-
1
PROJECT INFORMATION DOCUMENT (PID) APPRAISAL STAGE
Report No.: AB1948 Project Name Venezuela-Expanding Partnerships
for the National Park System Region LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN
Sector Forestry (100%) Project ID P085458 GEF Focal Area
Biodiversity Borrower(s) GOVERNMENT VENEZUELA Implementing Agency
Servicios Ambientales del MARNN - SAMARNN
Centro Sim Caracas (El Silencio) Venezuela Tel: (58 212) 408 17
79 - 81 - 82 Fax: (58 212) 483 45 36
[email protected]
Environment Category [ ] A [X] B [ ] C [ ] FI [ ] TBD (to be
determined) Date PID Prepared December 7, 2005 Date of Appraisal
Authorization
February 28, 2006
Date of Board Approval July 27, 2006 1. Country and Sector
Background Venezuela boasts among the highest levels of
biodiversity in the world, ranking between 4th and 10th according
to various taxa. Canaima National Park (CNP), located in Bolivar
State in southeastern Venezuela and spanning 3 million hectares, is
particularly important, harboring nearly 120 endemic genera, 2
endemic families and 117 endangered species (Huber, 1997). CNP’s
massive table-top mountains, known as tepuis1, were classified by
Dinerstein et. al (1995) as one of two Globally Outstanding and
Relatively Intact ecoregions in Latin America.2 Indeed, CNP was
declared a Natural World Heritage Site in 1994 due to its singular
scenery, a unique mosaic of ecosystems including high levels of
biological diversity, numerous endangered animal species, and a
high concentration of globally vulnerable species such as endemic
plants and animals restricted to montane and tepui formations. CNP
and its surrounding Areas under Special Administration Regimes
(ABRAE) constitute 18.3 million ha of essentially continuous and
pristine natural habitats that serve as a major biological corridor
for genetic flow in the Guiana Shield region (spanning parts of
Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Guiana, Suriname and French Guiana).
Additionally, CNP accounts for 45% of the hydric resources of the
Caroní River, the most important hydroelectric resource in
Venezuela. Although 85% of CNP is comprised of pristine natural
habitats with relatively intact vegetation, Canaima faces a wide
range of pressures and threats to its unique biodiversity and
fragile ecosystems. Key threats
1 The tepui formations are abrupt, rocky mountains reaching
heights of between 800 and 3,015 feet above sea level. Given the
region’s warm and moist climate, these formations harbor unique
ecosystems that are distinct from those of other tropical mountains
due to their high number of endemic species. Thus, a tepui is a
physical and biological unit containing unique species and
ecosystems. 2 Along with the Japura Negro moist forests in
Amazonia, cited in Dinerstein et.al, A Conservation Assessment of
the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean
(1995), The World Bank, p. 24.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
-
2
include roads, growing local and international tourism,
deforestation, mining and colonization (see Annexes 1 and 19).
Furthermore, the Venezuelan Parks Institute (INPARQUES) has had to
undertake the herculean task of managing an area 50% larger than El
Salvador and equal to Belgium with scarce financial resources and a
poor institutional presence. Clearly, an effective management model
is essential to integrate two key stakeholders (the Pemon
indigenous communities and CVG EDELCA), leverage substantial
financial and institutional resources in a coordinated manner, and
counteract the ongoing degradation of CNP’s globally outstanding
biodiversity. The Pemon are the indigenous group in whose ancestral
lands the project area is located. Indigenous inhabitants in CNP
are estimated at 18,500, 95% of which belong to the Pemon culture.
The Pemon live in dispersed, yet growing villages, which increased
from 100 to over 250 during the past decade. Key priorities for the
Pemon, identified in a recently drafted Life Plan (Plan de Vida)
are to conserve their lands’ natural resources, improve quality of
life by enhancing sustainable production alternatives and obtain
titles for their indigenous lands. Recent land demarcation and
titling efforts has been supported by provisions in the 1999
National Constitution, subsequent laws regulating collective
territorial ownership (including the Guaicaipuro Mission), and
support from NGOs such as TNC. CVG EDELCA, Venezuela’s largest
government-owned hydroelectricity company, produces 70% of the
country’s energy needs and exports energy to Brazil. The Guri
hydroelectric facility, the second largest in the world, is sourced
by the Caroní River. CVG EDELCA, in accordance with its social
responsibility strategy, is cognizant that it must work together
with the Pemon in order to maintain its energy production on the
Caroní watershed. In recent years, CVG EDELCA has invested in local
conservation and undertaken an ambitious social investment program
for the Pemon (the Mayú program), seeking to guarantee the
long-term water abundance and quality supplied by CNP’s
well-preserved watersheds. In a landmark Inter-Institutional
agreement signed between INPARQUES, CVG EDELCA and the Pemon’s
indigenous organization (FIEB), the three stakeholders have
formally agreed to cooperate around the common objective of
preserving CNP’s biodiversity, ensuring its environmental services
and supporting Pemon quality of life improvements. This agreement
and subsequent meetings held between the three organizations denote
a growing level of trust on the part of the Pemon and a growing
willingness on the part of CVG EDELCA and INPARQUES to integrate
the Pemon into a more effective and participatory governance
system. The Project would build upon this historical achievement
and develop a participatory co-management model for CNP based on
four fundamental criteria: (i) threat prevention and mitigation,
(ii) sustainable development of local communities by supporting
local benefits, (iii) implementation of sustainable and long-term
financial mechanisms to support PA management, and (iv) involvement
of all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, in CNP’s
Management Plan design and implementation. The Project would pilot
such a model in CNP, support this unique partnership, and seek to
replicate a PA co-management scheme to other National Parks in
Venezuela and other countries. 2. Objectives The Project
Development Objective is to implement an effective co-management
model in Canaima National Park (CNP3) supporting sustainable
natural resource use practices and preserving cultural and
biological diversity. The Global Environmental Objective is to
ensure conservation and sustainable use of CNP’s globally important
biodiversity. 3. Rationale for Bank Involvement 3 In this document,
Canaima National Park (CNP) is defined as the Park contained within
strictly defined boundaries and its buffer zone, to be defined
during first year of project execution.
