Document of The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized

Report No. 11208-VE

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT Public Disclosure Authorized

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized NOVEMBER 17, 1992

Public Disclosure Authorized Environment and Agriculture Operations Division Country Department I Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EOUIVALENTS (as of June 1992)1/

Currency Unit = Bolivar (Bs) US$1.00 = Be 66.0 US$1 million = BB 66 million US$15,152 = Bs 1 million

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

The metric system is used throughout the report.

GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR

January 1 - December 31

1/ Appraisal Mission. FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ABRAE Protected Areas (Areas Bajo R6gimen 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)

FAC National Guard (Fuerzas Armadas de Cooperaci6n)

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

INPARQUES National Institute of Parks (Instituto Nacional de Parques)

IUCN International Union of Conservation

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

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

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

SADAMAZONAS National Service for the Environmental Development of the Amazon Region (Servicio de Desarrollo Ambiental del Amazonas)

WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Table of Contents

I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY ...... 1

II. SECTORAL BACKGROUND ...... 4

Country Overview ...... 4 Natural Resource Management and Protection ...... 4 Biological Diversity ...... 4 Protected Areas.5...... 5 Legislative Framework ...... 5 Institutional Setting ...... 5 Sectoral Issues ...... 7 Experience with Previous Bank Lending ...... 7 Lessons Learned from Similar Projects ...... 8

III. THE PROJECT .9

Origin and Rationale for Bank Involvement ...... 9 Project Objectives and Design ...... 10 Details of Project Components ...... 11 Strengthening of Parks Management and Protection ...... 11 Environmental Research ...... 12 Environmental Education ...... 13 Institutional Development ...... 14 Project Organization and Implementation ...... 15 Participation by NGOs and Local Communities in Project Activities. 17 Environmental Impact ...... 18 Project Costs ...... 19 Financing Plan ...... 19 Procurement ...... 19 Disbursements ...... 21 Project Benefits and Justification ...... 21 Sustainability ...... 23 Project Risks ...... 25

IV. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 26

This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visited Venezuela from June 22 to July 10, 1992. The mission comprised Messrs. L. Coirolo (Mission Leader, Economist), F. Vita (Economist, FAO-CP), R. DuBois (Environmentalist, FAO-CP), P. Gutman (Environmental Economist, Consultant), J. Barborak (Institutional Specialist, Wildlife Conservation International), A. Grajal (Conservation Specialist, Wildlife Conservation International), G. Ledec (Environmentalist) and Mmes. C. Sobrevila (Ecologist) and G. Leiva (Secretary). - ii -

ANNEXES, TABLES AND CHARTS

Annex 1: STRENGTHENING OF PARKS MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION COMPONENT . 28 Table 1.1: Project Assisted Protected Areas ...... 33 Table 1.2: Proposed Locations of Fire Prevention and Combat Camps and Parks Covered by Region ...... 34

Annex 2: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COMPONENT ...... 35

Annex 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION COMPONENT ...... 38

Annex 4: INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING COMPONENT ...... 40 Chart 4.1: INPARQUES Organizational Chart ...... 47 Table 4.1: Existing Personnel in Project Protected Areas 48 Table 4.2: Additional Staff for Selected Personnel Categories under Project ...... 49 Table 4.3: Proposed Staffing Levels ...... 50 Table 4.4: Proposed Technical Staffing Needs Matrix - Resources Management Program ...... 51

Annex 5: PROJECT COSTS ...... 52 Table 5.1: Estimated Project Costs by Component ...... 52 Table 5.2: Annual Phasing of Project Costs by Components, Including Contingencies ...... 53 Table 5.3: Estimated Schedule of Bank Disbursements . . . . 54 Table 5.4: Financing Plan ...... 55 Table 5.5: Allocation of Loan Proceeds ...... 56 Table 5.6: Procurement Implementation Schedule - Estimated Annual Contractual and Other Payments 57 Table 5.7: INPARQUES' Cost Recovery Program ...... 58

Annex 6: PROJECT SUPERVISION PLAN ...... 59 Table 6.1: Key Annual Dates for Project Supervision . . . . 60 Table 6.2: Bank Staffing Inputs and Skill Requirements for Project Supervision ...... 61

Annex 7: PROJECT PHYSICAL TARGETS, IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT . . . . . 62 Table 7.1: Project Physical Targets and Schedule of of Implementation ...... 62 Table 7.2: Indicators of Project Impact on National Park Sustainability ...... 67

Annex 8: REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS IN PROJECT FILES ...... 68

MAP: IBRD No. 24323 VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

I. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Borrower: The Republic of Venezuela

Executing Agency: Instituto Nacional de Parques (INPARQUES)

Amount: US$55.0 million equivalent

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

Proiect Objectives The project would help to strengthen the capability of and Description: INPARQUES and other public environmental agencies to manage Venezuela's national and urban parks, natural monuments, and wildlife reserves; to intensify public environmental research, training and education efforts; to involve the private sector more actively in the protection/management of natural resources; and to improve the economic sustainability of the national parks and other protected areas. The main project components would include: (a) Strengthening of Parks Management and Protection; (b) Environmental Research; (c) EnvironmentalEducation; and (d) Institutional Development, including Project Administration, Training and Technical Assistance.

Prolect Benefits: Support for national parks and other priority protected areas in Venezuela is justified from both a national and an international standpoint. Many of these areas contain the watersheds of major rivers and storage reservoirs which are significant for power, agriculture and water supply; and/or have recreational and tourism potential which could be further developed provided their natural resource base is protected and managed in a sustainable manner. By way of illustration, the present value of the watershed protection function of the national parks alone has been estimated at US$285 million p.a. or more. As a direct result of the project, the management and protection of a total area of approximately 110,000 km2 would be significantly improved. The capacity to manage all of Venezuela's protected areas (some 0.5 million km2) would also be indirectly strengthened as a result of the training, education and capacity building - 2 -

activities of the project. From the international perspective, despite its relatively small size, Venezuela contains a vast array of neotropical ecosystems. The investment effort under the project would greatly enhance the prospects for survival of representative samples of almost one-tenth of the world's biological diversity and would thus also have important external benefits.

Pro-ect Risks: Although there are no major project risks, implementation could be affected by some institutional weaknesses at the level of INPARQUES and counterpart funding constraints. INPARQUES is a well-established, autonomous entity with a good track record to date, but its present structure and skills mix do not fully reflect the extent to which its responsibilities have grown over the years. To address these institutional concerns, the project would support: (a) a decentralization of administrative and technical functions from INPARQUES' central headquarters to its regional and state offices and field units; (b) implementation of a plan of action to diversify INPARQUES' sources of financial support and thereby help to strengthen its financial sustainability beyond the project period; and (c) staff training and technical assistance. Also, building on successful past collaborative efforts 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. Finally, the project implementation strategy places primary emphasis on the contracting out of project works to the maximum extent possible. With regard to funding, the level of cost sharing by the Bank would be somewhat higher (60%) than the average for other operations in Venezuela, given the strong environmental focus of the project. During negotiations, assurances would be sought that adequate counterpart funds would be provided to INPARQUES to meet the balance of project funding needs. -3-

ESTIMATEDPROJECT COSTS AND FINANCINGPLAN

L2cl Forefon 12Xi1 (US# MilLion)

EstimatedProject Costs

A. Strengtheningof Parks Manaaement and Protection 50.8 8.1 58.9

- Northern NationaL Parks (30.8) (4.4) (35.2) - Wildlife Reserves (0.9) (0.2) (1.1) - Amazon NationaL Parks (3.1) (0.3) (3.4) - UrbanRecreational Parks (9.8) (1.1) (10.9) - Fire Prevention and Control (6.2) (2.1) (8.3)

B. EnvironmentalResearch 1.9 4.5 6.4

C. EnvironmentalEducation 2.3 0.2 2.5

D. InstitutionalDevelopment 7.2 5.4 12.6

Project Administration (3.0) (3.0) (6.0) - Training (3.1) (0.1) (3.2) TechnicalAssistance (1.1) (2.3) (3.4)

Total Baseline Costs l2 a182m4

- PhysicalContingencies 5.8 1.1 6.9 - Price Contingencies 6.7 2.0 8.7

Total Project Costs 7 il 96.0

FinancingPlan:

Governmentof Venezuela 41.0 41.0 if IBRD 33.8 21.2 55.0

Total 90 Lilu

EstimatedDisbursements:

FY 1993 1994 1995 1996 171

Annual 11.5 ?/ 9.0 12.2 11.5 8.8 2.0 Cumulative 11.5 Z/ 20.5 32.7 44.2 53.0 55.0

Rate of Return: N.A.

Matp: IBRD No. 24323

1/ IncludingUSS3.8 million in local taxes.

2/ Including initial deposit of USS5.0 million into the Special Account nd USS5.0 miLLion of retroactive financing. a -4-

II. SECTORAL BACKGROUND

Country Overview

2.01 Venezuela, situated on the north coast of South America and bordered by Colombia, Brazil and Guyana, is the continent's sixth largest country with an estimated area of 916,442 km2 (see Map). 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 (1990), some 83% of whom live in urban settlements located mainly in the northern states.

2.02 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 Orinoco Delta and the eastern part of the Cordillera de M6rida. Humidity is generally high with average values exceeding 80% in the Amazon, eastern plains (llanos), and the Maracaibo lowlands. Annual average temperatures range from 240 C at elevations below 800 m to 00 C at elevations over 3,000 m. The Orinoco river system drains some 80% of the national territory.

2.03 Venezuela's per capita GDP of US$2,560 (1990) is the second highest in Latin America. Oil and other minerals account for approximately 90% of total exports. GDP is also heavily influenced by these same activities: oil production, mining, petrochemicals and energy have generated up to 30% of GDP in recent years; other manufacturing provided 12%; agriculture and construction 6% each; and services 46%.

2.04 Due to its heavy dependence on petroleum exports, the rapid growth rates which Venezuela achieved during the 1974-78 period of high oil prices fell dramatically during the 1980s. In spite of a successful debt rescheduling program, economic activity stagnated until about 1985, picking up again in 1986- 88 as oil prices recovered and official exchange rates were modified. In 1989 the economy began to slump again, but subsequent adjustment efforts and debt restructuring have started to yield results.

Natural Resource Management and Protection

2.05 Biological Diversity. Venezuela is a sparsely populated country situated in the tropics and enjoying a wide range of geographically extensive habitats, many of which still remain little disturbed. As a result, Venezuela has been identified as one of the world's most biologically diverse 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 neotropical birds and more than 300 species of mammals, 18 of which are classified as endangered. - 5 -

2. 06 Protected Areas. To manage its biodiversity wealth 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 39 national parks, 17 natural monuments and 10 wildlife refuges and reserves (Annex 1). Today Venezuela's national parks and monuments encompass more than 14 millon has, 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.

2.07 Legislative Framework. Venezuela has developed an impressive body of environmental legislation and a fairly comprehensive environmental management system. Fundamental laws for 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 Org&nica del Ambiente - LOA) and the Organic Zoning Law (Ley Organica 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 Organica de la AdministraciOn Central (LOAC), which created the Ministry of 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 Organica del Regimen Municipal) defines the environmental competence of the municipalities, and the 1989 Organic Law on Decentralization (Ley Organica de 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) has also recently been enacted (April 1992).

