Sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas Project

ANNEX 4

PAGE 1 of 4

Sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas Project

Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase GEF Project:

Achievements and Lessons Learned

Background

1.The first protected area of Bolivia, the Parque Nacional Sajama, was created in 1939. However, it was not until 1985 that the Bolivian government designated administrative responsibility for its management to the Forestry Development Center (CDF). In 1992, with the enactment of the national Environment Law (Ley 1333), all management responsibilities for parks and protected areas passed to the newly created National Secretariat for the Environment (Secretaría Nacional del Medio Ambiente, SENMA). In 1993, protected areas came under the National Directorate (DCNB) within a newly created Ministry of Sustainable Development and Environment.

2.The Bolivian Congress established the National System for Protected Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas-SNAP) in 1992, composed of 18 legally created protected areas. Currently, biodiversity conservation within protected areas is the responsibility of SERNAP (Servicio del Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas) within a new Ministry of Sustainable Development and Planning, through the office of the Viceminister for the Environment, Natural Resources, and Forest Development. SERNAP was created in 1998 by Congress, as an autonomous Government agency in charge of the management of SNAP. A summary of the categories in the SNAP is presented below:

Main Category Of Protected Area Management / Surface In Hectares / % Of The Country In The Category
National Parks (IUCN I-II) / 7,440,919 / 6.77%
Natural Integrated Management Areas (IUCN III-IV) / 6,471,932 / 5.89%
Indigenous Territories (only those belonging to the SNAP) (IUCN III-IV) / 5,110,704 / 4.65%
TOTALS / 19,023,555 / 17.32%

GEF Pilot Phase Project

3.The GEF supported Biodiversity Conservation Project (Pilot Phase) was approved in 1992 and received cofinancing support from the Government of Switzerland. The major components of the project were: (i) support for the organization, implementation, and follow up of a National System of Protected Areas (SNAP); (ii) support to 7 existing protected areas and the establishment of two new areas; (iii) alternative management of natural resources in buffer zones; and (iv) administrative support to the project coordination unit in the National Environment Fund (FONAMA).

4.Specific activities included: (i) institutional strengthening of the National Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation (DGB); (ii) development of a biodiversity information system; (iii) consolidation of the SNAP via the development and implementation of management plans; (iv) implementation of a program of control and enforcement within the protected areas which make up the SNAP; (v) training for personnel in the SNAP; and (vi) development of rules, regulations, policies and procedures to supervise the SNAP through a coordinated system of law enforcement. The project envisioned the development of a long term funding strategy for the SNAP.

5.The project achieved most of its objectives. The project’s most notable achievements are:

• development of the SNAP based on protection of representative ecoregions;
• trained professionals are in place at headquarters and in the parks;
• basic infrastructure and equipment are in place including a radio communications system;
• two new protected areas were established: (i) Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado K´aaiya del Gran Chaco; and (ii) Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi, covering a total of 6.4 million ha.
• management plans developed for seven priority areas.
• the capacity of the DNAPVS (today SERNAP) to administer the SNAP and to fulfill its other functions was strengthened.
• a Park Guard Training Center has been established with Universidad Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno at its facilities in El Vallecito.

• Citizen committees were established in most areas.

6.In addition to these achievements, the SNAP provided the framework for: (1) the development of a successful Wildlife Management and Germplasm Conservation Program; and (2) a significant increase in the number and total area under management. There is concern, though, that the expansion has been too rapid and is having a negative impact on the areas established prior to 1992. Between 1993 and 1998, the area under the SNAP expanded from 8% to 17% of Bolivia’s territory, without a commensurate increase in budget. In this regard, the GEF project may have been overzealous in encouraging this increase without ensuring that mechanisms for financial sustainability were in place. The proposed SNAP Sustainability project intends to address this problem by prioritizing and decentralizing management of some areas to NGOs and local government.

