Document of The World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized

ReportNo. 13974-VE

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT Public Disclosure Authorized

INPARQUES PROJECT

MAY 12, 1995 Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized Natural Resources and Rural Poverty Operations Division Country Department II Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (April 1995)

Currency Unit = Bolfvar (Bs) US$1.00 = Bs 170 US$5,882 = Bs 1 million

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Metric System

GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

ABRAE Protected Areas (Areas Bajo P.gimen Administrativo Especial)

CAIAH Amazonian Center for Environmental Research (Centro Amaz6nico de Investigaci6n Alejandro de Humboldt)

CORDIPLAN Ministry of Coordination and Planning (Ministerio de Coordinaci6n y Planificaci6n)

EU European Union

FAC National Guard (Fuerzas Armadas de Cooperaci6n)

GEF Global Environmental Facility

ICB International Competitive Bidding

INOS National Institute of Sanitation (Instituto Nacional de Obras Sanitarias)

INPARQUES National Institute of Parks (Instituto Nacional de Parques)

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

LOA Organic Law on the Environment (Ley Organica del Ambiente)

LOOT Organic Zoning Law (Ley Orginica para la Ordenaci6n del Territorio)

llanos Venezuelan plains

MAC Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministerio de Agricultura y Crsa)

MARNR Ministry of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ministerio del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)

NBF Not Bank-Financed

NCB National Competitive Bidding

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PCU Project Coordination Unit

PROFAUNA National Wildlife Office (Oficina Nacional de Fauna)

REA Rapid Ecological Assessment

SADA-AMAZONAS Autonomous Service for the Environmental Development of the State of Amazonas (Servicio Aut6nomo para el Desarrollo Ambiental del Estado Amazonas)

SOE Statement of Expenditure

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TOR Terms of Reference tepuy Sandstone plateau

WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

STAFF APPRAISALREPORT

Table of Contents

Page No. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY ...... iv

L SECFDORALBACKGROUND ...... 1 Country Overview ...... 1 Natural Resource Management and Protection ...... 1 Biological Diversity ...... 1 Protected Areas ...... 1 Legislative Framework ...... 1 Institutional Setting ...... 2 Sectoral Issues ...... 3 Experience with Previous Bank Lending ...... 4 Lessons Learned from Similar Projects ...... 4

IL THE PROJEC ...... 6 Origin ...... 6 Objectives and Summary Description ...... 6 Rationale for Bank Involvement ...... 7 Detailed Description ...... 8 Parks Management ...... 8 Environmental Research ...... 9 Environmental Education ...... 10 Institutional Development ...... 11 Organization and Management ...... 12 Participation by NGOs and Local Communities ...... 14 Environmental Impact ...... 15 Costs ...... 15 Financing ...... 16 Procurement ...... 16 Disbursements ...... 18 Benefits ...... 19 Sustainability ...... 21 Risks ...... 22

IIL AGREEMENI REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 24

This report is based on an appraisal missionto Venezuela in January-February1995 consistingof Mark Cackler, Silvia Castro, Luis Constantino (LA2NR), and Pablo Gutman (consultant). Mary Stanier (LA2NR) participated in the preappraisal mission in November 1994. This report is also based in part on the Staff Appraisal Report (report No. 11208-VE)for the Venezuela National Parks Management Project dated November 17, 1992 for which Luis Coirolo (LA1NR) was the Task Manager. The responsible managers are Michael Baxter (DivisionChief), Kreszentia Duer (Projects Adviser), Kenneth Lay (Director Understudy) and Edilberto Segura (Director). - 11 -

TABLES IN TEXT Table 2.1 Procurement

ANNEXES Annex 1: PARKS MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION COMPONENT Table 1.1: Project Areas Table 1.2: Proposed Locations of Fire Prevention and Combat Camps and Parks Covered by Region Table 1.3: Venezuela's National Parks Table 1.4: Venezuela's Natural Monuments

Annex 2: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COMPONENT

Annex 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION COMPONENT

Annex 4: INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT Table 4.1: Existing Personnel in Project Protected Areas Table 4.2: Additional Regional Staff under Project Table 4.3: Proposed Technical Staffing Needs Matrix Table 4.4: List of Project Financed Studies Attachment 1: TOR - Consultant for INPARQUES Own Revenues Attachment 2: TOR - Financial Management Adviser Attachment 3: TOR - Costs and Benefits of National Park System Attachment 4: TOR - Baseline Study for Impact Indicators Attachment 5: INPARQUES Organization Charts

Annex 5: INPARQUES FINANCIAL PLAN Attachment 1: Increasing Reliance on Own Revenues Attachment 2: INPARQUES Financial Plan Attachment Attachment 3: Historical and Projected Revenue Sources

Annex 6: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING Table 6.1: Summary Costs by Component Table 6.2: Annual Costs by Components Table 6.3: Summary Cost by Expenditure Account Table 6.4: Annual Costs by Expenditure Account Table 6.5: Financing Plan Table 6.6: Allocation of Loan Proceeds Table 6.7: Estimated Schedule of Bank Disbursements

Annex 7: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING Appendix 1: Physical Indicators 1-A Implementation Indicators 1-B Impact Indicators Appendix 2: Financial Indicators Appendix 3: Summary of Legal Covenants Table 7.1: Implementation Schedule - iii -

Annex 8: DOCUMENTS IN PROJECT FILES

MAPS IBRD No. 26815 INPARQUES Regional Organization IBRD No. 26816 Venezuela Protected Areas IBRD No. 26817 INPARQUES Project Sites

I I - 1v -

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Borrower: The Republic of Venezuela

Implementing Agency: Instituto Aut6nomo de Parques Nacionales (INPARQUES)

Beneficiary: Not applicable

Poverty: Not applicable

Amount: US$55.0 million equivalent

Terms: Repayable over 15 years, including 5 years of grace at the Bank's standard variable rate.

Commitment Fee: 0.75% on undisbursed loan balances, beginning 60 days after signing, less any waiver.

Onlending Terms: Not applicable

Financing Plan: See para. 2.24.

Net Present Value: See paras. 2.33-2.35.

Maps: IBRD No. 26815 INPARQUES Regional Organization IBRD No. 26816 Venezuela Projected Areas IBRD No. 26817 INPARQUES Project Sites

Project ID No. VE-PA-8237 I VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

STAFFAPPRAISAL REPORT

L SECrORAL BACKGROUND

CountryOverview

1.1 Venezuela, situated on the north coast of South America and bordered by , and , is the continent's sixth largest country with an estimated area of 916,442 km2 (see Maps). In addition to its mainland, Venezuela possesses 72 islands and a maritime area of 362,000 km2 (the country's declared exclusive economic zone). The total population is estimated at just under 21 million inhabitants (1993), some 83% of whom live in urban areas located mainly in the northern states. Venezuela's per capita GDP of US$2,873 (1993) is the fifth highest in Latin America.

1.2 Although Venezuela lies entirely in the tropics, there is considerable variation in climate due principally to differences in elevation and topographic effects. Average rainfall ranges from less than 500 mm on the north Caribbean coast to more than 4,000 mm in parts of the Delta and the eastern part of the Cordillera de M6rida. Humidity is generally high with average values exceeding 80% in the Amazon, the plains (llanos), and the Maracaibo lowlands. Annual average temperatures range from 240 C at elevations below 800 m to 0° C at elevations over 3,000 m. The Orinoco river system drains some 80% of the national territory.

Natural Resource Management and Protection

1.3 Biological Diversity. Venezuela is a sparsely populated country situated in the tropics and enjoying a wide range of geographically-extensivehabitats, many of which still remain little disturbed. As a result, Venezuela has been identified as one of the world's most biologicallydiverse countries, and has been classified by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature as one of Latin America's six megadiversity countries. Estimates of the country's flora exceed 21,000 species of high vascular plants, 5,000 of which are judged to be endemic to Venezuela. Other indicators include some 1,300 species of birds out of a world total of 9,000, 40% of 3,300 known species of neo-tropical birds and more than 300 species of mammals, 18 of which are classified as endangered.

1.4 Protected Areas. To manage its biodiversitywealth and to protect its natural resources, over the past 50 years Venezuela has put a significant part of its territory under different forms of protection. At the core of the protected areas system are the country's 43 national parks, 21 natural monuments and 10 wildlife refuges and reserves (Annex 1). Today Venezuela's national parks and monuments encompass more than 14 million ha, or 15% of the national territory (compared with a world average of 5%). In addition to preserving much of the country's biological resources for future generations, Venezuela's protected areas provide considerable economic and social benefits in terms of protection of critical watersheds, water supply, electricity production, and eco-tourism. The national parks are the natural catchment areas supplying about 30% of the water supply to major towns, and almost 30% of the water utilized by all the hydroelectric dams of the country.

1.5 Legislative Framework. Venezuela has developed an impressive body of environmental legislation and a fairly comprehensive environmental management system. Fundamental laws for - 2 - environmental protection relate to: (a) medium- and long-term environmental goals; (b) administration and policy implementation; and (c) law enforcement. The medium- and long-term environmental goals are set forth in the Organic Law on the Environment (Ley Orginica del Ambiente - LOA) and the Organic Zoning Law (Ley Orginica para la Ordenaci6n del Territorio - LOOT). The LOA, passed in 1976, provides Venezuela's general environmental policy framework. In 1983, the Government enacted the LOOT, mandating extensive land zoning and planning at the national, regional and local levels. Policy implementation and management of the environment are addressed in the 1976 Organic Law on Central Administration (Ley Orginica de la Administracifn Central, which created the Ministryof Environment and Natural Resources (MARNR) and conferred on it broad authority to issue regulations in pursuit of its mandate. The 1988 Organic Law of Municipal Regime (Ley Org6nica del Regimen Municipal) defines the environmental competence of the municipalities,and the 1989 Organic Law on Decentralization (Ley OrgAnicade Decentralizaci6n) promotes the transfer of authority and responsibilities from the national level to the state and local levels. A new and stringent Environmental Penal Law (Ley Penal del Ambiente) was enacted in April 1992.

1.6 Institutional Settinig. MARNR, with headquarters in Caracas and delegations in each state, is responsible for the enforcement of environmental standards and the preparation of most environmental and land planning at the national and regional levels. MARNR is also responsible for management of much of the publicly owned natural resources, including inland waters, forests and protected areas. MARNR operates through several autonomous institutes and services which enjoy greater management freedom than do the line Ministries. The Instituto Aut6nomo Nacional de Parques (National Park Service, INPARQUES) which manages the national parks, natural monuments and urban parks is one of the more important autonomous institutes linked to MARNR. Two other relevant autonomous services are PROFAUNA, in charge of wildlife protection, and SADA-AMAZONAS, which focusses on the environmental protection of Venezuela's sparsely occupied State of Amazonas.

1.7 INPARQUES was created in 1978 to administer national parks, natural monuments and urban/recreational parks. By regional Latin American standards, INPARQUES is a relatively successful protected areas management agency. Most of the parks and wildlands for which INPARQUES is responsible are not "paper parks", but rather have at least some basic infrastructure and on-site management activities. INPARQUES also has a sizeable cadre of highly motivated personnel. Nonetheless, Venezuela's national park system has expanded rapidly over the last few decades, and the large number of newly created parks has strained the ability of INPARQUES to fulfill its legally-mandatedmanagement responsibilities,partly because of its present fairly centralized structure and staffing/skillsmix pattern, exacerbated by budgetary constraints associated with declines in domestic oil revenues. Hence, it is clear that the rapid expansion of Venezuela's system of protected areas now needs to be followed by a period of consolidation and more effective management of these areas, with significant emphasis on the institutional strengthening of INPARQUES and some of the other key agencies mentioned below.

1.8 PROFAUNA was created in 1989 to manage the country's wildlife, particularly ten wildlife refuges and reserves. SADA-AMAZONASwas also created in 1989 to coordinate, plan and execute the environmental policy for the Amazon territory. The Alejandro de Humboldt Amazonian Center for Environmental Research (CAIAH), attached to SADA-AMAZONAS, is the focal point for coordinating and implementing all research activities in that part of the Amazon basin which lies - 3 - within Venezuela. Many other Venezuelan institutions also perform activities which concern the environment. The Ministry of Coordination and Planning Office (CORDIPLAN) has a major say in coordinating environmental issues of national scale. Although heavilyconcentrated at the national level, environmental management is beginning to be decentralized to state and local authorities, in accordance with the new decentralization law (para.2.14). Also of interest is the involvement of the Ministry of Defense in activitiesof environmental police and law enforcement. The Fuerzas Armadas de Cooperaci6n (FAC) are the military corps devoted to surveillance and protection activities (frontier control, customs, public properties pro-xtion, etc.). Since 1952, they have also been responsible for enforcing environmental policy on the ground. Certain units of the National Guard are seconded to MARNR, and consequently to INPARQUES, to assist in inspection and control. FAC presently maintains fixed warden/inspection posts in five national parks (Henri Pittier, El Avila, El Tama, Canaima and Marfa Lionza).

1.9 There are several strong (both in terms of organization and professional staff) Venezuelan NGOs which have been acting for many years on problems relating to environmental conservation. Specifically,they have been working in applied research, in environmental education, in helping to channel private sector resources to environmental causes, and in the actual implementation of conservation and natural resource management projects. Both national and international NGOs, such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) have also already been working with the Government in the preparation of studies and management plans for protected areas and environmental education programs.

1.10 Sectoral Issues. A Bank Environmental Issues Paper for Venezuela (IBRD Report No. 8272- VE, issued in December 1991) documents in detail Venezuela's environmental achievements. However, the report also points out that the weakest point in Venezuela's environmental system is its limited capacity to enforce environmental standards and to manage its natural resources on a sustainable basis. More specificallythe paper points to:

(a) The need to integrate environmental objectives more systematically into economic decision making.

(b) The need to reduce deforestation and illegal mining and to control industrial and urban water pollution, through better monitoring and surveillance, enforcement of existing regulations, new price mechanisms and investment in pollution control technologies.

(c) The need to improve management of the country's protected areas. On the latter point, the paper states that "[t]he principal threat to Venezuela's vast biological diversity is poor on-the-ground management of its most important protected areas.... As a result, many have been subject to slash-and-burn agriculture, deforestation for pasture or extensive illegal hunting and fishing." To cope with this situation, infrastructure and equipment are in short supply, and research to guide sustainable development management is lacking,as are resources for educating park users and for working with local communities. Given budgetary constraints which the Government faces, the report concludes that if Venezuela is to sustain its national park system and build upon its past accomplishments,technical and financial support for its efforts to - 4 -

conserve its natural heritage will need to be increased at both the national and international levels.

1.11 Venezuela has demonstrated a strong history of concern for conservation issues. It possesses a comprehensive body of sound environmental legislation and the basic institutional framework for protected areas management, particularly with regard to its national parks system. Further, it does not appear to have any serious policy or pricing distortions in place which would threaten the sustainability of that system. In this context, the focus of efforts to improve natural resource protection over the medium-term should be on strengthening the national capacity to implement existing legislation, regulations and environmental programs.

Experiencewith PreviousBank Lending

1.12 Between 1961 and 1992, the Bank approved 23 loans to Venezuela, totalling US$2,425.2 million.These included support for agriculturaldevelopment (three projects), transport (four projects, including an airport loan), power (four projects, including part of the Guri hydroelectric project), telecommunications (two projects), water supply and urban development (two projects), education and social development (two projects), debt and debt service reduction (one loan), and support for structural adjustment and related policy reform efforts (four projects) and technical assistance (one project). Most projects have been viewed as relativelysuccessful. During 1993-95six additional loans were approved in institutional development, education, agricultural extension, health (two projects) and transport (two project). The National Parks Project, a predecessor to this project, was approved in December 1992, but was subsequently withdrawn in June 1994 following the failure of the government to secure authorization for Loan signing within the 18 month deadline established by Bank policy.

Lessons Learnedfrom SimilarProjects

1.13 While many Bank-financed projects include environmental components, loans primarily in support of environmental objectives are still small in number. In fiscal years 1989-92 there were 26 operations approved totalling US$1.4 billion dealing with natural resources and the environment, several of them including the management of parks and other protected areas. Nine new commitmentswere made in 1993 (The World Bank and the Environment. A Progress Report. 1993l. In reviewing these efforts, as well as experiences with park management in industrialized countries, the Bank has drawn several lessons which have been duly considered in the design of the proposed project, among them:

(a) Management Strengthening. The effective implementation of a national parks system requires significant on-the-ground management. Management objectives have to be translated into specific measures with a budget for implementing them. These measures usuallyinclude the training of personnel, the provision of infrastructure and equipment, and the development of scientificallysound management options.

(b) Local Community Participation. Early and sustained involvement of local communities and environmental NGOs is critical for several reasons: (i) to gain the support of the public for environmental conservation; (ii) to properly include sound demands of the local population in the parks' management plans; and (iii) to enlist -5-

the community and the private sector in sharing the costs of the conservation programs.

(c) Decentralization of Management and Technical Decisions. Over-centralization of decision making at national parks headquarters results in poor management at the field level and low capacity to react to environmental and social change. Decentralization (empowering local officers and communities) seems to be an effective way to increase management efficiency and community participation.

(d) Increasing Revenues. Although national parks and other protected areas are the source of important economic benefits for society, the national park administrations normally capture few of these. Increasing the revenues collected from the public could enhance national park administrationsin many ways: (i) operational costs could be partially isolated from national budget fluctuations; (ii) the demand for, and the benefits of, the national parks system would become more visible; (iii) a more equitable sharing of costs could be developed, includingcharges to off-site consumers.

1.14 These lessons have been taken into account in the design of the proposed project, which aims to consolidate the existing network of national parks through better management. The bulk of the project investment would be made at the local level. Specific decentralization goals and means to achieve them are also part of the project. INPARQUES already conducts consultation workshops with local communitiesbefore major management decisions are taken. These activities,together with extensive NGOs involvement, would be encouraged by the project. Efforts to increase revenue collection to sustain park operations would also be an important feature of the project, and INPARQUES has already taken important steps in this direction. In 1994 the revenues generated by INPARQUES reached 20% of its current costs (para. 2.38, 2.39, Annex 5). - 6 -

IL THE PROJECI

Origin

2.1 In the course of reviewing the Bank's draft Environmental Issues Paper for Venezuela (para. 1.10), discussions were held with the Government on a possible project to help strengthen the management of its protected areas. Priority was given to national parks and wildliferefuges, because of their importance in both ecological and economic terms. An identification mission visited Venezuela in early December 1991. The general scope of the project was defined, and INPARQUES appointed a technical team to prepare the project in consultation with other potential participant agencies and NGOs. Subsequent preparation missions were conducted and a National Parks Management Project was appraised during June/July 1992. Loan negotiations for this project took place in mid-October 1992 and the project was approved in December 1992 as Loan 3535-VE.

2.2 In accordance with Bank practice, the Loan for the National Parks Management Project was withdrawn in June 1994, when 18 months elapsed followingBoard approval without the Loan being signed. The reasons for the delays in securing the necessary authorizations from Government for Loan signing were due in large part to the volatile political situation during the period. However, although the fate of the Loan for the original project was uncertain, throughout 1993 and 1994 INPARQUES continued to carry out project activities on a limited basis using its own budgetary resources (see para. 2.30 on retroactive financing).

2.3 Following a request from Government to revive the project in late 1994, and actions taken by both the executive and legislative branches to establish their commitment to the project and to avoid the previous problems, the project was re-appraised in January-February 1995 and renamed (in English) the Venezuela Inparques Project, to distinguish it formally from the withdrawn Loan.

Objectivesand Summary Description

2.4 The project would strengthen the capabilityof Government to manage Venezuela's national and urban parks, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges and reserves. In particular, the project would (a) strengthen conservation and protection of vulnerable areas; (b) intensify public environmental research, training and education efforts; and (c) improve the economic sustainability of the national parks and other protected areas.

2.5 The main project components are:

(a) Management and protection of 16 national parks in northern Venezuela, four national parks and two groups of natural monuments in the Amazon region, two wildlife refuges and seven urban recreational parks; and establishment of an effective fire prevention and fire fighting capacity throughout the national park system.

(b) Applied environmental research, to support sustainable management of various parks, generate useful scientificknowledge on the ecology of the parks, and assistVenezuela - 7 -

in safeguarding its rights with respect to research findingsand the possible commercial use of its biodiversityresources.

(c) Environmental education, both at the regional and local levels, to disseminate information, raise the level of knowledge about environmental issues and their linkages with economic development, and engage the active participation of the community in supporting environmental protection.

(d) Institutional development includingtraining, technical assistance and studies; physical infrastructure, equipment, furniture and other operational support for institutions engaged in the implementation of the project.

2.6 In designing the project, due attention has been paid to the selection of specific parks, monuments and refuges; and to institutional capacities of the agencies involved and their required strengthening. Selection of national parks has been based on: (a) recent INPARQUES and international NGO studies on the severity of human impacts on national park sustainability -- exemplified by several highly affected coastal parks; (b) identification of major gaps on information and resources for effective park management - exemplified by several Amazonian parks; and (c) ecological breadth of the selected parks -- ten of the country's 15 ecological sub-regions are represented in the protected areas proposed for inclusion in the project. As for the institutional capacity of the leading executing agencies, INPARQUES is the Venezuela institution responsible for the conservation of natural resources in national parks, and is also principally responsible for the management of many of the country's urban recreational parks. Its experience, accumulated over many years of activity,is quite good. Nevertheless there is a need for streamlining, decentralizing and strengthening various INPARQUES administrative,financial and technical functions and procedures, and this will be supported by the project.

Rationale for Bank Involvement

2.7 The Bank's Country AssistanceStrategy for Venezuela, dated October 13, 1993,and discussed at the Board on November 4, 1993, is to support increased efficiency and decentralization of public services, private sector development, poverty alleviation,and environmental protection. The proposed project is consistent with this strategy and would address primarilyenvironmental protection and also increase the efficiency of and decentralize INPARQUES, while contracting many of the INPARQUES activities to the private and NGO sectors:

(a) The project would improve public sector performance by helping the Government to implement an already existing and well-designed body of policies, legislation and regulations concerning environmental conservation of an important part of Venezuela's natural resource base.

(b) It would result in significantenvironmental gains through biodiversitypreservation and sustainable management and protection of valuable natural resources. Important economic benefits could also be generated, since many of Venezuela's national parks protect natural resources of high economic value. - 8 -

(c) It would encourage private sector involvement and active NGO participation in project implementation, and subsequently in helping to ensure the economic sustainability of the national park system.

(d) The project would support decentralization of national parks management and the greater involvement of local communities. These actions would have a modest, but positive, impact on the well-beingof poor populations livingin the vicinity of national parks (new livelihood opportunities, technical support for sustainable resource use and better environmental infrastructure).

2.8 Program Objective Categories. As described in detail below, most project activities and benefits are related to environmental management and protection, and therefore the project is designated as belonging to the Program Objective Category of Environmentally Sustainable Development.

Detiled Description

2.9 ParksManagement and Protection (US$73.7 million; 77% of total costs):

(a) Improvement of the administration and management of 20 national parks and two groups of natural monuments through the provision of basic infrastructure, equipment, and personnel. A list of the selected parks, and other component details, is provided in Annex 1. The project would support: (i) administration (offices, residential facilities in isolated parks, maintenance warehouses, etc.); (ii) park protection (boundary demarcation, access controls, guard posts, etc.); (iii) environmental education and interpretation (visitor and information centers, interpretative trails and signs, observation towers, etc.); and (iv) tourism and recreation (recreational area development, access road rehabilitation, kiosks, etc.). Equipment needs consist primarily of transport (trucks, motorcycles, and boats) as well as office and field equipment. Personnel costs include incremental staff to strengthen INPARQUES protection, resources management, and administrative activities at the field level.

Four of the national parks and the two natural monuments would be in the state of Amazonas, with emphasis on protective activities. Specific activities would include: (i) financing a minimum number of inspection and control posts in strategic areas (airstrips, river confluence, etc.), equipped principallywith radio equipment and boats; (ii) strengthening the regional office to support these posts; (iii) staffing of ranger and park guards and supporting office and livingequipment; and (iv) support for an aerial surveillance and logisticsprogram. A strong environmental research program is also envisaged, to help develop management plans and improve basic knowledge of these parks (paras. 2.10, 2.12). The research component in the state of Amazonas would be coordinated with SADA-AMAZONAS.

(b) Improvement of infrastructure and equipment in two PROFAUNA wildlife refuRees (Cuare and Tortuga Arrau'. These two refuges were selected for their importance as conservation areas and for their proximity to two national parks included in the - 9 -

project (Morrocoy and Cinaruco-Capanaparo, respectively). Specific activities to be financed include: (i) infrastructure in support of administrative, management, and educational activities;(ii) equipment for administrative,research, and field operations; and (iii) incremental staffing for management and educational activities. Each of the two refuge-national park complexes would be managed as integral protected area units facilitating the coordination of public information, environmental education, management, and research activities.

(c) Strengthening of the administration and management of seven urban recreational parks located in the country's largest metropolitan areas. These parks are large green areas of about 10 to 80 hectares each; they were selected for their proximity to national parks and because they receive a large number of visitors annually, which enables them to play an important role in reinforcingenvironmental education efforts. Limited investments would consist of: (i) engineering studies and the development and restoration of basic park infrastructure and selected attractions; (ii) the construction and equipping of visitor and information centers in support of the project's environmental education component (para. 2.12); (iii) equipment for education and recreational activities; and (iv) additional personnel for administrative, security, educational and recreational activities. Educational activities would be coordinated with similar efforts planned in the adjacent national parks.

(d) Expansion of INPARQUES fire prevention and control capacity. Fire is probably the most serious threat to natural resource conservation in Venezuela. However, at present, INPARQUES has only one fire prevention and control base camp located in El Avila national park. The project would support the establishment of an additional nine principal and 8 auxiliarycamps which would extend protection to 28 of the country's most fire-prone areas (Annex 1). This sub-component would include: (i) administrativeoffices, residential quarters, and garage and storage facilities in each of the nine principal and 8 auxiliarycamps; (ii) equipment for fire prevention and control and rescue operations; (iii) vehicles for fire combat; and (iv) incremental staffing. A critical factor in reducing the risk of park fires is the development and implementation of an effective public education campaign directed at reducing the human causes of forest fires. This need would be addressed under the project's environmental education component (para. 2.12).

2.10 Environmental Research (US$7.9 million; 8% of total costs). Worldwide the emphasis on research for national parks management has been growing fast over the last twenty years, as park management goals have shifted from simple control of trespassers to more active resource management, with a view to long-term sustainability.Also, the need to cope with increasingpressures from conflicting demands -- tourism, local community concerns, biodiversity protection, national development needs -- requires more and better problem-oriented research. Another area needing more information and analysis concerns the economic valuation of protected areas benefits and of protected areas policies.

2.11 To increase the availabilityof information required for sustainable park management the project would finance data acquisition and research programs -- to be contracted out -- plus a limited acquisition of infrastructure, equipment and materials needed either to make use of the research - 10- outcomes or to support research activities inside the parks. The focus will be in applied research and special efforts will be devoted to assure the timely dissemination and actual use of the research outcomes. The component is presented in more detail in Annex 2 and the background documents therein mentioned, and would include the following:

(a) The acquisition and systematization of baseline information on national park environments, including: (i) establishment of a data base of currently available information on national parks; (ii) Rapid Ecological and Social Assessments in 10 national parks; (iii) production of thematic maps and geographic data bases (e.g., vegetation cover, land use hydrologyand related variables) for eight national parks.