2.08 Institutional Setting. 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 Nacional de Parques (National Institute of Parks, 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 the National Wildlife Office (PROFAUNA), in charge of wildlife protection, and the National Service for the Environmental Development of the Amazon (SADAMAZONAS), which focusses on the environmental protection of Venezuela's sparsely occupied Federal Amazon Territory. -6-

2.09 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 INPARQUES' ability to fulfill its legally mandated management responsibilities, partly because of its present fairly centralized structure and staffing/skills mix pattern, exacerbated by budgetary constraints associated with declines in domestic oil revenues. Hence, it is clear that the rapid expansion of Venezuela's protected areas system 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.

2.10 PROFAUNA was created in 1989 to manage the country's wildlife, particularly 10 wildlife refuges and reserves. SADAMAZONAS was 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 SADAMAZONAS, is the focal point for coordinating and implementing all research activities in that part of the Amazon basin which lies within Venezuela. Many other Venezuelan institutions also perform activities which concern the environment. The Ministry of Coordination and Planning Office (CORDIPLAN) has a major role in coordinating environmental issues of national scale. Although heavily concentrated at the national level, environmental management is beginning to be decentralized to state and local authorities, in accordance with the new decentralization law (para. 2.07). Also of interest is the involvement of the Ministry of Defense in activities of environmental police and law enforcement. The Fuerzas Armadas de Cooperacion (FAC) is the military corps devoted to surveillance and protection activities (frontier control, customs, public properties protection, etc.). Since 1952, it has 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 four national parks (El Avila, El Tama, Canaima and Maria Lionza).

2.11 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 and environmental education, in helping to channel private sector resources to environmental causes, and in the actual implementation of small conservation and natural resource management projects. Both national and international NGOs have also already been working with the Government in the preparation of studies and management plans for protected areas. 2.12 Sectoral Issues. A Bank Environmental Issues Paper (EIP) for Venezuela (IBRD Report No. 8272-VE, issued in December 1991) documents in detail Venezuela's environmental achievements. However, the EIP 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 in a sustainable manner. More specifically the paper points to:

(a) the need to integrate more systematically environmental objectives 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; and

(c) the need to improve management of the country's protected areas. On the latter point, the paper states that "the 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 the 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 conserve its natural heritage will need to be increased at both the national and international levels.

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, work done under the EIP indicated that there are no 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.

ExRerience with Previous Bank Lendinq

2.13 Between 1961 and June 1992, the Bank approved 23 loans to Venezuela, totalling US$2,425.2 million. These included support for agricultural development (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 of -8-

the 14 fully disbursed loans have been viewed as relatively successful, and the ongoing operations are not experiencing any significant implementation problems.

Lessons Learned from Similar Prolects

2.14 While many Bank-financed projects include environmental components, loans primarily in support of environmental objectives are still small in number. During 1991 the Bank listed two such projects in Latin America and a total of eleven around the world (The World Bank and the Environment, A Progress Report. 1991). In reviewing these efforts, as well as experiences with park management in more developed countries, the Bank has drawn several lessons which have been duly considered in the design of the proposed project, among them:

(a) Management Strengthenina. 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 usually include the training of personnel, the provision of infrastructure and equipment, and the development of scientifically sound 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 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 directly from the public could enhance national park administrations in 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, including charges to off-site consumers.

2.15 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 communities before major management decisions are taken. These activities, together with extensive NGO 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.

III. THE PROJECT

Origin and Rationale for Bank Involvement

3.01 In the course of reviewing the Bank's draft Environmental Issues Paper for Venezuela (para. 2.12), discussions were held with the Government on a possible project to help strengthen the management of its protected areas system. Priority was given to national parks and wildlife refuges, 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. A subsequent preparation mission was conducted in January 1992; pre-appraisal took place in March/April 1992; the project was appraised during June/July 1992; and Loan negotiations took place in mid-October 1992.

3.02 The Bank's operational strategy in Venezuela is to support sector- specific efforts aimed at increasing decentralization and efficiency of public services; private sector development; poverty alleviation; and environmental protection. This project touches upon most of these Bank objectives, in the context of strengthening Venezuela's capacity to manage and protect its national parks.

(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 significant environmental gains through biodiversity preservation 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.

(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-being of poor populations living in the vicinity of national parks (new livelihood - 10 -

opportunities, technical support for sustainable resource use and better environmental infrastructure).

Proiect Obiectives and Desian

3.03 The project would help to strengthen the capability of INPARQUES, SADAMAZONAS, PROFAUNA and FAC to manage Venezuela's national and urban parks, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges and reserves; to intensify public environmental research, training and education efforts; to involve the private sector more actively in the management and protection of natural resources; and to improve the economic sustainability of the national parks and other protected areas. The main project components would include:

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

(b) applied environmental research, to support sustainable management of various parks, generate useful scientific knowledge on the ecology of the parks, and assist Venezuela in safeguarding its rights with respect to research findings and the possible commercial use of its biodiversity resources;

(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; and

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

3.04 In designing the project, due attention has been paid to the selection of specific parks, monuments and refuges; and to institutional capacities and their required strengthening. Selection of areas and parks has been based on an analysis of the representativeness of the different ecological zones present in Venezuela, using the system developed by Huber and Alarc6n. Ten of the country's 15 ecological sub-regions are represented in the protected areas proposed for inclusion in the project. INPARQUES is the only institution in Venezuela 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, although there is a need for streamlining, decentralization and strengthening of various administrative, financial and technical functions and procedures. - 11 -

Details of Proiect Components

3.05 Components and sub-components of the project over the five years of the project would be as follows:

3.06 Strengthening of Parks Management and Protection (US$58.9 million of baseline costs):

(a) Improvement of the administration and management of 16 national parks in northern Venezuela 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.

(b) Improvement of the administration and management of four national parks and two natural monuments in the Amazon recion, with emphasis on protective activities (Annex 1). This sub-component would be coordinated with SADAMAZONAS. Specific activities would include: (i) financing a minimum number of inspection and control posts in strategic areas (airstrips, river confluence, etc.), equipped principally with radio equipment and boats; (ii) strengthening the regional office to support these posts; (iii) staffing of ranger and park guards and supporting office and living equipment; and (iv) support for an aerial surveillance and logistics program. A strong environmental research program is also envisaged, to help develop management plans and improve basic knowledge of these parks (para. 3.07).

(c) Improvement of infrastructure and equipment in two PROFAUNA wildlife refuges (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 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. -12 -

(d) 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 reinforcing environmental 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. 3.09); (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.

(e) 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 13 auxiliary camps which would extend protection to 28 of the country's most fire-prone areas (Annex 1). This sub-component would include: (i) administrative offices, residential quarters, and garage and storage facilities in each of the nine principal and 13 auxiliary camps; (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. 3.09).

3.07 Environmental Research (US$6.4 million of baseline costs). Although various Venezuelan universities, INPARQUES, other public institutions and private NGOs engage in research on environmental topics, there is still an acute shortage of information and data on the problems affecting conservation of the country's protected areas. Both park ecology and the interaction with communities living inside and adjacent to the national parks are poorly known. This limits the effectiveness of park management and, therefore, the long-term prospects for sustainability of the parks. The situation is particularly acute for the parks in the Amazon region, given their lesser accessibility and the large geographic areas which they cover. To increase the availability of natural and social science information for effective management of Venezuela's national parks, natural monuments and wildlife refuges, the project would finance the conduct of research programs and studies, as well as infrastructure, equipment and materials for research. Research activities would be coordinated by INPARQUES and also by the other project participating agencies, PROFAUNA (wildlife refuges) and SADAMAZONAS (in the Amazon region). Park-specific project inputs are presented in Annex 2 and would include the following: - 13 -

(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 hydrology and related variables) for eight national parks;

(b) basic studies leading to the preparation of management plans for three national parks and two groups of national monuments in the Federal Amazon Territory;

(c) monitoring of physical and biological processes, including water quality studies, in five coastal and marine national parks and wildlife population studies and management programs in two wildlife refuges and adjacent national parks; and

(d) financing of 36 studies (11 in the Amazonian parks) to address socio- environmental problems in national parks management, such as the impact of tourism and slash and burn agriculture, and sustainable technologies for the communities living inside and around parks.

(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.

3.08 The project research component has been designed to enhance the role of the national parks as research resources for Venezuela. INPARQUES' capabilities, both to conduct applied research itself, and to foster, coordinate and orient research activities in the parks by other public and private institutions, would be strengthened. Towards this end, a peer review system would be introduced. It would draw on recognized national and international experts, to assist INPARQUES in assessing research proposals and evaluating results to guide and evaluate INPARQUES' research efforts. Also, measures would be developed and introduced under the project to help safeguard Venezuela's rights with respect to the publication and potential commercial use of research findings which originate from work carried out on the biodiversity resources in its national parks and wildlife refuges. At present, research in the parks is carried out with no control as to the eventual use of the findings. A technical assistance specialist to be retained under the project institutional development component (para. 3.10) would assist INPARQUES to develop a contract that would be entered into with all future researchers, and to prepare any supporting legislation and regulations which may be required to establish and protect Venezuela's property rights.

3.09 Environmental Education (US$2.5 million of baseline costs). Based on INPARQUES' past experience 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 INPARQUES' decentralization program, with the reach and depth of environmental education activities being greatly increased by training volunteers as multiplying agents. This would also increase the involvement of - 14 -

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 education 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 equipment for INPARQUES' central office, visitors centers and information centers; training costs; and incremental staffing costs. A consultant specialized in community environmental education and extension would be retained under the institutional development component (para. 3.10) to help orient and evaluate INPARQUES' educational program.

3.10 Institutional Development (USS12.6 million in baseline costs). The project would support the project administration activities and institutional strengthening of INPARQUES, SADAMAZONAS, PROFAUNA and FAC. This would include assistance for a major decentralization of 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 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; and

(c) technical assistance of up to 29 consultant years to assist in INPARQUES' decentralization process and the establishment of modern 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 efficient management, administrative and financial procedures (e.g., bidding, contracting, disbursement, accounting, auditing and personnel management).

3.11 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 INPARQUES' overall effectiveness. 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 inefficient servicing and backstopping of the needs of the more distant national parks. At the same time, many of 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 developed a preliminary Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, which the project - 15 -

would help to implement. The Plan was detailed during project preparation and appraisal and a final version was reviewed during loan negotiations. The main elements include a realignment of the institutional chain of command and structure; a shifting to the regional and state offices of many special programs (e.g., El Avila, Los Roques, Guatopo) and other functions currently carried out by INPARQUES' central office; strengthening of the capacity of a much leaner and more efficient central office to supervise and coordinate planning, policy, administrative procedures 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, and expansion of staff (particularly at park level, and largely through redeployment) to implement these changes. Examples of 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.

3.12 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. To advance the process, terms of reference for six specialists to advise INPARQUES on priority administrative and technical matters were agreed during appraisal, and INPARQUES has already initiated recruitment with a view to having the consultants in place before loan effectiveness. Draft terms of reference for all other specialists were reviewed and agreed during loan negotiations. If not completed earlier, conditions of loan effectiveness would be: (a) the approval by MARNR of a satisfactory Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan for INPARQUES (para. 4.03 (c)); (b) the establishment by INPARQUES of a new Capital Region Office (para. 4.03 (d)); and (c) the transfer by INPARQUES of responsibility for selected special programs to the regional offices (para. 4.03 (e)). Also during negotiations, assurances were obtained that INPARQUES would implement 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 (para. 4.02 (a)).