7.The primary weakness of the Pilot Phase Project resulted from the lack of a viable fiduciary fund and alternative revenue sources (fees, etc.) to fund the annual operating costs of the SNAP (approximately US$5.0 million per year). Political meddling undermined the institutional viability of the GOBs key financing entity, FONAMA, resulting in the failure of the fiduciary fund to obtain adequate financial support from donors. After the dismissal of the project management unit staff in 1997, funding delays to parks resulted in the resignation of key staff members and park wardens; since then, however, key staff have been re-hired. Secondary factors that limited project performance were: (i) lack of transparency in the contracting processes that would build on successes realized throughout the life of the project; (ii) excessive emphasis on programs based in La Paz; (iii) the failure to develop a comprehensive ecotourism strategy and an entry fee policy; (iv) the failure to pass the Biodiversity Law, which would have given the Park wardens and areas themselves a more substantial legal mandate; and (v) the failure to plan in a timely fashion for ongoing support after the project ended.

IUCN Independent Evaluation

8.An IUCN independent evaluation of the GEF Pilot Phase project was conducted in late 1998. Its findings and recommendations have been discussed with the GoB and the Bank, and, where appropriate, incorporated into the proposed design of the SNAP Sustainability Project. A full report is available from the Bank and from SERNAP. The findings in the report are summarized as follows:

9.There is a general opinion that the project has permitted the consolidation of two aspects of biodiversity conservation in Bolivia. Firstly, it has significantly increased the number of protected areas being managed; and secondly it has strengthened the management capacity of national organizations, both governmental and non-governmental. Starting out in 1993 from a situation where a total of 4 areas were being administered by organizations other than the national authority, in 1998 there were a total of 14 protected areas with some degree of management carried out directly or indirectly by the national authority. Management capacity is manifested in a body of park guards and area directors, the great majority of whom are committed to the principles of conservation and sustainable development, and have at their disposition tools to enable them to manage protected areas in complex social situations.

10.Both the protected areas network and the personnel in charge of it constitute the principal achievements of the project, and the strengthening of these two aspects should continue be the centerpiece of any future initiative.

11.The project has also contributed to testing, with varying degrees of success, innovative mechanisms, such as Management Comittees and Administration Agreements, which have permitted the incorporation and strengthening of local people and non-governmental organizations in the management of protected areas. In addition, the GET contribution has acted as a catalyst in attracting a variety of new sources of funding for the national system of protected areas (SNAP).

12.Taking into account the original status of the institutions charged with managing the protected area system, the amount of finance provided, and the implementation period of the project, the IUCN Evaluation team concluded that the General Directorate of Biodiversity (DGB) – the principal beneficiary of the project- suffered the consequences of an institutional growth crisis. This crisis is not unrelated to the evolution of the institutional and normative context in Bolivia during recent years. There were a number of deficiencies in the management of the project that could be improved. The responsibility of these deficiencies is shared by the Bolivian institutions and the donor and cooperation agencies. Both groups of institutions should contribute equally to their solution.

13.The IUCN Independent Evaluation team recommended that a second phase of the project be pursued. In so doing, they identified the following as elements that should be addressed in the design of the follow-on project:

• A System Plan formally adopted by the Bolivian State (legislative and executive branches).
• Differentiation of roles and functions of government and non-government organizations and their capacity to participate in the implementation of the System Plan and contribute to the sustainability of the SNAP.
• Putting on sound basis the SNAP (boundary demarcation, re-categorization, zoning and derogation).
• Differentiation of jurisdiction of government agencies with responsibility for protected area management.
• A technical and administrative structure fully dedicated to the management of the project, operating in coordination with the national protected areas authority.
• A Project Steering Commitee.
• An analysis of the real capacity of the national authority of protected areas to administer the GET funds.

These issues have been fully taken into account in designing the present project.

