List of Annexes
1-
Project Design Summary
2-
Detailed Project Description
3-
Estimated Project Cost
4-
Incremental Cost Analysis
5-
Financial Summary
6-
Comments on the STAP Review
7.
Selection of Protected Areas and their Profile
- 39 Annex 1: Project Design Summary
Peru: Participatory Management of Protected Areas
Hierarchy of Objectives
Key Performance
Indicators
Monitoring & Evaluation
Critical Assumptions
(from Goal to Bank Mission)
- Macroeconomic situation
improves
- Political stability is
maintained in Peru
- Socioeconomic conditions
improve among rural
populations
Sector-related CAS Goal:
Supporting sound
environmental
management, reducing
poverty and extreme
poverty
Sector Indicators:
- Poverty headcount in
rural areas and around
Protected Areas
- Management
effectiveness of SINANPE
Sector/country reports:
INEE household surveys
GEF Operational Program:
Support long term
protection of globally
important ecosystems
Global ecosystem
indicators.
International reports and
scientific studies.
SINANPE monitoring and
evaluation system and
scorecards
GEF Program M&E
System
To ensure biodiversity
conservation by increasing
the involvement of civil
society institutions and the
private sector in the
planning, management and
sustainable use of Peru’s
biodiversity resources
Adoption of collaborative
public/private sector
management approaches
to PAs and biodiversity
conservation/management
sub-sectors
Global Objective:
To improve the
management effectiveness
and conservation of
biodiversity in 6 protected
areas of the SINANPE
through increased social
participation
Outcome / Impact
Indicators:
Increased management
effectivenss
Project reports:
((from Objective to Goal)
Parkguard reports/
infraction records.
Reduction in illegal
activities threatening
biodiversity conservation
in the 6 project areas
Management
effectiveness scorecards
INRENA policies
promoting collaborative
public/private sector
approaches remain
consistent; other related
sectors adopt this approach
to management of protected
areas
Reduced number of
non-sustainable
development activities in
PA buffer zones
Annual socio-economic
M&E reports
Increase financial
sustainability for the
financing of PA recurrent
costs
National reports to CBD
and through the Clearing
House Mechanism (CHM)
INRENA and NGOs
annual reports and
scorecards
Increased indices of
biodiversity richness in 6
PAs
Increased stakeholder
participation in the
management of six
protected areas
Increased capacity to
finance recurrent costs
Annual bio-physical M&E
reports
Setting up of PAMC and
proper functioning
according to management
effectiveness scorecard
- 40 -
Output from each
Component:
Improved management of 6
PAs
Increased institutional
capacity of public/private
sectors to work
collaboratively in the
management of the national
system of protected areas
Increased public awareness
of the importance of Peru’s
biodiversity and the role of
protected areas in its
conservation and
management
Output Indicators:
Project Reports:
(From Outputs to Objective)
- 5 updated master plans
by PY 4
- 5 PAMCs created by PY1
- 3 PAs administered totally
or partially by private
sector organizations
- 50% of PA management
activities contracted out to
private sector in 3
remaining PAs
- 150 small-scale activities
implemented in 5 PAs over
6 years
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
- Economic and technical
solutions to replace nonsustainable land use and
extractive practices in buffer
zones are available
- PAMCs make decisions on
the basis of technical rather
than political criteria, remain
transparent, and manage
areas according to
conservation and business
principles
- Special interest groups not
able to disrupt sustainable
management systems
- Local communities are
willing to adopt biodiversityfriendly technologies and
initiatives are socially viable
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
Private participation in
management will
lead to more efficient
conservation
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
Educational authorities are
willing to participate in
environmental awareness
campaigns
- 60% INRENA field staff
trained over life of project
- 85% PROFONANPE staff
trained over life of project
- 150 representatives of
civil society trained over life
of project
- 25 local civil society
receiving assistance from
project
- National public
awareness strategy
prepared by PY 2
- Media campaigns
implemented in proximity to
5 PAs by PY 3
- 1 million school-age
children to receive
educational materials
Improved efficiency in the
management of SINANPE.
- Establishment of an MIS
in PY 4
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
MIS and M&E reports will
be used to improve
sustainable management of
SINANPE
Improved basis for
financing the costs of
biodiversity conservation
- Increase of the
endowment fund by US$6
million in PY 1
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
Cofinancing in place and
other institutions make
contributions
Dissemination of project-
- Creation of a project
Project reports
- 41 related experiences and
lessons learned to other
SINANPE PAs and regional
projected area systems
website
- 50,000 hits/year over life
of project
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
Project Components /
Sub-components:
Component 1.
Inputs: (Budget for each
Component)
Project Reports:
(From Components to
Outputs)
Participatory preparation of
PA master plans
US$17.55 M, out of which
GEF will finance US$9.47
million
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
Proper area management
procedures and plans are
implemented
Participatory master plan
implementation
Proper designs lead to good
management
Concession contracts for
the management of PAs
Private sector will be
interested in concessions
Small-scale,
environmentally sustainable
economic activities
Beneficiary organizations
capable of administering
resources provided
Component 2.
Training of INRENA /
PROFONANPE staff and
staff of national and
regional civil society
institutions/ organizations
US$4.88M, out of which
GEF will finance US$1.51
million
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Mid-term evaluation
Capacity-building among
local environmental
institutions /organizations in
proximity to projectsupported PAs
Communications and school
programs are interesting for
the public and students
Development and
implementation of a
biodiversity conservationbased public awareness
program
Design and implementation
of
SINANPE Management
Information System (MIS)
Component 3.
Increasing the Endowment
Fund
Implementation of a
monitoring and evaluation
US $ 8.28M, out of which
GEF will finance US$3.82
million
Project implementation
reports
Project M&E reports
Bank supervision reports
Available information
properly gathered and
processed and indicators
developed suitable for
- 42 (M&E) plan
Design and implementation
of an
information dissemination
Strategy.
Mid-term evaluation
GEF external evaluations
feedback
- 43 Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas
By Component:
Project Component 1: Participatory Protected Area Management (US$17.55 million, 57.1% of
total project cost).
The objective of this component is to engage civil society, private sector organizations and local
communities in active participation in the decision-making process and management of PAs, and
share the benefits resulting from the areas. There are four sub-components: (i) participatory
preparation of PA master plans; (ii) participatory master plan implementation; (iii) concession and
management contracts for PA management; and (iv) small-scale, environmentally sustainable
economic activities in PAs and buffer zones.
Sub-component 1. Participatory Preparation of Master Plans (US$2.39 million; 7.8% of total
project cost).
Expected Outputs: (i) five updated PA master plans; (ii) studies and data collection for
management, monitoring and evaluation; and (iii) instruments to implement the master plans.
Activities.- To produce the above outputs, the component would finance the following activities:
(i) collection and/or completion of basic information such as biodiversity studies, social and
economic baseline studies, ecological indicators and score card development and other fieldbased assessments necessary for master plan preparation and subsequent monitoring and
evaluation; (ii) natural resources inventories, market research and other studies in support of
small, economically sustainable initiatives; (iii) legal and land tenure studies; (iv) participatory
design of master and management plans; (v) development of natural resources and public use
programs in support of the aforementioned plans; (vi) preparation of financing plans for each PA;
and (vii) development of implementation procedures and complementary operating rules for the
establishment and functioning of PAMCs and other participatory activities.
In all cases, studies will involve local people with detailed knowledge of sites and resources.
Local people also need to be aware of results of all studies and consequently the project will
finance results presentation events catering to local audiences (municipalities, producer
associations, local NGOs, etc).
The design of PA master plans will be contracted out to specialized agencies but will also strongly
involve PA managers, local institutions and local people. The project supports INRENA policies
to develop clear, simple and complete guidelines, standards and criteria for master plan
preparation. Draft TORs for the preparation of master plans have been developed and are
available in the project files. The master plans will include physical infrastructure planning, the
estimated financial needs of the PAs and timetables for efficient performance.
This subcomponent will also design and develop the instruments which will enable NGO/private
sector involvement in master plan implementation.
These instruments include: working
procedures of PAMCs, concession contracts (based on international experience), subcontracts
covering PA management activities and services, community resource use plans, and overall
community PA protection and control systems.
Sub-component 2. Participatory Master Plan Implementation (US$5.77 million; 18.8% of total
project cost).
- 44 -
Expected Outputs: (i) three PAs would be managed directly by civil society and/or private sector
organizations/consortiums through contracts with INRENA, guided by approved master plans and
under direct PAMC oversight; (ii) at least 50% of all management activities identified in the master
plans in the remaining PAs would be provided by civil society, private sector or communities
through contracts with INRENA; (iii) increased management and enforcement capacity; (iv)
establishment of basic infrastructure, equipment and staff requirements to ensure the
conservation of biodiversity of international importance; and (v) PAMCs functioning in each
participating PA.
Activities.- The subcomponent will finance the following activities: (i) physical demarcation of PA
boundaries and classification (where necessary); (ii) management and concession contracts with
the private sector; (iii) salaries for park rangers and administrative personnel; (iv) vehicles and
equipment; (v) small-scale infrastructure; (vi) PA staff training with specific activities oriented to
support improved communication and cooperation skills of private sector and civil society in the
management of PAs; and (vii) some PAMC operational costs.
The physical demarcation of PAs will be very rudimentary and will only be done where it can help
resolve conflicts. Limited zone reclassification is also being envisaged. The management and
concession contracts between INRENA and the private sector and communities (designed under
subcomponent 1) can take various forms. They will include service contracts (studies, technical
assistance, basic infrastructure development, PA vigilance and control), exploitation and
conservation concessions as well as biodiversity, wildlife management, tourism development and
resource use management, training and other related activities.
Field staff will be trained in specific ranger abilities and knowledge, fine-tuned to local
circumstances, as well as in best practices for “good neighbors with surrounding
communities/institutions.”. Training and advisory services must be used to design a general
framework for rangers’ professional careers and subsequent training.
The operation of PAMCs faces the potential for conflicts of interest among member organizations,
and the PAMCs’ operational rules will be designed to minimize such conflicts. The operational
costs financed under this subcomponent refer to the costs of the organization of conflict resolution
processes (in particular, meetings, capacity building and study travel to other PAs).
Sub-component 3. Concession/Management Contracts for the Management of Protected Areas
(US$3.61 million; 11.8 % of total project cost)
Output. Three PAs managed through concession contracts with the private sector and/or
international NGOs.
Activities.- The sub-component will remunerate private sector and/or international NGOs to carry
out conservation and management activities in three PAs. Under the project, proposals will be
invited from the national and international NGOs and private sector, or from consortiums of NGOs
and local private sector to take up specific concessions or manage specific PA areas. The
concession contracts will be conceived as longer-term commitments and will be signed between
INRENA and the concessionaires. Activities to be financed under the concession contracts
include: construction and maintenance of PA infrastructure (visitor centers, walking paths, etc.),
studies, biodiversity research, wildlife management, protection against invasions by farmers and
loggers, and activities with local communities (including initiatives of a social, anthropological and
educational nature to foster local conservation). It also includes the organization of tourist
- 45 activities by private eco-touring companies. Where appropriate and environmentally acceptable,
concessionaires will be invited to propose inclusion of the PAs into special tourist circuits and
tours. The objective of this subcomponent is to get the parks more financially sustainable over
time, and the local and international private sector can obviously contribute to this endeavor.
Sub-component 4. Small-scale, Environmentally-Sustainable Economic Activities in PAs and
Buffer Zones (US$5.78 million; 18.8 % of total project cost)
Output.
An estimated 150 small-scale economic initiatives or development programs
(subprojects) implemented in the buffer zones or PAs, financed under a matching grant scheme
with matching contributions.
Activities.- The subcomponent will finance the following activities: (i) planning and preparation of
pre-investment activities, including environmental screening and mitigation; and (ii)
implementation of productive investment initiatives and development programs by communities,
local governments, private sector and civil society.
An illustrative list of activities which could be financed under this subcomponent includes: ecotourism projects - development of ecological excursion tracks, hiking trails, overnight rooms,
camping; sustainable economic use of flora and fauna - medicinal plant production, captive
wildlife management and reproduction, collection and selling of renewable non-timber forest
products; promotion of sustainable grazing practices (e.g., cut and carry); replacement of old
mining technology with low-impact, artisan mineral processing technology; agricultural research
and extension programs for environmentally sustainable crop and livestock breeding
technologies; etc.
Within PA core areas, economic activities would only be allowed where activities are compatible
with the master plans in the designated use, following the INRENA environmental assessment
procedures. The selection of subprojects will be on a competitive basis, a system which is being
successfully implemented in several development projects. Two or three times a year,
communities, indigenous groups, women’s associations, municipalities, NGOs and private sector
institutions will be able to present proposals for small-scale initiatives and programs and a
committee will do the selection. When necessary, the project would financially participate in the
appraisal of the subprojects, in particular for the evaluation of environmental impact and
mitigation. The subprojects will be small at the local level but may cover a large area. The GEF
would finance a maximum of 50% of the subproject cost, except where the subproject increases
biodiversity and resource conservation, in which case the GEF ceiling would be 90%. The co
financing should come from the beneficiaries and/or other institutions. A subproject operational
manual will be developed before appraisal and the adoption of the manual by PROFONANAPE
will be a condition of Board presentation.
Project Component 2: Institutional Development (US$4.88; 15.9% of total project cost).
The main objective of this component is to consolidate SINANPE through: (i) the strengthening of
INRENA, PROFONANPE, civil society and private sector organizations to work collaboratively in
the management of SINANPE; (ii) increased public awareness of the importance of Peru’s
biodiversity and the role of protected areas in its conservation and management; and (iii) the
development and implementation of a SINANPE management information system.
- 46 The component has four sub-components: (i) training and advisory services for INRENA and
PROFONANPE staff to enhance closer collaborative relationships in PA management; (ii)
capacity building of local civil society institutions/organizations in the proximity of projectsupported PAs; (iii) development and implementation of a biodiversity conservation-based public
awareness program; and (iv) design and implementation of SINANPE’s Management Information
System (MIS).
Sub-component 1. Training and Advisory Services for INRENA and PROFONANPE (US$0.68
million; 2.2 % of total project cost).
Expected Outputs: (i) 60% of INRENA field staff and 85% of PROFONANPE staff trained over the
life of the project; (ii) INRENA and PROFONANPE improve their performance in management,
coordination and administration; (iii) INRENA strengthened in the processes of planning,
supervision and implementation activities requiring active, participatory management by local
communities, civil society and the private sector; (iv) INRENA’s central office staff and selected
PA personnel trained in participatory resources evaluation and planning, cultural approaches to
policies and strategies, conflict resolution, social relations and related subjects; (iv)
PROFONANPE's capacity and implementation efficiency increased to deal more effectively with
INRENA, PA personnel and PAMC representatives.
Activities will include: training seminars, study tours, training of staff in local training institutions
and non-degree university courses, such as management, rural development, resource
conservation and communication courses, on-the-job training in foreign countries, organization
and management re-engineering studies and advisory services, training in management
information systems and in monitoring and evaluation. The training will focus on the General
Directorate of Natural Protected Areas. Scorecards will de developed as tools for monitoring and
evaluation of effective management. It will also include advisory processes such as seeking
better coordination of supporting agencies, following the Mexican experience mentioned in
section D3 (lessons learned from other countries).
Sub-component 2. Capacity Building of Local Civil Society Institutions/Organizations (US$1.5
million; 4.9% of total project cost).
Outputs. (i) 150 representatives of civil society trained over the life of the project; (ii) 25 local civil
society organizations receiving technical assistance through the project; (iii) civil society
organizations and PAMCs strengthened; and (iv) civil society organizations provided with
equipment to support project objectives and to manage and administer small-scale subprojects.
Activities: Through this component, the project will finance the training, technical assistance, and
equipment needed to strengthen the capacity of local institutions and civil society organizations
located in the proximity of the PAs to enable them to play a more substantive role in project
implementation. Special training activities will provide organizations with the necessary tools and
knowledge to formulate and implement subprojects.
Although a significant number of NGOs and local organizations have implemented small projects,
usually with the support of multilateral and bilateral assistance agencies, the vast majority of
these organizations still lack competence in subproject design and implementation. In addition to
the larger and better equipped private sector and civil society organizations/institutions located in
the proximity of project areas, there are is host of smaller institutional entities that have neither
the institutional competence nor equipment needed to support a meaningful role in achieving
- 47 project objectives, yet they can provide substantially increased sustainability of project outcomes
due to their closer ties to local problems and realities.
Sub-component 3. Public Awareness Program (US$1.77 million; 5.8% of total project cost).
Outputs: An environmental behavioral change through a national public awareness strategy; a
series of media campaigns, Internet home pages, and school program materials developed and
implemented in the areas in proximity to the project PAs.
Activities: (i) design and implementation of a strategy for a national awareness program, applying
a systematic process including: awareness assessment, design and planning of awareness
programs, pre-testing and fine-tuning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation; (ii) media
campaigns implemented in the proximity of the project PAs; (iii) one million school-age children
receiving educational materials dealing with protected areas.
In a recent analysis of Peru’s environmental issues, increasing public environmental awareness
was identified as a first priority in improving environmental conditions in Peru (Peru:
Environmental Issues and Strategic Options, an sector work paper prepared jointly by the World
Bank and FAO Investment Center, June 2000, Lima). Although the strategy could be applied
nationally, due to financial constraints it will only be initially implemented in areas in proximity to
the project’s sites.
The effectiveness of this program will be measured through the changing of environmental
behavior as opposed to a change only in awareness or knowledge. Target groups and desired
results will be defined. Various tools will be considered, including an environmental media
campaign, the development and utilization of the Internet (in particular as a means to enhance
communications between INRENA headquarters and field staff who could in this way download,
print and prepare specific awareness materials that have been tailored to local realities), and
facilitate stakeholder involvement at the local level through consultations and consensus-building
to enhance awareness of the importance of conservation of biodiversity. It will also prepare
educational materials aimed at schoolchildren (e.g., teaching aids and school kits would be
produced, teacher training programs instituted and youth events organized). Printed and
audiovisual materials would be produced and distributed using national and local media. Open
access Internet pages will also be designed and maintained. Cross-site visits of key stakeholders
to view successfully-managed conservation activities would also be supported under this subcomponent.