-
3
The World Bank, through a GEF grant, would provide a unique
contribution to the Project through its capacity to leverage
significant financial resources available in government and
non-government sectors, capitalize on previous and ongoing Bank
operations, and scale up Bank involvement in Venezuela. The WB has
a long history of direct involvement with INPARQUES and with
Venezuela’s protected area system. Specifically, a US$55 million
loan to INPARQUES (1993 – 2004) was designed to support the
institution’s institutional capacity to administer PAs. Lessons
learned during the execution of this loan have been incorporated
into Project design and serve as a backdrop to the Project’s
significant leveraging and policy interaction in Venezuela’s
environmental sector.
In addition to its long involvement in the sector, the World
Bank offers to Venezuela strong technical strengths in three areas
that will be critical to the success of a new management model in
CNP. Each of these is briefly mentioned below.
In the area of PA management and modernization of national
protected area systems, the Bank has considerable experience in the
design and implementation of such projects (see also Section B.4),
with projects in every eligible country in the region. Overall, the
WB is the single largest external financier of biodiversity
conservation and protected area projects in the region.
The World Bank became the first multilateral development bank to
introduce an indigenous peoples policy and has over two decades of
experience implementing this and newer versions of this policy.
During this period, the World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples policy and
programs have continued to evolve, reflecting a continuous learning
process in relation to indigenous peoples, their struggles for
survival and cultural recognition, and their demands for greater
participation in decision-making and development processes4. A rich
array of projects and initiatives throughout the region are
addressing the complex issues that come into play when ancestral
territories of indigenous peoples are located in state-declared
protected areas.
Additionally, the Project will focus on measures to ensure the
long-term financial sustainability of the project. The Bank has
developed considerable expertise in developing local private-public
sector alliances, promoting benefit-sharing and valuing
environmental services (ES). More specifically, the WB has projects
that are ongoing or under preparation to develop protected area
trust funds in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and elsewhere.
4. Description Consolidating the Canaima National Park (CNP) and
effectively integrating indigenous communities into the Park’s
decision making and benefit-sharing processes is a priority to the
Government of Venezuela (GoV) and a strategic objective to be used
in the consolidation of Venezuela’s National Park System. Long-term
conservation of the National Park System and its associated ES
requires a new integrated management model that effectively
mitigates threats and prevents future natural resource degradation.
Total project cost is US$24.5 million, US$6.0 million of which is
being requested from the GEF (see Table 1 in Annex 4 for a
component cost breakdown). The project will have four components:
(i) 4 Davis, S., Uquillas, J.E., Eltz, M. et.al (2004). Lessons of
Indigenous Development in Latin America: The Proceedings of a World
Bank Workshop on Indigenous Peoples Development, The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
-
4
Implementation of Co-management Model; (ii) Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Use Programs; (iii) Pemon Life Plan
Environmental Sub-Projects, and (iv) Project Management. The first
component of the project is primarily concerned with developing the
institutionality and tools for moving forward with a new scheme of
co-management in CNP, including long-term financial sustainability,
and for promoting that model among key stakeholders. The second and
third components finance actual on-the-ground investments within
CNP: those focused on biodiversity conservation/sustainable NRM,
and those proposed and executed by the indigenous Pemon and
contained within their own “Life Plan”. Component 1. Implementation
of Co-Management Model (US$5.9M Total; US$1.3M GEF) CNP’s new
management model will not be effective unless it truly shares
responsibilities and decision making with local communities and
institutions, building a collective, long-term vision. This
component would finance the establishment, capacity-building and
operation of a CNP Co-Management Committee constituted by
INPARQUES, FIEB and CVG EDELCA. This Committee will provide
technical project oversight, define the Park’s long-term
strategies, seek inter-institutional agreements and coordinate the
execution of project activities. Another key objective is to design
a participatory Management Plan (MP) for CNP (including a zoning
and use plan, taking into account the Pemon’s traditional zoning
and use plan). The MP will include three key areas for
implementation: biodiversity conservation and sustainable use,
Pemon environmental programs, and a financial sustainability
strategy. The execution of the first two of these aspects will be
addressed by Components 2 and 3 of this project. In fulfillment of
this subcomponent, the Project will support a comprehensive
analysis of CNP’s financial situation and the design of various
mechanisms, including: (i) tools to enhance CNP’s self-generated
resources, such as ecotourism and a re-indexation of entry fees;
(ii) a conservation trust fund (CTF), and (iii) agreements for