Annex 3

Table 1

PROTECTED AREAS OF BOLIVIA 1
SUMMARY OF FUNDING, 1990–98
(US dollars)
Nº / PROTECTED AREAS / 1990 / 1991 / 1992 / 1993 / 1994 / 1995 / 1996 / 1997 / 1998 * / TOTAL
1 / ISIBORO SECURE / 0 / 0 / 0 / 108,882 / 206,516 / 137,088 / 186,844 / 295,856 / 269,441 / 1,204,627
2 / MADIDI * / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 325,512 / 334,432 / 256,974 / 163,491 / 202,950 / 1,283,359
3 / ESTACION BIOL. BENI * / 168,527 / 177,213 / 120,056 / 200,121 / 521,683 / 571,077 / 930,098 / 508,422 / 131,471 / 3,328,667
4 / NOEL KEMPFF * / 144,823 / 1,410,494 / 391,299 / 448,520 / 851,557 / 919,143 / 1,884,675 / 1,336,229 / 1,244,526 / 8,631,266
5 / AMBORO * / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 423,255 / 1,107,676 / 352,213 / 242,742 / 197,964 / 2,323,850
6 / CHACO * / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 100,000 / 270,981 / 315,542 / 1,620,295 / 142,511 / 2,449,329
7 / COTAPATA / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 112,000 / 97,122 / 150,760 / 359,882
8 / CARRASCO * / 0 / 125,000 / 128,000 / 157,000 / 122,000 / 384,090 / 280,252 / 190,244 / 157,808 / 1,544,393
9 / PILON LAJAS / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 241,609 / 241,609 / 0 / 483,218
10 / TARIQUIA / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6,792 / 127,102 / 141,109 / 231,955 / 338,719 / 845,678
11 / PANTANAL
(SAN MATIAS) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 25,000 / 0 / 10,000 / 35,000
12 / MANURIPI – HEATH / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 15,014 / 10,000 / 10,000 / 35,014
13 / SAJAMA / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 236,006 / 103,251 / 38,922 / 378,179
14 / ULLA ULLA * / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 365,206 / 512,181 / 348,679 / 441,683 / 230,648 / 1,898,398
15 / EDUARDO AVAROA * / 0 / 0 / 0 / 24,125 / 147,510 / 237,765 / 482,686 / 407,166 / 180,119 / 1,479,372
16 / TORO TORO / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 600,000 / 1,770 / 601,770
17 / EL PALMAR / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
18 / OTUQUIS / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
19 / CENTRAL UNIT / 0 / 0 / 0 / 44,337 / 179,517 / 335,505 / 421,380 / 269,787 / 115,428 / 1,365,954
/ GRAND TOTAL / 313,350 / 1,712,707 / 639,355 / 982,985 / 3,249,548 / 4,937,040 / 6,230,081 / 6,759,853 / 3,423,037 / 28,247,956
1.Protected areas marked with an * received financial support under the Pilot Phase GEF project.

ANNEX 5

PAGE 1of 8

Annex 5

Sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas Project

Status of Protected Areas in Bolivia [1]

(1)Madidi National Park *. Area: 1,895,750 hectares

Ecoregion: Humid Forest; Evergreen Humid Mountain Forest and Sub-Humid Yungas Forest.

Financial situation: The German Technical Cooperation and the Dutch Technical Cooperation have committed financial support during 1999 for the administrative program, resource protection program, education and environmental interpretation program, maintenance program and the resource management program. The Dutch Technical Cooperation will give financial support during the coming years to cover the costs of the administrative program, resource protection program, education and environmental interpretation program. There is a gap in financial support for tourism and research programs.

This area was created with support from the Pilot Phase GEF Project.

(2)Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco National Park *. Area: 3,441,115 hectares

Ecoregion: Deciduous dry Forest of Lowland Chaco and Pre-Mountain Chaco.

Financial situation: The national park has a trust fund which cover the costs of the administrative and protection programs. This trust will fund the research, education and environmental interpretation programs during 1999. There is a gap in financial support for maintenance, tourism and resource management programs.

This area was created with support from Pilot Phase GEF Project.