The stakeholder involvement program must also consider a regular scheduling of field visits by
critical decision-makers including mixed groups of congressmen, the Ministries of Agriculture and
Economy, and INRENA.
The awareness campaign may also have a positive impact on eco-tourism. Willingness to pay
studies have been done for selected parks (not included in the project) and there is a positive
public attitude towards payment of park fees, which could contribute to the sustainability of park
management.
- 48 -
Sub-component 4. SINANPE-based MIS Sub-component (US$0.93 million; 3% of total project
cost).
Outputs. The projected output of this activity would be an enhanced decision-making process
through better and updated information, providing feedback to national administrators as well as
to stakeholders and civil society organizations.
Activities to produce the above outputs are: (i) design and implementation of information sharing,
(ii) standardization, (iii) dissemination of processed information, including GIS data produced by
INRENA or national/ local organizations, and (iv) resource assessments and socioeconomic
studies.
The lack of a centralized management information system (MIS) has impeded SINANPE’s
effectiveness and poses a risk to its long-term viability. Through this sub-component, the project
would support the design and establishment of a SINANPE-based MIS in INRENA. The MIS
would be used to support informed and more efficient management decision-making related to
allocation of resources, status of field-based management units, and budgetary issues. The
system would also complement INRENA’s existing M&E system and provide technical data (e.g.,
status of biodiversity conservation, the results of natural resource inventories, indicators and
threat alert information) to the public at large.
The design will include an assessment of MIS training needs and training programs at local
levels, rules for net access and participation, and the system’s architectural design (see project
files under “Lineas de Guía para el Sistema de Información Gerencial”). Both government and
non-government data collection entities are expected to be major information sources. The
system would support the sharing of online information with all SINANPE stakeholders.
Project Component 3: Protected Area Financing, Project Administration, Monitoring and
Evaluation, and Information Dissemination (US$8.28 million; 27% of total project cost).
This component includes three main sub-components: (i) increase and management of the
PROFONANPE endowment fund; (ii) project implementation and monitoring and evaluation
(M&E); and (iii) design and implementation of an information dissemination strategy.
Sub-component 1. Increase and management of the PROFONANPE Endowment Fund (US$6.1
million; 19.9% of project costs).
Outputs. (i) a well functioning increased endowment fund; and (ii) increased private sector
contributions in at least two PAs.
Activities: A replenishment of the endowment fund and additional fund-raising for individual PAs
and SINANPE in general.
To increase financial sustainability of SINANPE, the PROFONANPE endowment fund will be
increased from US$5.7 million to US$13.7 million through three contributions: GEF (US$3
million); Finland (US$2.5 million) and another donor (at least US$500,000 and probably four times
this amount). Bringing the endowment fund up to at least $13.7 million will provide a return of
about $550,000 per year for PROFONANPE’s financing of the recurrent costs in the Protected
Areas. The complement endowment fund will be placed through and asset manager in non-
- 49 emerging markets. At project effectiveness, the GEF will disburse the amount of US$2.5 million
into the endowment fund , after having received proof that the counterpart endowment is available
in the endowment account. Once the additional endowment counterpart of US$500,000 has been
received, GEF will transfer the complement. The returns of the endowment fund brought in by
Finland will be used exclusively for the recurrent costs of Macchu Picchu. The returns on the
endowment fund financed by GEF will not be earmarked. While the use of the returns of the
complementary endowment funds from the other donor is now under negotiation. The Bank will
supervise the performance of the PROFONANPE portfolio with the asset manager twice a year.
Moreover the strategy designed during preparation to increase revenues for the protected areas
will be implemented in the PAs covered under the project. PROFONANPE will undertake
additional fundraising activities in particular with the private sector. For this, PROFONANPE will
recruit a specialized agent to investigate where additional funds are available and how they could
be attracted for the sustainable financing of the protected areas.
Sub-component 2. Project Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$2.05; 6.7% of total
project cost).
Outputs. The main output will be a project implemented in an efficient and timely manner and an
operational Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system applied to this project. Specific outputs
include: (i) an improved institutional capacity in PROFONANPE to support and monitor projects;
(ii) an M&E manual for PROFONANPE; and (iii) timely M&E reports conforming to GEF and
World Bank monitoring and reporting requirements.
Activities are: (i) recruitment of additional staff for PROFONANPE (project coordinator,
procurement specialist, environmental specialist and support staff) and purchasing of equipment;
(ii) updating of a draft design of a Monitoring and Evaluation program; (iii) implementation of the
updated/refined M&E program; and (iv) contracting out of new personnel and procurement of
equipment.
One of the principal recommendations stemming from the mid-term evaluation of PROFONANPE
I was to design and implement a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program. As a response,
PROFONANPE formed a working group and hired a consultant to prepare an M&E manual to
guide the future monitoring of PROFONANPE-assisted projects. The draft product from this
exercise will be refined and applied to this project to support an effective M&E process in
compliance with Bank and GEF requirements throughout the life of the project.
Under the Indigenous Management of Protected Areas Project (GEF) a biodiversity monitoring
and evaluation system has been designed and will be implemented soon. Based on the
methodology and experience under that project, the monitoring of the biodiversity aspects will be
carried out in the five protected areas covered under this project.
Sub-component 3. Information Dissemination (US$0.12 million; 0.4% of total project cost).
The objective under this sub-component will be to promote involvement of the private sector and
other possible sources in the financing of SINANPE.
Outputs. (i) private sector and other agencies support project activities; (ii) enhanced relationships
with national, regional and local civil society and private sector through dissemination of results
and lessons learned using reports and workshops; and (iii) adoption of relevant experiences and
“lessons learned” from this project by other PAs in Peru’s SINANPE and other national systems of
protected areas.
- 50 -
Activities in this subcomponent will disseminate the results of project-supported activities to
national, regional, and global stakeholders through written reports, workshops and available
information systems and will include the establishment of a project web home page. The subcomponent will also cover the costs of identifying and disseminating best practice guidelines to
INRENA staff and PAMCs.
- 51 -
Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs (US$)
PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas
Participatory Management of Protected Area Project Costs
Project Cost By Component
I. Participative Protected Area Management
1. Preparation of master plans
1.1 Master plan formulation and related studies
2. Participatory implementation of management plan
2.1 Staffing in PA
2.2 Vehicles and equipment in PA
2.3 Stations and visitor centers in PA
2.4 PA management operational costs
2.5 Training of PA staff
2.6 PAMC support
3. Concession contracts for management of protected areas
4. Small-scale, environmentally-sustainable productive investments **
4.1 Demand formulation, planning and pre-investment
4.2 Productive investments
4.3 Follow-up and monitoring
II. Institutional Development
1. Training and advisory services to INRENA and PROFONANPE
2. Capacity building of local civil society in PA
3. Biodiversity conservation public awareness program in PA
4. SINANPE-based MIS
III. PA Financing, project administration, project M&E and Info dissemination
1. Increase of the Endowment Fund
2. Project implementation, management, monitoring, and evaluation
3. Information dissemination (lessons learned)
Total Project Costs
* Estimated costs for parallel Morona Pastaza project to be financed by Germany
allocated mapping components of Morona Pastaza to the components of the GEF project.
** Morona Pastaza project will capture US$2.75 million, to be financed by Germany.
US$ million
17.55
2.39
2.39
5.77
2.09
0.74
0.95
1.07
0.47
0.45
3.61
5.78
0.65
4.98
0.15
4.88
0.68
1.50
1.77
0.93
8.28
6.11
2.05
0.12
30.71
- 52 -
Annex 4: Incremental Cost Analysis
Peru: Participatory Management of Protected Areas
Overview
The global objective of the proposed project is to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity of
global importance by increasing the involvement of civil society institutions and the private sector
in the planning, management and sustainable use of Peru’s protected areas. The project’s
objective is to improve the management and conservation of biodiversity in five protected areas
(PA) and one PA to be created, of the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE).
These are: Tambopata-Candamo NR and Bahuaja-Sonene NP (Amazon rainforest), Salinas and
Aguada Blanca NR and Huascarán NP (Central Andean and Wet Puna), Manglares de Tumbes
NS (Pacific mangrove ecosystem), and the soon-to-be-created PA of Morona-Pastaza (humid
ecosystem). Support will also be provided to INRENA’s central office.
In the incremental cost analysis, costs were estimated over the six-year life of the project (LOP)
and have been broken down by project component. In the calculation of baseline costs within the
PAs, only ongoing protection-relevant activities and their respective buffer zones were used.1
While some of the support for these projects/activities may end prior to the completion of the
proposed project, it was assumed that they would be offset by new activities, as a number of
national and international NGOs are developing new proposals for several of the proposed project
sites.
The total project costs of the GEF Alternative represent the sum of the baseline and incremental
costs associated with proposed additional actions required to secure biodiversity conservation
objectives of global importance within the five PAs, the prospective PA and central interventions.
The scope of analysis captures existing and proposed interventions broken down into the
proposed Alternative’s three components.
These are: (i) participatory protected area
management, (ii) institutional development, and (iii) project administration, M&E and information
dissemination.
Baseline Scenario
The GOP, through INRENA with assistance from PROFONANPE and a number of donors, has
made great strides in expanding and consolidating Peru’s SINANPE. Nevertheless, in light of the
system’s size and diversity, existing and growing threats, and the current financial crisis in the
public sector, the long-term conservation of the ecosystems of global importance proposed in the
GEF Alternative does not appear credible under the baseline scenario. At present, there is
virtually no presence or management effort in the two PAs created to protect large portions of the
country’s Amazon rainforest (Tambopata-Candamo NR and Bahuaja-Sonene NP) and in the
prospective PA (Morona-Pastaza). While a number of management efforts are currently being
supported in PAs protecting portions of the Central Andean and Wet Puna (Salinas and Aguada
Blanca NR and Huascarán NP), the magnitude and range of threats far exceed existing
institutional capacity. Peru’s last remaining representative sample of mangroves receives virtually
no support from any quarter and remains at risk. Moreover, all proposed PAs under the GEF
Alternative are increasingly subject to growing threats associated with non-sustainable land use
and other extractive pressures in their adjacent buffer zones. Under the baseline scenario, these
practices are likely to continue and expand into the PA core areas. The failure to support the
1
The exception was AECI assistance for Manglares de Tumbes NS to be implemented by ProNaturaleza which
appears highly likely to be approved.
- 53 newly-called for protected area management committees (PAMCs) also signifies that little
progress will be made in these same areas in addressing the aforementioned threats by
incorporating local stakeholders into the management of these critically important PAs. Despite
GOP’s shift in policy and good intentions to establish a collaborative relationship with civil society
and the private sector in managing PAs, no other project is presently dedicated to supporting this
much needed and laudable objective. This will likely remain an unimplemented policy under the
baseline scenario. Finally, the lack of support under the baseline scenario for addressing the
constraint associated with information management will signify that INRENA’s effectiveness in
managing and responding to the needs of SINANPE will remain relatively slow and inefficient.
Baseline Cost Analysis
Size
Preselected Sites
has.
PN Bahuaja-Sonene
RN Tambopata Candamo
RN Salinas – Aguada Blanca
PN Huascarán
Manglares de Tumbes NS
Morona-Pastaza PA , to be created
1,091,416
254,358
366,936
340,000
2,972
2,300,000
25.1%
5.8%
8.4%
7.8%
0.1%
52.8%
4,355,682.00
100.0%
Project’s Total Surface
% of total surface of SINANPE
Total Surface of SINANPE *
%
24.5%
17,764,513.28
100.0%
* includes 217,594 has of
sea surface; does not
include PA to be created
All proposed project PAs, except the prospective PA of Morona-Pastaza, receive a variable level
of technical and/or financial assistance at present. Sources of this assistance vary: GOP, bi- and
multilateral organizations whose funds are typically channeled through national NGOs and
PROFONANPE, and international NGOs. The GOP’s contributions to baseline costs are mainly
to cover central and field staff salaries, central and field infrastructure maintenance and small
efforts for awareness activities in the PAs’ zones of influence.
Project Component 1: Participatory Protected Area Management. Baseline Cost US$3.5
million
Under this component, an estimated 80% of the baseline comes from the efforts of various
international agencies while the remaining 20% comes from the GOP’s contribution through
INRENA’s support for park management.
Baseline-supported Protected Areas
Approximately 56% of baseline costs under this component come from ongoing activities in the
PA cluster, PN Bahuaja-Sonene and RN Tambopata Candamo. This comes primarily in the form
of support from Conservation International (CI) which is financing studies and research in support
- 54 of improved management; and from INRENA for staff salaries and small operational activities.
The USAID BIOFOR project is also providing support for a series of small, environmentallyfriendly economic activities in the PA buffer zone.2
An additional 25% has been calculated from assistance derived from Spanish Technical
Cooperation (AECI) for RN Salinas – Aguada Blanca. Through the Aracauria-Colca project,
Spain is supporting a wide range of activities including the preparation of a PA Master Plan,
support for community-based management of vicuña populations, domestic cameloid
management, and management of protected species. Support will continue until the end of 2001
but an extension of at least two more years is presently under consideration. PROFONANPE is
also providing support to this PA through the administration of funds provided by German
Technical Cooperation to INRENA. These pay for salaries and small-scale infrastructure through
2003.
PN Huascarán represents approximately 16% of baseline support to component 1, consisting
primarily of salaries and small-scale infrastructure from the aforementioned German Technical
Cooperation grants to INRENA which are administered by PROFONANPE. The USAIDsupported BIOFOR project is also supporting small-scale, environmentally-friendly economic
activities in the Park’s buffer area.
Finally, the Manglares de Tumbes SN, while a recipient of significant support in previous years, is
currently only receiving funding from INRENA primarily for the financing of staff salaries and small
operational activities.
Project Component 2: Institutional Development . Baseline Cost US$4.1 million.
Under this component, only 7% of estimated baseline financing comes from INRENA while the
remaining 93% comes from donors and NGOs.
Baseline-supported Protected Areas
The Bahuaja-Sonene NP and Tambopata Candamo NR cluster receives an estimated 60% of
total baseline support calculated under component 2. It comes mainly from Conservation
International-supported activities designed to promote, train, and build capacity in local
communities, civil society and the private sector located in the buffer zone. CI will maintain this
level of support through the LOP of PROFONANPE II. Additional support comes from the
Netherlands Technical Cooperation through ProNaturaleza to assist local communities in the
development of practices for sustainable use of natural resources located in the PA buffer area.
An additional 25% of baseline costs under component 2 comes from the Salinas – Aguada
Blanca NR through the aforementioned Aracauria-Colca project financed by the Spanish
Technical Cooperation (AECI). This consists of funding for activities designed to strengthen local
civil society’s capacity to participate in the management of PA and buffer zone resources and for
the development of a strong communications and awareness program. Support will continue until
the end of 2001 but an extension of at least two more years is under consideration.
The Huascarán NP accounted for 11% of baseline costs under component 2. The German
Technical Cooperation through PROFONANPE, with an estimated completion date in 2003, is
2
While this support is projected to end under the present phase of BIOFOR before this project implementation, it has
been used for baseline calculations since it is currently under consideration for an extension.
- 55 financing activities in support of increased communication and public awareness among local
communities for purposes of biodiversity conservation. In addition, this PA is receiving support
from the Mountain Institute which is financing local capacity strengthening in resources
management in the Park’s buffer zone. INRENA’s support to component 2 goes mainly to this PA
which is considered a high priority PA in the national system.
ProNaturaleza is developing a proposal to obtain support from the Spanish Agency AECI to
finance communications and public awareness activities for 2001-2002 for Manglares de Tumbes
NS. This probable support is estimated at 4% of total baseline support to component 2.
Baseline Support for INRENA’s Central Office
Under this component, there is some relevant financing for the strengthening of SINANPE’S
central administration. It mainly covers provision of advisors, support for operational costs
(German Technical Cooperation: 2-3 projects) and support for the design, equipment and staff of
SINANPE's central Monitoring & Evaluation system (GEF Indigenous Management of Protected
Areas in the Peruvian Amazon Project and USAID through BIOFOR project).
Project Component 3: Project Administration, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Information
Dissemination. Baseline Cost: US$50,400
Baseline cost is the cost of PROFONANPE's Project M&E system.
Global Environmental Objectives
The goal of GEF assistance would be to support long-term protection of globally important
ecosystems by increasing the involvement of civil society institutions and the private sector in the
planning, management and sustainable use of protected areas and resources within the Peruvian
System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE).
GEF Alternative
By financing the incremental costs of the activities proposed under the GEF Alternative, INRENA
would be able to address a number of major constraints affecting its capacity to mitigate threats to
biodiversity of global importance. These would be through: (i) increasing the role of civil society
and the private sector in the design and implementation of PA plans; (ii) increasing financial
resources to manage the selected protected areas in a sustainable manner; (iii) increasing
environmental awareness for biodiversity issues; and (iv) developing an adequate information
management system.
The design of the proposed Alternative reflects a fundamental strategic choice leading to an
increased role for the private sector and civil society in the management of the country’s PAs.
The GOP can no longer afford to cover all costs associated with the management and
conservation of biodiversity of global importance. Instead, through the establishment of strategic
partnerships, it will call upon the skills and resources of civil society organizations and the private
commercial sector. The project will therefore use a significant amount of resources to finance the
design and implementation of PA management plans based on a substantially increased role for
the private sector and civil society, facilitated through the building of capacity among civil society
organizations, INRENA and PROFONANPE.
- 56 Without the GEF Alternative, INRENA will be able to maintain only a minimal presence in the two
large PAs created to protect portions of the Peruvian Puna.