(b) Basic studies leading to the preparation of management plans for two national parks and two groups of national monuments in the State of Amazonas.

(c) Monitoring of physical and biological processes, includingwater quality studies, in five coastal and marine national parks and wildlife population studies and management programs in two wildliferefuges and adjacent national parks.

(d) Financing of studies to address (i) environmental problems in national parks management, such as the impact of tourism and slash and burn agriculture; (ii) issues related to livelihood of local communities living inside or around parks and their impact on the park; (iii) the local and international value of the environmental services provided by parks and protected areas, which are necessary to justify the allocation of scarce fiscal resources to parks protection; and (iv) policy instruments for capturing the economic value of protected areas and for generating revenues to finance parks management.

(e) The establishment of five stations which would support the research activities of INPARQUES and PROFAUNA, and would also be used by universities and NGOs.

(f) A consultant specialized in research on biodiversity protection would be retained under the institutional development component to help orient the INPARQUES research program and offer advice in ways to better incorporate research outcomes into current park management.

2.12 Environmental Education (US$ 3.6 million,4% of total costs). Based on the past experience of INPARQUES in environmental education, the project would support the expansion and establishment of present and new educational activities in a number of urban recreational parks, national parks and wildlife refuges. The program would strengthen the INPARQUES decentralization program, with the reach and depth of environmental education activitiesbeing greatly increased by training volunteers as multiplyingagents. This would also increase the involvement of local community groups, NGOs and educational associations. The programs are designed to reach the entire spectrum of park users, namely: local communities within and around national parks, school-age children and their families,volunteer groups and park visitors, and the broader society at large in Venezuela. If successful,this public educational effort should lead to noticeable changes in public perceptions and behavior, in support of natural resource conservation. Specific project activities are presented in Annex 3; financing would be provided for educational and planning - 11 - equipment for the INPARQUES central office, visitors centers and information centers; training costs; and incremental staffing costs. A consultant specialized in communityenvironmental education and extension would be retained under the institutional development component to help orient and evaluate the INPARQUES educational program.

2.13 Institutional Development (US$10.8 million; 11% of total costs). The project would support the project administration activities and institutional strengthening of INPARQUES. This would include assistance for a major decentralization of the INPARQUES administrative and technical functions from its central headquarters to the regional, state and park levels; strengthening of INPARQUES in-house training capacity and increasing the availability of trained manpower for implementing project activities; and provision of essential technical assistance. The specific activities which would be financed are detailed in Annex 4. These would include support for:

(a) Office equipment, infrastructure and other facilities required to support the INPARQUES decentralization and administrative reform process.

(b) Rehabilitation of the Rancho Grande training center to serve as a training forum for INPARQUES personnel, and the training of personnel at all grades and levels.

(c) Technical assistance to assist in the INPARQUES decentralization process and the establishment of modem and more efficient management and control systems; environmental research; public environmental education and promotion of community participation in park management; ad hoc management studies, including cost recovery options for national parks, and development of management, administrative and financial procedures (e.g.,bidding, contracting, disbursement, accounting, auditing and personnel management); and additional studies in natural resource issues, including possible future project preparation work, that may be agreed with the Bank (see Annex 4, Table 5 for list of project studies and technical assistance).

(d) Office equipment, salaries, travel, technical assistance and other expenditures related to the Project Coordinating Unit.

2.14 INPARQUES is a well-regarded protected areas management agency, with a sizeable cadre of highly motivated personnel at both the technical and administrative levels. Nonetheless, various institutional weaknesses reduce the overall effectiveness of INPARQUES. For the most part, these relate to an over-centralization of administrative and technical support functions, and staffing, in Caracas (62% of total administrative and technical staff are based in or near Caracas), which results in an inefficient response to the needs of the more distant national parks. At the same time, many of the INPARQUES regional and state offices and field units still do not possess the critical mass of staff, infrastructure, equipment and training needed to discharge their functions properly. To address these issues, INPARQUES has started carrying out a Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, which the project would help to implement (paras.3.2(a), 2.21(a), 3.1(a)). An assurance was obtained during negotiations that the INPARQUES Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan would be implemented in a satisfactorymanner. The Plan's main elements include a realignment of the institutional chain of command and structure; a shifting to the regional offices of many special programs (e.g., El Avila, Los Roques, Guatopo) and other functions currently carried out by the INPARQUES central office; strengthening of the capacity of a much leaner and more efficient - 12 - central office to supervise and coordinate planning, policy,administrative procedures and technical support; reform of the INPARQUES recruitment, training and incentives policies to professionalize and upgrade staff at all levels; and essential investmentsin training, infrastructure and equipment, and expansion of staff (particularly at park level, and largely through redeployment) to implement these changes. Examplesof the kinds of functions to be decentralized include: (a) selection and contracting of personnel; (b) bidding and contracting for purchase of equipment, materials and works up to specified levels; and (c) cooperative agreements with municipalities and other local groups, and concessions (e.g., for tourism or recreational purposes) which do not commit land and buildings for the long term.

2.15 As detailed in Annex 4, most of the activities under the project training and technical assistance components have been designed to support implementation of the Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan. The Plan of Decentralization and Administrative Reform of INPARQUES was approved by CORDIPLAN on January 3, 1994. For implementation the Central Personnel Office needs to authorize the new staff positions in the personnel structure. INPARQUES has taken definite steps in implementing the Plan including the establishment of the National Capital Region, the Falcon-Zulia Region and the Amazonas Region, which were created by the President of INPARQUES on October 31, 1993, on October 31, 1993 and on November 8 respectively. In addition, on October 21, 1993, INPARQUES transferred 11 of the 13 special programs existing in 1992 to the National Capital Regional Office.Y An assurancewas obtained duringnegotiations that INPARQUES would implement the remainder of the Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan in a satisfactory manner over the life of the project including timing, functions by type of administrative units and staffing. Specific indicators are shown in Annex 7.

Organization and Management

2.16 Project Agencies. The principal implementing agency for the project would be INPARQUES. However, for some project components (wildlife refuges, Amazonian parks and law enforcement), INPARQUES would cooperate with other public environmental agencies (PROFAUNA, SADA- AMAZONAS and FAC, respectively). The arrangements for coordination among the implementing agencies participating in the project are described in three Participation Agreements (Convenios) between INPARQUES and each of the other agencies,dated December 10, 1993. The Participation Agreements between INPARQUES and SADA-AMAZONAS and PROFAUNA, respectively, require revision. Drafts of the revised Participation Agreements have been prepared and a condition of disbursements for activitiesrelevant to SADA-AMAZONASand PROFAUNA would be execution of the revised Participation Agreements (para.3.3). An assurancewas obtained duringnegotiations that the Participation Agreements between INPARQUES and PROFAUNA, SADA-AMAZONAS and FAC, respectively, would be executed in a satisfactory manner (para.3.2(b)).

1/ Special Programs are programs that, due to special characteristics,such as seriousness of the problems, public impact or others, are managed by the Central INPARQUESOffice rather than by the RegionalOffices. The Special Programsexisting at the time of Board approval of the National Parks Management Project in December 1992 included the National Parks El Avila, Guatopo, Laguna de Tacarigua and Los Roques, the Recreational Parks el Este and the Parque Zoologico Caricuao, and seven fire fighting and control programs. All of these were moved to the National Capital Regional Office on October 21, 1993,except the Los Roques National Park and fire fightingrelated activities. The Special Program for Los Roques is in the process of moving to the National Capital Region and this process is expected to be completed by December 31, 1995. The remainingSpecial Program,which involvessearch, rescue and life savingactivities, covers the entire territory of Venezuela and requires coordination with the National Guard and other agencies,and will thus continue to managed by the Central Office of INPARQUES. - 13 -

2.17 The President of INPARQUES would be responsible for overall project administration and policy direction. He would consult on overall policyaspects with the existingGoverning Board (Junta Directiva) which includes representatives of the private sector, NGOs, trade unions, universities and the oil industry. The President would be assisted on a day-to-day basis by the Project Coordination Unit (PCU), which was established on November 8, 1993 (para. 3.1(d)), and which would be responsible for planning and coordinating technical activities and for monitoring and evaluation of project results. The PCU would be managed by a coordinator, an administrative assistant and a secretary, to be hired by the project. The PCU would include INPARQUES high level staff working in the areas of administration, infrastructure, research and environmental education, which would advise, plan, monitor and supervise the activitiesof the project. Staff from the technical divisionsof INPARQUES would support project supervisionand would maintain close contact with regional, state and field office personnel. Financial control would be the responsibilityof the PCU with the support of the General Directorate of Administration and Serviceswithin INPARQUES, both at the central and regional levels.

2.18 Annual Work Programs. Each year, comprehensive annual plans and budgets would be used to monitor project implementation and progress towards meeting agreed targets and objectives. These plans and budgets would be drafted by the PCU and submitted to the President and Governing Board of INPARQUES for approval. An assurance was obtained during negotiations that adequate counterpart funds would be made available to the project in a timely manner (para.3.2(i)). An assurance was also obtained during negotiations that (a) by March 31 of each year of the project, the draft annual operating plan and budget proposal for the next project year would be made available to the Bank for review and comments; (b) a formal joint annual review by the Bank and the Borrower would be held no later than May 31 each year to focus on the status of project implementation, the proposed annual operating plan, and any changes in project design or implementation that may be necessary; and (c) the Bank would receive a copy of the final annual plan and budget when they are approved (para.3.2(c)).

2.19 Monitoring. Reporting and Supervision. INPARQUES would regularly collect and analyze data on key indicators to monitor progress in physicalexecution and assess project impact, comparing the results with the pre-project estimates. INPARQUES would prepare and send to the Bank quarterly progress reports, and copies of the studies carried out during project implementation. The quarterly reports would both describe progress in project execution, and identify possible implementation issues and propose appropriate solutions. The format for quarterly reports, project implementation and impact indicators, and the implementation schedule are in Annex 7. Some of the project impact indicators will be quantified as a result of a baseline study to be carried out during 1995; TOR for the study are in Annex 4, Attachment 4. The Bank would supervise the project regularly, and each year INPARQUES would invite an Independent Evaluation Committee to monitor and evaluate project implementation progress. The composition of the Committee would include, inter aia, representatives of relevant NGOs (para 3.1(c)). INPARQUES would make the findings of the Committee available to the Bank by March 31 of each year. An assurance was obtained during negotiations that: (a) the Bank would receive copies of quarterly project progress reports within 30 days of the end of the quarter (para.3.2(e)); and, (b) the findings of the annual Independent Evaluation Committee would be made available to the Bank for review by March 31 of each year, beginning in 1996 (para.3.2(d)). - 14 -

2.20 Accounts and audits. INPARQUES would maintain separate accounts for project expenditures. The 1995 project accounts would also include expenditures incurred prior to the project eligible for retroactive financing. An assurance was obtained during negotiations that: (a) these accounts would be audited annually by independent auditors satisfactory to the Bank; and (b) the audit report of project accounts, including a separate opinion on Statements of Expenditure (SOEs), and the audit report of the overall financial status of INPARQUES (balance sheet, statements of income and expenses and related statements), and the financial statements themselves, would be provided to the Bank through INPARQUES within six months of the end of each fiscal year. The audit reports would convey the auditor's opinion and comments as necessary on the methodology employed in the compilation of the statements of expenditures, their accuracy, the relevance of supporting documents, eligibilityfor financingin terms of the project's legal agreements, and standards of record keeping and internal controls related to the above (para.3.2(f)). The TOR for the auditors should also include a specific analysis of compliance with procurement procedures, especially when SOEs are involved.

Participationby NGOs and Local Communities

2.21 The project includes various important mechanismsfor increasing participation by NGOs and local communitiesin park management and related activities. Such participation is important because: (i) some NGOs are well qualified to carry out certain tasks under contract to INPARQUES, thereby reducing the direct burden of implementation on INPARQUES and facilitating efficient project execution; (ii) NGOs and local communitiescan substantiallyincrease the scope and effectiveness of certain INPARQUES programs by contributing their labor, expertise and other assistance (as is already the case in some of the parks); and (iii) local community and NGO participation in park planning and management serve to increase support for (and minimize potential resistance to) park protection programs. Both international and domestic NGOs, and local communities,were consulted during the preparation and appraisal of the project and would be encouraged to participate actively in the implementation stage as well, in the followingways:

(a) With regard to national park management, new management plans (planes de ordenamiento) require the review of local communitiesand other interested members of the public, as mandated under existingVenezuelan law. INPARQUES would also promote increased use of local volunteers for a variety of park protection, management and fire prevention and control activities.

(b) The environmental education component is designed to reach the entire spectrum of park users -- local communities as well as all types of park visitors. The component would rely heavilyupon the use of local volunteers to increase the dissemination and multiply the impact of environmental education activities.

(c) The environmentalresearch component would support baseline socioeconomicstudies of communities in the vicinity of 10 national parks where human pressures are considered significant, so that this information can be incorporated into park management planning.

(d) The institutional strengthening component includes: (i) support for the INPARQUES decentralization, which is expected to include the hiring of approximately nine new - 15 -

social scientists (one in the central office and one in each regional office), as well as additional specialists in environmental education, community relations and outreach, and liaisonwith local governments (at the regional, state and conservation unit levels); and (ii) a technical assistance specialist to assist INPARQUES in community extension and promotion of local participation among people living in and near national parks.

(e) Under the training sub-component, relevant courses for INPARQUES staff would also be open to NGO representatives, private tourist guides, and local government officials, to enhance their collaboration with INPARQUES park planning and management efforts.

(f) INPARQUES would organize regular public meetings at each of its regional or state offices or in the protected areas under its administration with local community and NGO representatives, inter alia, to: (i) review the progress of project implementation (including the annual operating plans for each park) and discuss any suggested changes; and (ii) consider options for increased participation by local communitiesand NGOs in project implementation (e.g., as paid contractors, volunteer assistants, or advocates for changing specific activitieswhich impact on the parks).

EnvironmentalImpact

2.22 The proposed project would have a positive environmental impact by directly enhancing the management and protection of an area of approximately 110,000km 2, and by indirectly strengthening the capacity to manage all of Venezuela's protected areas (some 0.5 millon km2, an area as large as Spain) through training, education and institutional capacity building activities. No involuntary resettlement is envisaged. Sixof the national parks which would receive direct project support have indigenous people living within their boundaries, but no adverse project-related interventions are expected. This is because none of the planned investments in these parks would promote: (i) increased access to indigenous areas by outsiders; (ii) significantly increased contact between indigenous people and outsiders; or (iii) new restrictions on traditional resource use by indigenous people. Interventions in the four Amazonian parks where larger indigenous communities are located would be limited to research for the development of management plans and protective activities. Support for two more accessible national parks (Canaima and Santos Luzardo) where smaller indigenous groups are located would limit visitors to designated sections, and would aim generally to reduce the pressure on critical conservation and indigenoussub-areas. Project-supported mechanisms for local community participation in park planning and management would also apply in these six parks.

Costs

2.23 Total project costs, includingtaxes, physicaland price contingencies, are estimated at US$95.9 million, with a foreign exchange component of US$6.8 million, 7% of total costs (Annex 6, Tables 1 through 4). Base costs, estimated using February 1995 price levels, amount to US$89.1 million, and do not include taxes because of the tax-exempt status of the implementing agency. Physical contingencies of US$3.0 million, 3.4% of total base costs, have been estimated at 5% on all items - 16 - except technical assistance. Annual price contingencies have been calculated at a rate of 2.2% on the base costs in U.S. dollars, and total US$4.9 million, 5.6% of total base costs.

Fmancing

2.24 The project would be financed by a Bank loan of US$55.0 million and a government counterpart contribution of US$40.9 million (Annex 6, Table 5). The Bank Loan would be equivalent to the full foreign exchange requirement and 54% of local costs. Local cost financing is justified because of the strong environmental focus of the project. The Government would finance all incremental operating costs, except those related to the Project Coordinating Unit. The Loan would be made to the Republic of Venezuela and would be repayable over 15 years, including a five- year grace period. Legislative approval giving Government authority to sign the Loan Agreement, the lack of which caused the National Parks Management Project Loan to be withdrawn, has already been obtained. In addition, prior to negotiations satisfactoryevidence was received from Government that provisions will be made for World Bank disbursement in 1995 (para. 3.1(f).

Procurement

2.25 A Country Procurement Assessment Report for Venezuela was issued in June 1990. Subsequently, in August 1990, the Government issued a Procurement Law which expresslystates that all contracts for goods, works and services which will be totally or partially financed by international organizations will be undertaken in accordance with the procurement procedures of such institutions. INPARQUES has the capability to carry out procurement activities in an efficient manner and the Director of the Project Coordinating Unit attended a Bank procurement seminar in January 1995, and an appraisal missionreceived procurement documents (para 3.1(d)). The proposed procurement arrangements for this project are summarized in the following table and an assurancewas obtained during negotiationsthat procurement arrangements during project implementation would be as described below (para 3.2(g)).

2.26 Civil works include buildings, access roads and tracks, other minor infrastructure and demarcation works, most of which are relativelysmall in size and are geographicallydispersed among over 30 parks and reserves. As the largest single contract is not expected to exceed US$1.5 million, it is unlikely that foreign contractors would be interested. Accordingly,National Competitive Bidding (NCB) procedures satisfactory to the Bank would be used, although interested foreign bidders would be allowed to participate. Very small works which cannot be grouped into contracts of at least US$250,000 would be procured on the basis of price quotations from at least three eligible contractors, provided they do not exceed US$5.9 million in the aggregate. Contracts for goods exceeding US$250,000would be awarded through International Competitive Bidding(ICB) following Bank procurement guidelines and using Bank-issued Standard Bidding Documents. Contracts for goods expected to cost between US$50,000and US$250,000,not exceeding an aggregate amount of US$11.9million, would be procured under NCB. Office equipment, furniture and other similar goods expected to cost less than US$50,000 per contract would be awarded on the basis of evaluation of price quotations invited from at least three suppliers, provided they do not exceed an aggregate of US$1.7 million. - 17 -

2.27 Consultantservices, training and studies. The Bank's "Guidelines on the Use of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers and by the World Bank as Executing Agency" would govern all consultancies financed under the project.

2.28 PriorReview by the Bank. All ICB contracts, the first two NCB contracts each for goods and works, and NCB contracts exceeding US$0.5 million for works and US$200,000for goods would be subject to prior Bank review of bidding documents, bid evaluation, award proposals and final contracts. In addition, prior review of all consultant contracts will be required for contracts with individuals exceeding US$30,000 and contracts with firms exceeding US$100,000. Prior review procedures would cover about 50% of Bank-financed procurement, which is acceptable given the characteristics of the project. INPARQUES has recently issued procurement norms to make their procedures consistent with Bank procurement guidelines. For bid evaluation purposes, a margin of preference in accordance with Bank guidelines may be granted to local manufacturers for goods procured under ICB. - 18 -

Table 2.1: Procurement Arrangements (USS million)

TOTAL Category ICB NCB OTHER NBF COST

Civil Works - 43.0 5.9 j] - 48.9 (28.0) (3.8) (31.8)

Equipnient, Machinery 3.4 11.9 1.7 / - 17.0 Vehicles and (3.4) (7.1) (1.0) (11.5) Furniture

Technical Assistance, - - 12.0 yI - 12.0 Training, Studies and PCU (12.0) (12.0)

Incraeental Operating - - - 18.1 18.1 Casts (_) (_)

Total 3.4 54.9 19.6 18.1 96.0 (3.4) (35.1) (16.8) (-) (55.0)

Note: Figures in parenthesis are the respective amounts expected to be financed by the Bank.

Y/ Shopping procedures satisfactoryto the Bank. v Consulting services.

Disbursements

2.29 The project has a 5-year disbursement period and the Closing Date would be June 30, 2000. There are no Standard Disbursement Profiles for Venezuela, and the estimated disbursement schedule has been determined by evaluating the implementation capacity of the implementing agency and the estimated availabilityof counterpart funding. The Loan would be disbursed against eligible project expenditures at the rates of: (a) 65% for civil works; (b) 100% for foreign supplied and 60% for locally supplied equipment, machinery,vehicles and furniture; (c) 100% net of taxes for technical assistance, training and studies; and (d) operating costs for the Project Coordinating Unit at a rate of 100% for the first US$150,000in disbursements, 75% for the next US$150,000,and 50% thereafter (Annex 6, Table 6). Except for contracts requiring prior review, disbursement would be made against certified statement of expenditures (SOE) for which detailed documentation evidencing expenditures would be made available for the required audit and also for review by the Bank supervision missions.

2.30 Retroactive financing for technical assistance, training, studies, civil works and equipment would be provided for an estimated US$2.5 million (5% of the Loan) in respect of eligible expenditures incurred between January 1, 1993 and Loan signing, expected in mid-1995, both to enable the efficient execution of project activities in 1995, and in light of the unusual history of this project. The original Loan for a National Parks Management Project was approved by the World Bank Board of Directors in December 1992, withdrawn in June 1994 and is now being reactivated as a new project (para 2.2). During 1993 and 1994, while the fate of the original Loan was uncertain, INPARQUES carried out a number of project activities on a limited scale using its own budget, and - 19 - these activities were reviewed during the appraisal mission. Documents to support the Withdrawal Application for retroactive financing were received before negotiations (para 3.1(e)).

2.31 There is no Special Account proposed for the project. Because of extremely tight limits on external borrowing, Government and the Bank have agreed that Bank disbursements would be made only as the project is physicallyimplemented and all initial payments to suppliers would be made by INPARQUES using its own funds. Should the situation change and/or if the desirability of opening a Special Account becomes more evident during project implementation, the possibilityof amending the Loan Agreement to establish a Special Account may be considered.

Benefits

2.32 Project impact indicators are shown in Annex 7, Appendix 1-B. Support for national parks and other priority areas in Venezuela isjustified from both a national and an international standpoint. Many of these areas contain the critical watersheds of major rivers and storage reservoirs which are significant for power, agriculture and water supply; and/or have significant recreational and eco- tourism potential that could be further developed provided their natural resource base is protected and managed in a sustainable manner. An effort has been made to estimate their value for illustrative purposes, as summarized below.

(a) Watershed Protection. The includes more than one-third of the catchment area of the Guri hydroelectric dam on the Caroni River. It is estimated that if this catchment area were not protected, accelerated erosion and downstream sedimentation due to agriculture and logging would reduce the dam's useful life by between 10% and 15%. Given an expected life of 60 years and a total cost of US$9.1 billion (1990 prices), at a discount rate of 10%, the net present value of the additional energy investments that would be required to compensate for the shortened life of the reservoir (and which could be avoided through proper watershed protection in two national parks) could range from about US$54 million to about US$82 million.

(b) There is no comprehensive assessmentof the role of national parks in protecting the country's urban water supplies but available information suggests that the offtake generated from 13 national parks which is used to satisfy the needs of about 9.6 million people (i.e., 60% of the entire national population), is 27 m3/sec of water. According to MARNR's estimates, water availabilityfrom the above mentioned parks could diminish by 10% and 30% over the next 20 years because of the combined effects of deforestation and erosion. Failure to protect these catchments could thus result in the Government's having to reinvest in the replacement of water supply losses (about 8 m3/sec). Assuming that replacement investment would be evenly distributed over 20 years, at an average cost of US$25.0 millon per m3, the conservation of the upper basins in the national parks would save replacement investments with a present value of between US$80 million and US$160 millon.

(c) While specificdata to estimate the impact of the national parks on rainfed agriculture is lacking, rough calculations made for irrigated agriculture indicate that some 20% of the total irrigated area in Venezuela depends on surface or groundwater which - 20 -

originates in national parks. The life span of the irrigation works averages 10 years for private wells and surface derivations and 30 years for public reservoirs, with investment in irrigation ranging from US$1,000 per ha for private groundwater irrigation to US$5,000 per ha for more expensive public projects. The net present value of investment losses stemming from the lack of national park conservation could range from US$10 million to US$30 million.

(d) Maintenance of Ecological Processes in Coastal Marine Ecosystem. The ecosystem constitutes a reservoir, refuge and breeding and feeding grounds for many commercialspecies of plants and animals. The appraisal missionestimated that within the marine parks to be included in the project there are approximately 15,000 ha of mangrove forest. The economic value of similar highly productive ecosystemsvaries from US$500 to 1,500/ha/yearfor other Caribbean areas with conditions similar to those of Venezuela (Hamilton/Snedaker, 1984)Y Because mangrove ecosystems are very fragile and highly vulnerable to urban and commercial pressures, severe degradation can be expected if they are not properly protected. Assuming that half the mangrove areas were lost over a 10-yearperiod, if not protected as national parks, and considering the lowest estimates of harvest value, the net present value of potential losses over a 30-year period would be about US$7 million.

(e) Recreation benefits. INPARQUES national parks receive an average of 1 million visitors a year while INPARQUES urban parks are visited by more than 10 million people a year. These visitors are charged small entrance and parking fees by INPARQUES. While the visitors willingnessto pay for the recreational experience, the measure of the value of the recreational experience to consumers, is unknown, it must be greater or equal than the fees they pay to INPARQUES. It is expected that as a result of this project and INPARQUES regular programs, by the year 2000 INPARQUES will be able to generate about US$6 million a year from a variety of visitors fees, concessions and licenses (see Annex 5). This represents a present value of about US$34 million.

2.33 In summary, the estimated present value of the benefits of the protected areas under INPARQUES, at a 10% discount rate, which would be lost without the protection of critical watersheds and coastal ecosystems in the national parks, could range from over US$185 million to about US$312 million. Other benefits from tourism and other potentially marketable products may also be high, but the aggregate value cannot be determined from available information. It should be stressed that these figures present only a partial idea of the magnitude of benefits accruing from national parks conservation in Venezuela. There are also substantial benefits that accrue to the global economy as a whole - carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection. On carbon sequestration alone and using very conservative values for the estimate of the world's willingnessto pay for each ton of carbon sequestered, benefits could approach US$150 million. On the other hand, the full value of the above benefits cannot be attributed to the proposed project alone, since the national parks are already in place and therefore only the benefits of incremental conservation should be counted in a strict net present value analysis. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that

2y Hamilton, L S. and S. C. Snedaker (1984). Handbook for Mangrove Area Management. IUCNIUNESCO/UNEP. - 21 - an effort on the scale of the proposed project is urgently required to ensure adequate management and protection of the national parks, and that the cost of this effort would easily be exceeded by the benefits that would accrue.

2.34 In addition, from the perspective of biodiversitypreservation, despite its relatively small size, Venezuela contains a vast array of neo-tropical ecosystemsand is therefore considered to be among the world's 10 most important sites of biological diversity (para. 1.3). Hence, protection of the country's main coinservationareas would also have important, if unquantified, external benefits.

2.35 To try to give more precision to the quantifiable benefits accruing to the project, the project will support a study to refine the economic valuation of Venezuela's National Parks system. Among other things, this study will be instrumental in the design of policies to help INPARQUES capture a larger share of the internal and external benefits of biodiversityprotection in Venezuela (Annex 5).

Sustainability

2.36 Although national parks and other protected areas are the source of important economic benefits for Venezuelan society, few of these benefits are captured directly by INPARQUES. For that reason, like other national park administrations worldwide, INPARQUES depends heavily on government budget appropriations. This has obvious drawbacks when fiscal problems arise. Increasing the share of revenues collected directly from the public would enhance the administration of most national park administrations in several ways: (a) operating costs would be insulated from national budget fluctuations; (b) the demand for and the benefits of the national parks system would become more visible and this in itself could help to attract new investment resources; (c) charging for services would increase environmental awarenessamong the public; (d) the prospect of generating revenues might stimulate the development of new, innovative ways to charge off-site consumers and beneficiaries; and (e) under a scenario of limited increases in government transfers to INPARQUES, higher own revenues would allow the agency to meet the higher recurrent costs from the project, thus helping ensure its sustainability.