compensation of CNP’s environmental services. The Project will
support the implementation of the first mechanism here mentioned,
seeking an adjustment of visitor fees and the effective
contribution of income from ecotourism to CNP’s financial
situation. The two latter issues considered in this strategy: a
conservation trust fund (CTF) and the valuation and conservation of
environmental services scheme, will be designed but not executed,
due mainly to the fact that both require third party support that
lies beyond the scope of this Project (see Annex 4 for a more
detailed description). Principal activities in fulfillment of this
component include; (i) establishing a participatory Co-Management
Committee for CNP; (ii) designing a CNP Management Plan in
coordination with the Pemon indigenous communities’ Life Plan;
(iii) reaching stakeholder agreements to execute conservation and
natural resource use actions in accordance with CNP’s Management
Plan; (iv) capacity-building; (v) communication and dissemination
strategy of the MP, promoting the acceptance and appropriation of
this MP by the many actors in the park, and (vi) design and
execution of a Financial Sustainability Strategy for CNP. Key
outputs of this component will include: (i) an operational CNP
Co-Management Committee contributing effectively to decision-making
processes and to project execution in accordance with its functions
(see Annex 6); (ii) a completed CNP Management Plan, with
significant input from Pemon communities; (iii) at least 6
co-management agreements signed to execute conservation and natural
resource use actions; (iv) 20 training programs for key CNP
stakeholders and personnel; (v) 5 studies financed for the
completion of the MP including ecotourism and carrying capacity;
fees’sources and application, and valuation of environmental
services; (vi) a financial sustainability strategy designed and
under execution, and (vii) communications materials including a
project website and 15 video productions.
-
5
Component 2. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use
Programs (US$9.6M Total; US$1.9M GEF) The objective of this
component is to support specific actions included in the
co-management plan to arrest biodiversity loss in CNP and to
promote where appropriate its sustainable use. This component will
be under responsibility of the Co-Management Committee, but most
activities will be executed by INPARQUES’ regional office in
Bolivar state. In fulfillment of this component, the Co-Management
Committee will design and support the implementation of
biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural use programs
addressing Focal Management Targets (FMTs) identified for CNP in a
related project under execution titled Enhancing our Heritage
(Heritage Project5). Principal activities in fulfillment of this
component include; (i) undertaking a comprehensive threat
prevention and mitigation program, to include support to
sustainable production systems (SPS) with the Pemon within CNP as
well as specific restoration activities in key sites; (ii)
designing and executing a CNP monitoring system; (iii) designing
and executing a participatory land use surveillance program; (iv)
implementing an environmental education program, and (v)
refurbishing essential infrastructure and park ranger equipment.
The GEF will finance the first three of the abovementioned
activities, while the remainder is being committed by counterpart
donors. Key outputs of this component will include: (i) 9,000
hectares under threat prevention programs and 8 pilot restoration
programs, (ii) an effective CNP monitoring system, providing key
inputs related to biodiversity and natural resources,
socio-economic variables and Park management effectiveness; (iii)
an operational Park surveillance program; (iv) an environmental
education program, with 1,000 beneficiaries trained, and (v)
essential infrastructure provided for the Park. Component 3. Pemon
Life Plan Environmental Sub-Projects (US$6.3M Total; US$2.0M GEF)
The Pemon Plan de Vida, or Life Plan, designed during the Project
preparation phase and included as Annex 20, establishes programs
related to: (i) demarcation and titling of indigenous communal
lands and their natural resources; (ii) education, culture and
territorial management; (iii) health and territorial management
infrastructure; (iv) organizational strengthening and (v) economic
development with SPS. These programs were then reviewed taking into
account the context of this Project’s environmental focus,
resulting in project-supported initiatives, activities and outputs
designed in coordination with Pemon leaders. While Component 1
enables the active participation of Pemon communities in CNP
management, benefit-sharing and decision making, incorporating
their ancestral vision regarding conservation and sustainable
natural resource use, this third component builds upon that
foundation by providing the tools to the Pemon to support and
finance those activities they consider most important to ensure the
long-term conservation of the Park and their culture. This
component will be implemented as a small grants program to finance
Pemon Environmental Sub-projects defined as prioritary in their
Life-Plan. During appraisal, the procedures for this grant
mechanism will be detailed, including size and scope of grants,
eligibility criteria, grant selection, a technical assistance
program to assist Pemon in preparing and implementing projects,
disbursement and financial arrangements. Some activities in this
component will be executed by members of the Co-Management
Committee (such as capacity building), while the sub-projects will
be executed by FIEB or local indigenous organizations.