Incremental Costs
The matrix below summarizes the baseline and incremental expenditures during the six years
project period. The total requested GEF funding amounts to US$11.8 million plus an amount of
US$3 million for the endowment fund. Out of this total, US$9.47 million would strengthen the
Participatory Protected Areas Management in the five selected PAs; US$1.51 million would go to
capacity building of organizations involved in the project, and US$0.81 million would allow proper
project implementation in PROFONANPE. Morona Pastaza would be fully financed by German
parallel funding while the other five PAs will receive funding from the Netherlands in addition to
what is provided by the GEF.
Incremental Cost Matrix for the Participatory Management of Protected Areas Project
Component
Cost
Category
Baseline
US$
Mill.
3.50
Participatory
Protected
Area
Management
Institutional
Development
GEF
Alternative
21.05
Increment
17.55
Baseline
4.09
Domestic Benefit
Global Benefit
Minimum staff assured; basic operations underway;
some training; some scientific work in very few of
the selected PAs. Basic management, monitoring
and evaluation info flowing from some PAs of the
system. Few experiences in competitive funding
underway in very few of the selected PAs. PAMCs
formed mainly with Government institutions.
Enhanced operations in selected PAs; number of
park rangers trained; better qualified staff;
infrastructure for control and visitors improved.
Baseline and other info is flowing regularly.
Important number of civil society organizations are
concession holders or are contracted for activities
in management of PAs, including visitor guides,
and are developing experiences in use of natural
resources for economic revenues.
Improved
experiences of competitive funding spreads over
buffer areas of selected PAs. PAMCs in selected
PAs have improved local stakeholder participation.
Partial conservation of
globally
significant
biodiversity.
Basic management info flowing from some PAs to
the system.
Good participatory processes in
surroundings of a few PAs. Levels of national
decision-makers receive info of doubtless quality;
quantity of the same is scarce. Info for media is
mainly available as info for tourists, shadowing
other values such as economic and ecological
ones. Some important efforts concentrated in a few
PAs with private enterprises facing more access
difficulties than other civil society organizations.
About
25%
of
SINANPE’s area is
under
improved
conservation
of
globally
significant
biodiversity. The base
support to national
authorities has been
widened. Generation
of revenues supports
the
reduction
of
poverty and extreme
poverty.
- 57 -
Endowment
Fund
Project
Administration
, Project M&E
and
Info
Dissemination
GEF
Alternative
8.97
Increment
4.88
Baseline
5.7
GEF
Alternative
13.7
Increment
Baseline
6.0
0.05
GEF
Alternative
2.32
Increment
2.27
Improved info flowing from selected PAs and from
some other SINANPE PAs; other organizations
networked to improve quality and quantity of info
for management. System has been generalized for
entire SINANPE. Increased numbers of PAs are
supporting local media programs; national levels of
decision-making are receiving updated info from
SINA NPE with emphasis on info from selected
PAs. Schools and youth organizations around
selected PAs are using the info and facilities of PAs
for enhanced environmental educational purposes.
Civil society organizations and private sector are
capable of funding and conducting the responsible
use of natural resources, they are also key
elements in spreading the values and benefits of
biodiversity protection
MIS grows as a model
for
PAs’
central
administrations. It is
part of global systems
such as the WCMC.
Increased
public
environmental
awareness
is
improving
environmental
conditions in Peru.
Much greater public
awareness has been
fostered
among
decision-makers.
Annual returns of invested endowment fund is
about US$220,000. Which allows PROFONANPE
partial financing of the recurrent costs in some 11
PA and reserves.
Annual returns of invested endowment fund is
about US$550,000. Which allows PROFONANPE
partial financing of the recurrent costs in twice the
number of PA and reserves
Preservation of world
biodiversity
in
the
Amazon, Sierra and
Coastal areas.
Additional preservation
of world biodiversity in
the Amazon, Sierra
and Coastal areas
PROFONANPE is carrying out proper project
implementation; including proper management of
endowment fund in non-emerging markets and
proper procurement processes. In addition,
PROFONANPE’s relationships with national,
regional and local civil society and private sector is
enhanced.
Total Baseline
13.34
GEF Alternative
Increment
Netherlands Cofinancing
KfW Cofinancing
Finland endowment
Other donors
GEF Funding
43.05
30.71
4.45
6.81
2.50
0.50
14.80
- 58 Annex 5: Financial Summary
PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas
PROTECTED AREAS PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT PROJECT
COMPONENTS BY SOURCE OF FUNDING
COMPONENT
1. Participatory Protected
Area Management
A. Preparation of Master Plans
B. Master Plan Implementation
C. Concession Contracts for the
Management of PAs
D. Small-Scale, Environmentally
Sustainable Economic Activities
GEF
US$ M
9.47
NETHERLANDS
US$ M
2.17
GERMANY
*
US$ M
4.27
INRENA
ENDOWMENT
FUND DONORS
US$ M
0.74
BENEFICIARIES
US$ M
0.91
TOTAL
US$ M
17.55
0.70
3.05
3.61
1.11
1.04
0.00
0.58
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.39
5.77
3.61
2.11
0.02
2.75
0.00
0.91
5.78
2. Institutional Development
A. Training and Advisory
Services to INRENA
B. Capacity Building of Local
Civil Society
C. Biodiversity Conservation- based
Public Awareness
D. SINANPE-based MIS
1.51
0.12
1.86
0.24
1.51
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.88
0.68
0.69
0.66
0.15
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.73
1.04
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.70
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.93
3. PA Financing, project
administration, M&E and Info
Dissemination
A. Increase and management of
Endowment Fund
B. M&E Project Implementation
C. Information Dissemination
3.82
0.42
1.04
0.00
3.0
0.00
8.28
3.10
0.01
0.00
0.00
3.0
0.00
6.11
0.61
0.11
0.41
0.01
1.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.05
0.12
14.80
4.45
6.81
0.74
0.91
30.71
Total Project Cost
* Preliminary estimates
3.0
- 59 -
Annex 6: STAP Comments
PERU: Participatory Management of Protected Areas
TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT
Prepared by
Hernán Torres, Consultant
STAP Reviewer
1.
Assessment of the scientific and technical soundness of the project.
The main goal of the project is to ensure biodiversity conservation by increasing the involvement
of civil society institutions and the private sector in the planning and sustainable management of
five protected areas of the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE), and one
protected area to be created during project implementation.
The selected protected areas are Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve, Bahuaja-Sonene National Park,
Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve, Huascarán National Park, Manglares de Tumbes National
Sanctuary, and Abanico de Morona Pastaza (proposed protected area).
The scientific value of the proposed project is based on the fact that the six protected areas were selected on the
basis of their importance to the regional and global biological diversity. Each of the ecological regions
represented by the protected areas is distinct and will present different challenges for its effective management.
Technically, the project is well structured in order to achieve the main goal intended. It is organized in three
components well articulated among each other, and therefore, their contents should allow the achievement of
the desired goal.
From a conceptual point of view, the project proposes the use of an important tool, which is the involvement of
civil society institutions and the private sector in the planning and sustainable management of five protected
areas of the Peruvian System of Natural Protected Areas, and one protected area to be created during the
implementation of the project. In addition to this, the project will look for appropriate technical approaches,
institutional strengthening and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
Although PROFONANPE has already had experience in managing large GEF projects, it was decided to limit
the number of national parks to six in order to keep the project size manageable by the existing institutional
capacity.
2.
Identification of the global benefits of the project.
Following Dinerstein et al3 the major sensitive eco-regions of global importance covered by the
selected protected areas are shown in the next table:
3
Dinerstein, E., D. M. Olson, D. J. Graham, A. L. Webster, S. A. Primm, M. P Bookbinder y G. Ledec. 1995. A
Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank,
Washington D.C.
- 60 -
Ecoregion
Central Andean puna
Central Andean wet puna
Sechura desert
Gulf of Guayaquil-Tumbes mangroves
Southwestern Amazonian moist forest
Beni Savanna
Peruvian yungas
Bolivian yungas
Western Amazonian swamp forest
Jurua moist forest
Varzea forest
3.
Status
Vulnerable; regionally outstanding; highest
priority at regional scale
Vulnerable; regionally outstanding; highest
priority at regional scale
Vulnerable;
bioregionally
outstanding;
moderate priority at regional scale
Endangered; globally outstanding; highest
priority at regional scale
Relatively stable; globally outstanding;
highest priority at regional scale
Endangered; bioregionally outstanding; high
priority at regional scale
Endangered; globally outstanding; highest
priority at regional scale
Endangered; globally outstanding; highest
priority at regional scale
Relatively stable; globally outstanding;
highest priority at regional scale
Relatively intact; regionally outstanding;
moderate priority at regional scale
Vulnerable; globally outstanding; highest
priority at regional scale
Evaluation of the project compliance with GEF objectives, operational strategy and guidance in biodiversity
focal areas.
The project will strengthen the management of key protected areas in Peru with increased
participation of local communities and civil organizations for the purpose of conserving biological
diversity of global importance. This will be achieved through the promotion of a closer integration
of the communities located adjacent to the selected protected areas in the conservation and
management of biodiversity, increasing their participation in the management of these areas.
It will also facilitate the adoption of sustainable productive activities among inhabitants of buffer
areas, consistent with core area conservation objectives; and will increase the management
capacity among relevant local institutions including civil society and the private sector.
This coincides with the overall GEF Operational Strategy for the conservation of biological
diversity and with the operational programs N° 2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
by supporting through conservation activities, the functions of freshwater and coastal ecosystems
at risk; N° 3 Forest Ecosystem, in promoting in situ protection of primary/old growth and
ecologically mature secondary forest ecosystems; and N° 4 Mountain Ecosystems, in promoting
conservation activities in sub-alpine, mountain grasslands, and/or mountain forest zones.
- 61 -
4.
Assessment of the project´s significance and potential benefits.
The project is significant because it will increase and improve the existing protected areas management
capacity with new skills needed to manage and conserve important biological diversity.
The improvement of the existing management capacity will be achieved by implementing the following
management strategies:

Increasing and strengthening the role of civil society and the private sector in the design and
implementation of protected areas management and development plans

Increasing financial resources to manage the growing numbers of protected areas in a
sustainable manner

Increasing environmental awareness for the biological diversity conservation

Strengthening the biodiversity management information system
The effective implementation of these management strategies is an adequate way to conserve critical habitats
and to enhance the probability of their long term conservation. It will also make it possible to establish an
effective management capacity to develop incentives to maintain protected areas in the long term and to
introduce the private sector participation as a new protected area management approach.
5.
Potential replicability of the project to other sites.
The conceptual and strategic framework of this project proposal is similar to the one been implemented by the
Government of Bolivia. The Government of Ecuador is in the process of putting together a strategy which will
include the creation of an endowment fund to support the effective management of protected areas.
The experience gained by Peru will certainly serve as a stimulus to other South American countries to look for
this type of financial solution to deal with the persistent lack of government financial support to the
management of protected areas.
6.
Estimation of the project’s sustainability in institutional, financial and technical terms.
The main government policy for in-situ biologically diversity conservation has been based on the
establishment of Peru’s Natural Protected Areas System (SINANPE) whose purpose is to
conserve representative samples of the country’s biological diversity by creating and managing
protected areas efficiently while guaranteeing that environmental, social and economic benefits to
the society at large.
To assist with the financing of SINANPE, the National Trust Fund for the Natural Protected Areas
(PROFONANPE) was created with support from the GEF/The World Bank. Since its creation,
PROFONANPE has in turn served to catalyze additional funding from both the national treasury
and bilateral and multilateral sources. These resources have been channeled directly to protected
areas to support increased staffing levels and better operational support. The continuation of this
strategic approach is a guarantee that the project will be sustainable in institutional, financial and
technical terms.
- 62 7.
Extent to which the project will contribute to the improved definition and implementation of the GEF
strategies and policies.
The project is an important attempt in the strengthening of protected areas management as a means to achieve
the conservation of biological diversity in Peru. This is an important strategy in the implementation of the GEF
policies.
The project will be an additional World Bank/GEF conservation effort in the country and will
certainly contribute to increase awareness and global support for the management of Peruvian
protected areas. In addition to this, the project has been developed in close consultation with
other international cooperation organizations, which at present are working with the Government
of Peru in strengthening the conservation of biological diversity through the effective management
of protected areas.
8.
Linkages to other focal areas.
The project design and implementation is meant to support natural habitat conservation and is aimed at
integrating the conservation of natural habitats and the maintenance of ecological functions into national and
regional development. The project also promotes the restoration of degraded natural habitats.
In addition to this, the project will serve as important tool for the country’s response to international
conventions such as Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Bonn Convention on Migratory Species
of Wild Animals, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
9.
Degree of involvement of relevant stakeholders in the project.
This is the key element of the project. The design of the proposed project reflects a fundamental
strategic choice leading to an increased role for the private sector and civil society in the
management of the country’s protected areas. The national organizations can no longer afford to
cover all costs associated with the management and conservation of biodiversity of global
importance. Rather, it will call upon the skills and resources of civil society organizations and the
commercial private sector through the establishment of strategic partnerships.
The project will therefore use a significant amount of resources to finance the design and
implementation of protected area management plans based on a substantially increased role for
the private sector and civil society facilitated through efforts to build a capacity among civil society
organizations, governmental organizations, and PROFONANPE.
10.
Role, potential and importance of capacity building elements and innovativeness of the project.
The project will establish operating models to improve protected area management and build management
capacity at the local level in order to replicate this experience and mainstream biological diversity
conservation in other national protected areas and natural resources management projects.
The participation of multiple stakeholders in the management of selected protected areas is the main innovativeness of
the project. As a matter of suggestion, the actions for public awareness should be focused both on the local
communities in and around the selected protected areas and the local authorities in order to develop the grassroots
awareness necessary to sustain a participatory approach for the management protected areas.
- 63 Suggestions to Strengthening the Monitoring and Evaluation Subcomponent
Although the monitoring and evaluation of the project will be based on the strategies proposed in Component 3, it is
suggested to indicate a more appropriate general performance indicators to measure the progress in the
implementation of the project on the ground. As a means of discussion, the following general guidelines are
suggested:
A.
Background
Monitoring and evaluation is the measurement through time that indicates the movement toward
the objective or away from it. Monitoring and evaluation provide information about the status and
trends of protected areas resources or ecosystems. However, it should not be used to determine
cause and effect, which are more suited for a research study.
Monitoring and evaluation are essential components for taking an ecological approach to the
management of protected areas. Since there is much that it is not known about ecosystems and
how management actions will affect them, it is important to learn as the management develops.
Within the framework of ecosystem management, the monitoring and evaluation mechanism should be
designed to determine whether or not management actions are moving the ecosystem toward the desired future
conditions and trajectories, i.e., objectives and expectations.
The design, development, and maintenance of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms require commitment and
long-term vision. In the short term, monitoring and evaluation often represent an additional cost and are
particularly difficult to maintain when budgets are tight and where personnel is temporary or insufficient. Yet
it must be clear that a lack of consistent support for long-term monitoring and evaluation will hinder
progressive project management.
In this context a potential monitoring and evaluation mechanism for this project would be prepared according
to the following outline:
B.
Scientific monitoring and evaluation.
Phase 1. Setting Monitoring objectives.
The primary purpose of monitoring is to collect information with which to assess and guide
management decisions. The monitoring objectives should be set bearing in mind the following
questions:







Will these objectives help protected area managers make an informed decision?
How can these objectives be fairly evaluated?
What is the cost of obtaining these objectives? Do the costs outweigh the benefits?
What is the appropriate scale of these objectives, e.g., entire national park, watershed,
habitat, ecosystem, community?
What time frame is needed to achieve these objectives (months, years)?
Can these objectives be obtained by one organization or is inter-organization input
needed?
Are the objectives ecologically and socially possible?
Phase 2. Preparing Indicators:
The setting of indicators should follow the review of the monitoring objectives. Indicators will give
repeated measurements over time to see if the project is moving toward or away from the
- 64 monitoring objectives. Some of these indicators are presented in the project proposal, but a full
list of them could be prepared as soon as the monitoring objectives are set.
This list would include the selection of indicators to evaluate communities, animal and plant
populations and other processes identified as priorities within the six protected areas involved in
the project. As an example, the following general indicators may be considered:

Climatic monitoring:
In certain cases, the lack of climatic information of protected areas makes it difficult carry
out management activities, therefore there is a need to install meteorological stations and
to complement those already existing and current data processing, if any.

Monitoring of animal and plant populations:
The objective is to make a record of specific populations important for conservation, based
on the abundance and biology of some species. This work should be carried out mainly by
protected area personnel and should concentrate on key species. However, there should
be a need for support from specialized personnel.

Monitoring of human activities:
A follow up of local communities use of resources and commercial activities, including
tourism, should be carried out to prevent and to control their environmental impact, based
on the appropriate indicators.

Monitoring of ecosystems and sensitive sites:
A monitoring of ecosystems and sites defined by zoning, fragility and ecological
importance should be designed.
Phase 3.
Evaluation:
Evaluation will give the opportunity to assess if the monitoring results indicate the project is
getting closer to a successful performance. It will also help to decide if there is a need to change
objectives or if everything should be kept as it is. Under this approach, departures from expected
conditions or other qualities should not be treated as failures, but rather as new information. The
new information should lead to changes in management. Management changes could be
mitigation, change of future actions, or revised objectives, or some mix of these.
Phase 4.
Decision Making:
This phase will provide feedback on both the monitoring mechanisms and on the management
plans. The assessment of the monitoring system itself must be performed in order to ensure that
it is providing the appropriate kind of information at the right level of detail. If not, then the
monitoring mechanism should be modified and monitoring continued. If the project objectives
were met, then no change is required. If they were not met, then either the management activities
should be modified to meet the objectives, or the objectives themselves should be modified.
- 65 C.
Evaluation of the Project Implementation
Evaluating the Participation of Stakeholders: The evaluation strategy of stakeholder participation
would include the setting of evaluation objectives and the review of the correspondent indicators.