Proiect Organization and Implementation

3.13 The principal implementing agency for the project would be INPARQUES. However, for certain specific project components (wildlife, Amazonian parks, law enforcement), INPARQUES would need to secure the collaboration of other relevant public environmental agencies (PROFAUNA, SADAMAZONAS, FAC). Particular attention would be given to the arrangements for coordination among the implementing * agencies participating in the project, the administration of their annual plans and budgets, and the auditing of accounts.

3.14 The President of INPARQUES would be responsible for overall project administration and policy direction. He would consult on overall policy aspects with the existing Governing Board (Junta Directiva) which includes representatives of the private sector, NGOs, trade unions, universities and oil - 16 -

companies. The President would be assisted on a day-to-day basis by a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) which would be responsible for planning and coordinating technical activities and for monitoring and evaluation of project results. If not completed earlier, the satisfactory establishment of the PCU would be a condition of loan effectiveness (para. 4.03 (a)). Staff from the technical divisions of INPARQUES would support project supervision and would maintain close contact with regional, state and field office personnel. Financial control would be the responsibility of the Administration and Finance Division within INPARQUES, both at the central and regional levels. To formalize implementation arrangements with other entities in the project, INPARQUES would sign Participation Agreements with SADAMAZONAS, PROFAUNA and FAC. Drafts of these agreements were reviewed during negotiations and, if not completed earlier, the signing of satisfactory Participation Agreements would be a condition of loan effectiveness (para. 4.03 (b)).

3.15 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. During negotiations, assurances were obtained that: (a) adequate counterpart funds would be made available to the project in a timely manner (para. 4.01 (a)); and (b) by June 30 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, and the Bank would receive a copy of the final annual plan and budget as soon as they are approved (para. 4.02 (g)). With regard to the first year of the project, the Government provided evidence at negotiations that adequate counterpart funds have been included in the draft 1993 budget.

3.16 INPARQUES would regularly collect and analyze data on key indicators to monitor progress in physical execution and assess project impact, comparing results obtained with targets stated in a Supplemental Letter to the Loan Agreement (Annex 7). INPARQUES would prepare and send to the Bank semi-annual progress reports, based on its regular quarterly reports, and would also report to the Bank on specific studies carried out during project implementation. The semi-annual reports would both describe progress in project execution, and identify possible implementation issues and propose appropriate solutions. The Bank would supervise the project regularly, and INPARQUES and the Bank would hold joint annual supervision reviews in April/May of each year (Annex 6). In addition, each year INPARQUES would invite an Independent Evaluation Committee to monitor and evaluate project implementation progress. The composition of the Committee would include, inter alia, representatives of relevant NGOs. INPARQUES would make the findings of the Committee available to the Bank by March 31 of each year and these would be discussed during the joint annual supervision reviews. During negotiations, assurances were obtained that: (a) the Bank would receive copies of semi-annual project progress reports for review by March 31 and September 30 of each year, beginning in 1993 (para. 4.02 (c)); (b) joint annual supervision reviews would be held with the Bank in April/May of each year, beginning in 1993 (para. 4.02 (d)); (c) 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 1993 (para. 4.02 (e)); and (d) a project mid-term - 17 - review would be carried out no later than three years after the beginning of project implementation (para. 4.02 (f)).

3.17 Each agency participating in the project would be required to maintain separate accounts for project expenditures. During negotiations, assurances were obtained that: (a) these accounts and the Special Account (para. 3.25) would be audited annually by independent auditors satisfactory to the Bank; (b) terms of reference for the auditors would include, inter alia, detailed procedures for the examination and verification of the Statements of Expenditures for project accounts; and (c) copies of the audited reports of the participating agencies and the Special Account 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, eligibility for financing in terms of the project's legal agreements, and standards of record keeping and internal controls related to the above (para. 4.01 (b)).

Participation by NGOs and Local Communities in Proiect Activities

3.18 The project includes various important mechanisms for increasing participation by NGOs and local communities in 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 communities can substantially increase 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 following ways:

(a) with regard to national park management, new management plans (planes de ordenamiento) would require the review of local communities and other interested members of the public, as mandated under existing Venezuelan 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 heavily on the use of local volunteers to increase the dissemination and multiply the impact of environmental education activities;

(c) the environmental research component would support baseline socioeconomic studies of communities in the vicinity of 10 national - 18 -

parks where human pressures are considered significant, so that this information can be incorporated into park management planning;

(d) the institutional strengthening component would include: (i) support for INPARQUES' decentralization, which is expected to include the hiring of approximately nine new 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 liaison with 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; and

(f) at least once a year throughout the project period, and more often if necessary, INPARQUES would organize regular public meetings at each of its regional or state offices 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 communities and NGOs in project implementation (e.g., as paid contractors, volunteer assistants, or advocates for changing specific activities which impact on the parks).

Environmental Impact

3.19 The proposed project would have a positive environmental impact by directly enhancing the management and protection of an area of approximately 110,000 km2, 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. Six of 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 indigenous sub-areas. Project-supported mechanisms for local community participation in park planning and management would also apply in these six parks. - 19 -

Project Costs

3.20 The total project cost, including taxes, physical and price contingencies, is estimated at US$96.0 million, with a foreign exchange component of US$21.3 million, or about 22% of total cost (Annex 5, Table 5.1). The project baseline cost, estimated using June 1992 price levels, amounts to US$80.4 million. Physical contingencies of US$6.9 million, or about 9% of the total baseline cost, have been estimated at 15% for civil works and furniture, and 10% for travel, subsistence allowances, vehicles, office supplies and other miscellaneous incremental costs. Price contingencies of US$8.7 million (11% of base costs) were estimated using expected annual price increases as follows: local -- 25% for 1993, 20% for 1994, and 15% for subsequent years; and foreign -- 3.9% for 1993 and 1994, and 3.8% for subsequent years.

Financing Plan

3.21 The total project cost of US$96.0 million would be financed by a Bank loan of US$55.0 million and a government counterpart contribution of US$41.0 million. The Bank would cover the full foreign exchange component (US$21.3 million) and 45% 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. The loan would be made to the Republic of Venezuela and would be repayable over 15 years, including a five-year grace period.

Procurement

3.22 A Country Procurement Assessment Report for Venezuela was issued in June 1990. Subsequently, in August 1990, the Government issued a Procurement Law which expressly states 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. The proposed procurement arrangements for this project are summarized in the following table: - 20 -

Procurement Arranaements (US$ million)

Procurement Method TOTAL Category ICB LCB OTHER NBF COST

Civil Works - 38.8 5.0 1/ - 43.8 (28.0) (3.6) (31.6)

Equipment, Machinery 6.0 10.6 2.0 j/ - 18.6 Vehicles and (3.4) (5.8) (1.0) (10.2) Furniture

Technical Assistance, - - 13.2 ai - 13.2 Training and Studies (13.2) (13.2)

Incremental Operating - - - 20.4 20.4 CosBtS

Total 6.0 49.4 20.2 20.4 96.0 (3.4) (33.8) (17.8) (-) (55.0)

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

1/ Shopping procedures satisfactory to the Bank. 2/ Consulting services.

3.23 Civil works include buildings, access roads and tracks, other minor infrastructure and demarcation works, most of which are relatively small in size and are geographically dispersed 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, Local Competitive Bidding 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$50,000 would be procured on the basis of price quotations solicited from at least three eligible contractors, provided they do not exceed US$5.0 million in the aggregate. Contracts for aoods exceeding US$250,000 would be awarded through International Competitive Bidding - 21 -

following Bank procurement guidelines. Contracts for goods expected to cost between US$25,000 and US$250,000, not exceeding an aggregate amount of USS10.6 million, would be procured under LCB. Office equipment, furniture and other similar goods expected to cost less than US$25,000 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$2.0 million. Consultant services would be procured in accordance with Bank guidelines on the use of consultants.

3.24 All ICB contracts, and the first two LCB contracts each for goods and works would be subject to prior Bank review of bidding documents, bid evaluation, award proposals and final contracts. Prior review procedures would cover about 50% of Bank-financed procurement, which is acceptable given the characteristics of the project. During negotiations, INPARQUES presented draft standard bidding documents which would be used for all procurement under the project. Also during negotiations, assurances were obtained that the procurement arrangements described in paras. 3.22-3.24 would be followed (para. 4.01 (c)). A margin of preference in accordance with Bank guidelines would be granted to local manufacturers for goods procured under ICB. The Procurement Implementation Schedule and Estimated Annual Contractual and Other Payments are summarized in Annex 5, Table 5.6.

Disbursements

3.25 The Bank loan of US$55.0 million would be disbursed over about five years. The proceeds would be disbursed against eligible project expenditures at the rates of: (a) 75% for civil works; (b) 100% of foreign expenditures and 45% of local expenditures for equipment, machinery, vehicles and furniture; and (c) 100% for technical assistance, training and studies. Except for contracts requiring prior review, disbursement would be made against certified statement of expenditures (SOEs) for which detailed documentation evidencing expenditures would be made available for the required audit and also for review by Bank supervision missions. Retroactive financing would be provided up to a maximum of US$5.0 million in respect of eligible expenditures incurred between the end of project appraisal (July 1992) and loan signing. This would permit early contracting of essential technical assistance specialists required during the first year of the project, and the start-up of priority protection activities in selected parks. A Special Account in US dollars would be opened at the Central Bank, with an initial deposit of US$5.0 million equivalent. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that the Government would establish and maintain the Special Account (para. 4.01 (d)).

Proiect Benefits and Justification

3.26 Support for national parks and other priority areas in Venezuela is justified 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. Although many of these benefits are not readily quantifiable 22 - in economic terms, an effort has been made to estimate their value for illustrative purposes, as summarized below.

(a) Watershed Protection. The Canaima national park 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 8%, 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$150 million to about US$225 million.

(b) There is no comprehensive assessment of the role of national parks in protecting the country's urban water suiDlies, 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 availability from 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 net present value of between US$90.0 million and US$285.0 millon.

(c) While specific data 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 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$45.0 million to US$140.0 million.

(d) Maintenance of Ecological Processes in Coastal Marine Ecosystem. The mangrove ecosystem constitutes a reservoir, refuge and breeding and feeding grounds for many commercial species of plants and animals. The appraisal mission estimated 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 ecosystems varies from US$500 to 1,500/ha/year for other - 23 -

Caribbean areas with conditions similar to those of Venezuela (Hamilton/Snedaker, 1984). 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-year period, 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$19 million.

3.27 In summary, the estimated net present value of additional investments which could be avoided through protection of critical watersheds and coastal ecosystems in the national parks, could range from over US$300 million to about US$670 million. Benefits from tourism, carbon sequestration 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. 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. Unfortunately, reliable information on historical investments in the parks, which could be used to make such an estimation, does not exist. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an effort on the scale of the proposed project is urgently required to ensure adequate management and protection of the natural parks, and that the cost of this effort would easily be offset by the benefits that would accrue.

3.28 Finally, from the perspective of biodiversity preservation, despite its relatively small size, Venezuela contains a vast array of neotropical ecosystems and is therefore considered to be among the world's 10 most important sites of biological diversity (para. 2.05). Hence, protection of the country's main conservation areas would also have important external benefits.