5 This project is being implemented by INPARQUES and VITALIS and
is financed by UNESCO, IUCN and has received support from NGOs,
including The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
-
6
Principal activities in fulfillment of Component 3 include; (i)
designing a Pemon territorial ordering and zoning plan; (ii)
undertaking cultural strengthening, scientific and traditional
education projects; (iii) offering programs providing technical and
logistical support for indigenous land demarcation and titling;
(iv) offering training programs to the Pemon in business
administration, natural resource management, ecotourism,
monitoring, and related themes; (v) executing SPS projects (i.e.,
ecotourism and agro forestry) meeting social, ecological and
economic sustainability criteria, and (vi) elaborating a guide on
traditional fire use and control. Key outputs of this component
will include: (i) a Pemon traditional zoning and use plan; (ii) 10
cultural strengthening, scientific and traditional education
projects executed; (iii) the necessary studies undertaken to
support indigenous land demarcation and titling for at least 35% of
CNP, (iv) 800 Pemon trained business administration, natural
resource management, ecotourism, monitoring, and related themes;
(v) 12 productive projects (i.e., ecotourism and agro forestry)
executed and meeting social, ecological and economic sustainability
criteria, and (vi) a fire management guide. Component 4. Project
Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and Dissemination
(US$2.7M Total; US$0.9M GEF) The objectives of this component are:
(i) project management; (ii) the design and operation of the
Project’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System, and (iii)
supporting replicability of project successes throughout the
national protected areas system. This component would strengthen
the existing administrative team in SAMARNR to effectively respond
to the Project’s financial management and administrative
coordination, including: (i) procurement, disbursement and
financial execution; (ii) preparing Project and Financial
Monitoring Reports and Project POAs; (iii) preparing annual
execution reports or any request for information by the Bank or
other donors; and (iv) receiving inputs from the Co-Management
committee regarding technical execution of project activities. In
order to ensure Project replicability, INPARQUES will select 4 of
the 43 National Parks in which to conduct a series of dissemination
activities, including: (i) workshops with key stakeholders, and
(ii) annual visits of NP representatives to CNP to view project
advances. Key activities and outputs related to this component will
include: (i) a capable financial and administrative team
operational; (ii) relevant software developed for producing
relevant reports, (iii) annual PMRs and POAs submitted to the Bank;
(iv) Baseline, Mid-term and End-of-project monitoring of management
effectiveness in CNP using the GEF SP1 Tracking Tool; (v) M&E
indicators for the Project monitored, as well as the project’s
intermediate outcome indicators listed in the project’s Results
Framework; (vi) inputs for Bank mid-term and final Project
evaluations; (vii) 7 workshops with key stakeholders and (viii) 6
exchange visits of NP representatives to CNP. 5. Financing Source:
($m.) BORROWER/RECIPIENT 14.75 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 6.00
FOREIGN PRIVATE COMMERCIAL SOURCES (IDENTIFIED) 3.77 Total 24.5 6.
Implementation It was decided that SAMARNR act as the Project’s
financial and administrative coordinator given its robust track
record in financial management and disbursement. A Grant Agreement
will be signed
-
7
between the World Bank (as representative of the GEF) and
SAMARNR, as representative of the Ministry of the Environment. As
the Project’s financial and administrative coordinator, SAMARNR
will also sign an Execution Agreement with the World Bank prior to
disbursement. SAMARNR will strengthen its administrative and
financial team to effectively undertake FM functions, including:
co-submitting with the Co-Management committee the Project’s annual
work plans, as well as submitting budgets, disbursement records,
procurement plans, TORs, counterpart financing, and PMRs. Project
execution and coordination with the other related institutions will
build upon arrangements defined during the Project’s PDF-B stage,
whereby the three key partners (INPARQUES, CVG EDELCA and FIEB)
signed an Inter-Institutional Agreement defining functions and
responsibilities. This inter-institutional arrangement provides the
basis for a Co-Management Committee, which will undertake CNP’s
overall management and will also act as technical project
coordinator. The three Project partners will establish a CNP
Co-Management Committee. This committee’s key functions will
include: (i) overall Project coordination and technical oversight;
(ii) approval of POAs, annual budgets and annual reports necessary
to execute programs and activities in CNP; (iii) coordination and
promotion of stakeholder participation and financial support,
including approval of subsidiary agreements; (iv) approval of CNP’s
Management Plan and specific Zoning and Use Plans and submission to
relevant authorities for their ratification; (v) obtaining
consensus and collaboration among stakeholders around CNP’s
strategies, activities and programs, and (vi) technical supervision
of the Project’s execution and impact in line with the Park
System’s broader environmental and institutional development goals
and in line with the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. The
Co-Management Committee may approve, if necessary, the involvement
of additional members. During Project execution, Subsidiary
agreements will be signed between SAMARNR and project stakeholders.
These agreements will identify organizations to execute specific
programs in fulfillment of Project objectives, their technical and
financial responsibilities, activities and execution timelines.
Relevant organizations will prepare annual work plan proposals to
the Co-Management Committee for its approval. A model of a
subsidiary agreement will be included in the Project’s Operational
Manual. Prior to appraisal, Coordination Agreements will be signed
between SAMARNR and each of the following committed and potential
co-financing partners in order to guarantee management and
investment coordination. Official co-financing confirmation letters
and activities to be financed by each co-financier will be defined
before appraisal. Co-financing commitments include: CVG EDELCA,
US$6.1 million; MARN/INPARQUES, US$6.3 million; Ministry of
Tourism, US$2.5 million and other donors, US$3.8 million. 7.
Sustainability Financial sustainability is central to Project
design. The Project contemplates the design and execution of a
long-term Financial Sustainability Strategy for CNP. CNP’s special
conditions favor the implementation of conservation incentives,
since the Park supplies 45% of the Caroní River’s hydric resources.