Example: Development and implementation of management plans with the active participation of local
communities including additional financing mechanisms, database on biodiversity and number of families
participating in alternative livelihood projects.
Evaluating the Performance of the project management: The indicators for the project’s
performance should be adjusted at the beginning of the project. Progress reports should be
prepared every reasonable amount of time and should include the performance monitoring
indicators including physical, outcome and financial progress indicators. The project should have
an in-depth mid term review. The review would assess progress and redesign project elements as
necessary.
Example 1: Stabilization or improvement of demographic status of key bio-indicators
specific to each protected area (vegetative cover and distribution; local animal/bird populations)
Example 2: Reduction in adverse impacts of resource use (grazing, forest products, etc.) on the biological
diversity of the protected areas.
Comments of the Staff on the technical review
We thank the STAP reviewer, Mr. Hernan Torres for the very useful and to the point comments
made on the document. His comments on the Monitoring and Evaluation component are
particularly useful, and will be taken into consideration. The design of the Protected Areas
monitoring and evaluation system is now being undertaken through the Indigenous Management
of Protected Areas in the Peruvian Amazon. The comments of the STAP reviewer have been
incorporated into the terms of reference of the establishment of the Monitoring and Evaluation
system and the letter inviting specialized firms to present proposals to INRENA/PROFONANPE is
now also under preparation. This project will adopt the M&E system and apparatus being set up
in INRENA to the six protected areas under consideration. This project will however have its own
project monitoring system to measure in how far project objectives have been met in the areas of
park management, communications, financial return, sustainability, community participation and
other areas under review and important for the success of the Project.
- 66 -
Annex 7: Protected Area Profile
Participative Management of Protected Areas
I.
SELECTION OF PROTECTED AREAS
1.
Selection criteria
The PA selection criteria have been defined with representatives of PROFONANPE, World Bank,
and INRENA, taking into account:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
2.
Protection of important biological diversity, based on (i) location and representative-ness
of the PA, biological content, uniqueness of biological content, and (ii) size of the PA,
connectivity potential and biological information gaps.
Imminence of threats and conflicts existing within PAs to species categorized as being
vulnerable or in the process of extinction. Deforestation maps as well as oil exploration
concessions were used. Road infrastructure was considered. IUCN and CITES
categories were also taken into account.
Socioeconomic importance in relation to the area’s potential for generating income for the
national treasury from tourism or for improving the well-being of local people.
Importance of management needs and requirements, based on the assessment of each
area’s present management capacity and management needs. Six considerations were
taken into account: (i) legal status, (ii) staffing and levels of competency, (iii) infrastructure,
(iv) planning, (v) participatory levels, and (vi) comparative advantages.
Application of the selection criteria
The selection criteria were applied to all PAs in SINANPE, using the weights presented in Table
1. A comprehensive matrix for the entire system was then developed based on the weighted
average of score points assigned to each criterion.
Table 1: Component scores and weights
Scope
Partial weight Unit weight
1
1
1
Importance
of
30%
Biological Diversity
1
1
1
3
Threats
30%
3
1
Socio Economic
15%
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
Management
25%
0.5
0.5
2
Scores
1, 3, 5
1,2,3,4,5
1,3,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,3,5
1,3,5
1 to 5
1,2,3,4,5
1 to 5
1,2,3,4,5
1,3,5
1,3,5
Component
Representativity
Biological value
Uniqueness
PA size
Connectivity
Information gaps
Regional threats
Threats to species
PA Income potential
Resource management
Indigenous local groups
Legal recognition
Infrastructure
Staff
Management plans
Participatory planning
Manageability
- 67 -
An additional criterion was then introduced, to take into account ongoing and/or available funding
from all sources for each PA. Table 2 shows the twelve top PAs that would qualify to receive
funding from the GEF project according to the application of the selection criteria.
Uniqueness
PA Size
Connectivity
Information gaps
Regional threats
Threats to species
PA Income
Resource
management
Indigenous groups
Legal recognition
Infrastructure
Staff
Management plans
Participatory planning
Manageability
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
PA Name
Huascarán
TambopataNat. Reserve
Candamo
Nat. Reserve Junín
Nat. Park
Bahuaja-Sonene
YanachagaNat. Park
Chemillén
Nat.
TabaconasSanctuary
Namballe
Salinas y Aguada
Nat. Reserve
Blanca
Nat.
Manglares
de
Sanctuary
Tumbes
Protection
San Matías-San
Forest
Carlos
Communal
Yanesha
Reserve
Historic.
Chacamarca
Sanctuary
Nat.
Huallay
Sanctuary
Biological value
Category
Nat. Park
Representativity
Table 2: Top 12 selected PAs ranked by Total Points
3
5
3
4
3
5
4
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
4
5
5
86.0
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
2
5
5
3
3
3
2
3
3
84.5
3
5
1
2
5
5
3
3
4
5
2
4
5
2
5
5
1
2
5
3
5
3
3
5
2
3
3
3
4
2
5
5
3
5
75.0
74.5
3
5
5
3
5
2
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
74.0
3
3
5
2
1
4
5
5
1
3
1
5
2
3
2
3
5
73.0
3
4
3
3
4
5
4
5
1
3
5
1
2
3
3
1
3
69.5
5
1
5
1
3
2
2
5
1
3
1
5
3
3
3
5
5
65.0
1
3
3
3
5
2
4
5
1
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
58.0
1
3
3
2
5
2
3
3
1
5
5
3
1
1
1
1
3
56.0
1
1
1
1
4
2
4
1
1
3
5
5
1
3
1
1
3
48.0
1
1
1
2
4
2
3
1
1
3
5
3
1
3
2
1
3
44.5
The first eight PAs are those with highest score in the entire SINANPE system, and which show
neither special support nor projects planned or operating, except the very first: NP Huascarán.
The latter was included after discussions with representatives of PROFONANPE’s Board of
Directors and the World Bank, because its financial and technical needs are greater than the
current and planned support. Surrounded by a large population and with significant pressures
from mining and tourism, the NP Huascarán needs additional support.
The last four PAs in Table 2 were included after their proximity to first eight highly-rated PAs were
taken into account, giving rise to clusters of PAs. It was found that three of the first eight selected
areas are contiguous or very close to some of last four PAs in Table 2, making three clusters on a
project spatial scope:
NR Tambopata-Candamo is contiguous to NP Bahuaja-Sonene (also selected)
NR Junín is very close to NS Huayllay and to HS Chacamarca (the last two ranked PAs)
NP Yanachaga-Chemillén is contiguous to CR Yanesha and to PF San Matías-S.Carlos (these
two also among the lower-ranked PAs).
- 68 It may be observed that NR Tambopata, NR Junín and NP Yanachaga-Chemillén have the
highest score in terms of connectivity.
3.
PAs Selected
Following the initial selection of the PAs presented in Table 2 above, budget constraints (the GEF
grant amount was reduced from $16 million to $8 million) required a subsequent selection round
and further prioritizing. In accordance with the project’s main objective of increasing the
participation of the private sector, NGOs and local groups in the management of protected areas,
emphasis was given to those PAs characterized by a strong presence of private sector, NGO and
producer groups with the capacity to manage protected areas.
A final list of five PAs and one prospective PA (presented in Table 3) were identified for inclusion
in the GEF project. Table 3 below also indicates the SINANPE and IUCN categories as well as
other categories established for these areas by other organizations.
Table 3: Categorization of pre selected project intervention areas
Area
Tambopata-Candamo
Category
National Reserve
Bahuaja-Sonene
National Park
Salinas
&
Aguada National Reserve
Blanca
Huascarán
National Park
Manglares de Tumbes
National Sanctuary
Morona Pastaza
TBD
IUCN
Others
I Strict Nature Reserve,
IV Managed Nature
Reserve
II National Park
Parks in Peri (TNC)
I Strict Nature Reserve,
IV Managed Nature
Reserve
II National Park
Biosphere Reserve
(UNESCO)
III Natural Monument, Ramsar Site
IV Wildlife Sanctuary
TBD
It should also be noted that some of the highly-ranked PAs were not included in the final
selection. This is because it was determined that these excluded PAs would require additional
time to develop increased local capacity to manage their protected areas and/or interest the
private sector in participating due to the PAs’ difficult accessibility.
Finally, Morona Pastaza has been included because studies financed by German cooperation, at
the request of the Peruvian government, indicate that the Morona and Pastaza river basins
contain rich and unique biodiversity that merit protection. The studies were implemented under
the framework of the Bi-National Plan for Development, agreed in 1998 between the governments
of Ecuador and Peru. The Germans will finance the establishment of a PA under a concept that
fully coincides with the Participative Management of Protected Areas Project. The Project’s
definition includes protecting an extensive natural area by developing economically and
environmentally sustainable activities in the buffer zones. Morona Pastaza would easily rank at
the top of the list had the selection criteria been applied; it is very large (more than 2.2 million of
hectares) and has unique species, information gaps, indigenous populations, economic potential
in prostpective buffer zones, etc. The inclusion of Morona Pastaza will further provide a learning
opportunity to the GEF project by participating in the setting up of a protected area based on
sound environmental and economic sustainability principles from the very start.
- 69 -
SELECTED PROTECTED AREAS PROFILE
The unique features of five PAs and one prospective PA will be presented. Each is different,
facing unique problems, and in need of very specific approaches to solve its problems, under the
same institutional framework provided by SINANPE and the context of recently-approved Laws
and By-laws for the management of the PAs.
II. Bio-Physical Profile
1.
Manglares de Tumbes National Sanctuary (MTNS)
The Sanctuary was established in 1988 and is located in the province of Zarumilla in the
department of Tumbes in northern Peru. It covers an area of 2,972 hectares with a rich
ecosystem that produces a number of directly and indirectly useful products. The MTNS was
established to protect the only representative example of mangrove forests existing in Peru, the
Tumbes crocodile, and the populations of invertebrates of economic significance. Its objectives
also include support to tourism and recreation.
Biodiversity characteristics: The Sanctuary shelters a wide diversity of hydro-biological
resources with high economic significance for local populations: the ecosystem permits and
protects the presence of shrimp larvae, “conchas negras”, crabs and fish. 93 fish species, 33
gastropod species and 24 bivalve species have been reported. 57 bird species have been
identified, of which 8 are exclusive to the mangrove ecosystem (Nyctanassa violacea, Rallus
longirostris, Aramides axillaris, Buteogallus subtilis, Tigrisoma mexicanum, Eudocimus albus,
Dendroica petechia and Quiscalus mexicanus), and 26 species are migrants from North America.
The area also serves as a refuge for the Tumbes crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), which is, along
with other species, in danger of extinction.
Table 4: Threatened species in TMNS
Species
Crocodylus acutus, Procyon cancrivorus, Phoenicopterus chilensis
Larus dominicanus, Pelecanus occidentalis, Sula nebouxii, Brotogeris
pyrropterus, Ajia ajaja, and Lepidochelys olivacea.
Mollusks and crustaceans species: Atrina maura, Anadara grandis,
Ostrea corteziensis, Ostrea columbiensis, Cardisoma crassum
Legal Situation
Danger of extinction
Vulnerable
Vulnerable (according
to other evaluations)
Other values of this ecosystem are: (i) refuge for wildlife, especially during the dry season, and
(ii) natural barrier against erosion. The TMNS is a wetland of international importance or
RAMSAR Site and also one of the places under the protection of the Bonn Convention.
Main threats to biodiversity. An increasing population largely dedicated to exploitation of fish
resources and shrimp farming, with some providing tourist services, such as boat trips and
guides. Illegal fishing and mollusk collection, shrimp farming, and some mangrove harvesting,
added to the limited capacity for control and law enforcement, threaten the PA’s ecosystem.
Sewage and garbage from villages, shrimp farms or other settlements are polluting waters and
beaches. Many of the shrimp farms (in the PA and in its buffer zone) were abandoned or are
have very limited activity as a result of the shrimp crisis (spread of viral disease) since 1999.
Recent measures, taken by the GOP in July 2001, to deal with the shrimp farming crisis include
- 70 financial support for rebuilding the capacity to deal with the viral disease and to expand
experiences with “Tilapia roja” brought from Ecuador.
Infrastructure, equipment and others: The Sanctuary has a main structure called the Center
for Conservation and Development of the Mangrove Ecosystem (CECODEM) which provides
areas for the Visitors’ Center, Main Administrative Office, kitchen, dining room, warehouse, two
bedrooms and two bathrooms. Water must be transported from a nearby town. This structure
belongs to the NGO ProNaturaleza and has been given for shared use to INRENA. It also has a
small shelter at the end of a short footpath, and a small wharf. There are only a few, low-quality
signs in the entire PA. Equipment includes two small boats and a motorcycle needing
replacement, and a VHF radio. Financing for operational costs was unavailable in the first half of
year 2001, making it impossible for boats to patrol illegal fishing.
2.
Huascarán National Park (HNP)
UNESCO recognized the Huascarán National Park as a Natural Heritage Site in 1985, furthering
its recognition as a Biosphere Reserve in 1977, shortly after it was established in 1975. It
encompasses 340,000 hectares, nearly the entire Cordillera Blanca in Huaráz, Yungay, Carhuaz,
Recuay, Bolognesi, Pomabamba, Huari, Mariscal Luzuriaga and Asunción provinces in the
department of Ancash. Altitudes range from 2,500 to 6,768 m.a.s.l. It includes the country’s
highest mountain (Huascarán) and several other famous Peruvian mountains.
Biodiversity characteristics: The HNP protects the largest portion of the Central Andean
Humid Puna in Peru. The HNP is uniquely rich in flora and fauna. There are 779 species of flora,
in 340 genera and 104 families, of which the Puya (Puya raimondi) is of particular interest.
Remnant forests of queñoas (Polylepis spp.) are also a biodiversity asset. Mammals include
taruca (Hippocamelus antisensis), spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), vicuña (Vicugna
vicugna) and puma (Felis concolor). The Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), ducks such as
Merganetta armata and the puna partridge (Tinamotis pentlandii) are among the 112 bird species
in the HNP. The principal conservation objectives include protecting flora and fauna as well as
geological formations and archeological remains. Improvement of the living conditions of local
inhabitants has also been established as an important objective for HNP administration.
Principal threats to biodiversity: A large poor population is settled in the HNP’s surrounding
areas, dedicated to cattle ranching and subsistence agriculture and using local technologies. A
small number of peasants live from mining. As a result, overgrazing increases land degradation
and mining are contaminating the environment. Some villagers obtain part-time income from
tourism-related activities. There is illegal hunting due to limited control and law enforcement.
Trout fishing is another important activity. This is an exotic, introduced species which needs to be
replaced by native species.
Infrastructure, equipment and others: Table 5 shows the existing equipment in HNP, and its
basic conditions.
Category
General
Headquarters. In the
Ministry
of
Agriculture facilities,
Huaraz City.
Table 5: HNP existing infrastructure and equipment
No. Condition Available equipment
1
Regular
Communications: 01 Telf, 1 Fax, 01 Radio
Information: 05 Computers, 02 Ink-jet printers, 03 matrix printers
Audio-Visual: 01 Color TV, 01 VHS, 01 TV camera, 01 Megaphone
Furniture: Desks, file cabinets, chairs
Vehicles: 02 double cabin 4x4 (01 in regular condition)
- 71 -
Control Posts
6
Regular
Refuges
2
Good
Radios, portable radios
Motorcycles (some in regular condition and some non-working),
Furniture, kitchen.
(Not all posts have listed equipment)
Refuges with good equipment and facilities to receive and assist
visitors. Refuges under control of the NGO Matogrosso.
Ongoing infrastructure and equipment initiatives: The Huascarán NP is one of six PAs
supported by the KFW “Protection of Natural Areas” project. Project implementation includes the
improvement of the six posts in year 1 (2001-2002). It also includes the construction of 17 class
B posts (for 2 rangers): four in year 2, three in year 3, five in year 4, and five in year 5; and the
construction of two class A posts (for four rangers) in year 3 of project implementation.
Investment estimates are close to US$1,203,800. The KFW project also considers support to
blueprints for sites, circuit construction and signs, concessionaires’ sales points, and others for an
estimated US$113,000. Support for the Visitors’ Center and the central administration includes
construction, improvements, furniture, computers, communications and one 4x4 vehicle, totaling
around US$286,600.
There is also support for studies for self-financing considerations, for Master Plan updating and
support to PAMC. Estimated total investments for the Huascarán NP over the next five years
total US$1,603,400.
3.
Bahuaja-Sonene National Park (BSNP)
Established in 1996 as a redefinition of the boundaries of the Tambopata-Candamo Reserved
Zone which was carried out with the full participation of the area’s civil society institutions.
Located in the departments of Madre de Dios and Puno in Tambopata and Sandia provinces, the
Park was re-delimited in the year 2000 to cover a final area of 1,091,416 hectares including an
altitudinal range from 220 m.a.s.l to over 3,000 m.a.s.l.. It is the country’s second-largest national
park. The Park borders the Madidi National Park in Bolivia.
Biodiversity characteristics: The Park protects the entire Beni savanna ecoregion. It also
protects the second-largest exaample of Southwestern Amazon Humid Forest. Among existing
species, otters (Ptenonura brasiliensis), wild mountain dogs (Speothos venaticus) and eagles
(Harpya harpyja) are considered threatened. Other species include Alouatta seniculus,
Chrysocyon brachiurus, Myrmecophapga tridactyula, Tapirus terrestris, Felis onca, Sciurus
sandborni, Dasyprocta kalinowski; various species of the genus Ara; Melanosuchus niger,
Caiman sclerops, Paleosuchus trigonatus, and Eunectes murinus. Protection objectives include
conservation of tropical flora and fauna and species such as the swamp deer (Blastocerus
dichotomus).