Sustainability

3.29 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 many other national park administrations, 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 awareness among the public; and (d) the prospect of generating revenues might stimulate the development of new, innovative ways to charge off-site consumers and beneficiaries.

3.30 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, users' fees for some - 24 - recreational facilities in a few national parks, and concession payments from private firms which operate recreational or private infrastructure in national and urban parks). Over the 1985-91 period, INPARQUES' annual budget has remained at about US$13.1 million in constant terms. This represented a considerable increase in current terms, because annual inflation rose from 11.5% in 1986 to 34% in 1991, but no real growth in purchasing power. During the same period, the share of INPARQUES' total expenditures which were not sourced from the government budget increased from US$0.9 million to US$3.9 million. This healthy growth in other sources was offset by a commensurate decrease in official budget contributions, from US$12.2 million to US$9.2 million, also in constant terms. Approximately 55-60% of INPARQUES's annual expenditures have been for recurrent purposes.

3.31 During the project implementation period, the Government counterpart contribution would average about US$8.0 million p.a., in addition to its normal support of INPARQUES' recurrent costs of about US$7.5 million. This would require an annual budget allocation of about US$15.5 million, or about a 50% increase over the average annual allocation of the last few years. This is quite feasible, and would represent only 0.14% of the central government's total 1991 budget. At the close of the project period, annual recurrent expenditures by INPARQUES would be about US$9.2 million, or 59% of its total budget. To improve INPARQUES' financial sustainability both during and after the project implementation period, measures should be taken to ensure that receipts from other than the Government budget would increase from the present US$3.9 million to about US$6.2 million per year. This would represent about 40% of INPARQUES' overall expenditures, or about 67% of its recurrent costs. Under that 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.

3.32 To ensure that INPARQUES' financial position improves as forecasted, the agency developed a preliminary Financial Plan of action during project preparation and appraisal. A final Financial Plan, including implementation timetable, to achieve agreed targets in terms of financial sustainability of INPARQUES (Table 5.7), was reviewed during negotiations. Also at negotiations, assurances were obtained that the Plan would be implemented on a schedule satisfactory to the Bank (para. 4.02 (b)). Its implementation would be monitored closely throughout the project implementation period. The main elements of the Plan include:

(a) the charging of entry fees in heavily visited parks which still do not collect them and increasing of fees in parks which already collect them;

(b) the assessment of charges for other activities which also depend substantially on the conservation of the natural resources safeguarded within the park system (e.g., commercial fishing and tourism companies' licenses, hotel taxes and water users' fees); and 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; - 25 -

(c) the possible receipt of revenues derived from part of the proceeds of a new tax, 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;

(d) the assignment of specific responsibilities and authority for the assessing and monitoring of tariffs and revenue policies to the Director General at INPARQUES' headquarters;

(e) the assignment of specific responsibilities within INPARQUES for the coordination of fund raising among private national firms and international donors; and

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

Project Risks

3.33 Although there are no major project risks, implementation could be affected by the institutional weaknesses of INPARQUES and counterpart funding constraints. 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. The proposed 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 INPARQUES' Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, shifting many technical and administrative functions, and staffing from INPARQUES' central headquarters to its regional, state 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) substantial staff training and technical assistance (para. 3.10 and Annex 6). Also, building on successful past collaborative efforts 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. 3.18). Finally, the project implementation strategy places primary emphasis on the contracting out of project works to the maximum extent possible. With regard to funding, the level of cost sharing by the Bank would be somewhat higher (60%) than the average for other operations in Venezuela, given the strong environmental focus of the project. During negotiations, assurances would be sought that INPARQUES would be provided with adequate and timely counterpart funds to meet the balance of project funding needs (para. 3.15). - 26 -

IV. AGREEMENTSREACHED AND RECOMMENDATION

4.01 Durina negotiations, assuranceswere obtained from the Borrower that:

(a) Adequate counterpart funding would be made available to the project in a timely manner (para. 3.15);

(b) (i) The project accounts and Special Account would be audited annually by independent auditors satisfactory to the Bank; (ii) the terms of reference for the auditors would include, inter alia, the Statements of Expenditures for the project accounts and Special Account; and (iii) copies of the audited reports would be provided to the Bank through INPARQUES within six months of the end of each fiscal year (para. 3.17);

(c) Procurement arrangements would be as specified in paras. 3.22-3.24; and

(d) The Special Account would be established and maintained (para. 3.25).

4.02 During neaotiations, assurances were obtained from INPAROUES that:

(a) INPARQUES' Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan would be implemented in a satisfactory manner (para. 3.12);

(b) The Financial Plan to improve the financial sustainability of INPARQUES would be implemented in a satisfactory manner over the life of the project (para. 3.32);

(c) Copies of semi-annual progress reports would be sent to the Bank by March 31 and September 30 of each project year, beginning in 1993 (para. 3.16);

(d) Joint annual supervision reviews would be held with the Bank not later than May 31 of each project year, beginning in 1993, reviewing progress against performance indicators stated in a Supplemental Letter to the Loan Agreement (para. 3.16);

(e) INPARQUES would invite an Annual Independent Evaluation Committee, including, inter ali, 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 1993 (para. 3.16);

(f) A project mid-term review would be carried out no later than May 31, 1995 (para. 3.16)t and - 27 -

(g) Beginning June 30, 1993, and for each June 30 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 approval (para. 3.15).

4.03 Conditions of loan effectiveness, if not completed earlier, would be:

(a) Satisfactory establishment by INPARQUES of the Project Coordination Unit (para. 3.14);

(b) The signing of satisfactory Participation Agreements for project implementation between INPARQUES and PROFAUNA, SADAMAZONAS and FAC (para. 3.14);

(c) Approval by MARNR of a satisfactory Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan for INPARQUES (para. 3.12);

(d) Satisfactory establishment by INPARQUES of a new Capital Region Office (para. 3.12); and

(e) Transfer by INPARQUES of responsibility for selected special programs to its regional offices (para. 3.12).

4.04 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. - 28 -

ANNEX 1 Page 1 of 5

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Strenathenina of Parks Management and Protection Component

Backaround

1. Relative to many other Latin American countries, Venezuela has a strong economy, 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-diverse countries. 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 classified as 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. Then, beginning in the 1960s, the system expanded more rapidly, a trend attributable in part to the creation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MARNR) and the National Park Service (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 39 national parks and 17 natural monuments, which in total comprise 137,510 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 eco-tourism development. Present interest in Venezuela's protected areas, both nationally and internationally, is at an all-time high, as reflected in the country's recent 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 centralized structure and staffing/skills mix 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 park.; insufficient and/or inadequately- - 29 -

ANNEX I Page 2 of 5 trained human resources; basic information gaps; and limited environmentally- based public 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 sedentarization among the indigenous populations is resulting in unplanned land clearing in proximity to 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 is 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.

Strenathenina of National Parks Manaaement and Protection Component

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 Amazon Federal Territory; (iii) 2 wildlife refuges; (iv) 7 urban or recreational parks; and (v) fire prevention and control efforts throughout the national park system.

7. Northern National Parks. This sub-component is designed to promote more efficient administration and management of 16 national parks north of the Orinoco River. Criteria used to select parks 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.

8. 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; - 30 -

ANNEX 1 Page 3 of 5

(b) equipment for transport (trucks, boats, and motorcycles), office, and field activitiesi and

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

9. Amazon Parks and Natural Monuments. Presently, the largest protected areas in the Amazon basin are located in Venezuela. In its Amazon Federal Territory (TFA), Venezuela has legally established 4 large national parks, 5 natural monuments protecting 15 tepuis (sandstone plateaux), and one biosphere reserve. In the aggregate, these account for 47.5% of all protected areas in Venezuela and 36% of the TFA (not including the newly created Alto Orinoco- Casiquiare biosphere reserve). The Venezuelan TFA 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 exclusively a lowland area, the Venezuelan TFA comprises six biogeographic regions (Huber and Cerda, 1990), which makes it one of the most biologically diverse areas of the world.

10. Since INPARQUES still has only a limited presence in the TFA, including an office in Puerto Ayacucho and a superintendency in Culebra with a total of five staff, it works in close cooperation with the Autonomous Service for the Environmental Development of the Amazon (SADAMAZONAS). SADAMAZONAS was established in June 1989 under MARNR. The following year, in 1990, the Alejandro de Humboldt Amazon Environmental Research Institute (CAIAH) was established under SADAMAZONAS 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 TFA. Also, under the research component (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. The specific activities under the national parks management component would include:

(a) construction of one central administrative office and a visitors, center for INPARQUES in Puerto Ayacucho; 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 be coordinated with SADAMAZONAS and would include the renting of small airplanes and helicopters; - 31 -

ANNEX 1 Page 4 of 5

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

(d) support for the posts of six rangers and their assistants, and 13 guard posts with four park guards each. The ranger and guardposts 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 Refuaes. 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 proximity of national parks and refuges in Venezuela, and the fact that they share common conservation objectives, these 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 complexes supported by the project would be managed as integral protected area units, to the extent that existing legislation allows. This will be accomplished through the coordinated development of annual operating plans specifying collaborative activities, including coordinated public information and environmental education 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-designed program 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, Andres 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 proximity to 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. - 32 -

ANNEX 1 Page 5 of 5

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 basically of a small core of professional park staff, a large network of trained volunteers for ad hoc search and rescue operations, and a rapid response capability based 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 facilities in each of 9 principal and 13 auxiliary base camps;

(b) vehicles and equipment for fire combat and transport, personal protection, training and office support; and

(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 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.

Another 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 simultaneously, under the project public environmental education component (see Annex 3). - 33 -

ANNEX1 Table 1.1

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Proiect AssistedProtected Areas

Initial Year Location Area Year of Plan Protected Area of Declaration (State) (km2) Decree:

National Parks and Natural Monuments

(NorthernVenezuela)

1. Aguaro-Guariquito 1974 Guarico 5,858 1/ 2. Canaima 1962 Bolfvar 30,000 1991 3. Cinaruco-Capanaparo 1988 Apure 5,844 2/ 4. El Avila 1958 Fed. Dept./Miranda 852 3/ 5. El Copey 1974 Nueva Esparta 71 1991 6. El Tama 1978 Tachira/Apure 1,390 1991 7. Henri Pittier 1937 Aragua/Carabobo 1,078 1/ 8. Laguna Restinga 1974 Nueva Esparta 189 1991 9. Laguna Tacarigua 1974 Miranda 390 1991 10.Los Roques 1972 Federal Department 2,211 1990 11.Marfa Lionza 1960 Yaracuy 120 3/ 12.Medanosde Coro 1974 Falc6n 903 1/ 13.Mochima 1973 Anzoategui/Sucre 949 1990 14.Morrocoy 1974 Falc6n 321 2/ 15.SierraNevada 1952 Merida/Barinas 2,764 3/ 16.Yurubi 1960 Yaracuy 237 31

(AmazonFederal Territory - TFA)

1. Duida Marahuaca 1978 TFA 190,800 ha 2/ 2. La Neblina 1978 TFA 1,360,600 ha 4/ 2/ 3. Parima-Tapirapeco 1991 TFA 3,750,000ha Z/ 4. Yapacana 1978 TFA 320,000 2/ 5. Autana-Sipapo 1990 TFA 450,000 2/ 6. Ventuari 1990 TFA 750,000 2/

WildlifeRefu2ees:

1. Cuare 1972 Falc6n 119 2. Tortuga Arrau 1989 Apure and Bolfvar 76 _/

I/ Approvalexpected in 1993. 2/ Plan developmentis a project objective. 3/ Scheduledfor mid-1992. 4/ Bi-nationalPark, betweenBrazil and Venezuela,with a total area of 3,560,000 ha. - 34 - ANNEX I Table 1.2

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Proposed Locationsof Fire Prevention and CombatCamps and Parks Covered by Region

Region Locationof 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. ArfstedesRojas*

Carabobo N.P. San Esteban* 1

Yaracuy N.P. Yurubi 1 N.M. Marfa Lionza

Sucre N.P. Mochima 1

Merida N.P. Sierra Nevada 2 N.P.S. La Culata*

Monagas N.P. El Guacharo* 1

Apure-Gu5rico N.P. Aguaro-Guariquito 1 N.P. Cinaruco-Capanaparo

Tlchira N.P. El Tama 2 N.P. Chorro El Indio* N.P. Los Paramos*

Tot: 9 13 16

R.P. = RecreationalParks N.P. = National Parks N.M. = Natural Monuments * Protected Areas not includedwithin the project. ** The auxiliary base camp proposed for R.P. Caricuaowould use only existing infrastructure. - 35 -

ANNEX 2 Page 1 of 3

VEN'EZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Environmental Research Comoonent

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 biodiversity resources; (c) focus research efforts and scarce resources on issues which are relevant to the sustainable management of national parks; (d) introduce a peer review system to evaluate and guide INPARQUES' research activities; (e) reinforce INPARQUES' capabilities both to conduct essential applied research itself, and to coordinate, foster and orient other public institutions, universities, NGOs and other private entities, to carry out priority environmental research; and (f) undertake a special research effort in support of the little known Amazonian national parks.

Project Research Activities Coordinated by INPAROUES

3. These activities, at a cost of US$3.14 millioni, would include:

(a) establishment of a data bank on existing information on Venezuela's national parks (US$83,000);

(b) Rapid Ecological and Social Assessments of 10 national parks (US$425,000);

(c) preparation of thematic maps and geographic data bases for eight national parks (US$1,028,000);

The costs of the activities listed in sub-items (f), (h) and (j) are not included in the research component costs, but rather under the costs of the strengthening of national park management and protection component (sub-item (f) and the institutional development component (sub-items (h) and (j)). - 36 -

ANNEX 2 Page 2 of 3

(d) twenty-five research tasks to help solve management problems of national parks on issues such as tourism, fire, the activities of local populations in national parks, resource inventories (US$1,154,000);

(e) water quality studies in five national parks (US$154,000);

(f) establishment of five stations to support research activities of INPARQUES and PROFAUNA. These stations would also be used by universities and NGOs (Us$595,000 1/);

(g) appointment of an independent research council to conduct peer evaluations of the research program (US$177,000);

(h) training activities on information techniques and the use of environmental research for parks management (US$68,000 1/);

(i) a research dissemination program to foster the incorporation of research results into park management plans and practices (US$115,000);

(j) appointment of a research management team during the five years of the project US$130,000), with the support of an external consultant (US$32,000 1/);

Proiect Research Activities in the Amazon Coordinated by SADAMAZONAS and INPARQUES

4 At a cost of US$3.3 million, SADAMAZONAS and INPARQUES would coordinate basic studies leading to the preparation of management plans for three national parks and two groups of national monuments in the Amazon Federal Territory, and additional research studies to address socio-environmental problems affecting Amazon national park management.

5. The process of developing park management plans requires: basic studies; the design of the plan; participatory consultation with local communities, NGOs and other concerned groups through workshops; and official approval of the plans. Because of the inaccessibility of the Amazon parks, relatively little useable information or data is available2 , and basic studies are therefore essential to launch the management plan process. These will be conducted by SADAMAZONAS' new semi-autonomous Humboldt Center (CAIAH, see Annex 1). CAIAH has a main building, documentation center and herbarium in Puerto Ayacucho, and a research center is presently under construction in La Eameralda. Hence, the project will not provide any additional infrastructure; project costs

2/ The government of Spain, through the Agencia Esparlolade Cooperaci6n Internacional (AECI), is financing remote sensing and related ground truthing for the Duida-Marahuaca national park. The results will be used in the preparation of the management plan for that park. - 37 -

ANNEX 2 Page 3 of 3 mainly cover field exploration by multidisciplinary scientific teams, acquisition and analysis of data, and workshop equipment and materials. In addition, the project would support three incremental professional staff at the level of INPARQUES, to participate actively in the preparation of the basic studies and subsequently assume responsibility for concluding the plans.

6. In addition, the project would support an Amazon research program on six major topics which have been selected in consultation with scientists in the area and local communities, and are based on knowledge of obvious threats to park sustainability: (a) tourism impact assessment; (ii) impact of subsistence activities on the parks and their surroundings; (iii) impact of mining activities; (iv)-(v) socio-economic and health studiesof local communities; and (vi) auto-ecological studies of indicator and endangered species. This list of topics would be re-examined over the life of the project by an Independent Research Council (para. 3 (g) above) which is being establishedwithin INPARQUES, to ensure that it responds to priority management issues faced by the parks. Specific research proposals would be invited from the public (NGOs, universities, private research entities), and the merits would be evaluated through a peer review process.

Prolect Research Activities in Wildlife Areas Coordinated by PROFAUNA

7. Research activities coordinated by PROFAUNA, at a cost of USS0.218 million, would include:

(a) the equipping of two scientific stations to be jointly used by PROFAUNA and INPARQUES (US$163,000); and

(b) five wildlife population studies and management programs in two wildlife refuges and adjacent national parks (US$54,000). - 38 -

ANNEX 3 Page 1 of 2

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Environmental Education ComDonent

Background

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 exclusively 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. The two units have traditionally worked in isolation from each other, although INPARQUES now has one staff member charged with maintaining liaison and is making progress in improving communications and coordination.

2. INPARQUES' educational activities can 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, 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 education. 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 and youths and their families, volunteer conservation associations; and (c) the broader public, through educational messages 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 100,000 persons 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: - 39 -

ANNEX3 Page 2 of 2

(a) intensive educational use of the recreational parks which serve some of Venezuela's largest urban centers;

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

(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 office. 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. They 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.

6. 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. A consultant specialized in community environmental education and extension would be retained on a part-time basis during the project years 1, 3 and 5, to orient and evaluate INPARQUES' educational program (costs included under the project Institutional Development component). - 40 - ANNEX 4 Page 1 of 7

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Institutional Strenothenina Component

Background

1. By Latin American standards, INPARQUES ia 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 visits to the urban parks and wildlands exceeds 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-winning environmental education program are excellent examples of how to involve the larger public in protected area management.

2. Nonetheless, various institutional weaknesses reduce INPARQUES' capability to function well. For the most part, these relate to the over- centralization of administrative and technical support functions, and staffing, in Caracas, which results in inefficient servicing and backstopping of the administrative needs (programming, budgeting, purchasing, contracting, personnel services and technical support) of the more distant parks. All parks near Caracas, and some others as far away as Morrocoy, as well as most special programs (eg., environmental education, fire prevention and control) are micro- managed from 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, INPARQUES has 1,020 staff, of which 864 are permanent employees and 156 are on short-term contracts. Of the permanent staff, 32 are managerial, 161 professional and technical, 144 administrative, and 527 laborers. Of the total permanent and contracted staff, 311 are assigned to the central office in Caracas; an additional 322 work on special programs (e.g., El Avila, Los Roques, Guatopo) managed out of Caracas and many of these are therefore physically located in Caracas; and only 387 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 posses. 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 limited specialized training. - 41 - ANNEX 4 Page 2 of 7

4. Finally, despite the centralization of staff numbers and skills, INPARQUES needs further strengthening in the areas of strategic planning to set and implement the institution's long-term goals; and financial planning to improve INPARQUES' sustainability, through improved systems of fee charging and collection, and better mobilization of domestic and international public and private support. INPARQUES currently relies on annual central government budgets and transfers from state and local governments for most of its operating budget. 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 Administrative Reform

5. To address the above issues, INPARQUES has developed a Decentralization and Administrative Reform Plan, which the project would help to implement. 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; significant expansion of the staffing and infrastructure at park level; strengthening of the capacity of a much leaner and more efficient central office to supervise and coordinate planning, policy, administrative procedures 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 administrative and operational responsibility to 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) maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of INPARQUES' limited financial and human resources and its capacity to generate a greater share of its own operating expenses;

(f) strengthening of INPARQUES' capacity to draw on the influence and technical and financial support of potential collaborators at both the national and international level; and, - 42 - ANNEX 4 Page 3 of 7

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

7. Central Office Reorcanization. To function efficiently, INPARQUES' central office should not get involved in the day-to-day operations of parks or special programs. In early 1993, a National Capital Region Office would be created (absorbing all personnel and responsibilities currently attached to the central office for management and supervision of the national parks and recreation areas in the Federal Department, Miranda and federal dependent territories).

8. Responsibility for selected special programs would be passed to the appropriate regional office by early 1993, with others devolved in accordance with the Decentralization and Administrative Reform 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 backstoppina regional staff and in defining overall volicv and procedures for their areas of technical expertise. Many tasks currently carried out directly by INPARQUES' staff would contracted out, improving flexibility and reducing costs.

9. Purchases of up to Be. 1 million, contracts for services up to Bs. 3.5 million and those for construction up to Bs. 4 million would be handled by the regions, as well as cooperative agreements and concessions which 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 larae 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.).

10. The total staff size of the central office would be around 150 individuals: nearly 100 less emplovees than at Present. However, the professional profile would be greatly enhanced, with fewer unskilled workers and lower-level technicians and more Drofessionals. hiaher 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.

11. Reaional Office Reorcanization. As a fundamental step in the decentralization and administrative strengthening process, INPARQUES' 15 regional offices would be consolidated into eiaht greatly strengthened offices with greater responsibilities, staff levels, and geographic scopes. 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. - 43 - ANNEX 4 Page 4 of 7

(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.

(c) Centro-Occidente Region (headquartered in Barquisimeto), and including the states of Lara, Maracuy and Portuguesa. Parks and monuments in the region would be Yacambu, Terrepaima, Cerro Saroche, Loma de Le6n, Shurubi, Maria Lionza, Dinira, and Guache.

(d) Amazonas Region (headquartered in Puerto Ayacucho), would include only parks and monuments in the Amazon Federal Territory. They are Serrania La Neblina, Llapecanaa, Duida-Marahuaca, Parima-Tapirapeco, Piedra de Cocuy, Cerro Autana, and that part of the Tepuyes NM which is in the TFA.

(e) Andean Region (headquartered in Merida), would include the states of Merida, Trujillo, Tachira and Barinas, and the parks and monuments of Sierra Nevada, Sierra La Culata, Laguna de Arao, La Chorrera-La Gonzalez, Guramacoy, El Tama, Chorro del Indio, Los Paramos de Batall6n y la Negra, and Urivante.

(f) Nororiente Region (headquartered in Cumana), would include the states of Sucre, Anzogtegui and Nueva Esparta, and the parks and monuments of Laguna de la Restinga, Cerro El Copey, Laguna de la Merites, Tetas de Maria Guevara, Cerros Matasiete y Guamuri, Mochima, Peninsula de Paria, and Turuepano.

