160. The implementation of project activities will be in accordance the Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual, Version 1 of May 2015. The Project is classified as Category C, according to the Guidelines and Procedures on Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual (Section V.I.2 Annex I). Project interventions, especially on-the ground interventions under Components 3 & 4, are not expected to cause major adverse environmental impacts, and instead, will improve the environmental and social conditions

17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Bolivian_political_crisis 18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Amazon_rainforest_wildfires 19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic

prevailing in the areas of intervention. Minor micro-local environmental impacts may be expected from some on-the-ground interventions, but mostly temporary. 161. Special attention is devoted to the vigilance of safeguards concerning indigenous peoples and women, as well as to those related with climate change. The joint mitigation and adaptation approach that Bolivia promotes at the international level is applied, with its five methodological steps, including strengthening forest governance, participatory planning, joint target setting, implementation of integrated forest management through provision of finance and technology and monitoring of indicators. Enhanced participatory and transparency measures have been taken to ensure that all stakeholders and the project in its integrity comply with the highest ethical, technical and managerial standards. The overall Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the project is included in Appendix 11. 162. An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) is required for each local intervention, that conforms to all safeguards triggered by the project and applicable national regulations, and to the Guidelines and Procedures on Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual. The aim of each ESMF is to be a practical tool that adheres to the existing regulatory framework in the country, complemented with specific project activities when considered necessary, that describe clear processes to identify impacts, identify and implement mitigation actions, with clear timing and allocation of responsibilities. 163. The identification of impacts at that micro-local level will be done through participatory, ex ante processes during Project implementation. All triggered safeguards will be addressed through the ESMF. Each Management Committee or equivalent body shall be required to fully embrace their specific ESMF during project implementation, through agreements to be signed between the project and each Committee, as a condition of engagement, and thereafter will be disclosed on the Project website.

Table 13. Major risk analysis Risk Probabili Significan Overall Discussion Proposed Monitoring ce ty Risk measure Rating Political Low High Medium General and subnational (departments A major policy- The adaptive Risk: political and municipalities) elections are due in dialogue process is management process will 2020, within a transitional political climate. at the core of established for the (response) is Nonetheless, protected areas and its Component 1 project establishes a not sustainability are not contentious political recursive cycle of maintained issues. The project will assure adequate internal evaluation and through dialogue and stakeholder-friendly planning adaptation on administratio communication before, during and after a yearly basis. The ns these dates MTE provides an instance for major external evaluation at midterm, when the riskiest period from this perspective will likely be already over, and the opportunity for adapting the project to the resulting scenario Climate Medium Medium Medium According to numerous studies, the Output 1.1.2 will The implementation Change Amazon is approaching a tipping point provide the SNAP arrangements for the Risk: (v.gr. Nepstad et al., 2008; Lovejoy & with an improved project include conditions Nobre, 2018). The Project is precisely monitoring mechanisms for a two- under aimed at diminishing such possibility, framework that will way exchange of climate although it cannot avert it on its own. In be able to detect information and change addition to the evidence signalling that changes in this coordination between (state) differ repeated droughts do not compound their direction from PY2 local and national substantially effects (Feldpausch et al., 2016), it can be levels that will allow for from those expected that the Bolivian Amazon will be alert signals to trigger modelled one of the last parts of the Amazon to along the suffer dire consequences for such an

Risk Probabili Significan Overall Discussion Proposed Monitoring ce ty Risk measure Rating project event during the period in which the period project will be executed (2020-20205) and produce GEB (2025-2045), for its position near the water sources feeding the basin. The project reduces the vulnerability of both ecosystems and population to the expected impacts of such threshold- reaching and contributes to build adaptive capacities. The measures supported by the project would only turn from preventive to mitigative in an accelerated- change scenario, but its financial, environmental and social performance and production of GEB is unlikely to be affected except marginally by that change during the design period. Given that the exact pace and intensity of this potential change is a known unknown, the marginal risk it poses for the project and its outcomes out of this analysis is not actionable save as Uncertainty Risk (see below) COVID-19 Medium Medium Medium The final stage of the formulation process The final stage of Key staff will receive Risk: project (including public consultation) has the formulation specific training on start is demonstrated that it is possible to provide process, including participation in times of hampered by continuity to project activities during the public consultations COVID-19. movement acute phase of the pandemic. A on site, has Assumptions on the restrictions. combination of virtual and physically- demonstrated the promise of tourism as The post- distanced meetings has taken place, feasibility of a sustainable income pandemic showing that means are available for organising and source have been situation participative decision-making in the post- carrying out the kind reviewed in order to

Risk Probabili Significan Overall Discussion Proposed Monitoring ce ty Risk measure Rating makes pandemic situation in which the project of participative reflect 1-2 years of project will start its execution. decision-making that reduced traveling. The assumptions is central to project possibility of increased invalid governance. cost of certain inputs has also been taken into account in budgeting. Implementati Medium Low Low Coordination between the different The project has The M&E mechanisms on Risk: at measures in this project is key to its established the in place during project different success and has been received major necessary implementation levels attention during the design phase. implementation explicitly measure key (policy- Knowledge-related actions, technical and arrangements, indicators that provide making financial measures and institutional and including the alert signals and process, regulatory measures are to be phased in necessary trending. The adaptive private in a stakeholder-friendly form capabilities and management process participants, budget, and a robust established for the finance) chronogram project contains a information recursive cycle of is not internal evaluation and actionable planning adaptation on due to other a yearly basis barriers not being removed (response) Cultural Low Medium Low The project is built over deep awareness Capacity and budget The adaptive Risk: cultural of the cultural reality it works in and for the necessary management process differences, values and supports indigenous interaction with established for the pre-existing knowledge and its proven results with stakeholders, with project contains a conflicts or respect to conservation. It is built too over special attention to recursive cycle of

Risk Probabili Significan Overall Discussion Proposed Monitoring ce ty Risk measure Rating other deep awareness of the problems that the needs and internal evaluation and reasons indigenous populations face for their specificities of planning adaptation on make it participation in sustainable development. indigenous peoples, a yearly basis unfeasible to As the project supports established has been included in exchange protected areas, it benefits from and the project’s and transfer strengthens existing intercultural-dialogue implementation knowledge mechanisms (PA Management arrangements and (response) Committees and others) budget Uncertainty Low Medium Low The project’s models have been prepared The M&E The adaptive Risk: actual through a thorough expert review process, mechanisms in management process values of submitted to sensitivity analysis and place during project established for the (state) results from it are incorporated, thus implementation project contains a critical rendering the model and key variables explicitly measure recursive cycle of indicators risk-explicit key indicators that internal evaluation and (BOB-USD provide key-value planning adaptation on exchange signals and trending a yearly basis. The rate, rainfall, MTE provides an internal instance for major migration) external evaluation at differ midterm substantially from those modelled along the project Innovation Low Low Low The technologies that the project applies The project The adaptive Risk: it is not and transfers are well-known and tested, considers the management process possible to and its application has already been participation and established for the align effected in similar conditions (see Box 1 in access to knowledge project contains a livelihoods para. 7. Above). The project provides of all stakeholders. recursive cycle of

Risk Probabili Significan Overall Discussion Proposed Monitoring ce ty Risk measure Rating incentives support and monitoring capabilities to Capacity and budget internal evaluation and with the ensure the detection of any shortcoming for the necessary planning adaptation on sustainable during that process interaction with a yearly basis. Each management stakeholders has innovation process has of land and been included in the been equipped with its water project’s own specific M&E (response) implementation processes (Outputs arrangements and 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 4.1.2) budget

4. SUMMARY OF THE EX ANTE EVALUATION 4.1. Economic, financial and fiduciary analysis 164. The five components of the project are fully aligned with the four components of the ASL program and knowledge management, learning and lessons learned will be a continuous activity among the PAs, RAMSAR sites and indigenous territories that participate in the project in Bolivia. The project will coordinate with the ASL program managers and all the national projects to promote and foster the participation of PAs staff and indigenous people and local communities in the different transboundary and regional activities. 165. The logic for choosing project activities included the selection of intervention areas through the expert discussion of socioeconomic and environmental conditions in the selected intervention areas. Based on the understanding of the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the intervention areas and on the circumstances surrounding the participation and management of the various social and institutional actors in the area, the portfolio of possible measures was defined, grouped by typologies that respond to the following major groups: (i) …. The refinement of the portfolio of measures was done through technical reasoning (using criteria such as institutional strengthening potential or potential to diminish forest-cover loss) and knowledge based on previous experiences in the region. The measures were chosen based on a qualitative analysis of their feasibility and not necessarily on individual costs, probable execution times, availability of favourable frameworks (in legal or institutional terms), and the estimated time for their implementation. The measures that it was estimated that can be implemented in relatively short times, have the highest probability of co-financing, or are most likely to consolidate alliances were favoured. 166. The project is expected to be cost-effective by complementing the previously defined baseline investments. The project is also expected to be cost-effective as a result of its ability to bring together various partners from national economic development sectors such as environment, natural resource management or water and sanitation. Additionally, project activities will contribute to the achievement of more sustainability, while addressing drivers of deforestation and degradation in the intervention sites. In this way, and with the relatively limited resources available, a far-reaching impact is anticipated, since management/policy instruments affecting multiple sectors will be developed and embraced. Investments in the generation and exchange of knowledge, technology transfer, institutional strengthening; mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and programs; and the design and implementation of mitigation measures in priority sectors will provide opportunities for South-South transboundary collaboration, while achieving tangible economies of scale in knowledge management through the dissemination of experiences and lessons learned. 167. The anticipated fiscal impact of the project on the participating institutions is expected to be modest. While generating co-financing cash as part of self-interested institutional efforts, in kind counterpart contributions, in terms of staff, the provision of office space, and the recurrent costs for fuel, equipment maintenance and consumables are largely sunk into the existing budgets of the executing agencies and stakeholders and should therefore not be a challenge in the future. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the project is further strengthened through the involvement of CAF as the GEF Implementing Agency, together with national and subnational institutions. This

ensures that an international partner with experience in managing GEF projects is able to support project execution and strengthen the administrative, financial and technical oversight of the project, focused on the efficient execution of funds, the achievement of economies of scale, and the maximisation of return on project investments.

4.2. Learning from past experience 168. The project is built on the experience and lessons learnt primarily from: ▪ GEFID 5755 Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems in Amazonia by Indigenous and Local Communities to Generate Multiple Environmental and Social Benefits (Implementing Agency UNDP, GEF-5, in implementation) ▪ GEFID 4577 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity to Improve Human Nutrition in Five Macro Eco-regions (Implementing Agency FAO, GEF-5, in implementation) ▪ GEFID 3971 SFM Biodiversity Conservation through Sustainable Forest Management by Local Communities (Implementing Agency UNDP, GEF-4, closed 2017) ▪ The Italian-funded ‘Fortalecimiento de la Economía Social Comunitaria a través de la Gestión Integral y Sustentable del Bosque Amazónico’ (GISBA) Project, executed by FAO

169. Based on past experiences, there is a need to ensure that Monitoring, Reporting, Verification and Evaluation (MRV, M&E) will be carried out in two dimensions: (i) to follow up on Project progress and results and (ii) to capture long-term costs, impacts and benefits of the intervention. The proposed Project envisages data collection, assessment and analysis as integral part of all components and activities therein and devotes considerable effort to produce data and to undertake its analysis, use and availability. Specifically, the M&E system as designed consists of three main elements: (i) the measurement of progress at the activity level; (ii) the measurement of progressive achievement of expected project outputs and results (outcomes) as defined in the Results Framework; and (iii) continuous evaluation of the Project during implementation to enable early and regular adjustments. 170. The project is technically sound, given that: ▪ Processes and methods to be used are well tested and will thus facilitate the Project’s innovative approach. ▪ The Project will minimize technical difficulties in applying new technologies by developing and implementing agreed protocols for training, collection, processing and dissemination of information, technology transfer and broader South-South collaboration. ▪ The involvement of stakeholders at the local level brings experience and technical know- how, thus providing a high degree of assurance to the quality of the intervention. ▪ In turn, the project employs decentralized structures that ensure the participation and contribution of local stakeholders at the different required levels. 4.3. Social analysis and stakeholder participation 171. The project will strengthen local capacities among project stakeholders and support their engagement in regional key events. Key knowledge-exchange activities will also be coordinated

with neighbouring protected areas (e.g. Tambopata and Bahuaja Sonene in Peru with Madidi in Bolivia or Pampas del Heat in Peru with Manuripi in Bolivia). Correspondingly, sustainable use practices in the project will consider and use information and knowledge generated in the other countries participating in the ASL program. 172. Stakeholders participate in the identification of project priorities and in the definition of planned outputs and outcomes during interviews and consultations. All stakeholders have the opportunity to review and comment on proposed project activities and to provide specific inputs to the project process. Stakeholder participation may include the provision of co-financing, participation of technical staff in workshops, training, and tools development, the facilitation of local project events and processes, the provision of project oversight through participation on the PSC, as data sources and technical expertise relevant for the technical components of the project, and knowledge management through the institutionalisation of project results and lessons learned to allow for up-scaling, replication and sustainability. At the regional level, stakeholder engagement will focus at the facilitation of regional project processes in project countries and in the identification of opportunities for optimisation of resources, joint investments for project delivery, coordination and collaboration in the production of technical outputs.

Beneficiaries 173. The minimum number of direct beneficiaries has been totalled from the breakdown in Table 14. Direct beneficiaries represent 16.7% of the potential population, while female beneficiaries represent 16.2% of the potential female population (estimated to be 16 056 women).

Table 14. Project beneficiaries (by audience) Beneficiaries Total Audience Of Of population Project whom whom women men

PA staff 80 12 68

Government (other than PA staff) 70 32 38

Others (academia, NGOs, miners) 210 101 109

Seven protected areas 19 966 3 500 1 575 1 925

CIPOAP 13 109 1 000 480 520

RAMSAR sites 2 000 1 000 400 600

Total 35 075 5 860 2 600 3 260

100

174. The inclusion and engagement of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and the public in the implementation of the project will be ensured via their direct participation in the governance and decision-making bodies of the project. Additionally, it must be emphasized that in all instances, the standards and guidelines of the Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual apply. 175. In particular, and given the essential participation of indigenous and community organisations in the sustainability of the Amazon Basin, the project takes into account the Principles and Guidelines for Engagement with Indigenous Peoples (GEF/C.42/Inf.03/Rev.1) and other GEF guidelines, and specifically the following. 176. The project is designed and implemented in such a way that fosters full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ and their members’ identity, dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness so that they 1) receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits; and 2) do not suffer adverse effects during the development process. 177. The full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples has been and will keep being sought in the identification, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all project activities. Responsibility for assuring public involvement rests within the country, with the governmental project executing agency, with the support of CAF. The project addresses the social, cultural and economic needs of Indigenous Peoples affected by it. 178. To be effective, all project engagement activities will be broad-based and sustainable. The project budget includes the necessary financial and technical assistance to all involved stakeholders to ensure effective involvement of indigenous peoples, and CAF will work with all stakeholders to ensure that activities to support involvement of indigenous peoples are effectively carried out over the long-term. CAF will support executing partners in: (i) providing relevant, timely, and accessible information to as many stakeholders as possible; (ii) facilitating broad- based and project-specific consultations, especially at the local or sub-national levels; and (iii) promoting the active participation of Indigenous Peoples throughout the project cycle, including through awareness raising and capacity strengthening activities. 179. Public involvement activities, including those with Indigenous Peoples, are to be carried out in a transparent and open manner. Further, the project will provide full documentation and disclosure of non-confidential information, including full documentation of public involvement. In particular, the project will ensure that it documents: (i) the mutually accepted consultation processes it develops with indigenous communities and (ii) evidence of agreement between the parties as the outcome of these consultations. 180. The project recognizes and respects: ▪ the importance of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices to the long-term well- being of Indigenous Peoples, and the domestic legislation or applicable international obligations designed to support the maintenance of this traditional knowledge, innovations and practices ▪ that traditional knowledge can enhance GEF-financed projects and encourages the availability of facilitated and flexible processes to allow for the incorporation of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices into relevant GEF-financed projects

101

▪ the important role of indigenous women, elders and youth in the maintenance, enhancement, and transfer of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and supports the inclusion of these groups and other traditional experts in GEF project activities, as necessary ▪ the importance of appropriate access to, and equitable sharing of, benefits related to the utilisation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples ▪ other existing guidance on traditional knowledge and access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, including the Tkarihwaié:ri Code, the Akwé:Kon Voluntary Guidelines, the Bonn guidelines and the Nagoya Protocol

181. The project supports the empowerment, participation and leadership of indigenous women and men. The project will facilitate access by Indigenous Peoples to local or country level grievance and dispute resolution systems as a first step in addressing project concerns. CAF is required to have accountability and grievance systems in place, at the project and/or institution level, to respond to and address complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples. 182. The GEF Conflict Resolution Commissioner and the GEF Indigenous Peoples focal point will be fully available in complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples to the project that fail to be adequately addressed at the local, project, country, or CAF level. Decisions and complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples will be made readily available to the GEF Indigenous Peoples focal point for documentation. 183. The project has also undertaken a detailed analysis of the conditions for participation in the specific case that will be widespread in its intervention areas, which adds poverty and remoteness to the marginalized conditions of Amazonian indigenous peoples and/or women. That analysis recommends: ▪ The incorporation of traditional governance mechanisms and local knowledge into every project activity, including non-field activities such as proposing regulatory changes, data analysis and others. ▪ The reinforced participation of indigenous peoples, women, and women organisations in the governance mechanisms of the project. ▪ The development of specific indicators for equity and inclusion of indigenous peoples and women, both for processes and results. ▪ The promotion of mechanisms for indigenous peoples and women participating in the access to and management of biodiversity and natural resources.

4.4. Environmental impact 184. The project has no or minimal potential negative environmental or potential negative social impact that have not been adequately addressed. Design measures have been taken to assure that it contributes to the resilience of affected ecosystems and population in different scenarios and that it will be minimally controversial in terms of stakeholder interests. It will not adversely

102

affect ecosystems or environmental quality; moreover, it has a positive impact by eliminating drivers of its degradation.

4.5. Gender analysis 185. Environmental degradation and climate change can exacerbate inequalities. Because of their position in many societies, women tend to be more vulnerable to climate variability and change, and often experience larger negative impacts than men. Mitigation strategies should not consolidate or extend these inequalities. In its efforts to fully integrate gender mainstreaming, the project will be guided by the principles that gender elements are important drivers and incentives for achieving global environmental benefits, and in ensuring gender equity and social inclusion. The project also embraces evidence showing that the needs, interest, and capabilities of women are habitually structurally different from those of men in relation to the access and use renewable resources, and thus, must be given special consideration in ensuring balanced access to project resources. 186. Monitoring and reporting to be included in the project’s M&E system will include gender- disaggregated measurements of relevant variables as follows: ▪ Participation of women in governance and decision-making structures ▪ Gender-disaggregated accounts of participants and beneficiaries ▪ Economic activity related to the project and lead by women ▪ Employment of women

187. The project’s baseline with respect to gender equity is particularly low. The Bolivian Amazon, a frontier-like environ, is a difficult place for women, which shows up in the population’s gender distribution: opposite to the general trend to women being a slight majority in population distributions, the ones for project sites show them in minority, closer to 45% instead of the usual 51-53%. With respect to employment in conservation activities, especially in field ones, this difficulty shows up in extremely low participation rates for women. Taking into account this low base, and in order to not exacerbate tensions that have already shown up, the general criteria for establishing thresholds for women participation has been to ensure that their actual participation rate is not diminished, and that they participate in a proportion not minor than their population share when earmarking new activities. This assures an achievable minimum standard that the project’s execution will seek to override by a wide margin. 188. The project will seek to institutionalize gender mainstreaming at all levels of intervention and operation of the project, through the development and implementation of a specific Gender Mainstreaming Action Plan, which will follow the Gender Analysis Approach, Guidelines and Procedures described in Section XIII of the Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual, with particular attention to the potential roles, benefits, impacts and risks for women and men to ensure meaningful participation and the equitable distribution of benefits among women and men to be derived from project interventions. The said plan will also address social vulnerability and the limited capacity to adapt to climate change and the challenges that often limit the participation of women in governance systems. To this end, the Project will build on

103

progress and efforts being made nationally to consolidate gender mainstreaming and institutionalisation and will embrace the lessons learned and opportunities provided by women participation in institutional structures. In consultation and with the participation of women at the levels of relevant government ministries, regional governments, and operational governance structures of the Project, special efforts will be made to ensure that gender equity concerns are voiced during project governance at all levels, in all policy, programme, administrative and financial activities and procedures of the project, thereby contributing to a profound organisational transformation in all entities directly involved in the Project. Gender training will be included for both men and women in training opportunities provided by the Project, so increasing women’s access to opportunities for continued personal growth, increasing their leadership opportunities, and their capacity as agents of change to disseminate measures through the communities in which they live. Finally, the empowerment of women is fostered by their positively discriminated participation in the project’s governance mechanisms. 189. For the Gender Mainstreaming Action Plan to be most effective and have the intended impact on project implementation and results, it would have to be developed as an early priority at Project Inception, and specifically within the first 3 months of project implementation. Since early operational planning would typically define strategies and actions which would influence the life of the project, it will be crucial for gender involvement and mainstreaming be secured in this early stage to ensure maximum and meaningful gender participation from the onset. The Gender Mainstreaming Action Plan is a mandatory project policy document to be consulted and followed in the definition, conceptualisation and implementation of all project activities and investments, and its provisions form part of the required monitoring and evaluation of the project. 190. In terms of the integration of gender considerations into specific project activities and outputs, the project ensures that budgetary resources are allocated to incorporate gender analysis and gender concerns into all aspects of policy development, procedures, guidelines, projects, and monitoring systems of the Project, as part of the process to ‘institutionalize’ gender mainstreaming in biodiversity conservation initiatives, and particularly, in the governance of sustainable resource use in the national and subnational jurisdictions targeted by the project. To this end, the Project Steering Committee and the Local Committees deciding on project interventions will have guaranteed spaces reserved for women participation in said processes, and similarly, all project training and consultation opportunities shall reserve no less than twenty percent (20%) of all spaces for women, either as individuals with a legitimate interest or as representatives of Women’s Organisations in the project intervention areas. Project activities to promote transfer of generated knowledge and capacity to all relevant stakeholders to create a better-informed climate-smart constituency will include the introduction of information and communication technologies, which are critical tools for women’s education, empowerment, economic productivity, and participation, thus contributing in a systematic manner to improvements in the overall livelihood of women. 191. Consistent with the need to ensure gender mainstreaming through-out the project, gender- specific performance indicators have been defined and form part of the formal monitoring and evaluation framework of the overall project, as evidenced in the Logical Framework of the project. Compliance with the required outputs and standards of the Gender Mainstreaming Action Plan will be subject to independent external evaluation to be explicitly referenced in the Project

104

Operations Manual, in all subsidiary agreements, and in the Terms of Reference for the Mid-Term Evaluation and the Terminal Evaluation of the project.

4.6. Innovation 192. In the context of the Project, ‘Technologies’ are understood to be combinations of knowledge, methodologies, skills and experiences. The Project integrates in every stage a focus on knowledge management through thorough monitoring and the identification and dissemination of best practices. These allow not only the evaluation of the Project, but also its adaptive management by the continuous analysis and use of data originated in the Project’s activities. 193. Innovation: being part of the ASL2 Program, South American protected area systems that include the Amazon Basin have already overcome the barriers for mutual learning and knowledge exchange. Dedicated budget is planned in the GEF project for thorough monitoring and evaluation, MRV system and knowledge management activities including systematisation and dissemination. The project uses its own size and expected impact to provide an enabling environment for institutional uptake, scaling-up and replication and innovation; it does so through the already-mentioned focus on monitoring and systematisation; through the removal of perverse lock-ins and policy-open dialogues and interinstitutional coordination; through the adoption and promotion of platforms for innovation; and through its continuous provision of monitored and systematized experiences. All activities in the project are designed to provide catalytic effects far beyond its direct impact. 194. The project will carry out monitoring, reporting and evaluation of its input, throughput and output, providing opportunities for knowledge sharing through the systematisation and communication of activities, best practice and learning. 195. It can be expected that the project will produce or foster innovation and early adoption in water sanitation, policy innovations (as the harmonisation of different public policy realms, including sustainable financing of protected areas, is central to the project idea) and governance innovations (new institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks will be developed and implemented).

4.7. Sustainability and replicability 196. Sustainability of the project is ensured, at a general yet robust level, by its focus on a non- contentious environmental issue such as protected areas. All project outcomes with respect to policy, regulation and technical enhancement are supported by the existence of the SNAP and SNAP ECOS and should stay as minimum standard for further rounds of policymaking. 197. Data and information sources. The design process has used official data and information provided by the MMAYA and CAF delegation in Bolivia. For unavailable critical data, and using Landsat data from Global Forest Watch – GFW (Hansen et al., 2013), it has been estimated the amount of tree cover loss on previous year for the period 2009-2018 (the longest available) for

105

the officially-sourced project site delimitations20. The process for obtaining such critical data for future years is well-established and will produce comparable data, which are much more sensitive and specific, for monitoring purposes. 198. Potential for scaling-up. At the national level, the project is deeply ingrained within national protected area policy, and its works will have an influence in the overall configuration of the Bolivian protected area system. From this, top-down uptake is ensured, but the provisions that have been taken for knowledge management and communication ensure that PA-level innovations will also reach non-Amazonian protected areas in the country. Regionally, participation in the ASL2 Program ensures the exchange of experiences and knowledge with other Amazonian PA systems. 199. Knowledge management is incorporated to all project activity and coordinated through the Program’s Component 5. Participatorily-designed knowledge-management tools are to be explicitly used for national and international exchanges of good practices and dissemination among relevant stakeholders. Permanent systematisation and results-based guidance is to be provided through a project website and other specific activities. The project also includes measures to enhance data access and sharing, thus overpowering its own generation of knowledge and allowing for innovation to take place beyond the direct incremental knowledge set. 200. Given the awareness about the Amazon basin condition and the current financing opportunities available, the possibilities for replication and up-scaling are good in project intervention areas and in areas with similar characteristics within the Amazon. Additionally, the overall design of the project revolves around the implementation of ‘site interventions’, with the clear and explicit intention that these could be replicated nationally, with the potential for replication regionally and extra-regionally. 201. The strategy to ensure sustainability is the consolidation of inter-institutional agreements and the creation of regulations in coordination with the governing bodies involved in the policy process. The institutionalisation of biodiversity and climate change considerations into planning tools, management tools, and guidelines will guarantee a structural and operational presence of these considerations in decision-making institutions that will resist changes in government administration. The project will achieve the development of a national community/cadre of practice in protected area management that will prove to be an important asset in extending this expertise to other Amazon countries. There is a strong sense of ownership among multiple stakeholders involved at national and sub-national levels, working in a collaborative manner and led by different types of stakeholders (from governmental dependencies to local communities). This robust constituent base provides a solid foundation for the sustainability of project outputs beyond the project’s life.