(3)Amboro National Park *. Area: 442,500 hectares

Ecoregion: Tropical Transitional Forests between Amazonia, Chiquitania and Savannas.

Financial situation: During a five year period funds are secure for administrative, resource protection, education and environmental interpretation programs. From the year 2000 to 2003 resource management program will have financial support. There is a gap in financial support for maintenance, tourism, research, and the management plan.

(4)Noel Kempff Mercado National Park *. Area: 1,523,446 hectares

Ecoregion: Humid Forest, Evergreen Mountain and Savanna.

Financial situation: Several donors have committed financial support for the five year period to cover the costs of administrative, resource protection, education, environmental interpretation, maintenance, tourism and resource management. There is a gap in financial support for research program.

(5)Carrasco National Park *. Area: 622,600 hectares

Ecoregion: Humid Forest; Evergreen Humid Mountain Forest and Sub-Humid Yungas Forest.

Financial situation: In 1999 administrative program, resource protection program and the management plan received financial support. Financial support for administrative program, resource protection program and the management plan implementation have been assured for the five years period. From year 2000 to year 2003 the administrative, resource protection, education, environmental interpretation maintenance and tourism will have financial support.

(6)Beni Biological Station and Biosphere Reserve *. Area: 135,000 hectares

Ecoregion: Stational Humid Forest and Sub-Tropical Transition Lowland Forests.

Financial situation: Several funding donors have committed financial suport over a five year period for administrative, resource protection, education, environmental interpretation, tourism and resource management programs. The maintenance program has financial support only to the year 2000. There is a gap in financial support for the maintenance and research programs from the year 2000 to 2003.

(7)Ulla Ulla Wildlife Reserve *. Area: 240,000 hectares.

Ecoregion: Highlands, (mountains, praires, puna, paramos)

Financial situation: During 1999 there is financial support only for administrative and resource protection program. There is a gap in financial support for adminisitrative, resource protection, maintenance and tourism program.

(8)Eduardo Avaroa Andean Wildlife Reserve *. Area: 714,745 hectares

Ecoregion: Highlands, (mountains, praires, puna, paramos)

Financial situation: All the management programs are funded for the five year period with the exception of the research program. During the year 1999 there is partial funding for education, environmental interpretation and the management plan. There is a gap in financial support for the research program.

(9)Sajama National Park. Area: 110, 230 hectares

Ecoregion: Highlands, (mountains, praires, puna, paramos)

Financial situation: There are secured funds for administrative, resource protection, education, environmental education, tourism and resource management for five years. There is a gap in financial support for the research program.

(10)Cotapata National Park. Area: 58,620 hectares

Ecoregion: Highlands and Humid Forest and Evergreen.

Financial situation: All the management programs have financial support for the five years perios with the exception of the resource management program.

(11)Isiboro Secure National Park. Area: 1,200,000 hectares

Ecoreegion: Tropical Forest Transitional and Stational Humid Forest Sub Tropical Transition and Lowland.

Financial situation: Several donors have assured financial support for administrative, resource protection, education, environmental education, resource management for the five years period. The research program has financial support only for 1999. There is a gap in financial support for the maintenance and tourism programs.

(12)Pilon Lajas National Park. Area: 800,000 hectares

Ecoregion: Humid Forest; Evergreen Humid Mountain Forest and Sub-Humid Yungas Forest.

Financial situation: This area has funds only for 1999 to cover the costs of administrative, resource protection, education, environmental interpretation and the management plan. There is a gap in financial support for all the management programs from the year 2000 to 2003.

(13)Tariquia National Reserve. Area: 246,870 hectares

Ecoregion: Sub Humid Forest, Sub - Evergreen Mountain Pre – Mountain Forests.

Financial situation: In 1999 the administrative, resource protection, and resource management have assured total financial support while education, environmental interpretation, maintenance and tourism have only secured partial funds. From 2000 to 2003 all the management programs with the exception of research have financial support.