The valuation of ES will support the elaboration of strategies for
compensation to CNP providing key resources. Additionally, CNP’s
outstanding scenic beauty represents a significant potential for
the development of eco-tourism activities as the critical aspect
for development in the Project’s Financial Sustainability Strategy,
linking conservation with PA financial sustainability and regional
sustainable development, and may be highly replicable to other
areas.. Social sustainability of Project activities will be
achieved through high levels of community participation in PA
conservation and management, the strengthening of social
capabilities, and sustainable natural resource use alternatives.
Specifically, the Project will support: (i) active community
participation in CNP’s planning and management; (ii) a
co-management decision-making and execution structure for
-
8
project activity execution; (iii) sustainable production systems
and other economic activities (eco-tourism) as a strategy to
reverse inadequate land use, and (iv) participatory Management Plan
implementation. The Project will promote institutional
sustainability through the following activities: (i) institutional
strengthening of Project partners, mainly INPARQUES, SAMARNR and
FIEB; (ii) greater coordination and complementarities through the
establishment of a CNP Co-Management Committee, (iii)
public-private partnerships for project activities through the
signing of co-execution agreements and the development of tourism
activities, and (iv) greater agility, transparency and flexibility
in resource investment and management. INPARQUES will seek
replicability by selecting 4 National Parks to disseminate lessons
learned and project outcomes, conducting a series of workshops and
exchange visits and producing manuals summarizing best practices to
be distributed among selected NP representatives. 8. Lessons
Learned from Past Operations in the Country/Sector The following
lessons learned are drawn from a range of projects in both
Venezuela and LAC, where similar projects have contributed to
participatory conservation sustainable natural resource use
initiatives. INPARQUES’ institutional capacity. The WB loan to
INPARQUES approved in 1993 and completed in 2004 supported
INPARQUES’ institutional capacity to administer PAs under its
jurisdiction. However, the Project’s Implementation Completion
Report (ICR) points out key challenges faced during project
implementation, namely: a lack of continuity and permanence of key
staff; the need for ongoing and timely supervision by MARN and the
Bank; the need for more effective coordination between various
governmental entities; the need for a more decentralized
organizational structure within INPARQUES to promote agile and
effective decisions, and political volatility. These lessons have
been taken into account in the proposed Project. Specifically, the
recognition of structural deficiencies in the model of centralized
park management through INPARQUES is the impetus behind this
project’s focus on helping them to transition to a more
participatory model of park management, including not only local
communities but major actors such as EDELCA, in the case of CNP.
Active stakeholder participation. The principal lesson learned from
the Bank’s experience working with protected areas throughout Latin
America is that active stakeholder participation is the most
effective approach to conserving threatened resources. Where the
local communities are indigenous, effective and close dialogue must
be established with indigenous communities throughout project
design and execution, and government entities must receive
specialized training in indigenous issues. Evidence of taking this
lesson to heart in the current project is reflected in the
Inter-institutional Agreement signed during project preparation by
the three organizations (INPARQUES, EDELCA, and FIEB) in June 2004
and the project design itself which is predicated on stakeholder
participation and co-management. In Colombia, the Conservation and
Sustainable Development of the Matavén Forest project (Mid-size GEF
grant; Project ID 66750) supported the consolidation of a 900,000
hectare indigenous resguardo and ecological zoning and
environmental management plans designed in consensus with
indigenous authorities. This project was pioneer in creating a
community-led conservation area in Colombia. The Naya Biological
Corridor in the Munchique-Pinche Sector Project (Mid-Size GEF
grant; Project ID 53804) supports environmental land use planning
with Afro-Colombian groups and indigenous communities. Experience
in the Matavén and Naya GEF-MSPs demonstrates the positively
reinforcing relationship between local land governance and
biodiversity conservation. Lessons learned in both
-
9
projects regarding sustainable production systems, conservation
and indigenous participation will be of high relevance to the
current proposal. Protected Areas Consolidation. The Colombian
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Andes
Region Project (Full-size GEF grant; Project ID 63317) contains a
Protected Areas Component supporting the establishment and
consolidation of National Parks, regional PA systems and civil
society reserves. Lessons learned from this component include: (i)
management Plans have proved to be useful tools to promote
conservation in National Parks; (ii) resources executed by National
Parks demanded supervision from the PIU located in the executing
agency, the Instituto Alexander van Humboldt (IAvH), but after the
Project’s second year resulted in improved management capabilities;
(iii) National Parks achieving the best levels of consolidation
have garnered higher levels of community participation, and (iv) a
Policy of Social Participation in Conservation has been a
fundamental tool for the execution of National Park and buffer zone
activities. Conservation Incentives. The Bank has considerable
experience in the design, implementation, and support of
environmental services payment and valuation projects. The
WB/GEF-FSP Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem
Management Project (Project ID 72979) under execution in Colombia,
Costa Rica and Nicaragua pays and provides technical assistance to
livestock producers who undertake biodiversity-friendly land use
changes. Relevant lessons learned include: (i) payments for
environmental services (PES) in silvopastoral systems have been
successful in promoting biodiversity-friendly land use changes;
(ii) biodiversity and carbon sequestration increase significantly
upon the transition from degraded pastures to silvopastoral
systems, and (iii) PES foster a greater environmental conscience
among producers and award social recognition for their
contributions. Key lessons can be derived from this project’s
institutional arrangements and application of incentives for
conservation. Two other Bank and GEF-supported initiatives underway
in Costa Rica contribute valuable lessons to the proposed project.