20 Using more detailed data (50-metre-resolution PALSAR/MODIS composites), researchers from Oklahoma University produce forest-non forest maps for the Brazilian Amazon (Qin et al., 2019) and South America (Qin et al., 2017). This research group has provided data for the comparison of GFW estimations used in the design process and their product, which they also compare in their research at less-detailed, regional scale. The results of the comparison, produced for the project areas, are coherent with the deviation between both maps observed in their work at a regional level. Thanks are hereby acknowledged to Drs. Xiao and Qin for their disinterested cooperation.

106

202. The project will incorporate a focus on capacity development and knowledge management to foster participatory processes, capacity building, and access to information (knowledge about the activities, impacts, and benefits) as means to effectively engage communities that are affected and/or play a role in the intervention areas. Their involvement, understanding of the issues, and the role they can play act as a tool to promote sustainability of activities beyond the life of the project at the subnational, national and regional levels. CAF, as the Implementing Agency, will assure that knowledge is systematized and available through open channels, throughout and after the project implementation, with the governmental entities responsible at each level.

107

References Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 Alencar, A., Asner, G. P., Knapp, D., & Zarin, D. (2011). Temporal variability of forest fires in eastern Amazonia. Ecological Applications, 21(7), 2397–2412. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1168.1 Anderson, E. P., Jenkins, C. N., Heilpern, S., Maldonado-Ocampo, J. A., Carvajal-Vallejos, F. M., Encalada, A. C., … Tedesco, P. A. (2018). Fragmentation of Andes-to-Amazon connectivity by hydropower dams. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao1642. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao1642 Aragão, L. E. O. C., Anderson, L. O., Fonseca, M. G., Rosan, T. M., Vedovato, L. B., Wagner, F. H., … Saatchi, S. (2018). 21st Century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y Azevedo-Santos, V. M., Garcia-Ayala, J. R., Fearnside, P. M., Esteves, F. A., Pelicice, F. M., Laurance, W. F., & Benine, R. C. (2016). Amazon aquatic biodiversity imperiled by oil spills. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(13), 2831–2834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1192-9 Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., & Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss Downloaded from. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962 Castello, L., Mcgrath, D. G., Hess, L. L., Coe, M. T., Lefebvre, P. A., Petry, P., … Arantes, C. C. (2013). The vulnerability of Amazon freshwater ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12008 Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Baker, T. R., Dexter, K. G., Lewis, S. L., Brienen, R. J. W., Feldpausch, T. R., … Phillips, O. L. (2019). Compositional response of Amazon forests to climate change. Global Change Biology, 25(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14413 Feldpausch, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Brienen, R. J. W. W., Gloor, E., Lloyd, J., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., … Lloyd, J. (2016). Amazon forest response to repeated droughts. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 30(7), 964–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005133.Received Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052 Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V. P., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., … Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693 IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land — An IPCC special report. IUCN. (2019). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from https://www.iucnredlist.org Kull, C. A., Carrière, S. M., Moreau, S., Ramiarantsoa, H. R., Blanc-Pamard, C., & Tassin, J. (2013). Melting pots of biodiversity: Tropical smallholder farm landscapes as guarantors of sustainability. Environment, 55(2), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2013.765307 Laurance, W. F., Peletier-Jellema, A., Geenen, B., Koster, H., Verweij, P., Van Dijck, P., … Van Kuijk, M. (2015). Reducing the global environmental impacts of rapid infrastructure expansion. Current Biology, 25(7), R259–R262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.050 Lovejoy, T. E., & Nobre, C. (2018). Amazon Tipping Point. Science Advances, 4(2), eaat2340. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2340 Marengo, J. A., & Souza, C. J. (2018). Mudanças Climáticas: impactos e cenários para a Amazônia. Meade, R. H., Dunne, T., Richey, J. E., DE M Santos, U., SALATI, E., DEVOL, A. H., … SALATI, E. (1985). Storage and remobilization of suspended sediment in the lower Amazon river of Brazil. Science (New York, N.Y.), 228(4698), 488–490. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.228.4698.488 MMAyA. (2012). Áreas Protegidas Subnacionales en Bolivia. Situación actual 2012. La Paz. Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Soares-Filho, B., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land

108

use, forests and climate: Prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1498), 1737–1746. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036 Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., … Hayes, D. (2011). A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333(6045), 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609 Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2012). Separación o integración para la conservación de biodiversidad: la ideología detrás del debate “land- sharing” frente a “land-sparing.” Ecosistemas, 21(1–2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.7818/re.2014.21-1-2.00 Pöhlker, Wiedemann, K. T., Sinha, B., Shiraiwa, M., Gunthe, S. S., Smith, M., … Andreae, M. O. (2012). Biogenic potassium salt particles as seeds for secondary organic aerosol in the Amazon. Science, 337. Porter-bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-yankelevich, S., & Reyes- garcía, V. (2012). Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 268, 6– 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034 Qin, Y., Xiao, X., Dong, J., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., Shimabukuro, Y., … Moore, B. (2019). Improved estimates of forest cover and loss in the Brazilian Amazon in 2000–2017. Nature Sustainability, 2(8), 764–772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0336-9 Qin, Y., Xiao, X., Dong, J., Zhou, Y., Wang, J., Doughty, R. B., … Moore, B. (2017). Annual dynamics of forest areas in South America during 2007–2010 at 50-m spatial resolution. Remote Sensing of Environment, 201(September), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.005 RAISG. (2012). Amazonía bajo presión. https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org. Renn, O. (2012). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772440 Reyes García, V., Huanca, T., Vadez, V., Leonard, W., & Wilkie, D. (2006). Cultural, Practical, and Economic Value of Wild Plants: A Quantitative Study in the Bolivian Amazon. Economic Botany, 60(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2006)60 Shelton, D., Vaz, A., Huertas Castillo, B., Camacho Nassar, C., Bello, L. J., Colleoni, P., … Iniciativa Amotodie. (2013). Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact. Pamplona - Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, IWGIA and Instituto de Promoción Estudios Sociales, IPES. Siikamäki, J. V., Krupnick, A. J., Strand, J., & Vincent, J. R. (2019). International Willingness to Pay for the Protection of the Amazon Rainforest (Policy Research Working Papers No. 8775). Policy Research Working Paper. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-8775 Silva, C. V. J., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Barlow, J., Espirito-Santo, F., Young, P. J., Anderson, L. O., … Xaud, H. A. M. (2018). Drought-induced Amazonian wildfires instigate a decadal-scale disruption of forest carbon dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1760). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0043 Sioli, H. (1984). The Amazon : Limnology and landscape ecology of a mighty tropical river and its basin. Springer Netherlands. Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators : Typology and overview. European Environment Agency (Vol. 25). Soares-Filho, B., & Rajão, R. (2018). Traditional conservation strategies still the best option. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 608–610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0179-9 Song, X. P., Huang, C., Saatchi, S. S., Hansen, M. C., & Townshend, J. R. (2015). Annual carbon emissions from deforestation in the Amazon basin between 2000 and 2010. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0126754. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126754 Souza da Silva, S., Fearnside, P. M., Lima de Alencastro Graça, P. M., Brown, I. F., Alencar, A., & Flores de Melo, A. W. (2018). Dynamics of forest fires in the southwestern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 424(April), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.04.041

109

Strand, J., Soares-Filho, B., Costa, M. H., Oliveira, U., Ribeiro, S. C., Pires, G. F., … Toman, M. (2018). Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon Forest’s Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0175-0 ter Steege, H., Pitman, N. C. A., Killeen, T. J., Laurance, W. F., Peres, C. A., Guevara, J. E., … Gamarra, L. V. (2015). Estimating the global conservation status of more than 15,000 Amazonian tree species. Science Advances, 1, e1500936. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500936 Wolosin, M., & Harris, N. (2018). Tropical Forests and Climate Change: the Latest Science (Ending Tropical Deforestation : a Stock-Take of Progress and Challenges). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004081 Wright, J. S., Fu, R., Worden, J. R., Chakraborty, S., Clinton, N. E., Risi, C., … Yin, L. (2017). Rainforest- initiated wet season onset over the southern Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(32), 8481–8486. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1621516114 WWF. (2016). Living Amazon Report 2016. A regional approach to conservation in the Amazon. (S. Charity, N. Dudley, D. Oliveira, & S. Stolton, Eds.). Brasilia & Quito. WWF. (2018). Rios Sanos, Gente Sana. Abordando la Crisis de Mercurio en la Amazonía.

110

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Forest Cover Loss Maps

Available at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4n4t0z1e04w842w/AAC2MS1CtS0z75ou_gfmmy8Ia?dl=0

Appendix 2. Logical and Results Framework

Logical Framework Objective Indicator Means of verification Risks and assumptions Project Objective: Strengthening the management effectiveness and financial sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) and strategic ecosystems, based on social participation and on the sustainable production of natural resources, focusing on the Bolivian Amazon SO1. Effective management · METT score enhanced (16% on weighted · METT scoring carried out · Political prioritisation and of the SNAP based on average by midterm, 38% on weighted average by on 7 PAs during MTE and will to enhance protected community participation and project completion) in 6 201 689 ha in 7 PAs (Área FE areas sustainable use of Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional · Other political priorities biodiversity in the Bolivian Madidi, Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de running against effective Amazon (Program la Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado, Reserva de protection component: Integrated la Biosfera Estacion Biologica del Beni, Reserva Protected Landscapes) Nacional Amazonica Manuripi, Territorio Indigena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilon Lajas, Territorio Indigena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure and Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua) · Number of governance structures (PA Management Committees, interinstitutional committees, interinstitutional information exchange mechanisms) in place SO2. Improved Financial · SNAP funding gap reduced by 10% by EOP · Project reports · Effectiveness of new Sustainability of the SNAP · At least 3 500 persons benefit from project · Annual budgets of 7 PAs measures and capacities (Program component: activity in 7 PAs by EOP · Annual management · General economic Integrated Protected · At least 1 575 of them are women by EOP reports of 7 PAs conditions and fiscal Landscapes) · At least 80 persons (PA staff) benefit from · Annual budget and capacity specific project activity in 7 PAs by PY3 management reports of · At least 12 of them are women by PY3 SNAP/SNAP ECOS · Total number of PA staff and proportion of female staff over total SO3. Capacity Building in · Trend of tree cover loss on previous year shows · Global Forest Watch / · Co-financing support of effective a reduction of 20% (weighted average) with Hansen et al. 2013 · Other political priorities management and improved respect to baseline in 7 PA sites by EOP · Project reports running against sustainability financial sustainability of the · Trend of tree cover loss on previous year shows SNAP (Program Component: a reduction of 52% (weighted average) with Policies/Incentives for respect to baseline in 3 RAMSAR sites by EOP Protected and Productive · At least 690 persons benefit from training in 7 PA Landscapes) sites and 3 RAMSAR sites by EOP

Objective Indicator Means of verification Risks and assumptions · Of them, at least 298 are women · Number of communities participating in project activities SO4. Sustainable use of · METT score enhanced (30% on weighted · METT scoring carried out · Climate change impact on biodiversity (Program average by midterm, 104% on weighted average on 3 RAMSAR sites during project areas Component: Integrated by project completion) in 6 947 933 ha in 3 MTE and FE · Economic short-termism Productive Landscapes) RAMSAR sites (Río Yata, Río Matos and Río · Training and support running against economic Blanco) from PY2 program evaluation sustainability · At least 2 000 persons benefit from project (CIPOAP) activity in 3 RAMSAR sites by PY3 · At least 800 of them are women by PY3 · At least 183 742 ha of productive ecosystems within CIPOAP indigenous territory benefit from improved SLWM practices by EOP · At least 1 000 persons benefit from project activity within CIPOAP indigenous territory by EOP · At least 480 of them are women by EOP · Number of communities participating in project activities SO5. Project Management, · At least 150 persons (Government staff) benefit · MTE and FE · Sensitivity of project Monitoring & Evaluation, and from project activity by EOP management to the Knowledge Management · At least 44 of them are women by EOP participation of local (Program component: communities, indigenous Capacity building and peoples and women regional cooperation) · Other political priorities running against environmental and social sustainability

Project Results Framework Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

Project Objective: Strengthening the management effectiveness and financial sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) and strategic ecosystems, based on shared management, social participation and on the sustainable production of natural resources, focusing on the Bolivian Amazon SO1. Effective management of the SNAP based on community participation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Bolivian Amazon (Program component: Integrated Protected Landscapes)

Outcome 1.1. Improved institutional framework allowing for enhanced management effectiveness of the SNAP by PY2

Output 1.1.1. Central National Outdated A new There Drafting of a National (intentionally (intentionall Initial Updated SERNAP updating national framework exists multilevel, consultation void) y void) proposal SNAP and and PAs and regulation for SNAP political will multistakeho and final and final strategic staff dialogue that is not and SNAP for the lder proposal version ecosystems process on harmonized ECOS is in harmonizat proposal Record of program the with other place, ion of National letters, prepared by conceptual, current including procedures consultation meetings, PY2 normative sectorial technical and tools at assemblies, and regulations. regulations the workshops administrati Institutional landscape and ve framework level agreements framework presents The public Outreach of SNAP & gaps for new perceives materials SNAP types of value in ECOS protected protected concluded area. areas and by PY2 Administrativ strategic e model ecosystem disconnecte s d from Key monitoring technical and lacking elements managerial make it cross- through the control. participator SNAP and y and SNAP ECOS political are instituted processes but lack development Output 1.1.2. Central Standardis Monitoring Robust, Specialists Proposal, Specialist 3 PAs adjust (intentionall Initial Standardized SERNAP ed protocols are standardise are able to general consultations the protocol to y void) proposal monitoring and PAs monitoring not coherent d monitoring reach standardise Consensual its specific and final protocols staff protocols across taxa, protocols consensus d protocol general biophysical version developed for for key and ecosystems allow for Proposed for standardised and social Record of at least four indicator comparable methodolo biodiversity protocol for letters,

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

protected species, and conservatio gies are monitoring biodiversity characteristic meetings, areas by PY2 including institutions n indexes to feasible in Specialist monitoring s workshops and for the adjustment be built the existing consultation 3 PAs adjust and remaining 3 to specific logistical s the protocol to agreements until EOP biophysic and its specific Outreach and social financial biophysical materials, characterist conditions and social user manual ics of 7 Pas characteristic s Output 1.1.3. Central EGEM tool An EGEM An SERNAP EGEM 4 PAs 3 PAs (intentionall Initial Standardized SERNAP updated tool is in use, improved, and PAs updated validate the validate the y void) proposal Management and PAs and which METT- staff Staff training updated tool updated tool and final Effectiveness staff validated in presents compliant participate version Tool updated at least 4 need for EGEM tool in the Record of and validated Pas by PY2 adjustments is integrated developme letters, in four and for the in SNAP nt of the meetings, protected availability of ECOS improved workshops areas by PY2 user guides manageme tool and and for the and training nt agreements remaining 3 Outreach until EOP materials, user manual Outcome 1.2. Improved monitoring and management effectiveness of SNAP as of PY3

Output 1.2.1. Central Standardis Updated Implementa Availability (intentionally Implementati Implementati Permanenc Original Systematic SERNAP ed Monitoring tion and of Outputs void) on in 4 PAs on in 3 PAs e evaluation filled monitoring and PAs monitoring protocols permanenc 1.1.2 and formats and staff protocols and EGEM e of the 1.1.3 Systematise assessment and EGEM tool available updated d database of tool protocol and Permanenc management implemente EGEM tool e analysis effectiveness d in 7 PAs report implemented by EOP in at least seven protected areas in PY3 to PY5 Output 1.2.2. Central Reliable Some PAs A Relevant Consensual At least 5 At least 4 All project Research Accurate SERNAP biodiversity count on permanent research research research research sites have program technical and PAs information information research institutions program agreements agreements updated Research data staff and on key program are proposal flora & agreements available on knowledge species and that interested Consensual fauna Databases the flora and has been natural responds to in mechanism databases Evaluation fauna collected history. the needs of participatin for data report

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

populations and There are no PAs g in long- sharing and of globally systematis partnerships involves term systematisat significant, ed, and for external programmi ion endangered means for permanent partners ng At least 2 or threatened its use and research research species in at updating agreements least seven are protected available in areas and 7 PAs by three EOP RAMSAR sites by PY5 Outcome 1.3. Enhanced governance structures across the SNAP by PY3

Output 1.3.1. Central Manageme Management Updated There Evaluation Ellaboration Ellaboration (intentionall 7 Updated Management SERNAP nt Plans plans are and feasible exists of the of of y void) manageme Plans of and PAs updated in outdated and manageme political will current management management nt plans, protected staff at least 7 lacking nt plans, for the status of plans plans including areas protected implementati and a harmonizat managemen proof of the updated to areas by on methodologi ion of t plans, respective ensure PY3 cal procedures methodologi participative coordination approach to and tools at cal process and ensure they the streamlining alignment stay so landscape and work with other level plan planning There exist Ellaboration documents in conditions of at least for wide managemen seven participatio t plans protected n areas, including specific attention to the inclusion of indigenous people and women in protected area’s governance structures by PY3 Output 1.3.2. MMAYA, Sectorial No formal Formal, A special High-level Final protocol (intentionally (intentionall High-level Specific tool SERNAP, agreement mechanism mandatory regime for coordination Disclosure void) y void) coordination

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

developed to Instituto s reached exists for mechanism PAs is Proposed tool minutes integrate the Nacional on planning intersectorial s for the regulated protocol and Training Proposed different de protocols coordination planning, and disclosure and final Land-Use Reforma and public over works design, accepted tool protocol Planning Agraria disclosure and projects consultation within other Consultation Record of tools from (INRA), tool for within PAs and branches s letters, Instituto Ministerio works and execution of of meetings, Nacional de de projects works and governmen workshops Reforma Desarrollo within PAs projects t and Agraria Rural y under within There agreements (INRA), Tierras SNAP SNAP exists Outreach Ministerio de (MDRyT), ECOS ECOS political will materials Desarrollo Ministerio regulations areas for the Disclosure Rural y de by PY2 harmonizat tool, user Tierras Planificaci ion of manual (MDRyT), on del procedures Ministerio de Desarrollo and tools at Planificacion (MPD) the del landscape Desarrollo level (MPD) with protected area management , within the framework of the updated SPAP and strategic ecosystems, by PY2 Output 1.3.3. Local At least 4 Scattered, After the Accountabi Identification Outreach Outreach At least 2 Report At least four communiti agreement non-strategic identificatio lity is and campaign campaign agreements Master agreements es, s signed by agreements n of relevant in prioritisation At least 3 At least 3 signed agreement signed national PY3, with no priorities Bolivian of agreements agreements Record of among the and implemente monitoring and leadership collaboratio signed signed letters, SPAP and regional d and and potential n Evaluation of meetings, communities, institutions evaluated evaluation partners, opportunitie current workshops national and , public by EOP far-reaching s agreements At least 8 regional and agreements Draft and agreements institutions, private with clear collaboratio adjustment Evaluation public and companies financing n report private , MMAYA and M&E agreement/s Outreach companies to and contribute to Identification materials strengthen Central advance

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

the SERNAP SNAP of potential integrated and PAs ECOS partners management staff of protected areas and the sustainable development of local communities in and adjacent to protected areas by PY4 SO2. Improved Financial Sustainability of the SNAP (Program component: Integrated Protected Landscapes)

Outcome 2.1. Evaluation of funding baseline and gaps of the SNAP by PY1

Output 2.1.1. MMAyA, Assessmen Scattered, Detailed, Accountabi Detailed, Financial Evaluation (intentionall Assessment Detailed Central t at the outdated updated lity is updated monitoring and y void) report assessment SERNAP system studies. No assessment relevant in assessment system in adjustment Proposed of current and PAs level and criteria for of current leadership of current place and final funding from staff for each state funding There funding from Training financial all sources, protected responsibility from all exists all sources, monitoring needs, and area at different sources, political will needs, and system gaps, at the performed levels. No needs, and for the gaps, at the Record of system level by PY1 accountabilit gaps, at the harmonizat system level letters, and for each y mechanism system level ion of and for each meetings, protected for external and for each procedures protected workshops area funding or protected and tools area Databases performed by system-wide area. A Proposed Evaluation PY1 financial unified financial report monitoring financial monitoring Outreach system monitoring system materials, system Consultation user manual allows s analysis and forecasting Outcome 2.2. Investigation of new revenue mechanisms for PA financing by PY3

Output 2.2.1. MMAyA, At least five No New, Accountabi Diagnostic Implementati Evaluation (intentionall Diagnostic At least five Central funding systematic sustainable lity is report on of at least and y void) report funding SERNAP mechanism approach to funding relevant in Participative adjustment Record of

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

mechanisms, and PAs s SNAP mechanism leadership brainstormin 5 new funding letters, designed to staff developed funding. Lack s provide There g and mechanisms meetings, fill funding by PY3 of results and stability to exists prioritisation workshops gap, previous SNAP and political will of proposed 2+ new developed by evaluations SNAP for the funding mechanism PY3 undermine ECOS harmonizat mechanisms reports trust ion of Evaluation procedures report and tools Outreach materials Outcome 2.3. Development of frameworks for sustainable income and revenue generating activities that are compatible with the management objectives of the protected areas by PY4

Output 2.3.1. Central Up tp 26 Scattered, Knowledge Technical 3 guidelines 1 guidelines 6 guidelines 1 guidelines 26 Guidelines SERNAP guidelines outdated is readily know-how and manuals and manual and manuals and manual Guidelines and protocols and PAs and information available is critical on on on on and for increased staff manuals for and technical and used for for hydrobiologi sustainable sustainable meliponina manuals uptake of sustainable knowledge. the sustainabili cal resource agricultural timber e honey Evaluation SLWM productive No criteria for coordination ty managemen practices (10 extraction in production report practices practices in the between t (PNNKM, sites) PAs (PNM, (EBB, (agroforestry, protected coordination better Yata, 1 guidelines EBB, RNAM, TIRBPL, cattle areas of PA livelihoods Blanco) and manual TIPNIS, Yata, ranching, (taking into planning and and 1 guidelines on TIRBPL, Matos, fisheries, account productive conservatio and manual sustainable Matos) Blanco) biotechnolog relevant activities n objectives on livestock 1 guidelines 2 guidelines y zoning and sustainable breeding and manual and entrepreneur manageme gold mining (Yata, Matos, on manuals on ship, and nt plans) (PNM, Blanco, EBB) alternatives to IAS control eco-tourism RNAM, 10 guidelines fire as a land (PNM, among Matos, and manuals management TIRBPL) others) Blanco) on tool (10 sites) Best developed sustainable practice and wildlife use evaluation implemented (10 sites) and in at least systematisa seven tion protected areas and three RAMSAR sites by PY4 Output 2.3.2. Central At least 4 Scattered SNAP There is Comprehen Strategic Ecotouristic Evaluation Market Prioritization SERNAP PAs have experience counts with demand for sive market- analysis and infrastructure and report of protected and PAs built on specific what PAs niche draft enhanced in 4 adjustment Diagnostic areas staff ecotourism ecotouristic regulations have to analysis collaboration PAs report conducted by infrastructu entrepreneur for offer (supply and agreement Prioritisatio

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

PY2, with re after ship has ecotouristic demand) (incl. M&E n report improvement prioritisatio never been operation Diagnostic arrangements Master s in n and under systematised that report on ) agreement operational operation and learnt incentivise installed Consultations Record of and tourism agreement from, no best capacity letters, infrastructure s between systematic practice (hard & soft) meetings, completed companies approach in 11 project workshops within at least and sites End-of- 4 protected communitie Prioritisation works areas by PY4 s by PY4 and detailed reports description Evaluation of perceived report opportunitie s Output 2.3.3. Central Tourism Incipient Prioritised There is Tourism Marketing Collaboration (intentionall Report Tourism SERNAP developme development PAs benefit demand for developmen campaign agreements y void) Record of development, and PAs nt, of from what PAs t, marketing Business Implementati letters, marketing & staff marketing & ecotouristic sustainable have to & roundtable on meetings, networking networking products ecotouristic offer networking workshops Plan for Plan although operations Plan Agreements targeted developed there is a Outreach protected and under perception of materials areas implementa valuable developed tion by PY4 supply. and under Generalised implementati lack of on by PY4 managerial, networking and marketing skills Outcome 2.4. Sustainable financing of the SNAP increased by 10% above the baseline by EOP

Output 2.4.1. MMAyA, Increase of SNAP Increase of There Report on Proposal for Operational Final Reports Reduction of Central SNAP funding gap SNAP exists legal the regulation evaluation evaluation Record of the SPAP SERNAP sustainable is volatile sustainable political will requirement of fees on and of letters, funding gap and PAs financing of year on year. financing of for the s of new entrance and adjustments Component meetings, through an staff 10% above There exist 10% above monetisati SISCOs sustainable 2 workshops increase of the no reliable the baseline on of use of PAs SNAP baseline by funding by EOP visitation sustainable EOP sources for and other financing of SNAP ECOS sustainabl 10% above e use of the baseline PAs by EOP, as a The public