(14)Torotoro National Park. Area: 16,570 hectares

Ecoregion: Mesotermic Valleys (Thorn Shrub Lands, and Deciduous dry Forests.

Financial situation: Three management programs and a management plan have financial support only for 1999. No other sources of funding have been found.

(15)Manuripi Heath Reserve. Area: 850,000 hectares

Ecoregion: Stational Humid Forest, Tropical Amazonian Lowlands Amazonia.

Financial situation: For 1999 there is financial support to cover the costs of the administrative and resource protection programs and to the implementation of a management plan. From 2000 to 2003 the DutchTechnical Cooperation will suport the administrative, resource management and education and environmental interpretation. There is a gap in financial support for maintenance, tourism, and research programs.

(16)Pantanal de San Matias Reserve. Area: 2,918 ,500 hectares

Ecoregion: Stational Tropical Humid Forest and Sub humid Forest.

Financial situation: There a trust fund for this reserve which cover the costs of the resource protection program. No other financial support has been found.

(17)Palmar Rodeo Natural Area. Area: 59,484 hectares

Ecoregion: Mesothermic dry Valleys (Thorn Shrublands).

Financial situation: There is no financial support identified for the period of 2000 to 2003.

(18)Otuquis National Park. Area 1,005,950 hectares

Ecoregion: Stational Tropical Humid Forest from Lowlands and dry Forest.

Financial situation: There is no financial support identified for the period of 2000 to 2003.