(g) Southeast Region (headquartered in Maturin) and including the states of Bolivar, Delta and Monagas, and the parks and monuments of canaimA, Jaua-Sarisarinama, El Guacharo, Alejandro de Humboldt, Mariusa-Delta, and tepuyes in the state of Bolivar.

(h) Aragua-Carabobo-Guarico-Apure (headquartered in Maracay), this region would include Henri Pittier, San Esteban, Aguaro-Guariquito, Moro de San Juan, Platill6n, and Cinaruco-Capanaparo.

12. Each regional office would house about 12 professional employees, five technicians, four secretaries and one worker, plus in many cases the state supervisor (a professional), executive assistant (a technician) and a secretary for that 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. 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.

13. State Coordinatina Offices. The 23 state coordinating offices would be extremely small, with only the state supervisor, a highly qualified executive assistant, and a secretary. In those states that are not regional headquarters, - 44 - ANNEX 4 Page 5 of 7

every effort would be made to locate coordination offices in MARNR state headquarters or to use existing INPARQUES infrastructure in or very near state capitals, such as that already built in key recreation park areas. These offices would be responsible for direct supervision and logistical support to all management units within the state, 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, a function that would become increasing important in Inparques. Three full time staff would be needed for each of 23 state coordinating offices (totalling 69 staff overall).

14. 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 hierarchically equal 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.

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

16. Current levels of staff at almost all national parks and monuments in Venezuela is 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 follow for individual parks and monuments.

17. Recreational Parks. Unlike the national parks and monuments, for which the central government is unequivocally responsible 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 (from the present 107 to 50 such parks by the end of the project period). INPARQUES would seek to remain - 45 - ANNEX 4 Page 6 of 7

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

18. 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. At a base cost of US$3.2 million, the sub-component would finance:

(a) formal training courses coordinated by INPARQUES in three high priority areas covering about 65 different course modules: () management 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-story headquarters building);

(c) selected training activities offered outside of INPARQUES, including some short-term foreign study; and

(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

19. The project technical assistance sub-component (US$3.4 million base cost) would finance approximately 29 consultant-years of specialists to 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; and

(f) financial management. - 46 - ANNEX 4 Page 7 of 7

Terms of reference for these six specialists were reviewed and agreed during appraisal, and INPARQUES has already initiated recruitment. These consultants would begin work well before the date of loan effectiveness, under retroactive financing. Terms of reference for the remaining specialists were reviewed during loan negotiations and with recruitment initiated shortly thereafter, for specialists in the following areas:

(a) overall project administration, with particular attention to timely and smooth execution of INPARQUES' Decentralization and Administrative Reform 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) mobilization of external financing and support from international development agencies, NGOs, private foundations and businesses, etc.; and

(h) approximately 12 consultant-months of specialized short-term consultancies to meet unanticipated needs as they arise. VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

INPAROUES Organizational Chart

PRESIDENT

StrategicPlanning ||Public Relations Unit Office

|DIRECTORt GENERAL

Comptroller s l Legal Office Counset

Budgete onitoring Technical and Evaluation Services Administration

STATEl COORDIRATOR E--~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

FIELDMANAGEMENT UNIT r

Protection NaturalResource Adinistration | Program | |Management Programin Program - 48 -

ANNEX4 Table 4.1

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Existing Personnel in the Project's Protected Areas

Adminis- Parks National Maintenance Drivers NationalParks trative Guards Guards Workers

Aguaro-Guariquito 1 4 1

Canairna - -

Duida-Marahuaca 1/ -

El Avila - 37 - -

El Copey 1 4 - 2 1

El Tama 1 12 4 - -

La Neblina 1/ - - - -

Laguna Restinga 1 3 2 8 1

Laguna Tacarigua 1 4 - 2 -

Los Roques 1 5 6 1 -

Heni Pittier 1 23 - 27 2

Marfa Lionza 1 12 5 15 1

Medanos de Coro 1 7 - - -

Mochima - 8 2

Morrocoy 1 11 -15 1

Parima-Tapirapeco 1/ - - -

Santos Luzardo 1 4 -

Sierra Nevada 1 18 - 5 1

Yapacana 1/ - - - - -

Yurubi 1 12 -

Wildlife Refuges

Cuare 1 4 | Tortuga Arrau 1 - P.T. [ 1/ Amazon Parks P.T. = Part-Time - 49 - ANNEX4 Table 4.2 VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

AdditionalStaff for SelectedPersonnel Categoriesunder Project

National Parks North of the Orinoco Administrativej/ Technical Park Guards Other

______staff _ _ _ _ Aguaro-Guariquito I 12 Canaima 11 4 20 El Avila 23 El Copey 2 El Tama 3 4 10

Laguna Restinga 3 * ** Laguna Tacarigua 2 5 8 Los Roques 3 3 7 Hcnri Pittier 4 4 1T- Maria Lionza 3 4 Medanos de Coro 6 3 Mochima 6 6 15 orocoy 2 S 1 inaruco-Capanaparo 4 16 ierra Nevada 3 7 8 urubi 3 3 6 Sub-Total: 59 65 162

Amazonian National Parks and Natural Monuments Pto. Ayacucho/La Esmeralda - 14 Duida-Marahuaca 6 La Neblina 11- T T Parima-Tapirapeco 1 8 1 Yapacana 1 - 8 1 Autana-Sipapo N.M. 1 6 - Ventuari N.M. I 10 1 Sub-Total: 10lo1

Wildlife Refuges = Cuare Tortuga Arrau Su-Total: _

Recreational Parks Andres Eloy Blanco 2 S Parque del Este __8 Guanquen Miochoa Pile 2 Metro de Maracay 2 - 15 nta Pahnita 3 1 7 o Caricuao - 4 .

u Total: 9 S _0 ota: 77 W

1/ Includes administrators, administrtive assistants and technical supervisors. - 50 -

ANNEX4 Table 4.3

VENEZULELA

ONAL PARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECI

Po sed Staffing Levels

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM _ PROGRAM _ NATIONAL PARKS Technician Techicias Parkguards Professionals (Superiore) (Pit o) (Pemones) Administrator Secretarie 5

Los Roques 2 7 3 2 El Avila 1 8 24 2 I Morrocoy 2 5 10 1 2

Marfa Lionza 3 7 3 -* Mochima 4 5 15 3 2

Canairma 2 11 1 20 3 2 H. Pittier 2 6 10 3 3 Sierr Nevada 3 9 8 3 2

Cerro Copey 2 3 2 -

Aguaro-Guariquito 1 9 13 3 2

El Ta 4 6 6 3 2 Laguna Tacarigua 3 6 9 3 1

Yurubi 3 8 6 3 3 Laguna de La Restinga 1 9 6 3 3 M&danosde Caro 2 7 7 3 2 Cinaruco-Capanaparo 3 9 16 3 1

TOTALS 38 115 144 20 38 26

* Administrative stff shared with Yurubf NP. *S Administrative staff shared with Laguna de LA Restinp NP. - 51 - ANNEX 4 Table 4.4

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Proposed Technical Staffing Needs Matrix

Resources Management Program

PROFESSIONALS TECHNICAL (SUPERIORES)

PARKS MAR. 1 ING. ING. | I ING. TOURJJ RES. |ENV. BIO. SOC. FOR. AGR. ANT. GEO. ECO. MAINT. REC. EXT. j_FISH. MGMT. ED.

Los 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 Lionza

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 ______I__

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& ______

Medanosde X X x x x x Coro |Cmnaruco- l I| I| X X l | X T Capanaparo______= | = -- = iL__-

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.IREC.: Touriam/Recreation EXT.: Extension FISH.: Fisheries RES. MGMT.: Resources Managenent ENV. ED.: Environmental Education - 52 -

ANNEX 5 Table 5.1

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Estinuted Project Costs by Comnonent

Local Foreign Toiti fUSS Million)

Estimated Project Costs

A. Strengthening of Parks Management and Protection 50.8 8.1 58.9

- Northern National Parks (30.8) (4.4) (35.2) - Wildlife Reserves (0.9) (0.2) (1.1) - Amazon National Parks (3.1) (0.3) (3.4) - Urban Recreational Parks (9.8) (1.1) (10.9) - Fire Prevention and Control (6.2) (2.1) (8.3)

B. Environmental Research 1.9 4.5 6.4

C. Environmental Education 2.3 0.2 2.5

D. Institutional Development 7.2 5.4 12.6

- Project Administration (3.0) (3.0) (6.0) - Training (3.1) (0.1) (3.2) - Technical Assistance (1.1) (2.3) (3.4)

Total Baseline Costs 6. 1 NA

- Physical Contingencies 5.8 1.1 6.9 - Price Contingencies 6.7 2.0 8.7

Total Project Costs 74.7 al 29. - 53 -

ANNEX S Table 5.2

VENEZUE.

AnnualPhasina of Proioct Cosa by Conons. inchldin Contnenci. (USS million)

Year 01 02 03 04 05 Total

A. Parks Management and Protection 1. Northern NationalParks 7.15 8.77 9.71 9.68 7.47 42.78 2. Wildlife Reserves 0.40 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.11 1.29 3. Amazon National Parks 0.51 0.74 1.01 0.98 0.80 4.04 4. Urban Recreational Parks 1.18 2.9 4.81 2.97 1.57 13.52 5. Fire Prevention and Control 1.27 1.96 2.88 2.17 1.56 9.84

Sub-Total 10 1L5 mm IUIS714

B. EnvironmentalResearch 124 Lb La La 0 L92

C. Environmental Education 20 2&05 2& Li

D. Institutional Development 1. Project Administration 1.95 2.02 1.33 0.96 0.50 6.76 2. Training 0.55 0.89 0.92 0.74 0.62 3.72 3. Technical Assistance 1.38 0.70 0.52 0.41 0.61 3.62

Sub-Total La 21 7 141

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 16m01 f= 249 l9 U 1f6 96.04 - 54 -

ANNEX S Table 5.3

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PAR}CSMANAGEMeNT PROJECT

Estimated Schedule of Bank Disbur rnme (USS million)

Bank Quarter Disbursement CumuladveDsbursement Balance Fiscal Year Ending During Quarter Amount Total of Loan

1993 December31, 1992 - - - 5S.0 March 31, 1993 5.7 1/ 5.7 9.8 49.3 June30, 1993 5.8.1/ 11.5 19.8 43.5

1994 Sept. 30, 1993 2.0 13.5 24.6 41.5 Dec. 31, 1993 2.0 15.5 28.2 39.5 March 31, 1994 2.5 18.0 32.7 37.0 June 30, 1994 2.5 20.5 37.3 34.5

1995 Sept. 30, 1994 2.7 23.2 42.2 31.8 Dec. 31, 1994 3.0 26.2 47.6 28.8 March 31, 1995 3.0 29.2 53.1 25.8 June 30, 1995 3.5 32.7 59.4 22.3

1996 Sept. 30, 1995 3.0 35.7 64.9 19.3 Dec. 31, 1995 3.0 38.7 70.4 16.3 March 31, 1996 3.0 41.7 75.8 13.3 June 30, 1996 2.5 44.2 80.4 10.8

1997 Sept. 30, 1996 2.5 46.7 84.9 8.3 Dec. 31, 1996 2.3 49.0 89.1 6.0 March 31, 1997 2.0 51.0 92.7 4.0 June30, 1997 2.0 53.0 96.4 2.0