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

consequence perceives of revised value in protected protected areas areas and entrance strategic fees, ecosystem increased s number of visitors, increased natural resources use fees and additional revenues derived from two newly developed financing mechanisms SO3. Capacity Building in support of effective management and improved financial sustainability of the SNAP (Program Component: Policies/Incentives for Protected and Productive Landscapes)

Outcome 3.1. Enhanced capacity for effective management of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3

Output 3.1.1. Central Training in High staff Trained Staff (intentionally (intentionally Training Training Record of Training in SERNAP the turnover staff turnover void) void) activities for activities for workshops, the and PAs developme means about implement will PA staff, PA staff, study tours development staff nt and 40% of sound and diminish Management Manageme and other and implementa personnel feasible with Committees nt training implementati tion of lacks training manageme increased and other key Committees activities on of manageme on the nt plans training stakeholders and other Training management nt plans implementati key materials plans (integrated on of PA stakeholder Participatio (integrated planning in management s n and planning in case of plans qualification case of RAMSAR lists RAMSAR sites), sites), protected protected areas areas monitoring, monitoring, and and assessmen assessment t of of manageme management nt

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

effectiveness effectivene , conducted ss, for personnel conducted of protected for areas and personnel partner of protected agencies for areas and at least partner seven agencies protected for at least areas and 80 persons three (at least 15 RAMSAR female) sites between between PY3 PY3 and and EOP EOP Output 3.1.2. Central Essential Essential 7 PAs and 3 Staff (intentionally (intentionally Acquisition of (intentionall Requiremen Essential SERNAP equipment monitoring RAMSAR turnover void) void) essential y void) t lists from equipment and PAs for equipment is sites count will equipment PAs needed to staff systematic incomplete with the diminish Records of conduct monitoring essential with acquisition systematic and equipment adequate processes monitoring assessmen for equipment Reception and t of biodiversity minutes assessment manageme monitoring of nt management effectivene effectiveness ss provided provided to at to at least 7 least seven PAs and 3 targeted RAMSAR protected sites by areas and PY3 three RAMSAR sites by PY3 Outcome 3.2. Strengthened capacity in achieving the financial sustainability of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems starting in PY3

Output 3.2.1. Communit Community Local Communitie Communiti (intentionally (intentionally Training on Training on Training Training of y organizatio practices and s share and es have void) void) hydrobiologic sustainable program community organizati ns trained technologies develop interest in al resources wildlife use Training organizations ons to introduce vary in more enhancing such as (11 sites) materials to introduce (agroforest or sustainability sustainable their freshwater Training on Participatio or strengthen ry, cattle strengthen across productive productive fish, meliponina n and sustainable ranching, sustainable project sites. practices practices chelonidae, e honey certification

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

practices in coffee, practices in Activities not The project crocodilidae production lists production cacao, productive necessarily is able to (PNNKM, (EBB, Participative models mining) in activities go in develop a Yata, Blanco) TIRBPL, evaluations currently in 7 PAs and (agroforestr harmony to compelling Training on Yata, place within 3 y, cattle PA zoning value mercury-free Matos, or adjacent to RAMSAR ranching, and proposal gold mining Blanco) protected sites coffee, compatible for local (PNM, Training on areas cacao, use communiti RNAM, sustainable (agroforestry, among es Matos, cattle cattle others), Blanco) farming ranching, within at Training on (Yata, coffee, least 7 PAs IAS control Matos, cacao, and 3 through use Blanco, sustainable RAMSAR (PNM, EBB) mining, fire sites TIRBPL) management starting in Training on , among PY3 permanent others), agriculture within at least and intensive seven cattle farming protected (7 areas y 3 areas and RAMSAR three sites) RAMSAR Training on sites starting sustainable in PY3 agricultural practices (11 sites) Training on sustainable forestry (PNM, EBB, RNAM, TIPNIS, TIRBPL, Matos) Output 3.2.2. Communit Community There exist Communitie Only (intentionally (intentionally Training on Training on Training Training in y organizatio scant s develop sustainabl void) void) ecotourism (4 sustainable program the design organizati ns trained capacities for capacities e resource sites) manageme Training and ons in the sustainable for manageme nt of materials implementati (agroforest design and resource sustainable nt is species (11 Participatio on of ry, cattle implementa management resource allowed sites) n and management ranching, tion of , manageme and Follow-up, certification plans coffee, manageme entrepreneur nt in PAs supported on-demand lists (tourism, cacao, nt plans ship and

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

natural mining) in (tourism, cooperative training (11 Participative resources 7 Pas natural management sites) evaluations use), in at resources , least 7 use), in at administratio protected least 7 n and areas by PY3 protected marketing areas by PY3 SO4. Sustainable use of biodiversity (Program Component: Integrated Productive Landscapes)

Outcome 4.1. Improved sustainable use practices by indigenous communities in CIPOAP and other territories

Output 4.1.1. CIPOAP Sustainable Communities Communitie Selected Training and (intentionally Support to (intentionall Training and Sustainable SLWM entertain s enhance thought support void) best practice y void) support Land and practices unsustainabl their leaders program in Brazil nut program Water implemente e cattle and livelihoods have design recollection Requiremen Management d by EOP agricultural through interest in Consultation and t lists from (SLWM) practices. sustainable enhancing s commercialis supported practices Training on cattle, their ation participants implemented offer is not agricultural productive Support to Records of in selected appropriate, and other practices best practice acquisition communities incoherent land The project in sustainable processes in at least the and not manageme is able to agriculture Reception five adapted to nt practices develop a and livestock minutes (Yaminahua, local needs compelling breeding Tacana, value Support to Cavineño, proposal best practice Machineri for local in sustainable and Esse communiti pisciculture ejja) es Support to indigenous best practice territories of in sustainable CIPOAP fauna use and its regulation as a common Output 4.1.2. CIPOAP Community Communities Communitie Communiti (intentionally Training on Training on Training Training Training of organizatio entertain s enhance es have void) best practice best practice and support materials selected ns trained unsustainabl their interest in in Brazil nut in Brazil nut program Participatio community to increase e cattle and livelihoods enhancing (Bertholletia (Bertholletia evaluation n and organizations uptake or agricultural through their excelsa) excelsa) certification in at least the strengtheni practices. sustainable productive recollection recollection lists five ng of Training on cattle, practices and and Participative (Yaminahua, sustainable offer is not agricultural The project commercialis commercialis evaluations Tacana, agriculture appropriate, and other is able to ation ation

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

Cavineño, and SLWM incoherent land develop a Training on Training on Evaluation Machineri practices by and not manageme compelling best practice best practice report and Esse EOP adapted to nt practices value in sustainable in sustainable ejja) local needs proposal agriculture agriculture indigenous for local and livestock and livestock territories of communiti breeding breeding CIPOAP es Training on Training on implemented best practice best practice to increase in sustainable in sustainable uptake or pisciculture pisciculture strengthening Training on Training on of best practice best practice sustainable in sustainable in sustainable agriculture fauna use and fauna use and and SLWM its regulation its regulation practices as a common as a common Outcome 4.2. Enhanced capacity for effective management of freshwater ecosystems (in particular RAMSAR sites) starting in PY2

Output 4.2.1. Local Local There exist Agreements Other Stakeholder Agreement Monitoring of Monitoring Conflict Local communiti agreement conflicts over over shared sources of map and proposals agreements of adjusted report agreements es in 3 s for fishing zones resources conflict are conflic Evaluation agreements Record of for aquatic RAMSAR aquatic and reduce insufficient analysis and letters, resources sites, resources overexploitat conflicts to impede report adjustment meetings, use (in Ministerio use signed ion of turtles, and agreement workshops agreement de and which overexploita s Agreements with the Desarrollo enforced by diminishes tion Evaluation Ministry of Rural y EOP both report Rural Tierras stewardship Development (MDRyT) and and Lands) populations signed and and carrying enforced in capacity for selected subsistence communities consumption Output 4.2.2. Drinking Basic water Drinking Agreement Communiti (intentionally High-level Implementati Implementa Action plan Basic water water and sanitation water supply, on the es assign void) meetings on tion Evaluation sanitation sanitation projects sanitation optimisation value to the Action plan Evaluation report projects authorities leveraged facilities and of resources environme leveraged by EOP discharge between ntal with the treatment are MiAgua aspects of corresponde defficient program basic nt authorities and the drinking to reduce project water, water sanitation pollution and

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

discharge treatment facilities Output 4.2.3. Customs, Signed In Bolivia it is The impact There (intentionally High-level Proposal for Evaluation Action plan Agreements Ministries agreement estimated of gold- exists void) meetings use and Evaluation signed with of s that about mining political will Action plan availability report the customs, Commerc 300 tonnes mercury use for the reduction Commerce e and of mercury diminishes introductio Ministry, Mining, are disposed n of Mining local of in environme Ministry, local miners Amazonian ntal mining organizati rivers per considerati organizations ons, year ons in the and environme mining environmenta ntal sector l organizati Mercury- organizations ons free (public and alternative private) to s for gold implement a concentrati comprehensi on are ve program cost- to control effective mercury imports, promote sustainable mining practices and diversify production systems in the framework of life systems as stated in the law 300 SO5. Project Management, Monitoring & Evaluation, and Knowledge Management (Program component: Capacity building and regional cooperation)

Output 5.1.1. Project Annual Annual BOB-USD Operations Annual Work Annual Work Annual Plans Annual Work partners Work Work Plans, exchange Manual, Plan, Plan, Work Plan, Reports Plans, Plans, Progress rate does Inception Progress Progress Final Audits Annual Progress Reports, not vary workshop Report, Reports, Reports,

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

Progress Reports, Budgeted more than and report, Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Tracking Reports, Budgeted Monitoring 20% below Annual Work Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Tool Budgeted Monitoring &Evaluation or over Plan, &Evaluation &Evaluation &Evaluation Monitoring & &Evaluatio Plan, design rate Progress Plan, Annual Plan, Annual Plan, Evaluation n Plan, Annual for any six- Reports, Financial Financial Annual Plan, Annual Annual Financial month Annual Audit Reports Audit Financial Financial Financial Audit period Financial Reports, Mid- Audit Audit Audit Reports, during the Audit Term Reports, Reports, Mid- Reports, Mid-Term project Reports, Evaluation Terminal Term Mid-Term Evaluation Budgeted Report, and Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Report, Monitoring GEF Tracking report Report, Report, Terminal &Evaluation Tool drafted, and Terminal Terminal Evaluation Plan, Annual completed GEF Evaluation Evaluation report Financial Tracking report report drafted, and Audit Tool drafted, and drafted, and GEF Reports completed GEF GEF Tracking Tracking Tracking Tool Tools Tool completed completed completed according to according to according established established to deadlines deadlines established deadlines Outcome 5.2. Systematization of lessons learned, experiences and results, on a continuous basis through-out project implementation

Output 5.2.1. Project Number of There is Knowledge Practitione Long-term Documentatio Documentatio Documenta Protocol Systematized audiences information information is made rs are monitoring, n and n and tion and Record of information pieces and available to willing to reporting systematisati systematisati systematisa letters, on lessons disseminat knowledge different share their and on of activity, on of activity, tion of meetings, from the ed about the audiences, experience evaluation experiences, experiences, activity, workshops eleven project's through s plan learning, and learning, and experience Systematisa project sites thematics, different Protocol for knowledge knowledge s, learning, tion continuously but access to media and the Outreach Outreach and database disseminated it is time- formats, in permanent products products knowledge Outreach using web- consuming the form of documentati Outreach products based tools actionable on and products (among lessons systematisat others), learnt and ion of targeting identified activity, lessons with best experiences replication practice to , learning, potential in support and remaining decision knowledge protected making Documentati

Project Project Project Stakehold Indicator/s Baseline Goal Assumptio Milestones Verification Compone Outcom Outputs ers ns means nts es PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4

areas of the on and SNAP and systematisat strategic ion of ecosystems activity, experiences , learning, and knowledge Outreach products Output 5.2.2. Disaggrega Knowledge An effective SNAP Participative Implementati Implementati Implementa Communica Communicati ted on communicat ECOS is design of a on and on and tion and tion strategy on Strategy engageme communicati ion strategy not SNAP evaluation on evaluation on evaluation Evaluation for the SNAP nt track on strategies trascends affected by ECOS a rolling basis a rolling basis on a rolling reports and strategic records is available. the project internal or communicati basis ecosystems, It needs to be and helps near on strategy, including adapted to SNAP reputationa including a project- the specific ECOS l problems project- specific needs of the achieve its specific actions, project aims section developed Project and under media implementati infrastructur on by e (website, beginning of social media PY2 accounts, SEO profile)

Appendix 3. Detailed Budget & Disbursement Schedule

Detailed Budget

Expenditure Detailed Total Responsibl COMPONENT (USDeq.) Sub-Total M&E PMC Category Description USDeq. e Entity

COMP 1 COMP 2 COMP 3 COMP 4 COMP 5* Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome Outcome 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.2

Works Installation and improveme Ministry of Environm nt to visitor 210,000 210,000 210,000 ent and trails in 7 Water protected areas Improveme nt to visitor center and Ministry of Environm sanitation 350,000 350,000 350,000 ent and facilities in Water 7 protected areas Developme nt and installation of Ministry of Environm standardize 140,000 140,000 140,000 ent and d signage Water in 7 protected areas Minor works for SLWM Ministry of Demostrati Environm 750,000 750,000 750,000 on projects ent and in 5 Water communitie s

Goods Safety and Ministry of Environm Evacuation 280,000 280,000 280,000 ent and Equipment Water

Ministry of Soil 7,000 7,000 7,000 Environm Sampling ent and Kits Water

Ministry of Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 GIS ent and Equipment Water

Ministry of Environm 28,000 28,000 28,000 ent and GPS Units Water

Ministry of Pesticide 7,000 7,000 7,000 Environm Monitoring ent and Kits Water

Water Ministry of Quality Environm 10,000 10,000 10,000 Monitoring ent and Test Kits Water

Forest Fire Ministry of Manageme Environm 140,000 140,000 140,000 nt ent and Water Equipment

Ministry of Environm Field 7,000 7,000 7,000 Microscope ent and Water s

Species Ministry of Sampling Environm 7,000 7,000 7,000 Collection ent and kits Water Ministry of Species Environm 14,000 14,000 14,000 Preservatio ent and n Reagents Water Ministry of Environm 5,000 5,000 5,000 ent and Clinometers Water

Ministry of Environm 3,000 3,000 3,000 Tree ent and Calipers Water Ministry of Ultrasonic Environm 25,000 25,000 25,000 Hypsomete ent and rs Water

Ministry of Environm 4,000 4,000 4,000 ent and Abney Water Levels

Ministry of Environm 3,000 3,000 3,000 Digital Tally ent and Counters Water

Ministry of Environm 14,000 14,000 14,000 ent and Water Binoculars Ministry of Environm Digital 21,000 21,000 21,000 ent and Cameras Water Miscellaneo us Ministry of Environm Monitoring 30,000 30,000 30,000 ent and Accessorie Water s ATV Protected Ministry of Environm Area Patrol 180,000 180,000 180,000 ent and Cycles (7 Water PAs) Protected Areas Ministry of Ranger Environm 120,000 120,000 120,000 Gear & ent and Uniforms (7 Water PAs)

Ministry of Rugged Environm 42,000 42,000 42,000 Field ent and Laptops Water Miscellaneo us Materials and Goods Ministry of for SLWM Environm 500,000 500,000 500,000 Demostrati ent and on Projects Water in 5 communitie s

Vehicles

Grants/

Sub grants Field Sub-Grant Monitoring to Activities in 675,000 675,000 675,000 National 7 protected Governme nt areas Protected Sub-Grant Areas to 70,000 70,000 70,000 National Monitoring Governme Reports nt Manageme Sub-Grant nt to 70,000 70,000 70,000 National Effectivene Governme ss Reports nt Species and Biodiversity Sub-Grant Inventories to in 7 350,000 350,000 350,000 National protected Governme nt Areas and 3 Ramsar Sites Map Production for Sub-Grant Proposed to Updated 20,000 20,000 20,000 National SPAP and Governme nt Strategic Ecosystem s Manageme Sub-Grant nt Plans to 700,000 700,000 700,000 National Implementa Governme tion (7 PAs) nt Implementa tion of Demonstrat Sub-Grant ion projects to of SLWM in 500,000 500,000 500,000 National 5 Governme nt indigenous communitie s

Revolving Funds, Seed

Funds, Equity Sub-contract to Executing Entity

Contractual Services Individual

Contractual Services Company

International

Consultants Prioritizatio n Framework Ministry of for Updated Environm 60,000 60,000 60,000 SPAP and ent and Strategic Water Ecosystem s Develop Standardize Ministry of Environm d 80,000 80,000 80,000 ent and Monitoring Water Protocols

Updating of Ministry of 7 Environm 420,000 420,000 420,000 Manageme ent and nt Plans Water Baseline Assessmen t of Funding Ministry of Sources Environm 80,000 80,000 80,000 and Needs ent and - national Water and in ternational

Developme nt of Funding Ministry of Environm Mechanism 120,000 120,000 120,000 ent and s, including Water revised Fee Structure Tourism developme Ministry of nt, Environm 140,000 140,000 140,000 marketing & ent and networking Water Plan Delivery of Training Courses & Developme Ministry of nt of Environm 60,000 60,000 60,000 Manuals on ent and Protected Water Area Manageme nt Planning Develop Comprehen sive Program on Ministry of Sustainable Environm 500,000 500,000 500,000 Mining and ent and Diversificati Water on of Production Systems

National

Consultants National Consultant - Prioritizatio n Ministry of Environm Framework 30,000 30,000 30,000 ent and for Updated Water SPAP and Strategic Ecosystem s

Baseline Assessmen t of SPAP Ministry of Environm and 45,000 45,000 45,000 ent and Strategic Water Ecosystem s Assessmen t of Social, Cultural and Economic Ministry of Implications Environm 40,000 40,000 40,000 of an ent and Updated Water SPAP and Strategic Ecosystem s Revised Legal and Institutional Framework Ministry of for the Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 Updated ent and SPAP and Water Strategic Ecosystem s Review and Update of Ministry of Manageme Environm 40,000 40,000 40,000 nt ent and Effectivene Water ss Tool Proposal for Ministry of Environm Integrated 40,000 40,000 40,000 ent and Planning Water Tool Develop Regulatory Framework Ministry of Environm for 30,000 30,000 30,000 ent and Integrated Water Planning Tool

National Consultant - Developme Ministry of nt of Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 Funding ent and Mechanism Water s, including revised Fee Structure Develop Regulatory Ministry of Framework Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 for Funding ent and Mechanism Water s Guidelines and protocols Ministry of for Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 increased ent and uptake of Water SLWM practices Developme nt of Guidelines and Manuals in Ministry of Environm SLWM in 45,000 45,000 45,000 ent and Indigenous Water Languages and Delivery of Training National consultant - Tourism Ministry of developme Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 nt, ent and marketing & Water networking Plan Assessmen t of Effectivene Ministry of Environm ssofFundin 30,000 30,000 30,000 ent and g Water Mechanism sDeveloped

an dimplement ed

National Consultants Ministry of - Updating Environm 150,000 150,000 150,000 of 7 ent and Manageme Water nt Plans Legal services for drafting of Ministry of Environm Resource 45,000 45,000 45,000 ent and Use Water Agreement s Definition of Legal and Institutional Requireme nts for a Comprehen Ministry of sive Environm 45,000 45,000 45,000 Program on ent and Sustainable Water Mining and Diversificati on of Production Systems

Develop Ministry of Communica Environm 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 60,000 60,000 tion ent and Strategy Water

Salary and Benefits and Staff costs

Ministry of Project Environm 154,000 154,000 Coordinator ent and Water Natural Resources Ministry of Environm Manageme 130,000 130,000 ent and nt Water Specialist

Protected Ministry of Environm Areas 130,000 130,000 ent and Specialist Water

Trainings, Inception Ministry of Workshops Workshop - Environm 10,000 10,000 and gender ent and Meetings inclusive Water Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Technical Advisory Ministry of Committee Environm 40,000 40,000 (TAC) ent and Meetings - Water gender inclusive; at least 1 per committee per year Consultatio n Workshops on Prioritizatio Ministry of n Environm 15,000 15,000 15,000 Framework ent and for Updated Water SPAP and Strategic Ecosystem s Consultatio n Workshops Ministry of on Environm 15,000 15,000 15,000 Standardize ent and d Water Monitoring Protocols Validation Workshops Ministry of Environm on Updated 15,000 15,000 15,000 ent and Manageme Water nt

Effectivene ss Tool

Consultatio n Ministry of Workshops Environm 70,000 70,000 70,000 on ent and Manageme Water nt Plans Consultatio n Workshops Ministry of Environm on 15,000 15,000 15,000 ent and Integrated Water Planning Tool Community Consultatio ns for Ministry of Integrated Environm 15,000 15,000 15,000 Manageme ent and nt of Water Protected Areas Consultatio n Ministry of Workshops Environm 30,000 30,000 30,000 on Tourism ent and Developme Water nt Plan 7 Workshops on Ministry of Effectivene Environm 140,000 140,000 140,000 ss of ent and Funding Water Mechanism s (each PA) Training in Protectecte Ministry of Environm d Area 140,000 140,000 140,000 ent and Monitoring Water Methods Training to communitie Ministry of s in Environm 150,000 150,000 150,000 sustainable ent and production Water models

Trainings to rangers and techncal Ministry of staff in Environm 140,000 140,000 140,000 Protected ent and Area Water Manageme nt Planning Training in Use of Guidelines and Manuals in Ministry of Environm SLWM in 300,000 300,000 300,000 ent and Indigenous Water Languages (5 communitie s) Consultatio n Meetings on Ministry of Environm Resource 41,823 41,823 41,823 ent and Use Water Agreement s

Internationa Ministry of Environm Travel l 20,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 75,000 75,000 ent and Consultants Water

Ministry of National Environm 10,000 3,000 6,000 5,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 61,000 61,000 Consultants ent and Water Routine Supervision Ministry of Environm Trips to 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 35,000 65,000 65,000 ent and Project Water Sites

Monitoring Ministry of Environm Visits to 30,500 30,500 Project ent and Water Sites

Print Ministry of Office Environm cartridges 16,000 16,000 Supplies ent and and Toner Water Other General Supplies: Ministry of Environm paper, 8,866 8,866 ent and envelopes, Water tape, clips, etc.