The first is the Ecomarkets Project (P061314), whose objective is
to increase the conservation of forests by supporting the
development of markets and private sector providers for
environmental services supplied by privately-owned forests. This
project has exceeded most key performance indicators, being a key
input to the Scaling Up and Mainstreaming Payments for
Environmental Services Project currently under preparation
(P098838). In this second project the Government of Costa Rica is
asking for a US$30m loan to the World Bank to pay farmers for their
generation of ES, demonstrating that the concept of PES has been
effectively mainstreamed both inside the Bank and in Costa Rica. 9.
Safeguard Policies (including public consultation)
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environmental
Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [X] [ ] Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
[X] [ ] Pest Management (OP 4.09) [X] [ ] Cultural Property (OPN
11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [X] [ ] Involuntary Resettlement
(OP/BP 4.12) [X] [ ] Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as
OP 4.10) [X] [ ] Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [X] [ ] Safety of Dams (OP/BP
4.37) [ ] [X] Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* [ ] [X]
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [X]
* By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend
to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the
disputed areas
-
10
This Project is expected to have a highly positive environmental
impact. If implemented as planned, the Project would have no
significant adverse environmental effects. It would also comply
with all applicable World Bank safeguard policies, as explained
below.
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). The Project is classified as
Category B, requiring an Environmental Analysis (EA) but not a
full-scale Environmental Impact Assessment. The proposed project is
aimed at arresting and reversing trends of degradation and
biodiversity loss in Canaima National Park (CNP). The proposed
Project is aimed at supporting environmental conservation and
improving capabilities in CNP to restore natural ecosystem cover
and reverse trends of degradation and biodiversity loss. The
consolidation of strict conservation areas, added to the support of
biodiversity-friendly production systems, is expected to reduce
existing threats to effective conservation in CNP and increase its
social and economic sustainability. The Project should be largely
positive to environmental conservation, for several reasons. First,
the Project will not develop facilities or infrastructure
generating environmental impact to CNP. Second, the Project will
focus on conservation activities. Third, the application of
sustainable production strategies will reduce existing pressures on
natural resources, restore degraded ecosystems and favor biological
connectivity between various vulnerable areas, taking into account
local economic and social needs. Eco-tourism activities will
support the Pemon communities in the provision of these services
and seek the certification of their environmentally-friendly
practices. Nevertheless, aspects of the Project could have minor
environmental impacts associated with sustainable production
systems and ecotourism. Annex 10A provides additional detail
regarding the mitigation measures to be taken in the event that
project activities generate negative environmental impact. Natural
Habitats (OP 4.04) and Forests (OP 4.36). The Project is fully
consistent with the Bank’s Natural Habitats and Forests policies.
It would not cause, nor facilitate, any significant loss or
degradation of forests or other natural habitats. On the contrary,
the Project is intended to arrest current levels of biodiversity
and natural vegetation cover degradation by improving the
protection and management of natural habitats and forests within
the Project area. Through its Component 1, the Project will: (i)
design and implement a Management Plan for CNP, integrating Pemon
traditional values and knowledge; (ii) support capacity-building
and training for Park personnel, and (iii) support the
consolidation of CNP’s financial situation and the application of
incentives for watershed conservation. Through its Component 2, the
Project will undertake threat prevention and restoration projects.
Component 3 will seek the full integration of the Pemon community
to Park decision making and management, incorporating ancestral
practices regarding fire and sustainable forest use. The M&E
system will contain key indicators to monitor the restoration and
preservation of natural habitats and forests in CNP in support of
the Bank’s Policies. Pest Management (OP 4.09). The project is
fully consistent with the Bank's integrated pest management (IPM)
Policy. The Project will support the use of biological or
environmental control methods and reduce reliance on synthetic
chemical pesticides within CNP, as part of its biodiversity
conservation strategy. When working with indigenous groups, the
Project will support the use of cultural practices. The Project
will support controlling pests primarily through environmental
methods and will support organic production. When this is not
feasible, the project implementation agency will finance the use of
pesticides for control of disease vectors, following IPM Bank
application. The Co-Management Committee will be responsible for
the application of the Bank's IPM, and will submit required reports
to SAMARNR for submission to the Bank.
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03). Some of the conservation areas to
be supported under the Project contain significant archaeological,
historical, or other cultural patrimony. The preservation of
cultural
-
11
sites or relics will be considered a crucial element in CNP’s
Co- Management Plan. Chance find procedures will be included in the
Project Operational Manual. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). No
involuntary resettlement of any people will take place under the
Project. However, the ways of life of communities inhabiting in or
near the Project area might be affected through restraints on
natural resource use. The team’s assessment is that the
participatory nature of Management Plan implementation and planning
and the provision of alternative livelihood mechanisms (including
sustainable production systems, ecotourism and bio-commerce, will
generate positive socio-economic effects at the local community
level. The team will prepare a Process Framework before appraisal
as mandated by this policy in which the alternative livelihood
proposals will be described in agreement with the potentially
affected population. Indigenous Peoples (O.D. 4.10). The Project is
being undertaken together with the Pemon indigenous community and
the FIEB. The Project will not cause any adverse effects on
Indigenous Peoples residing in or near project areas. Project
execution would support co-management agreements and their
implementation in CNP, conservation activities with indigenous
communities, and local welfare improvements through access to
training and productive projects, mainly ecotourism. The team is
preparing an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) to be disclosed and
approved by the Bank describing the measures taken to ensure there
is no impact on indigenous groups, and outlining potential conflict
resolution mechanisms in the unlikely event that conflicts
arise.