ANNEX 5

PAGE 1of 8

PROJECTION OF FINANCIAL NEEDS
PROTECTED AREAS OF BOLIVIA
1999 – 2003
(In US dollars)
PROTECTED AREAS / 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003
ISIBORO SECURE
Operational Costs / 227,262 / 238,625 / 250,556 / 263,084 / 276,238
Investment Costs / 25,900 / 103,000 / 168,000 / 79,000 / 48,000
TOTAL / 253,162 / 341,625 / 418,556 / 342,084 / 324,238
MADIDI
Operational Costs / 259,276 / 272,240 / 285,852 / 300,144 / 315,152
Investment Costs / 115,975 / 121,774 / 127,862 / 134,256 / 140,968
TOTAL / 375,251 / 394,014 / 413,714 / 434,400 / 456,120
ESTACION BIOL. BENI
Operational Costs / 125,319 / 131,585 / 138,164 / 145,072 / 152,326
Investment Costs / 15,400 / 16,170 / 16,979 / 17,827 / 18,719
TOTAL / 125,319 / 131,585 / 138,164 / 145,072 / 152,326
NOEL KEMPFF
Operational Costs / 284,564 / 298,792 / 313,732 / 329,418 / 345,889
Investment Costs / 33,924 / 35,620 / 37,401 / 39,271 / 41,235
TOTAL / 318,488 / 334,412 / 351,133 / 368,690 / 387,124
AMBORO
Operational Costs / 262,076 / 275,180 / 288,939 / 303,386 / 318,555
Investment Costs / 54,246 / 56,958 / 59,806 / 62,797 / 65,936
TOTAL / 316,322 / 332,138 / 348,745 / 366,182 / 384,491
CHACO
Operational Costs / 183,200 / 192,360 / 201,978 / 212,077 / 222,681
Investment Costs / 46,000 / 48,300 / 50,715 / 53,251 / 55,913
TOTAL / 229,200 / 240,660 / 252,693 / 265,328 / 278,594
COTAPATA
Operational Costs / 161,866 / 169,959 / 178,457 / 187,380 / 196,749
Investment Costs / 61,100 / 64,155 / 67,363 / 70,731 / 74,267
TOTAL / 222,966 / 234,114 / 245,820 / 258,111 / 271,017
CARRASCO
Operational Costs / 158,809 / 166,749 / 175,087 / 183,841 / 193,033
Investment Costs / 77,500 / 81,375 / 85,444 / 89,716 / 94,202
TOTAL / 236,309 / 248,124 / 260,531 / 273,557 / 287,235
PILON LAJAS
Operational Costs / 298,184 / 313,093 / 328,748 / 345,185 / 362,445
Investment Costs / 50,000 / 52,500 / 55,125 / 57,881 / 60,775
TOTAL / 348,184 / 365,593 / 383,873 / 403,067 / 423,220
TARIQUIA
Operational Costs / 120,000 / 126,000 / 132,300 / 138,915 / 145,861
Investment Costs / 75,000 / 78,750 / 82,688 / 86,822 / 91,163
TOTAL / 195,000 / 204,750 / 214,988 / 225,737 / 237,024
PANTANAL (SAN MATIAS)
Operational Costs / 112,000 / 117,600 / 123,480 / 129,654 / 136,137
Investment Costs / 61,000 / 64,050 / 67,253 / 70,615 / 74,146
TOTAL / 173,000 / 181,650 / 190,733 / 200,269 / 210,283
MANURIPI - HEATH
Operational Costs / 120,000 / 126,000 / 132,300 / 138,915 / 145,861
Investment Costs / 46,000 / 48,300 / 50,715 / 53,251 / 55,913
TOTAL / 166,000 / 174,300 / 183,015 / 192,166 / 201,774
SAJAMA
Operational Costs / 78,750 / 82,688 / 86,822 / 91,163 / 95,721
Investment Costs / 46,000 / 48,300 / 50,715 / 53,251 / 55,913
TOTAL / 124,750 / 130,988 / 137,537 / 144,414 / 151,634
ULLA ULLA
Operational Costs / 225,000 / 236,250 / 248,063 / 260,466 / 273,489
Investment Costs / 76,500 / 80,325 / 84,341 / 88,558 / 92,986
TOTAL / 301,500 / 316,575 / 332,404 / 349,024 / 366,475
EDUARDO ABAROA
Operational Costs / 143,400 / 150,570 / 158,099 / 166,003 / 174,304
Investment Costs / 193,350 / 203,018 / 213,168 / 223,827 / 235,018
TOTAL / 336,750 / 353,588 / 371,267 / 389,830 / 409,322
PROTECTED AREAS / 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003
TORO TORO
Operational Costs / 86,600 / 90,930 / 95,477 / 100,250 / 105,263
Investment Costs / 46,000 / 48,300 / 50,715 / 53,251 / 55,913
TOTAL / 132,600 / 139,230 / 146,192 / 153,501 / 161,176
EL PALMAR
Operational Costs / 98,000 / 102,900 / 108,045 / 113,447 / 119,120
Investment Costs / 153,000 / 160,650 / 168,683 / 177,117 / 185,972
TOTAL / 251,000 / 263,550 / 276,728 / 290,564 / 305,092
OTUQUIS
Operational Costs / 119,480 / 125,454 / 131,727 / 138,313 / 145,229
Investment Costs / 61,000 / 64,050 / 67,253 / 70,615 / 74,146
TOTAL / 180,480 / 189,504 / 198,979 / 208,928 / 219,375
TOTAL PROTECTED AREAS
TOTAL OPERATIONAL COSTS / 3,063,786 / 3,216,975 / 3,377,824 / 3,546,715 / 3,724,051
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS / 1,237,895 / 1,375,595 / 1,504,224 / 1,482,036 / 1,521,187
TOTAL / 4,301,681 / 4,592,570 / 4,882,049 / 5,028,751 / 5,245,239
CENTRAL UNIT
Operational Costs / 339,018 / 355,969 / 373,767 / 392,456 / 412,078
Investment Costs / 84,151 / 88,359 / 92,776 / 97,415 / 102,286
TOTAL / 423,169 / 444,327 / 466,544 / 489,871 / 514,365
GRAND TOTAL / 4,724,850 / 5,036,898 / 5,348,592 / 5,518,622 / 5,759,603

ANNEX 6