2.37 At present, INPARQUES annual expenditures are financed by government budgetary allocations, private domestic and international donors, and its own resources (entrance fees to several urban parks, user fees for some recreational facilities in a few national parks, and concession payments from private firmswhich operate recreational or private infrastructure in national and urban parks). Approximately 70% of INPARQUES annual expenditures have been for recurrent purposes. The INPARQUES annual budget (own revenues plus transfers from the executive) peaked in 1992 at US$16 million and fell to US$10 million in 1994, due in part to the devaluation of the local currency. During the same period, while federal budget allocations were decreasing, INPARQUES own revenues more than doubled in constant terms, and in 1994 they accounted for 16% of the total budget -- up from 6.8% in 1990.

2.38 Because of the project, Government will need to allocate to INPARQUES an incremental US$5 to 6 million per year for 1996, 1997 and 1998 and about US$2 million for 1999. This incremental Government funding represents about 55% of the project's local counterpart funding requirements. The remaining 45% of local counterpart funding would come from redirecting part of the regular INPARQUES investment and operating budgets to the project activities,assuming that - 22 -

the INPARQUES "normal' budget would remain at its 1991-92 level in real terms. With respect to the long-term impact of the project on INPARQUES' recurrent costs, it is estimated that the project will result in a 60% (about US$6.8 million) increase over 1994 recurrent expenditures (in real terms) by the year 2000. As part of its Financial Plan (see below) INPARQUES intends that non- Government budget receipts would grow to cover all incremental recurrent expenditures caused by the project. This would mean that own revenues in the year 2000 would be about four times the 1994 figures and about twice the projected 1995 figures, a feasible target that is in line with the growth of INPARQUES own revenues during the 1990-94 period. Under this scenario, the total contribution from the Government would be feasible and INPARQUES would have a sufficiently balanced funding position to cushion it against periodic fiscal constraints.

2.39 To ensure that the financial position improves as forecasted, INPARQUES is executing a Financial Plan originally approved in October 1992. An updated version of the Financial Plan, reviewed during appraisal, is shown in Annex 5 (para. 3.1(f)). An assurance was obtained during negotiations that the Plan would be implemented in a satisfactory manner (para. 3.2(h)). Implementation of the Financial Plan would be monitored closely throughout the project implementation period. The main elements of the Financial Plan include:

(a) Charging entry and parking fees in heavilyvisited parks which still do not collect them and increasing fees in parks that already collect them.

(b) Charging for other activities that depend substantially on the conservation of the natural resources safeguarded within the park system (e.g., commercial fishing and tourism company licenses, hotel taxes and water user fees); and charging fees for the use of park lands by governmental or private telecommunications facilities, power lines, pipelines or similar infrastructure located within or traversing the national parks.

(c) Increasing the rank of the Office of Internal Revenue to a General Directorate (already done), providing adequate staff and equipment for it to carry out its assigned functions efficiently,and givingit the authority for assessingand monitoring tariffs and revenue policies.

(d) Assigning specific responsibilitieswithin INPARQUES for the coordination of fund raising among private national firms and international donors.

(e) Launching a public information campaign explaining the rationale and objectives of national parks tariff and fund-raising policies.

2.40 In addition -- and on the grounds that about 30% of the water consumed in Venezuela is generated in the national parks -- INPARQUES would investigate the legal viabilityof capturing part of a new tariff, proposed by the President's Office on June 5, 1992, for watershed protection, based on an incremental 0.5% of the water tariffs and 1% of electricity tariffs.

Risks

2.41 Although there are no major project risks, implementation could be adversely affected by (a) institutional weaknesses of INPARQUES; (b) counterpart funding constraints; and (c) annual limits - 23 - on external borrowing that could restrict Bank disbursements. With regard to possible institutional weaknesses, INPARQUES is a well-established autonomous institution with a good track record to date, but adequate project implementation would require improvements in its structure and skills and the project would place considerable additional demands on its administrative,financial and technical capacities. To address these institutional concerns, the project would support: (a) implementation of a Decentralization and AdministrativeReform Plan, shifting technical and administrativefunctions from INPARQUES' central headquarters to its regional and field offices (para. 3.11); (b) implementation of a Financial Plan to diversify INPARQUES sources of financial support and thereby help to strengthen its financial sustainability beyond the project period (para. 3.22); and (c) staff training and technical assistance (para. 3.10 and Annex 4). Also, building on successfulpast collaborativeefforts between the Government and NGOs, domestic and international NGOs and local communities would participate in various project activities, thereby lessening some of the implementation burden on INPARQUES (para. 2.21).

2.42 With regard to funding, the level of cost sharing by the Bank would be somewhat higher (57%) than the average for other operations in Venezuela, given the strong environmental focus of the project. Legislativeapproval givingGovernment authority to sign the Loan Agreement, the lack of which caused the National Parks Management Project Loan to be withdrawn, has already been obtained, satisfactory evidence has been received that the Executive branch has requested authorization from the appropriate Congressional Commissionsfor World Bank disbursement in 1995 (para.3.1(g)), and an assurance was obtained at negotiations that INPARQUES would be provided with adequate and timely counterpart funds to meet the balance of project funding needs (para. 3.2(i)). - 24 -

IIL AGREEMENS REACEHEDAND RECOMMENDATION

3.1 Actions already carried out during preparation of this project include:

(a) Initial execution of an INPARQUES Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, includingthe establishment of Regional Offices for the Capital Region, Falcon- Zulia and Amazonas, and submissionof a status report on the INPARQUES Special Programs not yet transferred to the Regional Offices (para. 2.14).

(b) Submissionof documentation regarding the composition of the Project Coordinating Unit and the Annual Independent Evaluation Committee (para. 2.17 and 2.19).

(c) Submissionof INPARQUES procurement documents (para. 2.25).

(d) Submissionof documentation related to expenditures eligible for retroactive financing, including copy of contracts, bid documents and other relevant materials (para. 2.30).

(e) Initial execution of an INPARQUES Financial Plan to diversify INPARQUES sources of financial support and improve its long-term financial sustainability, and submission of a revised Financial Plan (para. 2.39).

(f) Submission of satisfactory evidence that the Executive branch has requested authorization from the appropriate Congressional Commissions for World Bank disbursements in 1995 (para. 2.42).

3.2 During negotiations assurances were obtained from the Borrower that:

(a) The INPARQUES Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan would be implemented in a satisfactory manner (para. 2.14).

(b) The Participation Agreements between INPARQUES and PROFAUNA, SADA- AMAZONAS and FAC, respectively, would be executed in a satisfactory manner (para. 2.16).

(c) By March 31 thereafter throughout the project implementation period, the draft annual operating plan and proposed budget for the succeeding year would be made available to the Bank for review and comments; by May 31 each year the Bank and the Borrower would conduct a formal joint annual review; and the Bank would receive a copy of the final annual plan and budget when they are approved (para. 2.18).

(d) INPARQUES would invite an Annual Independent Evaluation Committee, including, inter alia, representatives of relevant NGOs, to monitor and evaluate project implementation progress, and the findings of the Committee would be sent to the Bank no later than March 31 of each year, beginning in 1996 (para. 2.19). - 25 -

(e) Copies of quarterly progress reports in an agreed format would be sent to the Bank within 30 days of the end of the quarter (para. 2.19).

(f) Accounting and auditing arrangements would be as described in Chapter 2 (para. 2.20).

(g) Procurement arrangements would be as described in Chapter 2 (para. 2.25).

(h) The INPARQUES Financial Plan to improve the financial sustainability of INPARQUES would be implemented in a satisfactory manner (para. 2.39).

(i) Adequate counterpart funding would be made available to the project in a timely manner (para. 2.42).

3.3 Conditions of disbursement. Disbursements would not be made for activities related to SADA-AMAZONAS and PROFAUNA, respectively, until revised Participation Agreements, satisfactory to the Bank, are executed (para. 2.16).

3.4 Recommendation. Subject to the above agreements and conditions, the proposed project would constitute a suitable basis for a Bank loan of US$55.0 million equivalent to the Republic of Venezuela, repayable in 15 years, including a 5-year grace period, at the Bank's standard variable interest rate.

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

List of Annexes

Annex 1: PARKS MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION COMPONENT Table 1.1: Project Areas Table 1.2: Proposed Locations of Fire Prevention and Combat Camps Table 1.3: Venezuela's National Parks Table 1.4 Venezuela's Natural Monuments

Annex 2: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COMPONENT

Annex 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION COMPONENT

Annex 4: INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT Table 4.1: ExistingPersonnel in Project Protected Areas Table 4.2: Additional Regional Staff under Project Table 4.3: Proposed Technical Staffing Needs Matrix Table 4.4: List of Project Financed Studies Attachment 1: TOR - Consultant for INPARQUES Own Revenues Attachment 2: TOR - Financial Management Adviser Attachment 3: TOR - Costs and Benefits of National Park System Attachment 4: TOR - Baseline Study for Impact Indicators Attachment 5: INPARQUES Organization Charts

Annex 5: INPARQUES FINANCIAL PLAN Attachment 1: Increasing Reliance on Own Revenues Attachment 2: INPARQUES Financial Plan Attachment Attachment 3: Historical and Projected Revenue Sources

Annex 6: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING Table 6.1: Summary Costs by Component Table 6.2: Annual Costs by Components Table 6.3: Summary Costs by Expenditure Account Table 6.4: Annual Costs by Expenditure Account Table 6.5: Financing Plan Table 6.6: Allocation of Loan Proceeds Table 6.7: Estimated Schedule of Bank Disbursements

Annex 7: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING Appendix 1: Physical Indicators 1-A Implementation Indicators 1-B Impact Indicators Appendix 2: Financial Indicators Appendix 3: Summary of Legal Covenants Table 7.1: Implementation Schedule

Annex 8: DOCUMENTS IN PROJECT FILES

ANNEX 1 Page 1 of 8

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

Parks Management and Protection Component

Background

1. Relative to many other Latin American countries, Venezuela has higher incomes per capita, a small but well-educated population, and a natural resource base that still remains largely intact. The significance of its natural resources is such that Venezuela is recognized internationally as being one of the world's most biologically-diversecountries. Indicators of this diversity include more than 21,000 species of higher vascular plants, 5,000 of which are judged to be endemic to Venezuela; some 1,300 species of birds out of a world total of 9,000; 40% of 3,300 known species of neotropical birds; and more than 300 species of mammals, 18 of which are classifiedas endangered. These abundant natural resources have provided the basis for development over the past 50 years of a very comprehensive national protected areas system.

2 . Venezuela's earliest attempt at protecting its biological resources began with the establishment of the Rancho Grande National Park in 1937 (now known as Henri Pittier). This was followed by the creation of the country's first natural monuments in the 1940s and the addition of three more parks in the 1950s. TIhen,beginning in the 1960s, the system expanded more rapidly, a trend attributable in part to the creation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAC) and the National Institue of Parks (INPARQUES). By the end of the decade, four new national parks had been created, only to be surpassed in the 1970s with the creation of 17 more parks and 8 natural monuments. At present the system has grown to include 43 national parks and 17 natural monuments, which in total comprise 140,034 km2, or some 15% of the national territory.

3. Major criteria used in the selection and creation of the country's protected areas have included uniqueness and diversity of habitat; watershed protection for water supply, power production and irrigation; and potential for recreation and ecotourism development. Present interest in Venezuela's protected areas, both nationally and internationally, is at an all-time high, as reflected in the country's selection as the venue for the 1992 World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas.

4. The recent rapid expansion of Venezuela's national system of protected areas is laudable, but it is clear that this must now be followed by a period of consolidation and more effective management of these areas. The large number of newly created parks has far outstripped INPARQUES' ability to fulfill its legally-mandated management responsibilities,partly because of its present fairly ANNEX 1 Page 2 of 8 centralized structure and staffing/skillsmix pattern, exacerbated by budgetary constraints associated with declines in domestic oil revenues. The main issues to be addressed include the absence or inadequacy of basic infrastructure and equipment in many parks; insufficient and/or inadequately-trained human resources; basic information gaps; and limited environmentally-basedpublic education and training programs.

5. Data from a recent survey of 35 national parks indicate that two are facing difficulties in terms of maintaining park integrity (Mochima and Canaima) and two others are in a precarious condition (Aguaro-Guariquito and Morrocoy). The threats to the remaining parks appear to be more "localized"in nature, with the most significant impacts occurring in El Avila, Laguna de Tacarigua and Los Roques. More recently, data compiled from an INPARQUES survey of park superintendents indicated that the main problems for the parks situated north of the Orinoco River were: fire, encroachment, illegal hunting and fishing, and water pollution. Further to the south, in the Amazon region, accelerated acculturation among the indigenous populations is resulting in unplanned land clearing in proximityto some of the region's national parks and natural monuments (e.g., Yapakana, Parima-Tapirapeco and Duida-Marahuaca national parks and the natural monuments in the areas of the Autana-Cao-Sipapo and Valle del Manapiare groups). Other issues include illegal mining and hunting. While data are poor, it is thought that the country's wildlife refuges and reserves suffer from many of the same pressures as those faced by the national parks in the same areas.

Component Description

6. The objective of the proposed component is to improve the conservation of Venezuela's renewable natural resources by addressing the management issues and other constraints identified above, and by increasing public awareness of the role of national parks and reserves in supporting the country's present and future development needs. Five sub-components would focus on the needs of: (i) 16 national parks north of the Orinoco River; (ii) 4 national parks and 2 natural monuments in the State of Amazonas; (iii) 2 wildlife refuges; (iv) 7 urban or recreational parks; and (v) fire prevention and control efforts throughout the national park system.

7. National Parks and Natural Monuments. This sub-component is designed to promote more efficient administration and management of 16 national parks north of the Orinoco River and of 4 national parks and natural monuments in the State of Amazonas. Criteria used to select parks north of the Orinoco River for inclusion in the project were: the existence or pending approval of a park management plan (plan de ordenamiento); diverse representation of the country's ecological regions; and a discernible need for management interventions based on presence and degree of threat to park integrity. ANNEX 1 Page 3 of 8

8. In parks north of the Orinoco River the project would finance:

(a) Infrastructure needed to support administrative functions (offices, residential facilities in isolated parks, and maintenance warehouses), park protection (guard posts, access controls, fencing, watch towers), environmental education and interpretation (visitor and information centers, interpretative trails and signs), and recreation and tourism (access road rehabilitation, rehabilitation, recreational area development, observation towers), and research.

(b) Equipment for transport (trucks, boats, and motorcycles),office, and field activities.

(c) Incremental staffing for protection and resource management activities and administration of the new field management units to be established as part of INPARQUES' decentralization process.

9. At present, Venezuela is the country with the largest contiguous area of the Amazon under protection and the country with its largest share of Amazonian territory under protection. In the State of Amazonas (SA), Venezuela has legally established 4 large national parks, 5 natural monuments protecting 15 tepuys (sandstone plateaux), and one biosphere reserve. In the aggregate, these account for 47.5% of all protected areas in Venezuela and 36% of the SA (not including the newly created Alto Orinoco-Casiquiare biosphere reserve). The Venezuelan SA is still largely intact, with estimated deforestation of only 0.5-1% (1985). It is also significant to note that, unlike the Brazilian Amazon which is almost exclusivelya lowland area, the Venezuelan Amazon comprises six biogeographic regions (Huber and Cerda, 1990), which makes it one of the most biologicallydiverse areas of the world.

10. Since INPARQUES still has only a limited presence in the State of Amazonas, including an office in Puerto Ayacucho with a total of fourteen staff, it works in cooperation with the Autonomous Service for the Environmental Development of the Amazon (SADA-AMAZONAS). SADA-AMAZONAS was established in June 1989 under MARNR. The followingyear, in 1990, the Alejandro de Humboldt Amazon Environmental Research Institute (CAIAH) was established under SADA-AMAZONAS as Venezuela's response to an understanding reached during the international meeting at which the presidents of the countries involved signed the Treaty of Amazonian Cooperation (May 6, 1989).

11. Under the proposed national parks management component, the project would seek to establish an institutional and operational structure for INPARQUES to meet minimal basic administrative, monitoring and patrol functions in the State of Amazonas. Also, under the research component ANNEX 1 Page 4 of 8

(Annex 2), management plans would be developed for three of the four national parks and two natural monuments, and an applied research program would be established to increase knowledge about the natural resources of the Amazonian parks and the main threats to their future preservation. Thus in addition to activities (a) to (c) for parks north of the Orinoco River the specific activities under the national parks management component for Amazonian parks would include:

(a) Construction of one central administrative office and a visitors' center for INPARQUES in Puerto Ayacucho; to give support for five professionals,8 administrative and 4 support staff (to supplement the present positions of Regional Director and his assistant), and new residences and equipment for these staff.

(b) Support for an aerial surveillance program for patrolling, food and fuel support for the posts and emergencies. This program would include the renting of small airplanes and helicopters.

(c) Establishment of one sub-state office and operations center for INPARQUES in La Esmeralda, with one professional, two administrative and four support staff.

(d) Support for the posts of six rangers and their assistants, and 13 guard posts with four park guards each. The ranger and guard posts were selected to ensure the best control (airstrips, river confluence, etc.) and would be equipped principally with radios, boats and essential subsistence equipment.

12. Wildlife Refuges. Two priority wildlife refuges (Cuare and Tortuga Arrau) would be assisted under the project. Criteria used for their selection were: significance as refuges for threatened or endangered wildlife; the existence of (or soon to be approved) management plans; the presence of pressure or threats to the habitat and/or specific species in the refuge; and proximity to national parks included in the project (the Morrocoy and Cinaruco-Capanaparo national parks, respectively). The project would support infrastructure, equipment, and incremental personnel.

13. Despite the proximityof national parks and refuges in Venezuela, and the fact that they share common conservation objectives, these two types of protected areas are managed as independent entities. This results in administrative inefficiencies and could adversely impact on the well-being of the resources and habitat in the respective areas. To address this problem, each of the two refuge-national park complexessupported by the project would be managed as integral protected area units. This will be accomplished through the coordinated development of annual operating plans specifying collaborative activities, including coordinated public information and environmental education ANNEX 1 Page 5 of 8 programs, protection activities, and fire prevention and control. A cooperative research program would be facilitated by the sharing of supportive research- related infrastructure and equipment between PROFAUNA and INPARQUES in each of the two protected area complexes.

14. Urban Parks. An important characteristic of Venezuela is that the large majority of the population is urban-based. This facilitates the development and implementation of a cost-effective environmental education program, using the country's recreational parks. These large, urban-based parks attract many users, cutting across all socio-economic classes. A well-designedprogram supported by the necessary infrastructure and equipment would be a highly cost-effective means to increase consciousness and support for park conservation efforts. To this end, seven recreational parks (Del Este "R6mulo Betancourt", Caricuao, Guaiqueri, Andr6s Eloy Blanco, Jose Maria Ochoa Pile, Metropolitano de Maracay, Galindo) have been identified for inclusion in the project. The principal criteria used in their selection were proximityto the country's major urban centers and one or more national parks, status of land ownership, and estimated number of visitors. The main investments would consist of the development or restoration of basic park infrastructure and selected public attractions; the construction and equipment of educational cum information centers in support of the project's environmental education sub-component; and incremental personnel.

15. Prevention and Combat of Forest Fires. INPARQUES' capability to prevent and combat forest fires would be enhanced, building on the experience of the 'Campamento de Incendios Pajaritos" in the El Avila national park. The El Avila program consists basicallyof a small core of professional park staff, a large network of trained volunteers for ad hoc search and rescue operations, and a rapid response capabilitybased on effective communications,transport, and fire fighting equipment. During the wet season, personnel are used for preparing and implementing fire prevention plans and educational programs.

16. The fire prevention and combat subcomponent of the project would help to extend this successful model to a total of 28 of Venezuela's most fire-prone protected areas. The main investments would be for:

(a) Construction of basic offices, residential quarters, and garages/storage facilitiesin each of 9 principal and 8 auxiliary base camps.

(b) Vehicles and equipment for fire combat and transport, personal protection, training and office support.

(c) Personnel costs, including part-time contracting of instructors to support training of INPARQUES' personnel and volunteer groups in fire prevention and combat operations, and the contracting of ANNEX 1 Page 6 of 8

fire combat personnel for six months each year during the fire season. There would also be provision for a modest search and rescue activity for selected parks where previous experience justifies the need for increasing local INPARQUES' capacity.

3. Another critical factor in reducing the risk of park fires is the development of an effective public education campaign directed at reducing the human causes of forest fires. This need would be addressed simultaneously, under the project's public environmental education component (see Annex 3).

m:\ve\inparq\sar\annxlI.bc ANNEX 1 Page 7 of 8 Table 1.1 VENEZUELA INPARQUESPROJECT Project Assisted Protected Areas

Initial Year Location Area Year of Mgt Plan Protected Area of Declaration (State) (km2) Decree (Decree No)

National Parks 1. Aguaro-Guariquito 1974 Guarico 5,858 January 1994 2. Canaima 1962 Bolivar 30,000 June 1990 (1640) 3. Cinaruco-Capanaparo 1988 Apure 5,844 October 1992 4. El Avila 1958 Fed. Dept./Miranda 852 June 1992 (2334) 5. El Copey 1974 71 June 1990 (1642) 6. El Tama 1978 Tachira/Apure 1,390 Sept. 1991 (1844) 7. Henri Pittier 1937 Aragua/Carabobo 1,078 August 1992 8. Laguna Restinga 1974 Nueva Esparta 189 June 1991 (1641) 9. Laguna Tacarigua 1974 Miranda 390 June 1991 (1643) 10.Los Roques 1972 Federal Departmnent 2,211 Nov. 1990 (1213) 11.Maria Lionza 1960 Yaracuy 120 January 1993 (2338) 12.Medanos de Coro 1974 Falc6n 903 March 1993 13.Mochima 1973 Anzoategui/Sucre 949 January 1993 (2663) 14.Morrocoy 1974 Falc6n 321 May 1993 15.Sierra Nevada 1952 Merida/Barinas 2,764 June 1992 (2335) 16.Yurubi 1960 Yaracuy 237 June 1992 (2336) 17.Duida-Marahuaka 1978 Amazonas 1,908 July 1993 (2303) 18.Serrania de la Neblina 1978 Amazonas 13,606 1/ 19.Parima-Tapirapeco 1991 Amazonas 37,500 under discussionl/ 20.Yapacana 1978 Amazonas 3,200 under discussionl/

Natural Monuments 1. Cuao-Autana-Sipapo 1990 State Amazonas 4,500 under discussionl/ 2. Manapiare-Ventuari 1990 State Amazonas 7,500 under discussioni/

Wildlife Refuges: 1. Cuare 1972 Falc6n 119 June 1992 2. Tortuga Arrau 1989 Apure and Bolivar 76 under elaborationl/

1/ Plan development is a project objective.

m:\ve\inparq\sar\anxltl-1.bc ANNEX 1 Page 8 of 8 Table 12

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT Proposed Locationsof Fire Preventionand CombatCamps and Parks Coveredby Region

Region Location of Number of Other Protected Areas Principal Camp Auxiliary Camps Covered by Regional Network

D.F. N.P. El Avila 3** R.P. Caricuao N.P. Macarao* N.M. Cueva del Indio* R.P. Mariches* N.M. Codazzi** R.P. V.E. Sojo* R.P. El Encanto* R.P. Vinicio Adames* N.P. Guatopo*

Aragua N.P. Henri Pittier 1 N.M. GermAn Roscio* N.M. Arfstedes Rojas*

Carabobo N.P. San Esteban* 1

Yaracuy N.P. Yurubi 0 N.M. Marfa Lionza

Sucre N.P. Mochima 0

MWrida N.P. Sierra Nevada 1 N.P.S. La Culata*

Monagas N.P. El GuAcharo* 0

Apure-GuArico N.P. Aguaro-Guariquito 1 N.P. Cinaruco-Capanaparo

TAchira N.P. El Tama 1 N.P. Chorro El Indio* N.P. Los Paramos*

Total: 9 8 16

R.P. = Recreational Parks; N.P. = National Parks; N.M. = Natural Monuments; * Protected Areas not included within the project; ** The auxiliarybase camp proposed for R.P. Caricuao would use only existing infrastructure.

m:\ve\inparq\zar\axltl-2.bc Annex 1 Table 1.3 Page lof 2 VENEZUELA'S NATIONAL PARKS

Ne PNxqua Eurdi(a) mnque Supeelkd Feba d. Na d. Nead Fedade Plande Ordenamkte y No dd Ftca Ne de Fectdde Cusult Feocaduela CM$* ide Ob badma Nadm emSlecaliJCado - Crn n Dmcrto GenOa Gaoe Rqgleaneatode Uso Denato del GenOa Gaenie PhIbe Ce'asulteP01Icn Mlnlalrc wrrlterkjmmte HIeSma x Ofdl 0kl S1 elaboraeldn NO Deerdo Olklal Olidal Si NO DWs Mtm Aeio Si NO I Henri Pittier Aaga y 107.800 13-02-37 s/n 19.188 13-02-37 19-20-21Agosto 1992 Para publicacionen Gaceta _ _ (RanchoGrande) Carabobo Ofieal 2 SierraNevada Meriday Bannas 276446 02-05-52 393 23821 02-05-52 2335 05-06-92 4 548E 26-03-93 12-13-14Dic 1991 3 Guatopo Muranday 122 464 31-03-58 122 25624 31-03-58 Guarico 4 El Avda Dtto Federaly 81.800 12-12-58 473 25.841 18-12-58 2 334 05-06-92 4 548E 26-03-93 13-14-15Mayo 1992 Muanda 5 Ywurbi Yaracuy 23670 18-03-60 235 26 210 18-03-60 2 336 05-06-92 4525 E 28-01-93 28-29-30Agosto 1991 6 Canarna Bolivar 3.000.000 12-06-62 770 26 873 13-06-62 1640 05-06-91 34.758 10-07-91 Consultainterna 7 Yarnbi 14580 12-06-62 771 26873 1}-06-62 _ 23-24-25Sept 1992 Parapubhcactn en Gacda ______~~~~~~~~~~~IOfivial 8 Cuevade La Falcon 4.885 21-05-69 56 28 931 28-05-69 Quaebradadel Torn 9 ArctupielagoLos Dependenea 221120 09-08-72 1061 29883 18-08-72 1213 02-11-90 4 250E 18-01-91 18-19-20Nov 1989 Roques Federal I I 10 Macan Dtto.Federal y 15800 05-12-73 1.529 30279 12-12-93 Miranda II Moerene Anzoateguty 94 935 19-12-73 1 534 30 285 20-12-73 2 663 26-11-92 4 520E 19-01-93 20-21-22Maro 1990 Suae 12 Lagunade La Neva Espartna 18.862 06-02-74 1.591 30.325 08-02-74 1641 05-06-91 34 758 18-07-91 02-03-04Mayo 1990 Restinga 13 Medanosde Coro Falc6n 91 280 06-02-74 1592 30.325 08-02-74 17-18-19Marzo 1993 Puapubficaa6neenGaceta