1998 Sept. 30, 1997 1.0 54.0 98.2 1.0 Dec. 31, 1997 1.0 55.0 100.0 0.0

I/ Including initial deposit of US$5.0 million into the Spocial Account and US$5.0 million of retroactive financing. - 55 -

ANNEXS Table 5.4

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJEC

Financin Pl (USS million)

Govt. of IBRD Vnezuela Total

A. Strengthenimnof Parks Management and Protection

Northem National Parks 23.4 19.4 42.8 Wildlife Reserves 0.6 0.7 1.3 AmazonNational Parks 0.7 3.3 4.0 Urban RecreationalParks 7.8 5.7 13.5 Fire Preventionand Control 5.0 4.8 9.8

B. EnvironmontalResoarch 6.3 1.4 7.7

C. EnvironmentalEducation 2.4 0.4 2.8

D. InstitutionalDevelopment

Project Administration 3.0 3.8 6.8 Training 2.4 1.3 3.7 TechnicalAssistance 3.4 0.2 3.6

TOTAL 55.0 41.0 96.0 - 56 -

ANNEX S Table 5.5

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJEC

Allocationof Loan Proceeds

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

1. Civil Works 75% 28.4

2. Goods 100% of foreign expenditures 9.2 and 45% of local expendibur

3. Technical As _tac Training and Studies 100% 11.9

4. Unallocated _.

TOTAL 55.0 - 57 -

ANNEX 5 Table 5.6

VENUZUEL&

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Procurement Imolementation Schedule

Estimated Annual Contractual and Other Pavmento (USS Million)

Pa~nt Years Total 1 2 3 4 5 Payment Remarks

CiviLWorks 7.8 9.7 11.3 6.9 3.1 38.8 LCB 1.0 1.3 1.8 0.9 5.0 Shopping Equipment,Machinery Vehiclesand Furniture 1.5 2.5 2.0 - - 6.0 ICe 1.3 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.0 10.6 LCB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 2.0 Shopping TechnicalAssistance, Trainingand Studies 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.2 2.0 13.2

Incremental Operational Costs 1.1 2.3 3.4 6.0 7.6 20.4 NBFI/

TOTALS 16.0 21.2 24.3 19.8 14.7 96.0 Bank-Financed t15.5)V(10.7) (12.5) (10.3) (6.0) (55.0)

1/ NBFNot Bank-Financed 21 Including USS5.0mitLion of retroactivefInancIng. VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

INPAROUESCost RecoveryProgram

Financial Plan (Bs. million)

1. 1. 1994 19 199 197 1998 TOTAL - m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9- NATIONALPARKS 21.0 23.0 25.3 28.0 30.8 34.0 38.0 179.1 RECREATIONAL 41.0 45.6 51.0 57.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 369.6 PARKS

WAlERSHED _- - - 10.0 25.0 55.0 90.0 PROIECT[ON RELAY STATION 1.5 2.5 3.3 4.3 5.6 7.3 10.0 33.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENTSWIT 162.7 162.7 162.7 162.7 162.7 162.7 162.7 976.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NATIONALAND 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 120.0 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS TOTAL 242.2 253.8 262.3 272.0 293.1 321.0 365.7 1767.9

t1n (D M

-.1X - 59 -

ANNEX 6 Page 1 of 3

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Proiect Supervision Plan

1. Supervision of the National Parks Management Project would take place at two levels, and would be intensive throughout the implementation period. In broad terms, the principal responsibilities for supervision would rest with INPARQUES' central office (through the Project Coordination Unit, PCU) and the Bank (through the Environment and Agriculture Division, Country Department I, of the Latin America and Caribbean Region, LA1EA). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the technical assistance specialists would also play important roles.

2. At the level of INPAROUES, the PCU would routinely supervise the work of the central, regional, state and field offices of INPARQUES, as well as the project-related activities of SADAMAZONAS, PROFAUNA and FAC, based on periodic monitoring and evaluation reports prepared by these various bodies. The PCU would also receive the support of several technical assistance specialists retained under the institutional development component of the project (Annex 4).

3. INPARQUES' Governing Board (Junta Directiva), chaired by INPARQUES' President, would meet at least once quarterly (or more often, as needed) to review project implementation progress and take decisions on outstanding issues. Semi-annual progress reports, annual operating plans, the report of an Annual Independent Evaluation Committee, and the mid-term evaluation report would all be reviewed and discussed by the Governing Board.

4. Within the Bank, LA1EA would coordinate all supervision work on the project. The Bank would receive two consolidated semestral progress reports compiled by the PCU. The timing of supervision inputs may vary over the course of any one year, depending on the specific needs of individual project components, but normally two main supervisions would be mounted, in April/May and October/November. The first, intended to be a full annual joint Bank-Government implementation review, would inter alia review the report of the second semester of the previous calendar year and consider the findings of the Annual Independent Evaluation Committee. The October/November mission would review the report for the first semester of that project year and the annual audit report on the use of loan and counterpart proceeds. This mission would also be timed to coincide with the review of the budgetary allocation for the project and the final version of the annual operating plan for the next project year.

5. NGOs have participated in project preparation and would also be involved in monitoring implementation. NGOs are represented on INPARQUES' Governing Board. Through their participation in this Board, they would have the opportunity to review and approve all annual operating plans for the project, review and discuss all semi-annual supervision report. and other monitoring and evaluation reports and materials which come to the Board, and would participate - 60 -

ANNEX 6 Page 2 of 3

in all major project-related decisions. Selected NGOs would also participate as members of each Annual Independent Evaluation Committee.

6. The following would be key dates each year, from the standpoint of project supervision:

Table 6.1: Kev Annual Dates for Prolect SuDervision I/

Date Activitv/Report Due

March 31 Second semestral report for the preceding year (July 1-December 31) due to the Bank for review

Annual Independent Evaluation Committee Report due to the Bank for review

April/May FULL BANK SUPERVISION MISSION (Annual Joint Bank-Government Implementation Review)

June 30 Proposed annual budgetary allocation for following project year presented to the Bank for review

Draft annual operating plan for the following project year presented to the Bank for review

Annual project audit report on previous financial year due to the Bank for review

September 30 First semestral report for current year (January 1-June 30) due to the Bank for review

October/ November FULL BANK SUPERVISION MISSION

I/ In addition,a projectlaunch workshop would take place in January1993, foLLowing loan effectiveness,and a mid-termevaluation mission would take place in mid-1995.

7. About 93 sw of inputs would be required for Bank supervision of the project over the five-year project period, including the project launch workshop, mid-term evaluation mission, final supervision/completion mission, routine annual supervision missions and Headquarters review tasks. The inputs are heavier in the first three project years, declining thereafter on the assumption that project progress is satisfactory. The estimated staffing inputs and skill requirements are detailed in Table 6.2. - 61 -

ANNEX 6 Page 3 of 3

Table 6.2: Bank Staffing Inputs and Skill Recauirements for Prolect Supervision

Bank FY/Activity SkillRequirements and Est. TotalInouts (sw) FY93 15 ProjectLaunch Workshop Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./Ecol.(1); Inst.Spec.(1); ) in Venezuela Proc.Off.(0.5);Disb.Off.(0.5) ) 4 ApriL/MaySupervision Econ./TaskMgr.C2); Env.Spec./Ecol.(2); Inst.Spec.(2); ) Mission Nat.Res.Econ.(2); ) a HeadquartersReview Tasks Econ./TaskMgr.(1); Env.Spec./Ecol.01); Proc.Off.01); [Lawyer(1)] 1/ 3 FY94 is Oct./Nov.Spn. Mission Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./EcoL.(2); Env.Res.Spec.(2)) 6 ApriL/MaySupervision Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./EcoL.(2); Inst.Spec.(2); ) Nat.Res.Econ./Fin.Spec.(2) ) 8 HeadquartersReview Tasks Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./EcoL.(1); Proc.Off.(1) ) [Lawyer(1)3 / 4 FY 95 Mid-TermEvaluation Mission Econ./TaskHgr.(4); Env.Spec./Ecol.(2); M&E Spec.(1); Inst./ParkMgment.Spec.(2); Nat.Res.Econ./Fin.pec.(2); ) CommunityPart.Spec.(2); Env.Res.Spec.t1) ) 14 ApriL/MaySpn. Mission Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./EcoL.(2) ) 4 HeadquartersReview Tasks Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./Ecol.(1); Proc.Off.(C) ) 4

FY96-97 12(24)

Oct./Nov.Spn. Missions Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Inst.Spec.(2) ) 4(8) April/MaySpn. Missions Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./Ecol.(2) ) 4(8) HeadquartersReview Tasks Econ./TaskMgr.(2); Env.Spec./EcoL.(1); Proc.Off.(1) ) 4(8)

FY98 14 FinalSpn./CompLetion Econ./TaskMgr.(4); Env.Spec./Ecoi.(2); Inst.Spec.(1); ) Mission Nat.Res.Econ.t1);Env.Res. Spec.(t); Oper.Asst. (3) ) 12

HeadquartersReview Tasks Econ./TaskMgr.(1); Proc.Off.(1) ) 2

TOTALSUPERVISION INPUTS 93 1/

j/ Timeof CountryLawyer not includedin sw totals. VENEZUELA

NAllONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJET

Proiet Pbysical Tndem =d Schdule of lawI d

YEARS COMPONENTtTARGEr UD;X 1 2 3 4 5 TOlW

A. STRENGTIENINO Op PARKS MANAGEMENT AND PROTEClON

(NATIONAL PARKS) Mmq SuperkhwdiB"imp N- 4 1 - 4 9 AdmnistratftOtficm N. 7 3 3 6 - 19 IlcramM1AdminitifiveSft N. 12 26 44 60 64 64

Guud,poso N. 34 43 11 32 3 131 ObseevimTowm N. - 2 2 2 6 Accm Cacmgo N. 2 6 4 4 16 TmnW-t (Aggmmg-) N- 2 21 53 79 27 202 1nc_emal Park G_iud Slff N- 20 49 s0 125 134 134

V en'C_ N' 2 4 1 1 2 10 iafoan.biC aia, N- I 6 6 3 24

RecmlioaAm N - 7 3 13 6 6 35

(MME PREVIDION AND CONTROL)

Prkcil B_ C_s N. 3 3 3 - 9 Auxia yDB_ C_- N. 3 4 3 2 - 12 ObservoiTowm N- 6 6 4 2 1 19 Inc, lV ,is N' 11 * 35 16 5 75 5760 l aceminlPa Pei medmp 720 2640 3840 4560 5760 E.N-(Agvmsgud) 1 2 3 2 1 9

N.A.: Not Appimh

FbO 4- VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Proicct Phvsksl TarSeb n Scbmule of Iuivlemn*atic

YEARS COMPONENT/TARGET Unit 1 2 3 4 5 Toil

(WILIDLFE RERUGES)

Admbinirative Offics N I I

OCUsOsb N 4 1 5 Accs C rol N -I I Tr_n- (Agg s5e) N- 3 6 9 P k,tGOumn N- 2 6 S Inftrbinniducd lafoemaie Cenc. I 1 2

ImnpovedMmaauant CooaMnsnrmmel.aa/ N- 4 4 4 4 4 20 lncrnSdM .ginm Ph m/ N- 2 2 2 2 2 10 I

(RECREATONAL PARKS)

Br sevp W-cr Tr_ h - 4S 74 28 - ISO EkdricW Syam ha - 30 44 20 - 94

Cumi_ Amco A bihcsk N I I . 1 3 ChiMz'usGm N - 2 - I - 3 GmeeAns D pamcst b ha 4 35 41 20 20 120 LagmResatrn N 3 I1 - - 4 Anei ExI- RcsIorsio.K - 9 3 12

EdBctis Casu N' 3 2 2 - 7 bI ps Pmur ha 4S 16 59 - 123

N.A.: Nt Applicbl I/ Fiuu cda bo& mdips.