Main threats to biodiversity: The very poor population is dedicated to subsistence agriculture,
gathering of wild resources, cattle raising and gold mining. In the western portions, the BSNP
allows the gathering of wild resources by the resident indigenous peoples, and Brazil nut
gathering by peasants living in the buffer zones. In the upper eastern portions of the BSNP, near
Putina Punku, the presence of some peasants dedicated to small-scale agriculture and gold
mining (in the small tributaries of Tambopata river) is pressuring the region. Considering the size
of the BSNP, these are small-scale threats, but they are enough to exceed the enforcement
capacity of staff and their equipment.
- 72 -
Infrastructure, equipment and others: According to Table 6, the BSNP PA has five control
posts in good condition, with sufficient furniture and some equipment They have radios powered
by solar panels, boats and motors. Fuel is always insufficient for patrolling. Food supplies are
also insufficient.
Table 6: BSNP’s existing infrastructure and equipment
Category
Number
Condition
NP
Headquarters
1 in Puerto Maldonado MDD
Good
Puno
Sector
Headquarter
1 in Putinapunco
Poor
Control Posts
2 (MDD Sector)
Good
2
1 shelter
2 warehouses (MDD)
1 warehouse (Puno)
Good
Regular
Good
Regular
2 boats, 11 m
2 peques (Briggs-Stratton)
2 motors 18
2 motors 55 HP
1 motor 65 HP
Good
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Refuges
Others
structures
Boats
Equipment and condition
4 computers (regular);
2 ink-jet printers (regular); 1 matrix
printer (poor); 1 scanner (poor); Telefax
(regular); 1 radio (regular)
1 computer (regular);
1 ink-jet printer (regular);
1 radio (poor)
In each CP: Radio; solar panels; water
pump; desks, some furniture, small
kitchen
Ongoing infrastructure and equipment initiatives: NP administration is considering the
construction of six new Control Posts: (i) for Madre de Dios sector, on the Malinowski River,
Briolo creek, and Tavara river; (ii) for Puno Sector, in San Gabán, Colorado River and
Putinapunco.
4.
Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve (TCNR)
Established in 2000, this National Reserve is located in the department of Madre de Dios and
Puno Tambopata, Carabaya and Sandia provinces. It covers a total of 254,358 hectares.
Biodiversity characteristics: Together with the Bahuaja-Sonene and Manu National Parks, the
TCNR is one of Peru’s most researched protected areas. Available data show the existence of
575 bird species, 1200 butterfly species of which 26 are endemic, and 135 ant species.
Bertholletia excelsa forests are very significant in surface area and as a source of income for local
populations. Flora, fauna and threatened species are similar to those found in the BahuajaSonene National Park.
Conservation objectives include, inter alia, soil protection and
development of sustainable economic activities for the area’s inhabitants.
A preliminary inventory/report on the flora and fauna of the Tambopata Reserve Zone (TRZ),
known today as TCNR, was presented in 1996 based on a three-week field evaluation mission in
November 19794. Dr. Gary S. Hartshorn (Tropical Science Center, Costa Rica) led the vegetation
4
Centro de datos para la Conservación, Reporte Tambopata – UNALM, 1995
- 73 survey and he concluded that “the forest vegetation ranges from impressively tall trees down to
the various types of low, stunted vegetation which develops under scattered emergent trees”. Dr.
David L. Pearson (Pennsylvania State University, USA) coordinated the survey on invertebrates,
and he concluded that: “in general, little is known of the invertebrate fauna of the TRZ”. However,
certain groups have been well studied:
 Ann L. Rypstra reports that less than half of the species of spiders found in the lower strata of
the forest can be identified at species level. However, she estimates that about 44 species
belonging to 33 different families have been found in areas of 15m²;
 Ronald L. Huber identified 20 tiger beetle species (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) collected in the
TRZ; nine of them found in the forest and 11 around the river. So far, only Borneo (Indonesia)
is known to be as rich in beetle species as Tambopata (Pearson, previous survey);
 Drs. John Heppner and David L. Pearson added 15 species to the list of Odonata previously
known in the TRZ (Dr. Dennis R. Paulson and colleagues: 88 species belonging to 11
families). The total number, 103 species (10% recently identified), is a world record for any
locality of comparable area;
 Eric M. Fisher identified 21 species of Asilidae flies (Diptera), 12 of them probably not
described;
 Drs. John B. Heppner and Gerardo Lamas collected moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), but
the identification and counting of species will take some time. Based on these preliminary
collections, Heppner has estimated that there must be a total of 20,000 species of
Lepidoptera in the TRZ.
Knowledge of reptiles and amphibians in the TRZ is relatively limited. The inventory directed by
Dr. Roy McDiarmid (National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Washington, D.C., USA) revealed the
existence of 80 species of reptiles and amphibians (many of them new to science), including 3
species of tortoise (Chelidae), 3 caymans (Crocodylidae), 14 lizards, 1 amphisbaenid, 16 snakes
and 43 toads and frogs (Anura). It is estimated that the total number of existing reptile and
amphibian species may reach 200. The black cayman (Melanosuchus niger), currently in danger
of extinction, is well represented in the TRZ.
The bird life of the TRZ is extremely rich in species and unusual forms. The total list of species
recorded under the direction of Theodore A. Parker (Louisiana State University, USA) includes
509 species and constitutes the largest inventory of birds recorded in any locality in the world.
This exceptional diversity is in part due to the presence of species characteristic of three different
systems within the Amazon basin: the high forest of the eastern slopes of the Andes; the basin of
the Ucayali River and the upper Amazon; and the basin of the Madre de Dios and Madeira
Rivers. The unusual abundance and diversity of parrots (18 species, including 6 macaws, Ara
spp.), and toucans (8 species) indicate that the disturbance of bird life by human activities has
been minimal (except for some cracids, particularly Mitu mitu); even Harpia harpyja is still found in
this locality.
The organization of the inventory on mammals was in the hands of Dr. Louise H. Emmons
(Smithsonian Institution, USA). Most of the species found in the TRZ have a wide distribution in
western Amazonia. Some, such as Dasyprocta variegata yungarum and Marmosa cinerea cf.
rapposa, are characteristic of the southern, drier part of Amazonia. Another unusual species is
Speothos venaticus, which has been observed several times in the vicinity of the lodge; other
noteworthy species are the giant river otter Pteronura brasiliensis and Tapirus terrestris, 4
species of Felidae, 15 and 9 species of primates.
Main threats to biodiversity: The poor population is spread among very small villages along the
Malinowski and Tambopata Rivers. The main economic activities are subsistence agriculture,
- 74 cattle ranching, gathering of Brazilian nuts, and gold mining. Some local people (some of the
indigenous Ese-Eseja group living in Infierno) are dedicated to tourist activities. Brazil nut
overexploitation and gold mining threaten the area. In the buffer zones deforestation for
agriculture and extensive cattle ranching is heavy. In addition, wood extraction, especially of
mahogany, is heavy and increasing.
Table 7: TCNR existing infrastructure, equipment and others
Category
NR
Headquarters
Number
1 in Puerto Maldonado
Condition
Good
Equipment and condition
4 computers (regular); 2 ink-jet printers
(regular); 1 matrix printer (bad); 1
scanner (bad); Telefax (regular); 1
radio (regular)
Control Posts
3
Good
In each CP: Radio; solar panels; water
pump; desks, some furniture, a small
kitchen
Visitor centers
2 as rooms in CP La Torre
and Malinowski
2 warehouses
2 boats 11 m
2 peques (Briggs-Stratton)
2 motors 18 HP
2 motors 55 HP
1 motor 65 HP
Bad
Few and inadequate displays
Other structures
Boats (shared
with
NP
BahuajaSonene)
Good
Good
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
The NR administration is considering the building of new control posts in two sites, for NR:
Malinowski River (shared with NP Bahuaja-Sonene) and Lake Sandoval.
Infrastructure and equipment: There are various important tourist lodges inside the PA, most of
them with fair management. The main enterprise moving tourists inside the NR is Rain Forest
Expeditions which conducts the Tambopata Research Center lodge around the “collpa de
guacamayos” and the Posada Amazonas lodge, the latter a joint venture with the Ese-Eja
community of Infierno. Some of these tourist enterprises support their activities through strong
scientific programs, in particular the previously mentioned enterprise and Peruvian Safaris.
Scientific evaluations and other studies have also been supported by the many NGOs presented
in Puerto Maldonado. In this field the NGO Conservation International (CI) stands out.
5.
Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (SABNR)
This Reserve was established in 1979 and covers 366,936 hectares of Arequipa and Caylloma
provinces in the department of Arequipa, and General Sanchez Cerro province in the department
of Moquegua. Altitudes range from 3500 to over 6000 m.a.s.l. Landscape includes a very
important chain of volcanoes and lakes of scenic beauty within its boundaries, among them Misti
(5,821 m), Chachani (6,075 m) and Pichu Pichu (5,440 m).
Biodiversity characteristics: The high plateau surrounded by the mountains includes a diverse
life typical of the Arid Puna. Adaptations to severe daily temperature changes have been
developed and even with the very cold temperatures an important diversity can be found in
SABNR: 24 out of 470 mammal species in Peru; 141 out of 1729 bird species in Peru; 4 out of
365 reptile species in Peru; 4 out of 332 amphibious species in Peru; and 3 out of 797 fish
species in Peru. Birds are the most numerous species and they can be seen in two outstanding
- 75 locations: Salinas Lake and in El Indio (also known as Dique de los Españoles) lagoon; but
almost nothing is known about invertebrates. Of the three fish species, two are native and the
third, the introduced trout, is a very important source of food for local populations.
Table 8: Threatened animal species: NR status (according to authorities of the NR)
Scientific name
Common name
Official
SABNR
status*
status**
Thylamys pallidior
Ratón marsupial
R
NA
Oncifelis colocolo
Osjollo
E
E
Puma concolor
Puma
E
Mammals
Lama guanicoe
Guanaco
E
E
Lama vicugna
Vicuña
V
V
Hippocamelus antisensis
Taruca
E
E
Phalacrocorax olivaceous
Pato chancho
V
R
Theristicus melanopis
Bandurria
V
E
Phoenicopterus chilensis
Parihuana común
V
NA
Phoenicoparrus andinus
Parihuana andina
E
E
Phonicoparrus jamesi
Parihuana James
E
E
Anas speculariodes
Pato cordillerano
I
I
Merganetta armata
Pato
de
los
V
R
Birds
torrentes
Vultur gryphus
Cóndor
V
E
Falco peregrinus
Halcón peregrino
V
V
Fulica gigantea
Ajoya
V
V
Recurvirostra andina
Aboceta andina
R
V
Larus serranus
Gaviota andina
V
NA
Colaptes rupícola
Pito
R
NA
Fish
Tricomycterus cf. Rivulatus
Bagre
V
Amphibious Bufo arequipensis
Sapo de Arequipa
R
Official categories (D.S. 013-99-AG): E= Endangered; V= Vulnerable; R= Rare; I= Indeterminate.
** (Zeballos et al. 2000): NA= Non-endangered, stable populations in NR.
Highly valuable plant communities such as remnant forests of Buddleia sp. Polylepis sp and
Puya (Puya raimondi) are also protected. A total of 358 plant species has been identified,
Calamagrostis (with 15 species), Senecio (with 12 species) and Werneria (with 10 species) are
the most numerous genus. Many domestic species of both plants and animals occur in the
SABNR, mainly because most of the land belongs to peasant communities or small farmers.
Table 9: NR status of SABNR’s threatened flora species (according to NR authorities)
Species by scientific name
Common name
Official*
Polylepis rugulosa (besseri)
Queñoa
E
Azorella compacta and Azorella yareta
Yareta
Myrosmodes nubigenum
Orquídea
Lepidophyllum quadrangulare
Kcapo blanco
Parastrephia lepidophylla
Tola romero
Parastrephia phylicaeformis
Huishui tola
Parastrephia lucida, Baccharis tricuneata, Baccharis
Tola
buxifolia, and Baccharis emarginata
Baccharis incarum
China t’ula
Leucheria daucifolia
Sasawi
Stangea rhizantha
Chijuro
Echinopsis pamparuizii
Sank’ayo
Distichia muscoides
Thurpa
-
SABNR**
E
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
- 76 Alchemilla pinnata
Cantua candelilla
Calycera pulvinata
Acaulimalva engleriana
Crocopsis fulgens
Oxalis petrophylla
Achyrocline peruviana
Hieracium mandonii
Pycnophyllum weberbaueri
Astragalus dielsii
Lupinus misticola and Lupinus paruroensis
Calamagrostis vicunarum
Poa carazensis, Senecio mathewsii, Valeriana
globularis, Erigeron incaicu, Senecio
adenophylloides, Werneria, Poa aequigluma, Poa
pearsonii, Poa spicigera, orbignyana, Draba
mathioloides, Corryocactus cf. Puquensis,
Astragalus dillinghamii, Stipa rigidiseta, Novenia
accaulis, Viola sp.
Berberis lutea
Sillu sillu
Cantuta
Porke chijuro
Phujllay t’ika
Cebolla de los abuelos
Yawar chunga
Coronilla sacha
Taruca ninri
Pesque pesque
Garbancillo
Tarhui
Crespillo
-
V
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
No common names
available for these
species
-
R
Espino amarillo
-
* D.S. 013-99-AG.
E = Endangered; V= Vulnerable; R= Rare;
** Zeballos et al. 2000.
I
I= Indeterminate.
Main threats to biodiversity: A large population living in acute poverty is located in small
villages inside and outside the PA. The main activities are cattle ranching, including wild and
domestic camelids; as a result of overgrazing, slash-and-burn practices are degrading land
coverage. Illegal hunting of wild camelids (vicuña and guanaco) is increasing and heavily
reducing vicuña numbers in the SABNR. Poor peasants and bakeries in Arequipa are heavily
pressuring wild populations of tola; this shrub is facing the risk of extinction in the SABNR area.
Water damming, for power generation, without notice or environmental impact evaluations known
by the SABNR administration, is reducing wetlands (bofedales) which are the natural water
storage and habitat for numerous species of wild fauna and flora. The paving of the road
between Arequipa and Juliaca, which crosses the SABNR, without any environmental impact
assessment and with very low quality and quantity of signs or speed control, will increase the
number of vicuñas killed by passing vehicles. Mining activities and road construction activities
inside the SABNR territory also present significant threats.
Infrastructure, equipment amd others:
equipment and their general condition.
Table 10 presents the existing infrastructure and
Table 10: SABNR’ existing infrastructure and equipment
Category
NR
Headquarters
Number
1 Arequipa
Condition
Good
Control Posts
1 Pampa Cañahuas
1 Imata
1 Salinas
Very poor
Poor
Poor
Equipment and condition
Computer, telefax, furniture.
1 pickup truck in regular condition
Ongoing infrastructure and equipment initiatives.- The NR administration is considering the
building of new Control Posts in 2 more sites: Pati-Tarucani y Toccra.
- 77 -
6.
Abanico de Morona Pastaza
An area for the Project entitled “Land Planning and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in the
Morona and Pastaza River Basins (“Proyecto de Ordenamiento Territorial y Uso Sostenible de los
Recursos Naturales en las Cuencas de los Ríos Morona y Pastaza") has been determined after
intense consultations with Peruvian authorities, including the Ministry of Agriculture, INRENA,
PROFONANPE, and MEF. The area, part of a larger 6,000,000 has. (Abanico del Pastaza, 10%
in Ecuador and 90% in Peru), formed by volcanic sediments over thousands of years, covers an
estimated 2,300,000 has. It includes both sides of the Pastaza River and the eastern part of the
Morona basin from the Ecuadorean border down to the Marañon River; and left bank of the
Marañon River between both basins. The area includes 3 district administrations (Pastaza,
Barranca, and Morona) in the province of Yurimaguas, Loreto Department. Its geomorphology
and its wealth of fauna and flora merit protection from alterations stemming from uncontrolled and
predatory exploitation of natural resources. The pristine state of the “Abanico del Pastaza”
provides the opportunity to implement sustainable management of natural resources, based on
knowledge of ecology and good planning practices such as those proposed in the Protected
Areas Participatory Management Project.
Biodiversity Characteristics: The majority of ecosystems, including humid ecosystems of high
global value, contain unique flora and fauna. It is estimated that 95% of ecosystems are intact5.
According to an ongoing study6, Morona Pastaza contains four types of forests rich in rarely
studied flora and wildlife (see Table 11). Birds include (i) 43 identified species of birds of
economic significance, 35% of which are endangered species, (ii) migratory species, 25% of
which are endangered species according to the CITES convention. Jabiru mycteria and Ara
ararauna, in Morona Pastaza, are strictly protected species. Mammals and reptiles including
small terrestrial mammals, small flying mammals, 4 species of aquatic mammals in the Pastaza
and Uritayo River basins; 44% of identified mammals are under some category of threat
according to the CITES, CMS, and/or UICN conventions, and according to local legislation (D.S.
No. 013-99). Fish species include 165 species identified in 32 fish families, which is richer than
the fish diversity in Pacaya Samiria, including the paiche (Arapaima gigas) which is reported in
the Apendix II of the CITES.
Specific endangered species include: Priodontes maximus, Lutra longicaudis, Panthera onca,
Trichechus inunguis, Scolomys melanops, Ateles paniscus, lagarto negro (Melanosuchus niger),
manatí (Trichechus inunguis), charapa (Podocnemis expansa), maquisapa (Ateles belzebuth).
Endemic species include: Marmosops noctivagus.
5
Conservation International. 1999. Rapid assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the Rio Pastaza, Ecuador y Perú.
Preliminary Report.
6
WWF-CDC.2001. Evaluación Ecológica Rápida del Abanico del Pastaza: 2do Informe de Avance (octubre 2001)
- 78 -
Table 11: Biodiversity in Abanico de Morona Pastaza
Fish
Mammals & reptiles
Bird species
Other flora
species
Tree size vegetation
Flora
fabaceaes
& Palms
Fabaceas, including: shimbillos (Inga sp.and Zygia sp.) and Cecropiaceas
(Cecropia sp.). Palm especies, including: Chelyocarpus ulei, Astrocaryum
jauari, Bactris maraja, and Bactris concinna, Mauritia sp., Calycophylum
spruceanum, Renealmia alpina, Pouteria guianensis, Cardulovica palmata and
Trichilia sp.