In accordance with IBRD’s policy on Disclosure of Information
(BP 17.50), copies of the Environmental Assessment Report and
Process Framework will be available for public viewing at
INPARQUES’ office (Caracas, Venezuela) by appraisal.
10. List of Factual Technical Documents 11. CVG EDELCA. 2003.
Estudio Plan Maestro de la Cuenca del río Caroní. Econatura -
Comisión
Europea – INPARQUES. 1997. Ciencia y Conservación en el Sistema
de Parques Nacionales de Venezuela. Una experiencia de Cooperación
Interinstitucional. Caracas.
12. CVG EDELCA-CORPORACIÓN VENEZOLANA DE GUAYANA. 2004. La
Cuenca del Río Caroní. Una visión en cifras. Caracas.
13. CVG EDELCA (2004). Plan Maestro de la cuenca del río Caroní.
Vol 2. Tomo 3. Parte 1. Caracas: CVG EDELCA.
14. CVG EDELCA (2004). La Cuenca del río Caroní. Una visión en
Cifras. Caracas: CVG EDELCA.
15. Colmenares, M.Magdalena. and Stubbs, J. “Poverty, social
exclusion, and ethnic and racial diversity”, in Venezuela Policy
Notes, World Bank, 2003.
16. República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Decreto Nº 1.137,
Ampliación del Parque Nacional Canaima. G.O N° 30.809 del
01.10.75.
17. República Bolivariana de Venezuela. Decreto Nº 3110. Plan de
Ordenamiento y Reglamento de Uso de la Reserva Forestal Imataca.
G.O Nº 38.028 del 22.09.04
18. Interinstitutional agreement between FIEB, INPARQUES and CVG
EDELCA during PDF-B phase.
19. IDB (2002) Compilation of Legislation on Indigenous Issues.
20. Aguilera et al. 2001. Biodiversidad en Venezuela. CONICIT –
FUNDACIÓN POLAR. Caracas. 21. Bono, G. 1996. Flora y Vegetación del
Estado Táchira, Venezuela. Monografía XX. Museo
Regionale di Scienza Naturale, Torino, Italia. 22. Dinerstein,
E. Olson, D.M., Graham, D., Webster, A.L., Primm, S.A., Bookbinder,
M.P., Ledec,
G. 1995. A conservation assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions
of Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington D.C. The World
Bank.
-
12
23. Fundación Terramar S. C. s/f. Guía ecológica de Canaima. 24.
García, S. Y C. Ron. 1998. Estimación del potencial pesquero del
Embalse Gurí y su relación con
algunos parámetros limnológicos. IV Jornadas Profesionales de
EDELCA , 20 – 23 de mayo de 1998.
25. García, R., J. L. (1999).Observaciones sobre la fauna de
Proctotrupoidea y Platygastroida (Hymenoptera) del Auyantepui,
Parque Nacional Canaima, Estado Bolívar, Venezuela. Acta Terraris
11: 26 – 39.
26. González-Sponga, M. A. 1997. (1998). Arácnidos de Venezuela.
Dos nuevos géneros y cuatro nuevas especies de Opiliones del Tepui
Guaiquinimia. Y del Parque Nacional Canaima (Phalangodidae:
Cosmetidae). Memoria Sociedad de Ciencas Naturales La Salle. 148: 3
– 16.
27. Guerrero, R. 1993. Fauna Tepuyana en: Informe Técnico sobre
los Tepuyes de la Formación Roraima, Venezuela. Acta Terramaris 6:
52 – 57.
28. Hoyos, J. 1985. Flora de la Isla de Margarita. Monografía N°
34. Sociedad y Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales.
Caracas.
29. Huber, O, Febres, G. y colaboradores. 2000. Guía Ecológica
de la Gran Sabana. Troncal 10: Piedra de la Virgen – Santa Elena de
Uairén. The Nature Conservancy –
30. INPARQUES – CVG EDELCA – CVG TECMIN. Caracas. 31. Huber, O.
1997. Ambientes Fitogeográficos de Venezuela en: Serie de Catálogo
Zoológico de
Venezuela. Vol. 279 – 298. Caracas. 32. Huber, O. Y C. Alarcón.
1988. Mapa de la Vegetación Actual de Venezuela. MARNR. Caracas.
33. INPARQUES-ECONATURA-COMISIÓN EUROPEA. 1997. Ciencia y
Conservación en el
Sistema de Parques Nacionales de Venezuela. Una experiencia de
cooperación internacional. Caracas.
34. INPARQUES – VITALIS. 2005. Primer Informe Actualizado de la
Evaluación del Parque Nacional Canaima, Venezuela, como Sitio de
Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad (Documento Preliminar). Proyecto
Mejorando Nuestra Herencia. The Univertity of
Queensland-UNESCO-Patrimonio Mundial-UICN. Caracas, Venezuela.