Publications Publication Ministry of Environm & Report of Lessons 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 70,000 70,000 ent and Preparation Learned Water Annual Project Ministry of Implementa Environm 20,000 20,000 tion ent and Reports Water (PIRs)

Project Ministry of Environm Final 5,000 5,000 ent and Report Water

Knowledge Ministry of Environm Manageme 10,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 60,000 ent and nt Materials Water Publication of Updated SPAP and Ministry of Strategic Environm 12,000 12,000 12,000 Ecosystem ent and s and Water Associated Maps. Publication of Species Ministry of Environm and 15,000 15,000 15,000 ent and Biodiversity Water Inventories

Publication Ministry of of Environm 70,000 70,000 70,000 Manageme ent and nt Plans Water

Publication of Ministry of Environm Integrated 20,000 20,000 20,000 ent and Planning Water Tool Publication and socializatio Ministry of Environm n of 20,000 20,000 20,000 ent and Tourism Water Developme nt Plan

Web-based Ministry of Knowledge Environm 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 120,000 120,000 Manageme ent and nt System Water Implementa tion of Ministry of Environm Communica 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 120,000 120,000 ent and tion Water Strategy Socializatio n of Updated Ministry of Environm SPAP and 20,000 20,000 20,000 ent and Strategic Water Ecosystem s

Measureme nt of project indicators Other including Ministry of Environm Operating GEF 40,000 40,000 ent and Costs Tracking Water Tools and Core Indicators Monitoring of Ministry of Environm Environmen 20,000 20,000 ent and tal & Social Water Safeguards

Ministry of Financial Environm 40,000 40,000 Audits ent and Water

Ministry of Mid-Term Environm Review/Eva 30,000 30,000 ent & luation Water, CAF Terminal 45,000 45,000 CAF Evaluation Grand Total 477,000 1,205,000 143,000 107,500 223,500 1,277,500 284,500 2,117,000 565,000 425,000 2,481,823 30,000 9,336,823 240,500 478,866 10,056,189

*Please note that Outcome 5.1 is essentially PMC and M&E

Disbursement Schedule

PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 Grand Total SO1 510 495 756 563 347 640 259 403 1 874 100 Outcome 1.1 180 420 410 025 136 228 103 178 829 850 Output 1.1.1 137 570 343 925 103 178 103 178 687 850 Output 1.1.2 23 250 46 500 23 250 - 93 000 Output 1.1.3 19 600 19 600 9 800 - 49 000 Outcome 1.2 36 750 5 513 66 763 86 975 196 000 Output 1.2.1 - - 61 250 61 250 122 500 Output 1.2.2 36 750 5 513 5 513 25 725 73 500 Outcome 1.3 293 325 341 025 144 650 69 250 848 250 Output 1.3.1 133 875 223 125 89 250 - 446 250 Output 1.3.2 62 500 62 500 - - 125 000 Output 1.3.3 96 950 55 400 55 400 69 250 277 000 SO2 380 436 615 851 571 115 40 598 1 608 000 Outcome 2.1 52 275 130 687 78 413 - 261 375 Output 2.1.1 52 275 130 687 78 413 - 261 375 Outcome 2.2 18 675 24 900 18 675 - 62 250 Output 2.2.1 18 675 24 900 18 675 - 62 250 Outcome 2.3 287 736 438 514 452 277 18 848 1 197 375 Output 2.3.1 94 236 245 014 150 777 18 848 508 875 Output 2.3.2 136 500 136 500 273 000 - 546 000

PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 Grand Total Output 2.3.3 57 000 57 000 28 500 - 142 500 Outcome 2.4 21 750 21 750 21 750 21 750 87 000 Output 2.4.1 21 750 21 750 21 750 21 750 87 000 SO3 - 108 831 1 099 685 879 684 2 088 200 Outcome 3.1 - - 410 500 190 500 601 000 Output 3.1.1 - - 190 500 190 500 381 000 Output 3.1.2 - - 220 000 220 000 Outcome 3.2 - 108 831 689 185 689 184 1 487 200 Output 3.2.1 - - 507 800 507 800 1 015 600 Output 3.2.2 - 108 831 181 385 181 384 471 600 SO4 194 375 562 825 1 312 075 420 225 2 489 500 Outcome 4.1 123 125 289 625 779 000 64 500 1 256 250 Output 4.1.1 123 125 123 125 612 500 42 500 901 250 Output 4.1.2 - 166 500 166 500 22 000 355 000 Outcome 4.2 71 250 273 200 533 075 355 725 1 233 250 Output 4.2.1 71 250 71 250 71 250 71 250 285 000 Output 4.2.2 - 173 250 433 125 259 875 866 250 Output 4.2.3 - 28 700 28 700 24 600 82 000 SO5 365 107 300 230 303 843 327 843 1 297 023 Outcome 5.1 120 000 96 000 120 000 144 000 480 000 Output 5.1.1 120 000 96 000 120 000 144 000 480 000 Outcome 5.2 245 107 204 230 183 843 183 843 817 023 Output 5.2.1 122 475 122 475 81 650 81 650 408 250 Output 5.2.2 122 632 81 755 102 193 102 193 408 773 Subtotal 1 450 413 2 344 299 3 634 358 1 927 753 9 356 823 M&E 48 625 31 125 72 125 88 625 240 500 PMC 206 489 45 887 45 887 160 603 458 866 Grand Total 1 705 527 2 421 311 3 752 370 2 176 981 10 056 189

Appendix 4. Co-financing Letters

Appendix 5. Incremental Cost Matrix

Appendix 6. Public Consultation Process & Stakeholder Engagement Plan, with Special Attention to Indigenous Peoples

REPORT PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS AMAZON SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE APPROACH IN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS AND STRATEGIC ECOSYSTEMS OF BOLIVIA

Report on the Dissemination and Public Consultation Process

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ______1 2. BACKGROUND ______1 3. OBJECTIVES ______2 3.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVE ______2 3.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ______2 4. EXPECTED OUTCOMES ______3 5. INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPANTS ______3 6. METHODOLOGY ______4 6.1. PROCESS PLANNING AND DESIGN STAGE ______4 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS ______6 7. CONCLUSIONS ______14 8. RECOMMENDATIONS ______14

Appendix 1. PRESENTATION USED IN THE PROCESS Appendix 2. MINUTES, CERTIFICATIONS & PARTICIPATION LISTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION page i

1. INTRODUCTION Protected areas are a common asset and part of the natural and cultural heritage of the country according to Art. 385 of the Bolivian Constitution, fulfilling environmental, cultural, social and economic functions for sustainable development. As such, the creation and consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP in its Spanish acronym) - which helps overcome poverty and protect life systems as well as strategic ecosystems and biological corridors - represents a necessary goal for territorial management, given the great value in terms of the resources and vital environmental functions that protected areas provide in terms of biodiversity, forests, scenic beauty, among other factors. In the process of developing the Project Document (ProDoc), the task force composed of staff from the General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas (DGBAP in its Spanish acronym) and the National Service of Protected Areas (SERNAP in its Spanish acronym) outlined the project's framework in accordance with the Sustainable Amazon Territories 2 impact programme, which aims to build awareness, reach consensus and strengthen the project's scope based on the experience of the General Office of Biodiversity and Protected Areas and SERNAP's National Protected Areas Service. The methodological approach for generating and obtaining information through consultation with actors relevant to the project's target group will be presented, and based on this the issues to be dealt with by each of the stakeholders within the framework of the project's vision will be defined, which will be the basis for the design and scope of the consultations and meetings planned as part of the feedback process. Gender equitable participation is sought from the identified stakeholders given that in paragraph 13 of the preface of the Constitution, the decisive role played by women in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is recognised, along with the need for the full participation of women at all levels of policy formulation and implementation for the conservation of biological diversity.

2. BACKGROUND On October 21, 2016, the Bolivian Ministry of the Environment and Water (MMAYA) designated the Andean Development Corporation (CAF) as the project implementing agency to apply for System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) funds from the 6th GEF replenishment. On June 14, 2017, MMAYA requested the project be structured for a total of US$ 10,258,088. After structuring the PIF (Project Information Form) in October 2017, the project was submitted to the GEF Secretariat. Unofficially, the GEF Secretariat announced in November 2017 that the project would be approved, but due to the fund's lack of resources, it could not be implemented. Considering this, on July 12, 2018, the ministry requested CAF to adapt the project to the funds allocated to the country by STAR funds from the GEF's 7th replenishment. In October 2018, the project's PIF was adapted to the new requirements of the 7th replenishment and submitted to the GEF Secretariat. The last session of the GEF Executive Committee approved participation of the SFM - ASL programme (Sustainable Forest Management - Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Program), a complementary mechanism that would allow access to non-reimbursable financial resources in addition to the STAR fund. Integrating the Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach into the Plurinational System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia, will allow the project's scope and impact to be expanded in a targeted manner to the protected areas within the Amazon region, as well as increasing the project's flow of resources to address locally identified but regionally focused problems threatening the Bolivian Amazon biome. The following has given rise to the need for this consultation:

− At the GEF General Assembly, from June 12 – 15, 2019, the SFM - ASL2 Impact Programme and the respective Child Projects were approved (June 13, 2019).

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION page 1

− An advanced ProDoc (Full-Sized Child Project Amazon sustainable landscape approach in the Plurinational System of 4 Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia) is ready for submission to the GEF Secretariat, in coordination with the Technical Team of the Bolivian Ministry of Environment and Water. − Among the requirements for GEF approval, it is necessary to have baseline information on the situation of the protected areas that will benefit from the project and those sub-national areas that make up the SNAP, in order to highlight the management processes, institutional framework, local coordination and state of conservation with the COVID-19 pandemic situation. This is of relevance for the PRODOC of the CAF - GEF project "Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the Plurinational System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia", to be submitted to the GEF Secretariat, in coordination with the Technical Team of the Bolivian Ministry of the Environment and Water. − The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a number of restrictions on mobilisation and accessibility to the project areas, which has posed significant challenges to the management, institutional framework, local linkages and the state of biodiversity conservation in sub-national protected areas in a post-pandemic scenario, in the project' s areas of interest.

In this context, the project requires the coordination and implementation of public consultations, which may be virtual and/or face-to-face, depending on local circumstances and the dissemination of the project to the Protected Areas groups and RAMSAR sites relevant to the PRODOC. These are a requisite for GEF projects, with reference to the attention of the PRODOC.

3. OBJECTIVES 3.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVE To plan, coordinate and implement public consultations and the dissemination of information to the protected areas groups and RAMSAR sites relevant to the PRODOC, in coordination with the Bolivian GEF Operational Focal Point, the Ministry of the Environment and Water, as well as CAF and GEF safeguarding policies.

3.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

− To plan public consultations and dissemination to the PRODOC's protected area groups of interest together with the technical team of the Ministry of the Environment and Water, and the team of consultants (forums, surveys of key personnel, virtual meetings). − Present the GEF AMAZONIA Project to the directors and staff of the six protected areas that have benefited from it, as the project executors. − Share information on the project approval process as per GEF procedures, the steps and stages to be followed. − Receive feedback on the various components − Develop an outreach agenda for each protected area with local stakeholders.

CHAPTER 3. OBJECTIVES page 2

4. EXPECTED OUTCOMES − Identifying stakeholders in conjunction with the MMAA, which will include mapping key actors, organisations and/or interest groups that promote gender equality and/or women's rights and empowerment, as well as other women's organisations. − Consultations with stakeholders and actors related to the project. − Reports, records, and documentation of the consultation process − To have validated information on technical, operational and other needs of the institutions involved. − Establish the degree of participation and support for the project of those involved. − Support and follow-up for the preparation of the final project document.

5. INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPANTS This workshop was coordinated by the DGBAP and EPAB project staff.

Table 1. Institutions Organising the Consultations

Institutional Organizers Persons Responsible Position

Director General of Biodiversity and MMAYA – DGBAP Enzo Aliaga Protected Areas

Cecilia Miranda SERNAP Director of Planning SERNAP César Altamirano Planning Director / SERNAP Technician

The following table shows the list of participants who attended the consultations that took place from 20 July to 20 August this year.

Table 2. Consultation Participants

Institution Participant

Madidi Integrated Management Natural Director of Madidi National Park Area and National Park

Noel Kempff Mercado National Park Director of Noel Kempff Mercado National Park

Beni Biological Station Biosphere Director EBB Reserve Reserve

Manuripi National Amazonian Reserve Director of Manuripi

Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and Director of TIPNIS National Park (TIPNIS)

CHAPTER 4. EXPECTED OUTCOMESpage 3

Institution Participant

Pilón Lajas Indigenous Territory and Director of Pilon Lajas Biosphere Reserve

Tisimane Maseten Regional Consejo Regional Tsimane Moseten Headquarters

(*) participants include technicians and residents, shown in the attached appendices

6. METHODOLOGY

CONSULTATION PROCESS, THEMATIC PROCESS PLANNING METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK AND DESIGN STAGE TARGET GROUP EVALUATION STRATIFICATION DESIGN

PARTICIPATION STAGE - IDENTIFYING RECOMMENDED CONSULTATION AND PROBLEMS AND KEY TOPICS DISSEMINATION ACTION PROCESS NEEDS

EVALUATION OF THE PARTICIPATION COMPOSING IMPROVEMENT PROCESS, SYSTEMATIZATION AND REPORTS PROPOSALS FEEDBACK STAGE

6.1. PROCESS PLANNING AND DESIGN STAGE Programme content for the dissemination and public consultation process OBJECTIVES FUNDING PROJECT DURATION AREAS OF ACTION COMPONENTS AND RESULTS i. Effective Management of SNAP ii. Improved Financial Sustainability of SNAP iii. Capacity building in support of effective management and improved financial sustainability of SNAP iv. Sustainable use of biodiversity v. Project Management, Follow-up & Evaluation and Knowledge Management PROPOSED ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT

CHAPTER 6. METHODOLOGY page 4

PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS

Methodology and target group stratification

DESCRIPTION

INDUCTION In this phase the project was presented to the technical team and the institutions PHASE promoting the project. The approach and objectives pursued at institutional level were established.

EXPOSITORY This is to circulate information on the topics relating to the project in order to PHASE promote and provide a theoretical basis for participants so they can form opinions and have the tools necessary to contribute to the development of the project's guidelines and approach. In this regard, the presentations were framed to explain the conceptual framework of the components and results, and identify action with each participant identifying bottlenecks, for AP management.

PROPOSAL As part of the outcome of each session, the group conversation was stimulated by PHASE the experiences of the members and the discussion gave rise to more specific points to consider and address as concerns and problems.

For the stratification and establishment of the number of consultation processes, we used the following structure:

INTERVIEWS AND OTHER WITH POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES DISSEMINATION TO STAKEHOLDERS DISSEMINATION IN EACH PROTECTED AND PUBLIC AREA CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH DIRECTORS

The dissemination and public consultation with directors was planned and carried out via the Zoom platform. In a second stage, spaces for debate were promoted with each protected area, to provide material and tools so that the technicians from the different departments could replicate the work with the management committees of each protected area. At the end of this stage, the directors of the protected areas will be committed to holding at least one meeting and/or interview with key actors, in which rural and indigenous organizations, activists, institutions and others will be identified.

CHAPTER 6.1. PROCESS PLANNING AND DESIGN STAGE page 5

6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS A. EVENT WITH DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS ORGANISATION OF THE EVENT The introduction, background and objectives of the workshop were provided by the Planning Director Cecilia Miranda. She also presented the technicians in charge and underlined the importance of the event for obtaining guidelines and feedback from each directorate to develop the project through a participatory process with the social stakeholders, ie with a new bottom up approach to development, given its applicability once the document is available. The facilitator then presented the programme framework (see presentation in annex), explaining the methodological approach to the consultation process which is based on a participatory process. This phase was for discussing the context of the project management, the objectives of the project, duration, sources of funding and the participants. Areas of interest for the project were also addressed and it was explained that the project was not exclusive to national protected areas, but also for sub-national protected areas and other conservation interests such as Ramsar sites.

Later, the components and the intended results of the project were outlined and directors were asked to identify components and the best way to participate given the problems of the protected areas under their direction. Finally, the proposed organizational structure for the implementation of the project was presented and it was explained that participation would be through a technical committee at SERNAP's central office.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 6

RECOMMENDED ACTION After reviewing the Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia ASL2 project, proposed to the GEF, the following was concluded, identified and prioritized: 1. The various directorates have expressed their interest in implementing the project. 2. The directors have expressed their commitment to support the process of dissemination of the project with the actors from the management committees. The following concerns have been identified 1. The lack of communication with key stakeholders given the health emergency situation. 2. Detailed knowledge of the project framework and the level of investment for each protected area. 3. How to expand the current framework of activities 4. How not to raise expectations with communities that have had bad experiences 5. How to integrate all communities. This can be seen from the minutes in the annex.

B. EVENT WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY AND BIOSPHERE RESERVE PILÓN LAJAS ORGANISATION OF THE EVENT The introduction, background and objectives of the workshop were provided by the technician representing SERNAP's Planning Directorate. He also presented the technicians in charge and underlined the importance of the event to provide guidelines and feedback from each directorate to the project as part of its development through a participatory process from the social stakeholders, ie with a new bottom up approach to development, given its applicability once the document is in place. The facilitator then presented the event's programme framework (see presentation in annex), explaining the methodological approach to the consultation process which is based on a participatory process. This phase was for discussing the context of the project management, the objectives of the project, duration, sources of funding and the participants. Areas of interest for the project were also addressed and it was explained that the project was not exclusive project to national protected areas, but also for sub-national protected areas and other conservation interests such as Ramsar sites.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 7

Later, the components and the intended results of the project were outlined and directors were asked to identify components and the best way to participate given the problems of the protected areas under their direction. Finally, the proposed organizational structure for the imnplementation of the project was presented, explaining that their participation would be through a technical committee at SERNAP's central office.

RECOMMENDED ACTION After reviewing the Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia ASL2 project, proposed to the GEF, the following was concluded, identified and prioritized: 1. The various bodies have expressed their interest in implementing the project. 2. The communities have expressed their commitment to support the actions prioritized by the management of the protected area set out in the project. The following concerns have been identified 1. Legal technical support for Indigenous, Originary and Campesino Territories (TIOC in its Spanish acronym) encroachments. 2. That the allocation of resources to the directorates in the field be meaningful, and that the percentage be transparent for central office. 3. That the project ensures these funds reach the indigenous groups. 4. Approval of the Management Plan supported by the CRTM in its update, as a tool to establish the needs of indigenous peoples. 5. How to integrate all the communities that have initiatives such as coffee, cocoa, jatata. This can be found in the minutes of the appendix and the recorded zoom session.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 8

C. EVENT WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF MADIDI INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT NATURAL AREA AND NATIONAL PARK ORGANISATION OF THE EVENT The introduction, background and objectives of the workshop were provided by the technician representing SERNAP's Planning Directorate. He also presented the technicians in charge and noted the importance of the event to provide guidelines and feedback from each directorate to the project as part of its development through a participatory process from the social stakeholders, ie with a new bottom up approach to development, given its applicability once the document is in place. The facilitator then presented the event's programme framework (see presentation in annex), explaining the methodological approach to the consultation process which is based on a participatory process. This phase was for discussing the context of the project management, the objectives of the project, duration, sources of funding and the participants. Areas of interest for the project were also addressed and it was explained that the project was not exclusive project to national protected areas, but also for sub-national protected areas and other conservation interests such as Ramsar sites. Later, the components and the intended results of the project were outlined and directors were asked to identify components and the best way to participate given the problems of the protected areas under their direction. Finally, the proposed organizational structure for the execution of the project was presented, explaining that their participation would be through a technical committee at SERNAP's central office.

2. How to expand the framework of activities that currently 3. How not to raise expectations with communities that have had bad experiences 4. How to integrate all communities. This can be seen from the minutes in the annex.

D. EVENT WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF THE NOEL KEMPFF MERCADO NATIONAL PARK ORGANISATION OF THE EVENT The introduction, background and objectives of the workshop were provided by the technician representing SERNAP's Planning Directorate. He also presented the technicians in charge and noted the importance

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 9

of the event to provide guidelines and feedback from each directorate to the project as part of its development through a participatory process from the social stakeholders, ie with a new bottom up approach to development, given its applicability once the document is in place. The facilitator then presented the event's programme framework (see presentation in annex), explaining the methodological approach to the consultation process which is based on a participatory process. This phase was for discussing the context of the project management, the objectives of the project, duration, sources of funding and the participants. Areas of interest for the project were also addressed and it was explained that the project was not exclusive project to national protected areas, but also for sub-national protected areas and other conservation interests such as Ramsar sites.

Later, the components and the intended results of the project were outlined and directors were asked to identify components and the best way to participate given the problems of the protected areas under their direction. Finally, the proposed organizational structure for the execution of the project was presented, explaining that their participation would be through a technical committee at SERNAP's central office.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 10

2. The allocation of resources for the use and exploitation component may include initiatives such as the conservation of species like the turtle, since these are the ones that have the least support from the projects. 3. That the project be an opportunity for the communities in the park's area of influence.

SOCIALIZATION WITH ACTORS WITHIN THE PROTECTED AREA The director and technical staff of the Protected Area between August 12 and 19 with technicians from the Municipality of San Ignacio de Velasco and representatives of the Florida, Porvenir, Piso Firme and Bella Vista communities. The process consisted of holding 5 separate and reduced meetings with the main actors who are members of the Management Committee of our Protected Area. In general, the different actors expressed their willingness to make the project more viable, expressing the need to be able to give continuity to the support of the initiatives that are currently being promoted. This can be verified in the minutes of the annex and the recorded zoom.

E. EVENT WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF THE PROTECTED AREA OF THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE ESTACIÓN BIOLÓGICA DEL BENI DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVENT The introduction, the background and the objectives of the meeting were provided by the technical representative of the Directorate of Planning of SERNAP. He also made the presentation of the technicians in charge and stated that this event is important so that guidelines and feedback are given from each direction to the project as part of its construction through a participatory process from the social actors, that is, with a new bottom-up construction concept for applicability once you have the document. Then, to continue with the event program, the facilitator presented the programmatic framework of the event (see annex presentation), who explained the methodological approach of the consultation process that is based on a participatory process. In this phase, issues related to the antecedents of the project management, the objectives of the Project, the duration and the sources of financing and the counterparts were discussed. Likewise, the areas of interest of the project were addressed, where it was specified that it was not an exclusive project for national protected areas, but also for sub-national protected areas and others of conservation interest such as Ramsar sites.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 11

Subsequently, the components and results pursued by the project were described. They were asked to identify in which component to participate in the best way associated with the problems of the protected areas that are under their direction. Finally, the proposed organizational structure for the execution of the project was presented, where it was clarified that their participation is through a technical committee through the SERNAP central office.

PROPOSED ACTIONS After having carried out the review of the Sustainable Approach to the Amazon Landscape Project in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia ASL2 proposed to the GEF, the following were concluded, identified and prioritized: 1. The different instances have expressed their interest in implementing the project. 2. The communities have expressed their commitment to support the actions that are prioritized by the management of the protected area framed in the project. The following concerns have been identified: 1. Resource allocation is meaningful to field managers and percentage transparent to central office. 2. That the project ensure that resources reach indigenous groups. 3. How to integrate all the communities that have initiatives such as those related to the conservation of river turtles, agropastoral management and Agroforestry SAF systems. This can be verified in the minutes in the annex.

F. EVENT WITH THE ADDRESS OF THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY AND ISIBORO SÉCURE NATIONAL PARK PROTECTED AREA DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVENT The introduction, the background and the objectives of the meeting were provided by the technical representative of the Directorate of Planning of SERNAP. He also made the presentation of the technicians in charge and stated that this event is important so that guidelines and feedback are given from each direction to the project as part of its construction through a participatory process from the social actors, that is, with a new bottom-up construction concept for applicability once you have the document. Then, to continue with the event program, the facilitator presented the programmatic framework of the event (see annex presentation), who explained the methodological approach of the consultation process that is based on a participatory process. In this phase, issues related to the antecedents of the project management, the objectives of the Project, the duration and the sources of financing and the counterparts were discussed. Likewise, the areas of interest of the project were addressed, where it was specified that it was not an exclusive project for national protected areas, but also for sub-national protected areas and others of conservation interest such as Ramsar sites.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 12

PROPOSED ACTIONS After having carried out the review of the Sustainable Approach to the Amazon Landscape Project in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia ASL2 proposed to the GEF, the following were concluded, identified and prioritized: 1. The different instances have expressed their interest in implementing the project. 2. The communities have expressed their commitment to support the actions that are prioritized by the management of the protected area framed in the project. The following concerns have been identified: 1. The update of the General Management Plan of TIPNIS. 2. Promotion of ecological tourism in the Central zone, the Lower zone and the Bolivia lagoon zone. 3. Resource allocation is meaningful to field managers and percentage is transparent to central office. 4. How to support the project ideas for the three blocks of the Park: Community of San Miguelito rio Isiboro. San José de Angosta Community, Moleto River, and Totora Community, Sécure River.

SOCIALIZATION WITH ACTORS WITHIN THE PROTECTED AREA The director and technical staff of the Protected Area socialized the project in Trinidad and Oromomo, with representatives of two municipalities (Autonomous Municipal Government of Loreto and Autonomous Municipal Government of San Ignacio de Moxos) and with representatives of the Indigenous Organizations of TIPNIS, authorities of the community of Oromomo and Palmar de Aguas Negras and the Association of chocolatiers Sauce del TIPNIS. This can be verified in the minutes in the annex.

CHAPTER 6.2. PARTICIPATION STAGE - CONSULTATION AND DISSEMINATION PROCESS page 13

7. CONCLUSIONS In terms of the project's construction process, issues relating to thre following were identified: a) The scope of the project being in line with the needs of the directorates of the protected areas. b) The general framework of the need for economic stability is required for each protected area c) Within the framework of its competencies in biodiversity management, SERNAP has agreed on procedures to channel and implement financing for the implementation of a programme and/or project d) The SERNAP central office agrees on the framework of competencies in biodiversity management on the procedures to channel and execute economic financing for the implementation of a program and / or project e) Through a participatory process, DGBAP and SERNAP technicians from MMAYA identified the importance of linking up with institutional bodies and actors within the protected areas.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS The following aspects are finally recommended for consideration: - In order to establish a closer link and articulation between the General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas and SERNAP for the execution of the project. - We must point out that unfortunately not all the zoom meetings could be taxed due to technical problems. - Work must be done on an operational regulation for execution, so that the concerns of the different entities can be considered and can be materialized.

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS page 14

Appendix 1. PRESENTATION USED IN THE PROCESS

Available at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ctghnqcwbng46ox/AADn27Zk0XG_hTpn0JMPvw3ya?dl=0

CHAPTER 8. RECOMMENDATIONS page 15

Appendix 2. MINUTES, CERTIFICATIONS & PARTICIPATION LISTS

Available at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/49znh8f886l9yud/AADXDk4YmWm0hj1P-UyFNU91a?dl=0

CHAPTER 8. RECOMMENDATIONS page 16

Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the Plurinational System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia (Integrated Project as Part of the Amazonian Sustainable Landscapes Impact Program II)

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

It is estimated that the Bolivian Amazon has 1 266 379 inhabitants made up of indigenous people, farming communities, ‘interculturals’ (mixed communities) and Afro-descendants. Regarding the indigenous population of the Bolivian Amazon, 26.5% of the Amazon territory is acknowledged to be populated by a total of twenty-nine (29) indigenous peoples: Araonas, Ayoreos, Baures, Cavineños, Cayubabas, Canichanas, Chacobos, Chiquitanos, Esse Ejjas, Guarayos, Guarasugwe, Itonamas, Joaquinianos, Lecos, Machineris, Maropas, Moré, Mosetenes, Movimas, Moxeños, Nahuas, Pacahuaras, Sirionós, Tacanas, Toromonas, Tsimane, Yaminahuas, Yukis and Yuracares. Indigenous peoples are immersed in the political constitution of the state, an instrument that widely recognizes the diversity of indigenous ways of life as nations and the collective rights for the exercise of self-determination, autonomy and self-government, as expressly indicated in the Article 2 of the constitution. Another important factor is that approximately 28% of the Bolivian Amazon is covered by protected areas (135 352 km2), with more than 30% (41 898 km2) overlap with indigenous peoples' lands. It should be borne in mind that Bolivian regulations take care of the development of indigenous peoples, determining that where there is an overlap of protected areas and indigenous-aboriginal-farming community lands, shared management will be carried out subject to the rules and procedures of indigenous-aboriginal-farming community nations and peoples. Of the 29 indigenous peoples in the Bolivian Amazon, members of 18 will be part of this project: - Baure (2 sites) - Cavineño - Cayubaba (3 sites) - Chacobo - Chiquitano - Esse-Ejja - Guarasugwe - Itonama - Joaquiniano - Lecos - Machineri (2 sites) - Mosetén - Movima (2 sites) - Moxeño - Takana (3 sites) - Tsimane (4 sites) - Yaminahua (2 sites) - Yuracaré (2 sites)

Available population, communities, and gender distribution data are summarized in Table 4. Different surveys estimate indigenous communities to be around 2/3 of the population, but certainty over a figure can be only pretended on current data. The complete table for the project sites is included as Table 16, in which ethnicity and organisational data are also presented.

Table 15. Demographic summary, project sites Communitie Project site Inhabitants % female s Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional 67 10 996 - Madidi Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la 2 56 - Humanidad Noel Kempff Mercado Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni 8 1 008 - (EBB) Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica 41.00 10 1 800 Manuripi Heat % Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure 48.00 54 4 563 (TIPNIS) % Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón 47.60 25 1 394 Lajas % Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua 3 149 - 45.53 Subtotal protected areas 19 966 % Río Yata RAMSAR site - - - Río Matos RAMSAR site - - - Río Blanco RAMSAR site - - - 40.00 Subtotal RAMSAR sites 2 000 % 48.39 CIPOAP indigenous territories 60 13 109 % Total 35 075 -: no data. Estimations in italics. Source: MMAYA

Stakeholders who have been and will be engaged Project stakeholders are found in the following realms:

▪ Decision makers. Ministry responsible for the environment, forests and water, including the National Protected Area Service ▪ Decision makers. Subnational institutions responsible for the environment, forests, protected areas, agriculture and livestock, water, public works and spatial planning ▪ Beneficiaries/affected parties. Donors and other co-financing parties ▪ Beneficiaries/affected parties. Other agents with whom activities are coordinated ▪ Beneficiaries/affected parties. Local inhabitants within and around Pas, who receive resources and/or knowledge intended at specific project outcomes The identification and engagement of stakeholders during project preparation has been guided by those who could have or receive the most relevant and direct impact on project activities and outcomes, as well as those who will be direct project beneficiaries, with a heavy local focus on the selected project areas (see Table 16). A synopsis of identified project stakeholders, their jurisdiction/competencies, and their intended responsibilities and engagement timing in the project lays out in Table 1, showing the results of the stakeholder mapping exercise conducted to identify key project stakeholders, their present relevance or role in the project’s area of intervention, and the potential impact they may receive from the project, but also produce on it, during and beyond project implementation. While the Ministry of Environment and Water will be the key Ministry, the cross-sectorial nature of the project activities will require that the project is implemented in partnership with other ministries as well, in cases where the role of said ministries is key to the delivery of project outcomes. A total of ninety (90) stakeholder organisations/representative bodies/groups of actors have been identified. A synthetic analysis follows. ▪ Ten are national institutions (state ministries), including the Executing Agency and SERNAP, which is both organically dependent from the Viceministry of Environment and functionally autonomous. ▪ Up to four Autonomous Departmental Governments (GAD) will be involved, with those of Beni (4 PAs) and Pando (2 PAs) having stakes in more than one protected area, while those of Santa Cruz and La Paz will intervene in one area each. ▪ A total of twenty-six Autonomous Municipal Governments (GAM) have jurisdiction over intervention sites and will participate in project activities with varying degrees of involvement. Those of Apolo, Puerto Rico, Santa Ana de Yacuma and San Borja have stakes in more than one intervention site, while the other 23 will present site-specific concerns. ▪ Two key indigenous organisations have been identified: the Great Tsimane Council and the Movima People, which hold stakes in three and two intervention sites, respectively. A third organisation, the CNAMIB (National Confederation of Indigenous Women of Bolivia) has a relevant role to play in supporting the participation of indigenous women in project activities and outcomes. ▪ Apart from these key actors and nodes, forty-seven local other stakeholders have been identified, whose participation in project activities is relevant. They include indigenous organisations, community-based organisations, private companies, subnational protected

areas overlapping intervention sites, NGOs, universities, sectoral organisations and other actors. Six project areas count with formally established and functional management committees: five national areas and the subnational area Bruno Racua. In the case of the TIPNIS, an assembly of Corregidores (community chiefs) acts as deliberative body, while the Subcentral TIPNIS acts as executive liaison with the communities for the PA management. The RAMSAR sites will establish formal engagement mechanisms as part of their strengthening during the project. Other subnational areas participating in the project and counting with an active management committee will join this category, the listing of which is not exhaustive here.

Table 16. Social & Organisational Characteristics of Project Sites Indigenous Basic Organisation Designati Department/s & Site Municipality/ies Persons (f-m) Peoples TIOC - TCO – Communities on/s Province/s Adscription Umbrella Organisation

PN Isiboro Beni (Moxos San Ignacio de 4 563 Moxeño Along Isiboro & Sécure rivers ANMI Sécure Province), Moxos, Loreto (Beni) 48%-52% Yuracaré (*) TCO Isiboro Secure Cochabamba Villa Tunari, Tsimane (Chapare Province) Morochata (Cochabamba)

RNVS Manuripi Pando Puerto Rico (Victoria), 1 800 Yaminahua 10 Territorial Basic Organisations (OTB) Heath (Manuripi Province) Filadelfia (Arroyo 41%-59% Machineri Affiliated to Federación Sindical Única Grande) de Trabajadores Campesinos de Pando (FSTCP)

PN Noel Kempff Santa Cruz (Velasco San Ignacio de 56 Guarasugwe Two nuclei, Bella Vista & Esperancita de Natural Mercado Province), Beni Velasco (Santa Cruz), Chiquitano la Frontera (on Iténez river) World (Iténez Province) Baures (Beni) Heritage

ANMI Estación Beni (Yacuma, San Borja, Santa Ana 1 008 Tsimane TCO Tsimane Biosphere Biológica del Ballivián Provinces) de Yacuma Movima Reserve Beni Yuracaré (*)

ANMI Pilón Lajas Beni (Ballivián Rurrenabaque, San 1 394 Tsimane 25 communities Biosphere Province), La Paz Borja, Palos Blancos, 47,6%-52,4% Mosetén TCO Tsimane Reserve (Sud Yungas, Franz Apolo Tacana TCO Mosetén Tamayo Provinces) TCO Tacana 1

PN Madidi La Paz (Franz Apolo, San 10 996 Tacana TCO San José de Uchupiamonas (1 ANMI Tamayo, Abel Buenaventura, Lecos community, 406) Iturralde, Larecaja, Ixiamas, Curva, Toromona (*) TCO Lecos Apolo (15 communities, Bautista Saavedra Pelechuco 2303) Provinces) (Guanay) TCO Lecos Larecaja (31 communities, 5373) TCO Tacana 1 (20 communities, 2914)

Indigenous Basic Organisation Designati Department/s & Site Municipality/ies Persons (f-m) Peoples TIOC - TCO – Communities on/s Province/s Adscription Umbrella Organisation

RVS Bruno Racua Northwestern Pando Nueva Esperanza 149-262 Cayubaba OTB Nueva Esperanza (Subnation (Federico Román (seasonal) OTB Alto Madera al) Province)

RAMSAR Rio Yata Beni Exaltación, Santa - Cayubaba San Pedro, Coquinal, Rosario del Yata, site Rosa, Riberalta, Baure Exaltación, El Porvenir, San Bartolomé, Guayaramerin Chacobo El Triunfo, Comunidad Picaflores, Alto Ivon, Las Abras, Paraíso, Australia, San Juan communities

RAMSAR Rio Matos Beni Santa Ana del - Cayubaba - site Yacuma (54,53%), Joaquiniano San Ignacio Movima (28,64%), San Borja Tsimane (16,69%)

RAMSAR Rio Blanco Beni (Iténez Magdalena, Baures, - Baure TCO Itonoma site Province) Huacaraje y San Itonama TCO Baures Javier (Beni), Concepción (Santa Cruz)

Pando (Nicolás San Pedro de 180 Yaminahua OIYAMA Suárez Province) Bolpebra Machineri CIPOAP

Gonzalo Moreno, San 188 Yaminahua OIPEEAP Lorenzo, Ingavi Machineri TCO Machineri-Yaminahua CIPOAP

Beni, Pando San Lorenzo, San 1 278 Cavineño OICAP Pedro, Bella Flor, El 49,3%-50,7% TCO Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos Sena (TIM II) CIPOAP

Indigenous Basic Organisation Designati Department/s & Site Municipality/ies Persons (f-m) Peoples TIOC - TCO – Communities on/s Province/s Adscription Umbrella Organisation

Gonzalo Moreno, San 1 023 Esse-Ejja OIPEEAP Lorenzo e Ingavi 48,4%-51,6% Tacana TCO Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos (TIM II) CIPOAP

San Lorenzo, 10 440 Tacana OITAP Gonzalo Moreno, San 48,3-51,7% TCO Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos Pedro, El Sena, (TIM II) Santos Mercado, CIPOAP Puerto Rico, Bella Flor, Ingavi, Nueva Esperanza -: no data. Estimations in italics. Source: MMAYA (*) There exists certainty of the group locally including one or more un-contacted or isolated group/s. Bolivia’s Constitution grants these groups (Art. 31) that ‘their individual and collective ways of life [are] protected and respected’ and ‘shall enjoy the right to remain in isolation or un-contacted’.

Means of engagement It is required thorough and continued engagement with this multiplicity of stakeholders during the execution stage. The project plans to establish and use multi-level participative governance mechanisms, and the structure of its Management Unit considers the participative inception and implementation of multi-stakeholder engagement mechanisms during the execution phase. Management committees are the main governance mechanism for ensuring participation in the management of Bolivian protected areas, but the mechanism needs strengthening and improvement. In a broader sense, and despite the clear policies for planning at all levels and sectors, coordination still needs improvement, especially with and within sub-national levels such as the one addressed in this project. This applies to both protected areas and indigenous peoples and local communities. The participation of knowledge providers in capacity-building processes is necessary to strengthen the capacities of local stakeholders and protected area staff. Stakeholders participate in the identification of project priorities and in the definition of planned outputs and outcomes during interviews and consultations. All stakeholders must have the opportunity to review and comment on proposed project activities and to provide specific inputs to the project process. Stakeholder participation may include the provision of co-financing, participation of technical staff in workshops, training, and tools development, the facilitation of local project events and processes, the provision of project oversight through participation in project Committees, as data sources and technical expertise relevant for the technical components of the project, and knowledge management through the institutionalization of project results and lessons learned to allow for up-scaling, replication and sustainability. At the regional level, stakeholder engagement will focus at the facilitation of regional project processes in project countries and in the identification of opportunities for optimization of resources, joint investments for project delivery, coordination and collaboration in the production of technical outputs. The project will foster full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ and their members’ identity, dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness so that they 1) receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits; and 2) do not suffer adverse effects during the development process. The full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples has been and will keep being sought in the identification, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all project activities. Responsibility for assuring public involvement rests within the country, with the governmental project executing agency, with the support of CAF. The project addresses the social, cultural and economic needs of Indigenous Peoples affected by it. To be effective, all project engagement activities will be broad-based and sustainable. The project budget includes the necessary financial and technical assistance to all involved stakeholders to ensure effective involvement of indigenous peoples, and CAF will work with all stakeholders to ensure that activities to support involvement of indigenous peoples are effectively carried out over the long-term. CAF will support executing partners in: (i) providing relevant, timely, and accessible information to as many stakeholders as possible; (ii) facilitating broad-based and project-specific consultations, especially at the local or sub-national levels; and (iii) promoting the active participation of Indigenous Peoples throughout the project cycle, including through awareness raising and capacity strengthening activities. Public involvement activities, including those with Indigenous Peoples, are to be carried out in a transparent and open manner. Further, the project will provide full documentation and disclosure

of non-confidential information, including full documentation of public involvement. In particular, the project will ensure that it documents: (i) the mutually accepted consultation processes it develops with indigenous communities and (ii) evidence of agreement between the parties as the outcome of these consultations. The project recognizes and respects: ▪ the importance of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices to the long-term well- being of Indigenous Peoples, and the domestic legislation or applicable international obligations designed to support the maintenance of this traditional knowledge, innovations and practices ▪ that traditional knowledge can enhance GEF-financed projects and encourages the availability of facilitated and flexible processes to allow for the incorporation of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices into relevant GEF-financed projects ▪ the important role of indigenous women, elders and youth in the maintenance, enhancement, and transfer of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and supports the inclusion of these groups and other traditional experts in GEF project activities, as necessary ▪ the importance of appropriate access to, and equitable sharing of, benefits related to the utilisation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples ▪ other existing guidance on traditional knowledge and access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, including the Tkarihwaié:ri Code, the Akwé:Kon Voluntary Guidelines, the Bonn guidelines and the Nagoya Protocol

The project supports the empowerment, participation and leadership of indigenous women and men. The project will facilitate access by Indigenous Peoples to local or country level grievance and dispute resolution systems as a first step in addressing project concerns. CAF is required to have accountability and grievance systems in place, at the project and/or institution level, to respond to and address complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples. The project has also undertaken a detailed analysis of the conditions for participation in the specific case that will be widespread in its intervention areas, which adds poverty and remoteness to the marginalized conditions of Amazonian indigenous peoples and/or women. That analysis recommends: ▪ The incorporation of traditional governance mechanisms and local knowledge into every project activity, including non-field activities such as proposing regulatory changes, data analysis and others. ▪ The reinforced participation of indigenous peoples, women and women organisations in the governance mechanisms of the project. ▪ The development of specific indicators for equity and inclusion of indigenous peoples and women, both for processes and results. ▪ The promotion of mechanisms for indigenous peoples and women participating in the access to and management of biodiversity and natural resources.

The following types of participatory governance mechanisms will be implemented throughout the project cycle.

National Dialogue Activity to produce Output 1.1.1 provides the means for a national dialogue, supporting works for the participative strengthening of an updated, multilevel, multi-stakeholder SNAP. This national dialogue, along with a focused communication strategy (Output 5.2.2), will provide an enabling environment for project activities to count with enough initial goodwill.

Management Committees Management Committees have a key role in the project’s execution, in accordance with the role that law and best practice mandate for this governance bodies. Besides general operational (annual) planning and overview for the whole project in each site, these Committees (or equivalent bodies) are the main way through which project staff and PA management coordinate the effective production of Outputs 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1.1, 4.1.2 & 4.2.1.

Interministerial Task Forces Outputs 1.3.2 and 4.2.3 are to be produced by two separate interministerial Task Forces, which will be organised and convened by the MMAYA.

Focused Working Groups Activities to produce Output 1.2.2, Output 1.3.3, Output 2.3.1, and Output 2.3.3 provide focused, both one-on-one and collective opportunities for the engagement of stakeholders at the planning stage of key SNAP features, thus providing a degree of certainty to project stakeholders such as relevant research institutions, organized local communities, public and private companies, and other national and regional institutions. This will allow for them to develop a tailored, long-term framework for their interaction with the SNAP, and therefore to these actors developing interdependencies and shared interests with the system, vg. to become true stakeholders.

Other provisions for fair participation All project indicators involving persons are and will keep being disaggregated by gender. A mandatory minimum threshold of 20% (1/5) of the relevant population/audience is established for the participation of women, and a mandatory minimum threshold of 40% (2/5) of the relevant population/audience for the participation of indigenous peoples, in project governance structures and project activities involving beneficiaries. These thresholds are to be applied not only for community-oriented activities, but also for working groups, government staff involved in the project and other activity-specific groupings.

Roles and responsibilities in ensuring effective stakeholder engagement

The project design employs minimum, decentralized structures that ensure the participation and contribution of local stakeholders at the different required levels. A summary organigram is included as Figure 21. A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established in order to monitor and support the smooth development of the project from the national level. It will be composed by five members and consider gender and other representation considerations. Its members will be: ▪ A representative from MMAYA-VMA, who chairs the Committee ▪ A representative from SERNAP ▪ Two representatives from the participating Management Committees (see below), elected by their assembly ▪ A representative from CAF Of the five persons conforming the PSC, at least two must be of indigenous origin and at least one woman. Each intervention area will oversee its project activities through its Management Committee. In the case of project sites lacking stablished Management Committee and/or during the period of lack thereof, the equivalent to the Management Committee per project effects will be composed by a representative designated by the VMA, a PMU member and a representative of relevant local stakeholders, elected by their assembly (facilitated by the PMU), with at least one of them female. Therefore, the institutional implementation structure is divided into two collaborative levels, local and national. The PMU is planned to provide support to stakeholder engagement during the whole project execution period. To that end, its structure is heavily reinforced for the engagement with stakeholders throughout execution. The Project Coordinator will ensure that the Conflict Resolution Specialist and Indigenous Liaison provide smooth and permanent dialogue with stakeholders, while the Communication, Training, and Systematization Experts support the stakeholders in fully benefitting from project activities, starting from the joint operative planning of local project activities, which will take place under the supervision of the corresponding Management Committee.

Resource requirements and dissemination of information Each stakeholder engagement activity has its participation requirements foreseen and budgeted in the corresponding budget line. Communication, participant travel and professional production costs have been planned and budgeted in each case, assuring that participation is not hampered by ex-ante economic constrains. The PMU is planned to provide complete support to stakeholder engagement during the whole project execution period. Its structure (see Figure 21) is heavily reinforced for the engagement with stakeholders throughout execution. The Project Coordinator will ensure that two dedicated specialists (the Conflict Resolution Specialist and the Indigenous Liaison) provide smooth and permanent dialogue with stakeholders and adequately support the project-related work of Management Committees. The Training Specialist supports the stakeholders in fully benefitting from project activities, starting from the joint operative planning and formatting of local project activities. Both the Communication and Systematization Specialists also support the adequate communication of project activities and

outputs and an optimal systematisation of project outputs so its dissemination within like-minded and relevant audiences is maximised.

Timing of engagement throughout the project/program cycle All project Committees are constituted during year 1. Both all local Committees and the PSC extend their activities until project closure. Interministerial Task Forces for Output 1.3.2 (PY1 – PY2) and Output 4.2.3 (PY2 – PY5) extend their duration until the planned Outputs are delivered. Detailed means and timing of engagement by stakeholder are identified in Table 1.

Figure 22. Project organigram

Implementing Agency Executing Agency Executing Partner Contract CAF MMAyA SERNAP Support Report

Project Steering Committee (PSC) Management Committee Madidi Project Management Unit (PMU) Project Director Management Committee Noel Kempff

Project Management Committee EBB Coordinator Management Committee Manuripi Conflict resolution Technical Specialist Specialist Management Committee TIPNIS

Systematisation Management Committee Pilón Lajas Specialist Administration Council Bruno Racua

Management Committee equivalent Río Yata Communication Training Financial Specialist Specialist Specialist Management Committee equivalent Río Matos

Management Committee equivalent Río Blanco Communication Indigenous Agency (external) Liaison Management Committee equivalent CIPOAP territories

SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Given the essential participation of indigenous and community organisations in the sustainability of the Amazon Basin, the project takes into account the Principles and Guidelines for Engagement with Indigenous Peoples (GEF/C.42/Inf.03/Rev.1) and other GEF guidelines, and specifically the following. The project is designed and implemented in such a way that fosters full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ and their members’ identity, dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness so that they 1) receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits; and 2) do not suffer adverse effects during the development process. The full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples has been and will keep being sought in the identification, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all project activities. Responsibility for assuring public involvement rests within the country, with the governmental project executing agency, with the support of CAF. The project addresses the social, cultural and economic needs of Indigenous Peoples affected by it. To be effective, all project engagement activities will be broad-based and sustainable. The project budget includes the necessary financial and technical assistance to all involved stakeholders to ensure effective involvement of indigenous peoples, and CAF will work with all stakeholders to ensure that activities to support involvement of indigenous peoples are effectively carried out over the long-term. CAF will support executing partners in: (i) providing relevant, timely, and accessible information to as many stakeholders as possible; (ii) facilitating broad-based and project-specific consultations, especially at the local or sub-national levels; and (iii) promoting the active participation of Indigenous Peoples throughout the project cycle, including through awareness raising and capacity strengthening activities. Public involvement activities, including those with Indigenous Peoples, are to be carried out in a transparent and open manner. Further, the project will provide full documentation and disclosure of non-confidential information, including full documentation of public involvement. In particular, the project will ensure that it documents: (i) the mutually accepted consultation processes it develops with indigenous communities and (ii) evidence of agreement between the parties as the outcome of these consultations. The project will ensure, consistent with Bolivian legislation and applicable international obligations: (a) the full and effective participation of the identified indigenous peoples. This includes timely identification, and their participation in the screening of environmental, cultural and social impacts. Indigenous peoples will also participate in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. The representation of indigenous peoples is to be chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as far as possible and practical. (b) the use of self-identification, among other factors, as an important criterion for determining indigenous status, as appropriate. Other factors or criteria would include identification by others as indigenous peoples, collective attachment to land, presence of customary institutions, indigenous language, and primarily subsistence-oriented production. (c) that Indigenous Peoples, in their efforts to maintain ownership and access to their lands, territories, and resources are not undermined by the project. It will support and promote efforts to build on indigenous peoples’ capacity to manage their lands, territories and resources

sustainably for the global environmental good and to benefit from the project in view of its utilizing such lands, territories, or resources. (d) the avoidance of activities that negatively impact indigenous peoples’ traditional ownership and user rights on lands, territories, resources, livelihoods or cultures, and where avoidance is not possible, that adequate mitigation measures are taken. This will include protective measures and the preparation and monitoring of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for each local intervention. (e) the application of a standard of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for the project.

The project does not finance, support or otherwise contribute to the involuntary resettlement of Indigenous Peoples. The project recognizes and respects: ▪ the importance of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices to the long-term well-being of Indigenous Peoples, and the domestic legislation or applicable international obligations designed to support the maintenance of this traditional knowledge, innovations and practices ▪ that traditional knowledge can enhance GEF-financed projects and encourages the availability of facilitated and flexible processes to allow for the incorporation of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices into relevant GEF-financed projects ▪ the important role of indigenous women, elders and youth in the maintenance, enhancement, and transfer of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and supports the inclusion of these groups and other traditional experts in GEF project activities, as necessary ▪ the importance of appropriate access to, and equitable sharing of, benefits related to the utilisation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples ▪ other existing guidance on traditional knowledge and access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, including the Tkarihwaié:ri Code, the Akwé:Kon Voluntary Guidelines, the Bonn guidelines and the Nagoya Protocol

The project supports the empowerment, participation and leadership of indigenous women and men. The project will facilitate access by Indigenous Peoples to local or country level grievance and dispute resolution systems as a first step in addressing project concerns. CAF is required to have accountability and grievance systems in place, at the project and/or institution level, to respond to and address complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples. The GEF Conflict Resolution Commissioner and the GEF Indigenous Peoples focal point will be fully available in complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples to the project that fail to be adequately addressed at the local, project, country, or CAF level. Decisions and complaints brought forward by Indigenous Peoples will be made readily available to the GEF Indigenous Peoples focal point for documentation. The project has also undertaken a detailed analysis of the conditions for participation in the specific case that will be widespread in its intervention areas, which adds poverty and remoteness to the marginalized conditions of Amazonian indigenous peoples and/or women. That analysis recommends:

▪ The incorporation of traditional governance mechanisms and local knowledge into every project activity, including non-field activities such as proposing regulatory changes, data analysis and others. ▪ The reinforced participation of indigenous peoples, women, and women organisations in the governance mechanisms of the project. ▪ The development of specific indicators for equity and inclusion of indigenous peoples and women, both for processes and results. ▪ The promotion of mechanisms for indigenous peoples and women participating in the access to and management of biodiversity and natural resources.

Table 17. Project Stakeholders ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

1 Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua National authority Executing Agency (Project Steering Committee) Chairs PSC PIF – EOP MMAYA (Ministry of Environment Directs project activity. Conducts M&E. Coordinates co- and Water) financing Viceministry of Environment, Forest Resources and Climate Change

2 Servicio Nacional de Áreas Management of protected areas Executing Agency (Project Steering Committee) Project Director PY1 – EOP Protegidas and the protected area service Receives technical assistance, is supported for institutional SERNAP (HQ, PA Managers and strengthening, receives staff training. Contributes co- staff) financing funds

National stakeholders (in alphabetical order)

3 Aduana Nacional (Customs) Regulates and controls import- Institutional partner Output 4.2.3 PY2 – EOP export of goods and resources Controls mercury imports for alluvial gold extraction WG

4 Instituto Nacional de Reforma Rural Cadaster Institutional partner Output 1.3.2 PY1 – PY2 Agraria Coordinates the assignment of proprietary rights on land in WG INRA (National Institute of Agrarian full compliance with PA and SNAP statute Reform)

5 Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo y Regulates commerce of goods Institutional partner Direct PY2 – EOP Economía Plural (Ministry of and services and fosters The Ministry can support and promote the access to cooperation on Productive Development and Plural transformation and markets of sustainable products and services and Economy) commercialisation of products, incentivise its supply from within SNAP ECOS sites outcomes 2.3, SMEs and industry 3.2

6 Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Supports productive Institutional partner Output 1.3.2 PY1 – PY2 Tierras development The institution undertakes development projects in full WG MDRyT (Ministry of Rural compliance with PA and SNAP statute Development and Land)

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

7 Ministerio de Planificación del Establishes planning guidelines Institutional partner Output 1.3.2 PY1 – PY2 Desarrollo for governmental institutions The MPD establishes guidelines and procedures for WG MPD (Ministry of Development planning at all scales nationwide in compliance with PA Planning) and SNAP statute

8 Ministry of Finance Financial management of the Institutional partner Direct PY1 – PY4 State Supports the financial sustainability of the SNAP ECOS cooperation on Component 2

9 Ministry of Mining Regulates mining Institutional partner Output 4.2.3 PY2 – EOP Supports that the environmental regulation of mining WG activities is in compliance with PA and SNAP statute

10 National Women’s and de- Autonomous public service Institutional partner Direct PY1 – EOP patriarcalization Service “Ana María ascribed to the Ministry of The institution ensures full compliance between policies cooperation on Romero” Justice that monitors, follows up under its jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute. It monitors and evaluates compliance with & ensures adequate generational, gender and indigenous fair public policies towards representation generational, depatriarchalization in favor of gender and the effective exercise of indigenous women's rights representation

Subnational authorities

11 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental Subnational authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAD) del Beni The institution ensures full compliance Blanco Committee (Autonomous Departmental between departmental policies under its Government of Beni) jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Matos Committee

EBB Management PY1 – EOP Committee

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP Committee

12 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental Subnational authority Institutional partner Manuripi Management PY1 – EOP (GAD) de Pando The institution ensures full compliance Committee (Autonomous Departmental between departmental policies under its Government of Pando) jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute Bruno Racua Management PY1 – EOP Committee

13 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental Subnational authority Institutional partner Noel Kempff Management PY1 – EOP (GAD) de Santa Cruz The institution ensures full compliance Committee (Autonomous Departmental between departmental policies under its Government of Santa Cruz) jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

14 Gobierno Autónomo Departamental Subnational authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (GAD) de La Paz The institution ensures full compliance Committee (Autonomous Departmental between departmental policies under its Government of La Paz) jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

15 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Apolo The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Apolo jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute Madidi Management PY1 – EOP Committee

16 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Manuripi Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Puerto Rico The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Puerto Rico jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute CIPOAP Management PY1 – EOP Committee

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

17 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de San Borja The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of San Borja jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute EBB Management PY1 – EOP Committee

18 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner EBB Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Santa Ana de Yacuma The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Santa Ana de Yacuma jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Yata Committee

19 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Baures The institution ensures full compliance Blanco Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Baures SNAP statute

20 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Curva The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Curva jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

21 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Exaltación The institution ensures full compliance Yata Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Exaltación SNAP statute

22 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Manuripi Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Filadelfia The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Filadelfia jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

23 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner CIPOAP Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Gonzalo Moreno The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Gonzalo Moreno jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

24 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Guayaramerin The institution ensures full compliance Yata Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Guayaramerin SNAP statute

25 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Huacaraje The institution ensures full compliance Blanco Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Huacaraje SNAP statute

26 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Ixiamas The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Ixiamas jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute · Ixiamas Civic Committee

27 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner TIPNIS Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Loreto The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Loreto SNAP statute

28 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Magdalena The institution ensures full compliance Blanco Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Magdalena SNAP statute

29 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Bruno Racua Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Nueva Esperanza The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Nueva Esperanza jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

30 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Palos Blancos The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Palos Blancos jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

31 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Pelechuco The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Pelechuco jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

32 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Riberalta The institution ensures full compliance Yata Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Riberalta SNAP statute

33 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Rurrenabaque The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of Rurrenabaque jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

34 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Madidi Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de San Buenaventura The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of San Buenaventura jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute · San Buenaventura Civi Committee

35 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner TIPNIS Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de San Ignacio de Moxos The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of San Ignacio de Moxos SNAP statute

36 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner Noel Kempff Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de San Ignacio de Velasco The institution ensures full compliance Committee (Autonomous Municipal Government between departmental policies under its of San Ignacio de Velasco) jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

37 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de San Javier The institution ensures full compliance Blanco Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of San Javier SNAP statute

38 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner CIPOAP Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de San Pedro de Bolpebra The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies under its of San Pedro de Bolpebra jurisdiction and PA and SNAP statute

39 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Santa Rosa The institution ensures full compliance Yata Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Santa Rosa SNAP statute

40 Gobierno Autónomo Municipal Municipal authority Institutional partner TIPNIS Management PY1 – EOP (GAM) de Villa Tunari The institution ensures full compliance Committee Autonomous Municipal Government between municipal policies and PA and of Villa Tunari SNAP statute Key indigenous organisations 41 Gran Consejo Tsimane SR Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (Great Tsimane Council) the protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices EBB Management PY1 – EOP Committee

RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Matos Committee

42 Subcentral de Pueblos Indígenas Communities with activities in RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Movima the protected area Matos Committee

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

SPIM (Movima Indigenous Peoples Beneficiaries EBB Management PY1 – EOP Subcentral) They receive training and support in Committee Pueblo Movima SR (Movima People) SLWM practices

43 Confederación Nacional de CNAMIB includes women from Institutional partner Direct PY1 – EOP Mujeres Indígenas de Bolivia indigenous peoples in Bolivia’s The institution monitors & ensures cooperation on (CNAMIB). This umbrella lowlands, with a bond to forests adequate generational, gender and organisation confederates, among indigenous representation and supports fair others, the following relevant adequate women participation in project generational, organisations: activities. gender and - OMINAB (Organización indigenous Mujeres Indígenas del representation Norte de la Amazonía de Bolivia) - CIMAP (Central Indígena de Mujeres Amazónicas de Pando) - CMIB (Central de Mujeres Indígenas del Beni) - Gender Secretary, CPEMB (Central de Pueblos Etnicos Mojeños del Beni) PA Management Committees (in alphabetical order)

Consejo de Administración Permanent PA governance Beneficiaries Bruno Racua Management PY1 – EOP (PA Management Committee) mechanism The Committee interacts with PA Committee Participants in the Committee management and the PMU for the are the linkage between project's day-to-day coordination with communities and institutions and stakeholders the PA management Participant organisations receive training on sustainable resource management

Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance Beneficiaries EBB Management PY1 – EOP (PA Management Committee) mechanism The Committee interacts with PA committees are Participants in the Committee management and the PMU for the

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

are the linkage between project's day-to-day coordination with the local communities and institutions and stakeholders governance the PA management Participant organisations receive training Decisions in which the Tsimane on sustainable resource management mechanism of people are mainly affected are the project. taken by their organisation (the The assembly Great Chimane Council) of participating Management Committees elects two representatives to the PSC.

Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance Beneficiaries Madidi Management PY1 – EOP (PA Management Committee) mechanism The Committee interacts with PA committees are Participants in the Committee management and the PMU for the are the linkage between project's day-to-day coordination with the local communities and institutions and stakeholders governance the PA management Participant organisations receive training mechanism of on sustainable resource management the project. The assembly of participating Management Committees elects two representatives to the PSC.

Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance Beneficiaries Manuripi Management PY1 – EOP (PA Management Committee) mechanism The Committee interacts with PA committees are Participants in the Committee management and the PMU for the are the linkage between project's day-to-day coordination with the local

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

communities and institutions and stakeholders governance the PA management Participant organisations receive training mechanism of FSUTCP, GAMs of Filadelfia on sustainable resource management and Puerto Rico and GAD of the project. Pando should attend meetings, The assembly but this has not been so by now of participating Management Committees elects two representatives to the PSC.

Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance Beneficiaries Noel Kempff Management PY1 – EOP (PA Management Committee) mechanism The Committee interacts with PA committees are Participants in the Committee management and the PMU for the are the linkage between project's day-to-day coordination with the local communities and institutions and stakeholders governance the PA management Participant organisations receive training mechanism of on sustainable resource management the project. The assembly of participating Management Committees elects two representatives to the PSC.

Comité de Gestión Permanent PA governance Beneficiaries Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP (PA Management Committee) mechanism The Committee interacts with PA committees are Participants in the Committee management and the PMU for the are the linkage between project's day-to-day coordination with the local communities and institutions and stakeholders governance

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

the PA management Participant organisations receive training mechanism of The PA has not been assigned a on sustainable resource management the project. formal status within the SNAP. GAD of Beni and GADs of The assembly Rurrenabaque, San Borja, Apolo of participating & Palos Blancos participate in Management meetings along with the Great Committees Tsimane Council and two elects two representatives from communities on the Quiquibey representatives and Beni rivers, and from to the PSC. communities by the road Local stakeholders (by PA in alphabetical order) 44 4 campesino communities (Nueva Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Bruno Racua Management PY1 – EOP Esperanza, OTB Alto Madera, Arca the protected area They receive training and support in Committee de Israel/Gran Cruz & Puerto SLWM practices Consuelo) Affiliated to Federación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Pando FSUTCP (Sole Union Federation of Campesino Workers of Pando)

45 Maderera Boliviana Etienne SA Management PY1 – EOP MABET (Etienne Wood Company) Committee

46 Universidad Amazónica de Pando The university has three Institutional partner Management PY1 – EOP Pando Amazonic University campuses in Pando Supports knowledge management and Committee contributes research

47 TCO Machineri - Yaminahua Communities with activities in Beneficiaries CIPOAP Management PY1 – EOP · President of the Yaminahua People the protected area They receive training and support in Committee · Machineri Clan Chief SLWM practices

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

48 Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (TIM II) Tacana - Cavineño - Esse the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Ejja SLWM practices · Capitanía Indígena del pueblo Esse-Ejja (Esse Ejja Captainship) · Organización Indígena de Cavineños de la Amazonía (Cavineño Indigenous Organisation) · Organización Indígena Takana de la Amazonía (OITA, Takana Indigenous Organisation)

49 Asociación de Ganaderos de San Landowners with livestock Partners who implement sustainable EBB Management PY1 – EOP Borja breeding activity practices Committee ASOGABORJA (Livestock Breeders Association of San Borja) Federated within Federación de Ganaderos del Beni (FEGABENI)

50 Universidad Técnica del Beni Institutional partner Management PY1 – EOP Technical University of Beni Supports knowledge management and Committee contributes research

51 Central Agraria Mohima Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Madidi Management PY1 – EOP Mohima Agrarian Central the protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices

52 Central Atén Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Atén Central the protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices

53 Central Indigena del Pueblo Tacana Community with activities in the Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP CIPTA (Indigenous Central of the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Tacana People) SLWM practices

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

54 Federación Agraria Especial de Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Colonizadores y Campesinos de the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Larecaja Tropical SLWM practices Special Agrarian Federation of Colonisers and Campesinos of the Tropical Larecaja

55 Federación de Productores Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Agropecuarios de Abel Iturralde the protected area They receive training and support in Committee FESPAI (Abel Iturralde Farmer SLWM practices Federation)

56 Federación Provincial Única de Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Trabajadores Campesinos de Apolo the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Sole Provincial Federation of Apolo SLWM practices Campesino Workers

57 TCO Leco de Apolo Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) SLWM practices Central Indígena del Pueblo Leco de Apolo CIPLA (Indigenous Central of the Leco de Apolo People)

58 TCO Lecos Larecaja Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) SLWM practices Pueblos Indígenas Lecos y Comunidades Originarias de Larecaja PILCOL (Lecos Indigenous Peoples and Originary Communities Larecaja)

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

59 TCO San Jose de Uchupiamona Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) ecotourism development

60 Wildlife Conservation Society International NGO Institutional partner Management PY1 – EOP WCS Contributes new, additional co-financing Committee funds (tbd)

61 10 campesino communities Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Manuripi Management PY1 – EOP Affiliated to Federación Sindical the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Única de Trabajadores Campesinos SLWM practices de Pando FSUTCP (Sole Union Federation of Campesino Workers of Pando)

62 37 barraca sites Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Affiliated to Asociación Agroindustrial the protected area They receive training and support in Committee y de Recursos Naturales del Río SLWM practices Manuripi-Pando AARENARMAPA (Agroindustrial and Natural Resource Association of the Manuripi-Pando River)

63 Asociación Boliviana para la National NGO Institutional partner Management PY1 – EOP Investigación y Conservación de Contributes new, additional co-financing Committee Ecosistemas Andino-Amazónicos funds (tbd) ACEAA (Bolivian Association for the Research and Conservation of Andean-Amazonian Ecosystems)

64 Machineri communities Community with activities in the Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

65 World Wildlife Fund International NGO Institutional partner Management PY1 – EOP WWF Contributes new, additional co-financing Committee funds (tbd)

66 Yaminahua communities Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP the protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices

67 Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza National NGO Institutional partner Noel Kempff Management PY1 – EOP FAN (Friends of Nature Foundation) Contributes new, additional co-financing Committee funds (tbd)

68 Guarasug’we communities (Bella Community with activities in the Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Vista, Remanso, Florida, Porvenir, protected area They receive training and support in Committee Piso Firme, Esperancita de la SLWM practices Frontera & San Francisco) Affiliated to Central Indigena del Bajo Paraguá CIBAPA (Bajo Paraguá Indigenous Central)

69 Central Indigena del Pueblo Tacana Community with activities in the Beneficiaries Pilón Lajas Management PY1 – EOP CIPTA (Indigenous Central of the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Tacana People) SLWM practices

70 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (intercultural local centrals) the protected area They receive training on sustainable Committee Affiliated to Asociación de resource management Productores Agro Ecológicos ASPAE (Ecoagricultural Producers Association)

71 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (intercultural local centrals) the protected area They receive training on sustainable Committee Affiliated to Asociación de resource management

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

Productores Apícolas de Biomiel APABIO (Apicultural Producers Association)

72 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (intercultural local centrals) the protected area They receive training on sustainable Committee Affiliated to Asociación Integral de resource management Productores Agropecuarios ASIPA (Integral Farmer Association)

73 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (intercultural local centrals) the protected area They receive training on sustainable Committee Affiliated to Federación Especial de resource management Colonizadores Agropecuarios de Rurrenabaque FECAR (Special Federation of Rurrenabaque Farmer Colonisers)

74 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (intercultural local centrals) the protected area They receive training on sustainable Committee Affiliated to Federación Especial de resource management Productores Agropecuarios de Yucumo FEPAY (Special Federation of Yucumo Farmers)

75 Centrales Comunales Interculturales Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (intercultural local centrals) the protected area They receive training on sustainable Committee Affiliated to Federación Integral de resource management Colonizadores de Alto Beni FAICAB (Integral Federation of Alto Beni Colonisers)

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

76 TCO Tsimane Mosetén Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) SLWM practices Consejo Regional Tsimane – Mosetene CRTM (Tsimane – Mosetene Regional Council)

77 Parque Departamental y Área Subnational protected area Beneficiaries RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Natural de Manejo Integrado Iténez Permanent PA governance They receive training on sustainable Blanco Committee PD-ANMI Iténez (Departmental Park mechanism resource management and equipment and Natural Area of Integrated Participants in the Committee Management) are the linkage between Comité de Gestión (Subnational PA communities and institutions and Management Committee) the PA management

78 Reserva Científica, Ecológica y Subnational protected area Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Arqueológica Kenneth Lee They receive training and equipment Committee RCEAKL (Kenneth Lee Scientific, Ecological and Archaeological Reserve)

79 TCO Baures Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) SLWM practices

80 TCO Itonama Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) SLWM practices

81 Asociación de Ganaderos de San Landowners with livestock Partners who implement sustainable RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Borja breeding activity practices Matos Committee ASOGABORJA (Livestock Breeders Association of San Borja)

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

Federated within Federación de Ganaderos del Beni (FEGABENI)

82 Asociación de Ganaderos de Santa Landowners with livestock Partners who implement sustainable Management PY1 – EOP Ana de Yacuma (Livestock Breeders breeding activity practices Committee Association of Santa Ana de Yacuma) Federated within Federación de Ganaderos del Beni (FEGABENI)

83 Área Protegida Municipal Grandes Local protected area Beneficiaries RAMSAR Rio Management PY1 – EOP Lagos Tectónicos de Exaltación They receive training and support in Yata Committee (Municipal Protected Area SLWM practices Exaltación’s Great Techtonic Lakes)

84 Área Protegida Municipal Área Local protected area Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP Natural de Manejo Integrado Pampas They receive training and support in Committee del Rio Yacuma (Municipal Protected SLWM practices Area Pampas of the Yacuma River)

85 Cayubaba communities Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP the protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices

86 Chacobo communities Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP the protected area They receive training and support in Committee SLWM practices

87 Indigenous & campesino Communities with activities in Beneficiaries Management PY1 – EOP communities the protected area They receive training and support in Committee (San Pedro, Coquinal, Rosario del SLWM practices Yata, Exaltación, El Porvenir, San Bartolomé, El Triunfo, Picaflores, Alto Ivon, Las Abras, Paraíso, Australia, San Juan, among others)

ID Stakeholder Responsibility Role in the project Intervention Means of Timing of area engagement engagement (if site- throughout specific) the project/progra m cycle

88 TCO Isiboro Secure Indigenous communities with Beneficiaries TIPNIS Management PY1 – EOP (Tierra Comunitaria de Origen, activities in the protected area They receive training and support in Committee Originary Community Land) SLWM practices Asamblea de Corregidores (decision- making assembly) · Subcentral TIPNIS (CPEMB) · Subcentral Sécure - Mojeño - Yuracaré – Chimán (CPIB) · CONISUR (CPITCO)

89 Miners organisations Gold mining cooperatives close Beneficiaries Output 4.2.3 PY2 – EOP by or within PAs They receive technical assistance to implement mercury- WG free mining practices

90 Environmental organisations Environmental NGOs with Institutional partner Contributes co- PY1 – EOP activity nearby or within SNAP Contributes new, additional co-financing funds (tbd) financing funds ECOS areas

Appendix 7. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Plan

Estimated Budget (Excluding MMA Staff Activity Responsibility Time Frame Time and costs covered by CAF)

Inception Workshop • CAF 10,000 Within first 2 months of • PMU (Project Coordinator) project implementation • Ministry of Environment and Water

Measurement of • CAF 40,000 To be developed at start Project Indicators • PMU (Project Coordinator) up and applied including GEF throughout the project Tracking Tools and Core Indicators Annual • PMU 20,000 At Inception, MTE & Implementation FE Reports (PIRs) Project Steering • Project Steering Committee 40,000 One physical meeting Committee members per year and at least one 21 meetings • PMU (Project Coordinator) virtual meeting per year

Monitoring Visits to • PMU 30,500 At least every 3 months Project Sites and due within 15 days of each completed quarter Monitoring of • PMU 20,000 Environmental and • CAF Social Safeguards External Mid-Term • Project Steering Committee 30,000 Within 90 days of Review/Evaluation • CAF project’s mid-term • PMU • International Consultant (1) • National Consultants (2)

21 With formally prepared minutes and resolutions.

Estimated Budget (Excluding MMA Staff Activity Responsibility Time Frame Time and costs covered by CAF)

Project Final Report • Project Steering Committee 5,000 At least one month before • CAF the end of the project • PMU • Consultant

Terminal Evaluation • Project Steering Committee 45,000 Within 90 days of EOP (TE) • CAF • PMU • International Consultant (1) • National Consultants (2)

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST, EXCLUDING 240,500 STAFF TIME AND CAF STAFF TRAVEL

Appendix 8. Key Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference PROJECT COORDINATOR

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Director

Functions • Provide technical supervision and guidance to partners in the execution and implementation of project activities. • Conduct permanent supervision and provide permanent orientation to project staff and Executing Partners. • Coordinate daily communication between the Project Management Unit and project partners. • Conduct the project, the Project Management Unit and execute the Annual Operational Plan and the project according to the PRODOC. • Ensure ongoing monitoring with project staff and partners about the risks of the Project, considering the Risk Matrix and ensure that mitigation measures proposed in the PRODOC are implemented and propose alternatives, if appropriate. Prepare other progress reports as needed, in coordination with project specialists. • Prepare reports on cash/in-kind co-financing from co-financiers and other partners, whether or not considered in the Project Document. • Coordinate the participation of adequate project representation in ASL2 Programme and regional (Leticia Pact) activities and initiatives.

Main activities • Coordinate the drafting, revision and approval of Terms of Reference and technical specifications of the corresponding contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Support the functioning of the Project Steering Committee and act as its secretary. • Coordinate the work of other specialists and consultants hired for the execution of the project. • Organize and participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project implementation.

• Coordinate the execution of Output 1.1.1 (Updated SNAP and strategic ecosystems program prepared by PY2). • Support CAF in the preparation of the Project Implementation Report (PIR). • Ensure gender equality and fair and just involvement of indigenous peoples in the Project. • Help with the organisation of the mid-term and final evaluation of the project, in close collaboration with the Executing Partners of the Project and CAF. • Coordinate and perform M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other task needed for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of Output 1.1.1 (Updated SNAP and strategic ecosystems program prepared by PY2) • Submission of operational plans, and approval • Submission of reports, and approval • Submission of financial renditions, and approval • Submission of the PIR, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a bachelor’s degree in forest engineering, biology or related fields. A Postgraduate Degree in protected area management would be desirable. • Accredited work experience in national public management, project management and leadership of professional teams, multi-sectoral environmental management projects; development of management tools and institutional issues in environmental science or engineering. • Experience working with public and private sectors, NGOs and multicultural environments in coordination, negotiation and leadership tasks and with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Knowledge and experience with environmental regulations in Bolivia and managerial work with the public sector. • Experience in mid-term and long-term project management with funds from various sources (public-private-international). Experience with the public sector, project management and experience in management, control and administration of financial instruments and resources (bidding funds, regional funds and others) will be highly valued.

• Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish and English. Knowledge of Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Coordinator

Functions • Support the Project Coordinator in providing technical supervision and guidance to partners in the execution and implementation of project activities. • Support the Project Coordinator in conducting permanent supervision and provide permanent orientation to project staff and Executing Partners. • Support the Project Coordinator in conducting the project, the Project Management Unit and in executing the Annual Operational Plan and the project according to the PRODOC. • Support the Project Coordinator in preparing other progress reports as needed, in coordination with project specialists. • Support the Project Coordinator in preparing reports on cash/in-kind co-financing from co- financiers and other partners, whether or not considered in the Project Document. • Support the Project Coordinator in coordinating the participation of adequate project representation in ASL2 Programme and regional (Leticia Pact) activities and initiatives.

progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other technical task needed for the adequate progress of project activities.

Required competences • Professional with a bachelor’s degree in forest engineering, biology or related fields. A Postgraduate Degree in protected area management would be desirable. • Accredited work experience in national public management and project management, multi-sectoral environmental management projects, and technical issues in environmental science or engineering. • Experience working with public and private sectors, NGOs and multicultural environments in technical and coordination tasks with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Knowledge and experience with environmental regulations in Bolivia and technical work with the public sector. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish. Knowledge of English and/or Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines, and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference TRAINING SPECIALIST

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Coordinator

Functions • Support the Project Coordinator in providing technical supervision and guidance to partners in the execution and implementation of training and other knowledge management activities within the project. • Support the Project Coordinator in conducting the project, the Project Management Unit and in executing the Annual Operational Plan and the project according to the PRODOC. • Support the Project Coordinator in preparing other progress reports as needed, in coordination with project specialists. • Support the Project Coordinator in coordinating the participation of adequate project representation in ASL2 Programme and regional (Leticia Pact) activities and initiatives.

Main activities • Coordinate the drafting, revision and approval of Terms of Reference and technical specifications of the corresponding contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Coordinate the work of the corresponding companies, NGOs, specialists and consultants committed to the execution of the project. • Organize and participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project implementation. • Coordinate the execution of training activities within, among others, Project Outputs 3.1.1 (Training in the development and implementation of management plans (integrated planning in case of RAMSAR sites), protected areas monitoring, and assessment of management effectiveness, conducted for personnel of protected areas and partner agencies for at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites between PY3 and EOP), 3.2.1 (Training of community organisations to introduce or strengthen sustainable practices in production models currently in place within or adjacent to protected areas (agroforestry, cattle ranching, coffee, cacao, sustainable mining, among others), within at least seven protected areas and three RAMSAR sites starting in PY3), 3.2.2 (Training in

the design and implementation of management plans (tourism, natural resources use), in at least 7 protected areas by PY3), 4.1.1 (Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices implemented in selected communities in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP), and 4.1.2 (Training of selected community organisations in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP implemented to increase uptake or strengthening of sustainable agriculture and SLWM practices). • Perform M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other technical task needed for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of training activities, especially Outputs 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1.1, and 4.1.2 • Submission of operational plans and reports, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a bachelor’s degree. A Postgraduate Degree in technical training or knowledge management would be desirable. • Accredited work experience in national public management and project management, multi-sectoral environmental management projects, and technical issues in environmental science or engineering. • Experience working with public and private sectors, NGOs and multicultural environments, in training coordination tasks with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Knowledge and experience with environmental regulations in Bolivia and the public sector. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish. Knowledge of Portuguese and/or Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines, and participative processes in the public-private sector.

• Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference INDIGENOUS LIAISON

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Training Specialist

Functions • Support the Project in providing contextual guidance to partners in the execution and implementation of Project activities. • Support the participation of the two representatives from the participating Management Committees in the Project Steering Committee. • Support the Project Coordinator in preparing progress reports as needed, in coordination with project specialists. • Support the Project Coordinator in coordinating the participation of adequate project representation in ASL2 Programme and regional (Leticia Pact) activities and initiatives.

Main activities • Advise the approval of Terms of Reference and technical specifications of contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Coordinate the work of the corresponding companies, NGOs, specialists and consultants committed to the execution of the project. • Advise the drafting of training and support programmes, requirement lists from supported participants, records of acquisition processes, reception minutes and others as needed to ensure optimal contextualisation. • Participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project implementation. • Coordinate the execution of activities within, among others, Output 4.1.1 (Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices implemented in selected communities in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP). • Perform M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution

strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other task needed for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of Output 4.1.1 (Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) practices implemented in selected communities in the five (Yaminahua, Tacana, Cavineño, Machineri and Esse ejja) indigenous territories of CIPOAP) • Submission of operational plans, and approval • Submission of reports, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a degree in engineering, agronomy, biology or related fields. • Work experience in national public management and project management. • Knowledge and experience with environmental regulations in Bolivia and the public sector. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish. Knowledge of Portuguese and/or Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines, and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference CONFLICT RESOLUTION SPECIALIST

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Coordinator

Functions • Coordination of the Project’s stakeholder mapping and conflict analysis activities. • Coordination of the Project’s conflict resolution activities. • Permanent supervision and orientation to project staff and Executing Partners on conflict matters. • Documentation and systematisation of conflict resolution activities. • Support the Project Coordinator in matters of his/her competence as needed, in coordination with project specialists.

Main activities • Supervise the work of specialists and consultants hired within Output 4.2.1 (Local agreements for aquatic resources use (in agreement with the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands) signed and enforced in selected communities). • Coordinate relevant participative stakeholder mapping and conflict analysis activities. • Support the realisation of agreement proposals, monitoring of agreements, evaluation of conflict resolution activities, reporting and systematisation. • Coordinate the periodic and widespread realisation of capitalization sessions knowledge exchanges and other relevant activities. • Draft Terms of Reference and technical specifications of the corresponding contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Support the Project Coordinator in organising, and participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project implementation. • Support M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the

staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other task within his/her field of competence that is required for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of Output 4.2.1 (Local agreements for aquatic resources use (in agreement with the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands) signed and enforced in selected communities) • Conflict reports, record of letters, meetings, workshops, agreements, evaluation reports • Submission of reports, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a university degree and/or a Postgraduate Degree in conflict resolution would be desirable. • Specific work experience in multi-sectoral environmental management projects, with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish. Knowledge of Portuguese and Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference FINANCIAL SPECIALIST

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Coordinator

Functions • Support the Project Coordinator in providing financial and administrative supervision and guidance to partners in the execution and implementation of project activities. • Support the Project Coordinator in conducting permanent supervision and provide permanent orientation to project staff and Executing Partners. • Support the Project Coordinator in the financial and administrative supervision of the project, the Project Management Unit and in executing the Annual Operational Plan and the project according to the PRODOC. • Support the Project Coordinator in preparing other financial and administrative progress reports as needed, in coordination with project specialists. • Support the Project Coordinator in preparing reports on cash/in-kind co-financing from co- financiers and other partners, whether or not considered in the Project Document.

Main activities • Supervise the drafting, revision and approval of Terms of Reference and technical specifications of the corresponding contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Support the Project Coordinator in the administration of the project. • Organize and participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project implementation. • Support CAF in the preparation of the Project Implementation Report (PIR). • Support M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other task needed for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of Output 5.1.1. Annual Work Plans, Annual Progress Reports, Budgeted Monitoring & Evaluation Plan, Mid-Term Evaluation Report, Terminal Evaluation report drafted, and GEF Tracking Tools completed according to established deadlines • Submission of administrative and financial plans, and approval • Submission of administrative and financial reports, and approval • Submission of the PIR, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a bachelor’s degree in administration, financial management or related fields. A Postgraduate Degree would be desirable. • Accredited work experience in national public administration and project management, multi-sectoral environmental management projects, and administrative and financial issues in environmental science or engineering. • Experience working with the public sector, NGOs and multicultural environments in administrative and financial tasks with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Knowledge and experience with environmental regulations in Bolivia and administrative and financial work with the public sector. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish. Knowledge of English, Portuguese and/or Amazonian languages would be a plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines, and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference SYSTEMATISATION SPECIALIST

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Coordinator

Functions • Coordination of the Project’s systematisation and communication of activities, best practices and learning. • Documentation and systematisation of activity, experiences, learning, and knowledge. • Participation in the running of the Project’s media infrastructure (website, social media accounts, SEO profile). • Support to the detailed design and management of the Project’s training approach and activities. • Permanent supervision and orientation to project staff and Executing Partners on systematisation matters. • Support the Project Coordinator in matters of his/her competence as needed, in coordination with project specialists.

Main activities • Manage the participative identification and documentation of best practices and lessons learned within the project. • Coordinate the periodic and widespread realisation of capitalization sessions on specific topics, field visits or others. • Draft Terms of Reference and technical specifications of the corresponding contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Supervise the work of specialists and consultants hired within Output 5.2.1 (Systematized information on lessons from the eleven project sites continuously disseminated using web- based tools (among others), targeting lessons with replication potential in remaining protected areas of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems). • Support the Project Coordinator in organising, and participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project

implementation. • Support M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other task within his/her field of competence that is required for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of Output 5.2.1 (Systematized information on lessons from the eleven project sites continuously disseminated using web-based tools (among others), targeting lessons with replication potential in remaining protected areas of the SNAP and strategic ecosystems). • Submission of reports, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a university degree with 5 or more years of experience. • Specific work experience in multi-sectoral environmental management projects, innovation and early adoption of water sanitation, and political & governance innovation, with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish and English. Knowledge of Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Terms of Reference COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST

Location Estimated starting date Duration Reports to Project Coordinator

Functions • Coordination of the participative design of a SNAP ECOS communication strategy, including a project-specific section. • Coordination of the setting-up and running of the Project’s media infrastructure (website, social media accounts, SEO profile). • Permanent supervision and orientation to project staff and Executing Partners on communications matters. • Support the Project Coordinator in matters of his/her competence as needed, in coordination with project specialists.

Main activities • Coordinate the participative design of a SNAP ECOS communication strategy. • Coordinate the project-specific section of the SNAP ECOS communication strategy by drafting Terms of Reference and technical specifications of the corresponding contracts and agreements entered into by the project. • Supervise the work of specialists and consultants hired within Output 5.2.2 (Communication Strategy for the SNAP and strategic ecosystems, including project- specific actions, developed and under implementation by beginning of PY2). • Coordination of the setting-up and running of the Project’s media infrastructure (website, social media accounts, SEO profile). • Support the Project Coordinator in organising, and participate in the inception workshop, revision and planning the annual work plan and budget and annual progress and monitoring workshops with local stakeholders and other organisations involved in Project implementation. • Support M&E activities, including: i) regular field visits; ii) monthly monitoring, output progress and outcome indicators; iii) provide technical and operational guidance to the staff of participating institutions, and iv) propose any changes to the Project execution

strategies, if the project is not working as expected. • Any other task within his/her field of competence that is required for the adequate progress of project activities.

Key performance indicators • Progress of Output 5.2.2 (Communication Strategy for the SNAP and strategic ecosystems, including project-specific actions, developed and under implementation by beginning of PY2) • Submission of reports, and approval

Required competences • Professional with a university degree with 5 or more years of experience in information management, communication science, environmental education or related disciplines. • Specific work experience in multi-sectoral environmental management projects, public and private sectors, NGOs and multicultural environments with international and/or national technical experts and scientists. • Demonstrable knowledge and/or proven experience in incorporating gender and indigenous issues in his/her technical approach, preferably in the Amazon Basin. • Speak and write fluently in Spanish, Portuguese and/or English. Knowledge of Amazonian languages would be a strong plus. • Competences, abilities and skills in oral and written communication, coordination and teamwork, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, work under pressure within deadlines and participative processes in the public-private sector. • Availability for frequent trips.

Appendix 9. Gender Evaluation & Action Plan with a Gender Approach

Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia (Integrated project as part of the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes 2 SFM Impact Program)

GENDER (AND OTHER) CONSIDERATIONS IN THE BOLIVIAN AMAZON. GENDER ANALYSIS AND INPUT FOR THE PROJECT’S GENDER MAINSTREAMING ACTION PLAN

Gender and indigenous identity The current configuration of the intersection between gender and indigenous identity has gained prominence, among other factors, due to the positioning of women and indigenous organizations in the exercise of their social, economic and political rights and in access to public spaces of opinion and decision. The findings, both from studies and from actual practice, confirm that the inequality associated with gender and belonging to an indigenous people (also considering the generational variable) positions a large number of women in situations of high vulnerability, with effective disadvantages in access to the exercise of their political, social, economic and cultural rights. From a legal perspective, there is interest in complying with the international standards recognized as the legal basis and corpus of national public policies in Latin America in relation to indigenous peoples, nations, or indigenous peoples in general, and with indigenous women in particular. Therefore, an important aspect to consider in the design and execution of programs and projects is that men and women, from different age groups, are present in the consultation and decision-making processes, thus guaranteeing the equitable inclusion of all actors and groups involved, and that the rights of indigenous territorial rights holders be guaranteed in the face of processes that affect their territories, traditional knowledge and culture, forms of organization and access to rights. The formulation of projects and the design of their execution mechanisms must ensure the generation of knowledge and participation of the indigenous peoples and nationalities (pueblos y nacionalidades indígena originario campesinas, according to the definition of the Political Constitution of the Bolivian State), within a framework of equity that includes indigenous men and women. This implies guaranteeing the participation of indigenous women and men and their organizations in the design, planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation of initiatives for their benefit, that of their families and / or their territories. Studies for Latin America, and for the Amazon region in particular, show inequality gaps in access to higher education, health, employment, access to services, political and social marginalization, cultural, social and linguistic discrimination, among others. Different countries in the region, including Bolivia, are developing regulations that ensure the participation of indigenous women in sociopolitical agendas (CEPAL 2013). The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH 2017) notes that indigenous women suffer various forms of violence in the exercise of their economic, social, and cultural rights, strictly related to the structural violence they face, as well as the intersectional forms of discrimination that have affected them throughout history. In many cases, they also live in poverty because they are excluded from socioeconomic benefits. Thus, they suffer discrimination based on race, gender and economic reasons, which creates obstacles

for the exercise of basic rights such as access to health, education, food, employment and public and political participation. In summary, the structural inequality that affects women is even more acute when it comes to indigenous women. The intersection between gender and belonging to an indigenous people marks a gap of greater inequity common to all the countries of the Amazon region, including Bolivia.

Gender and environment This project is consistent with CAF’s Institutional Gender Equity Guidelines22. CAF promotes the development and safeguarding of gender equity through studies and financing of projects and programmes with the overall objective of closing existing gaps between men and women through enhanced equal access to opportunities and competences. For its part, the GEF identifies three relevant gender gaps that need to be addressed for women to fulfil their critical role in addressing environmental challenges (GEF 2018). (a) Unequal access to the control of natural resources. Women have less control over natural resources. However, if women had equitable access to productive resources, agricultural productivity in developing countries could increase by between 20% and 30%. This would reduce their poverty, improve their ability to contribute to the family income and reduce the pressure on natural resources. (b) Unbalanced participation and decision making in environmental planning and governance at all levels. Women face time constraints and other structural limitations that prevent them from having equal participation in decision-making in natural resource management. Addressing gender gaps related to participation and leadership in decision-making processes, from the local to the global level, would help make institutions and policies more effective. (c) Unequal access to socioeconomic benefits and services. Women have unequal access to income generation, credit and technology opportunities, and face more obstacles to access financing, training and information. Expanding women's access can contribute to improvements in areas such as natural resource management, the use of water and hydrobiological resources, and others.

Activities financed by the GEF should not exacerbate gender inequalities, but rather promote the participation and scrutiny of stakeholders in an inclusive and gender-focused manner, thus enabling the exercise of rights and the recognition of needs, roles and interests of women and men. The participation of women in decision-making must be positively discriminated and guidelines and objectives of women's organizations must be considered. GEF projects must apply a gender-sensitive approach in their identification, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

22 Available (in Spanish) at https://www.caf.com/es/actualidad/noticias/2015/11/caf-se-adhiere-a-la- eliminacion-de-la-violencia-contra-la-mujer/?parent=41373.

Gender in Bolivia In Bolivia there are regulations in favour of the empowerment of women and against all forms of discrimination, including indigenous citizens: • Law No. 045 of October 2010, to Combat Racism and all Forms of Discrimination. It establishes mechanisms and procedures for the prevention and punishment of acts of racism and discrimination in the framework of the Constitution and human rights worldwide. • Law No. 243 of May 2012, Against Harassment and Political Violence against Women. It encompasses both women candidates and elected and appointed authorities, who are victims of harassment and violence because of their position. • Law No. 348 of March 2013, Comprehensive Law to Guarantee Women a Life Free of Violence. It condemns violence against women, including damage to their heritage, economy, labour source, or other area. In 2019, the Service for Women and Depatriarchalization “Ana María Romero” was created by Supreme Decree 3774/16 of January 2019. The Service is a decentralized public institution in charge of monitoring, following up and evaluating compliance with the public policies in favour of the effective exercise of women's rights, and promoting the eradication of all types of violence and forms of discrimination against women.

Indigenous peoples and a gender approach in the Bolivian Amazon (with a generational corollary) The Bolivian state is a signatory to ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 and voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In general, it has promoted self-determination in territorial management and the right of women to own land. Renewable natural resources (biodiversity and forests) in indigenous territories are the exclusive right of the rightsholders. In the Bolivian Amazon, numerous indigenous and campesino peoples and nations have developed diverse forms of access to land and biodiversity. Both the national indigenous organization, CIDOB, and the regional subcentrals CIPOAP, CIBAPA, Tsimane Council, Tsimane - Mosetene Regional Council, CPILAP and CMIB have gender secretariats. There are organizations of rural women in Beni, Pando and Santa Cruz, with remit over project intervention areas. A social assessment carried out by the Bolivian National Institute for Agricultural and Forestry Innovation (INIAF 2010) identifies a determining role of women in identity strengthening, as intergenerational transmission, livelihoods and economy, and territoriality. However, different Integrated Development Plans (UNFPA-UNICEF 2013) indicate that, ‘despite the fact that the family subsistence depends largely on the activities that women carry out in the economy, such as the collection of forest products, helping in the hunting of animals, in the sowing and harvesting of produce, their work is not remunerated or recognized by society’ (2013a: 32). The indigenous Esse Ejja woman ‘does not participate in CIMAP, nor in other women's organizations, because there are no policies that promote her participation in decision-making spaces (local power), there

is also a lack of knowledge of their rights, so that the opportunities to exercise their aspirations are still distant’ (2013a: 33). The Integrated Development Plan of the Cavineño people (2013b) refers to the participation of Cavineño women in organizations such as the Central Indigenous of Amazonian Women of Pando (CIMAP). However, it observes that a large majority of women do not participate in these spaces of political and economic decision due to the limited opportunities for participation, as well as due to family organization and private and non-public roles. The Plan also considers to ‘Promote comprehensive policies, between the local government and indigenous organizations, for the socialization and effectiveness of the Child and Adolescent Code in all the communities of the Cavineño people’ and to ‘Carry out campaigns on children's rights to prevent violence in the family, school and community, demanding that the authorities comply with them’ (2013b: 29). The Tacana People's Integrated Development Plan (2013c) identifies demands and needs for women's participation: to ‘Have spaces for the participation of indigenous women, especially in local governments; Promote social awareness against racism and discrimination; Promote information on gender equity, sexual and reproductive health and women's rights’, as well as to ‘Work on comprehensive public policies to promote the effective participation of women in spaces of local power, with gender equity; Report political harassment and discrimination against indigenous women’, and to ‘Coordinate with the international cooperation community and local governments activities to raise awareness of sexual and reproductive health rights’ (2013c: 27). The Plans of the Yaminahua (2013d) and Machineri (2013e) peoples indicate, in relation to the participation of women, that ‘they do not have technical support that allows them to improve their advocacy capacities within their town and in front of institutions. They do not know the national and international norms that protect their rights’ (2013d: 20; 2013e: 23). In addition to confirming the relevance of the regional perspective indicated above in the project remit, the analysis contributes a generational perspective, which highlights the importance of girls, boys and adolescents as subjects and their participation in territorial projects and policies from their contemporary interests and skills (management of information and communication technologies), and of elderly women and men in the preservation and systematization of ancestral knowledge and technologies (seeds, soil management, cultivation, understanding of the territory, food security).

Analysis of population, audiences, and project beneficiaries Available population, communities, and gender distribution data are summarized in Table 4. Different surveys estimate indigenous communities to be around 2/3 of the population, but certainty over a figure can be only pretended on current data. The complete table for the project sites is included as Table 16, in which ethnicity and organisational data are also presented.

Table 18. Demographic summary, project sites Commun Project site Inhabitants % female ities Área Natural de Manejo Integrado y Parque Nacional 67 10 996 - Madidi

Commun Project site Inhabitants % female ities Parque Nacional y Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad 2 56 - Noel Kempff Mercado Reserva de la Biosfera Estación Biológica del Beni (EBB) 8 1 008 - Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amazónica Manuripi 10 1 800 41.00% Heat Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure 54 4 563 48.00% (TIPNIS) Territorio Indígena y Reserva de la Biosfera Pilón Lajas 25 1 394 47.60% Reserva de Vida Silvestre Bruno Racua 3 149 - Subtotal protected areas 19 966 45.53% Río Yata RAMSAR site - - - Río Matos RAMSAR site - - - Río Blanco RAMSAR site - - - Subtotal RAMSAR sites 2 000 40.00% CIPOAP indigenous territories 60 13 109 48.39% Total 35 075 -: no data. Estimations in italics. Source: MMAYA

Table 19. Social & Organisational Characteristics of Project Sites Indigenous Basic Organisation Designati Department/s & Site Municipality/ies Persons (f-m) Peoples TIOC - TCO – Communities on/s Province/s Adscription Umbrella Organisation

RNVS Manuripi Pando Puerto Rico (Victoria), 1 800 Yaminahua 10 Territorial Basic Organisations (OTB) Heath (Manuripi Province) Filadelfia (Arroyo 41%-59% Machineri Affiliated to Federación Sindical Única de Grande) Trabajadores Campesinos de Pando (FSTCP)

PN Noel Kempff Santa Cruz (Velasco San Ignacio de 56 Guarasugw Two nuclei, Bella Vista & Esperancita de la Natural Mercado Province), Beni Velasco (Santa Cruz), e Frontera (on Iténez river) World (Iténez Province) Baures (Beni) Chiquitano Heritage

ANMI Estación Beni (Yacuma, San Borja, Santa Ana 1 008 Tsimane TCO Tsimane Biosphere Biológica del Ballivián Provinces) de Yacuma Movima Reserve Beni Yuracaré (*)

PN Madidi La Paz (Franz Apolo, San 10 996 Tacana TCO San José de Uchupiamonas (1 ANMI Tamayo, Abel Buenaventura, Lecos community, 406) Iturralde, Larecaja, Ixiamas, Curva, Toromona TCO Lecos Apolo (15 communities, 2303) Bautista Saavedra Pelechuco (*) TCO Lecos Larecaja (31 communities, Provinces) (Guanay) 5373) TCO Tacana 1 (20 communities, 2914)

Indigenous Basic Organisation Designati Department/s & Site Municipality/ies Persons (f-m) Peoples TIOC - TCO – Communities on/s Province/s Adscription Umbrella Organisation

RVS Bruno Racua Northwestern Pando Nueva Esperanza 149-262 Cayubaba OTB Nueva Esperanza (Subnation (Federico Román (seasonal) OTB Alto Madera al) Province)

RAMSAR Rio Yata Beni Exaltación, Santa - Cayubaba San Pedro, Coquinal, Rosario del Yata, site Rosa, Riberalta, Baure Exaltación, El Porvenir, San Bartolomé, El Guayaramerin Chacobo Triunfo, Comunidad Picaflores, Alto Ivon, Las Abras, Paraíso, Australia, San Juan communities

RAMSAR Rio Matos Beni Santa Ana del - Cayubaba - site Yacuma (54,53%), Joaquiniano San Ignacio Movima (28,64%), San Borja Tsimane (16,69%)

RAMSAR Rio Blanco Beni (Iténez Magdalena, Baures, - Baure TCO Itonoma site Province) Huacaraje y San Itonama TCO Baures Javier (Beni), Concepción (Santa Cruz)

Pando (Nicolás San Pedro de 180 Yaminahua OIYAMA Suárez Province) Bolpebra Machineri CIPOAP

Gonzalo Moreno, San 188 Yaminahua OIPEEAP Lorenzo, Ingavi Machineri TCO Machineri-Yaminahua CIPOAP

Beni, Pando San Lorenzo, San 1 278 Cavineño OICAP Pedro, Bella Flor, El 49,3%-50,7% TCO Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos Sena (TIM II) CIPOAP

Indigenous Basic Organisation Designati Department/s & Site Municipality/ies Persons (f-m) Peoples TIOC - TCO – Communities on/s Province/s Adscription Umbrella Organisation

Gonzalo Moreno, San 1 023 Esse-Ejja OIPEEAP Lorenzo e Ingavi 48,4%-51,6% Tacana TCO Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos (TIM II) CIPOAP

San Lorenzo, 10 440 Tacana OITAP Gonzalo Moreno, San 48,3-51,7% TCO Territorio Indígena Multiétnico Dos Pedro, El Sena, (TIM II) Santos Mercado, CIPOAP Puerto Rico, Bella Flor, Ingavi, Nueva Esperanza -: no data. Estimations in italics. Source: MMAYA (*) There exists confirmed (Shelton et al., 2013) evidence of the group locally including one or more un-contacted or isolated group/s. Bolivia’s Constitution grants these groups (Art. 31) that ‘their individual and collective ways of life [are] protected and respected’ and ‘shall enjoy the right to remain in isolation or un-contacted’.

The minimum number of direct beneficiaries has been totalled from the breakdown in Table 14 & Table 21. Direct beneficiaries represent 16.7% of the potential population, while female beneficiaries represent 16.2% of the potential female population (estimated to be 16 056 women).

Table 20. Project beneficiaries (by audience) Beneficiaries

Total Of Of Audience populatio Projec whom whom n t wome men n

PA staff 80 12 68

Government (other than PA staff) 70 32 38

Others (academia, NGOs, miners) 210 101 109

Seven protected areas 19 966 3 500 1 575 1 925

CIPOAP 13 109 1 000 480 520

RAMSAR sites 2 000 1 000 400 600

Total 35 075 5 860 2 600 3 260

Table 21. Project beneficiaries (by Specific Objective) Beneficiaries Project Components Of whom Of whom Project women men

SO1. Effective management of the SNAP 310 137 173

SO2. Improved Financial Sustainability of the SNAP 4 500 1 975 2 525

SO3. Capacity Building 3 580 1 587 1 993

SO4. Sustainable use of biodiversity 2 200 932 1 268

SO5. Project Management 5 860 2 600 3 260

Project Total (not the sum of SOs above) 5 860 2 600 3 260

The analysis of the conditions for participation of Amazonian indigenous peoples and/or women recommends: • The incorporation of traditional governance mechanisms and local knowledge into every project activity, including non-field activities such as proposing regulatory changes, data analysis and others. • The reinforced participation of indigenous peoples, women and women organisations in the governance mechanisms of the project. • The development of specific indicators for equity and inclusion of indigenous peoples and women, both for processes and results. • The promotion of mechanisms for indigenous peoples and women participating in the access to and management of biodiversity and natural resources.

Incorporation of a gender approach in the project In view of the previous analysis, it can be concluded that the project faces a major challenge in whether it gets to adequately incorporate the multiple views from intracommunity diversity (women, children and adolescents, and elders), within the already challenging landscape of intercommunity diversity found in its intervention sites. Apart from other considerations that stem from this analysis, the project must incorporate the gender approach the following areas: • Governance. It will be supported that the co-management spaces of protected areas and strategic ecosystems incorporate the participation of women according to their cultural characteristics, and their organizations. Indicators that show the contribution to equitable inclusion of women in project management mechanisms and in the institutional structures, at different levels, responsible for the management of protected areas and other strategic ecosystems, will be monitored and disclosed. • Access to biodiversity resources. The prioritization and development of processes for the management and sustainable use of biodiversity by local communities in and around protected areas and other ecosystems to be made in relation to the project must incorporate knowledge of local organizational processes and promote mechanisms for the respect of the economic rights of men and women alike. These processes must be built in a form that allows and promotes equitable access by all, without distinction of ethnicity, age or gender. • Scope of project management. The management and execution of the project must ensure the monitoring and fulfillment of gender equality indicators, both in its processes and in its results.

Gender-sensitive indicators and targets. Gender-responsive measures

All project indicators involving persons are and will keep being disaggregated by gender. A mandatory minimum threshold of 20% (1/5) of the relevant population/audience is established for the participation of women, and a mandatory minimum threshold of 40% (2/5) of the relevant population/audience for the participation of indigenous peoples, in project governance structures and project activities involving beneficiaries. These thresholds are to be applied not only for community-oriented activities, but also for working groups, government staff involved in the project and other activity-specific groupings. Whenever using number of persons, gender-disaggregated indicators are included in the project Logical Framework and Results Framework. Qualitative indicators have also been included, when relevant, to qualify expected outputs and operational orientations. The project design includes a series of measures and actions aimed to effectively promote women’s participation in all activities (with the corresponding performance indicators) and to ensure that at the end of the project they will proportionally benefit from sustainable alternative livelihoods (with the corresponding results indicators). Two actors are explicitly included in the stakeholder list with the aim of providing the project with expertise and direct support to the full participation of women in project activities: • The National Women’s and de-patriarcalization Service ‘Ana María Romero’ is an autonomous public service ascribed to the Ministry of Justice that monitors, follows up and evaluates compliance with public policies towards depatriarchalization in favour of the effective exercise of women's rights. • Confederación Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas de Bolivia (CNAMIB). CNAMIB includes women from indigenous peoples in Bolivia’s lowlands, with a bond to forests Institutional partner. This umbrella organisation confederates, among others, the following relevant local organisations: o OMINAB (Organización Mujeres Indígenas del Norte de la Amazonía de Bolivia) o CIMAP (Central Indígena de Mujeres Amazónicas de Pando) o CMIB (Central de Mujeres Indígenas del Beni) o Gender Secretary, CPEMB (Central de Pueblos Etnicos Mojeños del Beni) With project funding, the institutions will monitor and ensure adequate generational, gender and indigenous representation, and directly support adequate women participation in project activities.

References Alberti, Pilar (1999) La identidad de género y etnia. Un modelo de análisis, en Nueva Antropología, vol. XVI, núm. 55, junio, pp 105-130, México CEPAL (2013). MUJERES INDÍGENAS: nuevas protagonistas para nuevas políticas. Documento en base al estudio de Dirk Jaspers_Faijer (2013) “Mujeres indígenas en América Latina. Dinámicas demográficas y sociales”, Centro Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Demografía (CELADE)-División de Población y la División de Asuntos de Género de la CEPAL, Observatorio de Igualdad de Género de América Latina y el Caribe. Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2009). GUIDANCE TO ADVANCE GENDER EQUALITY IN GEF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS. 54th GEF Council Meeting June 24 – 26, 2018 Da Nang, Vietnam INIAF (2010). Evaluación Social. Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agropecuaria y Forestal. Desarrollo INIAF, Proyecto de innovación y Servicios Agropecuarios-Forestales. Pisa, Evaluación Social. Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras. Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2017) Las mujeres indígenas y sus derechos humanos en las Américas / Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. p.; cm. (OAS. Documentos oficiales; OEA/Ser.L/V/II) Lehm, Z., K. Lara y T. Solares. 2017. Ingresos económicos en hogares de la TCO Tacana I. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) y Consejo Indígena del Pueblo Tacana (CIPTA). La Paz, Bolivia. 99pp. UNFPA-UNICEF (2013a) PLAN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DEL PUEBLO ESSE EJJA – PANDO, Bolivia. UNFPA-UNICEF (2013b) PLAN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DEL PUEBLO CAVINEÑO – PANDO, Bolivia UNFPA-UNICEF (2013c) PLAN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DEL PUEBLO TAKANA – PANDO, Bolivia UNFPA-UNICEF (2013d) PLAN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DEL PUEBLO YAMINAHUA – PANDO. Bolivia UNFPA-UNICEF (2013e) PLAN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DEL PUEBLO MACHINERI – PANDO, Bolivia. Shelton, D., Vaz, A., Huertas Castillo, B., Camacho Nassar, C., Bello, L. J., Colleoni, P., … Iniciativa Amotodie. (2013). Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact. Pamplona - Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, IWGIA and Instituto de Promoción Estudios Sociales, IPES. Stolton, S. and N. Dudley. 2016. METT Handbook: A guide to using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), WWF-UK, Woking.