I.1FI-.. U'1 0* VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENTPROIECT

ProibetPFbicl Trrets and Scheduleof Imp nagmsxt

YEARS COMPONENT/TARGET Unis 1 2 3 4 5 Total

. EDNIRONMENTALRESEARCH

Eagbliabmm of R=csrch Sw*om N - 2 1 1 1 5 Rapid Ecogical A m N- 1 3 3 3 - 10 Thmlic Miq Paiu 2 3 3 - 8 W"r Quf lyStadle N- 1 2 2 - -

Put M=4ma AppLid Rmaeb (Noh of Orioco) N* 2 4 6 7 6 25

Park Mangmn Applied Rcrch (Amazo Pas N- 2 5 4 - - 11

Widhfc Re6fge Applied Rearch d Monoring N- 4 3 2 2 - 11

C. ENVIRONMENTALEDUCATION

Co_nmuniyWorkzbo 9s N- 36 38 40 42 40 196 Tzummgof Vob _mcead W oitsbm witb NOOs an Par Prcmcico N- 30 32 32 32 34 160 Tyinmg of Educelou,and Vohumeem to wk with Put U N- 30 45 40 49 39 203 Educaion Acsvm with Cilimae, Sbdamt ad odie Viitor to Natial Paks N- 223 269 267 267 240 1.266 Educam Aetvita witd Cbild, Sbadaah*Teacua, madother V.sizm to Nujiml Pats N' 490 668 715 762 765 3,400

0* l tD 1 >C OLm _4 VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJCT

Projet Pbysicl Tameu.s Schjdule of IDpmg nmioe

YEARS COMPONENT/TARGET Units 1 2 3 4 5 Total

D. INSTITUTONALDEVELOPMENT

Bimg/RPmoeJing of Regiad Offices id Tma FPAiis u' 970 660 650 290 - 2,570

T,_Ling C _um-w

M- on.M md Ad_miijUio. N. 13 17 9 5 3 47 -n11w Col N- 4 3 7 2 16 - iPlg-d Bdsdipm N- 4 7 a 2 3 24 -Coeef3CsofCiv Woeks N- 3 5 2 5 - is -NauIe Ph&al _sakaMmgm N- 13 19 26 24 is 100 -UrbtssPmx*s Mnsgu._ N- 7 10 11 6 - 34 - Eviro v llBduoo N' 1 5 3 2 I I -Fuucm _go N- 2 2 2 2 2 10 - Envisoata1almptA_mumt N- 3 3 3 1 1 11 -Ccmp,erT,smg aff/days 335 205 120 100 95 aSS t-n Taiel Ass imc.am

Adms1__&a ia _ suF _gcnt m/yes 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 l.5 10.5 Propt a Pub Mmage_ u_nyes 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.9 Resusb id Ta_% man/yes 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 3.4 Caumiky Ps,aipdia ma/es 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 I.S F S_ Serie Cgm& Tifie n/yeasu 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.9

FmsachiAibmo. M/y-I 1.0 - - 1.0 S Io1T emCa_muhcie Iyesaa 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.1

0Q a'Z

u - 66 -

ANNEX 7 Table 7.1 Page 5 of 5

VENEZUELA

NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Scheduleof Implementationby Parks and Wildlife Reserves

YEAR NATIONAL PARK/RESERVE

|Morrocoy < ------>

Mochima <------>

Los Roques <------

Canaima ...... ,,,,,,, >

Yurubi <------>

EL Avita < ...... >

Cuare <------>

TortugaArrau <------. .

Henri Pittier ------>

San Esteban* <----->

Sierra Nevada <------*-*--- >

El Tams <------...-...--. >

Aguaro-Guariquito <------>

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

Laguna de Tacarigua ------*------>

MarfaLionza *------*- >

Cerro Copey <------>

M6danos de Coro <----- >

Cinaruco Capanaparo. <-

EL Guacharo f iiivestmcnt > Recipient parks of investment support under the fire prevention and combat element. - 67 - ANNEX7 Table 7.2 VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENTPROJECT

Indicators of Project Impact on National Park SustainabilityI/

Sensitivity Index _/ | Hazard Index J/ [ Overall Threat Index National Parks - - Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year I Year 3 Year 5 Year I Year 3 Year S

Aguaro- 6.94 6.94 6.20 0.87 0.90 0.58 6.04 6.04 3.60 Guariquito

Canaimr 6.88 6.60 6.10 1.21 1.05 0.79 8.32 6.43 4.82

Duida-Marahuaca 6.53 6.25 5.50 0.39 0.36 0.33 2.55 2.25 1.82

El Avila 5.82 5.40 5.00 0.86 0.75 0.60 5.01 4.05 3.00

El Copey 7.12 7.12 6.40 0.44 0.42 0.37 3.13 2.99 2.37

El Tana 6.00 6.00 5.40 0.55 0.50 0.45 3.30 3.00 2.43

La Neblina 5.82 5.70 5.50 0.41 0.38 0.35 2.39 2.17 1.93

Laguna Restanga 7.29 7.29 6.40 0.55 0.55 0.40 4.01 4.01 2.56

Laguna Tacarigua 6.71 6.30 5.50 0.76 0.76 0.53 5.10 5.10 2.91

Los Roques 6.12 5.80 5.39 0.74 0.62 0.48 4.53 3.60 2.59

Henri Pittier 5.64 5.64 5.20 0.78 0.70 0.50 4.40 3.95 2.60

Marf Lionza N.A. - NA. - - N.A. - -

Medanos de Coro 6.94 6.94 6.20 0.50 0.50 0.38 3.47 3.47 2.36

Mochima 6.41 5.85 5.36 1.42 1.15 0.89 9.10 6.73 4.77

Morrocoy 7.41 6.80 5.61 0.80 0.68 0.60 5.93 4 62 3.37

Parima- N.A.A - N.A. - - N.A. Tapirapeco

Santos Luzardo NA. - - NA. - - N.A.

Sierra Nevada 5.60 5.60 5.20 0.67 0.62 0.45 3.75 3.47 2.34

Yapacana 6.71 6.71 5.90 0.61 0.61 0.47 4.09 4.09 2.77

Yurubi 6.18 5.80 5.20 0.51 0.45 0.38 3.15 2.61 1.98

I/ IMPACTINDICATORS as developedby an INPARQUESstudy of the sourcesand level of threats to the wustainabilityof individual nationalparks. On a scaleof 1-10, the various SensitivityIndicators and Hazard Indicators(see footnotes 2 and 3, respectively)were weighted andcombined into an overall SensitivityIndex and a Hazard Index for each park. The SenaitivityIndex was then weighted against the Hazard Index, to obtain an overallThreat Index for each park. The project would aim to achievea signirficantreduction in the overall threat index of each park.

I/ SENSITIVITYINDEX is a weighted composite of various indicators of the sensitivityof each park, including:park diwmensiona,the raturity of the fauna community, relative isolation, landscapediversity, presence of endangered species,degree of human intervention, recovery capacity of soilsand vegetative cover, basin control, existence of approved park regulations, degree of land regularization, existenceof a park managementplan, budget, technical suff, equipment, installations, control andvigilance capacity, andaccess.

21 HAZARD INDEX is a weighted composite of various indicators of hazard or disturbance to each park, whether legally authorized or note, including: public recreation, conmercialrecreation, educationaluse, scientific use, therpeutic use, indirect use, water rearvea, deforestation, mining, fires, agriculture, hunting, grazing, comrnercialfishing, sportfishing, presence of native villages, neighboring villages, highways, electrical lines, pipelines, ports andother uses.

N.A.: Not applicable. - 68 -

ANNEX 8

VENEZUELA

NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Documents Available in Proiect File

WORKING PAPERS

1. NATIONAL PARKS AND OTHER PROTECTED AREAS

2. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (SPANISH) INVESTIGACI6N Y MONITOREO AMBIENTAL

3. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION (SPANISH) EDUCACI6N AMBIENTAL

4. AMAZONIAN PARKS (SPANISH) PARQUES AMAz6NICOS

5. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING

6. COSTS RECOVERY AND INPARQUES FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY (SPANISH) RECUPERACION DE COSTOS E INPARQUES SUSTENTABILIDAD FINANCIERA

7. PROJECT COST TABLES

OTHER DOCUMENTS

1. FAO/CP PROJECT PREPARATION REPORT. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROJECT (NATIONAL PARKS). VOLUMES I AND II.

2. APPRAISAL MISSION AIDE-MEMOIRE

18RD 24323

AUA NETHERLANDSANTILLES CARIBBEAN SEA (NETH)C I IZ- L.,-.co r ARCHPEAGOELOS - GRENADA

MPDANOS ATAFLANTIC / t O~~~~ 54 ~~>9 DE CORO NLP _A AN C

LAGUNA DE LA TASICETR P NLPDEYAM OCEAN N%ACA~~~AO P~~S11NOA~~ CRRO COPEY NP. J 0i i S b\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OR ROCOY NLP T4o^g * AWN1N PENINSULADE | RACAISO®3& j ' _ _; _ N r, ESTAN N P ELCAVILAN P IAS DE LASMAT PAR TRINID NP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N c.b.,.. ~1LXDO~coo~zOOLS -~N TACARIGUA NP SAN FILIPE(® -AXaX-a-VALENCIA-i>{sStNFlLlf _~~ TESE NY C^MCICIJA:ARO 0 1 EL, BARCuISNETO-_? ' A PPOUOEL MARCELONA G,A2"A

A G> S -, ONZV T .. DE ''LOSMORROS \~~~~~~~~Gd)UA _E'CR A )UNR SN CAK-(S S. AUN UCPTs/4t

A AAGU &GUANAR A -U-CUP G.ITA

DE UkAO v;_:~~~

'STOPLE JoBLEA FRNAN!X_

>-"- - q'NDO --=

C O L OMB I A \X2a

EI-Oo, doo t G U Y A N A

* PUERTO MA

V E N E Z U E L A -4- NATIONALPARKS MANAGEMENT PROJECT a-

\0 X_ NATIONAL PARKS

w.P WILDLIFE REFUGES o NATIONAL MONUMENTS

/CoribbesnSA > ST.LUCIAQ APlcre,. _TLI. RIVERS NTL STVINENT

o SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS E--INI*ADR AN

3 STATEOR FEDERALTERRITORY CAPITALS TOBAGO _ _ ~~~~~~~~~PARhMATAP RiAPECeK ®t) NATIONAL CAPITAL vENEZUELA INTERNATIONALBOUNDARIES GUYANA'

_AU NEK ' A 3 CN#0 L U M a I A

200 0 KALOMETERs

'77 7r 68' ' -' BRECUAiAtcZILoscR ,99zA OCOBtRp1992