14 Lagunade Miranda 39 100 13-02-74 1607 30 337 22-02-74 1643 05-06-91 34758 18-07-91 03-04-05Abri 1991 Taeuigus 15 CreroEl Copey- NuavaEsparwa 7 130 27-02-74 1632 30342 02-03-74 1642 05-06-91 34 758 18-07-91 02-03-04Mayo 1990 JavitoVidalba 16 Aguarn- Guanco 585.750 07-03-74 1686 30 349 11-03-74 _ 26-27-28Enero 1994 ProxnnoConsejo de Minstros Guanlquto 17 Mormoy Falcon 32 090 26-05-74 113 30 408 27-05-74 19-20-21Mayo 1993 Pua pubbcaoneen Gaceta

18 El Guacharo Monagws 62.700 27-05-75 943 30 704 28-05-75 19 Terepainaa Lam 18650 14-04-76 1519 31000 10-06-76 20 Jua-Sansanfiana Bobve 330000 12-12-78 2 978 2417E 07-03-79 21 SerraniaLa Amazonas 1360 000 12-12-78 2 979 2 417E 07-03-79 Neblina 22 Yapacena Amazonas 320000 12-12-78 2 980 2 417E 07-03-79 23 Dwada-Marhuaca Amaonas 210000 12-12-78 2 981 2 417E 07-03-79 _ 28-29-30 Julo 1903 Pua pubbcanonen Gacetn ______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ofimral 24 Peninsulade Sucre 3'.500 12-12-78 2 982 2 417E 0'-03 '9

25 Oerrade Penja Zdhin 2952R0 12-12-70 2 983 2 41' E 07-03'9 21-22-23Abnl 1903 Pua pebhenenonen G-ceta ______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ofimin 26 ElTatni Tachirm 109100 12-12-'8 2984 2 417E 07-03-79 1844 19-0Q-°I 34050 05-12-91 ooinsulnalemron 27 SanEsteban Canbobo 43 500 14-01-.7 1430 33650 02-02-R- 01-0203 Julo 1992 Pua pubhnacornen Cac-tr (Jose Mignul Sanz) 28 JuanCnsotom Falcon 20000 06-05-R 1550 33-1S OS.12.R' I--I-19 Mario 1003 Pai pubhocnconenmeLo Falcon(Siera de 176cm] San Lan) nfic_a_ 29 SanlosLuzaedo Apuae S84368 24-02-88 2 010 33Q50 04-05-88 21-22-213Ot 1092 Plande Ordenainento y lCinnaeo)- RFglaen,nod I soon

30 Grl. Cmz Porruguesay 21 000 2S-05-88 2V0 i 330% 3000 88 11-12-13Nov 1992 Painpubbcacmon enC,aceta Caunhlo Tnjdlo Oficial (Georamncall ______Annex 1 Table 1.3 Page 2 of 2 31 Diraa Lara.Trajillo y 42.000 30-11-88 2.564 34.120 22-12-88 Feb. 1993 Parapubhcac6n en Gaceta Merday Taehra 95.200 18-01-89 2.716 34.148 31-01-80 _ 17-18-19 32 Gral.Juan P. ofical PeOalaoza (Puanos Batall6ny L. Nega 33 Chono El Indio Tachira 10800 07-12-89 641 4 158E 2S-01-90 13-14-15Abril 1993 Pua pubbeaci6nen Gaceta Siermde La Meriday Trujillo 200400 07-12-89 640 34,439 29-03-90 34 Oficial Culata 35 CeeroSaroche Luar 32 294 07-12-89 637 34 544 03-09-90 . _ _ . 36 Tunno Sucre 70 000 05-06-91 1.634 34 987 17-06-92 . 37 Deltadel Onmnoo DeltaAmacuro 331000 05-06-91 1.632 35.000 07-07-92 (Maiusa) 38 Cienagasde Juan Zulia 250.000- 05-06-91 1.631 35065 07-10-92 Manuel (Cataturnbo) 39 Paruina- Afrazonas 3.420.00 05-06-91 1.636 34.767 01-08-91 Taprmpeco 40 SanCamilo Apure 05-06-92 2.345 4.599E 01-07-93 (Rio Viejo) I 41 Gral.Manuel Cojedes y 91.000 05-06-92 2.346 4.548E 26-03-93 Mautque Yarucuy

42 El Guache Lar y 12.200 05-06-92 2.347 4.548E 26-03-93

43 Ta-Caro Bauinas,Menda y --- 14-01-93 2.759 4 548E 26-03-93 Tach__ Annex 1 Table 1.4 Page lof 2

VENEZUELA'S NATURAL MONUMENTS

No Monumooto Eslado(s) en quo Superfkk Fodia de No. No. de Fecha GCeta Plan de Ordenamlentoy No. del NC CGaet Fecha de Consulta Foha de Consulta Consojo de Obxerv- Nadoal eod localindo en Crmad6n Docreto Gacoa Ofidal Reghamnto de UIso Dwcreto Ofkial Gaceta Pubilca Pubica Mimsitros doos _ lenttorlalmente Hotireas Ofidal Si ELAB. NO OJldal SI NO Dfas Moo Aio SI NO I Cueva del Monagas 181 15-07-49 180 22.970 15-07-49 Guacharo (Alejandro Humboldt) 2 Ansbdes Rojas Guanco 2 755 11-11-49 318 23 073 14-11-49 (Moros de San Juan) 3 Cerro Maria Yaracuy 11712 18-03-60 234 26.210 18-03-60 . 2.338 35.141 28-01-93 . 28-29-30 Ag 1991 Lionza 4 Ceo Sta. Ana Falc6n 1900 14-06-72 1.005 29.832 16-06-72 17-18-19 Mar 1993 Pam publicaci6n en Gaceta ______Oficial~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fiia 5 Cenos Matastete Nueva Esparta 1 672 27-02-74 1 635 30 342 02-03-74 2 341 4.548 E 26-03-93 02-03-04 May 1990 y Guayarnun I 6 LasTetasde Nueva Esparta 1 670 27-02-74 1.634 30342 02-03-74 02-03-04 May 1990 Para Maria Guevara publicact6n en Gaceta I ~ ~ ~ ______Oficial 7 Laguna de Las Nueva Esprta 3 674 27-02-74 1 633 30.342 02-03-74 2 339 4.548 E 26-03-93 02-03-04 May 1990 Mantes _ 8 Cero Autana Amazonas 30 12-12-78 2.987 2 417 E 07-03-79 . 9 Piedra de Cocuy Amnazonas IS 12-12-78 2 986 2.417E 07-03-79 . 10 Morros de 99 12-12-78 2 988 2 417 E 07-03-79 . . Macairs Guanco I 11 Cuem Alfredo Miranda 58 12-12-78 2.989 2.417E 07-03-79

12 LagmmdeUrto Mdrida 29 18-06-79 172 31760 19-06-79 13 Chonera Las Menda 126 08-05-80 605 31.980 09-05-80 . Gonzalez 14 Juan Gennin Carabobo 8 000 04-02-87 1.462 33 664 20-02-87 Rosdo (Cerro Platili6n) 15 Lomnsde Le6n Lam 7 275 07-12-89 638 34 522 02-08-90 . 16 Los Tepuyes: 1069 820 02-11-90 1233 4 250 E 18-01-91 - Yunani Tepuy Bohvar Cerro Vanuano Bobvau - Cearo Yan Amnazonas - Seania Yutaje Amnazonas -Coro-coro - Ceno Bolvar Guaqunuma - Macizo Peru - Amnazonas Euaja - Cerros Carnani Amnazmnas y Morrocoy - CenToGuanay Amazonas - Kukenan (Matauu)Tepuy Bobvur - Macizo Cuao Sipapo y CenTo Moriche Arnazonas - Cenios Vmifflay Axtatiyope Amazonas - Sierra Unturan Amazonas Annex 1 Table 1.4 Page2 of 2

*sluma Bolivar y Ma bud Ameonas -Sierm Martani BoIv,r - Ceros Ichun y -CeMMoCo Bolivar - CerTo T.n y Amazols

Typrpec6 - Uci Tepuy BoOvar - Kaum Tepuy Bolivar - Uuf(Tnamen) Tepuy Bolivar - Wadaapmpuc Tepuy Boivar

17 Pico Codazzi Argua y 11.850 05-06-91 1637 34.819 1410-91 Mimnda is Meseta LGalera Menda 05-06-92 2.352 4.548 E 26-03-93 19 Abra Rio Fno Tachim 1.282 05-06-92 2.350 35. 156 18-02-93 20 Piedra de La Amazona 2.000 05-06-92 2.351 35.089 11-11-92 Tortgpay Piedra Pintada ______ANNEX 2 Page 1 of 4

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

EnvironmentalResearch Component

Background

1. The emphasis on research for national parks management has been growing fast over the last twenty years, as park management goals have shifted from simple control of trespassers to more active resource management, with a view to long-term sustainability. Also, the need to cope with increasing pressures from conflicting demands -- tourism, local community concerns, national development needs -- requires more and better problem-oriented research.

2. The project's research component aims to: (a) help strengthen the role of national parks as research resources for the country; (b) assist Venezuela to safeguard its rights with respect to research findings and the possible commercial use of its biodiversityresources; (c) focus research efforts and scarce resources on issues which are relevant to the sustainable management of national parks; (d) reinforce INPARQUES' capabilities to use research outcomes in the planning and day to day management of national park conservation; (e) and strengthen INPARQUES' ability to coordinate, foster and orient universities,NGOs and other private entities to carry out priority environmental research in national parks.

3. The research component was designed in consultation with: (a) INPARQUES, SADA-AMAZONAS and PROFAUNA, staff, both at the headquarters and regional offices, (b) university researchers, and (c) local and international NGOs. Furthermore two local consultants produced background documents and conducted a survey among natural resource researchers in two of Venezuelan Universities. A detailed presentation of the research program, including organization, management, and dissemination activities can be found in the following documents:

"Investigaciony Monitoreo Ambiental", M. Bevilacqua (INPARQUES) and P.Gutman (World Bank), July 1992. (in Spanish, in project files)

"Investigacionesprioritarias en los Parques Nacionales de Venezuela. Regi6n Marino Costera: Parques Nacionales Mochima, Laguna de Tacarigua, Archipelago Los Roques, y M&danosde Coro" J. Ochoa, Consultant, 1993. (in Spanish, in INPARQUES)

"Investigacionesy Estudios Cientfficosy T6cnicos en Parques Nacionales. Informe Final", C.R. Blanco, Consultant, 1992 (in Spanish, in ANNEX 2 Page 2 of 4

INPARQUES)

"Fortalecimiento del Sistema de Parques Nacionales y Monumentos Naturales del Territorio Federal Amazonas", W.Franco (SADA- AMAZONAS), M. Bevilacqua, R.Garcia, A. Invernon (INPARQUES), 1992 (in Spanish, in project files)

"Sistema de Informaci6n Geogrfirca de Parques Nacionales".Centro de Procesamiento Digital de Imagenes. Instituto de Ingenieria, para INPARQUES, 1992 (in Spanish, in INPARQUES)

4. The followingis a short description of the research program main components:

(a) Establishment of a data bank on existinginformation on Venezuela's national parks. This activity will strengthen the capacity of INPARQUES' documentation center, to identify and retrieve information.

(b) Rapid Ecological and Social Assessments of 10 national parks. INPARQUES has already applied this technique with support from The Nature Conservancy (an international NGO). This sub- component will use this proven approach to the study of the following national parks: Canaima; El Avila; H. Pittier; Los Roques; Maria Lionza; Mochima; Morrocoy; Sierra Nevada; Tam*; Yurubf.

(c) Preparation of thematic maps and geographic data bases for 8 National Parks: Canaima; El Avila, H. Pittier; Laguna de Tacarigua; Mochima; Morrocoy; Sierra Nevada; TamL

(d) Twenty-fiveapplied research projects to help solve management problems of non Amazonian national parks on issues such as tourism, fire, the activities of local populations in national parks and resource inventories and economic valuation of park services. Preliminary proposals for 23 research projects and detailed criteria for the management of this component are to be found in C.R. Blanco document mentioned above. They include: (i) tourism impact and development of green tourism in 7 national parks -- Los Roques, Laguna de Tacarigua, Canaima, Mochima, Morrocoy, Maria Lionza and Sierra Nevada; (ii) Fire prevention studies in parks -- Avila, Yurubf and Cinaruco-Capanaparo; (iii) Impact of farming and fishing in 5 national parks. -- Mochima (2 studies), Tami, Yurubf, Sierra Nevada, and Cinaruco-Capanaparo; (iv) Biodiversitysurveys in 5 national parks --Tamd, Sierra Nevada, Canaima, Cerro Copey and Cinaruco-Capanaparo; (v) ANNEX 2 Page 3 of 4

Management of coastal wetlands in 3 national parks --Laguna de Tacarigua, Laguna de la Restinga and Morrocoy.

Detailed terms of reference were prepared for the 3 research projects to be undertaken in the first year. They are: (a) land uses in ; (b) Assessment and monitoring of commercial fishing in Mochima National Park; and (c) Economic evaluation of costs and benefits of the National Parks system.

(e) Water quality studies in five national parks which face a high demand for swimmingand water sports: Mochima, Laguna de Tacarigua, Morrocoy, Laguna de La Restinga and Los Roques.

(f) In collaboration with SADA-AMAZONAS, preparation of management plans for three national parks and two groups of national monuments in the Amazon Federal Territory: La Neblina, Parima-Tapirapeco and Yapacana National Parks, and Autana-Sipapo and Ventuari Natural Monuments.

(g) In collaboration with SADA-AMAZONAS, 6 applied research projects in the Amazonian National parks as follows: (i) tourism impact assessment; (ii) impact of subsistence activities on the parks and their surroundings; (iii) impact of mining activities; (iv) health problems of indigenous populations in Amazonian natural parks; (v) indigenous use of forest resources; and (vi) study of endangered and sensitive botanic species.

(h) In collaboration with PROFAUNA, four wildlife population studies and management programs as follows:wildlife turtles monitoring; turtles management, oysters farming; alligators study and monitoring.

(i) In collaboration with PROFAUNA the equipment for two scientific stations to be jointly used by PROFAUNA and INPARQUES.

(j) A research dissemination program to foster the incorporation of research results into park management plans and practices.

(k) Appointment of a research management team during the five years of the project.

(1) Technical support of an external consultant. The TOR are already available. (The cost of this sub-component appears in the project's Institutional Development component). ANNEX 2 Page 4 of 4

(m) Training activities for the INPARQUES staff on information techniques and the use of environmental research for parks management. (The cost of this sub-component appears in the project's Institutional Development component).

(n) Construction of five stations to support research activities. They will be located in Laguna de Tacarigua, Canaima, Tama, Cinaruco - Capanaparo and Morrocoy . The last two stations will be equipped (see component Yi above) and will be operated by PROFAUNA on a permanent basis. The first three stations will not be equipped, as they will be used to support non permanent research programs and will also be available for rent to Universities, NGOs and other research projects. (The costs of this sub-component appear in the project's Strengthening of Parks Management and Protection component).

m:\ve\inparq\sar\annex2.bc ANNEX 3 Page 1 of 2

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

EnvironmentalEducation Component

Backgfround

1. INPARQUES presently has two units dedicated to environmental education: (a) the Directorate of Environmental Education and Recreation, under the General Sectoral Directorate of Parks and Recreation, which deals mainly with educational activities in the urban recreational parks; and (b) the Environmental Education, Interpretation and Dissemination Division, under the General Sectoral Directorate of National Parks, which works in the national parks.

2. INPARQUES' educational activitiescan be classified as active and passive. Active education involves direct interaction with the public through specially trained personnel such as guides or facilitators (e.g., excursions and camping events, guided tours, cultural events, etc.). Passive education involves the preparation and dissemination of environmental messages without such direct interaction (e.g., audiovisual and printed materials, signs, exhibitions, etc.). In addition, INPARQUES provides training for environmental education facilitators (e.g., workshops for guides of ecological games, camping guides, guides for the interpretation of nature, basic school teachers, etc.).

Environmental Education Component

3. The project would expand environmental education activities,both at the regional and local levels, to disseminate information, raise the level of knowledge about environmental issues and their linkages with economic development, and engage the active participation of the community in supporting environmental conservation. The focus would be on three groups: (a) communities of fishermen, hunters, farmers and others residing in areas adjacent to national parks; (b) school age children, youths and their families, and volunteer conservation associations; and (c) the broader public, through educational messages to be read or heard in visitors' centers, on radio or television, etc.

4. Over a five-year period, the project would train at least 4,500 guides and facilitators more than 100,000persons would be exposed to active education programs; and more than eight million persons would be exposed to various kinds of environmental education messages. If successful,this public educational effort should lead to noticeable changes in public perceptions and behavior, in support of natural resource conservation. The strategy for reaching this relatively large number of people is based on:

(a) Intensive educational use of the recreational parks which serve some of Venezuela's largest urban centers. ANNEX 3 Page 2 of 2

(b) Maximizingthe multiplier effect of facilitators and guides (both volunteers and part-time workers who are not regular INPARQUES' staff).

(c) The strategic location of Information Centers and Visitors Centers in the national and recreational parks.

5. Consistent with its overall decentralization plans, INPARQUES' educational activities would be regionalized. A small central office in Caracas would be responsible for strategic planning, national coordination and program evaluation. Regional coordinators located in INPARQUES' regional offices would be responsible for regional planning; and for liaison with public institutions, NGOs and community groups. State coordinators and their staff would be based either in INPARQUES' state offices or in the Visitors Centers of the national and recreational parks and monuments.

6. Regional coordinators would be directly responsible for managing facilitators and guides, coordinating with local fire prevention and combat efforts, and maintaining liaison with local community associations, local and international NGOs, educational groups and the staff of PROFAUNA.

7. The project would support educational and planning equipment and materials for the Central Office, Visitors Centers and Information Centers; training costs; and incremental staffing costs. The detailed description of the component activities, its organization and management is to be found in the document:

'Venezuela, Proyecto INPARQUES - Banco Mundial. Documento de Trabajo. Componente Educaci6n Ambiental", 1992 (in Spanish, in project files)

8. Other activities related to the Environmental Education Component, which are included in other project components are:

(a) A limited number of facilities to be built in national parks and recreational parks to support education activities. The cost of this sub-component is budgeted in the project's Strengthening of Parks Management and Protection component.

(b) A consultant specialized in community environmental education and extension that would be retained on a part-time basis during the project years 1, 3 and 5, to orient and evaluate INPARQUES' educational program. The cost of this consultant is budgeted in the project's Institutional Development component.

m:\ve\inparq\sar\annex3.bc ANNEX 4 Page 1 of 8

VENFZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

Institutional Development Component

Background

1. By Latin American standards, INPARQUES is a relatively successful protected areas management agency. Most of the wildlands and parks for which INPARQUES is responsible are not "paper parks", but rather have at least some basic infrastructure and on-site management activities. Total visitsto the urban parks and wildlandsexceed 10 million and one million a year, respectively. In addition, INPARQUES has a sizable cadre of well-trained and motivated personnel at both the technical and administrative levels. The fire control program and the award-winningenvironmental education program are excellent examples of how to involve the larger public in protected areas management.

2. Nonetheless, various institutional weaknesses affect INPARQUES' capability. For the most part, these relate to the over-centralization of administrative and technical support functions, and staffing, in Caracas, which results in inefficient servicingand backstopping of the administrativeneeds (programming,budgeting, purchasing, contracting, personnel services and technical support) of the more distant parks. Until recently, all parks near Caracas, and some others as far away as Morrocoy, as well as most special programs (e.g., environmental education, fire prevention and control) were micro-managedfrom the central office. Hence, an exceedingly high number of employees are based and administered out of Caracas (essentially, INPARQUES' relative levels of staff strength at the central, regional and state, and park levels is an inverted pyramid). At present (December 1994), INPARQUES has 1,375 staff, of which 1,164 are permanent employees and 207 are on short-term contracts. Of the permanent staff, 217 are professional and technical, 194 administrative, and 710 laborers. Of the total permanent and contracted staff, 311 are assigned to the central office in Caracas and to the Capital Region; an additional 11 work on the fire prevention and control special program managed out of Caracas and many of these are therefore physicallylocated in Caracas. Only 411 are assigned to regional and state offices and to parks not managed from Caracas. Little differentiation is made between the role of Caracas as a national headquarters, responding to the needs of all national parks, and its regular support of those parks located in the capital region.

3. At the same time, the number of regional offices is greater than necessary, and they do not possess the critical staff, infrastructure and equipment, training, or authority to be able to exercise direct administrative or technical functions in the parks. On the other hand, their staffing levels exceed those needed to discharge day-to-day support functions for the parks. At the park level, INPARQUES' field strength is very low, in terms of the supervisory, technical and ranger staff needed to deal with fire control, poaching, visitor management, etc. INPARQUES currently has only about 231 rangers, most with less than a high school education and with limited specialized training. ANNEX 4 Page 2 of 8

4. Finally, despite the centralization of staff numbers and skills, INPARQUES needs further strengthening in the areas of strategic planning and policy to set and implement the institution's long-term goals; and financial planning to improve INPARQUES' sustainability, through improved systemsof fee charging and collection, and better mobilization of domestic and international public and private support. INPARQUES currently relies on annual central government budgets and services provided by state and local governments for most of its requirements. Although it has made important strides in recent years, INPARQUES still has relatively little experience in fund raising and proposal writing to obtain support from other sources.

Institutional Development Component - Decentralization and AdministrativeReform

5. To address the above issues, INPARQUES has developed a Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, which is under implementation and which the project would continue to support. The plan was reviewed during appraisal. The main elements include a realignment of the institutional chain of command and structure; shifting to the regions and state offices of many of the functions currently carried out by the central office; expansion of park rangers and other staff and infrastructure at park level; strengthening of the capacity of a much leaner and more efficient central office to supervise and coordinate planning, policy, administrativeprocedures and technical support; reform of INPARQUES' recruitment, training and incentives policies to professionalize and upgrade staff at all levels; and essential investments in training, infrastructure and equipment to implement these changes.

6. A revamped and streamlined INPARQUES, better equipped to complete its mission, is the guiding objective of the institutional strengthening component. Eight specific goals are as follows:

(a) Strengthening of the senior management and operations of the institution at all levels through a reformed, leaner management structure.

(b) Development of a comprehensive training program for current and new staff, and of career incentives for improving personnel performance.

(c) Greater delegation of administrativeand operational responsibilityto regional offices and field management units.

(d) Decentralization of the management of urban recreational areas and nature reserves of primarily local or regional importance to other institutions.

(e) Maximizingthe efficiency and effectiveness of INPARQUES' limited financial and human resources and its capacity to generate a greater share of its own operating expenses.

(fi) Strengthening of INPARQUES' capacity to draw on the influence and technical and financial support of potential collaborators at both the national and ANNEX 4 Page 3 of 8

international level.

(g) Increasing citizen participation at all levels in planning, policy making and program implementation of INPARQUES.

7. Central Office Reorganization. INPARQUES has already taken important steps for the reorganization of the Central Office. To function efficiently,INPARQUES' central office should not get involved in the day-to-day operations of parks or special programs. As part of the Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, on October 21, 1993, the National Capital Region Office was created absorbing all personnel and responsibilities attached at the time to the central office for management and supervisionof the national parks and recreation areas in the Federal Department, Miranda and federal dependent territories.

8. Responsibility for 11 of the 13 special programs existing in 1992 was passed to the National Capital Regional Office on October 21, 1993. Progress is being made on the elimination of the special program of the park Los Roques. The special fire fighting related program of search, rescue and life saving will remain as a special program at the central level because it covers the entire country and it implies the coordination between a number of agencies.

9. As part of the continuing implementation of the plan a number of functions which are currently dispersed and sometimes duplicated among the sectoral directorates of national parks, infrastructure and recreational parks would be combined by functional area. The technical staff at the central level would not have direct supervisory responsibilities for their programmatic areas at the region and park level. They would instead play a strong role in backstopping regional staff and in defining overall policy and procedures for their areas of technical expertise. Many tasks currently carried out directly by INPARQUES' staff would be contracted out, improving flexibilityand reducing costs.

10. Purchases of up to Bs. 2 million, contracts for services up to Bs. 3.5 million and those for construction up to Bs. 4 million (all in 1995 Bolivares) would be handled by the regions, as well as cooperative agreements and concessionswhich do not commit land and buildings for the long-term. Therefore, the role of the central office administrative support staff would be limited to only very large purchases and large contracts, cooperative agreements, and overall coordination and definition of operational plans, budgets, finance, purchases, and norms and procedures (e.g., bidding, disbursements, etc.).

11. The total staff size of the central office would be around 150 individuals:nearly 100 less employees than in 1992. However, the professional profile would be greatly enhanced, with fewer unskilled workers and lower-level technicians and more professionals. higher level technicians and more experienced secretaries. Through the training sub-component, opportunities would be offered to all INPARQUES professional and technical staff to increase their capacity or gain proficiency in performing new tasks.

12. Regional Office Reorganization. As a fundamental step in the decentralization and administrativestrengthening process, INPARQUES' 15 regional offices would be consolidated ANNEX 4 Page 4 of 8 into eight greatly strengthened offices with greater responsibilities,staff levels, and geographic scopes. Three regional offices have already been established. The regions, the states, and the national parks and monuments they include, would be the following:

(a) National Capital Region (headquartered in Caracas, but not at the central office). This region would include the Federal District, Miranda, and federal territories. Parks and monuments in this region would include Guatopo, Tacarigua, El Avila, Macarao, Los Roques, Cueva Alfredo Jahn, and Pico Codazzi. It was created on October 21, 1993.

(b) Falcon-Zulia Region (headquartered in Coro, Falcon), and including the states of Falcon and Zulia. Parks and monuments in the region would include Perija, Cienega de Catatumbo, Morrocoy, Quebrada de la Cueva del Toro, Medanos de Coro, Sierra de San Luis, and the Cerro Santa Ana. It was created on October 21, 1993.

(c) CentrocOocidente Region (headquartered in Barquisimeto), and including the states of Lara, Yaracuy and Portuguesa. Parks and monuments in the region would be Yacambu, Terrepaima, Cerro Saroche, Loma de Le6n, Shurubi, Maria Lionza, Dinira, and Guache. To be created in 1997.

(d) Amazonas Region (headquartered in Puerto Ayacucho), would include only parks and monuments in the State of Amazonas. They are Serranfa La Neblina, Yapacana, Duida-Marahuaka, Parima-Tapirapeco, Piedra de Cocuy, , and that part of the Tepuys Natural Monuments that is in the State of Amazonas. It was created on November 8, 1993.

(e) Andean Region (headquartered in MWrida),would include the states of MWrida, Trujillo, Tichira and Barinas, and the parks and monuments of Sierra Nevada, Sierra La Culata, Laguna de Arao, La Chorrera-La Gonz6lez, Guramacoy, El Tam*, Chorro del Indio, Los Paramos de Batall6n y la Negra, and Urivante. To be created in 1997.

(f) Nororiente Region (headquartered in Ciudad Bolivar),would include the states of Sucre, AnzoAteguiand Nueva Esparta, and the parks and monuments of Laguna de la Restinga, Cerro El Copey, Laguna de la Merites, , Cerros Matasiete y Guamuri, Mochima, Peninsula de Paria, and Turuepano. To be created in 1996.

(g) Southeast Region (headquartered in Maturfn) would include the states of Bolivar, Delta and Monagas, and the parks and monuments of Canaim4, Jaua- Sarisarinama, El Guacharo, Alejandro de Humboldt, Mariusa-Delta, and Tepuyes in the state of Bolivar. To be created in 1996.