“Quillosisia” Vochysia venulosa, “caupuri” Virola pavonis, “yacushapana”
Terminalia dichotoma, “marupá” Simarouba amara, “chambira” Astrocaryum
chambira, “huacamayo caspi” Simira cordiflora, “gutapercha” Sapium marmierii,
“quinilla” Pouteria guianensis, “remocaspi” Aspidosperma nitida, “uña de gato”
Uncaria guianensis, “quillosisa” Vochysia nenulosa, “vino huayo” Stylogyne
longifolia, “culantrillo” Lindsaea sp., “cumala” Virola sp., “machimango”
Eschweilera sp., “ocha baja” Sterculia sp., “tortuga caspi” Guatteria microcarpa,
“espintana” Anaxasorea pachipetala y “apacharama” Licania elata.
“shiringa masha” Micandra spruceana, “guariuba” Pseudolmedia laevigata,
“almendro colorado” Caryocar glabrum, “yesca caspi” Ruizterania trichanthera,
“masaranduba” Chrysophyllum argenteum “quinilla” Pouteria guanensis,
“remocaspi” Aspidosperma nitida, “Hungurahui” Oenocarpus batahua, “favorito”
Osteophloeum platyspermum “punga negra” Pachira insignis, “yacushapana”
Buchenavia congesta, “caupuri” Virola pavonis y “requia” Trichilla sp., “cumala”
Iryanthera sp., “machimango” Eschweilera sp., “pashaco” Schizolobium sp.,
“shimbillo” Inga sp., tornillo Cedrelinga catenaeformis y “amasisa” Erythina sp.,
Parkia sp., Ocotea sp., Cariniana decandra y Nectandra sp. Commercial trees
including: cedar(Cedrela sp.), lupuna (Chorisia sp.), mahogany (Swietenia
macrophylla), capirona (Calycophyllum spruceanum) and bolaina (Molia sp.)
Leucipus chlorocercus (endemic specie), Nonnula brunnea, Grallaria dignissima,
Heterocercus aurantiivertex, Todirostrum calopterum, Myiphobus cryptoxanthus,
Caccicus sclateri, Thamnophilus praecox, and Myrmoborus melanurus. Birds of
economic significance: 43 identified species, 35% of which are endangered
species. Migratory species: 38 identified austral species distributed among 17
families as well as 9 neotropical species in 5 families; including the Ardeidae family
with 6 austral species and 3 neotropical species.
Small terrestrial mammals including: Marmosops noctivagus, Neacomys minutus,
Proechymys cuvieri, Oryzomys megacephalus, Micoureus regina, y Oecomys
roberti. Small flying mammals including: Carollia perspicillata, Artibeus planirostris
and Sturnira lillium. Rare mammal species including: Priodontes maximus, Tapirus
terrestris, and Tapirus terrestris. Aquatic mammals in the Pastaza and Uritayo
basins: Inia geoffrensis, Sotalia fluviatilis, Lutra longicaudis, and Trichechus
inunguis. Reptiles include: taricaya (Podocnemis unifilis), charapa (Podocnemis
expansa), cupiso (P. sextuberculata).
165 species identified in 32 fish families, which is richer than the fish diversity in
Pacaya Samiria.
Threats to biodiversity: Uncontrolled economic activities of indigenous and mixed-race peoples
fully depend on the natural wealth of Morona Pastaza all along the banks of the Morona, Pastaza
and tributaries. But the major threat is presented by oil exploration and exploitation under
permission granted by the Peruvian Government to Pluspetrol, an international oil company. In
- 79 addition, the Morona Pastaza region is very rich in underground mineral resources with high
economic value, such as gold and iron.
Infrastructure, equipment and others: Infrastructure and equipment are not available for the
promotion of sustainable economic activities based on natural resources and for the
conservation, protection, and monitoring of rare species. Morona Pastaza is not yet in the
SINANPE system.
- 80 Matrix 1. Selected Bio-physical Characteristics of Protected Areas Proposed for the PMPA Project
Protected Area
Huascarán
National Park
Bahuaja-Sonene
National Park
Tambopata
Candamo
National
Reserve
Salinas Aguada
Blanca National
Reserve
Tumbes
Mangroves
National
Sanctuary
Abanico
de
Morona Pastaza
Prospective
Protected Area
7
Area (000 ha)
Ecoregion/ecosystem
of
Global Importance7 included
in PA
340
90% Central Andean Wet
Puna
1 % Peruvian Yungas
1091
10% Bolivian Yungas
2% Beni Savanna
11% Peruvian Yungas
77% Southwest Amazon
Moist Forest
254
100% Southwest Amazon
Moist Forest
366.9
81% Central Andean Puna
19% Sechura Desert
3
100% Gulf of GuayaquilTumbes Mangroves
2300
38% Abanico de Morona
Pastaza
Humid ecosystem
Percent of Ecoregion of Global
Importance protected by PA
Of Ecoregion Portion of Protected
in Perú
Ecoregion
Flora and fauna of special importance
Other
3%
Threatened species:
Puya raimondi; Hippocamelus antisensis,
Tremarctos ornatus and Vicugna vicugna
UNESCO National Heritage Site.
Huascarán Biosphere Reserve
Third largest NP
Threatened species:
Ptenonura brasiliensis, Speothos venaticus and
Harpya harpyja
Borders Madidi NP (Bolivia)
Second largest NP
Threatened species: Ptenonura brasiliensis,
Speothos venaticus and Harpya harpyja.
Reported wealth included 575 bird species,
1200 butterfly species with 26 of them
endemic, and 135 ant species. Forest of
Bertholletia excelsa
Threatened species:
Phoenicopterus jamesi, Lama guanicoe and
Vicugna vicugna
Species in danger of extinction: Crocodylus
acutus.
Reported wealth includes 33 species of snails,
34 crustaceans and 105 fish species
Threatened species: Priodontes maximus,
Lagarto negro (Melanosuchus niger), manatí
(Trichechus inunguis), charapa (Podocnemis
expansa), maquisapa (Ateles belzebuth), Lutra
longicaudis, Panthera onca, , Ateles paniscus .
Endemic species: Marmosops noctivagus.
Borders Madidi NP (Bolivia)
Fourth largest NR
Largest portion
0.2%
≈ 20%
100%
≈ 0.7%
3.6 %
Largest
Largest
sixth largest
second largest
1.1%
fourth largest
4.4%
0.4%
Second largest
second largest
12%
Largest
N/A
N/A
Second largest NR
Close to Northwest Biosphere
Reserve (its official inclusion is
under way
Based on ongoing WWF study.
95% of ecosystems are intact
according to Conservation
International
Dinerstein,D., D.Olson, D.Graham, A.Webster, S.Primm, M.Bookbinder y G.Ledec. 1995. Una Evaluación del Estado de Conservación de las Ecoregiones
Terrestres de América Latina y el Caribe. WWF, World Bank, Washington D.C., 135 p. .
III.
Socio-Economic Profile
1.
Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary (TMNS)
Population. The TMNS, its buffer zones, and its area of influence have an estimated
population of 15,656. There is only one small village, El Bendito, with a population of 276
people, located within the BZ, but migrantion from various regions and various cultural
backgrounds brought by the shrimp boom increased and continues to increase the
populations beyond the buffer zones. There are also peasants beyond the buffer zones
whose activities impact the BZ and the TMNS. People from El Bendito and other towns
benefit from economic activities in the TMNS and its BZ, and fish and shrimp farming
entrepreneurs are located in and around the TMNS.
Land Tenure.- The Ministry of Fisheries has allocated licenses to develop shrimp farms to
27 private enterprises; three of them with legal facilities inside the TMNS. The total area
allocated to shrimp companies is 8636 Has, of which 98 has (3.5% of TMNS) fall inside the
Sanctuary and 2814 has fall in its BZ, according to information in Table 12. 1879.7 has of
land inside the NS (63% of TMNS) are registered with the Navy for national defense
purposes; the naval infrastructure is deployed over 100 has, 35 of which were dedicated to
shrimp farming until 1995 and the other 65 has. to military infrastructure and for sporadic
exercises. Under these circumstances, INRENA ends up having effective control of only
994.13 has (33.5%) of the TMNS. It should also be noted that around 66-67 has. of the
privately-owned shrimp farms are not currently under production, and are in the process of
being legally returned to NS ownership. Maps and surface quantification have been
developed to support this legal process.
Table 12 : TMNS land tenure status
Within the TMNS
Communities, private firms
Land tenure
#
Has (%)
Pop.
Cities,
towns,
village
1879.7 (63.%)
Navy
1
Owns
98.13 (3.5%)
Shrimp farms
3
License
994.13(33.5
Under INRENA
State property
Buffer Zones
Communities.
#
Has.
Pop.
El
250
276
Bendito
22
2814
-
%)
Total
2972
-
3014
276
It is important to note that shrimp farm entrepreneurs own over 2,814 has in the BZ, an area
almost as large as the total size of the TMNS (2972 has) and three times as large as what
INRENA controls inside the TMNS (994.13 has.). It is also important to note that the Navy
controls an area twice as large (1879.7 has.) as what INRENA controls inside the TMNS
(994.13 has.).
Main economic activities.- The main economic activity of the population in and around the
TMNS is shrimp and fish production. The Ministry of Fisheries promotes the development of
a shrimp and fish production industry and for this purpose has issued licenses to 27 private
companies which are allowed to work within the TMNS and its buffer zone. The main
commercial species is shrimp and now the Ministry of Fisheries is trying to promote Red
Tilapia. Shrimp production has experienced a boom in the past, but it has exhausted natural
resources by the use of chemicals; however, after the local population, sponsored by the
- 82 NGO PRONATURALEZA, has succeeded in restoring natural resourcesgrowth, the shrimp
industry is ready to return to the TMNS. The migrant population dedicated to fishing also
uses predatory practices that are beyond INRENA’s control. Some villagers provide limited
tourist services, such as boat trips and guiding.
Poverty Issues.- The incidence of poverty is not extreme as in the other protected areas.
Infant malnutrition reaches 30.9% and infant mortality is 43 per thousand.
Conclusions: Large stakeholders (mainly private business interests and the Navy), backed
by government institutions (Ministry of Fisheries), and with well-defined economic interests,
with enormous negative environmental impacts in the form of waste water pollution that
damages the mangroves, coexist with small local artisan fishermen, usually pro-conservation
(due to their small production capacity). The depredatory fishing practices of the migrant
population that came into the area during the shrimp boom also present a threat to the
conservation of the mangroves. The Government (INRENA) will need to find policy and
legal instruments to balance the interests of involved economic interests with the interest of
preserving and restoring life to the TMNS.
2.
Huascaran National Park (NPH)
Population and indigenous peoples: The NPH, its BZ and its area of influence have a
population of about 300,000 people, dominated by peasant populations, with indigenous
Quechua and mixed cultural backgrounds. Indigenous people in the highlands (Huari and
Chavin) have a Quechua tradition and speak mostly Quechua, while people in the lower
areas are of mixed (Spanish-indigenous) descent and are bilingual, speaking Spanish and
Quechua. Another important group is that formed by the local technocracy organized in
NGOs and municipalities.
Land Tenure: According to information in Table 13, 98% of NPH is under INRENA control
as a protected area. 1.62% is under the legal domain of three communities inside the NPH,
and 0.38% is under 75 concessions for private mining activities inside the borders of the
NPH. According to Table 13, there are also shepherd families within the NPH who raise
their cattle and benefit from natural pastures in the NPH. After the creation of the NPH and
as part of the agrarian reform (DS No 0622-75-AG), property rights have been granted to
communities willing to be relocated in the NPS’s buffer zone. Current mining concessions
were granted prior to the creation of the NPH. According to a mining activities diagnostics
performed in 1977 by the National Directorate of Protected Areas (DGMAR-INRENA), 39
mining concessions are fully inside the NPH and 36 are partially inside. Accepted petitions
for concessions after 1991 total 6095 has, most of them in the buffer zones. Mining
concessions in the above table do not include mega-projects such as Antamina and Pierina
whose impacts on the NPH are not well known.
Table 13: NPH land tenure status
Within the NPH
Communities, private firms
#
Communities
3
Cities, towns, village Shepherd families
74
Service associations 8
75
Mining
Buffer Zones
Land tenure
Has (%)
5492 (1.62%)
500 (0..38%)
Pop.
10,645
349
840
Legal title
State property
Concession
#
36
32
18
350
Communities.
Has.
Pop.
88,756
41,015
107,177
253,919
-
-
-
- 83 concessions
Under INRENA
Total
33,4347
(98%)
340,000
11,834
rights
State property
195,933
294,934
Main economic activities and social conflicts: Peasants inside the NPH are dedicated to
small-scale subsistence agriculture, especially on slopes and terraces, using traditional
technology to grow basic staples (potato, lima beans, olluco, oca). Cattle ranching is also an
important activity in and around the NPH. Mining activities are by far the most economically
significant activity but their various impacts (positive and/or negative) on the NPH are not
well known. Under this circumstance, new tourism facilitation activities have become a
feasible option for local people to raise their incomes; however, as tourism opportunities are
limited, many competing interests (including those of municipalities, communities and
organized service associations) are resulting in conflicts over the holding of rights to carry
out various services and rights to charge entry fees overall. Recently, an organized
community (800 members of Cátac) has taken by force the right to collect entry fees to
Pastoruri. It should also be mentioned that the promotion of conservation of biodiversity in
the NPH and of sustainable economic activities in and around the NPH (such as ecotourism) has become an important service activity – fueled by donations and international
organizations - that attracts a number of professionals through civil society organizations,
NGOs, service associations, and municipal governments. However, in the meantime public
services and infrastructure to ensure a sustainable tourism industry (or sustainable
economic activities) in and around the NPH is insufficiently provided, and is absent as a
proper economic activity. Discharges from mining processing are affecting wetlands in the
NPH.
Poverty issues. Agricultural and cattle ranching activities by poor peasants are unable to
generate the surplus necessary to sustain economic growth and improve living standards.
The incidence of poverty and extreme poverty in the NPH is high as expressed by infant
malnutrition of 66.8% and infant mortality of 66.7 per thousand.
Conclusion. Although there is a clear majority of Government-owned lands in the NPH,
conservation of biodiversity and natural landscapes is by no means easy. Difficulties stem
from economic activities in the buffer zones that have exhausted growth possibilities,
resulting in pressure to use natural resources inside the NPH. On the other hand, tourism
cannot utilize all available labor in and around the NPH. Thus, sustainable economic
activities should include the promotion of alternative activities, including activities related to
the promotion of improvement of productivity and the environmental friendliness of current
economic activities in the buffer zones, including mining and agriculture. There are
obviously various economic interests behind the options for handling activities that can help
improve the conservation of NPH, including those of large mining companies, profit-driven
tourism promoters, local municipalities and communities, and international environmental
organizations.
3.
Bahuaja – Sonene National Park (BSNP)
Population and indigenous peoples:. The BSNP, its buffer zone and its area of influence
have an estimated population of 73,232 people, including 6 district administrations. The
estimated population in and around the BSNP includes indigenous peoples, known as “noncontacted” or under “voluntary isolation,” and settlers who migrated mainly from Puno,
Cuzco, and Madre de Dios. Numerical records of “non-contacted” indigenous people are as
diffused as numerical records of settlers. Indigenous peoples are suspected to be mostly
around the higher parts of the Tambopata River and around the banks of its tributaries Las
- 84 Piedras, Los Amigos and Purus. Settlers migrated from Puno, pushed by droughts in 1980
and 1990, before the BSNP’s border was defined in 1996.
Land Tenure: There is no titled land inside the BSNP (see Table 14). However, native
communities which have titles in the buffer zones (Kotzimba community) usually go inside
the BSNP to hunt, fish and perform other extractive activities beyond sustainable levels,
which give rise to conflicts with INRENA. Inside the BSNP there are also concessions to
settlers for Brazil nut gathering and for other agricultural activities.
Table14: BSNP land tenure status (LTS)
Communities, private farms, private firms, mining concessions
Within the BSNP
Number
LTS (has.)
Tourist firms
Private farms
Mining
Native comm.
Settlers (families)
Identified land use
?
17
228
-
?
Conc.
(20,000)
Undefined (-)
20,000 has.
Border BSNP & BZ
Numbe LTS (has.)
r
-
Numbe
r
2
?
1
Buffer Zone
LTS (has.)
Titled (-)
?
Titled (28,606)
-
-
8
Titled (-)
-
-
-
28,606 Has.
Main Economic Activities: Gold mining locally traded but driven by international markets.
Trade of flora and fauna in the local markets by indigenous peoples (Ese-éja communities).
Indigenous people and settlers are dedicated to Brazil nut gathering, on allocated land in the
form of concessions; however, low productivity and low international prices for Brazil nuts
are problems for achieving sustainability. Indigenous people and settlers, pressured by
extreme poverty, are returning to predatory practices; e.g., cutting down productive Brazil nut
trees for wood. Settlers in the Colorado region, which includes micro-basins within the
BSNP, grow coffee, coca leaves, wood, and also are laborers for small-scale gold mining
activities.
Poverty issues: Poor people from Puno migrated to the BSNP as settlers, seeking better
living conditions, pushed by droughts in 1980 and 1990; they mainly carried out agricultural
activities that at one point caused soil erosion. Currently, they are allowed to perform
subsistence activities related to the conservation of the BSNP. However, subsistence
activities seem non sustainable as they do not allow the necessary surplus to be achieved in
order to improve living standards and growth prospects. Infant malnutrition is 60.4% and
infant mortality is 82.3 per thousand.
Conclusion: Pressure on the BSNP comes basically from the department of Puno, where
settlers come from, due to extreme poverty that makes its population vulnerable to natural
events such as droughts. Under this circumstance, government institutions such as CTARs
Puno, Madre de Dios, and Cusco, should be involved in planning alternative development
activities to deter migration to the BSNP area.
4.
Tambopata-Candamo National Reserve (TCNR)
Population and indigenous peoples: The TCNR, its buffer zone, and its area of influence
have an estimated population of 43,399 people, including two district administrations, of
which local indigenous populations total about 1141 people in the communities of Sonene
(105), Puerto Pardo (133), Infierno (400), Palma Real (253), El Pilar (92), and Tres Islas
(158).
- 85 -
Land Tenure: Two commercial organizations operate inside the TCNR, Sandoval Lake
Lodge (titled land) and Rainforest Expeditions (under concession); see Table 15. For two
other commercial organizations, Peruvian Safaris and Tambopata Reasearch Center (TRC)
located in what used to be the Tambopata Reserve Zone (TRZ), their borders are pending
delimitation with the TCNR. All titled native communities are located in the buffer zones.
Rights to underground resources are under conflict between indigenous and mining laws,
which is now complicated by environmental law. There are also two current mining
concessions (Fatima and Playa Tauro GC), located on the border of the TCNR and its buffer
zone. These concessions’ front loaders are a concern to local communities in Mazuko.
Artisan miners along the Malinowski River are becoming involved in agro-forestry and
tourism, and are trying to negotiate with INRENA and involved NGOs a stance against largescale mining which is pressing for appropriation of their respective concessions.
Additionally, settlers dedicated to agriculture in the buffer zones are pressing to expand their
legal entitlements in direct negotiations with the Ministry of Agriculture, without involving
INRENA, which is legally permitted by DS 038.
Table 15: TCNR Land tenure status (LTS)
Communities, private farms, private firms, mining concessions
Within the TCNR
Number
LTS (has.)
Tourist firms
1
1
Private farms
Mining
Native comm.
1
-
Settlers (families)
Identified land use
50
-
Titled (-)
Concession
(-)
Titled (-)
Concession
(50,000)
50,000 has.
Border TCNR and BZ
Numbe LTS (has.)
r
Numbe
r
5
Buffer Zone
LTS (has.)
Undefined (-)
2
Pending
2
-
Concession (-)
-
133
-
-
722
Titled (35,928)
-
-
-
96,687 has.
6
Concession (-)
Undefined
(60,759)
Main Economic Activities: Tourism, promoted by two tourist companies inside the TCNR,
two inside the border, and five in its buffer zones, involves people from all strata, including
indigenous peoples. Agricultural activities and Brazil nut gathering, through concessions in
favor of settlers within the TCNR and its buffer zones. Native communities perform various
extractive activities in the buffer zones. Gold mining, although not allowed in the TCNR,
takes place on the Malinowski River in areas neighboring the TCNR and on the Madre de
Dios River which is adjacent to the buffer zone.
Poverty issues: The poverty and extreme poverty prevalent in the area impel populations to
become involved in activities of high monetary liquidity, including trade of flora and fauna in
local markets and employment in gold mining and logging. The infant malnutrition rate is
47.2% and infant mortality is 46.9 per thousand.
5.
Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (SABNR)
Population and indigenous peoples: SABNR, its BZ, and its zones of influence have an
estimated population of 94,705, including 7 district administrations. This population includes
4,743 inhabitants within the PA, and 8,315 in the BZ. The population in the SABNR and its
BZ consists of peasants working communal lands, private landlords, laborers, entrepreneurs,
local and central government public appointees. Laborers work on private farms and mining
activities. Peasants and laborers have indigenous, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, while
- 86 landlords, entrepreneurs, and public officials are dominated by mixed and white
backgrounds.
Land Tenure: According to information in Table 16, 61% of the SABNR’s lands are under
the legal ownership of 12 communities, 24% under the legal ownership of 103 private farms,
leaving under PA INRENA control only 15% (54,795 out of 366,936 hectares) of the
National Reserve. In addition, within the SABNR there is one mining company (Minera
Ubinas) with well-established exploitation rights and 23 mining concessions with rights that
are not well-defined.
Table 16: SABNR’s land tenure status
Within the SABNR
Communities, private farms, and private firms
Land tenure status
Has (%)
Pop.
12 Communities
223,715 (61%) 2,706
Communal property
103 Private farms
88,426 (24%) 2,037
Titled property
Under INRENA
State lands
54,795 (15%)
1 Minera Ubina
Rights of exploitation
23 Concessions
Undefined rights
Total
366,936
4,743
-
Buffer Zones
Communities.
Number
Pop.
1
8,315
1
8,315
Main Economic Activities: Peasants’ main economic activities are agriculture, cattle
ranching (including native camelids), informal hunting (vicuña and guanaco), and vicuña
wool production. Their production technology is based on local/traditional knowledge for
agriculture, natural resources management, health, and animal raising; and their products
are traded in local and provincial markets. Income from agricultural activities is, however,
not enough to reverse the poverty trends of the SABNR’s populations. Mining is another
very important activity, and 23 concessions and 1 well-established mining company are
active, producing mainly gold and other precious metals . The SABNR is also being targeted
to build two dams (Chalhuanca and Pillone) to increase production of the Charcani
Hydroelectric enterprise in Arequipa. Additionally, road construction seems to make
economic sense for various stakeholders inside and outside the PA, but it imposes a high
cost in terms of the loss of wetlands with various species.
Poverty Issues: Poor populations inside and outside the PA live in small villages and
perform subsistence economic activities, some of which conflict with PA objectives. The
infant malnutrition rate is 54.4% and infant mortality is 64.2 per thousand.
Conclusion: Land tenure status (85% in private and community hands) implies that
enforcement of the SABNR’s National Reserve status must be done through legal
regulations on land use, taking into account the ongoing income-generating economic
activities of various parties in SABNR. To do so an intensive consultation and consensusbuilding process needs to be put in motion; and policy-making that takes into account the
streams of monetary income and environmental impacts of economic agents working in
agriculture, mining and hydropower activities needs to be in place. Thus, protection of the
SABNR also has to be done through a combination of legal and policy instruments that take
into consideration market forces. As a result, market-based instruments (MBI) can be
developed to enhance financing availability while protecting SABNR.
6.
Morona Pastaza
Population and indigenous peoples: There is an indigenous population of about 10,230
people including the Quechua, Candoshi, and Achuar ethno-linguistic groups.
- 87 Land Tenure: Exploration and exploitation rights have been allocated to Plus Petrol.
Indigenous peoples have community titles over 718,257 has and have usage rights to
210,086 has. Indigenous peoples’ rights may be used to create a Communal Reserve,
which is a form of Natural Protected Area, under the sponsorship of German cooperation.
Main economic activities: Large-scale business related to oil exploration and exploitation
takes place in the Morona Pastaza region, with limited spillover into the local economy.
People in Morona Pastaza are dedicated to small-scale, subsistence agriculture, cattle
ranching, hunting, gathering and fishing. San Lorenzo is the main commercial center where
people from all over the region trade their produce. San Lorenzo is also a supply center for
exploration activities, including oil exploration, and has a small airport. Small boats (“pequepeques”) and large cargo and passenger ships go in and out of San Lorenzo, and through
the Pastaza and other rivers. Small communities located on the banks of the various rivers
trade with small businessmen (“regatones”) who travel by boat to their communities from
time to time. Trade is done basically under a barter economy system, where the
communities usually obtain less than what they should under normal conditions.
Poverty issues: Most towns have economic subsistence activities and households
generally lack basic services. Construction material is wood with roofs made of palm leaves.
Households close to the oil exploration camps are made of wood and metal roofing sheets
which give excess heat year-round. Electricity is not available except for Andoas Nuevo and
Los Jardines where Petro Peru provides oil for the electrical generators to work several
hours a day. San Lorenzo, the main commercial center, has electricity for several hours a
day. Some towns have sidewalks.
Conclusions: The Morona Pastaza Protected Area may be established based on
indigenous peoples’ rights, although conflicts with oil companies may arise. Financing of
conservation and sustainable exploitation of natural resources may be negotiated with those
who deplete or hamper natural resource preservation. In this case a kind of “depleter pays”
principle may be used.
- 88 -
IV
1.
Institutional Profile of Protected Areas
Sector Organization
SINANPE’s activities are governed by INRENA, a public autonomous8 central government
body under the Ministry of Agriculture. INRENA has a sector policy and strategic planning
function, as well as a function of financing protected areas. Sectoral policy and strategic
planning is performed by the General Directorate of Natural Protected Areas and Wildlife
(DGANPFS). Financing includes the use of various instruments (e.g., treasury allocations,
grants, concession contracts, debt for nature swaps); it is administered directly by INRENA,
and is successfully complemented by PROFONANPE.
Each PA is under the administration of DGANPFS through the appointment of a PA Chief.
Recently-approved legislation9 indicates that management of PAs will take into account local
stakeholders’ interests through Protected Areas Management Committees (PAMC) which
will support PA management, with voluntary cooperation and oversight functions. PAMC
members will be relevant stakeholders in each PA, including local governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, civil society, and the
private sector. In this way, PA management will be carried out jointly by INRENA and local
stakeholders.
2.
Profile of sector’s institutional agents
INRENA.- INRENA’s core objective is the promotion of sustainable use and management of
renewable natural resources and their ecological surroundings, while contributing to
agricultural development. According to its organic law (DL 25901), INRENA operates at the
central, regional and local level through its general directorates. One of these directorates is
the General Directorate of Protected Areas and Wildlife.
DGANPFS.- main functions include:
 Sectoral Strategic Planning.- establishment of new PAs and preparation of national
strategic planning tools and instruments for the administration of all protected areas in
SINANPE10. Strategic planning is intended to provide a sense of direction to SINANPE
and link with other sector national plans rather than to provide a specific management
plan for each PA. Each PA’s long-term plan (Master Plan) should be prepared and
implemented under the leadership of the Chief of the PA, in coordination with its
respective Protected Area Management Committee (PMAC)11. This plan is approved by
INRENA upon favorable opinion by DGANPFS. Annual management plans for all PAs
are also approved by DGANPFS.
 Policy Making.- As a policy maker, DGANPFS prepares norms and rules for the
conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural renewable resources in the
PAs and buffer zones. Policy making becomes more important for PA management
because of the participation of various stakeholders in the planning and implementation
of the PA’s management plans.
8
It has technical, administrative, economic, and financial autonomy, within the limits imposed by the Peruvian
public administration.
9
Natural Protected Areas Law (Ley No 26834) and bylaw (DS No 038-2001-AG).
10
Plan Director del SINANPE: National Strategy for Natural Protected Areas (DS 010-99-AG) is one of these
strategic planning tools.
11
PAMCs are organizations with no legal jurisdiction, formed to involve local stakeholders in the management
of PAs.
- 89 

Monitoring and Supervision.- DGANPFS monitors and supervises implementation of
strategic planning and policies by each PA administration. In this capacity, DGANPFS
can correct policies if they do not work.
Information Gathering and Dissemination.- DGANPFS is also in charge of data
collection and dissemination of public information to improve PA management.
PROFONANPE.- Is a non-profit organization under private law, in charge of raising
complementary financing to cover recurrent and investment costs for the conservation and
protection of PAs. PROFONANPE was created in 1992 to administer the National Fund for
Protected Areas (FONANPE), and currently channels financing from various donors
including multilateral organizations (GEF), bilateral organizations (e.g., SIDA, CIDA, KFW,
Holland, Finland). In its ten years of existence, PROFONANPE has channeled US$28
million to finance Pas’ recurrent and capital costs, and capacity building at all institutional
levels of SINANPE. PROFONANPE’s success is in part due to:
 Implementation of rules of good corporate governance: PROFONANPE has an
independent management (general director) in charge of day-to-day administration,
reporting to a Board of Directors whose members have a two-year tenure. The Board of
Directors includes three representatives of INRENA (including the Chief Executive
Officer, who presides over the Board), three representatives of environmental NGOs,
and one representative of the international community (in its capacity as provider of
technical and financial assistance);
 Flexible implementation of various financing instruments to raise funds: Financial
instruments used by PROFONANPE include: grants, debt for nature swaps, endowment
funds, sinking funds and financial income from the administration of the endowment fund
formed with a GEF grant. Currently, PROFONANPE is updating its financial engineering
of sinking funds to generate additional financing for the conservation and protection of
PAs. The design of new financial instruments for raising additional funds is an active
concern of PROFONANPE management.
3.
Profile of sector-related institutions
Civil Society Organizations.- NGOs play an important role in PA management from various
perspectives. They participate as main decision-makers on PROFONANPE's Board of
Directors. Many are vehicles for technical expertise in PA management. Some are
proactive in biodiversity conservation and the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples
and local communities. In contrast, community-based organizations focus their activities on
the implementation of specific PA management tasks, using local resources (mostly labor),
and presenting cost-effective alternatives to implement project tasks.
Civil society
organizations play a broader role, including the transfer of technical expertise as well as the
development of PA policy concepts and implementation. Therefore, the involvement of civil
society organizations will have a more long-term effect by developing the knowledge base
for proper PA management and disseminating it.
Private sector agents have specific interests in activities that might sometimes present
difficulties in PA management. They usually have financial resources for alternative project
development in PAs, that may be in conflict with PA objectives. Private sector agents
normally work under licenses issued by sector ministries other than the Ministry of
Agriculture or INRENA. Those licenses sometimes date from before the creation of the PA,
which can present legal conflicts with present PA objectives.
Indigenous Peoples. Some protected areas have indigenous peoples with legal or
customary land rights. Indigenous peoples’ interests are often not easy to assess to take
into account in the PAs’ management.
- 90 Protected Areas Management Committees (PAMC) are infant institutions thought to be
the main participation vehicle, in the management of PAs, for all non-governmental
institutions. Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary, a PA in the PMPA project, has set up
its PAMC.
Other Ministries can also be involved or have interests to be taken into account when plans
for PA management are being prepared. For example, the Ministry of Fisheries issues
licenses for shrimp farming in Tumbes which conflicts with the conservation of the Tumbes
Mangroves PA. The Ministry of Energy and Mines issues concession rights to miners in
Puno and Madre de Dios, and Ancash which is in conflict with the objectives of Tambopata
Candamo National Reserve, Bahuaja-Sonene National Park and Huascaran National Park.
4.
Stakeholder Analysis, Participatory Management of Protected Areas Project
Each stakeholder has an interest in PA management and therefore can have a positive or
negative influence on PA management. The stakeholder analysis will be performed using
two matrixes: the first, Matrix 1, includes agents with nationwide coverage (e.g., INRENA,
DGNAPFS, PROFONANPE) and will be presented as Stakeholder Analysis I; the second,
Matrix 2, presents institutional agents specific to each PA and will be presented as
Stakeholder Analysis II.
Matrix 1: Stakeholder Analysis I
Stakeholder
Ministry of
Agriculture
(MoA)
Interests
1. Improved
environmentally
sustainable agricultural
activities.
National Institute
of Natural
Resources
(INRENA)
1. Improved
management of PA;
2. Improved ecology of
PA;
3. Improved
environmentally
sustainable agriculture.
General
Directorate of
Natural Protected
Areas and Wildlife
(DGANPFS)
1. Improved leadership
for the management of
PAs;
2. Effective involvement
of various stakeholders;
3. Improved policymaking capacity;
4. Improved capacity of
stakeholders to
participate in
participatory
management of
protected areas.
Resources and Mandate
R1. Annual budget;
R2. Political influence;
R3. Approves SINANPE’s
strategic plan (plan director)
M1. Facilitates activities of
private agents in agriculture.
R1. Autonomous annual
budget;
R2. Administrative autonomy;
R3. Approves Pas’ Master
Plan;
R4. Approves Env. Impact
Assessment of projects in PA;
R5. Participates on Board of
PROFONANPE;
M1. Promotion of sustainable
and environmental
management of renewable
natural resources.
R1. Built technical expertise;
R2. Direct relationship with
current PA administration;
R3. Approves set up of PAMC;
R4. Recommends the approval
of PAs’ Master Plans;
R5. Approves PAs’ operating
plans;
M1. SINANPE’s strategic
plans;
M2. PM of PA policy-making;
M3. Administration of PA;
M4. Gathering and
Problems
* PAs reduce the boundaries
of agricultural development;
* MoA has poor technical
assistance capacity for
farmers.
* PM of PA is new to Peru;
* Too few officials trained in
formulation of participatory
management plans;
* Other sectors’ participatory
management not available;
* Authority of PA chiefs are
not always acknowledged by
other stakeholders;
* DGANPFS officials’ skills
are not enough to conduct PM
of PA;
* Limited capacity for
strategic planning, policymaking, environmental and
biodiversity information
system management;
* Insufficient funding for
management of PAs.
- 91 -
Manager of the
National Fund for
Protected Areas
(PROFONANPE)
1. Increased financial
resources to cover PAs’
recurrent and capital
expenses;
2. Increased financing
for strengthening
technical capacities of
SINANPE.
Global
Environmental
Facility (GEF)
and The World
Bank (WB)
1. Conservation of
biodiversity of global
importance;
2. Economic growth and
poverty alleviation.
Netherlands
Bilateral
1. Conservation of
biodiversity of global
importance;
dissemination of information.
R1. Accumulated technical
expertise for raising funds from
international donors;
R2. Accumulated technical
expertise in the financial
administration of funds;
R3. Channels large share of
financing of PA;
M1. Manages FONANPE.
R1. Provider of Grants;
R2. Easy access to World Bank
technical expertise;
R3. Influential;
M1. Assist in preservation of
environment and biodiversity;
M2. Assist developing
countries to achieve
development
R1. Provider of grants, debt for
nature swaps;
R2. Technical expertise on
environment issues.
* Poor absorption by
SINANPE of funding
capacity;
* Small local consultant base
to support SINANPE’s
endeavors;
* Too few local consultants
qualified to prepare sound
funding proposals;
* Fiscal constraints of
treasury to leverage debt for
nature swaps.
* PAs lack sufficient
financial, technical and
human resources for their
adequate management;
* Limited human resources to
implement new legislation
enabling participatory
management of PAs.
* Limited capacity of
stakeholders to participate in
management of PAs.
Matrix 2a: Stakeholder Analysis II, Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary
Interests
Resources and Mandate
Problems
Stakeholder
PRONATURALEZA
- Integrated management
of PAs;
- Training of park
guards;
- Organization of small
shrimp producers.
ACECTUM
“Tumpis”.
Conserv., Educ.,
Culture, and
Tourism Assoc.
- Reforestation and
educational extension
Hydro-bio product
Extractor Assoc.
ASEPROHI, San
Pedro-Zarumilla
-Sustainable
aquaculture;
- Family ecotourism
Wood producers’
cooperative
- Sust. BZ management;
- Conservancy of the dry
biological corridor
“El Bendito” Dev.
Committee.
-Hydro-bio resources;
- abandoned shrimp farm
concessions
- Organization and env.
education for children
Proenvironmental
Group “Genesis”
R1. Experience/expertise in
biodiversity and environment;
R2. Management;
R3. Relationsgips: WB, BID,
WWF, ....
M1. Strives for sustainable use
of biodiversity and
development
R1. Ecotourism experience;
R2. Design and implement
env.-related activities;
R3. Relationships: GEF,
NGOs;
M1. Awareness raising.
R1. Experience in replenishment of Mangroves and sea
water species.
M1. Consensus work to achieve
ecological balance.
R1. Experience with
sustainable management of NR;
Mandate: Sustainable
development of dry forests.
R1. Experience in sustainable
management of hydro-bio.;
M1. Sust. development
R1. Practical experience;
M1. Sustainable mgmt. of NR
-Weak public relations;
- Difficult to make strategic
alliances;
- Weak involvement with scientific community.
- Lack of funds and
equipment;
- Infant institution;
- Experience in dry forests
- Contract for PMPA is too
slow;
- Non-permanent settlers in
allocated areas;
- PA is not projected to dry
forest.
- Unemployment;
- Lack of access to basic
services.
- Initial infrastructure and
capacity.
- 92 DGANPFS
INRENA,
Regional
Operating Unit
Navy
Private Sector
- Stakeholder Analysis I
- Reforestation and
forest control in PA
- Stakeholder Analysis I
R1. Forest specialists.
M1. DL 25902
- Control and Security of
1880 has of NNRR.
-Short-term gains;
-Shrimp farms and
lumber
R1. Military power.
R1. knows how to exploit NR;
R2. Economic power;
M1 Makes profits
- Budget too small;
- Lima centralism
- Priority border problems
- Predatory practices.
- Chemical inputs contaminate and deplete NR;
- Lack of capital.
Matrix 2b: Stakeholder Analysis II, Huascaran National Park
Stakeholder
Mountain Institute
Kuntur Institute
Andean Research
and Development
Hurpichallay
Association
Tourism service
associations
39
peasant
communities
Interests
- Community ecotourism
- Pasture management;
- Env. capacity dev.;
- Reforestation
Partnerships
with
peasant communities for
environmental
management;
- Promotion of Mun.
PAs.
-Agro-biodiversity
mgmt.;
- Affirmative action;
- Cooperate with HNP;
Reforestation,
recycling, native plants
reforestation.
-Small
agribusiness,
including alpaca;
- Tourism services.
UNASAM
-Env. Planning;
- EIA, SIG.
Huari
Municipality
- Env. planning and comanagement of
ecotourism.
Water quality, env.
planning; ecotourism comanagement.
- Stakeholder analysis I.
- Reforestation and
forest control in PA
AMUNIH
DGANPFS
INRENA,
Regional
Operating Unit
Regional Director
of Energy and
Mines
Private Sector:
Pierina, Antamina
and California
-?
-Development of nearby
areas for mining
activities.
Resources and Mandate
R1. Experience/expertise in
biodiversity and environment;
R2. Relationships: Bilaterals,
USAID
M1.
Mountain
ecosystem
conservation.
R1. Experience with municipal
conservation (Huari);
R2. Relationships: UNDP-PPD,
USAID, GEF, NGOs;
M1. Provincial development.
Problems
-Weak
local
public
relations;
- Weak involvement with
local communities.
R1. Water quality and biodiversity management;
M1. Env. conservation with
cultural identity.
R1. Tourism management;
R2. Capacity development;
Mandate: Service providers to
tourism industry in HNP.
R1. Legal land titles in HNP;
M1. Represent their peasant
community in legal conflicts.
Weak
background.
R1. Dissemination of knowhow;
M1. Sissemination of
knowledge.
R1. Markajirca EcoArcheological System;
M1. Local development
R1. Multisectoral councils for
development;
M1. Sustainable development
- Stakeholder analysis I.
R1. Forest specialists.
M1. DL 25902
R1. Power to approve EIA,
PAMA for mining companies;
R2. Budget from mining canon;
M1: Regulation and promotion
of mining sector
R1. Legal concession within
HNP;
M1: Make profits while taking
care of the environment.
- Lack of information;
- Lack of equipment;
- Lack of funding and govt.
cooperation
technical
- Lack of equipment and
know-how on mountain
activities.
- Vicious circle of poverty;
- Non-awareness of env.
laws;
- Low prices for products.
- Lack of laboratories and
Internet.
- Small municipal budget;
- Quechua is the main
language.
- Political instability makes
plans irrelevant.
- Budget too small;
- Lima centralism
- Depends on the
profitability of mining
industry in HNP.
- Wetlands affected by
mining effluents.
- 93 -
Matrix 2c: Stakeholders Analysis II, Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve
Stakeholder
AECI,
Spanish Agency for
International
Cooperation
Peasant Communities
DESCO
Alpaca Associations
Interests
- Improve quality
and production of
alpacas;
- Small dams and
tourism.
- Vicuña raising;
- Alpaca
improvement.
- Alpaca and vicuña
improvement;
- Water
infrastructure.
- Wetland and grass
conservation.
Vicuña
Committee
- Sustainable vicuña
raising.
NGO PRODEMA
- Alpaca, tourism,
reforestation and
hydrology.
DGANPFS
Same as in previous
matrix.
Reforestation and
forest control.
INRENA, Regional
Operating Unit
Charcani
Hydropower
Regional Directorate
of Mining and Energy
Regional Directorate
of Water
Private farms
- Hydro resources in
El Fraile and AB.
- Regulation and env.
mitigation.
Water quality monitoring, water
resources.
Tola, vicuñas, etc.
Mining
companies
and UBINAS Co,
Social work and
mitigation env. prob.
Resources and Mandate
R.1. Access to international
cooperation;
R.2. Financial resources;
R.3. Technical know-how;
M.1. Sustainable development.
R.1. Land tenure of 61% of
SABNR;
R.2. Ethnoecology;
M.1. Legal representation of
population within SABNR.
R.1. Capacity-building center;
M.1. Sustainable development
Problems
- Market size for alpaca
products too small.
R.1. Alpaca herds;
M.1. Sustainable alpaca raising.
- Illegal hunting and trade of
alpaca.
R.1. 1,417,000 vicuñas in
SABNR;
M.1. Sustainable vicuña
raising.
R.1. Sponsorship of large
private companies;
M.1. Sustainable development.
- Illegal hunting and trade of
vicuña.
Same as in previous matrix.
Same as in previous matrix.
R.1 Forest canon, budget;
M.1 Same as in previous
matrix.
R.1 very large investments;
M.1 Energy production.
R.1 Mining canon and budget;
M.1 Mining development.
R.1 National budget.
-Small government budget;
Weak env. laws.
R.1 Land tenure.
M.1. Profits.
R.1 23 concessions in SABNR;
M.1 Sustainable development
Same as peasant c.
- Extreme urban-rural
differences;
- Overgrazing;
- Low-quality cattle raising.
- Lack of social specialists
in the region.
- Weak participation and
consultations.
- Dams will destroy wetland
in SABNR.
- Lack of socio-economic
and env. impact studies.
Lack of infrastructure,
social conflicts.
Note: Stakeholder analysis for Tambopata-Candamo and Bahuaja-Sonene: see project files.
5. Selected Management Features of Protected Areas in the PMPA Project
A summary of selected features of PA management is presented in Matrix 4. This matrix
has the advantage of simultaneously presenting such features for all PAs selected for the
PMPA project.
Tumbes Mangroves National Sanctuary (TMNS)
- 94 -
The TMNS has headquarters with personnel including a Chief of PA (who also acts as chief
of the other three PAs), an office administrator, and three park guards (one rotating in the
other three PAs). Vehicles and equipment are limited to one motorcycle, two boats, and one
radio. It annual budget is US$4600, financed by the national treasury. Registry of land
property rights is well established. The TMNS set up its PAMC in 1999, and prepared a
master plan in 2001; however, the MP is still in need of precise scheduling and operating
plans. Its PAMC includes 15 institutional representatives. The TMNS also has a hydrobiology producers’ committee. PRONATURALEZA and other NGOS are active in the
TMNS.
Huascaran National Park (HNP)
HNP has headquarter with personnel including a Chief of PA, six professionals, one
administrator, one secretary, and 13 park guards. The HNP has two 4x4 pickups and seven
radio units. Its annual budget is US$60,000, financed by the national treasury, directly
collected revenues (entry fees), and KfW. The registry of land property rights is underway.
The HNP developed a Master Plan in 1990 that needs to be updated, and has a tourist plan
that was prepared in 1996. The HNP has no PAMC; however, there is a proposal for it
awaiting confirmation from Lima. It has 59 community committees to handle conflicts over
natural pasture use.
Bahuaja – Sonene National Park (BSNP) and Tambopata Candamo National Reserve
(TCNR)
The BSNP has shares its headquarters with the TCNR. The headquarters includes one
Chief of PA, three professionals plus two administrators, and eight park guards. Its
motorized vehicles and equipment are limited to four boats and four radios. It has a
combined annual budget of US$26,000 financed by the national treasury and the
Government of The Netherlands. PAMCs in both BSNP and TCNR have been established,
but are awaiting resolution from DGANPFS. Land property rights are fairly well established.
The BSNP has no Master Plan or plans of any other nature. Both the BSNP and TCNR
have received the attention of 16 NGOs (three of them international), and BSNP has four
bilateral coordination programs with Bolivia’s Maididi National Park.
Salinas y Aguada Blanca National Reserve (SABNR)
SABNR has headquarters with personnel including one Chief of PA, no professionals, one
administrator, and four park guards. It has a 4x4 pick up and one radio. Its annual budget is
US$30,000, financed by the national treasury and KfW. Land property rights are partially
defined. Zoning was defined and a Master Plan was ready in 2001. The PAMC is not yet
set up, although members have been identified. There are 13 Vicuña Management
Committees, national NGOs, one bilateral program and one government program in the
SABNR.
- 95 -
Matrix 4: Selected Management Characteristics of Protected Areas Proposed for the PMPA Project
Management Local
Resources
Property Registry (a)
Zoning
Master Plans
Visitors Plan
Natural Resources
Management Plan
Other Plans
Local
Participation
NPA Chief
Professionals
Park Guards
Motorized mobile units
Radios
Annual Budget 2000
Management
Instruments
Natural Protected Area (NPA)
Tambopata
Bahuaja Sonene
National Reserve National Park
(TNR)
(BSNP)
1
3 + 2 administrative
8
4 boats.
4 radios
$26,000 (GoP, Gov. Holland)
Salinas Aguada Blanca
National Reserve (SABNR)
Huascarán National Park
(PNH)
Manglares de Tumbes National
Sanctuary (MTNS)
1
none + 1 administrator
4 + 2 detached
1 pickup 4x4
1
$30,000 (GoP, KfW)
1
6 + 1 administrative. + 1 secret
13
2 4x4 pickups
7
$60,000(GoP, KfW, DCR (c))
1 (sharing 3 more PAs)
1 administrator in INRENA Tumbes
3 (1 rotating in the other 3 PAs)
1 motorcycle + 2 boats
1
$4,600 (GoP)
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Partial
Yes (2001)
Yes (2001)
No
In progress
Yes (1990)
Yes (1990)
No
Yes
Yes (2001)
Yes (2001)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Tourist plan (1996)
No
No, members identified
awaiting OK from Lima
No, a proposal is waiting Ok
from Lima.
Yes (1999)
13 Community Vicuña
Management Committees
59 Community Committee
Natural Pastures
Hydro-biology producers’
committee
Research, training, planning,
dissemination, tourist
management by 6 NGOs (2
international) and 2 bilateral
programs.
Research, natural resources
management by 1 NGO, 1 bilateral
program, and 1 local producers’
association.
Management Committee Established,
Established,
awaiting OK from awaiting OK
Lima
from Lima
Other committees (b)
Research, training, dissemination,
Reforestation, alpaca and
and natural resources management vicuña management programs
by 16 NGOs (3 international and 13 by 5 national NGOs, 1
national) and 4 bilateral
bilateral program and 1
coordination programs with
government-community
Bolivia’s National Park Maididi.
program.
(a) Inscription of the NPA in the public real state property registry
(b) Local population committees (or related) promoted by NPA authorities
(c) Directly collected revenues (NPA entry fees)
Complementary
Conservation
Activities
- 96 V
1.
Summary of identified problems and objectives
Identified Problems
Identified problems in the administration and conservation of the PA are presented in
summary form in Matrix 5. Problems were identified using information in sections II through IV
of this Annex (Annex 7), and are presented as threats to biodiversity conservation in the
Protected Areas.
Root causes for the existence of problems were then identified, using information in the
referred sections of this annex. The purpose of the identification of the root causes was to
design project activities that attack the root causes instead of the symptoms of the problems.
Identified problems and root causes could also have been presented in a problem tree form,
which gives a much more visual cause-and-effect relationship between problems and their
causes.
2.
Project objectives and activities
Project objectives were defined, responding to the identified problems and the elimination of
their root causes. The logic here was to focus on the problems and ask what outputs we need
the project to deliver so that the problem is eliminated (or the objective of the project is
achieved). Once the needed outputs were defined, we asked what activities the project
should finance so that the outputs can be produced.
This way of presenting activities (to produce outputs) and outputs (intended to result in the
achievement of the objective) gave us a straightforward way of developing the log frame from
the project description. Additionally, it presented us with a good starting point to identify the
performance indicators to monitor the project.
96
- 97 -
Matrix 5. Major Threats to Conservation of Biodiversity in Protected Areas Proposed for the PMPA Project
Protected
Threats
Sources
Underlying Causes/Constraints
Possible Project-Suppor
Area
Huascarán
grassland degradation/ overgrazing
unclear land tenure
clarification of tenure
NP
bush fires
illegal occupation lax enforcement of existing PA regulations
domestic and wild came
within PA
unknown carrying limits
wild resources manage
insufficient PA financial sources
zones
clarification of mining ri
water contamination
mining rights and weak GOP sectoral coordination
promotion of mining co
operations
insufficient
PA financial
sources
for impact processing techn
enforcement
awareness program
implementation of touris
land degradation/ solid heavy and poorly failure to implement existing tourism
waste
planned
tourist management plan
construction of necessar
use
insufficient or inadequate infrastructure
support study of tourism
unknown tourism carrying capacity
implementation of contr
wild fauna population illegal hunting
insufficient
PA financial
sources
for
decreasing
enforcement
Tambopatawater contamination and gold
mining poor knowledge of better environmental clarification of mining
Candamo
loss of plant cover
activities
approaches
cooperatives
NR
lack of respect for PA from other public sectors
introduction of low-impa
poor coordination between GO institutions, awareness program
enterprises, INRENA
indigenous and peasantssettlements follow
loss of biodiversity
deforestation
“traditional markets”
information for producti
illegal hunting
ignorance of regulations
reforestation with rapidbush fires
low-income agricultural practices
research for productive a
poor knowledge of resource potential for development of agrotour
productive opportunities
research for productive
in buffer zones
BahuajaSonene NP
Salinas/
Aguada
Blanca NR
loss of biodiversity
- deforestation
- illegal hunting
- bush fires
water contamination
mining
soil
and
vegetation
degradation / bush fires /
introduction of exotic
grasses
overgrazing
confused
land
tenure
poorly-planned
economic
development
heavy loss of vicuña
populations
illegal hunting
indigenous and peasant settlements follow
“traditional markets” / ignorance of regulations /
low-income agricultural practices / poor
knowledge of resource potential for productive
opportunities
poor knowledge of better environmental
approaches
lack of respect for PA from other public sectors
/ poor coordination between GO institutions,
enterprises, INRENA / insufficient PA financial
sources for enforcement
poor knowledge of resource potential for
productive opportunities
lack of respect for PA from other public sectors
insufficient PA financial sources
poor population unaware of collection limits /
poor knowledge of resource potential for
development of agrotou
productive activities w
zones
introduction of low-impa
awareness program
information for produ
management
research for productive
domestic camelid use / w
development of agrotour
research for productive
in buffer zones
implementation of contr
wild resources managem
management of wild vic
- 98 loss of animal species
Manglares
de Tumbes
NS
water use interference /
contamination
power generation
activities inside
PA territory
mining activities
overexploitation
marine resources
mangroves
increasing
population
poor knowledge
of
resource
potential
for
productive
opportunities
shrimp/tilapia
farms inside and
surrounding PA
mangrove conversion
of
and
productive opportunities
unclear NR status in local populations
lack of respect for PA from other public sectors
management of domestic
non-enforcement of existing regulations
poor population unaware of collection limits
poor knowledge of resource potential for
productive opportunities
increase of nature and sp
management of marin
fishes) in buffer zones
non-enforcement of existing regulations
insufficient PA financial sources
awareness program
water management prog
clarification of mining ri
introduction of low-impa
implementation of contr
implementation of existi
public awareness