Appendix 10. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures

APPROACH TO RISK, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO CLIMATE RISK

The project’s conceptual approach to risk (Renn, 2012) and vulnerability (Adger, 2006) follows the DPISR framework (Smeets & Weterings, 1999) and takes into account not only the execution period, but also the design period of GEB production (2020-2045). Logically, risks have been identified in the state and response realms of the DPISR logic chain, since existing and foreseeable drivers, pressures and impacts are what motivates the project in first place and have been studied previously, during the identification phase. The project formulation stage of this project has been a risk show of political23, natural24 and health25 hazards materializing in concrete difficulties at every step of the process.

Major risk sources have been classified as follows:

• Political Risk: political will (response) is not maintained through administrations General and subnational (departments and municipalities) elections are due in 2020, within a transitional political climate. Nonetheless, protected areas and its sustainability are not contentious political issues. The project will assure adequate dialogue and stakeholder-friendly communication before, during and after these dates. • Climate Change Risk: conditions under climate change (state) differ substantially from those modelled along the project period According to numerous studies, the Amazon is approaching a tipping point (v.gr. (Nepstad, Stickler, Soares-Filho, & Merry, 2008); (Lovejoy & Nobre, 2018). The Project is precisely aimed at diminishing such possibility, although it cannot avert it on its own. In addition to evidence signaling that repeated droughts do not compound their effects (Feldpausch et al., 2016), it can be expected that the Bolivian Amazon will be one of the last parts of the Amazon to suffer dire consequences for such an event during the period in which the project will be executed (2020-20205) and produce GEB (2025-2045), for its position near the water sources feeding the basin. The project reduces the vulnerability of both ecosystems and population to the expected impacts of such threshold-reaching and contributes to build adaptive capacities. The measures supported by the project would only turn from preventive to mitigative in an accelerated-change scenario, but its financial, environmental and social performance and production of GEB is unlikely to be affected except marginally by that change during the design period. Given that the exact pace and intensity of this potential change is a known unknown (Logan, 2009), the marginal risk it poses for the project and its outcomes out of this analysis is not actionable save as Uncertainty Risk (see below). For more detail, see the specific Climate Risk Screening Summary (attached).

23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Bolivian_political_crisis 24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Amazon_rainforest_wildfires 25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic

• Implementation Risk: at different levels (policy-making process, private participants, finance) information is not actionable due to other barriers not being removed (response) Coordination between the different measures in this project is key to its success and has been received major attention during the design phase. Knowledge-related actions, technical and financial measures and institutional and regulatory measures are to be phased in in a stakeholder-friendly form. • Cultural Risk: cultural differences, pre-existing conflicts or other reasons (drivers) make it unfeasible to exchange and transfer knowledge (response) The project is built over deep awareness of the cultural reality it works in and values and supports indigenous knowledge and its proven results with respect to conservation. It is built too over deep awareness of the problems that indigenous populations face for their participation in sustainable development. As the project supports established protected areas, it benefits from and strengthens existing intercultural-dialogue mechanisms (PA Management Committees and others). • Uncertainty Risk: actual values of (state) critical indicators (BOB-USD exchange rate, rainfall, internal migration) differ substantially from those modelled along the project The project’s models have been prepared through a thorough expert review process, submitted to sensitivity analysis and results from it are incorporated, thus rendering the model and key variables risk-explicit. • Innovation Risk: it is not possible to align livelihoods incentives with the sustainable management of land and water (response) The technologies that the project applies and transfers are well-known and tested, and its application has already been effected in similar conditions. The project provides support and monitoring capabilities to ensure the detection of any shortcoming during that process.

The resulting rating of risks is as follows:

Risk Probability Significanc Overall e Risk Rating Political Risk: political will (response) is not maintained Low High Medium through administrations Climate Change Risk: conditions under climate change Medium Medium Medium (state) differ substantially from those modelled along the project period Implementation Risk: at different levels (policy-making Medium Low Low process, private participants, finance) information is not actionable due to other barriers not being removed (response) Cultural Risk: cultural differences, pre-existing conflicts Low Medium Low or other reasons make it unfeasible to exchange and transfer knowledge (response)

Risk Probability Significanc Overall e Risk Rating Uncertainty Risk: actual values of (state) critical Low Medium Low indicators (BOB-USD exchange rate, rainfall, internal migration) differ substantially from those modelled along the project Innovation Risk: it is not possible to align livelihoods Low Low Low incentives with the sustainable management of land and water (response)

In those conditions of enhanced risk awareness, the formulation process results in that the project incorporates preventive and mitigative measures to assure that it contributes to the resilience of affected ecosystems and population in different scenarios and that it will be minimally controversial in terms of stakeholder interests. These measures have incidence in the formulation of the project’s expected outputs and outcomes, in its adaptive management structure and in its adaptive governance mechanisms, as follows.

Political Risk: political will (response) is not maintained through administrations A major policy-dialogue process is at the core of Component 1. The adaptive management process established for the project establishes a recursive cycle of internal evaluation and planning adaptation on a yearly basis. The MTE provides an instance for major external evaluation at midterm, when the riskiest period from this perspective will likely be already over, and the opportunity for adapting the project to the resulting scenario.

Climate Change Risk: conditions under climate change (state) differ substantially from those modelled along the project period Output 1.1.2 will provide the SPAP with an improved monitoring framework that will be able to detect changes in this direction from PY2. The implementation arrangements for the project include mechanisms for a two-way exchange of information and coordination between local and national levels that will allow for alert signals to trigger.

Implementation Risk: at different levels (policy-making process, private participants, finance) information is not actionable due to other barriers not being removed (response) The project has established the necessary implementation arrangements, including the necessary capabilities and budget, and a robust chronogram. The M&E mechanisms in place during project implementation explicitly measure key indicators that provide alert signals and trending. The adaptive management process established for the project contains a recursive cycle of internal evaluation and planning adaptation on a yearly basis.

Cultural Risk: cultural differences, pre-existing conflicts or other reasons make it unfeasible to exchange and transfer knowledge (response) Capacity and budget for the necessary interaction with stakeholders, with special attention to the needs and specificities of indigenous peoples, has been included in the project’s implementation arrangements and budget. The adaptive management process established for the project contains a recursive cycle of internal evaluation and planning adaptation on a yearly basis.

Uncertainty Risk: actual values of (state) critical indicators (BOB-USD exchange rate, rainfall, internal migration) differ substantially from those modelled along the project The M&E mechanisms in place during project implementation explicitly measure key indicators that provide key-value signals and trending. The adaptive management process established for the project contains a recursive cycle of internal evaluation and planning adaptation on a yearly basis. The MTE provides an instance for major external evaluation at midterm.

Innovation Risk: it is not possible to align livelihoods incentives with the sustainable management of land and water (response) The project considers the participation and access to knowledge of all stakeholders. Capacity and budget for the necessary interaction with stakeholders has been included in the project’s implementation arrangements and budget. The adaptive management process established for the project contains a recursive cycle of internal evaluation and planning adaptation on a yearly basis. Each innovation process has been equipped with its own specific M&E processes (Outputs 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 4.1.2)

In synthesis, the project has no or minimal potential negative environmental or potential negative social impact that have not been adequately addressed. It will not adversely affect ecosystems or environmental quality; moreover, it has a positive impact by eliminating drivers of its degradation. Therefore, the project is classified under the category of LOW RISK.

Nonetheless, the implementation of project activities will be in accordance the Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual, Version 1 of May 2015. The Project is classified as Category C, according to the Guidelines and Procedures on Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual (Section V.I.2 Annex I). Project interventions, in particular on-the ground interventions under Components 3 & 4, are not expected to cause major adverse environmental impacts, and instead, will improve the environmental and social conditions prevailing in the areas of intervention. Minor micro-local environmental impacts may be expected from some on-the-ground interventions, but mostly temporary.

Special attention is devoted to the vigilance of safeguards concerning indigenous peoples and women, as well as to those related with climate change. The joint mitigation and adaptation approach that Bolivia promotes at the international level is applied, with its five methodological steps, including strengthening forest governance, participatory planning, joint target setting, implementation of integrated forest management through provision of finance and technology and monitoring of indicators. Enhanced participatory and transparency measures have been taken to ensure that all stakeholders and the project in its integrity comply with the highest ethical, technical and managerial standards. The overall Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the project is included in the ProDoc.

An Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) is required for each local intervention, that conforms to all safeguards triggered by the project and applicable national regulations, and to the Guidelines and Procedures on Environmental and Social Safeguards for CAF/GEF Projects Manual. The aim of each ESMF is to be a practical tool that adheres to the existing regulatory framework in the country, complemented with specific project activities when

considered necessary, that describe clear processes to identify impacts, identify and implement mitigation actions, with clear timing and allocation of responsibilities. The identification of impacts at that micro-local level will be done through participatory, ex ante processes during Project implementation. All triggered safeguards will be addressed through the ESMF. Each Site Executive Committee shall be required to fully embrace their specific ESMF during project implementation, through agreements to be signed between the project and each Committee, as a condition of engagement, and thereafter will be disclosed on the Project website.

References Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 Feldpausch, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Brienen, R. J. W. W., Gloor, E., Lloyd, J., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., … Lloyd, J. (2016). Amazon forest response to repeated droughts. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 30(7), 964–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005133.Received Logan, D. C. (2009). Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns and the propagation of scientific enquiry. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(3), 712–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp043 Lovejoy, T. E., & Nobre, C. (2018). Amazon Tipping Point. Science Advances, 4(2), eaat2340. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2340 Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Soares-Filho, B., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: Prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1498), 1737– 1746. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036 Renn, O. (2012). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772440 Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators : Typology and overview. European Environment Agency (Vol. 25).

Implementing Agency CAF Contact Information CAF: Cecilia Guerra - Principal Executive

Project phase ProDoc Project title Amazon Sustainable Landscape Approach in the National System of Protected Areas and Strategic Ecosystems of Bolivia (Integrated project as part of the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes 2 SFM Impact Program; GEFID 10198, CAF Project ID CAF/GEF 005) Country Bolivia Project area Amazon Screening completed by Miguel Segur Date of the screening 22/05/2020 Climate risk classification MODERATE

1. Climate risk screening 1.1. Climate baseline

The Amazon rainforest is an important component of the biosphere and a global public good. About 15% of the world's terrestrial photosynthesis takes place herein, so it is an important carbon reservoir and sink and has a bearing on atmospheric circulation and precipitation throughout South America. The Bolivian Amazon is characterised for having a humid tropical climate with distinctive wet and dry seasons and average temperatures around 30 °C. The rainy season extends from October to May, with annual rainfall average within the 1000-4000 mm interval.

The carbon dynamics of tropical ecosystems are still being debated, but regardless, the quantities stored in the forests and soils of the Amazon are enormous. The figures differ, but it is estimated that the aerial carbon of the Amazon forests constitutes 90-140 billion tons of carbon (340-510 billion tons of CO2). In dynamic terms, carbon-balance approaches suggest a role as a sink (v.gr. Pan et al., 2011), which makes the conservation of these forests an important tool for tackling climate change. However, ecological approaches imply that as a result of accelerated deforestation and reduced tree density, tropical forests in the Americas, including the Amazon, could be acting as a source rather than a sink, releasing 325 ± 73 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year (Baccini et al., 2017).

1.2. Observed and future climate trends: temperature and precipitation

The temperature of the Bolivian Amazon has increased 0,08°C per decade during the period 1901-2001 (Marengo, 2004). IPCC models (Pachauri & Meyer, 2014) provide a range of indicators and scenarios, of which it is to be underlined that many models agree on small increases in temperature, medium increases in maximum temperature, large increases in minimum temperature, and large increases in the number of days under annual minimum for soil moisture, for RCP 4.5 (2011-2040).

Volatility is also modelled to increase, especially for water-related indicators. In this domain, both dry spells and floods are set to increase markedly, as a result of more concentrated (within year) and irregular (between years) precipitation patterns. Although there exists evidence signalling that repeated droughts do not compound their effects (Feldpausch et al., 2016), worries are that the Amazon is approaching a tipping point (v.gr. Nepstad et al., 2008; Lovejoy & Nobre, 2018).

1.3. Natural hazards, exposure and vulnerability

Apart from droughts and floods, fire risk is increasing in the Bolivian Amazon and may compound itself with climate change to become a significant source of biodiversity loss and human exposure to hazard (Silvestrini et al., 2011).

Vulnerability is, in relative terms, very high in the Bolivian Amazon. Beyond the general sensitivity and exposure high levels for the country in Latin America (Mapplecroft, 2014), the project areas are inhabited by some of the most vulnerable populations in the country (both indigenous and internally displaced population), and awareness of such vulnerability is ‘biased and incomplete’ and relates mainly to ‘institutional weaknesses of the Bolivian State’ (Gonzales, Salamanca, Condori, & Ontiveros, 2011). Nonetheless, there exist relevant local initiatives within the country and valuable cultural capital and experience within indigenous knowledge and practice, that provide a valuable basis on which to found systematic efforts to enhance the resilience of both population and ecosystems.

1.4 Adaptive capacity at project´s location

1.4.1. Water & Freshwater resources. The unique hydrological features of the Bolivian Amazon landscape make precipitation patterns, water courses, water availability and freshwater ecosystems a distinct source of both risk and adaptive capacity for its population. In the near-future scenario, which includes an increase in the volatility of seasonal features such as heavy rains and dry spells, the cultural adaptations that Amazonian peoples have developed will show their true worth. Unsettled, semi-nomadic peoples will cope undoubtedly better with this new scenario than settler populations dependent on sedentary livelihoods.

It is feasible that the efforts directed towards impeding a catastrophic shift in the area’s climate conditions that drives a savannization of the Amazon basin either succeed or fail. The test that this event may pose on the resilience of human societies in the Bolivian Amazon and beyond, and its likely time span, far exceed those of this project (which in any case would extend beyond 2050), and therefore are not analysed here. The scenario envisaged for protected areas in the Bolivian Amazon is, as mentioned, one of increased volatility of current features of the landscape, climate and society. For such scenario, the resilience of local populations, once their prevalent conditions are taken into account, is remarkable and the Bolivian society may benefit from systematizing that knowledge and replicating it more widely. It may also benefit from the raising of those populations out of those prevalent conditions, but that discussion is out of scope here.

1.4.2. Food security and health. The risk of food security and public health deteriorating much further within site populations is low. Prevalent conditions made an omnivore, opportunistic diet desirable long time ago, and health indicators seem not to impact very much in economic terms within a to-2100 horizon (BID & CEPAL, 2013). Again, the prevalent conditions make the impact of climate change in the project time scope relatively small and the installed adaptive capacities relatively big, at least in proportion to the scope and dimensions of the project.

1.4.3. Disaster risk management. As mentioned, the prevalent trend up to 2050 is one of increasing climatic volatility, which will undoubtedly increase the number and severity of natural disasters such as floods, droughts, and other water-related events. Wildfires are foreseen to increase similarly, in both number, size and intensity. A recommendation towards the wide and deep building of societal capacities, both public and private, for disaster response at all levels, is the main one that can be extracted from this analysis.

1.4.4. Ecosystems. According to numerous studies, the Amazon is approaching a tipping point (v.gr. Nepstad et al., 2008; Lovejoy & Nobre, 2018). In addition to the evidence signalling that repeated droughts do not compound their effects (Feldpausch et al., 2016), it can be expected that the Bolivian Amazon will be one of

the last parts of the Amazon to suffer dire consequences for such an event during the project life (up to 2045), for its position near the water sources feeding the basin. Given that faster rates of change have been mentioned as more threatening for forest ecosystems (Bravo, Bogino, & Bravo-Oviedo, 2007), that provides a window of opportunity for project site ecosystems to cope, migrate, and finally adapt.

2. Recommendations

The project reduces the vulnerability of both ecosystems and population to the expected impacts of such threshold-reaching and contributes to build adaptive capacities. The measures supported by the project would only turn from preventive to mitigative in an accelerated-change scenario, but its financial, environmental and social performance and production of GEB is unlikely to be affected except marginally by that change during the design period.

The specific analysis of climate risk provides two main recommendations for the wider project. First, it reinforces the general project approach of providing focused attention, in a positively discriminated way, to the most vulnerable members of its beneficiary populations. Indigenous peoples, and/or women, and/or other excluded members of local communities (children, elder, the physically handicapped, LGBTI+), must be provided with enhanced opportunities to participate in the project activities and enjoy their benefits. In doing so, the project will ensure that resilience is optimized. In the same way, the project must ensure that all and every of its procedures, structures, activities, and deliverables are embedded within a risk prevention & reduction culture, and that it supports its beneficiaries and stakeholders in the wide and deep building of societal capacities, both public and private, for disaster response at all levels.

Results climate risk screening checklist

Filter questions Yes No Does climate pose a risk to the proposed study area of the project? ☒ ☐ Are the proposed project activities affected by weather and climate related impacts?1 ☐ ☒ 1 Agro-chemical, capacity building and institutional training projects are considered as “No”

Step 1: Hazard identification Climate baseline (historical and current hazards in the areas of intervention) Yes No TBD Observed climate and weather hazards (in the last 30 years): Extreme temperature (above 35°C or below 0°C) ☒ ☐ ☐ Extreme precipitation and flooding ☒ ☐ ☐ Lack of precipitation (agricultural droughts and/or dry spells) ☒ ☐ ☐ Storms (tropical storms, snowstorms, hailstorms, dust storms, etc.) ☒ ☐ ☐ Winds (typhoons, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, harmattan) ☐ ☒ ☒ Sea level rise (from global warming and storm surges) ☐ ☒ ☐ Other weather-related hazards observed (in the last 30 years): Landslides ☒ ☐ ☐ Wildfires ☒ ☐ ☐ Salinization ☐ ☒ ☐ Ocean acidification ☐ ☒ ☐ Pests and diseases ☒ ☐ ☐ Others (e.g. lightning, hail, freezing rain, avalanches) ☐ ☒ ☐

Projected change from baseline (future hazards in the areas of intervention) Yes No TBD Do future climate scenarios foresee mid (2050) to long-term (2100) change (in frequency and intensity) on climate hazards compared to the baseline? Extreme temperature (above 35°C or below 0°C) ☒ ☐ ☐ Extreme precipitation and flooding ☒ ☐ ☐ Lack of precipitation (agricultural droughts and/or dry spells) ☒ ☐ ☐ Change in temperature (increase or decrease) ☒ ☐ ☐ Change in rainfall (increase or decrease) ☒ ☐ ☐ Climate variability (larger or smaller) ☒ ☐ ☐

Step 2: Exposure Assessment Exposure of agricultural systems in the areas of intervention Yes No TBD Is the project located in exposed areas to weather-related natural hazards? Low-lying areas (valleys, coastal zones, and small islands) ☒ ☐ ☐ Very warm areas (subtropical) ☐ ☒ ☐ Tropical areas (rainforests) ☒ ☐ ☐ Arid and semi-arid areas (deserts) ☐ ☒ ☐ Mountains zones and permafrost areas (tundra) ☐ ☒ ☐ Are target agricultural systems, ecosystems or livelihoods exposed to weather-related hazards? Is crop production affected by rainfall variability, prolonged droughts, changes in ☐ ☐ ☒ temperature or pests and diseases? Is livestock productivity frequently affected by rainfall variability, prolonged droughts, ☐ ☐ ☒ changes in temperature or diseases? Are fisheries frequently affected by ocean acidification, water salinity and changes in ☐ ☒ ☐ sea surface temperature due to ocean-atmospheric oscillations or climate change? Is forest productivity frequently affected by wildfires, diseases, rainfall variability, ☒ ☐ ☐ prolonged droughts, or changes in temperature? Is the biodiversity affected by changes in climate variables? ☒ ☐ ☐ Is any stage of the agricultural value chain (production, storage, processing and ☒ ☐ ☐ marketing) exposed to climate related hazards?

Step 3: Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability of the population in the areas of intervention Yes No TBD Is conflict exacerbating population´s sensitivity to weather related hazards? ☒ ☐ ☐ Is population displacement being exacerbated by climate change impacts? ☐ ☒ ☐ Are infectious diseases (e.g. COVID-19, malaria, cholera) increasing the population´s ☒ ☐ ☐ vulnerability and affecting their capacity to address potential weather-related hazards? Is the income of the target population predominately coming from agriculture? ☒ ☐ ☐ Are there sensitive groups (indigenous people or other marginalized groups) that are ☒ ☐ ☐ more sensitive to and likely to be affected by climate change? Are gender inequalities being exacerbated by climate change? ☒ ☐ ☐ Is the Human Development Index (HDI) equal or below 0.6? ☐ ☒ ☐ Is the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) equal or above 0.1? ☒ ☐ ☐

Step 4: Adaptive capacity and climate resilience Adaptive capacity and Climate Resilience Guiding Questions Yes No TBD

Are climate information systems monitoring climate change, weather hazards, climate- ☐ ☒ ☐ driven crop pest/diseases and human vector borne diseases at a country level? Are climate and weather information services (real-time weather data, seasonal forecasts etc.) effectively being delivered (through radio, TV, SMS, extension services ☐ ☒ ☐ etc.) to the farmers, rural dwellers, and end users? Does the country have an early action plan (preparedness and emergency response) to ☒ ☐ ☐ mitigate the impacts of weather-related hazards once the shock occurs? Does the government or other institutions support the target population/communities with the necessary social and economic resources to prepare for or respond to climate- ☐ ☒ ☐ related events? Is the target community carrying out (by own means) agricultural adaptation? ☒ ☐ ☐ Does the target population have the economic means or support to adjust or adapt their ☐ ☒ ☐ activities in response to weather related shocks? Do policies/mechanisms exist that make financial credit, loans, and agricultural ☐ ☒ ☐ insurance available? Are social protection measures in place for informal workers (e.g. fishers and fish ☐ ☒ ☐ processors)?

Step 6: Modulation of climate risks by the project Project Modulation of Risks Guiding Questions: Yes No TBD 1. Policies and planning Does the project support the integration of climate into national policies and ☒ ☐ planning? ☐ Does the project support the increased use of climate data and information in ☒ ☐ ☐ national long term and strategic planning? 2. Capacity building, training and outreach Would the project invest in institutional development and capacity-building for ☒ ☐ ☐ national institutions involved in climate related activities? Would the project invest in increased information and dissemination of climate- ☒ ☐ ☐ related information to target groups? Does the project have opportunities to strengthen rural and indigenous climate ☒ ☐ ☐ risk management capabilities? Does the project support capacity of target groups to utilize and apply climate ☐ ☐ ☒ services at the farm level? 3. Data gathering, monitoring and information management Will the project support the infrastructure and technology necessary to monitor climate variables and collect data required from climate impact assessment and ☒ ☐ ☐ modelling? Will the project support the national institutions to develop the skills required to ☒ ☐ ☐ monitoring and collect climate related information? Will the project support development of databases and repositories of climate ☒ ☐ ☐ information? 4. Mitigation Will the project invest in measures that will reduce or mitigate emissions of GHGs ☐ ☒ ☐ from the energy sector? Will the project invest in measures to reduce or mitigate emissions of GHGs from ☐ ☒ ☐ livestock or agricultural production (e.g. rice production)

Will the project invest in measures to reduce or mitigation emissions of GHGs ☒ ☐ ☐ through reforestation or land use change? Will the project invest in renewable energy and green technologies? ☐ ☒ ☐ Will the project invest in other measures to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions? ☒ ☐ ☐ 5. Adaptation Will the project invest in climate smart agriculture activities? ☐ ☐ ☒ Will the project promote climate resilient practices for crops, livestock and ☐ ☒ ☐ fisheries? Will the project promote sustainable natural resources management? ☒ ☐ ☐ Does the project support Nature-based Solutions for climate change adaptation ☒ ☐ ☐ and disaster risk reduction? Will the project invest in agricultural insurance? ☐ ☒ ☐

References Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., & Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss Downloaded from. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962 BID, & CEPAL. (2013). La economía del cambio climático en el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. Estudio Regional de la Economía del Cambio Climático en América Latina y el Caribe (Vol. 220). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Bravo, F., Bogino, S., & Bravo-Oviedo, A. (2007). Bosques y gestión forestal, ¿una solución al cambio climático? Retrieved from www.fundaciongasnatural.org Feldpausch, T. R., Phillips, O. L., Brienen, R. J. W. W., Gloor, E., Lloyd, J., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., … Lloyd, J. (2016). Amazon forest response to repeated droughts. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 30(7), 964–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005133.Received Gonzales, J., Salamanca, L. A., Condori, B., & Ontiveros, M. A. (2011). Tras las huellas del cambio climático en Bolivia. Estado del arte del conocimiento sobre adaptación al cambio climático. Agua y seguridad alimentaria. La Paz. Retrieved from http://www.cambioclimatico- pnud.org.bo Lovejoy, T. E., & Nobre, C. (2018). Amazon Tipping Point. Science Advances, 4(2), eaat2340. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2340 Mapplecroft. (2014). Vulnerability Index to climate change in the Latin American and Caribbean Region. CAF. Marengo, J. A. (2004). Interdecadal variability and trends of rainfall across the Amazon basin. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78(1–3), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-004- 0045-8 Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Soares-Filho, B., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: Prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1498), 1737–1746. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036 Pachauri, R. K., & Meyer, L. A. (2014). Fifth Assessment Report - Synthesis Report. Geneva. Retrieved from https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., … Hayes, D. (2011). A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333(6045), 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609 Silvestrini, R. A., Soares-Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H., & Assunção, R. (2011). Simulating fire regimes in the Amazon in response to climate change and deforestation. Ecological Applications, 21(5), 1573–1590. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0827.1

Appendix 11. Environmental and Social Management Framework

Appendix 12. Letters of Endorsement (OFP, Executing Agency)