(h) Centro Region (headquartered in Maracay), would include the states of Aragua and Carabobo and the parks of Henri Pittier, San Est6ban and Platill6n. To ANNEX 4 Page 5 of 8

be created in 1996.

13. Each regional office would house about 12 professional employees, five technicians, four secretaries and one worker. Each Regional Office would also include a State Coordinating Office. It would be responsible for direct supervision and logisticalsupport to all management units within the state (or states, if more than one state is in a region), provision of information and formal and informal environmental education to the public about the national park system, and coordination of activities with and seeking of support from state and local government agencies, other national agencies, and the private sector. Each office would also coordinate volunteer recruitment for their state(s), a function that would become increasingly important in INPARQUES. The State Coordinator would be a professional and he/she would be supported by an executive assistant (a technician) and a secretary. The size of this office would be a function of the number of states covered by the regional office and the importance of the parks within each state. In states where little construction activity is planned, the design specialist and works supervisor positions could be combined into a post for one architect or engineer. The total number of full time staff for the eight regional offices is estimated at about 178, with an additional 24 staff for the 8 State Coordinating Offices associated with the regional offices. Wherever possible, when there are several nearby protected areas for which INPARQUES has responsibility,these would be managed by a single superintendent with overall supervisory responsibility.

14. To test the viability of this model INPARQUES would review the experience of the three regional offices created in 1993by the end of 1995 and propose the alterations to the Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan stemming from the review. This review should address the size of the area covered by the offices and their staffing needs.

15. Field Management Units. When several protected areas are located in close proximity (eg., a national park and two nearby monuments; a group of tepuy monument sites; several recreation areas; or a park, monument and recreation area), these should become a single management unit with one superintendent wherever this is feasible. Many sectors of large national parks are much more complex in their management than small recreation areas and national monuments or even small national parks. Thus, a sector chief for a large complex national park should be hierarchicallyequal to directors of smaller and less complex individual management units. At the management unit level, the number of professional, technical and support staff needed would vary considerably. However, the basic outline of responsibilities by program would remain the same, even though in smaller and less complicated areas an individual employee might have to fulfill a wider range of functions.

16. The management structure would include the superintendent and protection, resource management, and administration divisions. Like at the regional level, no specific drivers, maintenance or security personnel would be on permanent payroll. Specific construction jobs, research, etc., would all be done by contract. The size of the revolving or petty cash fund for each management unit would be increased to levels which permit purchase of most supplies, disposable equipment, and similar items without requiring intervention by state or regional offices. A limited number of the largest and most complex parks, mainly south of the Orinoco where management arrangements are the weakest (Canaima, Mariusa, Cinaruco-Capanaparo, ANNEX 4 Page 6 of 8

Guariquito, and Amazon parks and tepuys), and those parks with the greatest public impact and management threats, would require special strengthening measures.

17. Current levels of staff at almost all national parks and monuments in Venezuela are still too low to guarantee effective protection and address the basic needs which were identified through the rapid analysis of management problems which was carried out during project preparation. While it is possible to reduce staff greatly at INPARQUES' central office, and to make a significant improvement in effectiveness without a major increase in staff numbers at the regional and state offices, the same does not followfor individual parks and monuments.

18. Recreational Parks. Unlike the national parks and monuments, for which the central government is unequivocallyresponsible under both national law and international agreements, many recreational parks are already managed by state and local governments, NGOs and commissions. INPARQUES would further reduce its role in managing urban recreation areas. INPARQUES has already taken important strides in passing urban park management responsibilities to local and state governments. From 107 urban parks in 1992, 5 were transferred in 1993, 3 in 1994 and 6 transfers are expected for 1995, reducing the total number of urban parks to 93. The target is to reduce these to about 50 by the end of the project. INPARQUES would seek to remain involved in the management of mainly recreational parks in major population hubs, which can be used for public education purposes to reinforce conservation messages regarding the importance of the national parks and monuments to a large urban audience of potential users and/or citizens who may never visit the more remote parks and monuments. For those parks which would be turned over to state and municipal governments, NGOs and inter-institutional groups, INPARQUES would continue to play a technical assistance role.

Training

19. The project training sub-component would support INPARQUES' management and staff in carrying out the Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan and in implementing the project. This sub-component would finance:

(a) Formal training courses coordinated by INPARQUES in three high priority areas covering about 65 different course modules: (i) management, financial and administration skills,techniques and procedures; (ii) park management and related technical subjects; and (iii) computer skills.

(b) Equipment and other investments needed to carry out the training programs at: (i) the Rancho Grande Training Center (an existing building in the Henri Pittier Nation Park, which requires rehabilitation and furnishing); and (ii) the Training Coordination Unit (involving an extension of about 70 m2 which would be added to INPARQUES' existing single-storyheadquarters building).

(c) Selected training activities offered outside of INPARQUES, including some short-term foreign study. ANNEX 4 Page 7 of 8

(d) Acquisition of supplemental training materials (e.g., technical books) for INPARQUES' regional and central offices, major national park ranger posts, and the library at the Rancho Grande Training Center.

Technical Assistance

20. The project technical assistance sub-component would finance approximately 29 consultant-years of specialiststo advise INPARQUES on critical administrative and technical matters. Six of the consultants would work with INPARQUES counterpart staff to bring about rapid improvements in the areas of:

(a) administration of goods and services

(b) personnel management

(c) internal control

(d) management of civil works

(e) planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation

(f) financial management

21. Terms of reference for these six specialistswere reviewed and agreed during appraisal. These consultants would begin work well before the date of loan effectiveness, under retroactive financing. INPARQUES is also preparing terms of reference for specialists in the following areas:

(a) Overall project administration, with particular attention to timely and smooth execution of INPARQUES' Decentralization and AdministrativeReform Plan.

(b) Improving the management of national and recreational parks.

(c) Implementation and fine-tuning of INPARQUES' training program.

(d) Implementation of the project applied research component.

(e) Environmental education and promotion of local community participation in park management.

(f) Analysis of options to improve INPARQUES' recurrent cost recovery.

(g) Mobilizationof external financing and support from international development agencies, NGOs, private foundations and businesses, etc.

(h) Economic valuation of protected areas. ANNEX 4 Page 8 of 8

(i) Approximately 12 consultant-months of specialized short-term consultancies to meet unanticipated needs as they arise.

m:\ve\inparq\sar\annex4.bc ANNEX 4 Table 4.1 VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

Eisting Personnel in the Project's Protcted Areas Administrative | Parks National Maintenance Drivers National ParIcs GIurds Guards WorIers Aguaro-Guariquito 3 24 ae 1 Canaimi 3 60 1 ||

Duida-Marahuaca - - 1 1/ El Avila 10 60 - 1

El Copey 3 16 - 2 1

El Tama 3 20 4 - 1

La Ncblina j/ 3 - - - 1 Laguna Restinga 3 8 2 14 1

Laguna Tacarigua 3 8 - 6 1 Los Roques 3 12 6 4 1

Henri Pittier 3 35 - 40 2 Maria Lionza 3 18 5 30 1

Mcdanos de Coro 3 12 - - 1 Mochima 3 16 10 1 Morrocoy 3 16 30 1

Parima-Tapirapeco - - - -

Santos Luzardo 3 8 - Sicrra Nevada 3 24 8 1

Yapacana 1/ 3 - - -

Yurubi 3 18 -

Wildlife Refuges

Cuare 1 4 |

Tortuga Arrau .- 1 P.T. -

1/ Amazon Parks P.T. = Part-Time ANNEX 4 Table 4.2 VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT Additional Regional Staff Under Project NationalParks North of the Orinoco AdmmistrativeI/ Technical Staff Parc Guards Other Aguaro-Guariquito 4 13 24 7anaimi 4 16 60 El Avila 3 22 60 El Copey 2 7 16 El Tama 4 10 20 Laguna Restinga 4 11 20 Laguna Tacarigua 4 11 20 Los Roques 3 10 12 Henri Pittier 4 12 60 Maria Lionza 2 9 18 Medanos de Coro 4 11 12 Mochima 4 13 30 Morocoy 13 16 Cinaruco-Capanaparo 4 14 16 Sierra Nevada 4 14 30 Yurubi 4 10 18 Sub-Total: 57 196 432 AmazonianNational Parks and NaturalMonuments Pto. Ayacucho/La Esmeralda 2 5 -1 Duida-Marahuaca 12 La Neblina 1 12 1 Parima-Tapirapeco 1 12 Yapacana 1 12 1

Autana-Sipapo N.M. 1 -12 Ventuari N.M. 1 14 1 Sub-Total 7 5 74 1 Wildlife Refuges Cuare Tortuga Arrau Sub-Total: _ __ __ Recreational Parks Andres Eloy Blanco 10 2 12 Parque del Este 15 4 24 6 Guariqueri 10 2 6 Miochoa Pile 12 2 6 Metro de Maracay 10 2 15 Punta Palmita 10 2 10 Zoo Caricuao 12 4 18 6 Sub-Total: 79 18 91 12 Total: 143 219 597 30 1 Includes administrators, administrative assistants and technical supervisors.

m:\ve\inparq\wr\anx4t4.2.bc April 5, 1995 ANNEX 4 Table 43

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT

Proposed Technical Staffing Needs Matrix Resources Management Program

PROFESSIONAIS IECMUCAL (SUPERIORES)

PARXS MAR} | ING. |1IG | I 1KG. TOURIR/ | _ ES ENV. B10. BIO.| ~~~~FOR O |FR AGRNGR . ANr. |GEO. E CO. I_NG'| MAINT. TR'EU_RJ X-|FSL|MM.|E.|* MG MT.ED IE

LAs Roques X X X X X X X

El Avila X X X X X X X X

Morrocoy X X X X X X X

Marfa X X X X X X X Uonza

Mochima X X X _ X X X X X X |

Canaima X X X X X X X X

H. Pittier X X X x X

Sierra X X X X X X X Nevada

Cerro X X X X X Copey ______

Aguaro- X X X x x x x Guariquito _ _ _ _ _

El Tami X X X X X X X

Laguna X X X X X X X X Tacarigua

Yurubi X X X X X X

Laguna de X X X X X La Restinga ______

M6danos de X X X X X X Coro Cina__o_ I f I __x x [ x Jx jx Jx Ix CEapanaparo x|

MAR. BIO.: Marine Biologist SOC: Sociologist ENG. FOR.: Forest Engineer ING. AGR: Agricultural Engineer ANT.: Anthropologist GEO.: Geographer ECO.: Ecologist ING. MAINT.: Maintenance Engineer TOUR./REC.: Tourism/Recreation EXT.: Extension FISH.: FLsheries RES. MGMT.: Resources Management ENV. ED.: Environmental Education m:\we\kprq\sw\*=,t4-T3bc ANNEX 4 Table 4.4 Page 1 of 2

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECI

list of Studies and Consultants

Swdies YearIof | Dat TOR | Ageen" lble

A. PARKSMANAGEMENT RESEARCH STUDIES

Water qualityin Mochima 1996 Nov95 INPARQUES

Water qulity in Lapn de Tawl- 1996 Nov95 INPARQUES

Waer quiy anMormcoy 1996 Nov 95 INPARQUES

Waer qualityin Lap de la Ranip 1997 March 96 INPAROUES

Waoerqualit n Lao Raques 1997 Marcb 96 INPARQUES

Raid ecololicalandlaccial - 1996througb 1996 Nov 9I NPARQUES Tum impa aat (Ama ) 1996through 1996 Nov 95 SADA-AMAZONAS

Impt o sultence actities in parks (Amazon) 1996througb 1999 Nov 95 SADA-AMAZONAS

Impactof miningacdvities in park (Amazoon) 1996tbmugb 1999 Nov 95 SADA-AMAZONAS

Soda-economicand healh tudies of local communities(Amaxa) 1996tbrugb 1999 Nov 95 SADA-AMAZONAS

Ecolgicl studiesof initor and endangeredapede (Amazonas) 1996througb 1999 Nov96 SADA-AMAZONAS

Oyter productionto Cuam 1996 Nov 95 PROFAUNA

Arrea turtk 1996 hrugb 1999 Nov 95 PROPAUNA

Tunle fing 1996dtrgb 1999 Nov 95 PROFAUNA

Populatio of co1t caman 1996 Nov 95 PROFAUNA

Torim p l and damap 1997 March 96 INPARQUES

Fir inddcdmnand dc - 1997 March 96 INPAROUES

Local p-pation tes iakde pak 1997tbhcugb 1999 Matcb 96 INPAROUES

Reoce iventodes In ae d pas 1997through 1999 Marcb 96 INPARQUES ANNEX 4 Table 4.4 Page 2 of 2

Studks Yyearofstudy |DaeTORs | Aaenq pcolbk

B. OTHER STUDIES

Bdese estimateaf inpaa indAnatora 1996 Ready INPARQUES

Own reenues 1995 Ready INPARQUES

Eoonomicvluation of parb 1995through 1997 Ready INPAROUES

C CONSULTANTS

Prowemmentof goodsand srvioes 1995 througb 1999 Ready INPARQUES

Managmoentof pesond 1995througb 1999 Ready INPARQUES

Interal control 1995tbrougb 1999 Ready INPARQUES

Civilengineering 1995througb 1999 Ready INPARQUES

Fminmialmanagement 1995througb 1999 Ready INPAROUES

Research mangement 1995 througb 1999 Ready INPAROUES

Partiepatnonsrteg 1995through 1999 Ready INPARQUES

Ownrevenue generation 1995througb 1999 Ready INPARQUES

Mobilizationof ernal reours 1995through 199 Ready INPARQUES

m:\w\inrp\sar\am4t4"bc April 5, 1995 ANNEX 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 4

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

Terms of Reference

Consultant for INPARQUES Own Revenues

Objective:

1. Assist INPARQUES in strengthening its capacity to generate and collect own revenues.

Duration:

2. 12 months

Responsibilities and activities:

3. The consultant will assist INPARQUES in strengthening its capacity to generate and collect own revenues through activities in three areas: (a) INPARQUES internal organization for the activities of generating and collecting own revenues; (b) studies necessary to support the development of own revenue strategies; and (c) programming and execution of activities with the public (visitors to National Parks, concessionaires,foundations and public in general).

4. The consultant will assist INPARQUES in initiating the own revenue strategy included in the Financial Plan agreed with the Bank (Annex 5). This would include supporting INPARQUES in the following areas:

(a) Proposing and introducing institutional adjustments necessary within INPARQUES at the central and regional levels, including the creation of incentives for collection of own revenues in the National Parks administrationsin the Regional Offices to increase the rate of revenue collection.

(b) Proposing and establishing a permanent program for controlling the number of visitors to parks and a system of periodic surveys on the socio-economic characteristics and motivations of park users.

(c) Proposing, preparing and supervisingthe execution of studies necessary to update existing tariffs and introduce new tariffs, including the following:

(1) Studies related to own revenue capture associated with the benefits of watershed protection. On June 5, 1992, the Government of Venezuela approved the creation of the Investment Fund for Watershed Conservation, to be ANNEX 4 ATrACHMBENT1 Page 2 of 4

administered by the Ministry of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, and which would be financed with special tariffs equal to 0.5% of the water charges and 1% of the hydroelectric energy charges. An approximate calculation suggests that such a fund could recover annually about US$8 million.' National Parks and Natural Monuments cover approximately30% of the area of upper watersheds and this could serve as an indicative and a basis for negotiating the share of revenues that INPARQUES should receive from that fund.

(2) Studies related to tariff charges for the installation of public and private infrastructure and other commercial uses inside National Parks. Due to their strategic location, many National Parks and Natural Monuments were chosen as locations for the infrastructure of radio, TV and other telecommunication firms. A partial survey of these installations done in 1991 identified 109 private anthenas and 43 public anthenas inside 10 National Parks and Natural Monuments. Other important users include mineral water bottling firms, oil pipelines, electric transmission lines and transportation corridors. There are relevant experiences in other countries that show there is room for generating substantial revenues by charging these firms for the rights to install infrastructure, either in financial resources or services (e.g. TV time for environmental education).

(3) Studies to update payments of tourism operators inside or around National Parks and Protected Areas. INPARQUES already charges tourist operators and concessionaires inside national parks and natural monuments, but existingtariffs are extremely low and vary widely. INPARQUES needs to carry out a detailed study of the level of tariffs to charge commercial operators with the objective of reducing variability and increase the transparency of how these charges are set. The level of charges should be set in order for INPARQUES to capture a larger proportion of the economic rent being generated, part of which are associated with the monopolistic or oligopolisticnature of the business. The study should also include analyses and proposals for the gradual introduction of competitive bidding for the rights

I At 1992 prices and data the urban consumptionof water is about 70 m3/second, and at an averageprice of 20 Bs./m3 total potentiaLrevenues are about 44,150million Bs. wnuaLly.Assuming only 25X of theserevenues are coltected,0.5X of the revenuescollected areabout 55 mitLionBs. annually.For the estimationof energya productionlevel of about 50,000 millionkw/hour was assumed. Consideringthat the energyprice to distributorsIs 0.98 Bolivarper kw, revenuesamount to about49,000 miLLions Bs. annually,1X of which is 490 millionBs. ANNEX 4 ATTACHMENT1 Page 3 of 4

to carry out commercial touristic activities inside parks. Finally the study needs to consider how to capture economic rent from tourist operators located outside but close to parks and which benefit from the park existence.

(4) Studies related to visitor's willingnessto pay for visits to parks. The infrastructure investments and additional services associated with the INPARQUES project will improve services to visitors and the capacity to collect visitor charges. The Venezuelan public is not used to paying for the recreational use of natural resources but would more readily accept paying for associated services such as improved infrastructure, information, visitor activities,guided tours, etc.). This study would survey visitors to National Parks (origin, expenditures, income, etc.) in order to generate information about willingnessto pay for specific categories of services and to permit the estimation of the optimal levels of charges. This study would also provide information necessary for the calculation of charges to concessionaires and tourist operators.

(d) Design and supervise public communications programs to explain own revenue policies to the public in general, concessionaires and possible donors, including the following:

(1) Design of a public campaign to explain to visitors to National Parks and Natural Monuments why they need to contribute to the maintenance costs of INPARQUES.

(2) Design of a fund raising campaign among national and international donors. In recent years INPARQUES has been relatively successful in obtaining donations from Venezuelan and international institutions, including Fundaci6n Polar, Petr6leos de Venezuela and affiliates, Proctor & Gamble, European Community, private Banks, US National Parks Service, Nature Conservancy,Wildlife International, Econatura, Terramar, etc. There is potential for increasing these sources of revenue and INPARQUES needs a strategy for tapping these resources.

5. The consultant should maintain close communication with the team responsible for the study on Costs and Benefits of National Parks in order to (a) avoid duplicating activities; and (b) make the best use of the results in the design of own revenue policies for INPARQUES.

Fxpect products

6. The consultantshould produce the followingoutputs: ANNEX 4 AlTACHMlENT 1 Page 4 of 4

(1) A detailed proposal of the activities to be carried out, including the ones listed above.

(2) Detailed Terms of Reference for the studies listed above.

(2) Quarterly supervision reports on the progress of studies and activities under his/her responsibility.

Qualificationsof consultant

7. The following qualifications are essential:

(1) At least 10 years experience in management of national parks or other protected areas.

(2) Familiaritywith methodologies for evaluating willingnessto pay, conducting surveys, designing mechanismsfor collecting tariffs, and conducting public communicationscampaigns.

(3) Familiaritywith international and/or Venezuelan conservation institutions.

(4) Fluency in Spanish, good writing and oral skills, and ability to work in teams.

uc\ve\brq\saaz\sn4sttLbc Aprl 6i 1995 ANNEX 4 ATrACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 3

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

Terms of Reference

Fnancial ManagementAdvisor

Objective

1. To bring about rapid improvement in INPARQUES' financial management, as related to cash flow, revolving funds, petty cash (cajas chicas), investment of idle money, and similar issues. (There are separate terms of reference for consultants in (i) recurrent cost recovery and pricing policy and (ii) mobilizingexternal financing.)

Duration

2. 6 months before and/or during Year 1; 3 months each during Years 2-5 of the Project.

Principal problems to be addressed:

3. The consult would assist INPARQUES in the solution of the following problems:

(a) There is excessive centralization of financial management functions in the Central office, resulting in (i) significant payment delays and (ii) administrative inefficiency;

(b) Cash flow in INPARQUES is not smooth; short-term cash deficits often arise unnecessarily;

(c) Idle money (dinero ocioso)--such as money which has been committed but not yet disbursed--often is not earning the best possible rate of return for INPARQUES; and

(d) Financial management data within INPARQUES is not organized in an effective manner, resulting in misunderstandings about how much money is available for making specific payments. ANNEX 4 ATTACHMENT2 Page 2 of 3

Duties and activitiesto be performed:

4. Working with selected counterpart staff, the consultant should:

(a) Implement a new system of financial management at INPARQUES' Central, Regional, and Park levels (taking into account the ongoing decentralization). To the extent needed, this system should be standardized across the Regional offices, to facilitate easy processing by the Central office. Among other improvements, this new financial management system should:

(1) Provide ways to optimize cash flow within INPARQUES; and

(2) Enable INPARQUES to earn the best possible rate of return on its idle funds, consistent with (i) Venezuelan law and (ii) the safety of the funds.

(b) Organize the data needed for optimum financial management in a computerized system which is easy to use and maintain, at the Central and each Regional office. Also, provide on-the-job training to key INPARQUES staff in (i) how to use the system to obtain needed data efficiently and (ii) how to keep the system up- to-date; and

(c) Recommend specific follow-up training, as needed, for selected key staff to enable them to manage INPARQUES funds effectively and efficiently.

Productsand outputs expected

5. The followingoutputs are expected during and by the end of the consultancy:

(a) A new system for financial management at INPARQUES, with clear written procedures;

(b) A new computerized system for storing and managing financial data;

(c) A written description of the recommended follow-up training in financial management for key INPARQUES staff; and

(d) A brief progress report after every 3 months of work (i.e. twice before and/or during Year 1 and once during each of Years 2-5). Each progress report should indicate (i) the specific recommended changes in INPARQUES' financial management system, (ii) the extent to which these changes have been implemented, and (iii) the extent of observed improvements, such as shorter and fewer payment delays, fewer or no short-term financial crises (due to ANNEX 4 ATTACEIMENT2 Page 3 of 3

cash flow rather than budgetary constraints), and a higher rate of return on idle funds. A copy of each progress report should be sent to the World Bank, along with the comments of INPARQUES' higher-level staff.

Necary qualifications

6. The following qualifications are essential:

(a) Substantial prior experience in successfullyreforming the financial management systems of specific public sector agencies, particularly in Latin America;

(b) A thorough knowledge of different types of financial management systems,along with the advantages and disadvantages of each;

(c) A good understanding of the computer software that can be used for organizing and manipulating the data needed for optimum financial management;

(d) Fluency in Spanish;

(e) Good writing, speaking, and inter-personal skills; and

(f) Knowledgeof Venezuelan (i) financial markets and (ii) laws related to financial management and investments by public sector agencies.

\\w \bwAMabc Apil 19I ANNEX 4 ATTACHMENT3 Page 1 of 4

VENEZUELA

INPARQUESPROJECT

Termsof Reference

Study on Costs and Benefitsof the National Park System

Objective

1. To estimate the costs and benefitsassociated with the existenceof Venezuela'sNational Park System.

Duration

2. 24 months.

Compositionof the study team

3. The research could be undertaken by an individual or by a research institution'steam. Becauseit would require undertakingsurveys and data gathering activities, it could be worked out in a continuousor several non continuousperiods (for exampleto account for the time where the surveys are performed by INPARQUESstaff or a third party)

Rationale

1. Developmentprojects are evaluatedin terms of Cost-BenefitAnalysis (CBA). CBA requires (a) estimatingthe streams of all costs and benefits stemmingfrom the developmentproject throughout its life, and (b) calculatingthe net present value or the internal rate of return of that streamn of benefitsand costs.

2. The use of CRA has been limited in projects associatedwith National Parks (NPs). When non-market situations such as externalities, irreversibilitiesor uniquenessare present, costs and particularly benefits are difficult to estimate. All these conditionsoccur in conservationprojects and particularly in National Parks' developmentprojects. Neverthelessduring recent years significantattention has been devotedto expandingeconomic analysis to cover National Parks projects. Progress has been achieved in two directions (a) identifyingthe range of costs and benefitsinvolved; and (b) estimating figures for a limited subset of costs and benefits which are more amenable to CBA. Even a partial estimation of costs and benefits of NPs can ANNEX4 ATTACHMENT3 Page 2 of 4 give decision-makersa better understandingof the range of issue involvedin conservation, and in particular can help to:

(a) Identify NPs beneficiariesthat could contribute to the costs of operating the NPs.

(b) Define the levels of fees and contributions that can be charged for the NPs services.

(c) Increase the visibilityof the many NPs benefits accruing to society from its investmentin support of the NPs, therefore enabling National Parks Administrationsto compete for scarce budgetary resources on more fair terms.

(d) Spot new informationneeds and help to devise new technical approaches to economic evaluationof conservationprojects.

Study backgroundand design

3. There is an increasingbody of literature on the economic evaluation of biodiversityconservation. Also considerableprogress has been made in the use of contingent valuation of non marketable goods, and travel costs surveysto measure recreationalbenefits. As part of the preparationof the INPARQUESproject, consultantsmade some rough estimationsof the economicbenefits of Venezuela'sNPs. They showedthat economic benefits stemmingfrom watershedprotection -- for agriculture, hydropowerand urban water supply -- were very high. There were also firm presumptions of high tourism benefits, but the lack of informationprecluded their estimation.

4. The proposed study should make use of the above mentioned and other relevant studies to assess to the extent possible the economiccosts and benefits of the Venezuela'sNational Park's System, including estimationsof:

(a) Costs, includingdirect, indirect and opportunitycosts

(b) Benefits, includingbenefits form marketable products,non marketable products, recreation and tourism, watershed protection, biodiversityprotection and biodiversity commercializationpotential, greenhousegases sequestration, ecological process protection, education, research, non- consumptivebenefits and option, quasi-option, existenceand bequest values.

5. Because currently availableinformation is scarce, the present study should not be limited to an exercise of analyzingthe existing data. On the ANNEX 4 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 4 contrary it is expectedthat the study will design and undertake activities in relation to:

(a) Surveys of visitors to NPs to gather the informationrequired to estimate the economic benefitsof recreation and tourism.

(b) Collection and analysis of informationon economic activities in NPs necessary to estimate the benefits of marketable and non marketableproducts not related to tourism and recreation.

(c) Collectionand analysis of informationrequired to estimate the benefitsof watershed protection.

(d) Collection of informationand performanceof surveys as necessary to estimate external benefitsof Venezuela's biodiversityconservation.

(e) Collection and analysis of the informationrequired to estimate benefitsof greenhouse gasses sequestration.

6. While the contractor will be responsiblefor the design of the above mentioned studies and the analysis of their outcome, part of them should be performed with the help of INPARQUESstaff (parks and visitors surveys)to the extent possible.

7. A key objective of this study is to provide meaningfulinputs to INPARQUESown revenues strategy. Thereforethe research team will engagein early discussionswith the INPARQUESown revenue staff and the consultanton own revenues, in relation to the design and the presentationof the study outcome.

Expectedoutputs

8. The outputs should include:

(a) A document presentingthe study results. A specific section of the document should address the issue of how to use the results of this study in INPARQUESown revenue strategy in relation to different type of conservationbenieficiaries, both national and international.

(b) A short seminar directed to INPARQUESstaff on how to use and how to update the study results.

(c) A policy brief to governmentlisting the policy implicationsof the study. ANNEX 4 ATI'ACENT 3 Page 4 of 4

Necessary qualifications and selection criteria for the consultants

9. The followingskills are essential:

(a) Substantialprior experience in environmentaleconomics, particularly on the esimation of benefits of natural conservation.

(b) Availabilityfor spending a considerable part of the study time in Venezuela.

(c) Ability to work with INPARQUESstaff as a team and to engage in an informal training of the counterpart staff.

10. Fluency in Spanishwould be an asset. ANNEX 4 AITACIMENT 4 Page 1 of 4

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

Termsof Reference

Baseline Studyon ImpactIndicators

Objective

1. The objectives of this study are to (a) set the base 1995 levels and the 2000 target levels for the project impact indicators shown in Annex 7, Attachment 1-B; and (b) design and put in place a monitoring and reporting system for periodically evaluating the value of the impact indicators against targets and to analyze and interpret discrepancies.

Duration

2. 6 months in Year 1, one month per year for the following 4 years.

Responsibilities and activities

3. The consultant or team conducting the study will establish in INPARQUES a computerized information system for collecting, recording and analyzing the information necessary for the impact indicators.

4. In collaboration with INPARQUES staff the consultant will calculate the 1995 levels and 2000 targets for the impact indicators for the project, using the following methodological approaches:

(a) Throueh discussionswith INPARQUES staff and based on INPARQUES internal documentation estimate (numbers correspond to numbers in Annex 7, Appendix 1 - B):

(1) Number of guard posts per 1000 km2 and per 1000 km of perimeter per park in 1995 and target for the year 2000.

(7) Area of park under recovery programs as a proportion of total area to be recovered per park in 1995 and target for 2000.

(18) Number of convlnios with municipalitiesand state governments signed in 1990-1995and target for 1996-2000.

(19) Park rangers and technical staff per 1000 km2 for 1990- 1995and target for 1996-2000. ANNEX 4 ATTACHMENT4 Page 2 of 4

(23) Number of internal and external regulations/directives changed based on research and studies results for 1990- 1995 and target for 1996-2000.

(25) Number of people reached with environmental awareness campaigns for 1990-1995and target for 1996-2000.

(27) Own revenues gernated relative to targets in Annex 5.

(28) Percentage of own revenues in total INPARQUES receipts for 1990-1995and target for 1996-2000.

(29) Own revenues generated per park for 1990-1995and targets for 1996-2000.

(b) Through specially designed surveys and questionnaires to be administered to park rangers and administrators estimate

(1) Number of violations fined as a percentage of estimated number of violations for each protected area in 1995 and targets for 1996-2000.

(16) Percentage of NGOs, villages and communities represented in participatory workshops per park for 1994 and 1995 and targets for 1996-2000.

(c) Based on satellite imagerv or aerial photography together with management and infrastructure data from INPARQUES and forest biomass data from the forest service estimate

(3) Area burnt per park per million US$ installed fire control capacity per park for 1994 and target for 2000.

(4) Number of new squatters and new area encroached (urban and rural) per park and guard post for 1995 and target for 2000.

(8) Estimated biomass per park for 1995 and target for 2000.

(d) Based on formal inguiries and surveys of public and/or private garbage collection firms and of park rangers calculate

(4) Garbage collection effort (person/days) per 1,000 visitors per park for 1995 and target for 2000.

(e) Based on existing literature and rapid ecological appraisal based on indicator species estimate

(7) Number of new endemic species that became endangered. ANNEX 4 ATrACHMfENT4 Page 3 of 4

(f) In collaboration with the agencies responsible for water guality control and in collaboration with the entities conducting the water quality studies of the project estimate

(9) Levels of water contamination by pollutants for each park for 1995 and target for the year 2000.

(g) Through consultations with agencies responsible including hydroelectric facilities, and if necessary by proposing and subcontracting the installation of special equipment estimate

(10) Peak run-offs as a percentage of total flow and rain fall for a selected number of parks and for 1995 and targets for 1996-2000.

(11) Volume of soil discharged per annum relative to amount of rainfall for selected parks and for 1995 and targets for 2000.

(12) Sedimentation volume in dams downstream relative to rainfall for 1995 and target for 2000.

(h) Through surveys and questionnaires of visitors to national parks and of target populations to be specially developed and in collaboration with the study on cost-benefits of national parks and the consultant on own revenues estimate

(13) Number of visitors per park for 1990-1995and targets for 1996-2000.

(14) Average expenditure per visitor per park and percentage captured by INPARQUES for 1995 and targets for 1996- 2000.

(24) Performance of target sample groups in tests/questionnaires that evaluate their awareness of INPARQUES, Venezuelan protected areas, and environmental issues in general.

(i) Through surveys targeted at national and international research institutions and administrators of National Parks estimate

(20) Number of research reports filed in INPARQUES relative to total reports produced for 1990-1995and target for 1996-2000.

(21) Volume of external research funding for research carried out inside National Parks for 1990-1995and target for 1996-2000. ANNEX 4 ATTACEIMENT4 Page 4 of 4

(j) Through inquiries with the Venezuelan press estimate

(26) Number of press reports related to INPARQUES or areas under its management for 1990-1995and targets for 1996- 2000.

5. In collaboration with the staff of INPARQUES the consultant will set up a monitoring system for keeping track of the values of the impact indicators for each year of the project, for comparing actual levels with targets, and for analyzing and interpreting divergences.

6. Train INPARQUES on the use of the monitoring and reporting system for impact indicators.

7. Assist INPARQUES with the writing of periodic reports that include the values and targets of the impact indicators, and the analysis and interpretation of discrepancies.

Qualifications

8. The consultant or firm must be able to offer the followingqualifications:

(a) Ability to design and conduct surveys.

(b) Familiarity and experience with the establishment of computerized information systems.

(c) Familiarity and experience in accessing and using information in the following areas of technical expertise related to the impact indicators: biodiversity,biomass measurements, soil erosion measurements, water quality measurements, water flow measurements, survey techniques, remote sensing methods including satellite imagery, environmental testing, financial management.

(d) Fluency in Spanish.

(e) Ability to work in teams involvingINPARQUES staff and to train the staff on the operation of the information, monitoring and reporting system.

m:\ve\inperq\sar\ann4aut4bc INPARQUES

res encia

Of. Plan Estra Ot. F- PP

Direccion General

Contralorla Consultoria Jurldlca

Control Aslatento Adminlstrativo Fiscal

Oitcina Ing. Prop

Plan Est. Fis Con Teenlco

D G.S. Dir i D.C S | D.-.S. D c.S. Parque sL ParquesIg L Fcoglonalzegional ^ L ~~~~Infraostrut. j ^ds~Am. y Ser., | ~fTecnica

Dir P Naclon f Monltoreo y Serv. Aut Flnnzas Dir _ Evaluaclon _ Investig

Dir. P l Incendlo, Estud. Personal Dir. R Ftecreac l busquedaH Ed Ambiental y rescate

Servlcios lnsp. y S Seguridad T ecn icoS

ServicioS PlanSic. AdministratIvos desarrollo

-Coordlnaclon Estatal

iUnldad dao 5 co L

|Prog de | Rocursos ||Admln. |_ Protecelon baturalesN ,s '0 REGION CAPITAL REGION CAPITAL - PARQUES Nacionales Recreacionales

* El Avila

Presidencia * Los Roques . Del Este (RB) . --...... -* Lag. Tavarigua * Los Chorros Guatopo * Romulo Gallo Deoa Morro de Macarra * Los Mariches * Macarao Vinicio Adames DireccionRegional Capital * Pico Codazzi Cuevasdel Inca * CuevaAlfredo * CeAZooCaricuao Secretaria Lahn * Del Oeste(J V.) * Universidadde la Paz * Metropolitanoel Administracion Incendio, Recursos CoordinadorDF Monitoreoy Junguito y Servicios busqueda y rescate Naturales Evaluacion Viente & Sofa *_ w_LeonardoRuiz |B y S Presupuesto Est Ppal_ Est Auxiliar Unidades s Norte de Caracas

Coordinador| E EdoMiranda Mantenirnserto_Ing PropttEtuua

Unidades

de Mo> ts CD> REGION AMAZONAS

Parques Nacionales

* Serrania la Neblina PresidenciaP * Yacaparra

jiDireccion General * Druida Marahuaca

|Direccion FZegio n * ParinmaTapirapec6 Amazonas * Piedra del Cocuy

* Cerino Autana

|Monitoreo y Administracio n Coord;nador | |- ecursos . Luao Sipapo Venduari LE\/alu.3c-i6 n y Srios U. cde Mane-jo) Nsaturaloes

_ In\ves:tig _ B yS Unida3desCoven Arnhitenta de Maaj SaoAmazoanas Educaci6 n I Preiupuesto Amnbientzal -SIC" ;Estructuras ||Personalj

|CGontabilidad

|Mant enimiento|

_{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~( In3 Pro.

aq co2 to :5 X REGION FALCON ZULIA Parques Nacionales

* Medanos de Coro * Morrocoy

Presidencia * Sierra San Luis I | * Cerro Santa Ana Direccion * QuebradaLaCueva General I * Cienagas del Catalumbo Direccion Reg. * Perifa Falcon Zulia |Secretaria |

Monitoreo y Administracion Coordinador Recursos Evaluacion _y Servicios Zulia Naturales Parques Recreacionales

Investigacion B y S Unidades Convenio Planificacion Amnbiental 7 s de Manejo I lSaoAmazonas _[Educacion [ Deuuegsto Coordinador [fAmbiental Prspes _CFalcon * Jardin Xerofito de Coro Li--- ncturas Personal | Dr. Li6n Broizat

Contabilidad de Manejo * Laguna de Guaranao Mantene * Bolivar de Abimas * Jesus E. Lozada . Ing. Prop. 1 1*Burro Negro

'0i01 :X REGION CENTRO OCCIDENTAL Parques Nacionales Lara, Yaracuy, Portugues * Yacambu * Terepaima * Cerro Saroche Presidencia * Loma del Le6n

Direccion General Yurubi I * Marra Lionza DireccionRegio n * Dirira Amazonas * Guache

| Secretaria Astee

I l Parques Recreacionales | Monitoreo y ||AdmrinistracOb n | ncendios, Recursos Fj Yaracuy LEvaluacOb n ffL 1t busqueda y rescate Naturales U. deManejo

B AmtDlental | -1 BaS niinPortugues Del Este (J M. OchoaP.) -El Buco * Del Oeste -San Felipe Educaco Presupuesto U. de Maneju t * Paseo Los llustres (casona) -Los Guagabitos Esrua PAtarligus -San Esteban Cnb* Burro Negro * Musiu Camielo *t I Metropolitano Rio Turbio *La Semana *a. o | Pastor *Complejo Fenial * Cerro La Cruz .@ Quebrada La Rueda *Jos6 A Paso * Minas de Aroa -Plaza Virgen de la Coromoto

>; CD 0 CD 0Qp REGION CENTRAL Aragua, Carabobo, Cojedes, Guarico, Apure Parques Nacionales

* Henry Pittier * San Esteban Presidencia | Morros de San Juan

Direccion Morros de Macaira General Platill6n I * Cinaruco-Capanaparo Direccion Aguaro-Guasijuito Reg. Central Secretaria Asistente _ Cojedesy Carabobo Parques Recreacionales

Monitoreo y Administracion Coordinacion Recirsos rIncendios,busqueda Evaluacion Guaricoy Apure Naturales y rescate Zoo Las Delicias |Investigacjon| B y s Unidades | PanifmcacSn Esiructura Ag. Codazzo(Rio Lim6n) Ambiental de ManejoI pcal | Educacion1| |Presupuesto| l Coord. l J Estnucturaoor' Est. La Victoria (Choroni) |AibLenlal Aragua secundaria * Metrop. Marac.

| 7Es1 ucturas | X Personal | | Unidades | * Santos Michelena Contabilidad| * Saman de las Minas * Embalse Susta *e e Campo Carabobo * I rpEnrique Tejera * Metrop. Valencia * La Repica * Donia menca de Le6n * R6mulo Gallegos

0o 5 >¢ %ON °-U-, REGION ANDINA Merida, Tachira, Trujillo y Barinas Parques Nacionales * Sierra Nevada - La Culata * Paramo Batall6n - La Negra * Lag. Urao * Guaramacal * La Chorrera Presidencia * Las Gonzales

Direccion * El Tami General * Chorro El Indio

Direccion * Uribante Region Andina| I Secretaria L Parques Recreacionales Monitoreo y | Administracion Coordinacion Recursos Incendios, busquedaM Evaluacion Merida y Trujillo Naturales y rescate Metropolitano

Un-vgacot B y S l | Unidades | |Plan.lcacn| | Estructura | Albarregas jAmbiental _de Manjo principal | El Golondrino FEdcio | Presupuesto Coordinacion | Et-tur| AmbientalJ Tachira y Bannas| secundaria * Paseo Los llustres

-| Estrucluras§ -j Personal | Unidades Trujillo JContabilidad | | de Manep | - .* J.B. La Beatriz ManteImeo I* Laguna de Capacho * Ciencuentenariode la GN |I ng Prop. * La Federaci6n * La Quebrada >:, * BolivarConservacionista ( o

0 CD o >,. -X REGIONNOR-ORIENTAL Sucre, Anzoategui,Nva. Esparta Parques Nacionales

* Mochina * Peninsulade Paria * Turuepano * Laguna la Restinga * Cerro El Copey * Lagunalas Maritas Presidencia | Tetas de Maria Guevara

Direccion * Cerro Matasietey Guayamunri General Direccion Region NorOriental Secriittaria l Austenbs Parques Recreacionales Coordinacion _ 1 EsparttitNva. -- * El Cocal

Monitoreo y Administracion Coordinacion Recrirwos Incendios, busqueda ' Guaiqueri Evaluacion Sucre y Naturales y rescate * Latunade los Patos

Investigacon |y S | Unidade Fnlificacon Estructu * A.E. Blanco Ambiental principa Colinasde Piritu |Edco | P esupesto Unidades 1Amb.ental | 1 1 de Maneio 1 secundaris * Guaripa {Estucturas t Personal F* LagunaEl Paraiso -1 Contabildsd|* Jose T. Arreaza Contabdl |* A.A. Alfonso mant1r, 9 1* Luis Cabeza Ing Prop * Metrop.S. Bolivar * Luisa Caceres * La Caran

00 :r X O (A REGIONSUR-ORIENTAL Parques Nacionales Monagas, Bolivar y Delta * El Guacharo * Cueva del Guacharo * Mariurael Delta * Canaima Presidencia * Juai SariSariflama DIre. * Tepuyes - Edu. Bolivar Direccion General Direccion Region SurOriental Socretaria Asistenta Coordinacion Bolivar ff _ ^ . , . ~~~~~~~~~~~~Parques Recreacionales Monitorro y Administracion Coordinacion Recursos Incendios, busquRda Evaluacion Monagas Naturalts y resat, ___ __ y Delta * A.E. Blanco nves.acaon.- ys | CarlosPadilla R. Ambiental r * I Metrop.Matura |Ambental de R6mulo Betancourt-Bolivar 1Estiucturas i t Personal * Del EsteBriaro *Ca Aeropuerto *1 1 Central Tucupita .*Xno LeonardoRuiz P Po* DallaCosta * PascoOrinoco

'0 > so 5 ° u, v " L ANNEX Page 1 of 9

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECI

INPARQUES Fnancial Plan

Background

1. The protected areas under INPARQUES management contribute many environmental services to the national economy. The more tangible benefits are the protection of watersheds, the protection of urban water supplies, the supply of quality water to irrigated agriculture, and the maintenance of ecological processes in coastal marine ecosystems. Moreover, protected areas provide many recreational opportunities to national and foreign tourists alike. Internationally, Venezuelan protected areas are an important carbon sink and a repository of threatened animal and plant species. Estimating the economic value of these services is a difficult task. Data and information on physical relationships between levels of protection and provision of environmental services is scant and the valuation of some environmental benefits is not widely accepted yet. Nevertheless analysis carried out during project preparation estimated that the contribution of INPARQUES protected areas to the water cycle and coastal marine ecosystems alone could range from over US$185 million to about US$461 million'.

2. Today very little of the economic value of protected areas is captured by INPARQUES. Through a variety of charges and fees in 1994 INPARQUES generated revenues of about US$1.63 million. In addition to this self-generated revenue, in 1994 it received a Government budget of about US$8.64 million. INPARQUES total revenues therefore amounted to about US$10.27 million. This is a mere 33% to 56% of the economic value generated by protected areas in 1994, even if one accounts only for the benefits of improved water supply and coastal ecosystems, underestimates recreational and ignores biodiversity and carbon sink values.

3. One might think that as long as the activities of INPARQUES are adequately supported by the Government budget there is no reason for it to attempt to further capture some of the economic value of protected areas. There are, however, three important economic reasons for INPARQUES to follow a policy of capturing an increased share of the economic value of the areas it protects, hence reducing its dependence on the government budget. First, by making economic agents, both public and private, pay for the environmental services generated by protected areas, these services would be

1 Present value at a 10% discount rate. ANNEX 5 Page 2 of 9 better internalized in public and private decision making and there would be gains in economic efficiency because market prices would reflect better the value of these protected areas. Although environmental charges are a widely accepted premise, whether an agency like INPARQUES should have responsibilityfor collecting these charges is a different issue. However, at this time INPARQUES is better positioned than any other agency to set and supervise the levels of fees and charges that are specific to the sites under INPARQUES management. One exception discussed later is the Watershed Protection Charge, which is not site specific and thus could be better collected by a different agency with jurisdiction over the entire territory.

4. Second, by capturing and managing an increased share of the economic value of protected areas, the financial sustainabilityof the programs of INPARQUES will be better secured and the agency will be protected from the uncertainties of budget allocations. Budget allocations reflect many short-term and political priorities, and often fail to internalize adequately the importance of environmental services.

5. Third, increasing INPARQUES' own revenues is critical to ensure the sustainabilityof the project in the years followingproject implementation. Unless INPARQUES' own revenues expand, the government budget allocation to INPARQUES will have to increase substantially to allow it to meet the increased recurrent costs attributable to the project, which are estimated at about US$6.8 million per year, an increase of about 82% over INPARQUES' recurrent costs in 1994. Because it would not be fiscallyprudent for INPARQUES to assume ever greater Government budget transfers, INPARQUES should find additional revenue sources to effectively maintain the infrastructure installed by the project.

6. INPARQUES already has the legal status that permits it to set, charge, collect and manage its own revenues from sites under its management. As an autonomous institute, INPARQUES has responsibility over the financial management of its revenues, which are deposited in a bank account under INPARQUES and do not revert back to the Treasury. Only charges extending beyond the sites under its jurisdiction require government or Congressional approval. This is the case with the Watershed Protection Charge. Because the agency manages its own revenues, there are clear incentives in the system for it to collect revenues efficiently and to maximizethe level of revenues collected.

7. INPARQUES is much further ahead than similar agencies in most LAC countries in its capacity to generate and manage own revenues and its recent performance in generating revenues from own sources is particularly promising. The agency has made positive strides towards self-sufficiency:although own revenues amounted to a mere 7% of total revenues in 1990, they had already increased to 16% of total revenues by 1994. (Attachment 1). While the government budget allocated to INPARQUES declined at an average annual rate ANNEX 5 Page 3 of 9 of 4.9% per annum in nominal dollars from 1990 through 1994,own revenues increased at 18.8% per annum during the same period.

8. Performance in 1994 is a cause for concern, though. The INPARQUES budget allocation from the government declined from a peak of US$15.8 million in 1992 to only US$8.64 million in 1994. INPARQUES own revenues, that had been increasing sharply until 1993, also declined in 1994. Part of this declines was due to the devaluation of the Bolivar from 83 to the dollar in 1993 to 170 to the dollar in 1994 (general inflation levels during this period were 46% in 1993 and 71% in 1994) and INPARQUES's limited ability, in the short term, to adjust its fees and charges. During the same period the administration of INPARQUES changed twice, interrupting the continuity of programs and policies. INPARQUES is now trying to catch up with inflation, but the Directorate in charge of own revenues is still in its infancy and lacks the resources to respond quickly to inflation. This project includes strengthening of that Directorate so that the steep decline in own revenues observed in 1994 would not be repeated in the future. Moreover, the project would require INPARQUES to maintain continuity in its revenue generation and institutional reform activities, thus ensuring that key policies are maintained even with changing administrations.

INPARQUES Financial Plan

9. To address the issues of charging for environmental services, gaining more financial independence from budgetary allocations, and ensuring project sustainability,INPARQUES has prepared a Financial Plan (Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3), which the project would help to implement. The main element of the Financial Plan is an aggressive policy of increasing own revenues in order to increase independence from the government budget and ensure the sustainability of the project. The Financial Plan also identifies the additional budget allocations to INPARQUES that are necessary in order for the agency to meet its counterpart commitments.

10. Own revenue sources. INPARQUES proposal defines eight categories of own revenues. The total long-term revenue generation potential of these categories is roughly estimated to be around US$15.7 million dollars annually. According to the INPARQUES financial plan, by the year 2005 INPARQUES would be collecting about 78% of these potential revenues. The own revenue categories that already exist are the following (estimates of the maximum revenue potential are given in parentheses):

(1) ENTRANCE FEES: increasing or introducing entrance and parking fees for visitors and users of National Parks, Urban Parks, Zoological Parks and other protected areas under its administration. (US$3.5 million). ANNEX 5 Page 4 of 9

(2) CONCESSIONS: increasing the charges or introducing competitive bidding for commercial rights to develop and/or use infrastructure in protected areas, including coffee shops, restaurants, marinas, hotels, inns, cabins, boat operations, tourism operations, etc. (US$2 million).

(3) LICENSES AND PERMITS: increasing or introducing new fees for the commercial use of protected areas not involving infrastructure, such as rentals of boats and beach chairs, food and handicraft vendors, etc. (US$0.5 million).

(4) COMMERCIAL USE OF MINERAL WATERS: increasing the charges or introducing competitive bidding for the rights to the commercial exploitation of mineral waters originating in protected areas. (US$0.1 million).

(5) WATERSHED PROTECTION: charging the main users of water generated in watersheds within protected areas, such as urban water systems,irrigation systems and hydroelectric plants. (US$8 million).

(6) COMMERCIAL FILMS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF NATURAL LANDSCAPES: increasing or introducing fees for the rights to film or photograph landscapes, animals and plants within protected areas for commercial purposes. (US$0.1 million).

(7) INDEMNMTIESFOR INFRASTRUCTURE IN PROTECTED AREAS: increasing or introducing new charges for public or private infrastructure established inside protected areas, such as towers, cabins and cables of electricity utilities, radio and TV companies and telecommunicationscompanies. (US$1 million).

(8) NATIONAL DONATIONS: donations of the private firms, foundations and consumers for the protection and management of national and urban parks. (US$0.5 million).

11. Moreover the project would provide technical assistance to INPARQUES to study and design other alternatives for increasing own revenues and bringing a better balance between the benefits of protected areas and the price users should pay for their protection. These additional sources of revenues would include among others:

(9) INDEMNITIES FOR ROADS AND VEHICLES: damage related charges for roads and or vehicles that cross protected areas. ANNEX 5 Page 5 of 9

(10) PHARMACEUTICAL VALUES: charges for the rights to pharmaceutical samples within protected areas.

(11) TOURISM SERVICES CHARGES: charges to hotels and other tourist installations that, although outside of protected areas, benefit directly from their existence.

(12) PENALTIES AND FINES: increased use of fines and penalties for the violation of protected areas regulations.

(13) CARBON SEQUESTRATION: offset deals for carbon sequestration.

(14) GUARANTEE BONDS FOR RESEARCH IN PROTECTED AREAS: although the main purpose of such bonds, to be deposited by research institutions, would be to guarantee that the research results would be made available to INPARQUES, they would be collected by INPARQUES in case of non-performance, thus adding to its revenues.

(15) TRANSFER OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDS FOR BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION: transfer of funds from international sources for biodiversityprotection; INPARQUES is already capturing some of these funds, although at a level much below their potential.

(16) POLLUTION CHARGES: introducing charges associated with levels of pollution threatening protected areas. The most notorious examples are in marine national parks such as Mochima and Morrocoy. These areas are affected by cement plants, power plants and urban sewage.

12. In 1994 about 75% of own revenues came from entrance and parking fees and concessions, 3% were indemnity charges for infrastructure installed inside protected areas and 20% were international donations for biodiversity. INPARQUES goal is to increase the share of own revenues in its total budget from about 16% in 1994 to about 30% by the year 2000 and 50% by the year 2005. This amounts to an average growth rate in real terms of 15% from 1994 to 2000, and of 17% from 2000 to 2005. A faster growth rate during the first years of the project is unlikely because INPARQUES needs the project-supported infrastructure before it can raise fees and increase the collection rate. Moreover, rather than increasing fees drastically to the level that maximizesINPARQUES revenues, the agency proposes a cautionary approach of increasing fees gradually. This is necessary because of a lack of tradition of consumers in paying for these environmental related fees. Current entrance fees in most parks are less than US$0.10 per person, far below the willingness to pay for visits to the parks, which ANNEX 5 Page 6 of 9 anecdotally are put at US$1 or US$2 per person for local visitors, and considerably higher for international visitors to Venezuela's most important parks.

13. The specific initiatives INPARQUES plans to undertake during the life of the project to raise its own revenues are listed in the cronogram of Table 5.1. The initiatives proposed by INPARQUES are plausible and the own revenue targets of INPARQUES for the project period are feasible resulting in an annual growth rate of 15% in own revenues, somewhat lower than the historical growth rate of 18.8%. The most controversial proposal is the Watershed Protection Charge, that, although charged to large utilities, would be passed on to consumers. Although this tariff has been approved by the Executive branch, it is not yet being implemented due to the political sensitivityof the matter. This issue will be further analyzed during the course of the project. The watershed protection tariff would be a very small proportion of the costs of water or electricity, and if utilities are able to absorb part of the incremental costs the impacts on consumers may be negligible. Although this charge would not be collected by INPARQUES, it could be targeted to budget allocations to INPARQUES, on a basis proportional to the area of Venezuelan watersheds under INPARQUES management, which is estimated at about 30%. ANNEX 5 Page 7 of 9

Table 5.1. INPARQUES Financial Plan (Own Revenues)

Yer Minimm Acdonsrequired Revenue I(matnt l99S USS milion)

1995 2.90 (1) Inre entranc fees in Nationaland Urban Parb in reationto the operating (1) PresidentINPAROUES cOWNof the pak (2) Calculate and inuoduce fees for elcricity towr, cabls and support (2) President INPARQUJES ;rearucue according to ctA of evironmental damages (3) Meaure volume of visitors utilizig servies f rom concsoaires an adjus (3) Prsident INPARQUES concesion fes awordin4*. (4) Introduoe newentrnoe fee In pr wbie tdee are not yet chargd. (4) Board of Diredor and l ______(5) Tare otber reenue generatingmeaue required to met minimum. President of INPARQUES

19r 3.34 (1) Mne entrance and parking fees in all nata and urban parks (1) Presidentof INPARQUES (2) Incre the colction rate of fes for eeicity towne, cabls ad supporting (2) President of INPARQUES hifranictumur (3) Calculaterent nerated and revne tbe fees of conessos pamit lene (3) Preient of INPAROUES and commercil films and pbotograpby. (4) Submit reoommendtion to Goaernment to strt ollecting the tariff for (4) President of Impwques watrbed proontingent upon Conressional ______(5) Take otber revenue generabngmease required to met minimum. approval

1997 3.87 (1) Increaseentrance and paring rfe in a natinal and urban parka (1) President of INPARQUES (2) Introduce fes nortectnmunicatn toner an assoted infrtructure (2) President of INPARQUES (3) Increasefees norconcesions, autboriztions, permits Glmeand pbotography (3) Presdent of INPARQUES (4) Increas the watersbed protection tariff according to the volumes of water (4) Preident of INPARQUES generted inside protected areas /a (5) Take otber revenue generatingmeasures required to meet minimum.

1998 4S7 (1) Increas entrance and parking fes (1) President of INPARQUES (2) Eatendidfructum related fees to all companis operatng b ide protected (2) Preident of INPARQUES areas ucb a radio. TV. nd per. (3) Increasef of concessons, authorizations, permits, flms and pbotograpby (3) President of INPAROUES (4) increas watershed proteion tarilL /a (4) President of INPARQUES (5) Take other revenue generating messuns required to meet minimum.

1999 5.28 (1) Extension of entrance and parking fee to all protected arbe in the riatemL (1) President of INPAROUES (2) Eatesion to and nrease in fee for concons authorization permits, films (2) PresIdent of INPAROUES and photography to all protected reas in the sytem. (3) Analysis of envronmenta damagecaused by ifratrutuare of utilities nd (3) President of INPARQUES revizion of fee to remlectenvironmental damage. (4) Exteion of watershed protection tariffs to all commercal water us and (4) Prident of INPARQUES utiity companiesbenefitting from it la (5) Take other revenue generating meaures required to meet minimum.

2000 612 (1) Increae in entrace and parking fee (I) President of INPARQUES (2) Ineae in fees for conces authoozatibne permits, films and pbotography. (2) Preident of INPARQUES (3) Inrease in fees for nrastructure knbdeprotected ar (3) Preident of INPARQUES (4) Inase of watad proectio tf Is (4) President of INPARQUES (5) Take otber revenue generating meaures required to meet minimum. la lbese abon ae continaget upon Congressonl approval of te watershed protecion tariE Sbould tbere be no Congressional approvali 1994 or approva delays INPARQUES wvl take atenative revenue generating measuresto meet the respectiveminimum rvenues.

14. As part of the Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan [NPARQUES created a Directorate General of Own Revenues to lead INPARQUES activities in this area, and there is a strong commitment from the current INPARQUES administration to give this matter the highest priority. During implementation the success of INPARQUES in implementing the initiatives listed in the cronogram of Table 5.1 and achieving the target revenues of Table 5.2 would be closely monitored. ANNEX 5 Page 8 of 9

15. Government budget allocations. Even with this effort in generating own revenues, INPARQUES would not be in a position to meet its counterpart funding commitments without jeopardizing its other programs under way. Attachment 2 assumes that INPARQLTESbudget allocations for 1995 to 2000, in the absence of the project, would equal the levels of 1991 and 1992 in real terms (the baseline budget), thus reverting the declining trend of the past two years. The question posed is whether, with the project, this baseline budget plus own revenues would be sufficient to meet the project's counterpart funding commitments. Unfortunately, the answer is no. There is a financing gap.

16. Financing gap. There are three main alternatives for covering the financing gap created by the project (Attachment 2). The first alternative (Base case scenario), which is the one preferred by Government, would be for the government to increase budget allocations to INPARQUES. Additional budget allocations to meet counterpart funding commitments are necessary for the years 1996 through 1999 with a peak of about US$6 million in 1996 and 1997, or 43% of the 1995 expected budget allocations (Attachment 2). There is one very strong reason why Government assigns high priority to these increased budgets during the life of the project. Most of the investments of the project have the objective and are designed to enhance the capacity of INPARQUES to generate its own revenues and approach financial self-sufficiency. From a strictly financial point of view, these increased budget allocations in the short term of a maximum of US$6 and 4 million in 1997 and 1998 would result in budget savings on the order US$2.5 million by the year 2000 and US$8.4 million by 2005. The financial rate of return from the government budget point of view is 22% and the net present value of the additional budget allocations is US$32 million at a 10% discount rate.

17. What if the Government is unable to provide INPARQUES with additional budget to meet the project counterpart funding requirements? Then INPARQUES would have three alternative options for covering the financing gap therefore meeting the counterpart commitments to the project. Option A, as opposed to Base case scenario described above, would be for INPARQUES to divert funds from the investment program in non-project parks to the project, plus a small portion of its recurrent costs that are associated with that investment program. Under this option the government's additional contribution would decline to about US$3 million dollars in 1996 and 1997 and to less than that in 1998. No additional budget would be needed for the other years. The trade-off under this option would be that investments in parks excluded from the project would stop between 1996 and 1998. Although unfortunate this trade-off may not be very costly, since the parks excluded from the project are precisely those considered to be lowest priority.

18. The second alternative to the base case scenario, Option B, would be for INPARQUES to meet all the counterpart commitments without resorting to additional government budget. These would have to be met by reallocating the ANNEX 5 Page 9 of 9 normal investment program to the project, as in option B, and by increasing own revenues. This option would require increasing own revenues to US$6.4 million as early as 1996, double what INPARQUES has projected for that year. In other words this would implyadvancing by about 4 years the own revenue program.

19. Role of the project. The project would help INPARQUES achieve project sustainabilitythrough a variety of actions designed to enhance its capacity to set, collect and manage its own revenues. Specificallythe project would:

(1) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: provide technical assistance in (a) financial management; (b) accounting; (c) procurement of goods and services; (d) setting and collecting fees and charges; and (e) economic valuation of protected areas.

(2) INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING: (a) support the recently created Directorate of Own Revenues; (b) enhance the capacity of the Directorate of Own Revenues to capture an increased volume of international transfers for protected areas; (c) enhance the capacity of the Directorate of Own Revenues to capture increasing private sector and NGO contributions; (d) enhance the capacity of Regional Offices to manage their own revenue programs; (e) decentralize financial management to give incentives to regional offices to collect revenues more efficiently;

(3) INFRASTRUCTURE: establishment of infrastructure that would provide increased services to park users and facilitate collection and control of fees and charges.

(4) ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION: educate park users and the population in general on the economic value of protected areas and the need to support them thus facilitating acceptance of new or higher fees and charges.

(5) ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH: conduct research on the physical and biological processes inside protected areas and/or on the economic value of the associated environmental services to permit a better identification of beneficiaries from protection and a better targeting of fees and charges.

m:\ve\inparq\&ar\annex5.bc ANNEX 5 ATTACHMENT1

Increasingreliance on own revenues

100% -

90%

IA 70

- 60%

0 ° % L ...... i- ; ... -,'-.'.-...... o 50%-l _,. '

CL'E ove men ...... i;;...... w

CL _ : - ~~~~~~~~~~...... -. -:- j... ..-i------,-.-...... -.t_ 20% -_ :A:...... ;-^

10% '_.11K...... ,', 40% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2005 2015 INPARQUES FinancialPlan (million nominalUS dollars)

Category Historncal Pnjeiort Projt Penod Pro,dection- Post Projct millitOnUS doliars million 1995 dollars million 1995 dollars 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2005 2015

Revenues 11 29 15 01 15 83 14 48 10 27 19 36 24 80 30 34 32 04 31 74 23 59 25 77 45 39 Government budget 10 52 13 52 14 15 12 30 8 64 13.47 13.47 13 47 13 47 13 47 13 47 13 47 13 47 Ownrevenues 077 1.49 168 218 163 290 334 387 457 5.28 612 1231 3193 VVorldBank disbursements 0 DO 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 3.00 8 00 13 00 14 00 13 00 4 00 0 00 0 00

Venezuelancounterpart 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 3 00 9 27 10 55 8 33 5 09 0 00 0 00 0 00 total World Bank project 0 00 0 00 0 00 090 00 6 00 17 27 23 55 22 33 18.09 4 00 0 00 0 00

Lxpcnditures 1188 1501 1583 1448 1008 2123 3039 3591 3643 3385 21 10 1739 1739 Investment 3 42 4 53 5 70 3 50 2 06 8 03 18 46 24 28 2314 19 22 618 2 47 2 47 World Bank project 000 000 000 000 000 556 1599 2180 2067 1675 370 000 000 World Bank disbursements 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 3 00 8 00 13 00 14 00 13 00 4 00 0 00 0 00 Venezuelancounterpart0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2 56 7 99 8 80 6 67 3 75 -0 30 0 00 0 00 Other 342 453 570 350 206 247 247 247 247 2.47 247 247 247 Recurrentcosts 8 47 10 49 10 14 10 98 8 02 13 20 1193 1163 13 29 14 63 14 92 14 92 14 92 World Bank project 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 44 1 72 3 47 5 12 6 46 6 76 6 76 6 76 World Bank disbursements 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Venezuelancounterpart 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 44 1 72 3 47 5.12 6 46 6 76 6 76 6 76 Olher 8 47 10 49 1014 10 98 8 02 12 76 10 20 8 16 8 16 816 8 16 8 16 8 16

1-inanc,ng gap 000 000 000 000 000 1 86 556 557 439 2 11 000 000 000 Base scenario Additonal govt budget 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1 86 5 58 5 57 4 39 2 11 0 00 0 00 000 Failtback A Reallocatenormal invest budget 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 000 186 2 47 2 47 2 47 211t 00 0 00 000 Additionalgovt budget 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 311 310 1 92 0.00 0 00 0 00 000 Fr ll back B Reallocatenormal invest budget 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1 86 2 47 2.47 2 47 2 11 0 00 0 00 000 Increaseown revenues 0000 000 0 00 0.00 000 000 311 310 1 92 0 00 0.00 000 000

INPAROUESsavings -0 59 0 00 0 00 000 019 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 2 49 8 38 28 00

Excnangerate (Boliv[US$) 47 2 56 9 66 83 3 170 170 170 170 170 170 1701 170 170 Inflationrate (%/annumCPI Caracas) 36 5 31 31 9 45 9 708 __ :_>: File m \velinparq\sarffinplbufxtw H Z HZtT ANNEX 5 ATTACHMENT 3

Historical and projected revenue sources

o DdditionalA Govern, budget | _

0 disurseent uZ l jWborlsdrBnannks

I4 N .-.- ...... i.i l < t , i 6 e |_-. Own revenues

0

0

ao G budget ANNEX 6 TABLE 6.1

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

SUMMARY COSTS BY COMPONENT

% % Total (BolivaresMillion) (1USSMillion) Foreign Base Loca1 Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs A. Parks Management NationalParks 8,119.0 719.4 8,838.4 47.8 4.2 52.0 8 59 RecreationalParks 2,293.8 30.3 2,324.1 13.5 0.2 13.7 1 16 WildlifeRescrves 224.3 16.9 241.2 1.3 0.1 1.4 7 2 Subtotal Parks Management 10,637.0 766.6 11,403.6 62.6 4.5 67.1 7 76 B. EnvuronmentalRsarch 1,258.8 5.8 1,264.6 7.4 0.0 7.4 - 8 C. EnvironmentalEducation 573.1 5.1 578.3 3.4 0.0 3.4 1 4 D. InstitutionalStrengthening 1.444.1 266.5 1,7106 8.5 1.6 10.1 16 11 Total BASELINE COSTS 13,913.0 1,044.1 14,957.1 81.S 6.1 88.0 7 100 PhysicalContingencies 455.3 52.2 507.5 2.7 0.3 3.0 10 3 Price Contingences 785.3 55.3 840.6 4.6 0.3 4.9 7 6 Tota PROJECTCOSTS 15,153.6 1.151.6 16.305.2 89.1 6.6 95.9 7 109 ANNEX 6 TABLE 6.2

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

ANNUAL COSTS BY COMPONENT

(USS MUiMion)

TotalsIncluding Contingencies 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total A. Parks Management NationalParks 32 14.5 177 138 94 572 RecreationalParks 1 5 3 9 5 5 2 9 0 9 14 9 Wildlife Reserves 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 2 01 1 5 Subtotal Parks Management 48 190 235 16.9 104 73 7 B EnvironmentalResearch 0 7 19 19 1 5 1 5 7 9 C EnvironmentalEducation 0 3 1 0 10 0 5 0 7 3 6 D. lnstitutionalStrengthenmg 13 35 27 17 1 2 108 Total PROJECT COSTS 7 0 25.4 29 0 20 9 13 7 95 9 ANNEX 6 TABLE 6.3

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

SUMMARY COSTS BY EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT

% % Total (Bolivares Million) (USS Million) Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange Costs

L Investment Costs A. Civil Works INPARQUES 6,848.7 - 6,848.7 40.3 - 40.3 46 PROFAUNA 122.5 - 122 5 0.7 07 -I Subtotal Civil Works 6,971.3 - 6.971 3 41.0 41.0 - 47 B Design Civil Works 569.4 - 5694 3.3 - 3.3 4 C. Equipment 1. Field Equipment 298.0 198.7 496 6 1.8 1.2 2 9 40 3 2. Office/House Equipment 276.1 184 1 460 2 1.6 1.1 2.7 40 3 3. Electronic/ Radio Equip 281.5 187.7 4692 1.7 1.1 2.8 40 3 4. Vehicles 710.5 473.6 1.184.1 4.2 28 70 40 8 Subtotal Equipment 1,566.1 1,044.1 2,610.2 9.2 6.1 15.4 40 17 D. Technical Assistanceand Studies 1.365.4 - 1,3654 8.0 - 80 - 9 E. Seminars and Training 564.2 - 564 2 3.3 - 3.3 - 4 Total Investment Costs 11,036.4 1,044.1 12,080.5 64.9 61 71.1 9 81 H. Recurrent Costs A Salaries 1,7404 1.7404 102 - 102 - 12 B. Operation and Maintenance I Vehicles O& M 97 2 97 2 06 006 - 2 Mainten of Equipment 1.039 0 - 1.0390 6 1 . 6.1 - 7 Subtotal Operation and Maintenance 1.1362 - 1.1362 67 - 67 - 8 Total Recurrent Costs 2,876 5 . 2,876.5 169 16.9 - 19 Total BASELINE COSTS 13,9130 1.0441 14,9571 81 8 6! 88.0 7 100 Physical Contingencies 455 3 52 2 507.5 2 7 0 3 3.0 10 3 PrnceContingencies 785 3 55 3 840.6 46 0 3 4.9 7 6 Total PROJECT COSTS 15.1536 1.1516 16,305.2 89.1 68 95.9 7 109 ANNEX 6 TABLE 6.4

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

ANNUAL COSTS BY EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT

(USS Mfillion)

Totals Including Contingencies 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1 InvestmentCosts A. Civil Works INPARQUES 3 5 124 15.6 9 3 3 8 44.4 PROFAUNA 01 0 5 0.1 01 - 0 8 Subtotal Civil Works 3 6 129 158 9 3 38 45 2 B DesignCivil Works 0 5 10 1.1 0 7 0.3 37 C. Equipment I Field Equipment 0 2 0 S 12 0 7 04 3 2 2.Ofrice/House Equipment 01 08 08 0.5 0 S 3 0 3 Electronuc/Radio Equip. 0 5 14 05 0 2 00 3 0 4.Vehicles 0.6 25 21 2.0 06 7 7 SubtotalEquipment 14 55 46 3 5 19 16 9 D Technical Assistance and Studies 0 8 21 21 16 1 6 95 E Semninarsand Training 0 3 1.0 1.0 0 8 06 35 Total InvestmentCosts 6 4 22 4 24 6 15 8 82 77 8 11.Recurrent Costs A Salaries 04 19 27 30 33 109 B. Operation and Maintenance 1. VehiclesO& M - 01 0.1 02 02 0 6 2. Mainten.ofEquipment 01 10 17 19 21 6 6 Subtotal Operation and Mlaintenance 02 11 IS 2.1 2 3 7 2 Total Recurrent Costs 06 3 0 45 51 56 IS I Total PROJECT COSTS 7.0 254 29 0 20 9 13 7 95 9 ANNEX 6 TABLE 6.5

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

FINANCING PLAN

(USS Million) The Government World Bank Total Amount % Amount % Amount % A. ParkaManagement Natioral Parks 27.4 47.8 29.8 52.2 57.2 59.6 Reaational Parks 6.9 46.5 8.0 53.5 14.9 15.6 Wildlife Reserves 0.8 52.9 0.7 47.1 1.5 1.6 Subtotal Parlc Management 35.1 47.7 38.6 52.3 73.7 76.8 B. EnvwaomentalResearch 0.4 5.0 7.5 95.0 7.9 8.2 C. EnvironmentalEducation 0.4 9.9 3.2 90.1 3.6 3.8 D. Intitutional Strengtheni 5.2 48.0 5.6 52.0 10. 11.3 Total Dibursement 41.1 42.8 54.9 57.2 95.9 100.0 ANNEX 6 Table 6.6

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

Allocation of Loan Proceeds

CATEGORY % OF EXPENDITURES TOTAL TO BE FINANCED AMOUNT (NET OF TAXES) (US$ M)

1. Civil Works 65% 31.5

2. Goods 11.5 Foreign 100% Local 65%

3. Technical Assistance, Training and Studics 100% 8.5

4. Project Coordinating Unit 100% 0.150 75% 0.150 50% 0.2

5. Unallocated 3.0

TOTAL 55.0 ANNEX 6 Table 6.7

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

Estimated Schedule of Bank Disburscments (USS nillion)

Bank Fiscal Semester Dlsbursed CumulativeDisbursement Loan Year Ending During Balance l ~~~~~~~~SemesterAmount % of Totall 1996 Dec 95a 3 3 5 52 June 96 3 6 11 49 1997 December 96 5 11 20 44 June 97 6 17 31 38 1998 December 97 7 24 44 31 June 98 7 31 56 24 1999 December 98 7 38 69 17 June 99 7 45 82 10

2000 December 99 6 51 93 4 June 00 4 55 100 0

a! Includes retroactive financing for eligible expenditures incurred after January 1, 1993.

The Closing Date is June 30, 2000.

Note: There is no Standard Disbursement Profile for Venezuela projects. ANNEX 7 Page 1 of 2

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

Monitoring and Reporting

1. Systematic and accurate reporting of project performance would be essential given the scope of proposed project activities, and the agencies responsible for implementation. Active monitoring would be crucial, taking into account the innovative nature of the project and the need for adjusting to possible changing circumstances during implementation in accordance with overall project objectives as described and agreed upon during appraisal.

2. The executing agency, INPARQUES, will be responsible for the preparation of quarterly reports, based, in part, on information provided by the cooperating agencies (PROFAUNA, SADA-AMAZONAS and FAC) on their respective subcomponents. The Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) will be in charge of coordinating project documentation and forwarding the consolidated report to the Bank within 30 days of the end of the quarter.

3. The quarterly reports will focus on the evaluation of progress against the annual operating plans, measures of project performance and impact, and other issues related to project implementation and management. They are designed to be used by the senior management of INPARQUES, the Ministry of Environment, other agencies of Government, and the World Bank as an effective tool for project monitoring and would include the followingsections:

(a) The Summary of Project Implementation would give a general description of project implementation during the period under review, by component, including the project's overall status, adherence to the Annual Operating Plan and development impact to date. In addition, this section should comment on the effectiveness of project coordination among project agencies and on project administration issues, including fund flows/Government budgeting, disbursements, procurement, accounts and audits and technical assistance. The status of actions proposed and issues unresolved from the previous quarterly report, and actions proposed for the followingperiod, would also be included.

(b) Physical Indicators would provide quantitative indicators of project implementation by component and subcomponent as identified in Appendix 1.

(c) Financial Indicators would provide a summary of funds released by each financier, including Government, during the quarter by project component and disbursement category (i.e., works, goods, services, and other expenditures). Procurement method and status by disbursement category, estimated future disbursements, status of accounts and audits, and own revenue generation data would also be provided. The proposed format for the financial indicators section of the quarterly reports is presented in Appendix 2. ANNEX 7 Page 2 of 2

(d) The Status of Legal Covenants would present a summary of compliance with project's legal covenants with cross-references to the legal documents and the SAR. The information would be presented as shown in Appendix 3.

4. In summary, an outline of the quarterly report would be:

Part I Overall summary A. General status 1. Major recent events 2. Adherence to Annual Operating Plan 3. Development impact to date

B. Project administration 1. Fund flows and Government budgeting 2. Disbursements 3. Procurement 4. Financial reporting (accounts and audits) 5. Technical assistance

C. Organization and Management 1. General monitoring and evaluation 2. Coordination among project agencies

D. Component by component discussionof status, problems and next steps

Attachment 1. Summary of recommended actions (who should do what by when) Attachment 2. Summary status of recommended actions from last report

Part II Tables on physical indicators

Part III Tables on financial indicators

Part IV Table showing status of legal covenants

Appendix 1: Physical Indicators 1 - A Implementation Indicators 1 - B Impact Indicators

Appendix 2: Financial Indicators Budget Procurement Disbursement Accounting Progress against INPARQUES Financial Plan

Appendix 3: Status of Legal Covenants ANNEX7 Appendix1-A Page 1 of 4

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT Implementation Indicators

Y EARS COMPONENT/TARGET Units 1 2 3 4 5 Total

A. STRENGTHENING OF PARKS MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

(NATIONAL PARKS)

Administration SuperintendentBuildings N° 0 1 2 4 2 9 Administrative Offices N° 0 4 4 8 3 0 19 Cumulativel Administrative Staff N 0 22 42 60 64 64

Protection Guardposts N° 0 48 17 43 23 0 131 Observation Towers N 0 - 2 2 2 6 0 Access Controls N 0 6 5 4 1 16 Transport (Aggregated) N° 0 24 53 S7 34 202 Cumulative Park GuaTd Staff N° 0 52 83 132 141 141

Interpretation/Fducation Visitors' Centers N' 0 4 2 2 2 10 0 Information Centers N 0 8 7 6 3 24

Recreation Recreation Areas N. 0 4 14 9 8 35

(FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL)

Infrastructure Principal Base Camps N° 0 3 4 2 1 9 Auxiliary Base Camps N° 0 2 4 2 - 8 0 Observation Towers N 0 7 5 4 3 19 Incremental Vehicles N0 0 9 37 20 9 75 Cumulative Personnel Person/days 0 3000 4200 4560 5760 5760 Equipment (Aggregated) N 0 2 4 2 1 9 ANNEX 7 Appendix 1-A Page 2 of 4

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT ImplementationIndicators

Y E A RS COMPONENT/TARGET Units I 2 3 4 5 Total

(WILDLIFE REFUGES)

Administration 0 Administrative Offices N - I1

Protection Guardposts N° - 1 4 5 Access Controls N° - I I 0 Transport (Aggregated) N - 6 3 9 0 Park Guards N - 6 2 8

interpretation/Education Information Centers - I 1 2

Improved Management Coordination Meetings 1/ N° 2 5 5 4 4 20 Integrated Management Plans 1/ N° I 2 3 2 2 10

(RECREATIONAL PARKS)

Basic Services Water Treatment ha - 48 74 28 - 150 Electrical System ha - 30 44 20 94 Irrigation ha - 66 59 40 - 165

Cultural Auxaction Amphitheater N° - 1 1 1 - 3 Children's Games N -2 - I - 3 Green Area Development ha - 37 43 20 20 120 Lagoon Restoration N° - I 1 2 - 4 Animal Exhibit ResLoration N° - 9 3 - - 12

interpretation/Education Education Center N° 2 3 1 1 7 Interpretive Program ha - 48 16 59 - 123

1/ Figures include both refuges. ANNEX7 Appendix 1-A Page 3 of 4

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT Implementsiion Indicators

Y EARS COMPONENT/TARGET Units 1 2 3 4 5 Total

B. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

0 Establishment of Research N - 2 1 1 1 5 Stations Rapid Ecological Assessments N° - 3 4 3 10 Thematic Maps Parks - 3 4 1 - S Water Qualit) Studies N° 2 3 - - 5

Park Management Apptied Research (North of Orino,o) N° 4 5 7 7 25

Park Management Applied Research (Ama'on Park) N° - 5 5 1 - 11

Wildlife Refuges Applied Research and MonitoTneg N' - 3 4 3 1 11

C. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Communitx Workshops N° - 44 46 54 52 196

Training of Volunteers and Workshops with NGOs on Parks Protection N° - 37 37 42 44 160 Training of Educators and Volunteers to sworkwith Park Users N° 4 48 43 59 49 203

Education Activities wiLh Children, Studenits. Teachers and other Visitor, 0 to National Parks N too 701 748 925 925 3400 ANNEX 7 Appendix 1-A Page 4 of 4

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT Implementation Indicators

Y EA RS COMPONENT/TARGET Units 1 2 3 4 5 Total

D. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Building/Remodeling of Regional Offices and Training Facilities m2 123 760 730 613 324 2570

Tra'ning courses on: Management & Administration N° I 18 11 9 8 47 Internal Control N° 1 3 7 4 1 16 Planning and Budgeting N° 1 7 8 4 4 24 Contracting of Civil Works N° 1 5 2 7 2 15 National Parks Management N° 1 20 28 28 23 100 Urban Parks Management N° I 10 12 9 2 34 Environmental Eduication N° 1 5 3 2 - I1 Fire Control 2 2 2 2 2 10 Environmental Impact Assess- ment N° 1 3 3 2 2 11 Computer Training staff/days 51 235 130 212 207 855

Technical Assistance on: Administration & Financial Management inan/years 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10.5 Project & Parks Managt. man/years I 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.9 Research & Training mani/years 0.5 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.8 3.4 Community Participation man/years 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 1.5 Financial Sustainability Service Charges & Tariffs man/years I 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.9 Mobilization of Concessioial Financial Assistance man/years 1 - - - I Short-Term Consultancies man/years 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.1

m: \ve\inparq\sar\anx7ap a.bc ANNEX 7 Appendix 1- B Page 1 of 2

VENEZUELA INPARQUES PROJECT

Impact hndicators

Project objectives Indicators Measures ActualYear Periodicity Actionsrequired Responmibility 20C0target

(A) Strengthen 1. Effectivenessof control L Number of violationsfined as a percentageof estimated 1. TBD/80% Annual Reportingsystem; DGPM Field conservationand number of violations data base Ofrices protectionof 2 Number of guardposts per 1000km2 and per 1000km of 2 1-2/3-5 Annual Reportingsystem; DGPM Field vulnerableareas perimeter data base Ofrices

2 Fires 3. Area burnt per park per millionUSS installedfire control 3. TBDITBD Annual Satelliteimages; Directorateof capacity reportingsystem; Parb data base Management-

3. Encroacbment 4. Number of new squattenand newarea encroached (urban 4. TBD/0 Annual Reportingsystem; Regionaland and rural) per park and guard post database; satellite FieldOfrnes ______images; surveys ______

4. Garbage 5. Garbagecollection effort (person/days)per 1,000visitors 5. TBD/1BD Annual Reporting Surveys; Regionaland Database FieldOffices

5. Biodiversity 6 Number of new indicatorsspecies that becameendangered 6. TBD/0 2C and RapidEcologacal StudiesDivision M00 Appraisal______

6, Landscape 7. Area of park under recoveryprograms as a proportionof 7. 3%I15' Annual Reportingsystem; Regionaland total area to be recovered data base FieldOffices

7. Carbon stocks a Estimatedbiomass per park & T3D/TBD 1995and Study StudiesDivision 200D

& Water quality 9. Water contaminationby pollutants 9. TBD/BD Quarterly Lab samples:data StudiesDivision; 10 Peak run-ofsfas percentageof total nowand rain fall 10.TBDIBD base FieldOnfices Monthly Measurement instruments,data base

9. Erosion IL Volumeof soildicharged per annum relativeto amount IL TBDfIBD Monthly Measurement StudiesDivision; of rainfall 12.TBD/IBD instruments,data FieldOnce; 12 Sedimentationvolume in dams downstreamrelative to Annual base StudiesDivision; rainfall Samples,data base FieldOfrices

10. Recreation 13.Number of visitors 13. 700 th./10 Annual Reportingsystem. FieldOfcns million data base Stud DivdField 14. Expenditureper visItor 14. TBDITBD Annual Surveys Off 15.INPARQUES revenue per visitor 15. TBDtlD Annual Surveys FieldOffices

IL Participation 16 Percentageof NGOO,village communitiea,etc.. of park 16 50%/80% Annual Reporting system. FieldOffices municpalitiesrepresented in participatoryworksbop. Annual data bae FieldOfric- Reportngsystem, database I ANNEX 7 Appendix 1- B Page 2 of 2

Project objectrves Indicatonr Measures ActualYear Periodidty Actions required Responsibility 2000target

12 Decentralization 17. Number of regional offices remaining to be establisbed 17. 50 Annual Repordng system DWPM 1& Number of convhnios witb municipalides and state governments I1 ThD/TBD Annual Reporting system DGOPM

13 Staffing 19. Park rangers and technical staff per 1000 tm2 19. 24/6.7 Annual Reporting system Dir. Personnel Annual Rporting system Dir. Personnel

(B) Intensify public L Publications 20f Number of reports filed in INPARQUES relative to total 20f TBD/100% Annual Survey Studies Division environmental reports researcb, training and education efforts 2. Researcb funds, volume 2L Volume of enernal researcb funding 2L TBD/TED Annual Survey Studies Division and diversity of researcb 22 Number of researbers and institutions irnvohved 22 TBD/MD Annual Survey Studies Division

3. Impact of researcb 23. Number of internal and emenal regulations/directives 23. TBDflBD 1996 and Survey Studies Division dbanged based on researcb results 2000

4. Environmental awareness 24. Performance of target sample groups in 24. TBD/TBD tests/questionnaires 1996 and Surveys/tests DWPM 25. Number of people reacbed 25. TBD/TED 2000 Reporting DGPM 26. Number of press reports on areas under INPARQUES 26. TBD/TED Annual management Repordng DGPM Annual

(C) Improve tbe L Own revenues 27. Own revenues generated relative to targets by source 27. TBD/100% Annual Reporting system; Dir. Own economic 2& Percentage of oain revenues in total receipts 2&. 159/50% data base Revenues sustainabilityof 29 Own revenues per put 29 TBDI/TD Annual natinal parks and Annual Reporting sytem; Dir. Own other proteted areas data base Revenues Reportingsystem; Dir. Own data base Revenues

Notes: 1/ TBD - To be determined; The eact 1995 baseline values and the 2000 and annual targets will be determined in a study to be conducted - part of the researcb program of INPARQUES during 1996 Thbi sudy will also review tbe feasibility of measuring tbe above indicators and propose alternative indicators acceptable to the Bank if necessary. See Table 4.3 Annex 4 for a list of tbe studies

m:\ve\inpsrq\ssr\s7aplb.buf ANNEX 7 Appendix 2

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECr

Financial Indicators

1. Ley Paraguas; original estimate, submitted to Congress and approved

2. Budget approved by component

3. Budget released by component

4. Procurement by category: actual, in proccss and planned

5. World Bank disbursemcnts: released, in process and planned

6. Status of audit reports

7. Progress against INPARQUES Financial Plan (indicators in Appendix 1) VENEZUELA INPARQUES Project Monitoring and Reporting Status of Legal Covenants

Agreement Section Covenant Present Status Original Revised Description of Comments Type Fulfillment Fullfillment Covenants Date Date

( 15 . 13 = Other

( X'

X ANNEX 7 Table 7.1

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECr

ImplementationSchedule by Park

YEAR NATIOCAL PARK/RESERVE I 1| 3

Morrocoy ------>

Mochima <------>

Los Roques ------>

Canaima ------>

Yurubi ------>

El Avila <------>

Cuare <------>

Tortuga Arrau <--- >

Henri Pittier ------>

San Esteban* < >

Sierra Nevada <------>

El Tama <------>

Aguaro-Guariquito <------>

Laguna de La Restinga <------>

L3guna de Tacarigua <------>

Maria Lionza <------>

Cerro Copey <------>

Modanos de Coro <------>

Cinaruco Capanaparo ------>

Et Guacharo* <------> Recipient parks of investment support under the fire prevention and combat element. ANNEX 8 Page 1 of 4

VENEZUELA

INPARQUES PROJECT

DOCUMENTSIN PROJECr FILE

What follows is a list of documents received during project preparation, which are now in the managing divison, LA2NR. These documents will be forwarded to the LAC Information Center.

BoxI

(1) Oct. 1992 Manual de Normas y Procedimientos de Licitaciones Internacionales para la contrataci6n de obras (2) Feb. 1994 Componente de Fortalecimiento Institucional (3) Proyecto Manejo del Sistema Nacional de Parques Executive Summary (4) Flow Chart - Desarrollo de un Proyecto Financiamiento Multilateral (5) March 1993 INPARQUES Project document (Spanish version) (6) Asuntos Indigenas document (7) Oct. 1992 Plan de Desconcentracion y de reforma administrativa de INPARQUES (8) Dec. 1994 Gastos Infraestructura INPARQUES Project (9) Expenditures for INPARQUES activities July 1992 to July 1993 (10) Project Matrix - Spanish (11) Jan 1993 Official Gazette (12) Sept. 1993 Collaboration agreement SADAMAZONAS and INPARQUES (13) Project Personnel for INPARQUES project

Box 2

(1) Diskettes with Consultants Working Papers (2) Loan Signing documentation (3) MOP National Parks Management Project (4) LAlAG Environmental Issues in Venezuela (5) SAR National Parks Management Project (6) LAIAG Venezuela, Land Mkts, Land Ref & Rural Land ownership (7) June 22 - July 10, 1992 Instit Strengthening Aide Memoire (8) Ley Orginica de Cr6dito Puiblico (9) INPARQUES personnel list (10) Oct, 1992 Letter on Special Programs (11) Nuestros Parques (12) Maps of parks (13) Ponencia Presentada Por INPARQUES a Solicitud de la Sociedad ven de ciencias naturales la Salle en el Marco del Congreso U Un futuro para la orinoquia- amazonia March 1991 (14) Constit Acts on Indigenous Peoples ANNEX 8 Page 2 of 4

(15) Official Gazette Aug. 1993 (16) Los Asentamientos humanos en los parques nacionales (17) Map of indigenous settlements (18) Situaci6n de Tenencia de la Tierra en las Comunidades Indigenas del Edo. Amazonas (19) Info booklet on INPARQUES (20) Eco-tourism article (21) Promotional info on Canaima (22) Informe de gesti6n 1989-93 parte 1. Resumen de gesti6n (23) Act of agreement INPARQUES and national guard (24) Budgetary contributions of national gov to INPARQUES 1994 (25) Cost recovery plan Oct 1992 (26) Status of parks matrix

Box 3

(1) Ecologia Social: Mas alla del ambiente (2) Sistema de Administracion y Servicios, Subsistema de Contratacion. Procedimiento para contratacion estudios, obras, mantenimiento y proyectos. (3) Conservacion y Manejo Sustentable de la Diversidad Biologica en la Guayana Venezolana (4) Proyecto INPARQUES: Hojas de costo Revisadas. (5) Direccion General del Instituto de la Region (Generica). Descripcion de funciones. (6) INPARQUES: Alinderamiento del Parque Nacional Duida - Marahuaka. (7) INPARQUES: Cuadros de Costo del Proyecto. (8) INPARQUES: Criterios para la seleccion de los Parques de Recreacion a Permanecer adscritos INPARQUES. (9) INPARQUES: Documentos Varios. Fianzas, Actas, Minutas. (10) Coral Reefs of the World. Volume 1: Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. (11) INPARQUES: Parques Nacionales en Peligro. (12) Parques de Recreacion. Perfiles: Supervisor de Mantenimiento, Especialistas en Educacion, Vigilantes. (13) Venezuela. Fortalecimiento de Parques Nacionales. Parques Amazonicos (Working Paper 4). (14) INPARQUES: Monitoring and Evaluation: Protected Area Management Component. (15) FAO. National Parks and Otehr Protected Areas Component. Working Paper. (16) Venezuelan National Parks / Indigeneous Peoples. (17) Draft Working Paper --INPARQUES Institutional Strengthening. (18) INPARQUES, Documento de Trabajo, componente Educacion Ambiental. (19) INPARQUES. Mision de Evaluacion del Banco Mundial (06/22 - 07/10). Fortalecimiento Institucional. (20) Input (Training, etc.) from Pablo Gutman. (21) FAO. Physical targets and impact indicators for the sub-components of the project's protected area management component. (22) INPARQUES: Training Component. Aide Memoire. (23) INPARQUES: Componentes de Capacitacion y de Asistencia TEcnica. Ayuda Memoria. ANNEX 8 Page 3 of 4

(24) How to Recover Part of the Benefits of Bio-diversity Protection to Finance INPARQUES' current costs. (25) South America's National Parks. A visitor's Guide. (26) INPARQUES. Investigacion y Monitoreo Ambiental. Working Paper.

Box 4

(1) Parques Nacionales. Perfiles: Coordinador de la Unidad de Manejo, Guardaparques, Superintendentes. (2) Parques Nacionales y Monumentos Naturales de Venezuela. Direccion General Sectorial de Parques Nacionales. INPARQUES. (3) A Directory of Neotropical Wetlands (4) Venezuela: Conservation and Development Organizations (5) Eco-Tourism Thrives on Island Paradise. (6) Venezuela Natural Resources Management Project: Volume I, II, III. (7) Environmental Issues in Venezuela. WB Report 8272-VE. (8) Venezuela: Ley Organica de la Administracion Central. Various articles, Gaceta Oficial de la Republica de Venezuela. (9) INPARQUES. Terminos de Referencia. Consejero de INPARQUES: Administracion de Bienes y Servicios. (10) INPARQUES. Memorandum de cargos necesarios para conformar la region. (11) INPARQUES: Proyecto de Decreto. Autoridad unica coordinadora de los servicios publicos para el centro poblado El Gran Roque, en el Parque Nacional Archipielago Los Roques. (12) INPARQUES: Acta (13) INPARQUES: Programa de Capacitacion (14) INPARQUES: Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan (15) INPARQUES: Plan de Ordenamiento y Reglamento de Uso del Parque Nacional Duida - Marahuaka.

Box 5

(1) Venezuela: Decreto 276 06/89. Reglamento Parcial de la Ley Organica para la Ordenacion del Territorio sobre Administracion y Manejo de Parques Nacionales y Monumentos Naturales. (2) INPARQUES: Cuadros del estimado del personal del proyecto. (3) INPARQUES & IBRD Project Agreement. (4) INPARQUES & IBRD Loan Agreement (5) Venezuela National Parks Management Project. SAR. Nov. 1992 (6) INPARQUES: Propuesta de reestructuracion parcial. Justificacion tecnica. (7) INPARQUES: Ayudas Memoria. Componentes: Investigacion y Monitoreo Ambiental, Manejo de Areas Protegidas, Fortalecimiento e Investigacion de los parques amazonicos, Educacion Ambiental. Ayuda Memoria de la Mision. Costos de Inversion y Operacion. (8) INPARQUES: Informacion de Impuestos (9) Venezuela, Proyecto de manejo de parques nacionales. (10) INPARQUES: formularios del sistema de informacion (SIDID). (11) INPARQUES: Manual de Procedimiento (12) INPARQUES: Benefits and Justification ANNEX 8 Page 4 of 4

(13) Propuesta "Conservaciony Manejo Sustentable de la Diversidad Biologica en la Guayana Venezolana"

Box 6

(1) Venezuela: Desarrollo Sostenible de la costa Este del Estado Falcon (2) Venezuela: National Environmental Management Project. Expanded Project Brief (2 volumes). (3) MARNR: Directorio de Organizaciones Ambientalistas (4) INPARQUES: Investigaciones prioritarias en los Parques Nacionales de Venezuela. I Region Marino Costera. (5) INPARQUES: Division de Evaluacion, Inventario y Monitoreo Ambiental. (6) Venezuela: National Environmental Management Project. Expanded Project Brief. Volume I. (7) Programa de Parques Nacionales. Anexo: Cuantificacion de Metas y Costos Anuales. (8) Venezuela: Investigacionesy Estudios Cientificos y Tecnicos en Parques Nacionales. Informe Final.

m:\ve\inparq\sar\ann=&bc

BRED268 16 7W AS ST.VINCENT 6W' C ar ib b ean S e GRENADINES E=NATIONAL sRKn r)ORHEE PROTECTEDAREAS ICONTLI: TRUSTSE PROTECTIONROECIO AREAS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l,AEA > (No.1. c,SRK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LEARIRA tEASER- EN E SIERRAR

REC*~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~GRENADA 5.. ~ ~ E~~ANS ICS APE RIOA.SA,REEEOCE ENS j5~~~~~~~~~~~~ ER CAINAIERER LAR_C_IR [L..4 5 Op5hI5 R ACEARR EC SAN=ARERDER U-lEE CEP- F.M S S. PR.S ARCURSE DICILIRAAERAS UCRELADE MLTOREEL PASO RES AJENUSCEIERAAERRICSRNESCAARRO~~~~~~~~RN .1ROO-A . -PUCURl A. OSURsELS PECAN. RE:IASCRORAIEEl-LSEC.S A ENE RE- SERERRSC ELCAARER .RA ER

EN-I RS ICRSICR LAR]Sl ERERS.N--A SUUS -, FEE AL .. k -U.!C~ TRINIDAD SE RRREAD TOBAGO E-ISSSRAELAIAEl IREERRE P A. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ACRULILCO PP.-IRRI AUSSESERO SNEINUC SERRENIEPRAIRINIDAD AASCEAIS\~~~C~' ~ ~ 1.11 II C. E- ~~~~~~~~~~~-~¶ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . EN-A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~R

ERSEERISLA NERuPAS DEIC C AL PM EER SEOE 11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EASEN~ AACAAANA CRUI-'IEN CO ICUON ENKRE -UICMA REIUEC ERIE CENCSTE IOCAC-TRECA ENiPENINSUA ER RIRIA MARERN TODE-APERCAS 1. IT1 ENR ICAECCCICMCSL OLACION R.IOCORER A, t.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LS.CR.ST.-ARA PLCUNI RE 4CURI RINCEDER 7~~~~~~~~~~_ l~~~~~~~~~~~~~NSR PENRE-AEE PR CCOECEIR All RAOo ENSEEIRSIRA DARCEER. E S.ICuCONA DERLRIO -AUIC-

EINE105' I'p=EAS 'I;%ESSN CI.INP..I TCLAEU-. - N Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EECERR EACCHE ESLICT.SLCECCCE Rl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G EN $A DIEECELA EUlATS SPASSUP ML ERCEEN-OI-E I (AUSPCICE SU A C SE 'All .1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ENCPRSS-UCREC ENSCSEPEL TEISOC -REEIEE APIP SA CRIECTRE E-ESNCAAUSACRE UTERI SR-SEL_N ULAUSURA E-I.N..AERIMNIAR CR.S RE-EN TR. ALEILCUINROCU EUS EN SRI. CACERPOR - PESI EERNI-ZAC '._CA.ROEE-UER ECECMC"ENA 3- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~~~~~~~~~~~' A C EASCUI LRANA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NRSRS -3 NATU MONUMENTSOJUSRE I' 11 1ANA'-" CAS I.E RE-IEU-A-

M DISEAERANOEIOPAC ER ' D,CA DRAREACLR ICAUU -E ANCESA SEE IAU~N-SAMIPE ER RIO ENS,ANERSRR RUE LASERRDA__ TARIUST. DERSAUL LUAC SER' -AUEEL ES MAERESAL L -ARLA R R: A1 SERAIEAS ASSARE SEER EAELE ICOME EUCSCLMAES L

MN -CARA ER MACUCA MA C.STNCOA

~~~~~~K Nxo EALNAU ERRZ'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ARIA CA.CENCUUSCE DER,RIO GUYANA CERSAOlESUTAI RIUC

R.ISN AENA LA Q,ULELA HIGHPECORITY CRITICAL AREAS PN I AR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNESEE RA CRU MAlCASORR RCLRA lECRR PEREMAD EC CuSRIOSENR C"UAE VENEZUELA I ACRY, ECALNARECO IE-1.11.11 CLAOLA- DERSERACA -N0.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AC- WPRLDUFEREFUGES AR. 1. CL~~~~~~~~~~~EIACER WOODLOTS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESISOGLE PROTECTEDAREAS UR IAEL DORLATA-RMES R L-oINOLCE TCTS ARCL CENAC'-R-ICA U IRASENCRI MAR SELECTED CITIES~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E b"I"14 SE-LAU.A LAD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EU CRUS ERRAE RU RCANE '5PCE CUAR.UPS.CO

ESIAAPCAC ER1PURI_CR.1RAI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A • STATECAPITALS 8 TEOEEES 5""' SRA ERICTEEL URINOCA RRR5~T C-COFLENRAC CPR •NATIONAL CAPITAL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6')RS

RORE-TREMARVES ,L PORTS S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RESERVES ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ILOLPHRE

REESLIE RERAASERVESLR RES A EECU CTGRATEDERRAGRYARANRRISROCCL INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES " ."""'7!fCPIGEESEMI CRAMREREA RA~~~~NTIEGRNATEERUMARPETRA SPECIALAGRICUJLTURAL USEAREAS

0 S'Ar - -- SACS USCERIO CURRI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C,D--A l LA

SU ETEPSN CIROC, EU --4- - - - V~~~p4NEA,A)ENEZUJELA 2 "NAV ~ WAT"EC~~~~~~~~RSHEDREMAIERVS AA-C "RR INERMROIRASI --I.~~ ?P. E Md-~~~~ ~~~~~~~""''C. - 5 RAE ECRERMAPICSENEMA ACEC UCU~~~~~~~~~~MARRON-'.ERRAC AE RTETO h- I """ -SIS"BRAAAZILSEER MSdMCyMMC EMPPMCR R CAnS MCUICCESRL SULS EFOREST IEALAR AREAS LS UNDERRA P~~~~~~~~ Ih,. .. , d. - .,Iy, I.,. RI ',, f Lk ICU-SERS SC.MPREENEiRC- URCSTRCE.yIR R.CRA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HRSI f R. )~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O1. CO .. RI~ SE .- h Z-d.- 6 5 E'.__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~LC

IBRD26817

70 S'i' ST. VINCENT 6 ondthe IsID.A LaSanqsla GREN MN-' (Van) T - E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N-IEL AVILA 4 Erhil.PN S 5YLJRU1 MN.', *lo* D4 12| IcLa4s gOrrL b PunloF0iog ,.3 L-) EPNEN 76 YACAMBUCANAIMA Po.no V - ENSOCUEVA DE LAQUEBRADA DEL TORO Co,d6n Es/az LosT o=s$ PN 9 AR2PEIELA LO RODEUL AR nj,..,.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T7P-1 MACARAO

rIo OT osronoSUCEL I/R ENlr 15 CERRORI CW/OPE/1 V.LLA5 E . 39 MORROATUAROGUPARIOPN 0, B..Grd9,_>4>y. toe - -SoMi4-04trV -FAQIE i,dN ;7 nA, . UH EN-E S EtCLG AR O y E . rT P r a I 0 c o a I 6naR EN-E TEEAUAD i \l V L |oI C O L O M L I A AL P TN jro ND ~~ ENSOJAUA-DARISARIPSAA3A~~~~I ARSAIFAM II ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ tENo nool E~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4PN20JAA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- ... i6, *T t)tw_.O in ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DC.R\CI 0J 1 EN-IB LAONADE TEANAI *fs.4~,y sn ttIPS EN-11 UEERANA LANLRE.JNA | iN 3 4 3) iG>oRTUdE>>t -f5-o* URBAN PARKS1,)%, tm sI^f A' O~~UNDER ,j,GA ,\Mn)s PROJEC T j -''-} 5E- M R , _ I ~ N tna t -10' 5 NE 2 D IJDAM ARAI OIACA MN, N~ E R > C_ 9 - o 6 1 AELECTEDCITIES S,2 EN-SRP NINSULA DR PARIKA A,- VIN SoNIA

PoIN 26EL TAMA EN %~~~rRUILo/T.Il N11 - > SR - 42 -ao`OJCO FD XS / EN-25N SIERRADEDR SANPERIJA LU/S <7 3"9I 1 OJDANMOAGSP N-25 SIERRLA - "nn..aJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'NE'~~~~~~~- JUANCRISOSTOMO FAU:6N/ ~~~~~~OET P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N-28SAN ESTEBAN 'CO DINIRA(SIERRA DB BARBACOA) APNh-rSR V ANZOATEI-Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P~~N-S30UARAMACAL \ T { s . ENy21dgment uPCOAD CAA CINARUC -he-Woror.nos -> G-oup. roni ' o v 2 1 jT C O L O M B I A hi-IA - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(BATALLONYVIANEORA) 6 pEr/55 CEEROSAROCHE~~~~~~~~~~d 'n.fl ~~~ ~ t .s~~~----C• S '5 30Ie~~~~~~~~od odad - DELTAELT Pl~N-33 SIERRAOSARCULAT Bood.AGr,o ~ 4 'n MESIA BARINA G. on -he l-ol sPohws of oNycr1'EN-S.CHOR_; y, ELE OC £ - 'N"N'---,7"' EN 36 EARIMATATAP RAERCO3`ARIM APEC a' H EEAX -rj-,~~~~~~~;,ST-A - - I Ina~~~~~~~ E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N-SiDELADEL ORINOCO /MABIUSA/ SAC' ->ooarnan- .,, P8ELGUiN8 PIEDRADELCOCLIY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. < EN-SB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P43CIRAAGASSE JUAN MAANUEL C - <. SWO f > , r u INPARQUESPROJECT Pt' s < < -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,j /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CATATUJMBOI ony I. EN-SRTURUEPAN40 EN-ARDAN CAMILO(RIO VIEJO/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MN12CAHGOURNREARAELASGONPNZ22AYAPACANEN-Al ORLALMANUEL MANRIQUR (TIRGUA) AND5MlLDLIFEREiuGESRut9LDMEROPNRUOMJEEcNTT5(t /M NIS w7A A / w i\e L . r E-SELGUACHE 3 P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N-ASTAPO-CAPARO

COLOMBIA '-,VA NATURALMONUMENTS MN-E ALEJANDROHHMRLDT aIIVAKIA ~~~~~~~~CUEVADELOUACBNAROT/ ~~-"Dc~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %.5'fl5~~~~~GUAN MN-2 ARISTIDESROJAS 6 DSEAN JUAN/ IAN- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~(MORROSMARIA LIONZA J30 l.c EN 22 YAEACNADEBCDEA O, r O 1? KILMETE log'"VLZc U.IIOAEOIUCO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MN-NCERSATAA5LAGUNA DE LASMARITES VENEZUELA MN-7A TETARE AI UVR MN- CPERROMATASIETE Y GUAYAMURI 'o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N-6LS PTEDRASDEL CARIC GUVAR INPAROUESPROJECT MN 9CU ADE ALEED 3MACN * URBANPARKS UNDER PROJECT 5 MN-El CUEVAR8 f 12 LAGUNASR URAO ~~~~~~MN-CHORRERALAS GONZALRZ NATIONAL PARKS,S,NATURAL MONUMENTS tAMN-ES 6 N-lAJUAN GERMANROCE ADWLLFERERFUGESUNDER PROJECT (CERRO LATILL6N/ o SELECTEDCITIES A,- MN-1ESLOMA DRE LEON I6 LOSTEPUYES SAECAPITALS P n5MN 6 ~<- STATE -35 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MN-E7P1COCOOAZZI ~~~----tr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MN-ES MESETALAGALERA AICINA PIEDRADR LA TORTUGA Y PIEDRA1 99~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SMN-SD, r l MAY t' AIRPORTS I - -. _ | 70 - MZNS§fp'PINTADA

PRTVES >4 os sm WILDUFEREFUGES

S.., '- 5o.a IREI CUARE STATEBOUNJDAR/ES ~ an sic. ~~~~RE-SISLAAVES 53 03 RESESTEROSE CHIRIGUARE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES P3,-SO ,-. c,. Z2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GA.AMRE-AlLOS OLIVITOS 0., '~~~n -~~~ RJ~~I IP~~~~I OOROAWCS RE~IF-SCANO GUARMCO

LAGUNADE BC DRCANO 0 AO 80 120 KILOMFTERS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RE-?

- A 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~URBANPARKS UNDER PROJECT - - ~- - - - ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~oooA.~VENEZUELA C ANDPE'SE106 BLANCO S . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GALJNDO MNI ' ~c IOAICUEP GU~~~~~~~P Th. boondar., colors,dan--,n-,on "I" -n.o )211 -MARAOC_4IPLF , PEOPC1JIANOFNT BE PIAPACAY and any oA., ,nona PnsEaon I BRAZIL M- & Thawo,/d S-nL G1OA.P, - cdg-P, C"%L\ 1 -n a A. 1.90/sn',o oy*Irslay, or r any and-rs- n .. or.acP,once cE .I'-J.j 605' BRA ZI L such b-cdar,- 61r'1'

IRED26815 ST.VINCENT 60 70 65i teli A~~~~~~~b. (Nth) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~andGRENADINES L., Monies A N.rhJ Ca r ib b ea n S e a IV-IMoroe Bonoinr1N.6

INnER ' to GRENADA

_t roi A-°ct. Np Oro_ _ PurtoPpor- CV-\6 4 , CAPITALREGION to Ta .. roMano=r og o G Punr6° \ C- NATIONAL 6 slaI TaFDEAL\ts, I.IaD.agt UEAVAREPv Aobgo ,amoiwX ~~~*Npotor. 5- Punted. Pid, , TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO M.1% N FEDERAL L1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DSRT1.1L.m^T._ ,1,2M.= 6._Tg

( Ofl lLAb,mase"\ Poenl Aip.PO t rOPeoOGU.Lu: =- |-- ' h*p-'- q;_} *~~Msqaeb A.NT!.:vAC _ tmL %03n,/' >gEon

.,\ .Tn TiidE ''P _ ,,r .R SUCR 05S .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cso

DELITiREG!ION ,:ElDoret 50UJHEAS ONGERS COlOMBIA \ i -- -6 '.

Fc 6 N -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. C LI

UY A N A LV ENL TEIZ AELU o _E 4s SQ - /G INPARUES REGIONAL

AMAZONAS o SELECTEDCITIESE CDA S. STATECAPITALS CENTRAL - R Bor8s NATIONALCAPITAL n mnd - AMAZONAS 6 oh,__,A J . Tbclsir°o PAN AMERICAN HIGHWAY oc

80 120 KILOMETERS /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KLOMTER ) ^ 9 ,0 \ AMAZONAS tbo t AIRPORTS

OUINPARQUESREGIONAL DIRECTORATES HAIIONALCAPITAL

i) vF Nine. ETpoort II.. Isouniariescolors. r\ SOURNEAST other nlorrori=or shoom|\_rr_E e.;

I MAGING

Report No: 13974 VE Type: SAR