35. Iturriaga et al. 2000. Estado Actual del Conocimiento de la
Microbiota de Venezuela. Documento Técnico para la Estrategia
Nacional sobre Diversidad Biológica y su Plan de Acción. MARN.
36. Lasso, C., Novoa, D. Y F. Ramos. 1989. La ictiofauna del
lago de Guri: composición, abundancia y potencial pesquero. Parte
I: consideraciones generales e inventario de la ictiofauna del lago
Guri con breve descripción de las especies de interés para la pesca
deportiva y comercial. Mem Soc. Cienc. Nat. La Salle, 49 50 (131
–134): 141 – 158. Caracas.
37. Linares, O. 1998. Mamíferos de Venezuela. Sociedad Aubobon
de Venezuela. Caracas. 38. MacGuire et al.1953 – 1989. The botany
of the Guayana Highland. Serie de 14 publicaciones del
New York Botanical Gardens: 39. MARNR. Áreas Naturales
Protegidas de Venezuela. 1992. Caracas. 40. MARN. 2001. Estrategia
Nacional sobre Diversidad Biológica y su Plan de Acción.
Oficina
Nacional de Diversidad Biológica. Caracas. 41. MARNR, UNELLEZ y
BIOCENTRO.1998 a. Documentos Técnicos para la Estrategia
Nacional
sobre Diversidad Biológica y su Plan de Acción. Estado Actual
del Conocimiento de la Fauna en Venezuela. G. Ríos, et at Tomos I y
II. Guanare, Venezuela.
42. Novoa, D., Koonce, J. Y F. Ramos. 1989. La ictiofauna del
Lago Guri: Composición, abundancia y potencial pesquero. Parte II:
Evaluación del Potencial Pesquero y Estrategias de Ordenamiento
Pesquero. Mem, Soc. Cienc. Nat. La Salle, 49 (131 – 132), 159 –
197. Caracas.
43. Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D.
Birgess, G. W. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. Dam,ico, I. Itoua, H.S.
Strad, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Louks, T. F. Allnutt, T. H. Ricketts, Y.
Kura, J. L. Lamoureaux, W.W. Wettengle, P. Hedao & K. R.
Kassem. 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World. A new Map of
Life on Earth. BioScience 51 (11): 933-938.
44. Pérez, L. 1996. Niveles de mercurio en peces comerciales del
Embalse Guri, Venezuela. V Seminario Guayanés sobre Conservación
del Ambiente. Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela.
-
13
45. Taphorn, D. Y J. García. 1991. El río Claro y sus peces.
Consideraciones de los impactos ambientales de las presas sobre la
ictiofauna del Bajo Caroní. Biollania, 8: 23 – 45.
46. Veiga, M. 1995. Report on Mercury Bioaccumulation in Bajo
Caroni and Guri. Report prepared to Profauna, MARNR. Caracas.
47. Welcomme, Robin. 1992. Pesca Fluvial. FAO. Documento Técnico
de Pesca. N° 262. Roma, FAO.
48. Welcomme, Robin. 1979. Fisheries ecology of floodplain
rivers. Longman, London. 49. Arigoni, R., Seroa da Motta, R. y
Ferraz, C., (2000). A estimacao do valor ambiental do Parque
Nacional do Iguacu atraves do metodo de custo de viagem. En:
Pesquisa e Planejamento Economico, December, 30 (3): 355-82.
50. Febres, G., (s.f.). Ordenamiento Espacial del Corredor
Turístico Laguna de Canaima- Isla Ratón, Sector Occidental del
Parque Nacional Canaima. INPARQUES.
51. Flores, A.J., (2002). Valoración económica de los beneficios
de un programa para mejorar la calidad ambiental de un ecosistema
natural (Estudio de caso: Parque Nacional El Avila- Venezuela).
Tesis de Grado. Facultad de Economía. Universidad de Los Andes,
Bogotá
52. García, M., (2005). Informe de actualización del esquema
tarifario de servicios ecoturísticos de
la UAESPNN. Segundo Informe. Contrato Consultoría. Programa de
Fortalecimiento Institucional. Parques Nacionales Naturales de
Colombia. Bogotá.
53. Gotman, P., (2002). Putting a Price Tag on Conservation:
Cost Benefit Analysis of Venezuela's National Parks. En: Journal of
Latin American Studies (34): 43-70.
54. Salazar, H.L., (2004). Aproximación a una tarifa de entrada
al Monumento Natural Alejandro de Humboldt, Cueva del Guácharo,
Venezuela. Universidad de Los Andes. Bogotá D.C.
55. Simpson, R Davis (1997). Biodiversity Prospecting: Shopping
the Wilds Is Not the Key To onservation. Consultado en:
www.rff.org/resources_articles/files/biodprospect.
56. Simpson, A. (1996). The Social Value of Using Biodiversity
in 57. New Pharmaceutical Product Research. Discussion Paper 96-33
September.
58. Contact point Contact: Juan Pablo Ruiz Title: Natural
Resources Mgmt. Spec. Tel: 5280+233 Fax: 57 1 326 34 80 Email:
[email protected] Location: Bogota, Colombia (IBRD) 59. For more
information contact:
The InfoShop The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20433 Telephone: (202) 458-5454 Fax: (202) 522-1500 Web:
http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop