FINAL REPORT
MID TERM REVIEW
Project
Financial Sustainability for the National Protected Areas System
(NPAS) of Ecuador
00073902/GEF-UNDP
March 2014
Experts:
Mrs. Sandra Cesilini, Coordinator
Mr. Marlon Flores, Expert in Financial Sustainability
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Project Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Areas
System (PFS) is to improve sustainability by providing development results through a
healthy and sustainable environment, ensuring the Rights of Nature. The goal is to
"implement and institutionalize a financial operational framework aimed at an expanded
National Protected Areas System (NPAS)." To meet this objective, the project focuses
on 4 outcomes: (1) Laws, regulations and guidelines that contribute to improve the
sustainable funding of the PANE, the private and community subsystems of NPAS,
have been implemented and are operational with the support of the Project. (2)
Capacities strengthened for financial planning, management and results-based
monitoring to improve sustainable net income of NPAS in the long term (3) Increase of
awareness about the value of NPAS in key stakeholders (communities living in PAs,
public authorities and private/public investors) (4) Replicable models of profitable
management for sustainable net income are approved through demonstrative
experiences by the community by the community and the public and private sector.
The purpose of the mid-term review (MTR) is to assess the fulfilment of the objectives
and outputs, offering recommendations for key stakeholders. Mrs. Sandra Cesilini
coordinated the MTR in collaboration with Mrs. Marlon Flores, specialist in financial
sustainability, developing specific technical inputs, and evaluating each of the 4
expected results. The evaluator visited a sample of Protected Areas (PAs), while
individual and group interviews were conducted, face-to-face and by virtual media. In
addition, Mrs. Marlon Flores focused on financial sustainability strategies, interviewing
key actors at central level. The overall project performance is satisfactory with respect
to the conceptualization, stakeholder participation, implementation and monitoring
approach.
Table1: Performance rating
Topic
Conceptualization and design
Stakeholders’ participation in the formulation of
project
Implementation approach
Monitoring and evaluation
2
Rating
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Ecuador is undertaking a new development model, based on respect for the Rights of
natural Environment, social equality and sustainable use of resources. A key element of
this model is the commitment to develop an expanded and financially sustainable
National Protected Areas System, including subsystems under various government and
property schemes. With GEF support the government proposed, through the PFS,
establish a framework of financial and operational efficiency of the new NPAS,
facilitating the integration of subsystems with efficiency standards aligned with the
targeted PA. The project strategy pursued three main approaches, aligned with the
Financial Sustainability Strategy (FSS) of NPAS: i) diversification of income generation
at PA level and systems removing legal, regulatory and capacity barriers; ii) improving
operational effectiveness through a results-based system for allocation and reporting of
resources, management, and capacity development and planning; iii) reducing the cost
burdens of NPAS by working in buffer zones and communities to develop options for
sustainable livelihoods. To develop these three approaches the Project proposed to
strengthen institutional and individual capacities aimed to design and establish a
financial operational framework of the extended NPAS.
The PFS (00073902/GEF-PNUD) started in April 2010, it stands at its mid-term in
terms of scheduling, while it is under executed in terms of resources, given some initial
delays. Progress was made within the 9 Pilot Protected Areas to increase environmental
protection. Public areas are: Cayambe-Coca National Park, Wildlife Reserve of
Chimborazo, Wildlife Reserve of Cuyabeno, Marine Reserve of Galera-San Francisco,
Ecological Reserve Ilinizas, Yasuní National Park and Ecological Reserve MacheChindul. The PFS is realizing researches in private reserves from North-western of
Pichincha and Humedal La Tembladera located in Santa Rosa Canton, Province of El
Oro, as models for inclusion of private and community subsystems to the National
Protected Areas System. These pilot areas have been selected after an extensive
technical analysis to ensure this experience can be replicated over time.
The strategy is to work in 9 pilot areas representing different types of protected areas
(Public, Community and Private). These areas serve as pilots to test different ways to
search for financial sustainability, and then to strengthen the systemic capacities so the
NPAS can use these experiences to define how it will fund its subsystems (as per Article
405 of the Constitution, 2008). The objective is not necessarily to incorporate the pilot
areas in NPAS, but to use the experience to create a viable financial framework for
inclusive NPAS with different subsystems.
Progresses were made to estimate gaps between current funding and the need for
effective and sustainable management of NPAS. A comprehensive analysis of the
achievement of financial sustainability and NPAS has been completed and funding
models are being tested in several pilot areas.
The project is developing business plans in private reserves of the Northwest Node,
members of the National Corporation of Forests and Private Reserves of Ecuador
(CNBRPE). Several community initiatives in protected areas are testing innovative
ideas on production and conservation. Since 2012 papers and work reports, books,
manuals and guides, a series with digital and print newsletters, and a huge amount of
brochures, booklets, posters and signage, have been produced; they are all available on
the website of the PFS, in its social networks and blog.
A Biodiversity Information System (BIS) collects and provides relevant information for
management of protected areas for public and private actors. It is expected that next
year the SIB will support NPAS financial management system.
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
The design was developed in a context of changes in the country, and an integrated
approach was used. The project presents an adaptive conception and design, flexible,
participatory and inclusive of all the involved products. The main strength of the
project team is its high commitment to the territorial labour and the creation of a
new environmental conception for Ecuador. The review has identified, beyond many
achievements, some difficulties in the relations between central and district levels,
depending on each political-institutional reality.
The management structure of the project in its first phase has been adequate. The
administrative management was efficient in taking full advantage of revenues with the
available budget and mobilize funding from other sources. The role of Autonomous
Decentralized Governments and Provincial Offices of the ME has been key to
achieving results at this stage. Of all the models analysed, those including private sector
stakeholders have greater assurance as to its sustainability, even when they receive
public incentives. PA models on which the project was originally formulated must be
revised and expanded. The public and mixed models (public/private, community
/public, community/private/public) seem to prevail in decision-making and the
provision of public resources. Outputs that have been institutionalized will continue to
be implemented beyond the project duration and the already existing PA do not show
continuity threats, although their management plans might suffer implementation
difficulties.
The project is progressing satisfactorily and achieving the objectives of the mid-term
phase. Also, the institutional consolidation of NPAS and the capacity of public and
private actors with regard to financial sustainability are gradually occurring.
The technical review analysed standards and quality of outputs, and how these outputs
help meet the overall goals and the financial sustainability of the NPAS. The assessment
concluded that the project's progress and its outputs are satisfactory. The project is now
entering a phase during which several critical technical adjustments might be made to
more easily meet its objectives and goals.
4
In general it is recommended:
1) New areas to be incorporated into national programs must be defined from the pilot
experiences, implementing replicability guidelines. New areas of high tourism
impact should be incorporated, in order to compare different sustainability effects.
2) Analyse the environmental calls for proposals of the European Union and other
development agencies. As it pertains to the GEF it is recommended the deepening
of existing agreements with projects in other member countries of the region. 3)
Develop a gender strategy through training and technical assistance for mainstreaming
of gender policy in environmental projects. 4) Check the “interim” forms of protection
(at local and provincial level, governments could collaborate during the transition to PA
of a particular site e.g. figures of "interim" protection). 5) Processes in PA must count
on ME's commitment in terms of following a schedule as tight as possible to avoid
creating distrust in stakeholders; management plans in PAs must be completed
immediately after entering in the national system and in predictable terms. It is also
suggested to get an extension of the project to ensure completion of the outputs and to
properly incorporate the pilot experience. The PFS is working on matters of legal
framework and capacity building, but since the funds in these components will be fully
executed by the end of 2014, it is recommended to focus on the legal framework related
to financial sustainability and continue to work on strengthening capabilities, essential
for the sustainability of many development processes. It is suggested in this regard to
mobilize funds from component 3 and 4 to 1 and 2.
Technical recommendations include the following aspects. Result 1. The expected
results are highly ambitious and it is suggested to limit them to more achievable goals,
related to the legal and regulatory framework for financial sustainability strategies.
Likewise, the institutionalization of project results should focus on aspects related to the
implementation of financial strategies and business plans, including the review and
inclusion of new strategic partners. Result 2. It is recommended to refine the
formulation of standards for Financial Sustainability Strategy of NPAS and business
plans, and the introduction of phases to progressively and systematically address the
various subsystems of the NPAS. It is recommended to establish and strengthen
fundraising strategies including a policy to access to PAs services, retention of selfgenerated funds, cost reduction strategies; priority should be given to improving the
quality and quantity of the central budget for PAs. Currently, over 90% of the budget
comes from the central budget, and may be subject to cuts at any time during this
administration or the next. Therefore, it is essential that the project should work on: a)
strategically protecting the existing budget, b) improving its quality and quantity in the
upcoming financial years. As for Result 3 it is recommended to define the methodology
for economic valuation of PAs and their ecosystems, and to development indicators of
economic impact. Disposal of complex and low profitability outputs is recommended.
Result 4 We recommend to work on the feasibility analysis for the mechanism of Grant
Funds, in order to determine its potential as financial and cost reduction mechanism. It
is recommended that the project should schedule at least two annual technical reviews
during phase 2, to provide additional technical support for implementing the
recommendations of this MTR.
LESSONS LEARNED
Governmental organizations involved in PAs should be consolidated regardless of
the project funded by the GEF, using legal framework and cooperation tools, since
changes in new institutions can generate management problems to the extent that they
do not have longstanding tradition allowing them to absorb these impacts. The active
participation of indigenous and community leaders must be safeguarded throughout
the whole process of the project, since the design phase, in order to discuss sustainable
development options, in recommending actions and participation in policy decisions.
The participation of women is essential to the preservation of cultural identity and in
all educational and productive activities. Educational institutions involved in
biodiversity projects ensure changes in consciousness and awareness in young people
and through them impact on family areas, especially schools. In projects with large
differences among target areas (both geographical and at civil society and private sector
level) it is known that, not only conflict areas, but also other experiences where conflict
level is minor should be included. The business approach can be complementary to
conservation and development, considering sustainable socio-environmental
development and transparency measures for its suitable implementation. The valuation
of ecosystem services must be performed so as to contribute to decision-making, so
the studies must be clear and targeted to decision makers providing them with the
data they need.
6
2. LIST OF ACRONYMS
BIS
CDB
CES
CFM
CI
CNBRPE
COOTAD
CPA
DNB
DP
ER
ERI
FAN
FAP
FSS
GAD
GEF
GIZ
KFW
ME
METT
MF
MTR
NGO
NPAS
NPV
PA
PANE
PFS
0
Biodiversity Information System
Agreement on Biological Diversity
Committee for the Evaluation and Selection
Competitive Fund Mechanism
Conservación Internacional
National Corporation of Forests and Private Reserves of Ecuador
Code of the Territorial Organization Autonomy and Decentralization
Community Protected Area
National Directorate of Biodiversity
Provincial Directorates
Ecological Reserve
Ecological Reserve Illinizas
National Environment Fund
Protected Areas Fund
Financial Sustainability Strategy
Autonomous Decentralized Governments
Global Environment Facility
Gessellschaft FÜr Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau/ Reconstruction Credit Institute
Ministry of Environment of Ecuador
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
Ministry of Finance
Mid-Term Review
Non-Governmental Organization
National Protected Areas System
Net Present Value
Protected Area
Natural Areas Heritage of the State
Project of Financial Sustainability of NPAS
PMU
PN
PNBV
PNCC
PNSG
POA
PPA
PRODOC
PSA
REDD
RPFCH
SENPLADES
TNC
TOR
TSA
UNDP
USAID
WCS
WWF
1
Project Management Unit
National Park
National Plan of Good Living
National Park Cayambe Coca
National Park Sumaco Napo Galeras
Annual Operative Plan
Private Protected Area
Programme Document
Payment for Environment Service
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
Wildlife Reserve Chimborazo
National Secretariat of Planning and Development
The Nature Conservancy
Terms of Reference
Targeted Scenario Analysis
United Nations Development Programme
U.S Agency for International Development
Wildlife Conservation Society
World Wildlife Fund
ÍNDICE
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................2
2. LIST OF ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................................................0
2.
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................3
A. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION: .......................................................................................................................................... 3
B. KEY ISSUES DEALT WITH: ............................................................................................................................................ 4
C. EVALUATION’S METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 4
D. EVALUATION’S STRUCTURE: ........................................................................................................................................ 5
4. THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT............................................................................8
E. PROJECT’S START, DURATION AND CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION PHASE:............................................................. 8
F. ISSUES THE PROJECT TRIED TO ADDRESS................................................................................................................... 9
G. IMMEDIATE AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT’S OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 11
H. STAKEHOLDERS: ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
5. EXPECTED RESULTS.................................................................................................................................. 12
I. PROJECT’S FORMULATION ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Regarding level of design and conceptualization (S) ..................................................................................... 13
Stakeholder participation in the design (S): ....................................................................................................... 13
Replicability: .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
J. PROJECT’S IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................................... 14
Implementation Approach (S): ................................................................................................................................ 14
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (S): ............................................................................................................... 14
Stakeholders’ Participation (S): ............................................................................................................................... 14
Financial Planning and Co-financing ................................................................................................................... 15
Modalities of Execution and implementation.................................................................................................... 19
K. PROGRESS IN ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS: ............................................................................................................ 19
Achievement of outputs/results and objectives ................................................................................................ 20
6. ANALYSIS IN ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 20
RESULT 1. LAWS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVE THE SUSTAINABLE
FUNDING OF THE PANE, THE PRIVATE AND COMMUNITY SUBSYSTEMS OF NPAS, HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED AND ARE OPERATIONAL WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.............................................. 21
RESULT 2. CAPACITIES STRENGTHENED FOR FINANCIAL PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS-BASED
MONITORING TO IMPROVE SUSTAINABLE NET INCOME OF NPAS IN THE LONG TERM ................................... 24
RESULT 3. INCREASE OF AWARENESS ABOUT THE VALUE OF NPAS IN KEY STAKEHOLDERS (COMMUNITIES
LIVING IN PAS, PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND PRIVATE/PUBLIC INVESTORS) ...................................................... 34
RESULT 4. REPLICABLE MODELS OF PROFITABLE MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE NET INCOME ARE
APPROVED THROUGH DEMONSTRATIVE EXPERIENCES BY THE COMMUNITY BY THE COMMUNITY AND THE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR. .................................................................................................................................... 38
7. SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................................................ 39
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 41
ON THE DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................................... 41
ON THE PROCESS............................................................................................................................................................. 42
ON EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
2
ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................. 44
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 44
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION INVOLVED IN NPAS AND WHICH MAY BE LINKED
IN THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................................................ 45
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CIVIL SOCIETY STAKEHOLDERS: ...................................................................................... 45
ROLE OF PILOT AREAS ................................................................................................................................................... 46
PRIVATE SUBSYSTEM ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
TECHNICAL FOLLOW-UP TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MTR............................................................................. 48
9. LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................................................... 48
10. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................... 52
Annex n.
Topic
I
MTR Agenda
II
List of revised documents
III
Materials for interviews,
Key Actors Questionnaire and Cover letter for interview
IV
Stakeholders mapping
V
List of interviews
VI
Summary of field visits and photographic apêndice
VII
Evaluation Consultant Code of Conduct and Agreement Form
2. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of evaluation:
1.
MTRs’ main aims are:
 To promote accountability and transparency when evaluating and disseminating progress in the accomplishment and achievement of project’s results.
 To identify main lessons learned that can be disseminated among GEF relevant projects and that can help to improve the selection, design, and implementation of future
UNDP/GEF initiatives.
 To provide feedback and observations regarding recurrent key aspects in the portfolio,
and also about improvement of key issues.
 To provide recommendations in decision making for the adjustment of current actions
and improvement of future ones, in order to optimize progresses toward the projects’
objectives
3
B. Key issues dealt with:
2.
The current MTR report includes an analysis of the project’s development context describing
problems dealt with by the Project, its objective, stakeholders involved in its execution, and
expected results. Methodology applied to develop the evaluation is briefly described and its
results and conclusions are detailed. The report finishes with sections revising
recommendations by the evaluator, lessons learned, and a series of annexes.
C. Evaluation’s methodology
3.
Based on the ToR of this MTR, the Project was evaluated by using a multiple methodology
approach and following the proposal included in the ToR1
4.
The following activities were developed:
5.
(i) Definition of work agenda: The consultant defined an agenda with the Project
Management Unit (PMU) and the UNDP Ecuador Office. It included a partially shared
mission with another evaluating team for a review of the Biodiversity Strategy of UNDP in
Ecuador. A program of fieldwork according to the ToR and the suggestions of the PMU were
structured. A schedule of preliminary work was agreed. Field work focused on a sample of
PAs of the various subsystems: Private Protected Areas (PPAs), Natural Heritage Areas of the
State of Ecuador (PANE), Community Protected Area (CPA) and mixed forms, with a sample
of different regions of the northwest, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Boliche, Pululahua and La
Tembladera. This took place between November 25 and December 3, 2013 (Annex I).
6.
ii) Documentation analysis: A study on the availability of information to identify the universe
of participants (mapping of stakeholders, compilation of experiences through civil society and
academic institutions) has been carried out with the support of the project’s coordination; a
list of key stakeholders based on the developed analysis is provided.
7.
Literature and materials produced by the Project have been revised: progress reports, media
products, Internet and web materials. The list of revised materials is attached in Annex II.
8.
iii) Interviews: A model of semi-structured interviews was applied, which contents were
agreed with the NPAS team, as well as a presentation letter with a brief explanation of the
evaluation (see Annex III). From the stakeholders’ mapping (Annex IV), we interviewed a
total of 100 people; individual and collective face-to-face and virtual interviews were
conducted (the list of people interviewed is described in Annex V). Contact with
representatives of UNDP (Ecuador office), the national government, local governments
(Autonomous Decentralized Governments, including community leaders) was taken,
individually and in groups. Representatives of civil society, NGOs, and academics were also
interviewed.
9.
iv) Focal Groups: A guide of focal groups was agreed with the project’s coordinating
team. Small groups of the project team were performed, according to the pillars of the project
(Outputs/Results). 8 focal group interviews were conducted: one with the PMU, one with the
technical team of the DNB and FAN, one with the team of the Biodiversity Information
1
4
http://www.undp.org.ec/tors_proyectos/2013/058/TDRs-IC-ADQ-13-058-Eval-MedioTermino.pdf
System, one with key stakeholders of La Tembladera, one with key actors of Northwest Node,
one with key actors of Chimborazo, and one with PFS team.
10.
Visits to places where project activities were executed: The following regions were visited:
Northwest, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Boliche, Pululahua and La Tembladera. In one of the visits
in addition to the PMU, members of the committee CNBRPE joined the mission.
11.
vi) Discussion of results and systematization of conclusions and recommendations: Meetings
with key referents were conducted and contact was kept throughout the evaluation period to
validate preliminary results after the analysis of: documents, interviews and focal groups’
results, general systematization of collected information, direct observation on field. In this
sense, a presentation of preliminary findings was conducted after the fieldwork. For the
preparation of preliminary report, in order to make the necessary adjustments, virtual
meetings with the project coordinator and Marlon Flores - who helped MTR as specialist in
financial sustainability, developing specific technical inputs, and evaluate each of the 4
expected results- were maintained, vii) Completion and submission of the final MTR report:
in this final stage we proceeded to the preparation of this preliminary MTR report, which is
being presented. Review of the report by Internet, and suggestions to improve the draft are
expected, and we will work until the consolidation of the final report.
D. Evaluation’s structure:
12.
The MTR is following the key analysis criteria or criteria groups of evaluation, established in
the OECD documents (pertinence, internal and external design’s coherence, impact/effect,
effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability); and by principles that consider the evaluation as
part of projects and programs’ permanent actions and not as a static external element. Only
certain aspects related to sustainability have been taken into account, but not its pertinence to
this stage.
13.
The questions for the in-depth interviews and guidelines for focal groups were based on
evaluation frameworks following the analysis’ of the different phases, on the discussion with
people in charge of this study and on the guidelines established in ToRs.
Table 2. Criteria and Questions of MTR.
Analysis
Level
Evaluation Criteria
Pertinence and
Coherence
Design
5
The extent to which
project objectives are
consistent with the
needs and interests of
people, the country's
needs and objectives
of the GEF.
Questions
a) Does the project design meets the needs of
the country and its policies for conservation
and management of protected areas?
b) Do you know which are the expected
outcomes?
c) Are objectives and expected results realistic
and concrete?
d) Are the strategies and activities consistent
and appropriate to achieve the objectives and
outcomes of the project?
M&E
e) How has the project contributed to the
implementation of the National Agenda for
Public Policy and the mandate of the GEF (if
you are familiar to the strategy of the Global
Environment Fund)?
Lessons
Learned and
Good
Practices
f) Do you know the tools of GEF, as the
METT?
g) What, in your opinion, is the utility of it?
h) In your opinion, what is the quality of the
current system of monitoring and evaluation?
i) Which elements should be strengthened to
build the foundations for the impact
assessment of the project in the future?
j) Which practices developed by the activities
have contributed or can contribute to
strengthen others in the project?
k) Which lessons learned have relevance for
future implementation of similar initiatives?
l) Does the project complement other
strategies or projects implemented in the same
territory?
a) Is the core managing team appropriate for
the project?
Management
Efficiency
The extent to which
resources or inputs
(funds, time, human
resources, etc.) have
translated into results.
Ownership
Process
6
Process of adaptation,
transformation or
b) Is the existing local team adequate for
project management?
c) Which elements could be improved?
d) What is the cost-effectiveness relationship
of the project in terms of invested resources
and achieved results?
e) Which have been the strengths and
weaknesses of the management structure of
the project?
f) What changes should be introduced to
improve the performance of the management
structure?
a) To what extent are stakeholders
(government
entities,
NGOs
and
beneficiaries) involved in the implementation
and management of the intervention?
active reception of
b) What difficulties have the key actors found
outputs and changes in to participate?
the project.
c) How does the participation of key
stakeholders contribute in the sustainability
and effectiveness of the project?
a) To what extent the project’s results
intended have been achieved?
b) What do you consider the major advances
were in the expected results of the project?
Overall
Results
c) Which were the internal and external
factors that have influenced the achievement
or non-achievement of the results? Have there
been other unanticipated effects?
d) To what extent have the mechanisms for
technical and administrative coordination
implementing the project contributed to
achieving the outcomes?
e) Has the project contributed to increase
access to cooperation (international? between
local actors?)
Specific
Results
Effectiveness
The extent to which
the objectives have
been achieved thanks
to the intervention.
Association
and
Coordination
f) What mechanisms relating to the design
and implementation of the project should be
improved to measure its impact in the future?
How do you think they should be applied?
g) Has the project contributed to reducing
gender inequalities? Why?
h) With which organizations does the project
coordinate actions?
i) How have the bodies established/supported
by the Project helped to mobilize and expand
participation?
j) How have instances established/supported
by the Project helped to increase the visibility
between different groups of actors?
k) About the institutions that were involved, if
you're familiar with them, what levels of
consensus did they reach among themselves
and with civil society?
l) Are you aware of the opportunities for
coordination established for this project? Did
they work, in your opinion?
7
a) What are the main factors influencing the
achievement
or
non-achievement
of
sustainability of the project?
Sustainability
Results
Probability that the
benefits of the
intervention will last
in the long term.
b) What measures related to the areas of the
project have been institutionalized to ensure
sustainability of activities/ achievements?
c) What national government institutions will
assume the functions currently undertaken by
the project? Has it already been established?
d) Is there a defined exit strategy? To what
extent does it contribute to sustainability?
e) Would you like to add anything else about
your experience?
4. THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
E. Project’s Start, duration and current implementation phase:
14.
The "Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Areas System of Ecuador" (00073902/
GEF-UNDP) started in April 2010. Though in terms of expected runtime more than half has
already been implemented since the signature of the project, the financial performance is
under executed. Its completion is scheduled for May 2015.
15.
The project is based on previous initiatives and its design was based on several projects
designed in 2003. A general project was consolidated in 2007, which subsumed various
profiles that were not fully formulated as a GEF Global Project, one of CNBRPE and a
project of the Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development (FUNDAR). The PFS is
the result of these former drafts, as a unique conceptual design.
16.
This process created an unusually complex design. Further changes in the institutional
framework later affected the project. In this sense, the issue of Policy and Strategic Plan of the
National Protected Areas System (NPAS) 2007-2016, together with the adoption of the
current Constitution of the Republic (2008), have led the way for the development of the
concept of "subsystems of protected areas." Since then, integration to NPAS with respect to its
design, integration and related links has been a core aim.
17.
Both instruments- the Constitution and the Policy and Strategy Plan-constitute the starting
point for serious efforts by the National Environmental Authority for the development and
consolidation of the national system as a whole; it has even been taken into account by the
National Plan for Good Living, and is part of its specific goals.
18.
17. In this scenario, each of the subsystems should be defined in terms of fundamentals such
as: i) the nature of the areas composing it; ii) administrative procedures; iii) integration
scheme - conformation of the subsystem; iv) governance baselines for the areas.
8
19.
The Strategic Plan of the National Protected Areas System 2007 to 2016 and the National
Constitution (2008) recognize the subsystem of protected areas; this includes private areas,
community and autonomous governments as an integral subsystem of NPAS, which
unquestionably strengthens the participation of civil society in the implementation of
conservation mechanisms.
20.
Progress was made with the governments of the 9 Pilot Protected Areas to increase
environmental protection in the target areas, namely: Cayambe-Coca National Park, Wildlife
Reserve Chimborazo, Wildlife Reserve Cuyabeno, Marine Reserve Galera-San Francisco,
Ecological Reserve Los Ilinizas, Humedal La Tembladera, Ecological Reserve MacheChindul, Nodo Noroccidente, and National Park Yasuní. These pilot areas have been selected
after extensive technical analysis to ensure the replicability of the experience.
21.
With GEF support the government proposed, through the PFS, establish a framework of
financial and operational efficiency of the new NPAS, facilitating the integration of
subsystems with efficiency standards aligned with the targeted PA. The project strategy
pursued three main approaches, aligned with the Financial Sustainability Strategy (FSS) of
NPAS: i) diversification of income generation at PA level and systems removing legal,
regulatory and capacity barriers; ii) improving operational effectiveness through a resultsbased system for allocation and reporting of resources, management, and capacity
development and planning; iii) reducing the cost burdens of NPAS by working in buffer zones
and communities to develop options for sustainable livelihoods. To develop these three
approaches the Project proposed to strengthen institutional and individual capacities.
22.
Through this project the aim is to contribute to the financial sustainability of the NPAS by
implementing a financial operational framework, tested and institutionalized for an expanded
National of Protected Areas System of Ecuador.
F. Issues the project tried to address
23.
By presidential decision, tickets are not charged since 2012 in Protected Areas, both for
national and international tourists. This fact radically changed the project strategy. The
national budget absorbs the total cost of the PA and provides the necessary resources, reaching
1% of GDP, to the areas since they are natural heritage of the state. This almost exclusive
reliance of the public budget presents a threat when imagining scenarios in which the current
economic boom may end.
24.
A simultaneous process of decentralization and devolution of decision-making from national
level to the 24 provinces is promoted, generating a new budget allocation mechanism through
the Provincial Directorates of ME. A model of 9 Decentralized Districts is replacing this
model, but at environmental level it is not yet implemented.
25.
Substantive increase in agents dedicated to the PA is defined, but the figure of temporary
contract staff services having maximum of 2 years, without a renewal option impacts the
sustainability of incorporation of rangers. It should also be mentioned the lack of technical
personnel, which is a barrier to the implementation of management programs; for example,
there are no experts in tourism, essential to implement actions for tourism planning and
management, especially for those PAs receiving more visitors.
26.
The project suffered a major revision that is embodied in a document annexed to the
PRODOC, approved by the Steering Committee on September 26, 2013, and in numerous
9
settings at territorial level; this is because from the design of PRODOCs in May 2010 the
national context has suffered changes in several structural issues, such as:
27.
The changes in entrance fees (self-generated income) to NPAS Continental, implies a change
in the management of certain activities. In relation to the monitoring, financial indicators of
the UNDP Financial Sustainability Sheet2 are affected, since self-generated revenues are a key
element of the financial sustainability of the NPAS; they decreased from USD 2.4 million in
2008 to USD 269,772 in 2012. Simultaneously, there has been a large increase in the funds
allocated by the central government to NPAS. The total budget available for PAs has
increased from USD 4.6 million in 2008 to USD 21 million in 2012. On one hand, this
increase is highly positive; on the other, the risk of underfunding significantly increases, since
more than 90% of the funds come from the central state budget, and may be subject to cuts
during this administration or the next. The technical recommendations to address this situation
are included in paragraph # 101.
28.
Likewise, the cancellation of the Yasuni ITT Initiative in August 2013 has impacted the
project, since the PRODOCs considered this initiative as an important mechanism for funding
through attracting international resources. The cancellation reduces potential resources to
ensure the effective conservation of NPAS in the future and therefore the project should
encourage other tools for rising international funds for the conservation of NPAS. However,
the current political context discourages attracting international investment for public spaces,
so the only international funds supporting NPAS management are currently cooperation
projects.
29.
At the end of 2011, from the micro financial evaluation, FUNDAR’s (strategic partner of the
Project) financial management was identified as High Risk. It was proposed to FUNDAR to
work according to a direct administration mechanism by UNDP until rectify their deficiencies
in financial management. FUNDAR meanwhile, proposed to implement activities through
direct microcredit, being monitored by UNDP. Because these conditions were not viable,
FUNDAR decided to withdraw from the project in January 2012. Their withdrawal affected
the work of Community Protected Areas in 2012 and the co-financing budget.
30.
After FUNDAR’s retirement, the Humedal La Tembladera was chosen as Community
Protected Area through a process led by the ME. It was chosen on the basis of the ecosystem
representation providing similar learning lessons for the financial sustainability of community
areas. The joining of the Humedal La Tembladera also involves a reassessment of the
indicators for this community area.
31.
In November 28, 2012 the Project Steering Committee decides to remove the Node of the
Cordillera del Balsamo as a pilot model of sustainability of Private Protected Areas and to
apply the model only to the Northwest Node as representatives of Private Protected Areas.
This decision was taken after the local stakeholders of the Cordillera del Balsamo did not
allow the gathering of strategic information for financial sustainability in their territory.
32.
These changes forced to change the mechanisms for implementing the project and reassess the
indicators. This information is captured in the "Annex to PRODOCs". Due to these changes
we observe a need to reassess the indicators to attainable values from now until the end of the
project.
2
“Diseño de la estrategia de sostenibilidad financiera del SNAP, Ecuador”, Informe inicial de avance, Producto 2 (2013).
10
G. Immediate and development project’s objectives
33.
The project’s objective is the implementation of a pilot case of an operational, financial and
institutional framework to expand the National Protected Areas System in Ecuador. This will
help improve the financial sustainability of the NPAS of Ecuador in relation to the four main
barriers to financial sustainability: (i) The laws, regulations, policies, and institutional
responsibilities are not conducive to long-term financial sustainability of NPAS; (ii) The
institutions and individuals responsible for the management of protected areas do not have
strong capacities for financial and business planning and results-based management of PAs;
(iii) there is limited awareness of the contribution of NPAS to economic development and the
reduction of inequalities; and (iv) limited experience with practical mechanisms to diversify
income and contain costs through partnerships between the State, local communities, and
private sector.
H. Stakeholders:
34.
During the MTR a stakeholder mapping was carried out by the project's coordination, whose
main purpose was to identify and customize the most influential social, political and
institutional actors.
35.
The most relevant stakeholders for the PFS are briefly described below:
36.
The Ministry of Environment (ME) is the national authority responsible for managing the
country's biodiversity. It is the agency responsible for designing environmental policies and
coordinate strategies, projects and programs for the protection of ecosystems and sustainable
use of natural resources. The ME has a Secretariat for Natural Heritage, within which the
National Biodiversity Directorate (NBD) operates, which through the Protected Areas Unit,
coordinates and oversees the NPAS. The NBD encourages the development of processes, laws
and regulations that help the institutionalization of project activities, outputs and outcomes.
37.
The Article 405 of the Constitution of Ecuador enacted in 2008, states that the National
Protected Areas System will ensure the conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of
ecological functions, and its governance and regulation shall be exercised by the State.
38.
The four subsystems defined in the mentioned article are:
 Subsystem Natural Areas Heritage of State (PANE)
 Subsystem of Autonomous Decentralized Governments, the PAs of ADG.
 Subsystem of Community Protected Areas (CPA), the PAs in community territories.
39.
Subsystem of Private Protected Areas (PPA), private natural areas that are under legal
protection whose management is under sustainable management that enables compliance with
conservation objectives of the natural heritage and are subject to the laws of the National
Constitution.
40.
The Ministry of Environment of Ecuador is the principal executing entity, and the coexecuting agencies are: the National Corporation of Forests and Private Reserves of Ecuador
(CNBRPE) and the Community Area of the Humedal La Tembladera within areas
corresponding to the subsystems of the PPA and CPA respectively. The ME, the CPA and
CNBRPE have developed institutional and coordination agreements.
11
5. EXPECTED RESULTS
Objective and expected results of the project:
41.
The overall objective is to improve the sustainability of the National Protected Areas System,
so that it will return results of development through a healthy, sustainable and ensure the
rights of natural environment, as established by the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.
The project aims to "implement and institutionalize a financial operational framework, put in
practice and tested for an expanded National Protected Areas System of Ecuador.
42.
The expected results are:
 Result 1: Laws, regulations and guidelines that contribute to improve the sustainable funding
of the PANE, the private and community subsystems of NPAS, have been implemented and
are operational with the support of the Project
 Result 2: Capacities strengthened for financial planning, management and results-based
monitoring to improve sustainable net income of NPAS in the long term.
 Result 3: Increase of awareness about the value of NPAS in key stakeholders (communities
living in PAs, public authorities and private/public investors).
 Result 4: Replicable models of profitable management for sustainable net income are
approved, through demonstrative experiences, by the community and the public and private
sector
43.
NPAS has 512 employees3, many of them are distributed in the territory such as Provincial
Directors, Area Managers and rangers; 40 at the central facility. Additionally there Area
coordinators hired by the projects, facilitators and technicians from Projects associated with
NPAS, the National Biodiversity Directorate of ME, the FAN, provincial and municipal
officials related to PAs and other relevant public organizations such as Ministries of Tourism,
Agriculture, etc.
44.
Since 2012 papers and work reports, books, manuals and guides, a series with digital and print
newsletters, and a huge amount of brochures, booklets, posters and signage, were produced;
they are all available on the website of PFS through its Facebook, Social Networks, blog and
web pages of the ME and UNDP.
45.
The Biodiversity Information System of Ecuador (BIS) is a software platform that collects
and provides relevant information for the management of protected areas, creating the basis
for the development of a more ambitious system that may allow feedback on decision-making
process on the PA. The BIS will also improve control and contribute substantively in
planning, through the immediate provision of high quality information and valuable inputs
(for example the assessment of fees for tourism operations, film, photographs, complementary
services, among other activities). It is also expected that the BIS should contribute to the
result-based financial management through the financial administrative module, through
updated information on the following items: total and type of expenditure in each PA, number
of staff, etc. This automation will reduce administrative management costs and increase
transparency in financial management.
3
Biodiversity Project Implementation Riview (PIR) of UNDP, 2013. Annual Project Review.
12
46.
Most of the foreign tourists who entered Ecuador had as destination a protected area. The
calculation of the 2013 tourist visit to inland PAs (no Galapagos) is found to have a 70%
domestic tourism (nationals) and 30% foreign visitors rate.
47.
The CNBRPE, organization with over 17 years of background, was finally able to formalize
its status. Its Statutes the steering committee have been recognized and, their tax obligations
are up to date, and in counts on an operating manual and clear protocols to improve internal
and external communication. It currently has 50 members and at least 10 expressions of
interest for potential new members. The project implements the mechanism for financial
sustainability directly into 16 private reserves of northwest Node of the CNBRPE. For these
reserves management and business plans and a financial strategy were developed.
48.
Many community initiatives in protected areas have combined innovative ideas of production
and conservation. Also important community-based tourism projects are developed in and
around PAs, e.g. in Quilotoa (Ilinizas Ecological Reserve) the Community Centre run by the
Green Tourism Quilotoa Lake Community Organization is operating. The Project donated
kayaks and developed a model of Tourism Management of the Laguna Quilotoa. In Wildlife
Reserve of Chimborazo the community agency Puruhá Ruzurku works as tour operator.
49.
International cooperation has worked actively to the conservation of biodiversity and the
forest heritage of Ecuador; through programs and projects, which the PFS has articulated
actions with and created multiple synergies.
50.
The recent withdrawal from cooperation of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) in Ecuador has impacted in the area of environment, given that it has cancelled the
extension of aid projects being developed in the country. Cooperation activities are suspended
until both countries to negotiate and sign a new agreement on bilateral cooperation.
51.
In the starting phase a situation, common to other projects of international cooperation, caused
critical delays, especially the selection of project’s coordinator generated an initial delay.
Many activities were delayed due to changes in technical team, e.g. change of the coordinator
in March 2012. These administrative processes and procedures are often underestimated,
stressing the difficulties of implementation.
I. Project’s Formulation
Regarding level of design and conceptualization (S)
52.
The project was designed in a context of institutional changes in Ecuador and a tension
between the productive/extractive Ecuador and natural Ecuador. But also in an opportune time
to support policies, plans and programs coincident with concern for the subsystems of the PAs
and a new concept of territoriality and decentralized environment. Based on the change in the
production model, which identifies strategic sectors within the Ministry of Environment and
Protected Areas and protecting resources.
Stakeholder participation in the design (S):
53.
The project presents an adaptive, flexible and participatory design and management strategy,
and inclusive of all key stakeholders of each components and outputs; ensuring crosscutting
interventions at national, provincial, and civil society level.
13
Replicability:
54.
The use of a participatory methodology (e.g. diagnoses made by the beneficiaries) and a
collaborative approach, helped to foster mutual understanding, despite differences in
approaches in institutions and officials.
55.
The design is consistent with the GEF, the national and provincial governments objectives.
The assessment verified that the installed institutional capacity left by previous GEF projects
was intensively used; as well as the commitments made by the country internationally and
synergy with other national, regional and local initiatives and other key actors.
56.
The project was well conceived and designed, but is estimated to be too ambitious, both from
the political-institutional and financial perspective.
J. Project’s Implementation
Implementation Approach (S):
57.
The focus of project’s implementation had initial adaptations in terms of technical team, the
roles of each local government and its technicians and several reviews in the logical
framework. These changes were due to changes in policy decisions at level of governance,
communication, participation and funding. The demands of technical and administrative
standards for contribution of UNDP and GEF for project’s planning and monitoring, and the
need to specify the initial results and indicators for better orientation of the execution, resulted
in the strengthening of UPM and a specific training in planning and management
methodology, which had a good impact on the generation of responses to various critical
situations.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (S):
58.
The project’s monitoring was carried out with a methodological framework using rigorous
tools and appropriate benchmarks to support monitoring and evaluation.
59.
Plans and budgets have been prepared with good technical and professional level, and with
appropriate internal coordination by implementers and technical team; information
requirements, methods of monitoring and controlling the UNDP-GEF have been diligently
observed, especially with regard to administrative and financial information of the planned
and executed activities.
60.
The annual reports, and especially the “Project Implementation Report” and “Annual Project
Review” allowed the evaluation team to deeply analyse progress in finding results and
indicators and the detection of emerging problems. These tools (PIR/APR) are relevant in
their sequential application, its utility for monitoring progress and for the contribution to the
achievement of adaptive management scheme.
Stakeholders’ Participation (S):
61.
While the evaluation had access to direct evidence on how intense and effective was the
participation of key actors at the beginning of the project formulation; indirect evidence about
the style of work of the PMU, on the good aptitude of the technicians involved in the
formulation, as support and "engine " for the project, allows infer the existence of a great deal
in communication and involvement of the communities, including the smallest and most
isolated. Moreover, it is clear that the proposal has been generated with the active
participation of the communities affected by the problems addressed by the project, laying
foundations for a new conscious citizenship in environmental issues.
14
62.
The assessment of the quality and intensity of stakeholders’ participation must consider the
heterogeneity of the intervention and the complexity of integration of different regions.
Although spaces for dialogue and interaction at technical level exist, spaces and opportunities
for dialogue and discussion at political-strategic level – essential to exchange views and
enhance interaction with local organizations - are still missing, Moreover, from the
implementation of the project new spaces of interaction were created and new alliances with
other institutional areas and ME were promoted. A further extended interaction will be
achieved through the implementation of productive initiatives supported by the Grant Funds
Mechanism and valuation of goods and services from NPAS.
63.
Agreements/records of collaboration have been signed with strategic partners such as FAN,
TNC and Conservación Internacional. Through trainings the institutions have been able to
link with other organizations to discuss how to articulate in some issues of mutual interest and
to formulate joint projects. Capacities have been strengthened in business planning and
management tools linked to the promotion of the performance of NPAS.
64.
The project helped to mobilize the participation of the people. We observe that the project
effort to spread its own purposes, to incorporate populations involved in the design and
implementation of activities, and the extent of training activities in general has been highly
successful.
Financial Planning and Co-financing
65.
The financial resources for the project were adequate, as for planned activities and execution
capacity of the implementing organization.
66.
The total project budget under PRODOC is the following:
Table 3: Sources of Funding
Source of funding
Type
Contribution
GEF
The Nature Conservancy
FUNDAR
ME
RBPE
Conservation International
FAP/ME
15
of Amount (U$S)
6.400.000
Cash
540.000
In Kind
56.000
Cash
400.000
In Kind
3.450.222
Cash
5.000.000
In Kind
670.000
Cash
0
In Kind
1.885.622
Cash
50.000
In Kind
0
Cash
0
In Kind
1.300.000
UNDP
Cash
180.000
In Kind
0
TOTAL CONTR
13.531.844
TOTAL
19.931.844
67.
By the end of 2013, the project reached 97% in its program implementation and 88% in its
annual budget execution. This means that the PFS team has been significantly cost effective in
relation to the planned activities. The budget implementation would increase slightly, as
several of the payments to the end of 2013 were underway at the time of accessing this
information.
68.
By December 2013, the total execution amounts to USD 1,410,177, and USD 762,799, the
38% of the total budget requested, were pledged for 2014.
16
Table of contributions - December 2013
Contribution
(type/Sources)
Donations
UNDP (thousands US$)
Planned
GEF:
6.400.000
PNUD:
180.000
Actual
GEF:
2.209.380, 42
PNUD:
72.589
Governmental
(thousands US$)
Planned
Actual
MAE:
5.000.000
Associate Agencies
(Thousands US$)
Planned
Total (thousands US$)
Actual
Planned
GEF:
6.400.000
UNDP:
180.000
Actual
GEF:
2.209.380
UNDP:
72.589
TNC:
432.891
FUNDAR: 212.005
CNBRPE: 622.280
Tembladera: 10.032
FAP: 962.347
CI: 162.801
ME:
5.670.000
TNC:
56.00
FUNDAR:
3.450.2221
CNBRPE:
1.885. 622
Tembladera:
435.0962
FAP:
1.300.000
ME:
5.069.770
TNC:
432.891
FUNDAR:
212.005
CNBRPE:
622.280
Tembladera:
10.032
FAP:
962.347
CI: 162.801
Loans
In Kind
ME:
670.000
ME:
TNC: 56.00
5.069.770 FUNDAR: 3.450.2224
CNBRPE: 1.885. 622
Tembladera: 435.0965
FAP: 1.300.000
4
FUNDAR, as initially defined in PRODOCs, had committed to contribute $ 400,000.00 through micro-credit for small farmers in the CPAs. In January 2012 FUNDAR retired from project and
budget co-financing in kind decreased by $ 3,450,222.00 for the conservation value of Abras Manquilla and by $ 400,000 as cash contribution for the implementation of case business. Source:
Steering Committee Minutes September 26, 2013 (Annex PRODOCs 2013).
5
The amount of in kind contribution of Humedal La Tembladera has been commited for $ 395,179.20 (this assessment was part of the consultancy on Financial Sustainability Strategy for the
Humedal La Tembladera) and an additional $ 40,000 for the project management. Source: Steering Committee Minutes September 26, 2013 (Annex PRODOCs 2013).
17
Others
Total
TNC: 540.000
FUNDAR: 400.000
CI: 50.000
6.580.000
2.281.969
5.670.000
5.069.770 7.681.844
Sources: Budget Review document C and Annex PRODOC 2013 (Table 1: Co-financing budget).
18
CI: 30.000
2.432.356
TNC:
540.000
FUNDAR:
400.0001
CI: 50.000
19.931.844
CI: 30.000
9.784.095
Modalities of Execution and implementation
69.
The project cost-effectiveness ratio is considered reasonable in terms of invested
resources and achieved results.
70.
Regarding the participation of the ME, it has provided the flexibility to implement
project activities in time and established forms, and with the flexibility to redirect some
actions.
71.
The geographical location of the PMU facilitated the accompaniment by the technical
team in various cities and areas of intervention. In addition, the project provided
resources and facilities to conduct regular field visits, and thus keep a proper track of
the executed actions.
72.
The project has helped to encourage the participation of beneficiaries and partners,
assuming the cost of transfers and mobility, which usually hinders participation, given
the coverage and extent of the project intervention area.
K. Progress in achievement of results:
Table 4: Progress in achievement of results6
Result
Rating
1) Laws, regulations and guidelines that contribute
to improve the sustainable funding of the PANE,
the private and community subsystems of NPAS,
have been implemented and are operational with the
support of the Project.
Highly Satisfactory
2) Capacities strengthened for financial planning,
management and results-based monitoring to
improve sustainable net income of NPAS in the
long term.
Highly Satisfactory

6
Categories: Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project shows no deficiencies in the accomplishment of objectives, regarding relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Satisfactory (S): The project shows minor deficiencies in the accomplishment of objectives, regarding relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project shows moderate deficiencies in the accomplishment of objectives, regarding relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The Project shows significant deficiencies in the accomplishment of objectives, regarding relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Unsatisfactory (U): The Project shows major deficiencies in
the accomplishment of objectives, regarding relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Highly Unsatisfactory (HU):
The Project shows severe deficiencies in the accomplishment of objectives, regarding relevance, effectiveness, and
efficiency.
19
3) Increase of awareness about the value of NPAS
in key stakeholders (communities living in PAs,
public authorities and private/public investors)
4) Replicable models of profitable management for
sustainable net income are approved through
demonstrative experiences by the community and
public and private sector.
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory 7
Achievement of outputs/results and objectives
73.
The overall project’s objective is to improve sustainability by providing development
results through a healthy and sustainable environment, ensuring the Rights of Nature, as
established by the Constitution.
74.
The project aims to "implement and institutionalize a financial operational framework
aimed at an expanded National Protected Areas System (NPAS)".
6. ANALYSIS IN ACHIEVEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
RESULTS
AND
SPECIFIC
75.
We advanced with the governments of the 9 Pilot Protected Areas to increase
environmental protection in the targeted area. The PFS realises researches in private
reserves from northwestern Pichincha and Humedal The Tembladera located in the
Santa Rosa Canton, Province of El Oro, as models for the inclusion of private and
community subsystems to the National Protected Areas System. These pilot areas have
been selected after extensive technical analysis to ensure this experience be replicated
over time. The strategy is to work in nine pilot areas representing different types of
protected areas (Public, Community and Private). Progress was made to estimate the
gaps between current funding and the need for effective and sustainable management of
NPAS. It has also been conducted a comprehensive analysis for achieving financial
sustainability and NPAS funding models after testing them in several pilot areas.
76.
The work is based on specific processes within the 9 pilot areas, but many processes are
at system level. Progress was made to strengthen the management of the 9 Pilot
Protected Areas to enhance the protection of the environment in their territories.
77.
Progress was made to estimate the gaps between current funding and the need for
effective and sustainable management of NPAS in the targeted area. Financial
sustainability was assessed and funding models were launched in several PAs.
78.
The general conclusion of this technical review is that the project progress and its
outputs, beyond initial delays, are very satisfactory. For example, one important element
for this development was the update of a study on financial gaps of NPAS completed in
July 2013. This output, along with a legal analysis, set the reference point to position the
project for its most important partner, the Government. Several technical adjustments
can be made at this stage to more easily meet the objectives and targets of the project.
7
Result 4 is rated moderately satisfactory considering the timing in developing and achieving results.
20
The following findings, comments and recommendations are organized by each
outcome/result and output.
Result 1. Laws, regulations and guidelines that contribute to improve the
sustainable funding of the PANE, the private and community subsystems of
NPAS, have been implemented and are operational with the support of the
Project.
Output 1.1 Legal framework of the PA system (law and complementary regulatory
law) completed with technical inputs from the project and approved by the Assembly.
79.
Currently, Ecuador has a set of public policies and current legislation related to
conservation; including: the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008), the
National Plan for Good Living 2013-2017, Policy and National Strategy on Biodiversity
and Policy and Strategic Plan on the National Protected Areas System 2007-2016.
80.
In this background, it is noteworthy that "The Good Living", was added to the
Ecuadorian Constitution, as part of a long search for models of life driven particularly
by social actors in Latin America in recent decades8. Sumak Kawsay (Good Living)
proposes the incorporation of nature into history, not as a productive factor or as a
productive force, but as an inherent part of social being, suggesting the existence of a
community being, or if you prefer, non-modern, as an ontologically validated subject for
the relationship between humans and nature; it is considered a re-union between the
sphere of politics and economics, a relative position of markets in which the logic of the
use values predominates over that of exchange values, among others.
81.
The Ecuadorian Constitution emphasizes the enjoyment of rights as a condition of the
Good Living and the exercise of responsibilities in harmonious and multicultural
coexistence with nature (Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, Article 275).
Recognizing the rights of nature, it becomes one of the elements of Good Living.
82.
Regarding the Project, in the last five years significant technical contributions to the
financial sustainability of the SNAP were made; we have the first Study on Financing
Needs (Ministry of Environment, 2005), the process of Economic Valuation of Goods
and Services of Heritage of Public Natural Areas (Ministry of Environment, NPAS-GEF
Project, 2007b).
83.
This output is extremely ambitious and comprehensive; part of it is beyond the control
of the project, especially the approval process of the law by the Assembly. It is
recommended to define the minimum package of laws, regulations and institutional
guidelines, which are considered necessary for the subsystems of NPAS to "formally
work." For this, we could limit the approach of the project to the laws and regulations
that are complementary related to the implementation of selected financial instruments
for NPAS and the institutionalization of retention of self-generated resources for the
PAs.
84.
Based on the legal analysis of the different institutional options for the NPAS, which are
already available, prepare the final proposal package of reforms, together with an action
8
Larrea, A.M (2010). The Good Living as counter hegemonic process. In Semplades, New Challenges for LA:
Socialism and Sumak Kawsay, Quito Ecuador. January 7, 2014.
21
plan to work on policy issues that require monitoring, in order to increase the
opportunities for this reform package to be approved in the Assembly. Therefore it will
be necessary to coordinate with the communication strategy (See recommendations to
outcome 3.3, Communication campaign, for details).
85.
The Chief of PA does not have authority to generate funds; Needless to homologation
and regulation for fees; there is a favourable Constitution and laws that are out-dated;
inadequate knowledge of the environmental code and its implications on PA financing;
there are options and paths to generate new mechanisms.
86.
Together with the Municipality of Santa Rosa a municipal ordinance to protect the
Humedal La Tembladera, which was approved unanimously by the City Council, was
held. This means that in 2014 the City will be provided with budget for the protection of
the RAMSAR site.
87.
Output 1.2 Policy recommendations and guidelines to improve the financial
sustainability of NPAS have been developed.
88.
This output includes two action lines. The first one regarding policies of financial
sustainability. This output is directly related to the "Progress Report Design EFS-NPAS"
(January 2013 Mentefactura). It is recommended that that the Progress Report and the
EFS-NPAS (once it is completed) are considered as final output of this action line.
89.
The second action line is primarily concerned with the creation of new PAs. Even
though they are necessary to improve the representativeness of NPAS, they undoubtedly
increase the financing needs and consequently the current gaps. It is recommended that
the creation of new PAs is treated in the Strategic Long Term Plan of NPAS, and its plan
of long-term investments; and they should be incorporated in the annual budgets
progressively. See recommendations to output 2.1 below.
90.
Out of a total of 49 APs of PANE, 17 have an updated management plan, 12 do not have
a management plan and 20 require updating their existing management plan. Regarding
the 9 pilot PAs of PANE, 3 have updated management plans, 2 require updating it and 1
is approving its first management plan. With regard to private areas, management plans
of the 16 Northwest reserves were developed and the Community area of the Humedal
La Tembladera has a management plan developed since 2008.
91.
According to the reports submitted, for the Financial Needs Analysis of NPAS, the
information necessary for the preparation of the baseline was scattered, so it was
necessary to design tools for gathering information for the three management levels of
the ME (Central Plant, Provincial Directorates and management of protected areas), and
other funding stakeholders of NPAS. Additionally, a map of funding stakeholder was
generated in each protected area system, from the information collected in interviews
and in meetings with officials of the ME.
92.
The baseline of this study corresponds to data collected in 2003 and 2004. The Study
led by the project includes data until the first quarter of 2013. In the future it is expected
to continue to update this tool, due to its relevance for the internal management of PAs,
especially after the implementation of the Financial Sustainability Strategy, which is
being developed by the project. Besides that, it would be optimal for the coming years
that the ME has an accounting system to identify costs of protected areas. It is expected
that the administrative and financial module should operate within the SIB as
accounting system.
22
93.
The publication "Update Compilation of Environmental Incentives for Conservation"
was launched. This work is available both in soft and hard copies and includes the
critical path for citizenship-, which generally contribute in conservation issues- to
access various types of incentives (financial, tax, fiscal and moral). This information
sets the baseline for a subsequent proposal of incentives for subsystems. Additionally,
this study will articulate directly with the Financial Sustainability Strategy Design of
NPAS. This study details all the incentives related to the preservation of natural
ecosystems, which are organized according to the hierarchy stated by the Constitution
of the Republic of Ecuador and are complemented with a set of explanatory flow
diagrams that facilitates the understanding and application of each particular incentive.
This publication identifies and compiles in one document, the incentives established in
the Ecuadorian legal system for the conservation of natural ecosystems of national
interest. The primary purpose is that this product should be spread among people
interested in conserving natural ecosystems, conservation landholders, strategic partners
and the Ecuadorian community.
Output 1.3 The institutional foundations of NPAS are strengthened to provide support for
better management effectiveness and financial sustainability.
94.
There is an overlap between the product 1.2 and 1.3, this creates some redundancy.
Because the NPAS does not count on its own formal status, and to achieve this may take
several years, it is recommended that this product focuses on establishing "the financial
basis of NPAS" to achieve better management effectiveness and financial sustainability
of NPAS APs.
95.
Likewise, to achieve the indicated in the previous point, it is essential to work as a
priority in the institutionalization of the project results in the DNB/ME and other partner
institutions, as an immediate goal. At DNB/MAE level, it is recommended that the
institutionalization of project results focus on two priority areas; a) the implementation
of the EFS-NPAS, the support for the implementation of business plans in pilot PAs, and
the advancement of new business plans and additional financial mechanisms; b) the
management of information related to the assessment of the contribution of Pas
ecosystems to the sectoral economic development. The project should focus more on the
"Financial Management" and "Economic valuation"; management of maintenance
operations is a matter that could be led directly by the DNB/ME and other projects such
as PANE and NPAS- KFW, which should continue to coordinate closely.
96.
Strategic partnerships. The second phase of the project requires a quick analysis of
needs to expand its strategic partnership and as a support mechanism to
institutionalization; this can be done on the basis of the outputs being developed by the
project, e.g. input requirements in the design and implementation of these outputs.
Table 5: Outputs and their potential strategic partners
23
Socios estratégicos
Producto
Otros
Ministerio Ministerio ministerios Gobiernos Empresas
SENPLADES
de Finanzas de Turismo de sectores municipales privadas
productivos
ESF-SNAP
Presupuesto mejorado SNAP
Planes de negocios Aps del PANE
Planes de negocios APs comunitarias
Planes de negocios APs privadas
Esquemas planificados de PSA (Agua)
Estrategias de reducción de costos
Estrategia de comunicaciones
Estudio de valoración económica
Indicadores de resultados de conservación
Indicadores de resultados de costo-efectividad
Indicadores de resultados de impacto económico
1= prioridad alta; 2= prioridad media; 3=prioridad baja
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
cooperación
técnica
ONGs int.
Sector
académico
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
Result 2. Capacities strengthened for financial planning, management and
results-based monitoring to improve sustainable net income of NPAS in the
long term
Output 2.1 The strategic plan covering public, community and private subsystems of
NPAS has been developed and is operative.
97.
The long-term strategic plan of NPAS (and the long term investment plan) is important
to the financial sustainability of the NPAS parts. The strategic plan can be very useful
for ME because, if well designed, it sets goals and outcomes in the short and long term.
Notwithstanding this, the strategic plan of NPAS is not relevant if it is not accompanied
by a plan for long-term investments. The latter is key to SENPLADES and the Ministry
of Finance (MF) understands the relationship between short-term and long-term
outcomes and the possible negative impact of a budget cut. The lack of a plan for longterm investment is one of the reasons for the "door" is always open for the MF to make
budget cuts for PAs any time without worrying about their impact.
98.
The development of the strategic plan of the NPAS (it covers public, community and
private subsystems) is not necessarily an output corresponding to a Project of financial
sustainability. The development of this plan, in the political context of Ecuador, can take
several years. What would be under the scope of the project is the development of the
plan of long-term investments. It is recommended that the project allocate resources to
this priority.
99.
The investment plan refers to the costs of achieving the goals. The investment plan
does not usually include fundraising strategies. It is assumed that the state finance most
costs. However, it can include information about other potential funding sources.
Diversification of funding is an incentive for the State to allocate the funds required to
the PAs, but this requires additional inputs.
100. The Financial Sustainability Strategy (FSS) of NPAS (currently under development)
can somehow fill the gap for the lack of the long-term investments plan. But the FSS is
not designed for that purpose. The FSS of NPAS is not a product covered by
PRODOCs. However, it is highly recommended that this tool should be developed. At
the time, the project team has a very interesting and valuable report, "Progress Report
on the Financial Sustainability Strategy of NPAS" (January 13, 2014, Mentefactura).
This document includes a detailed analysis of the context in which the FSS-NPAS will
be developed. This document contains enough information to immediately proceed to
draft the NPAS.
24
101. It is recommended that this contextual analysis draft be considered as a final output; the
terms of reference (ToRs) for the formulation of the FSS-NPAS should then be
developed or revised9. The FSS-NPAS must be very concise; and for this the following
considerations must be taken into account:
a) Development of ToRs including the following key outputs: work plan for 3-4 months,
and proposed structure for FSS-NPAS, draft strategy and exit strategy.
b) The draft structure of the FSS-NPAS must include, but is not limited to, the following
sections, and it is recommended that the extension is not more than 80 pages:
-
-
-
-
Introduction
Definition, phases and coverage of FSS (Phase 1 - PANE)
Summary of the financial position of NPAS (PANE)
Financial goal of the FSS, based on established financial needs; at least USD
23.144,422 (gap consolidated level) in the next 5 years, considering the
reductions that can be achieved through cost reduction strategies.
Financial mechanisms10 to achieve financial goal: synthesis selection (with
emphasis on criteria of profitability and ease of implementation), including two
sub-sections: market-based mechanisms, non market-based mechanisms. For the
latter, the strategy especially includes the central budget to improve both quality
and quantity.
Mechanism of cost reduction and implementation plan for two years
Investment priorities (for programs and/or PAs)
Financial management proposal, including measures of cost-effectiveness,
efficiency and transparency to be undertaken by the DNB / ME
Implementation Plan FSS-NPAS Phase 1.
Institutional framework for the implementation of the FSS-NPAS and support
business plans at local level (structure, minimum staffing, responsibilities,
estimated cost per year of implementation, and how the implementation will be
financed for the next 4-5 years)
Communications (synthesis of the communications strategy, two pages)
Additional Recommendations (administrative and executive)
Annexes (including the "Progress Report on the Financial Sustainability Strategy
of NPAS" annexed in a separate document).
c) Divide the development of the FSS-NPAS at least in three phases. For example,
Phase 1 (PANE), Phase 2 (CPA), Phase 3 (RRBPE). The project in 2014 (February-July)
must complete Phase 1 and plan the activities to complete Phases 2 and 3 from August
until the end of the project in 2015.
9
The consulting firm or consultant is to submit a proposal for the structure of the ESF-SNAP including a brief
description of the content to be included in each section.
10
Financial mechanisms (FM) can be classified into Market FM and not based on market FM. For each one a
description should include the amount estimated over the next 5-10 years, a brief summary of its financial feasibility,
legal and institutional base, implementation "step by step", estimated cost of implementation. The respective
breakeven analysis and/or financial feasibility can be included in an annex.
25
102. Central budget. The prioritization of financial mechanisms (Progress Report, Section
10.1.3) excludes an essential part, the central state budget. Improving the central budget
of NPAS should be considered a priority. Currently, over 90% of the total available
funds (USD 21,022,563 in 201211) come from the central state budget, and may be
subject to cuts any time during this administration or the next. Therefore, it is essential
that the project should work on: a) strategically protect the existing budget, b) improve
the quality and quantity of the budget in the coming financial years. To achieve this, the
following is recommended:
a) Analyse the level of budget execution in the last 10 years, and potential
bottlenecks impeding its full implementation.
b) Analyse the approach currently used for the preparation of the budget of PAs:
incremental, based on priorities or results, with its strengths and weaknesses.
c) Analyse the effectiveness of each of the stages of preparation of Budget of PAsPANE: formulation, negotiation at executive level, Assembly level approval,
implementation and evaluation; and interactions between each of these phases.
Based on this, propose an improvement plan.
d) Develop, within the requirements and guidelines of SENPLADES/Ministry of
Finance, a budget based on measurable outcomes and priorities of conservation,
with realistic costs.
e) Develop and negotiate with SENPLADES/MF indicators of conservation results
to be included in the budget of PAs.
f) Develop and negotiate with SENPLADES/MF indicators of cost-effectiveness,
efficiency and transparency, to be included in the budget of APs
g) Develop and negotiate with SENPLADES/MF indicators of economic impact at
the level of the productive sector.
h) On the basis of the points e), f) and g), negotiate annual increases based on
results and experience with pilot PAs.
i) Prepare an action plan to support the political process related to the budget
approval process at all stages.
j) Incorporate elements of e), f) and g) in project communications campaign/ME.
103. Retention of self-generated resources. As priority, the project should work on
regulations to ensure retention of resources in PAs. Document Progress Report (11.4)
states that "Since the resources that generate the ME from taxes would be considered
fiscal resources ... and according to Art. 99 of COPFP, the resources proceeding from
fees could be allocated to NPAS management activities, but it would be necessary to
create specific regulations, an executive decree". Therefore it is essential that the Project
should work to achieve a regulation to retain resources at least in two of the PAs; and
use these results as a reference to prepare a regulatory process with a wider coverage.
104. Concessions, bailment, cooperation agreements. Because presidential policy
(command and control) abolished the cost of entry tickets to parks (USD 00), and
controlled prices for services (an amount of USD 5.00 is raised to use high mountain
shelters); this creates serious limitations for financial market mechanisms per FSSNPAS, and business plans at site level. Because the DNB is obliged to respect this
11
It includes the contribution of the projects coming from GEF-SF-NPAS, NPAS-KfW, and international NGOs.
26
policy, it is essential to analyse the strategy used for the implementation of financial
market mechanisms related to use of PHC services.
105. The presidential mandate, however, does not prevent from charging for services in parks
of PANE and the project is taking this opportunity. For example in the case of
concessions (cooperation agreements) for shelters it is important that the strategy is
revised in order to maintain the Presidential vision while working with "growth
potential profitability" in order to design a more cost efficient model in the medium and
long term.
106. As indicated in the Progress Report of the FSS-NPAS and as verified during the January
visit, concessions have been designed only as mechanisms to reduce costs; and they are
expected to generate a basic profitability sufficient to maintain interest in the
concessions. To this effect, breakeven analysis and financial feasibility have been
carried out. On this basis, the project has managed to negotiate with the Presidency
appropriate amounts for service fees of shelters. However, it is recommended that
initially the concessions as mechanisms for cost reduction are maintained, while the
profitability do not exceeds 20% of the annual amount needed for operation and
maintenance. Assuming that the model works and that profitability increases
progressively, it is recommended that once the profitability reaches or passes 20% it is
introduced a fee on the annual return surpassing 20%. This means that the cost
reduction mechanism could become a double function mechanism in the future;
reducing costs and generating additional resources to cover operating expenses of the
APs. For this, we recommend revising the cooperation agreement to introduce this
option, for example, after the first two years of operation. The following graphic
illustrates this possibility.
107. Additionally, it should be considered that the success of market mechanisms, such as
concessions in PAs, highly depend on a free relationship between supply and demand
and how this relationship governs, for example, the quality and the prices of certain
products offered in concession sites. The ME has currently determined a partial control
27
on prices of certain products; this should be reviewed and limited to a minimum number
of products (e.g. bottled water). During interviews in January it was mentioned for
example, the granting of the Centre for Crafts (Cotopaxi NP), where there is a new and
modern infrastructure. According to reports, there are more than ten stalls selling crafts,
selling the same low quality products. If this was to increase the price control, it can
lead to failure of the concession. It is recommended that the approach should be offering
"options" to the visitor through product and quality diversification; and, on this basis,
generating competitive prices.
108. Coverage of the financial mechanisms of the FSS-NPAS. Current Financial
mechanisms have limited coverage with respect to the four PAs subsystems that the
FSS-NPAS should cover. This is illustrated in the following table. Achieving a FSS with
4 subsystems is a complex task, too long compared to the remainder of the project.
Therefore it is recommended to develop the FSS-NPAS phases.
Table 6: Coverage of FSS-NPAS
Cobertura de la ESF-SNAP (Diciembre 2103)
Gestión
Mecanismos financieros trabajados a diciembre 2103 en APs piloto
SNAP (Continental)
# de
Requiere plan
Aps
de manejo
piloto
Sub-nivel
1 AP-PANE
2 AP Comunitarias
3 APPRI: Nodos bosques protectores (Nor
occidente/Manabí)*
4 APGAD
Requiere plan
de negocios
Mejoramiento
Requiere presupuesto
proyecto gobierno central
de
o municipal
inversión
(calidad y
cantidad)
6
1
Si
Si
Si
No
No
Si
2
Si
Si
Si
0
Si
Si
No
Mecanismos
financieros no
basados en
mercado
●
Mecanismos
Estrategias
financieros
reducción de
basados en
costos
mercado
●
Planes de
negocios
●
Proyectos
de
inversión
(pequeñas
donacione
s)
●
●
●
●
* Solo Bosques Protectores Privados de CBRPE, PRODOC
109. From the point of view of specific products, although the formulation of products such
as FSS-NPAS and business plans of the pilot PAs is ongoing, the task is still long and
complex. This is illustrated in the following table. Therefore it is recommended that
priority items are those related to the PANE and CPA; and the number of business plans
and investment projects in APs should be limited to a maximum of two per node.
Table 7: Products related to FSS-NPAS (Continental)
28
# de
Aps
piloto
Sub-nivel
1
2
Productos relacionados con la ESF-SNAP (Continental)
Análisis
brechas
Levantamiento
Plan de
Proyecto
financieras o de informacion
ESF
negocios
inversión^^
necesidades
de base
de inversión
AP PANE
6
√
AP Comunitarias
1
F
APPRI: Nodos bosques protectores**
2
F
AP Municipales (APGAD)
Completo
En proceso
Falta
No aplicable
Fuente: PRODOC
Propuesta recibida
0
n/a
3
4
√
●
F
n/a
**
^^
√
●
F
●
n/a
F
●
√ (Nor
Occidente)
F
√ (2)
●
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Productos pendientes
ESF-SNAP, 6 planes de negocios
Un analisis de brechas financieras y un
plan de negocios
2 análisis de necesidades de inversión a
nivel de nodos; y planes de inversion (16
Reservas Nor Occidente y xx Reservas
Manabi)
n/a
110. Implementation plans of FSS-NPAS and support to business plans at site level. The
establishment of a technical unit " Support Unit to Business Development" is
recommended; which may, in future, be incorporated into the management structure of
DNB/ME or the unit, which will finally administer the NPAS. This technical support is
essential once the FSS-NPAS (Phase 1) and business plans are underway, and the
information about the values of the PAs of PANE is available. It is recommended to start
negotiations with the technical cooperation to mobilize technical staff for this purpose.
For example, this unit will require at least the following staff in the early years of
operation:
Table 8: Required personnel for the first years
Post
1. Unit Chief. MBA or
economist with great ability
to make business with
exceptional skills in public
relations: consultant
(contract)
2. Marketing and
communications
3. MBA/economist with
specialization in natural
resources
4. Administrative support
Time
Full time
contract based
on performance
(with possible
bonus based on
achieved funds)
Part-time
Part-time
Part-time
Payed by
20142015
Project
2016-2018
2019……
Technical
Cooperation
NPAS
Project
ME
NPAS
Project
Technical
Cooperation
NPAS
ME
NPAS
111. Starting in 2019, all costs associated with the operation of this new unit should be
covered by one or more of the mechanisms proposed in the FSS-NPAS. The ToR for
this unit is included in Annex XX, with a similar model of the Ministry of Environment
of Peru.
112. Policy of payment for services for visitors of PAs. The Project is currently working
only with stiff fees for services (policy of command and control). It is recommended to
offer "more options to the customer" to maximize profitability, while reducing the
29
administrative burden of the PA. This involves returning the power of decision-making
to the customer (visitor to the AP). This policy may diversify the following key
elements:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Different types of tickets to access services
Duration of tickets
Number of people allowed for each type of ticket
Flexible pricing policy (different prices for different types of tickets)
Different points of sale
Different forms of payment
113. Strategies for cost reduction. A critical step in the development of the FSS-NPAS is
the inclusion of strategies to reduce costs, particularly in the area of service delivery.
For this, it is recommended to identify opportunities for cost savings and prepare a work
plan for two years. It is further recommended that the FSS-NPAS should count on a
section devoted to this topic. This will help managers of PAs to become more aware of
the costs of managing their APs. Examples of cost reduction strategies are included in
the following table:
Ejemplos de posibles estrategias de reducción de costos SNAP-PANE
Prioridad
(1=alta/2=media/3=baja)
Fase I
Fase II
Fase III
Monto estimado
de ahorro anual
Fase 1 (USD)
1
Contratar servicios de terceros para servicios que no se consideran necesarios de mantener en el SNAP.
1
0
2
Evaluar los modelos de visita y desarrollar visitas auto guiadas para reducir las necesidades de personal en
las temporadas bajas de visitación.
Una vez definidas las diferentes tarifas por servicios dentro de las APs, y promover el uso de mecanismos
alternativos de pago- cobro para reducir el personal a tiempo completo asignado a funciones relacionadas
con estos servicios.
Optimizar el uso de la flota de vehículos asignados a APs, a través de un plan de “compartir vehículos” con el
fin de reducir el tamaño y los costos de mantenimiento de la los vehículos.
1
0
1
0
5
Arrendamiento, concesión o comodato de cualquier infraestructura subutilizada pre-existente o nueva
(actualmente en proceso).
1
6
Uso del equipo más eficientes: Sistemas de ACC (Aire Acondicionado y Calefacción), bobillas LED de larga
vida/auto-apagado, paneles solares (calentadores de agua) para una mayor eficiencia.
Promover el que las APs del PANE se conviertan en sitios sitio de demostración para los vendedores de
equipos de energía eficiente. Por ejemplo fabricantes de automóviles / distribuidores pueden donar los
vehículos de bajo consumo de combustible (hibridos-electricos) para el uso del parque y obtener mercadeo
gratuito a los miles de personas que anualmente visitan los parques (PANE).
3
4
7
8
9
Analizar de cuellos de botella que impiden el gasto total del presupuesto anual actualmente asignado y
eliminación de obstáculos.
Introducir “compras de volumen” para el caso de bienes que se requieren en forma permanente
10 Extiende la vida útil de los bienes y equipos (dando énfasis en un plan de mantenimiento preventivo)
11 Lograr u mejor equilibrio entre el personal a tiempo completo, contrato de corto plazo y consultores; utilizando
recursos de la "cooperación técnica" para mejorar este equilibrio y aumentar la capacidad de gestión,
especialmente en el área de gestión financiera (implementación de la ESF y planes de negocios)
12 Análisis de los ahorros en las principales partidas de gastos.
13 Ajustes estratégicos en los programas y actividades de los planes de manejo de las APs
14 Mayor eficiencia de los sistemas financieros administrativa
15 Delegar la gestión administrativa y financiera de APs, como el caso de la reserva del Cajas
16 Formalizar un numero mínimo de alianzas estratégicas
Total estimado de ahorros anuales en la fase 1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Output 2.2 Management and business plans for pilot areas have been developed and
are operative
30
114. Update existing management plans through the introduction of major programs, generic
for most APs of NPAS and special programs for some APs; organize conservation
programs simply, so that they can define their costs easily. Avoid developing brand new
management plans, unless no previous plan exists. This activity is already underway.
115. At all AP level, clearly the use of this tool has not been considered in terms of business
plan. That term is not used, because it gives the impression that the AP had a strictly
business sense. The Term “financial sustainability plans” is preferred, and thus
management plans have a chapter of financial sustainability. They are looking for a
more detailed development of the business plan based on the strategy for financial
sustainability of NPAS.
116. After analysing with the UNDP RO the progress of this output, it is clear that these
elements actually make reference to the development of management plans and
financing plans of the pilot areas. Business plans for productive initiatives are handled
from the outcome 4.
117. Clearly define what the project considered for BP12 for PAs of PANE and investment
plans for private PAs; and define standard methodologies for the two cases. Immediately
work in the BP of selected APs of PANE. For example, the BP should include the
following sections clearly identifiable:
-
-
Introduction
Definition and coverage
Summary of the financial position of AP
Financial Goal of BP (on the basis of financial need as determined by the needs
assessment).
Financial mechanisms13 to achieve financial goal: synthesis of selection and
include two sub-sections: market-based mechanisms, non market-based
mechanisms.
Mechanism of cost reduction and implementation plan for two years
Investment priorities (for programs)
Financial management proposal (funds management)
BP implementation plan and cost.
Structure and team proposed for implementation of BP
Additional Recommendations (administrative and executive)
12
Business Plan (BP) of protected areas (PA): In general, the business plan is a financial management tool that
describes the actions necessary to implement one or more financial mechanism and maximize profitability, in order to
reach the financial goal that proposed for the mechanisms. Therefore, based on the best business model that is defined
in the operative feasibility study of the mechanism, actions and activities necessary for the efficient execution or
selected financial mechanism are presented. The BP should be developed only when, through operative feasibility
study, we have determined that the selected or financial mechanisms are viable. In addition, the BP may further
include cost reduction strategies and priorities for investment. On the other hand, the BP for AP should clearly state
the cost and implementation responsibilities. In short, a BP provides a "roadmap" to establish viable financial
mechanisms and additional mechanisms to achieve financial goals (Flores, M., 2013).
13
Financial mechanisms (FM) can be classified into Market FM and not based on market FM. For each one a
description should include the amount estimated over the next 5-10 years, a brief summary of its financial feasibility,
legal and institutional base, implementation "step by step", estimated cost of implementation. The respective
breakeven analysis and/or financial feasibility can be included in an annex.
31
Output 2.3 Management and M&E system to supervise administrative, financial and technical
issues has been installed and is operational.
118. The output is being worked through the BIS system (Biodiversity Information System)
and it is underway. There is already a general outline related to finance including PAs
elements. For example, an operating section to support the patenting of tourism. It is
recommended to prepare an annual work plan including essential elements to improve
budget management of PAs of PANE; a system that links the following:






Existing Funds, gaps and needs, for program and for PA;
Income from financial mechanisms
System to define investment priorities and estimated results
Evaluation of priorities based on results, for conservation programs and score.
Performance of cost saving mechanisms.
Measuring impact through conservation indicators, cost-effectiveness and economic
impact.
 Financial management system information including: a) classification of standard data
to record financial information of PAs; b) Internal controls over data entry, transaction
processing, priority assignments, trends in income and expenditure and reporting; c)
common processes across all APs for similar transactions and a system avoiding
unnecessary duplication of data entry.
119. It is further recommended that the project should be put in touch with a PA system in a
neighbouring country, such as SINAC of Costa Rica, for a technical exchange with the
purpose of designing the NPAS system, based on practical experience of other
countries.
120. On the other hand, the FAP can support as a complement to financial monitoring and
evaluation. The FAP provides financial support to 30 APs providing a system of
coordinated and transparent accounting; the project should coordinate with the FAP to
analyse what can be learned from this system.
121. The IFMS (Integrated Financial Management of Public Sector), Ministry of Finance, is
perhaps the most important of all these systems. It allows transparency on expenditure
but it is not yet established at AP level; because the NPAS does not exist institutionally,
there is no accounting system for it. However, if the Ministry of Environment is
connected to the IFMS, the project must coordinate with the MF to develop the
respective complementarity between IFMS and BIS.
122. Finally, it is recommended to continue applying the Financial Score List of UNDP,
which has been instrumental to track income, financial needs and gaps of NPAS. The
following application can be made at the end of the project. Also, continue to monitor
with support of METT. This international tool was fed back with domestic inputs,
generating a new version (EEM - Ecuador) more oriented to national needs but fully
compatible globally; allowing Ecuador to analyse the situation with other countries and
internally area by area. It is very important to note that the PFS through the ME
achieved to standardize the use of this tool at national level. In 2013, the average
percentage measured by EEM for PAs of NPAS was 46.47%; the highest score was
awarded to the Cajas National Park (79.3%) and the lowest the Cofan Bermejo
Ecological Reserve (12.3%). It is important to Note that only two of the nine AP pilot
projects obtained, in 2013, a score higher than the average, the Chimborazo and
Cuyabeno Reserves. Similarly, it is recommended to apply the EEM again at the end of
32
the project to analyse what specific changes occurred as a result of the project. Because
financial mechanisms proposed by the project still do not give returns, it is advisable to
wait at least until the end of the project.
Output 2.4 Training program for financial planning, management and M&E (budgeting,
operational planning, monitoring, reporting, accountability and managing for results).
123. The project works closely with Green Classroom Program of the Ministry of
Environment acting as Government Centre Education for rangers, area managers and
staff of administrative and financial FAP (Protected Areas Fund).
124. Strengthening capacity in finance for PAs. The project proposes the training of 41
persons, and this object is progressing. However, the project design does not define
specific institutional and individual objectives; in addition, the project has yet to
develop a rigorous plan for capacity building, based on the assessment of actual needs.
The capacity building should be specific and avoid the approach of "one size-fits for all"
approach. This approach is typical in workshops designed for a large number of people
from different institutions, professional backgrounds and different training needs. It is
recommended that basic criteria and training is geared to create a national network of
"champions" in funding PAs at different levels; for instance:
 Expert in financing for PAs (trainer of trainers). Person who, with the
support of the project, developed solid skills; he/she has participated in the
design of at least one financial strategy for APs or business plans, has expertise
in a specific aspect of financial planning for PAs, and can provide direct advice
on aspects of finance for PAs.
 Facilitator in funding APs. Person who, with the support of the project, can
work to strengthen the financial capacity of PAs; he/she has deep general
knowledge about the issues involved in the design and implementation of
projects and financial, political strategies; he/she is able to facilitate workshops,
communicating information related to the finances of APs through presentations
and lectures, and can systematize national or regional trends.
 Strategic partners in financing APs. Person who, with the support of the
project, was involved in the development and implementation of financial
mechanisms for APs; has firsthand knowledge of the planning of these
mechanisms, and can participate in processes leading theory to practice.
Strategic partners are people from the private sector and from government
agencies.
125. Moreover, the project must determine the level of formality for training, for the above
levels. The plan of capacity development may include formal and informal training.
However, training should be systematic in relation to the number of hours, media, issues
and results (number of champions "graduated"). The training plan should answer the
following questions:
 what are the preconditions for a potential champion in finance for APs?
 what kind of champions in finance APs are needed?
 how to select a potential champion in finances of APs?
33
 how many champions are needed to ensure the sustainability of the project goal
and sustainable results in the long run?
 what is the "critical mass" of champions for each level?
 what training is needed to become a champion at every level?
 what are the most appropriate mechanisms for the training of potential
champions?
 what is the format required for instructional design training materials in finance
from APs for each target group?
 what are the most appropriate learning models for different target groups?
 how is the learning process monitored?
 how can the project verify if a person meets the requirements to be a champion
at the end of the project?
 how can the Champions participate in future financing activities of AP,
including negotiation of financial mechanisms?
 What is the cost of creating a champion? and how are these costs considered in
the FSS-NPAS?
126. There is a system of monitoring and evaluation to show how effectively PAs use
available resources (e.g. Disbursement rate and cost effectiveness) to achieve
management objectives. In this sense, the FAP has a system for assess spending
effectiveness and another for monitoring. The first one measures the quality of
expenditure in terms of environmental impact, and the second one is to follow-up the
implementation of expenditure allocation14. The FAP has an accounting manager, but
there is no formal process of generating capacity, however, the project supports and
promotes the strengthening of administrators and accountants across the Green
Classroom Training Program. There are also some activities within the FAP cycle
carried out informally. We worked closely with the training program of the School of
"Green Classroom" to include the economic issue in the curricula; that is, the
development of modules of Institutional Management (administration and finance) and
Basic Account Management for the professional training of rangers in protected areas,
as well as the design of a specific training program for accounting/administrative staff
for APs funded by FAP.
127. In order to strengthen the institutional capacities of the CNBRPE, an administrative
diagnosis and communications skills analysis were conducted. These results helped to
lead an emerging plan to focus efforts on key issues for building the internal capabilities
of the institution.
Result 3. Increase of awareness about the value of NPAS in key stakeholders
(communities living in PAs, public authorities and private/public investors)
Output 3.1 Complete the existing study with specific economic valuations
14
The evaluation system of management effectiveness differs from the METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking
Tool), since the latter is one of the tools used and adapted to apply generic systems worldwide for evaluating
management effectiveness of protected area. Used to report progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The rapid assessment methodology is based on a control panel, which includes the six elements of management
identified in the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Commission on Protected Areas.
34
128. The externalities of the new management model of NPAS (zeroing entrance fees and
increased public investment) are being analysed through a study of socio-economic
assessment of benefits and costs. The objective of this exercise is to determine the
impact of the presidential action (free admission to the AP and increased public
investment) in stimulating local economic and sectors; and the management of PAs. The
process is 40% complete and results are expected in May 2014.
129. Revise the ToRs for the study of economic valuation of PAs; and apply the TSA
methodology (Targeted Scenario Analysis) recently published by UNDP in December
2013. "TSA is based and combines traditional cost-benefit and other economic valuation
methods benefits, expanding the type of information captured. TSA promotes a sectoral
approach for valuation to reflect the perspective and expertise of policy makers and
business development. The TSA is consistent with TEEB”.
130. Include the development of economic impact indicators as part of the study of economic
value.
131. From 2012 to 2013, the valuation of environmental services was held in private and
community areas. In studies of environmental services in the Humedal La Tembladera,
the agricultural potential of the area was evident, so that the environmental service
provided by La Tembladera for irrigation is very high. A Water Board will be created in
order to manage this resource efficiently and to ensure the sustainability of the
Humedal.
132. On the other hand, it was achieved that several surrounding owners accept reforest the
banks of the wetland, since the first tree planting was done in coordination with the
Provincial Government of El Oro and volunteers of the Internal Revenue System. About
300 trees were planted, which is a good step forward.
133. Basic information was obtained on the behaviour of the activity related to forest
protection against exploitation option, considering the conditions of national forestry
market.
Output 3.2 Biomass Stock assessment of PANE.
134. The project has not yet made significant progress in this output. This is a very complex
issue and requires a number of inputs and processes that are completely beyond the
control of the project; developing a project REED is complex and lengthy. The final
evaluation of UNDP-GEF Global Project "Institutionalizing of PSA" (UNDP, 2012)
note that it takes at least 3-4 years from the preliminary analysis until the project is
operational, assuming that different phases are implemented without delays and political
pressures. The following table illustrates the complexity of such projects, including at
least 4 phases with different outputs each. Moreover, the development of capacity at
rural communities level is an additional, lengthy and costly challenge that these projects
face; its implementation generally rests on an NGO specializing in community
development. This can add another layer of complexity.
Table 9: Development Process of a REDD Project
35
Esquema ilustrativo del proceso de desarrollo de un proyecto REDD (PSA Carbono)
Implementación
Proyecto totalmente operacional
verificación
Plan de monitoreo completo
e) Implementación y monitoreo
Pago de PSA inicia
Financiamiento y aprobación de terceras partes
asegurado
Acuerdos financieros asegurado
Validación externa
Marco regulatoria del país aprobado
PDD desarrollado
PDD completo
Análisis del PDD
Selección de metodología
Enganche de posibles compradores o
inversionistas
d) Establecimiento de Acuerdos
financieros y obtención de
Aprobación es del proyecto
c) Desarrollo del PDD
Asegurara financiamiento para el PDD
Diseño del proyecto completo
Desarrollo de plan de monitoreo social y de
biodiversidad
Análisis legal completo
Desino e actividades del proyecto
involucramiento de comunidades
b) Diseño y planificación del proyecto
Identificación de mercado
Diagnóstico preliminar completo
Estudio de factibilidad
Borrador del la idea del proyecto
Preparar diagnóstico preliminar
a) Diagnóstico preliminar
|
inicio de actividades de conservación
Preparación (Readiness)
UNDP, 2012 (Institutionalizing PES, Project Final Evaluation)
135. Such projects (REDD) may be even more complex in the case of communities within
PAs, since, cutting down trees is generally prohibited by law, therefore the forest is
already protected. In this case, a Project of PSA (carbon) is not required to eliminate
deforestation and/or reforestation of areas subject to illegal cutting. Also, if law
prohibits it, creating a subsidy through a program of PSA-REDD involves a "payment"
as a condition to respect the law. Governments have used this argument, Brazil for
example, to discourage REDD projects in areas where forest clearing is already
prohibited by law. In the case of Ecuador, the Yasuní-ITT initiative, which also was
associated with REDD, is another example of the complexity and volatility that such
initiatives face.
136. It is recommended that the study "Evaluation of the biomass stock of the PANE", and
the inclusion of REDD projects in the FSS-NPAS should not be a priority for the
project; analyse if this output can be run through a more appropriate project. The Output
3.2 may be eliminated without affecting the FSS-NPAS.
137. So far the experience in national forest inventories of Ecuador has been focused on
certain regions of the country, especially in inventories related to the floristic
composition and plant diversity monitoring.
138. For this reason the National Forestry Directorate of the Ministry of Environment of
Ecuador initiated a process to develop forest inventory at national level, for which a
methodology addressing national needs was developed and in addition allows the
country access to carbon markets. This effort concluded with a national forest map
available today. The project supported this action in 2012 collecting information on
stock biomass of moretales and mangroves.
139. FAO significantly contributed to provide technical support to the methodological
development of the National Forest Assessment, both at national and international level,
adjusting the methodology to the international agreements on the quantification of forest
carbon.
Output 3.3 Communication campaign aimed at to demonstrate the tangible benefits, based
on economic and social value, of NPAS
36
140. Communications strategy. Prepare an annual work plan for the communication
campaign to accommodate the new approach in the second phase of the project. This
plan should logically include: goals, target population, subjects, who, how, when and
where. It is recommended that the strategy should expand its coverage to include three
important and inclusive aspects.
141. It is critical that the campaign communicate "how" PAs are becoming cost-effective
conservation agents, efficient and transparent; as well as how state investments in
APs/ecosystems are essential to maintain and increase the long-term production of the
key sectors of the national economy that depend on ecosystem services. Therefore, it is
imperative that the campaign should include the "how" PAs ensure the quality of public
expenditure and increasing opportunity cost. The following three aspects should be
highlighted:
a) How conservation results are being redefined. Select examples of proposed
conservation scores. Do not display only exotic animals and natural sites. It is important
to communicate examples of what results on these sites are.
b) How indicators of cost-effectiveness, efficiency and transparency in the financial
management of PAs are being introduced. Communicate clearly how the ME aims to
achieve with the least investment increased production of results. Here, it is important to
avoid comparisons with other countries whose PA systems can be inefficient. Efficient
APs are spending less and produce more results. An example of what should not be
done, according to the Ministry of Finance of Chile and the Ministry of Finance of Peru,
is to use the level of investment per hectare as an indicator of good quality conservation.
This, in the eyes of the Ministry of Finance and SEMPLADES implies that the more
you spend the better preserved. This is one of the great misconceptions of the
conservation sector. There is no evidence that "the more you spend, the better
preserved." As it is known, most developing countries and transition economies fail to
spend what is assigned to them and permanently ask for more funds. It should be noted
that this has not worked in the past.
c) Communicate the economic contribution of PAs/ecosystems to the development
sector (e.g. tourism, hydro-energy, agriculture); communicate what the initial goals set
by the APs are, to ensure that this contribution remains in the long term. Also,
communicate the risks that may result from the lack of investment in conservation of
PAs and ecosystem supporting sectoral output.
142. In July 2013 the Second National Congress on Protected Areas was held; this event after
10 years achieved to show the significant changes that have occurred in the NPAS and
focused on the new management model. In total 600 people among panellists, guests
and attendees was recorded; 20 lectures; 50 exposures; a photo contest; three releases of
books and a trilateral forum.
143. A communication strategy based on the recognition of the importance of NPAS and its
contribution to the national economy is underway. In this regard a series of actions
across different media and social networks (blogs, press releases, newsletters, Facebook,
WE quarterly newsletter, etc.) were undertaken. The communication strategy also relies
on the website of CNBRE (http://reservasprivadasecuador.com/reservas/historia_red)
37
and the website of The Humedal
ecuador.com/tembladera/node/1).
La
Tembladera
(http://latembladera-
144. The main objective of the campaign is to communicate how the ME is working to
introduce, based on measurable results, elements of cost effectiveness, efficiency and
transparency to optimize the annual budgets of the PAs and achieve progressive
increases in annual allocations of the central government. This is essential on one hand,
to strengthen the financial sustainability of long-term NPAS and secondly, to sustain the
productivity of sectors dependent on ecosystem services.
Output 3.4 Capacities of stakeholders to negotiate funding with different partners were
developed.
145. The CNBRPE identified as a priority the construction of an Interpretation, Marketing
and Gathering Centre as a strategy for financial sustainability of private reserves in the
Northwest. The Centre will provide a space for the development of marketing of
agricultural products and tourism services of private reserves, including in this space
organizations of organic producers and local governments of the Andean Choco
Bioregion.
146. The Centre will directly or indirectly benefit about 2,000 families. The project is
expected to support the first operational phase of the centre, however the CNBRPE will
be in charge of the administration.
147. Furthermore, in June 2013 Ecuador was accepted as a member of the Ibero-American
Model Forest Network (IAMFN) and will host the next meeting of the Board, from 17
to 21 March 2014. For this purpose, private reserves in the Northwest are preparing the
nomination dossier to make the Northwest the first Model Forest of Ecuador. The Model
Forest is an area of sustainable human development, where residing population plan the
management of goods and services provided by the forest and other ecosystems, in a
consensual manner. This management model contributes to institutional strengthening
CNBRPE while supports a Latin American initiative that contributes to poverty
reduction targets, climate change, desertification and millennium goals. More than 31
million hectares in 14 countries of Latin America are part of the 28 Model Forests in
this region.
148. See recommendation to Output 4.
Result 4. Replicable models of profitable management for sustainable net income
are approved through demonstrative experiences by the community by the
community and the public and private sector.
Output 4.1 Models of sustainable net income (business cases) selected, funded and operative
in pilot areas of PANE
38
Output 4.2 Models of sustainable net income (business cases) selected, funded and operative
in pilot community areas.
149. The Result 4 of the project, at the time, does not match the profile to generate revenue
or save costs. It is more a mechanism to support community development in and around
PAs; and it is a political issue (social-environmental conflict). The project is addressing
Outcome 4 through small grant funding called "Competitive Funding Mechanism"
(CFM). Last December, the project received 44 projects. These included small
investment projects related to tourism (7), agro-ecological production (15), crafts and
livestock management. Of these, 22 projects have been pre-selected and will be assessed
at three levels: organizational assessment, analysis for improving the profile, field visit.
It is estimated that the maximum amount for each project will be approximately USD
50,000. The total amount available for CFM is approximately USD 1.2 million. There is
no provision of funds to meet potential future demand.
150. It is assumed that technical capacity of the DNB and the ME on the issue of community
development and small grants is limited, because the subject exceeds the scope of the
ME. The project provides technical support to manage the CFM component. At the
time, the project has not even specific financial analysis to determine the financial goals
of CFM. This is, firstly, the level of expected revenue increase for beneficiaries, and
secondly, the amount of savings expected through the participation of beneficiaries in
the implementation of one or more program management in PAs (e.g. patrolling and
monitoring); and saving for a possible reduction of pressures on PAs. For now, it is not
possible to assume that all or most of the funded projects will succeed and achieve the
financial goals that arise.
151. For the above reasons, it is considered that CFM involves risks and so far this activity
cannot be classified as cost savings mechanism. It is recommended to conduct a costbenefit analysis to determine whether this investment, which will be in the year 2104 to
2016, has the capacity to result in increased income for beneficiaries and reduce
management costs for PAs. This analysis should take into account potential savings for
further reducing pressures AP. If the results are negative, there is the option of
introducing a CFM program in management plans for PAs, but this would represent an
additional cost to the ME. Consequently, until there is evidence of the financial potential
of MFC, it is not advisable to include this mechanism in the FSS-NPAS.
152. We further recommend that the project should include new strategic partners, able to get
the CFM program continued from 2015, when the project funds for this activity will be
exhausted.
7. SUSTAINABILITY
153. Sustainability of the Action: The ongoing project has proven to be able to install a new
regulatory framework on protected areas while a working methodology and interactoral
linkage are being tested to set the basis for a sustainable action.
39
154. The greatest risk lies in the continuity of policies designed by the political and
institutional environmental areas and the persistent interest of national government to
support those policies; much of this risk is mitigated through specific measures that are
being considered with the ME. The project advocates through an inter-jurisdictional
legislative framework for the design and continuity of policies, programs and projects of
existing protected areas, including the appropriate allocation of technical and financial
resources for its implementation. In particular, the project is focusing on installing a
system.
155. The second level of risk is the political fragmentation of decision-making on the support
to the community and local institutions; it is expected to be prevented/avoided through
the formulation of basic agreements for development programs and projects by public
and private institutions involved; creating a culture of participation of civil society in
decision-making that contributes to the maintenance of the participation, regardless of
fluctuations in the aptitudes of each stakeholder.
156. Economic and financial sustainability: the economic viability of the project has been
planned since the design of this initiative through the participation of institutional
partners from the public and private sector with extensive experience working in AP and
adequate levels of funding for medium and long term. The activities for the visibility
and awareness of citizenship clearly highlight the benefits for society that protected
areas generate (its goods and ecosystem services), the reduction of vulnerability in the
areas of increased risk (job loss, impairment of health, loss of opportunities for
recreation, education and enjoyment). Some key instances, still missing, (such as the
launch of Green Point and institutional modification of NPAS) will be sustained through
campaigns that the organizations and their partners regularly hold. With regard to
prevention activities, it is estimated that public bodies are establishing resources to this
subject.
157. Institutional Sustainability: The generation of a special institutional status for NPAS
(not yet defined but in progress) will create long-term sustainability, although the fact of
being included in the Constitution implies a strong decision and bet for PAs.
158. The activities underway will establish a solid methodology for active participation of
local public institutions, civil society and its organizations. This participation promotes
institutional sustainability of the project through a process of ownership, in which each
actor can determine its contribution and responsibilities. The creation of permanent
public/private bodies, able to plan and implement conservation policies for PAs is
expected. They are already generating actions within a strategy of institutional
strengthening, including a special development of social and institutional networks. The
public institutions involved as key players will be responsible to implement effective
policies applicable to protected areas, to ensure comprehensive long-term sustainability.
The project will involve follow-up actions within the strategies of each institution,
including municipalities, governments and private enterprises, CSOs. The project is a
key element for the capacity building and institutional strengthening of the stakeholders
(government officials and leaders of organizations considered in a broad spectrum
ranging from academic institutions and environmental organizations, trade unions and
cooperatives).
159. The experts hired by the project use examples of "good practice" (in the national,
regional and international contexts) in order to increase capacity for action at
institutional level to influence specific issues. They are building capacity at local level
to strengthen the CNBRPE and ensure participation to competitive funding mechanism
40
for communities and grassroots organizations; this will be a reference point to establish
effective linkages with the private/business sector, the public sector and the project
team.
160. Sociocultural sustainability: The project focuses primarily on strengthening the
various levels of coordination between public institutions and civil society. It is the
consolidation of a new socio-cultural paradigm of involvement of citizens in the
conservation challenges. In this sense it provides, in accordance with national, regional
and other organizations strategies, a massive awareness and prevention campaign on
these issues, in order to provide information and create collective consciousness.
161. Environmental Sustainability: Environmental sustainability is the core of the proposed
initiative, as it aims to contribute in a relevant way, through a financial sustainability
strategy with effective participation of civil society, government and private companies,
to the maintenance of goods and services provided by the Aps. It promotes mechanisms
for the long-term conservation management of biodiversity by incorporating the concept
of biodiversity conservation and social production approach.
Table 10: Classification of sustainability dimensions15
Dimensions of sustainability
Classification
Financial Resources
Moderately Probable
Socio-Political
Probable
Institutional Framework and
Governance
Probable
Environmental
Probable
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
162. The project has evolved over time with some criticisms and changes, which affected the
planned schedule of the activities, so an extension to allow completion of the most
important activities is recommended.
On the design
15Categories:
Probable (P): there are no risks to this sustainability dimension; Moderately probable (MP): there are
some risks to this sustainability dimension; Moderately Improbable (MI): there are significant risks to this sustainability dimension; Improbable (I): There are severe risks to this sustainability dimension.
41
163. The design was developed in a context of changes and tension between
Productive/extractive and Natural Ecuador that the NPAS tried to overcome with an
integrated approach.
164.
165. This context was politically expedient to support national policies, plans and programs
giving special importance to environmental issues, and a new concept of land
management and decentralization.
166. The project presents an adaptive, flexible and participatory design of all outputs
involved.
167. The use of a participatory methodology (e.g. diagnoses made with the population of the
AP, reflected in management plans and management areas) and a collaborative approach
with local stakeholders helped to promote mutual understanding, although this point
should be strengthened.
168. The MTR highlights design consistency with GEF objectives and strategy of the
Government of Ecuador, and synergy with other national, regional and local initiatives,
national stakeholders and international cooperation.
On the process
169. At various stages of the implementation of NPAS the interagency linkage was restricted
although proper for the beginning. However this articulation requires a strategic
approach to bridge the gaps that affect the design and further implementation of the
management plans and programs.
170. Regarding effectiveness, the assessment considers that the delays in implementation
have affected the achievement of expected results for this phase, but with extra efforts
and involvement of all stakeholders it will be possible to overcome time lost.
171. The level of ownership varies among stakeholders. At territorial level interdisciplinary
working groups have been consolidated for the task focused on AP, with participation of
other institutional areas of ME and expanding links with other strategic partners,
especially with key stakeholders in the decentralized autonomous governments and
from cooperation and international donors.
172. The ownership degree is directly related to participation during the phase of design,
however the project creates new tools for stakeholders to be involved in the Project
(case of La Tembladera)
173. The main strength of the project is the professional expertise and high commitment
to the territorial labour and, in general, with the creation of a new environmental
conception for Ecuador. The human and technical capital involved in the project and the
confluence of interdisciplinary teams, with specific backgrounds and different
experiences is valuable.
174. The assessment detected, beyond many achievements in the joint work, some
difficulties in the relations between the national and provincial levels, depending on
the institutional political reality, including personal issues of leaders at various levels,
political issues, and different conceptions of conservation and productive use.
42
175. The management structure for the implementation of the project has been
adequate. However, it was not always easy to establish an internal mechanism of joint
response that would achieve rapid institutional support to the issues raised.
176. The administrative management was efficient to maximize revenues with the available
budget and mobilize resources from other sources. The necessary leverage was made to
achieve further resources, especially at local level; the exact magnitude of this
movement will be seen only when reviewing projects submitted to competitive fund.
177. The structure of fund management to areas from the FAN and from the DP should be
reviewed to ensure equitable distribution according to the needs of each AP of PANE.
178. The NPAS is in line with national land use policies, including the participation of civil
society as a key tool. The most successful experiences of private and community PAs
was based on territorial joint work and mobilized local groups.
179. A gender strategy has not been established yet. There are interesting developments in
the private and community reserves and associations of craft workers joined the projects
as well as officials women as Chiefs of Area, Provincial Directors and rangers.
180. The tension between products/processes is due to the limited duration of the project,
and not to the processes necessary to achieve expected results, since changes in attitudes
about conservation can be uniquely long and difficult.
181. Partnerships and institutional relationships have been very important, both for the
active participation of international partners -GEF UNDP Ecuador- and civil society
organizations (as CNBRPE), academic, Technical University of Machala in El Oro and
actors of the productive area (livestock and agricultural tourism) of private reserves.
182. Examples of articulation and building alliances to build consensus with local and
provincial governments, PFS and civil society, for specific projects (such as the
“vieja azul” in the Humedal, Interpretation centre in the Northwest and existing plans
for Green point).
183. All stakeholders have certainty that the continuity of the program and use of their
strategies and products is not threatened by changes of staff, to the extent that there is a
legal scaffolding of support.
184. The assessment finds that, although activities focused on journalists were developed,
there are difficulties in getting a prominent place in the media.
185. Given that the project is coupled to the communication strategies of ME, these are
expected to be defined over time, sensitizing communicators so that the front pages of
environmental issues are not restricted to environmental disasters or conflicts with
extractive industries.
186. The activities in the territory of the PFS must be visible regardless of the institutional
issues, at this point the assistance of UNDP is recommended.
187. Through the project innovative forms of field intervention were installed. However
the models of AP on which the project was based in the original formulation should be
reviewed. As there seems to exist only the pure model PANE, being the others mixed
models (private/state, community/state, community/private/state) and with different
combinations in decision-making and the provision of state resources.
On effectiveness
43
188. Cost-effectiveness of the project in terms of invested resources and achieved results has
been positive.
189. The administrative management was efficient to maximize revenues with the available
budget and mobilize resources from other sources.
190. The structure of fund management from the FAN and from DPs should be reviewed to
ensure equitable distribution according to the needs of each AP of PANE.
191. The NPAS is in line with the land use policies of the country including the participation
of civil society as a key tool.
On the sustainability of the project
192. The NPAS through this project collaborated in strengthening national institutional
capacities of local governments creating real options for sustainability.
193. It remains a determination of the sustainability of the system itself, and the institutional
form it should take. Flagship project, public company, Institute, etc.
194. According to this assessment, the definition of the new format will have a direct impact
on the PFS and should be decided and reflected in the documents produced by the legal
area to ensure that the approval circuit can be put into practice before the end of the
project.
195. The outputs institutionalized will continue to be implemented beyond the project and
will not have continuity threats, although its management plans may suffer difficulties.
196. Based on the implementation of NPAS and analysis of AP there are high chances of
replicating the experience and expand coverage, although this process is currently
stopped, creating a bottleneck difficult to understanding for counterparts (La
Tembladera case).
197. The legal areas of the DNB examined the legal strategies for inclusion of private
reserves as NPAS subsystem, but review by the General Counsel of the ME is still
missing. We suggest checking with private reservists again before sending requirements.
Guidelines for the inclusion of private areas to NPAS were approved at DNB level.
198. Trustful relationships among stakeholders were constructed. With the presence of
GAD in central areas of consultation at local level and national technical committee and
the creation of local or regional areas.
199. The attempts to improve the value chain of tourism and care of nature are
convergent. Private sector can be involved as a specific partner for sustainability.
The community generates new projects and new partnerships and forms of organization
of civil society.
General Recommendations
200. The general conclusion of this technical review is that the project progress and its
outputs, beyond initial delays, are very satisfactory. For example, one important element
for this development was the update of a study on financial gaps of NPAS completed in
July 2013. This output, along with a legal analysis, set the reference point to position the
44
project for its most important partner, the Government. Several technical adjustments
can be made at this stage to more easily meet the objectives and targets of the project.
The following findings, comments and recommendations are organized by each
outcome/result and output. The PFS is working on matters of legal framework and
capacity building, but since the funds in these components will be fully executed by the
end of 2014, it is recommended to focus on the legal framework related to financial
sustainability and continue to work on strengthening capabilities, essential for the
sustainability of many development processes. It is suggested in this regard to mobilize
funds from component 3 and 4 to 1 and 2.
Recommendations to the international cooperation involved in NPAS and which
may be linked in the future
201. The discussion fuelled by international best practices, could improve the overall
quality of international cooperation already linked to the UNDP/GEF project
contribution as German cooperation, IDB and CAF, etc.
202. The contribution of cooperation in consulting and evaluation committees (e.g. in
assessing the competitive fund projects) would also work to appear as a neutral
arbitrator, which is vital in political situations nearby the elections.
203. We advise to analyse environmental calls for the European Union that could assist
with the efforts of other agencies, as well as explore the CAF, World Bank and IDB. In
particular in border protected areas with other countries can be explored initiative of
IDB on Regional Public Goods.
204. Organizations of civil society specialized in gender issues, Afro, rural poverty could
guide efforts to establish mechanisms to strengthen the AP population and could also
cover a key role in monitoring initiatives from the perspective of civil society.
205. Regarding the gender strategy, it would be important to have training and technical
assistance for staff to work the mainstreaming of gender in environmental policy.
206. The rural sector organizations could work together with the PSF in designing strategies.
207. It is recommended to reiterate trainings on procurement and contracting mechanisms of
UNDP in order not to be perceived as "opaque" and unintelligible.
208. We suggest reviewing the content of the training in a participatory manner and "linked"
to the demand.
209. It is recommended to review the intermediate forms of protection in the transition to
AP of a specific site (modalities of "interim" protection).
210. As it pertains to the GEF, we suggest deepening existing agreements with other
projects in member countries of the region, especially in a South South perspective
cooperation.
211. Establish a model of cooperation in which Ecuador could offer a tested system of
PAs in private reserves, with human occupation and relevant tools.
212. International cooperation could provide technical assistance on many key issues,
especially as it pertains to PA financing, institutional systems, planning methodologies.
Recommendations for civil society stakeholders:
45
213. The organizations of the civil society should establish priorities when negotiating with
international cooperation including South- South as well as the NPAS and PAs. This is
especially true for Forest Network, which is already making inroads into the Latin
American scenario.
214. It is necessary to intensify actions to raise awareness among PA’s population about the
need for a change to improve life quality of inhabitants and the importance of income to
sustain the PAs. It is also recommended to carefully analyse management models to
establish clear links with the communities residing in state areas.
215. Key local stakeholders should be identified and incorporated when establishing a PA
before incorporating the area to the NPAS, informing and raising awareness about
implications among the local community. It is also suggested establishing a manorial
study in Community and private PA in which resources of the state or international
cooperation could be allocated.
216. To consider the use of participation and inter-institutional coordination events at the PAs
aiming to listen to the “silent majority.” Join to processes of Conservation Areas and
Sustainable Use (ACUS) or participate through Management Committees.
217. It is suggested to prioritize the consolidation in the future of OSCs participation in PAs
incorporated to the NPAS, to develop maps of key civil society stakeholders before
incorporating new PAs.
218. The OSCs could, in agreement with the NPAS and provincial governments, improve
provision of services in the PAs, such as support for tourist circuits, set up of interpretation centres, teaching of artisan jobs such as knitted fabrics and fishing, sale of crafts
made in PAs, and gastronomic services.
219. To define spaces together with research centres and universities to raise awareness, to
warn about critical processes and/or about opportunities in the territory.
220. Strong institutions that enjoy credibility with civil society in establishing sustainable management arrangements regardless of institutional change allows them to absorb the impacts of changes in leadership and continue a work line above the political
preferences of their directors.
221. The adaptive management system and solutions to differential areas pose challenges;
with creative and inclusive solutions it provides a replicable parameter. In terms of
governance, the flexibility used by the project shows that the PFS was not slowed by the
obstinacy of the application of a single model of governance but it opened to experimentation, generating progressively mixed funding and management models that are a
key answer, at least in the transition to full autonomy.
Role of Pilot Areas
222. The selection criteria for the areas to be incorporated into national programs should be
systematized from the evaluation of the pilot establishing how to implement replication
patterns. The need for areas where the counterparties are reliable, involves a nonenvironmental selection criteria, critical to the success of testing mechanisms. For each
of the subsystems experiences must be systematized. It is suggested to include areas of
high tourism impact to compare effects on sustainability.
46
223. The role of provincial governments and decentralized directorates of ME is key to
achieving results. When starting work on an AP the contributions and potential of other
institutions working in the territory must be highlighted, establishing partnerships and
collaborations to improve management plans.
224. The key role of the private sector. It is clear that of all the models analysed those
where there is a vibrant private sector ensures their sustainability per se, even when receiving state incentives (socio forests, technical support for presentation to competitive
funds, microcredit, or other incentives).
Private subsystem
225. Success of this model in terms of sustainability is clear even when it did not become a
private subsystem of NPAS. The guide produced by the project and adopted by the ME
will provide greater stability to this subsystem.
226. The Subsystem of Community Protected Areas is weaker in terms of sustainability
due to its partnership with the state or privates in different models (maintenance and
hygiene services in exchange for the halls of the PANE, agreements with municipalities
and provincial governments on the basis of business plans, etc.).
227. The institutions involved in environmental issues, require special political force by
the type of interest they face and their relative institutional "newness" to install a new
political culture in a country.
228. Training as part of the investment. Capacity building of organizations can generate
trained leaders in project design and conservation principles established in line with
production criteria.
229. Incorporating project outputs at different levels of government. When the tools
developed by a program are accepted and internalized by national and local authorities a
central part of the project's sustainability is ensured although its long-term use can be
reviewed in the future (e.g. the SIB).
230. The timing of PAs processes should be controlled by the ME not to generate
distrust in stakeholders; management plans must be completed immediately after entering the area in the national system and within a reasonable time to avoid compromising the credibility at regional and local level.
231. The massive social communication should be at the service of a project that
generates a new institutional framework to install understanding on all stakeholders
of a project that generates new patterns of behaviour.
232. The highest decision level must react quickly in situations of conflict in AP so that
they do not create a concept that AP stands for conflict between actors in the territories.
233. The educational institutions involved in biodiversity projects ensure changes in
consciousness and awareness in young people and through them impact family settings, especially schools. Youth initiatives should be multiplicated.
234. Key local actors should be identified for establishing the AP before managing the
47
incorporation of these areas, in order to inform and educate the local community about
its implications.
235. The creation of a protected area is virtually irreversible. Therefore, any effort to
consolidate the awareness in its territory is in principle broadly sustainable.
Technical follow-up to the recommendations of MTR.
236. Finally, due the complexity of the project it is recommended that UNDP through its
Regional Service Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean, together with the project
team, should schedule at least two annual field visits of international experts, in order to
provide additional guidance to facilitate implementation of the recommendations,
strengthen outputs development and achieve project outcomes.
9. LESSONS LEARNED
237. The identification of community leaders or individual people (men, women and
youth) with potential leadership implies an institutional effort to incorporate various
modalities to ensure that they become key allies in the implementation of the project,
creating a social mobilization with other stakeholders to define collective development
strategies.
48
238. Information for strategic partners. Stakeholders of a project, regardless of their
institutional affiliation, should access to key information on project activities in time to
establish changes if needed. This means that they require to be permanently informed in
order to make suggestions/change/ideas about each action. Duly informed and engaged,
strategic partners generate confidence in the project and transmit it to the highest levels
of the environmental authority. It is essential to maintain and strengthen these channels
of communication, regardless of changes of officials and political-ideological orientations of decision- makers.
239. Institutional strengthening of beneficiary organizations and training of vulnerable
groups.
240. For projects involving vulnerable groups, especially organizations representing
indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants, strengthening the capacities of organizations
that articulate interests with regard to planning, administration and participation in dialogue with the government on environmental and social issues linked to everyday life in
AP, can generate trained leaders, which encourages skilled participation in designing
strategies and informed accompaniment in every step of the project.
241. The governmental organizations dedicated to protected areas should be consolidated regardless of the project funded by the GEF, using tools of the legal framework and cooperation, since changes in new institutions can generate large management
problems. These changes often become additional bottlenecks generated by the fragility
of inconclusive institutional arrangements and the possibilities of implementing the
proposed changes at national and regional level.
242. Organizations representing indigenous communities and vulnerable groups in
general are weak and do not have the political strength to compete at high-level negotiations without the intervention of other institutions. The impact on the local population
can be achieved through field visits for selection of sustainable productive projects that
will be supported by the Grant Funds Mechanism (MFC). It is important to build on
existing experiences of other projects and programs. Based on the experience and lessons learned from PACC (Adaptation to Climate Change), and similar mechanisms.
Politically, the constant fluid communication with the authorities of the National Secretariat of Biodiversity and Natural Heritage of the Ministry of Environment has been
essential to the efficient management of processes.
243. The active participation of indigenous and community leaders must be ensured
throughout the process of a project, by community meetings in the inception phase, data
survey, recommending and participation in policy decisions. This has a high impact on
the sustainability of the project, to the extent that it responds directly to the needs of
the communities in which we work. The same occurs with the participation of women,
it is central to the preservation of cultural identity and to the extent that they are represented in a project it is ensured that the definitions of strategy integrate into the community work permanently.
244. The Role of Autonomous Decentralized governments (provincial and local and
national government decentralized areas) is key to achieving results. Projects with
national scope are improved its ability to achieve goals to the extent that government
actors succeed in establishing regional cooperation mechanisms at local level. When
this cooperation is not achieved technical capacity installed at local level may be lost.
49
245. In projects with large differences among target areas (both geographical and at civil
society and private sector level) it is known that, not only conflict areas, but also other
experiences where conflict level is minor should be included to avoid confusion among
an intercultural dialogue and a long lasting conflict.
246. The projects choosing to focus on a defined geographical area must solve legal
problems they face in these areas, through specific agreements and regulations in
order to mitigate the impact of these bureaucratic issues in the early stages of the
projects. The selection criteria for areas to be incorporated into programs for vulnerable
groups should be systematized from the experience of projects in the same country or in
other countries with similar problems, for example PAs containing spaces of conflict
(for cultural reasons, organizational, productive or other) and must specify how these
conflicts affect replication patterns.
247. The scale of the project affects the commitment of the national government. In
projects involving areas over a vast territory, it is necessary to be flexible, establishing
replacement patterns in case some areas for various reasons cannot be focused.
248. The more the commitments are articulated within a legal framework, the greater the
possibility that political and technical structure will be able to consider a project supported by the GEF as an opportunity, obtaining one of intermediate levels of state decision-making to ensure sustainably in policy agenda regarding the AP. Ideal would be
develop from the initial stage replacement strategies for conflictive areas, perhaps considering the role of the UN technical support and full funding by the Government.
249. The gap of integration in the AP groups with community intervention. The various
studies on AP describe differences in management models and capabilities to establish
forms of economic action different from the traditional. It has been learned that there
must be interaction, so that the enclave is positive; it has to be provided with adequate
power to establish "appropriate" management training models for consumers. This finding is relevant not only to well-known tourist centres but also to the promotion of new
forms of AP that require inclusion of groups and individuals with specific tools.
250. The socio-productive projects involving indigenous communities should make room
to the organizational forms of community decision and should not be distorted by the
requirements of economic companies.
251. A wide sense of project’s ownership by the State is sufficient for the survival of a
complex project as stakeholders agree this prior to completion of the Project.
252. The lack of confidence in the public sector by the private sector must be radically
changed from improving accountability and social monitoring of the State and other key
players in the AP.
253. The survival of a project involving private sector, civil society, communities,
relevant national and regional organizations and government counterparts requires
a strong commitment to involving the network in continuing their specific work beyond
the Project.
254. Incorporation of products in government organizations. When the tools developed
by a program are accepted and internalized by national and regional authorities, a cen-
50
tral part of the project's sustainability is ensured although its long-term use can be reviewed in the future.
255. Such a business approach can be complementary with a focus on conservation and
development, considering the instrumental nature of the business approach to carry out
objectives of socio sustainable-environmental. The project has generated a lot of technical material related to PA financing. Much of this material is now available in digital
format and hard copies. This material will be useful in Phase 2 of the project. For example, the update of Environmental Incentives will be instrumental for the selection and
analysis of feasibility of payment mechanisms for environmental services. The valuation of these ecosystem services must be done in order to contribute to the decision
making, so the studies must be clear and targeted to decision makers, providing them
with the data they need to make decisions that affect the financing of Protected Areas.
51
10. ANNEXES
ANEXO I: Agenda de la RMT
Agenda de trabajo de campo de Sandra Cesilini
MARTES
26
LUNES 25
MIERCOLES
27
JUEVES
28
07:00
07:00
07:00
07:00
07:30
07:30
07:30
07:30
08:00
08:00
08:30
08:30
09:00
Reunión de
arranque
PNUD y
MAE (1)
08:00
08:30
08:30
07:00
07:30
Salida a
Noroccidente
08:00
Salida a
Chimborazo
08:30
SÁBADO
30
DOMINGO 1
LUNES 2
MARTES 3
07:00
07:00
07:00
07:00
07:30
07:30
07:30
07:30
08:00
08:00
08:00
08:00
08:30
08:30
09:00
09:00
09:00
08:30
Retorno a
Quito
Salida a
Illinizas
08:30
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:00
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
09:00
09:30
11:00
Reunión con
el proyecto
(2)
09:00
Entrevista
con Equipo
Técnico de la
DNB y
FAN(5)
08:00
VIERNES
29
09:00
10:30
10:30
Visita a
Noroccidente
(10)
10:30
10:30
Visita a
Chimborazo
(11)
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:30
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:30
12:30
12:30
52
Almuerzo de
trabajo con
11:00
10:30
11:00
11:00
11:00
Reunión con
Mentefactura
(6)
Visita al
Humedal La
Tembladera (9)
Trabajo con
insumos
10:30
Reunión con The
Nature
Conservancy
10:30
Visita a la
Laguna del
Quilotoa (12)
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:30
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
Trabajo con
insumos
Entrevista con
Técnico de
Turismo y
Dirección legal
de la DNB (7)
11:00
11:00
Reunión con
Conservación
Internacional
Reunión con el
equipo del PSF
12:30
12:30
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
14:30
15:00
15:00
15:30
15:30
Almuerzo de
trabajo con
Subsecretario
de
Patrimonio
Nacional y
Director
Nacional de
Biodiversida
d (3)
16:00
16:30
16:30
17:00
17:30
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:00
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:00
14:00
14:30
16:00
Presentación
del 2o
producto de
la Estrategia
de
Sostenibilida
d Financiera
del SNAP
Cena con ex
subsecretaria
de
Patrimonio
Natural y ex
directora de
Biodiversida
d (4)
coordinadore
s del
proyectos del
SNAP (7)
16:30
16:30
17:00
Reunión con
equipo del
SIB (8)
Viaje al
Humedal La
Tembladera
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
18:00
18:00
18:30
18:30
Retorno a Quito
17:30
17:00
Retorno a
Quito
53
17:00
Retorno a
Quito
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:30
18:00
18:00
18:00
18:00
18:00
18:00
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
(1) Gabriel Jaramillo PNUD, Director de Cooperación MAE
Ricardo Valdivieso
(2) Coordinadora Proyecto Sostenibilidad Financiera, Zornitza Aguilar; Especialista en Monitoreo y Seguimiento,
Paola Espinosa; Comité Técnico del Proyecto
17:30
Noche en
Riobamba
17:30
Reunión de
cierre con PNUD
(3) Subsecretario de Patrimonio Natural, Christian Terán; Director Nacional de
Biodiversidad, Francisco Prieto
(4) Ex subsecretaria de Patrimonio Tania Villegas; Ex Directora Nacional de Biodiversidad,
Isabel Endara; Consultora Mentefactura
(5) Coordinador de Áreas Protegidas Kléver Campoverde, sitios RAMSAR Marcela Torres, comunicación Andrea
Jaramillo; FAN economista Marcela Aguirre
(6) Director de Consultora
Mentefactura José Galindo
(7) Coordinador Proyecto de Apoyo al SNAP Pablo Druet, Coordinador Proyecto
PANE Juan Chávez
(8) Programadores del Sistema de Información de Biodiversidad Leonardo Morales, Efraín
Hernández, Diego Martínez
(9) Director Técnico de campo La Tembladera Leonardo Porras, Interlocutor de las comunidades de La Tembladera Ing. Ervin Villacis, MAE El Oro Blga. Mayra Estrella, Secretaria Nacinal de GaUA Ing. Aurora Escaleras,
Gobierno Parroquial de El Oro Blgo. Eder Armijos, Universidad Técnica de Machala Dr. Walter Paredes
Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado de Santa Rosa Vicealcalde Prof. Luis Porras, Directora UGAM Blga. Mariela Castillo, Concejal de Ambiente Lcdo. Hugo Chancay, Presidente de la Asociación de
Productores Agroartesanales del Humedal (ASOGROTEM) Sr. Rodrigo Gastiabur
(10) Directo Técnico de Campo Nodo Noroccidente Inty Arcos, Reserva Yunguilla,
Reserva Intyllacta
(11) Entrevista con Jefe de Área, comunidades, Geovanna Robayo, Pablo Larco y
Estefanía Arias
(12) Entrevista con Jefe de Área, comunidades, Geovanna
Robayo y Juan Carlos Rivera
(13) DNB Turismo Sebastían Sierra, jurídico
Verónica Lemache
Agenda de trabajo de campo de Marlon Flores
LUNES 13
08:00
08:00
08:30
09:00
09:00
09:30
09:30
54
MARTES 14
Coordinadora del
Proyecto (1)
Reunión con Técnicos
08:30
DNB (7)
09:00
09:00
Reunión con
09:30 Coordinador Programa
09:30 de Apoyo al SNAP (8)
MIERCOLES 15
08:00
08:30
09:00
09:00 Conservación Internacional y
09:30 The Nature Conservancy (15)
09:30
10:00
10:00
10:30
10:30
11:00
11:00 Director Nacional de
11:30 Biodiversidad (2)
12:00
12:00 Subsecretario de
Patrimonio Natural
12:30
(3)
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
Especialista en
Negocios del
Proyecto (4)
14:30
15:00
Reunión PNUD
Coordinador
15:30
Proyectos
Ambiente
15:30
(5)
16:00
16:30
Reunión
16:30
Mentefactura
(6)
17:00
17:30
55
10:00
10:00
10:30
10:30
11:00
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:00
Fondo Ambiental
Nacional (9)
Asesor Legal del
Proyecto (10)
10:00
10:00
10:30
Reunión con Coordinador
Proyecto PANE (16)
10:30
11:00
11:00
11:30
12:00
Reunión con Asesora en
12:00 Sostenibilidad Financiera (17)
12:30
12:30
13:00
12:30
12:30
13:00
Especialista en Turismo
de Áreas Protegidas
13:30
(11)
14:00
14:30 Consultores del libro
IX del TULAS (12)
14:30
13:30
14:00
14:30
Sistema de Información de
Biodiversidad (18)
Proyecto
15:00
15:30
Mecanismo de Fondos
15:30
Concursables del
16:00
Proyecto (13)
16:30
14:30
15:00
15:30
15:30
16:00
16:30
16:30
17:00
17:30
16:30
17:00 Reunión PNUD Coordinador
Proyectos Ambiente
17:30
Planes de negocios a
nivel sitio (14)
17:30
17:30
17:30
18:00
18:00
18:00
18:30
18:30
18:30
1) Zornitza Aguilar, Coordinadora del Proyecto de Sostenibilidad Financiera del SNAP desde marzo 2012
2) Francisco Prieto, Director Nacional de Biodiversidad del MAE
3) Christian Terán, Subsecreatior de Patrimonio Nacional del MAE
4) Juan Carlos Rivera, Especialista en Negocios del Proyecto
5) Gabriel Jaramillo, PNUD Especialista de Programa – Área energía, Ambiente y Gestión de Riesgos
6) José Galindo, Director de Consultora Mentefactura
7) Sebastián Sierra, Técnico de Turismo; Verónica Lemache, Jurídico.
8) Pablo Drouet, Coordinador del Programa de Apoyo al SNAP MAE-KFW
9) Marcela Aguirre, Economista del Fondo Ambiental Nacional
10) Juan Carlos Andrade Asesor Legal del Proyecto
11) Geovanna Robayo, Especialista en Turismo de Áreas Protegidas
12) Cinthy Veintimilla, Estudio de costo de patentes en el SNAP; Esteban Falconí, Propuesta del Libro IX del TULAS.
13) Geovanna Robayo, Especialista en Turismo en Áreas Protegidas del Proyecto; Pablo Larco, Implementación del Mecanismo
de Fondos Concursables del Proyecto,
14) Pablo Torres, Modelo de Gestión Turístico de la Laguna de Quilotoa; Erneso Muñoz, Plan de negocios para tortugas charapas
de Yasuní y Cuyabeno.
15) Monthserrat Albán, Conservación Internacional; Galo Medina, The Nature Conservancy. Socios estratégicos del Proyecto
16) Juan Chávez, Coordinador Proyecto PANE. Infraestructura en Aps PANE.
17) Tatiana Eguez, Asesora en Sostenibilidad
18) Diego Martínez y Leonardo Morales, Técnicos del SIB
56
ANEXO II: Lista de documentos revisados
Listado de documentos revisados
Documento
Esfera de
acción
Política
Formato
Enviado por
Fecha de envío
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Plan de adquisiciones 6.08.13
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Plan de adquisiciones 07.05.2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Plan de adquisiciones 17.07.2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Plan de adquisiciones 19.04.2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Carátula revisión presupuestaria B febrero 2011
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Revisión general E
Técnico
operativa
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Revisión genera F 2013
Técnico
operativa
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Matriz de cofinanciamiento PSF 2013 consolidada
Plan de Adquisiciones 4nov2013
57
Revisión presupuestaria C- Solo datos
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Revisión presupuestaria D
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Anexo prodoc 2013
Técnico
operativa
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
POA 2013 PSF aprobado por Comité directivo
Técnico
operativa
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
POA GEF 2013 PIMS 4142 Ecuador PA Financing
Técnico
operativa
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
ProDoc español firmado 00073902
politica
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo junio2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo julio 2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo mayo 2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Agosto 2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
58
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Diciembre2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Noviembre 2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Octubre 2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Septiembre 2012
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento abril 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Agosto 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Enero 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Febrero 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento julio 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Junio 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Marzo 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
59
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Mayo 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Octubre 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Marco de Monitoreo y Seguimiento Septiembre 2013
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Estudios y Necesidades Brechas de Financiamiento del
SNAP
Versión Final- Estudio de Necesidades SNAP-Resumen
ejecutivo 250713
Producto 1 Guía incentivos ambientales
Política
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
política
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Técnico
operativa
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
La tembladera Nodo NOCC
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
METT- tembladera-nodo Base datos
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
METT SNAP BASE DATOS
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Producto 4 Felipe Campos
Técnico
operativa
Word
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Resultados METT SNAP
Técnico
operativa
Excel
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
60
3er Producto PT Final
Técnico
operativa
PDF
Paola Espinosa
11/11/2013
Reflexiones sobre el Sumak Kawsay (el Buen Vivir) y
las teorías del desarrollo (Pablo Dávalos)
La disputa de sentidos por el Buen Vivir como proceso
contra hegemónico (Larrea)
Teórico
consultora
10/12/2013
consultora
07/01/2014
El buen vivir. Una vía para el desarrollo. Abya Yala
(Alberto Acosta)
Buen vivir y cambios civilizatorios (Irene León)
Teórico
web site
http://alainet.org/active/25617
Web site
http://plan.senplades.gob.ec/3.3-el-buenvivir-en-la-constitucion-del-ecuador
PDF
consultora
10/12/2013
Teórico
PDF
consultora
10/12/2013
61
Teórico
ANEXO III: Materiales para las entrevistas. Cuestionario Actores Clave y Carta
introductoria para entrevistas
REVISION DE MEDIO TÉRMINO
PROYECTO DE SOSTENIBILIDAD FINANCIERA PARA EL SISTEMA NACIONAL
DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS (SNAP) ECUADOR
(00073902 GEF – PNUD)
ENTREVISTAS PARA ACTORES CLAVE
Los entrevistados son actores claves del Proyecto, por lo cual queremos insistir en que se
sienta en total libertad para contestar este cuestionario, cuyos contenidos serán estrictamente
confidenciales y sólo se utilizarán con el propósito de mejorar el conocimiento sobre el
Proyecto y sus avances; y sentar las bases que permitan mejorar ulteriores intervenciones.
La respuesta a este cuestionario no le tomará más de 40 minutos.
1.DATOS DE IDENTIFICACIÓN DEL ENTREVISTADO
(Se mantienen como confidenciales)
1 Nombre y cargo del
entrevistado:
2 Ciudad:
Nombre y tipo de
3 Institución de
pertenencia:
4
16
Relación con el
Proyecto
Si la relación es por
tratarse de un actor
convocado por el
5
Proyecto; por favor
defina en qué
instancia lo hizo
2.PERTINENCIA Y COHERENCIA
16Especificar
si se trata de: Consultores Contratados, Contraparte Nacional, Agencias del
Sistema, Organismo Público Descentralizado, Gobierno Provincial/Municipal, ONG´s, otros
(especificar).
62
2.1.
DISEÑO
1)
¿El diseño del proyecto responde a las necesidades del país y a sus políticas de
conservación y manejo de las áreas protegidas?
1. Ampliamente
2. Adecuadamente
3. Poco
4. Nada
5. Ns/Nc
2)
Ud. conoce los resultados esperados del proyecto?
Si /No, si la respuesta es sí, continúe a la pregunta 3.
3)
¿Son realistas y concretos los objetivos y resultados esperados?
1. Mucho
2. Adecuadamente
3. Poco
4. Nada
5. Ns/Nc
4)
¿Son las estrategias y actividades previstas en el proyecto, consistentes y adecuadas
para lograr los objetivos y resultados esperados?
1. Muy adecuadas
2. Adecuadas
3. Poco adecuadas
4. Nada adecuadas
5. Ns/Nc
5)
¿Cómo ha contribuido el proyecto al cumplimiento de la Agenda Nacional de
Políticas Públicas y al mandato del GEF (en caso que le resulte familiar la estrategia del
Fondo Mundial de Medioambiente)?
1. Contribución muy relevante
2. Contribución moderada
3. Contribución baja
63
4. Ninguna contribución.
5. Su función es ajena a estos procesos.
6. Ns/Nc
2.2. SEGUIMIENTO Y EVALUACIÓN
NOTA: CONTESTE ESTE BLOQUE SOLO SI ESTÁ FAMILIARIZADO CON LA
METODOLOGÍA DE SEGUIMIENTO Y EVALUACIÓN DEL GEF.
1)
¿Conoce las herramientas del GEF como el METT?
2)
Si la respuesta es afirmativa, cuál es a su juicio la utilidad de la misma?
3)
¿A su juicio cuál es la calidad del actual sistema de seguimiento y evaluación del
proyecto?
1. Alta
2. Media
3. Baja
4. Ns/Nc
4)
¿Qué elementos deben ser fortalecidos para generar las bases que permitan la
evaluación de impacto del proyecto a futuro? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
2.3.
64
APRENDIZAJE Y BUENAS PRÁCTICAS SOBRE ESTRATEGIAS SEGUIDAS
1)
¿Qué prácticas desarrolladas por alguna de las actividades han contribuido o pueden
contribuir a fortalecer a las demás en el marco del proyecto? Por favor provea una breve
descripción:
2)
¿Qué aprendizajes tienen relevancia para la futura puesta en marcha de otras
iniciativas similares? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
3)
¿El proyecto complementa otras estrategias o proyectos aplicados en el mismo
territorio?
1. Mucho
2. Adecuadamente
3. Poco
4. Nada
5. Ns/Nc
3.EFICACIA
3.1.
RESULTADOS GENERALES
NOTA: CONTESTE ESTE BLOQUE SOLO SI ESTÁ FAMILIARIZADO CON LOS
RESULTADOS ESPERADOS.
1) ¿En qué medida, en su opinión, se han alcanzado los resultados diseñados para el proyecto?
1. Ampliamente
2. Adecuadamente
3. Moderadamente
4. Escasamente
5. Ninguna
6. Ns/Nc
65
2)
¿Cuáles considera han sido los avances principales en los resultados previstos del
proyecto? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
3)
¿Cuáles fueron los factores internos y externos que han influido en el logro o no de los
resultados? ¿Se han logrado otros efectos no previstos? Por favor provea una breve
descripción:
Internos:
Externos:
Efectos no previstos:
4)
¿En qué medida los mecanismos de coordinación técnica y administrativa por los
cuales se implementa el proyecto han contribuido a alcanzar los resultados de la intervención?
1. Ampliamente
2. Adecuadamente
3. Moderadamente
4. Escasamente
5. Ninguna
6. Ns/Nc
3.2.
RESULTADOS ESPECÍFICOS
1)
¿El proyecto ha contribuido a que haya mayor acceso a la cooperación (internacional?
entre actores locales?)?
1. Mucho
2. Adecuadamente
3. Poco
4. Nada
5. Ns/Nc
66
2)
¿En su opinión, qué mecanismos relativos al diseño e implementación del proyecto se
requiere mejorar para medir a futuro el impacto del mismo?
En caso de una respuesta afirmativa, de qué forma piensa que se deberían aplicarse? Por favor
provea una breve descripción:
3)
¿Ha contribuido el proyecto a disminuir las desigualdades de género?
1. Ampliamente
2. Moderadamente
3. Escasamente
4. Ninguna
6. Ns/Nc
Porqué? Podría darnos una descripción de la contribución?
4.ASOCIACIÓN Y COORDINACIÓN
1)
¿Con cuáles organizaciones existe coordinación de acciones? Listar
2)
¿De qué manera las instancias constituidas o apoyadas por el proyecto han contribuido
a movilizar y a ampliar la participación? Y a incrementar la visibilidad?
3)
Las instituciones que se han involucrado, si es que está familiarizado/a con éstas, ¿qué
niveles de consenso han alcanzado entre sí y con la sociedad civil?
67
4)
¿Ud. conoce los espacios de coordinación establecidos para este proyecto? Si la
respuesta es afirmativa, a su juicio los espacios de coordinación han funcionado? Sí/No,
porqué?
5. EFICIENCIA
5.1
GESTIÓN
1)
¿Es adecuado el equipo central para la gestión del proyecto?
1. Muy adecuada
2. Adecuada
3. Poco adecuada
4. Nada adecuada
5. Ns/Nc
2)
¿Es adecuado el equipo existente a nivel local y de subsistemas para la gestión del
proyecto?
1. Muy adecuada
2. Adecuada
3. Poco adecuada
4. Nada adecuada
5. Ns/Nc
3)
68
¿Qué elementos podrían ser mejorados?
4)
¿Cuál es la relación costo-eficacia del proyecto en términos de los recursos invertidos
y los resultados alcanzados? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
5)
¿Cuáles han sido las fortalezas y debilidades de la estructura de gestión del proyecto?
Por favor provea una breve descripción:
Fortalezas:
Debilidades
6)
¿Qué modificaciones se deberían introducir, en su opinión, para mejorar el desempeño
de la estructura de gestión? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
6. APROPIACIÓN
1)
¿En qué medida participan los actores (entidades de gobierno de distintos niveles
jurisdiccionales, ONGs y beneficiarios) en la aplicación y gestión de la intervención?
1. Mucho
2. Adecuadamente
3. Poco
4. Nada
5. Ns/Nc
2)
¿Qué dificultades han encontrado los actores clave para participar? Por favor provea
una breve descripción:
69
3)
¿Cómo contribuye la participación de los actores clave a la
efectividad del proyecto? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
sostenibilidad y
7. SOSTENIBILIDAD
Conociendo que existen múltiples definiciones al respecto, para el propósito de esta
Evaluación Intermedia como criterio de evaluación hemos definido “sostenibilidad” como:
“los resultados que se van alcanzando perduran en las instituciones y se mantienen en las
comunidades y escenarios que están siendo atendidas”. Nos importa especialmente si tiene
opinión acerca de las estrategias de sostenibilidad que aseguren una institucionalidad pública
y privada de los resultados y procesos que se desencadenan en el marco de un proyecto.
1)
¿Cuáles son los principales factores que están influyendo en el logro o no logro de la
sostenibilidad del proyecto? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
2)
¿Qué medidas relacionadas con los ejes de trabajo del proyecto se han
institucionalizado para garantizar la sostenibilidad de las actividades/logros? Por favor provea
una breve descripción:
3) ¿Qué instituciones del gobierno nacional asumirían funciones hoy asumidas por el
proyecto? Está ya establecido?
4) Existe una estrategia de salida definida? Entendiendo por ésta una estrategia para
finalizar el proyecto y asegurar que las cuestiones claves siguen atendidas ¿En qué medida la
misma contribuye a la sostenibilidad? Por favor provea una breve descripción:
70
5)
71
¿Quiere agregar algo más sobre su experiencia?
Buenos Aires, noviembre de 2013
S
/
D
De mi mayor consideración:
Por la presente me dirijo a Ud. como Consultora Experta
contratada para realizar el proceso de Revisión de Medio Término del Proyecto
“Sostenibilidad Financiera para el Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Ecuador”
(SNAP), iniciado en el año 2010 y liderado por el Ministerio de Ambiente de Ecuador. Este
Proyecto tiene como organismo de implementación al Programa de las Naciones Unidas para
el Desarrollo (PNUD) y cuenta con financiamiento del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente
Mundial (FMAM/GEF), y aportes del gobierno nacional.
La presente instancia de evaluación ha sido solicitada por las
autoridades de PNUD en Ecuador. A fin de llevar a cabo la revisión de medio término se han
previsto una serie de entrevistas en profundidad a responsables institucionales e instituciones
asociadas al proyecto mencionado. Por ello nos sería particularmente útil realizarle una
entrevista a Ud. o algún miembro de su equipo que haya estado involucrado en la gestión del
Proyecto SNAP. La entrevista no requerirá más de 40 minutos y nos proveerá información
esencial para comprender el impacto del Proyecto y sus actividades.
Desearíamos concertar una entrevista telefónica en los próximos
días pero de no ser factible podemos evaluar la opción de realizarla por otra vía (enviarle el
cuestionario para ser contestado por e-mail).
Desde ya muchas gracias por su colaboración, y quedamos a la
espera de su respuesta a fin de coordinar con su secretaria el día y horario en que le sea más
cómodo realizar la entrevista.
Atte.
Lic. Sandra Cesilini
Evaluación del Proyecto SNAP
72
ANEXO IV: Mapeo de actores relacionados al Proyectos
Área / Actores/Organismo
GEF Fondo Global Ambiental: Punto Focal
PNUD Ecuador :
Especialista del Área de energía, ambiente y
gestión de riesgos y desastres
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Conservación Internacional (CI)
Competencias/ responsabilidades institucionales
El Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (FMAM) reúne a
los Gobiernos de 182 países miembros —en asociación con
instituciones
internacionales,
organizaciones
no
gubernamentales (ONG) y el sector privado— para abordar
cuestiones ambientales de alcance mundial. En su calidad de
organización financiera independiente, ofrece donaciones a
países en desarrollo y países con economías en transición para
proyectos en las esferas de la diversidad biológica, el cambio
climático, las aguas internacionales, la degradación de la tierra,
el agotamiento de la capa de ozono y los contaminantes
orgánicos persistentes. Como en el caso de este proyecto, el
objetivo último es generar beneficios para el medio ambiente
mundial, propiciando el establecimiento de un nexo entre los
desafíos ambientales locales, nacionales e internacionales, y
promoviendo medios de subsistencia sostenibles.
El PNUD colabora con el Ecuador para la gestión de su
respuesta al cambio climático en varios sectores, incluidas la
lucha contra la pobreza, la reducción de los riesgos de desastre,
la eficiencia energética y la ordenación y acceso equitativo de
los recursos naturales. Muchos de los programas y proyectos
son financiados, en su mayor parte, por el Fondo para el
Medioambiente Mundial (GEF), el mayor fondo a nivel
mundial para proteger el medio ambiente, y ejecutados en
alianza con organismos de gobierno, de la sociedad civil y del
sector privado.
Trabaja en todo el mundo para proteger las tierras
ecológicamente importantes y las aguas para la naturaleza y las
personas. Se trata de un cofinanciador, con las aportaciones
pertinentes en todas las AP piloto. Ayudará a desarrollar
pruebas de campo y un marco operacional y financiero para el
SNAP ampliado.
CI faculta a las sociedades en el cuidado responsable y
sostenible de la naturaleza para el bienestar de la humanidad.
Es también cofinanciador del proyecto y su objetivo es la
sostenibilidad de las AP, proporcionando complementos
importantes a esta iniciativa a través de su involucramiento con
las AP privadas.
Ministerio de Ambiente (MAE):
Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (DNB):
Director actual y ex Directora
Equipo técnico: responsable de sitios RAMSAR,
comunicación, turismo, jurídico
Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural:
Subsecretario actual, y ex subsecretaria Sistema
de Información de Biodiversidad (SIB), Equipo
técnico.
Ministerio de Finanzas
73
El Ministerio del Ambiente es la autoridad nacional responsable
de la gestión de la biodiversidad del país. El MAE cuenta con
una Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural. Dentro de la
Subsecretaría, la Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad (DNB),
que por medio de la Unidad de Áreas Protegidas, coordina y
supervisa el SNAP. La DNB fomenta el desarrollo de los
procesos, leyes y normas que ayuden a la institucionalización
de las actividades del proyecto, productos y resultados.
Dirige y administra las finanzas públicas del país, promoviendo
su gestión consecuente, un financiamiento sostenible y la
asignación eficiente, equitativa y transparente de los recursos
Ministerio de Turismo
Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo
(SENPLADES)
Corporación Nacional de Bosques y Reservas
Privadas del Ecuador (CNBRPE)
Áreas Protegidas, actores de la sociedad civil,
actores locales:
Humedal La Tembladera: Comunidad de San
José, Interlocutor de las comunidades de La
Tembladera, Autoridades de gobierno de La
Tembladera.
Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado de Santa
Rosa, Directora de UGAM
Concejal de Ambiente, Asociación de
productores agro-artesanales de La Tembladera,
Director técnico de campo, Secretaria Nacional
del Agua.
Gobierno parroquial de El Oro, Universidad
Técnica de Machala
Nodo Noroccidente de la CNBRPE, APPRI:
Corporación Nacional de Bosques y Reservas
Privadas del Ecuador, Director técnico de campo,
Reserva Yunguilla, Reserva Intyllacta,
Reserva Chimborazo: Jefe del AP, Comunidades
en Guanujo y Salinas.
74
públicos.
El Ministerio de Turismo está a cargo del desarrollo del sector
de turismo en Ecuador. Su objetivo es promover la
competitividad del sector a través de procesos participativos
que permitan que el turismo se convierta en un importante eje
estratégico para el desarrollo económico, social y ambiental. En
el proyecto proporciona una valiosa retroalimentación e
información que contribuye a una mejor ejecución de las
actividades planificadas.
Maneja el Sistema Nacional de Planificación a nivel sectorial y
local mediante el establecimiento de objetivos y políticas, con
el apoyo de los procesos de información, investigación,
formación, seguimiento y evaluación para orientar la inversión
pública. SENPLADES se ocupa de garantizar la sostenibilidad
del sistema de áreas protegidas. Participante activo en las
actividades correspondientes al Resultado 1.
La Corporación Nacional de Bosques y Reserva Privadas del
Ecuador (CNBRPE) ayudará a consolidar y organizar los
esfuerzos de los propietarios de bosques privados en la
ejecución de las actividades de conservación mediante la
aplicación de técnicas alternativas de manejo productivo y
sostenible en sus explotaciones y zonas de influencia.
El Proyecto apoyará con la primera fase operativa del Centro de
Interpretación, Comercialización y Acopio, y se ha previsto la
administración a cargo de la CNBRPE.
Bajo la estructura descentralizada del MAE se han establecido
10 Distritos Regionales (DR), cada uno manejado por un
director regional. En algunos casos tiene jurisdicción sobre una
provincia y en otros sobre dos o tres provincias. Se constituyen
en unidades descentralizadas a nivel financiero, manejan su
presupuesto a partir del plan operativo.
Los DR son
directamente responsables de la gestión y administración de
cualquier área del PANE dentro de su jurisdicción.
El Ministerio de Finanzas asigna recursos financieros para la
gestión de las AP directamente a los Distritos Regionales.
Los Gobiernos Locales (provincial, municipal y cantonal).
Aunque el gobierno central es responsable de la administración
y el manejo de la mayoría de las AP del PANE, se espera que
los gobiernos locales tengan un papel más directo a medida que
se establezcan plenamente los subsistemas y los gobiernos
locales cree sus propias áreas protegidas.
Las AP dentro del Subsistema del PANE cuentan con unidades
administrativas. El personal de estas unidades es responsable de
la implementación cotidiana de los planes de manejo y la
gestión de presupuestos.
Se centrará principalmente en los procesos de sostenibilidad de
las zonas comunitarias.
El Humedal La Tembladera está ubicado en la parroquia de
Santa Rosa, cantón Santa Rosa, provincia de El Oro al sur del
Ecuador, tiene un área de 1417.91 ha y fue declarado RAMSAR
en el 2011 por su importancia biológica.
El área protegida es co-manejada por varias comunidades; y
cinco de ellas manifestaron explícitamente su voluntad de
participar en el proyecto: La Florida, Miraflores, San Jacinto,
San José y Laguna de Caña. El Proyecto consultó a las
comunidades en una Asamblea
General sobre el posible ingreso de La Tembladera como área
piloto de implementación del Proyecto. El cofinanciamiento fue
FAP/ FAN: Equipo técnico
75
determinado después del resultado del análisis de costo de
oportunidad del suelo y valoración de los servicios ambientales,
valores estimados con la definición de la estrategia financiera
del Humedal La Tembladera del 2013. El know-how y
experiencia de la Federación de Comunidades Indígenas del
Chimborazo colaborará en la ejecución de las actividades
previstas.
El Fondo de Áreas Protegidas (FAP), es una iniciativa
desarrollada en 1999 entre el Ministerio del Ambiente del
Ecuador (MAE) y el Fondo Ambiental Nacional (FAN) con el
apoyo de la cooperación internacional, que tiene como objetivo
diversificar las fuentes de financiamiento para áreas naturales
protegidas públicas, proporcionando recursos financieros
estables en el largo plazo. Diseñado por el MAE, en
colaboración con asociados internacionales y varias
organizaciones ambientales ecuatorianas, el FAP cuenta con
fondos para financiar unidades de AP del PANE. El FAN es un
mecanismo voluntario para la canalización de recursos
nacionales e internacionales de las entidades públicas o
privadas. Como contraparte del proyecto, gestionará y
canalizará parte de sus recursos a la implementación de cada
área protegida piloto con el fin de apoyar la sostenibilidad
financiera del SNAP.
ANEXO V: Lista de actores entrevistados
Área / Actores
Actor / Organismo
Comunidad de San José
Interlocutor de las
comunidades de La
Tembladera
Autoridades de gobierno de
La Tembladera
Gobierno Autónomo
Descentralizado de Santa
Rosa
Directora de UGAM
Concejal de Ambiente
Humedal La Tembladera
Asociación de productores
agro-artesanales de La
Tembladera
Director técnico de campo
del Proyecto
Nodo Noroccidente
Áreas de Protección
Privada
Secretaria Nacional del
Agua
Gobierno parroquial de El
Oro
Universidad Técnica de
Machala
Director técnico de campo
Reservas privadas donde se
desarrolla el proyecto
CNBRPE
Unidad de Gestión del
Proyecto
Técnica en Turismo de
Áreas Protegidas
Especialista en Negocios
Reserva Producción de
Fauna Chimborazo
Directora Provincial de
Chimborazo
Jefa de AP
Unidad de Gestión del
Proyecto
76
Especialista en Mecanismo
de Fondos Concursables
Nombre de
entrevistados
Fecha de
realización de la
entrevista
Modalidad
Ing. Ervin Villacis
27/11/2013
Presencial
Prof. Luis Porras
27/11/2013
Presencial
Mariela Castillo
27/11/2013
27/11/2013
Presencial
Hugo Chancay
Presencial
Rodrigo Gastiabur
26/11/2013
Presencial
Leonardo Porras
26/11/2013
Presencial
Ing. Aurora Escaleras
27/11/2013
Presencial
Eder Armijos
27/11/2013
Presencial
Dr. Walter Paredes
27/11/2013
Inty Arcos
28/11/2013
Presencial
Reserva Yunguilla,
Reserva Intyllacta
28/11/2013
Presencial
Directorio
28/11/2013
Presencial
Geovanna Robayo
2/12/2013
Presencial
Juan Carlos Rivera
2/12/2013
Presencial
Paulina Moreno
29/11/2013
Presencial
Magaly Oviedo
29/11/2013
Presencial
29/11/2013
Presencial
Pablo Larco
Especialista en Modelos de
Gestión
Proyecto SF - SNAP
Estefanía Arias
29/11/2013
Presencial
Unidad de Coordinación
UdC
Zornitza Aguilar
25/11/2013
presencial
Equipo del proyecto –
Especialista de Monitoreo y
Seguimiento- Comité
Técnico
Paola Espinosa
25/11/2013
presencial
Equipo del Proyecto-Asesor
Legal
Juan Carlos Andrade
25/11/2013
presencial
Pablo Drouet
21/11/2013
Presencial
Juan Chávez
21/11/2013
Presencial
25/11/2013
Presencial
Coordinador del Programa
de Apoyo al SNAP
Coordinador del Proyecto
PANE
Dirección Nacional de
Biodiversidad (DNB)
Coordinador de Áreas
Protegidas
Kléver Campoverde
26/11/2013
Presencial
Responsable de Sitios
RAMSAR
Marcela Torres
26/11/2013
Presencial
Andrea Jaramillo
26/11/2013
Presencial
Sebastián Sierra
2/12/2013
Presencial
Verónica Lemache
2/12/2013
Presencial
Subsecretaría de Patrimonio
Natural
Christian Terán
25/11/2013
Presencial
Ex subsecretaria de
Patrimonio Natural
Tania Villegas
25/11/2013
Presencial
Ex Directora Nacional de
Biodiversidad
Isabel Endara
25/11/2013
Presencial
Leonardo Morales,
Efraín Hernández, Diego
Martínez
26/11/2013
Presencial
Gabriel Jaramillo
25/11/2013
Presencial
Comunicadora de la DNB
MAE
Especialista en Turismo
Asesora Jurídica DNB
Sistema de Información de
Biodiversidad (SIB)
PNUD Ecuador
77
Francisco Prieto
Equipo técnico
Especialista del Área de
energía, ambiente y gestión
de riesgos y desastres
GEF (Global
Environmental Facility)
Asesor técnico Senior de
PNUD GEF punto focal del
proyecto frente del GEF
Consultora Mentefactura
Director
FAN
78
Economista Ambiental
Helen Negret
2/12/13
Telefónica
José Galindo
26/11/2013
Presencial
Marcela Aguirre
26/11/2013
Presencial
ANEXO VI: Resumen de visitas de campo y apéndice fotográfico
Se definió con las autoridades del PSF visitas a AP, con una variedad de regiones y tipos de
AP (privadas, comunitarias, PANE) que permitieran tener una aproximación lo más detallada
posible a las diversas realidades con que trabaja el proyecto. Se acordaron en el plan de
trabajo definitivo, el número de entrevistas en profundidad necesarias para el estudio. Se
consensuó la selección de instituciones y el personal clave de las mismas y el número de
entrevistas por cada una éstas y por cada nivel decisorio de los actores clave para analizar el
impacto intra institucional además del impacto social y económico de las iniciativas del
proyecto. Adicionalmente se realizó trabajo complementario con entrevistas vía Skype con el
equipo técnico.
El equipo de PSF coordinó con autoridades de distintos niveles de gobierno, con empresarios,
ONGs y diversas organizaciones comunitarias el acompañamiento a la misión, así como la
utilización del equipamiento necesario (vehículos) para acceder a las localizaciones donde se
harían entrevistas presenciales, tanto individuales como grupales.
Marlon Flores(Project Manager, Regional Protected Areas Budget Support Project UNDP
Regional Service Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean) y Sandra Cesilini coordinadora
de la evaluación, mantuvieron entrevistas en el nivel de las oficinas de PNUD Ecuador y de la
administración central en dos momentos distintos, uno en la misión encabezada por Sandra
Cesilini en noviembre/diciembre de 2013 y un conjunto de reuniones sostenidas en el mes de
enero 2014 por Marlon Flores.
La muestra de AP de los distintos subsistemas: APP, PANE, Comunitarios y formas mixtas
visitada por Sandra Cesilini incluyó con una muestra de distintas regiones del país
Noroccidente, Chimborazo y Cotopaxi y la Tembladera. En una de las visitas además del
acompañamiento de la UGP se contó con la compañía de miembros de la directiva de la Red
de Bosques. Se efectuó también una breve visita al Parque Nacional Pullulahua.
Se realizaron cerca de 100 entrevistas en profundidad, individuales y grupales en terreno.
En estas visitas de campo se tomó contacto con autoridades provinciales, delegaciones del
MAE, autoridades municipales, técnicos y docentes de las universidades locales, propietarios
de reservas privadas, líderes comunitarios.
Se analizó documentación complementaria aportada en las visitas de campo por los actores
clave, incluso documentación legal que está en proceso.
La evaluación recibió también inputs de la evaluación llevada a cabo por el PNUD sobre el
rol de éste respecto a la biodiversidad. Con la persona a cargo de dicha evaluación, María
Onestini y la asistente técnica se desarrollaron visitas de campo conjuntas a fin d simplificar
la logística y evitar un efecto de “saturación" de los entrevistados.
79
Ilustración 1 funcionarios entrevistados
Ilustración 2 Funcionarios entrevistados
80
Ilustración 3Visita de Campo Compartida con funcionarios del Programa y Consultores del
PNUD
Ilustración 4Escenificación de Leyendas de La Tembladera
81
Ilustración 5 El Humedal La Tembladera
82
Ilustración 6 Líderes Comunitarios y funcionarios del PSF
83
Ilustración 7 Líderes Cooperativos y de la Red Bosques en Noroccidente
84
Ilustración 8 Vicuñas en el
Chimborazo
Ilustración 9Artesana en el Parque Nacional Chimborazo
85
Ilustración 10 Parque Nacional Cotopaxi
86
ANEXO VII: EVALUATION CONSULTANT CODE OF CONDUCT AND AGREEMENT FORM
Evaluators:
1. Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths and weaknesses
so that decisions or actions taken are well founded.
2. Must disclose the full set of evaluation findings along with information on their limitations and
have this accessible to all affected by the evaluation with expressed legal rights to receive results.
3. Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They should provide
maximum notice, minimize demands on time, and respect people’s right not to engage. Evaluators
must respect people’s right to provide information in confidence, and must ensure that sensitive
information cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators are not expected to evaluate individuals, and
must balance an evaluation of management functions with this general principle.
4. Sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing while conducting evaluations. Such cases must be
reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Evaluators should consult with other
relevant oversight entities when there is any doubt about if and how issues should be reported.
5. Should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their
relations with all stakeholders. In line with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators
must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender equality. They should avoid
offending the dignity and self‐respect of those persons with whom they come in contact in the
course of the evaluation. Knowing that evaluation might negatively affect the interests of some
stakeholders, evaluators should conduct the evaluation and communicate its purpose and results in
a way that clearly respects the stakeholders’ dignity and self‐worth.
6. Are responsible for their performance and their product(s). They are responsible for the clear,
accurate and fair written and/or oral presentation of study imitations, findings and
recommendations.
7. Should reflect sound accounting procedures and be prudent in using the resources of the evaluation.
Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form17
Agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System
Name of Consultant: Sandra Griselda Cesilini
Name of Consultancy Organization (where relevant): ________________
I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of
Conduct for Evaluation.
Signed at place on date
Signature:
____________________________________________________________
17
www.unevaluation.org/unegcodeofconduct
87