Ecosystems Management2

8/12/2019 Ecosystems Management2

1/79

DOCUMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK AND THE WORLD BANK

REGIONAL

INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

PLAN OF OPERATIONS


2/79

- ii -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1

I. FRAME OF REFERENCE.................................................................................................. 1

A. Indigenous Peoples and Natural Resource Management .................................. 1B. Constraints to Indigenous Ecosystem Management .......................................... 2C. Government strategies ....................................................................................... 3D. Mesoamerican Biological Corridor ................................................................... 3E. The GEF, the Banks and other institutions experiences.................................. 4F. The Project strategy and justification for the Banks participation................... 7

II. THE PROGRAM.............................................................................................................. 8

A. Objectives .......................................................................................................... 8B. Structure ............................................................................................................ 8C. Project design .................................................................................................... 9

1. Component 1: cultural and institutional strengthening and capacitydevelopment (US$3,3 millions) ............................................................... 9

2. Component 2: promotion of sustainable cultural land use and traditionalintegrated ecosystem management (US$3,0 millions) ........................... 103. Component 3: development of culturally appropriate financial

mechanisms for the environmental sustainability in indigenouscommunities (US$3,2 millions) ............................................................. 11

4. Component 4: participatory project monitoring and evaluation (US$1,3millions).................................................................................................. 11

5. Component 5: administration and audit (US$1,7 millions) ................... 12

D. Cost and financing ........................................................................................... 12III. PROGRAM EXECUTION................................................................................................ 13

A P ti d d i i t ti 13


3/79


4/79

- iv -

INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE TECHNICAL FILES OF RE2

PREPARATION:

1. Annex 1: Detailed Project Description

2. Annex 2: Documents in the Project File

3. Annex 3: Institutional Arrangements4. Annex 4: Typology for Classification of Communities

5. Annex 5: IDB (5a) and World Bank (5b) Co-financing Analysis


5/79

- v -

ABBREVIATIONS

ACICAFOC Asociacin Coordinadora Indgena y Campesina de AgroforesteraComunitaria Centroamericana(Central American Indigenous and Peasant Coordination Association forCommunity Agroforestry), also known as CICAFOC.

CAS Country Assistance Strategy

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAD Central American Commission on Environment and Development

CHM Clearing House Mechanism

CICA Consejo Indgena Centroamericano

CLAN Cultural Land Use Analysis G/S tool

CS Country Strategy

DFID Department for International Development of the United Kingdom

GEF Global Environment Facility

IEM Integrated Ecosystem Management

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

ILO International Labour OrganizationMBC Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

NGO Non Governmental Organization


6/79


7/79

Page 1 of 3

INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIESREGIONAL

(TC-03-04-03-9)

Executive Summary

Requester: Central American Commission for Environment and Development(CCAD)

Executing agency: Asociacin Coordinadora Indgena y Campesina de AgroforesteraComunitaria Centroamericana (ACICAFOC)(Central AmericanIndigenous and Peasant Coordination Association for CommunityAgroforestry)

Amount andSource (IDBpart):

IDB: (GEF grant)World Bank: (GEF grant)Counterpart:Total:

US$ 5,000,000US$ 5,000,000US$ 2,500,0002US$12,500,000

Terms: Execution Period: 5 yearsDisbursement Period: 5 years

Objectives: The development/global objective of the proposed project is toachieve Integrated Ecosystems Management (IEM) for indigenouslands in Central America, thereby helping to (a) prevent furtherland degradation that threatens environmental services,livelihoods, and economic well-being, and (b) conserve theregions high though increasingly threatened biodiversityresources. IEM seeks to optimize the ecological, economic, andsocial and soiocultural benefits of maintaining or restoring

t t t d f ti I l ti IEM i


8/79

Page 2 of 3 Executive Summary

standards and criteria for IEM in indigenous communities; and(iii) strengthening of the negotiation and empowerment capacities

of the indigenous community organizations for IEM.2. Promotion of sustainable cultural land use and traditionalintegrated ecosystem management (US$3,0 millions).Communities will be supported to prepare cultural land-use plansfor their communal lands that will permit the creation of acommunity network of conservation areas that will cover highpriority ecosystems in the MBC.3. Development of culturally appropriate financial

mechanisms for the environmental sustainability in indigenouscommunities (US$3,2 millions). Financing of pilot projects forsustainable use of natural resources and environmental servicesthat would be financed on demand, according to clear criteria andthrough participatory processes based on community interest andneeds.4. Participatory Project Monitoring and Evaluation (US$1,3millions). Support to training and capacity building on bothmonitoring and evaluation of project impacts and also progress inconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It willfinance scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation ofbiodiversity to follow project implementation and biodiversitychanges over time.5. Administration and audit (US$1,7 millions). The componentwill increase the capacity to coordinate all project activitiesthrough a small regional Project Coordination Unit (PCU)established under the executing agency.

Environmental/social review:

The Project will have an overall positive environmental impactassociated with: (i) increased local capacity for environmental


9/79

Executive Summary Page 3 of 3

collaboration with CCAD and project funds to facilitate thiscoordination (4.19).

Coordination withother officialdevelopmentfinanceinstitutions:

The project has been developed by the IDB and the World Banktogether, and a joint preparation project (PDF-B) was financed bythe GEF and implemented by the two banks. The project will beimplemented with 50% of the GEF financed budget managed byeach bank.

Relation to theBank strategies:

The project is consistent with thePoverty Reduction Strategiesandthe agreed IDB Country Strategies (CS) and WB Country

Assistance Strategies (CAS) for each of the seven countries inCentral America. The CS and CAS address strategies to reducepoverty among vulnerable populations, including indigenous orethnic minority communities; recognizes the value of the MBC asa tool for environmental sustainability; and give importance toincorporating indigenous development and natural resourcemanagement into poverty reduction strategies (par. 1.16).

Specialcontractualconditions:

Before the first disbursement, ACICAFOC should have (i)established the PCU and selected the necessary staff for itsfunction, in agreement with the criteria agreed with the Bank; and(ii) signed an agreement with CCAD and CICA regarding thefunctions these organizations will have during the implementationof the Project.

Procurement: The procurement of goods, works and consulting services to befinanced with project resources will be carried out following Bank

procurement policies and procedures. The Project will useinternational public bidding for the procurement of consultingservices that exceed US$200,000 and the procurement of goodsth t d US$350 000 (3 7)


10/79


11/79

I. FRAME OF REFERENCE

A. Indigenous Peoples and Natural Resource Management

1.1 Central America has a broad natural richness and high biodiversity, a distinct,heterogeneous character with extremely steep terrain, wide variety of climate and highvulnerability to natural disasters. From Guatemala to Panama, there are at least ten mainecological zones of importance for biodiversity conservation within the MesoamericanBiological Corridor, including the Moist Forests of Tehuantepec, Central AmericanAtlantic Moist Forests, Central American Pine & Oak Forests, Central American Pacific

Dry Forests, Isthmian Pacific Moist Forests, Miskito Pine Forests, Central AmericanMontane Forests, Talamanca Montane Forests and Eastern Panamanian Montane Forests.

1.2 Central America is also rich in culture and tradition. The region is pluri-cultural andmulti-lingual, with fourteen distinct indigenous ethnic groups speaking 39 languages,totaling about 6.7 million people (24% of the total population of the region). Guatemalahas the largest concentration of indigenous peoples (66%), mainly of Mayan descent,followed by Belize (20%) and Honduras (15%) (ILO). Outside of Guatemala, indigenous

peoples are concentrated in the less populated areas and the areas with the remainingconcentrations of intact natural forests and ecosystems. There is a clear correspondencebetween areas of remaining tropical forests and the presence of indigenous communitiesand about 85% of the regions nationally protected areas overlap with indigenouspopulations.

1.3 It is estimated that the total area of indigenous territories in Central America is 257,000km2. It represents approximately 36.7% of the area of the six countries, 80% of this area

is under forest cover, and approximately 23% overlaps with established protected areas.The strong overlap between indigenous peoples and natural resources is not coincidental.The ecosystems of many areas of high biodiversity have been shaped by human

t ti l t d t b i t i lt h d f t t ti


12/79

- 2 -

rural development and trade policies; (iii) legal implications of land registration systems;and (iv) educational policies. Most of the countries in the region initiated ambitious landreform and land redistribution programs, but with the implicit goal of creating private

holdings in non-government lands and with a bias against preserving communal ormunicipal forest management systems, which were seen as more risky than state orindividual tenure. Over the past two decades, there has however been a continuallyevolving shift in the policy mindset on the relationship between individual land holdingsand economic progress, and on the role of government in managing natural resources.

1.5 More recently, land regularization and registration initiatives have been shaped byenvironmental policy dialogue, and are more respectful of common property regimes and

co-management schemes that maintain environmental values of upper watersheds andpriority coastal and inland ecozones through local action. However, none of the countriesin the region have created an adequate legal framework for establishing customary lawbased tenure rights of indigenous peoples over their remaining traditional territories.There is growing recognition that viable ecosystem management systems can be found inexisting indigenous lands, in the form of land use categories associated with a system ofland tenure, inheritance, and a traditional normative framework for specific uses of eachcategory, without the environmental community having to create them.

1.6 In parallel, indigenous communities have themselves become more aware of theirconstitutional rights and of their international political space, including the ILOConvention 169 and Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. They havebegun to take a public stance on the values of community management of resources andthe need to secure their tenure and control over those resources. From an indigenouspeoples perspective, the persistence of healthy and diverse ecosystems within theirterritories or areas of influence is due precisely to their relationship with these

ecosystemsthey are a fundamental element in the maintenance of these ecosystems.Where indigenous peoples have maintained access and control over these ecosystems,they seek to be the stewards, rather than enforcers of environmental policies.


13/79

- 3 -

efficiency in the economy. While there is a growing emphasis on asset creation inrural areas, particularly rural infrastructure, human capital formation, and greateraccess to land and financial credit, there are still limited resources being allocated to

programs that increase the viability of farming systems, and economic frameworks inthe areas of indigenous population concentration. There is also a lack of a strategicresponse to the expressed desire of indigenous peoples in many rural areas tomaintain their links to traditional areas and assess their cultural land practices toassure sustainability, while improving their quality of life. Agricultural programs aremore commonly linked to food security and human capital formation rather than toeconomic activities that improve livelihoods while maintaining indigenous ties totraditional lands.

c. Lack of Resources for Exchange of Experiences. While there are numerous, positiveinitiatives at the national level for specific formal protected areas and priority regionsand there is support for creating a network among communities to exchangeexperiences across countries and to share culturally-driven standards for IntegratedEcosystem Management (IEM), resources for setting up such a network have not yetbeen available. Some of the indigenous IEM models are vastly different from thetechnologically driven national models developed in and for non-indigenous areas. In

addition, there are pertinent experiences evolving in similar ecosystems inindigenous communities in Mexico that could be incorporated into the managementpractices of communities in Central America.

C. Government strategies

1.8 The broad development goals of the seven participating Central American countries focuson poverty alleviation, natural resource management, and reduction of social and

economic inequalities, particularly emphasizing rural areas. These Central Americancountries are all parties to the main international environmental conventions, includingthe Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCC) Regional agreements on biodiversity conservation and


14/79

- 4 -

1.10 The Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD),constituted by the Ministers of Environment of the region, was charged withimplementation responsibility. Bilateral and multilateral donors and technical cooperation

agencies began to support regional and national projects to monitor and manage theenvironmental resources of the MBC and to foster a better understanding of theirimportance and value within its inhabiting communities through education andparticipatory processes.

E. The GEF, the Banks and other institutions experiences

1.11 This proposed regional project has been informed by many lessons learned from activities

associated with the GEF-supported Mesoamerican Biological Corridor program; WorldBank, and IDB financed investment projects in the rural sector; the Latin America andthe Caribbean Indigenous Capacity Building Program (carried out with InstitutionalDevelopment Fund-IDF grants); and the Indigenous Peoples Profiles studies carried outby the World Bank and RUTA.

1.12 There has been a concentrated effort in Central America to support biodiversityconservation through GEF-supported projects within the region. These countries have

initiated a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation by beginning to coordinatedevelopment and conservation initiatives within the framework of the MesoamericanBiological Corridor (MBC). The GEF-assisted MBC projects have concentrated onconsolidating the protected areas system in Honduras, Panama, Guatemala andNicaragua. They have focused on implementing a people-oriented approach toconservation in the national parks and biosphere reserves and on developing sustainableuse activities in the buffer zones that are culturally viable and recognize indigenous landand resource rights. The GEF portfolio also includes a regional Mesoamerican Barrier

Reef project, and two UNDP-executed MBC projects.

1.13 Land Management: IDB approved projects that focus on community conservation andsustainable use include Darin Sustainable Development Program and Bocas del Toro


15/79

- 5 -

conservation programs which do not consider and assure the participation of the localpopulation will give limited results and could even be in danger of obtaining negativeenvironmental impacts due to adverse reactions from this population. For this reason both

the indigenous peoples and the farmers living in the MBC are essential for the success ofboth this operation and other projects currently under implementation and preparation inthe region. To reach sustainable management of the natural resources in the MBC, thesubprojects and activities to be supported within this framework must considersustainability in a broader sense, which means integrating environmental, socio-cultural ,economic and institutional sustainability. This proposed project is an initiative that willbe managed by the indigenous communities themselves and it will allow them to pursuetheir own vision of IEM.

1.15 Importance of Communal Areas to Sustainability. Communal areas tend to achieve ahigher level of sustainability than areas that have been created through federal decrees,because communities can use their customary legal framework to establish long-term,legally binding conservation areas supported by community sanctions. This communityconservation strategy is being fostered within the integrated forest management strategyin the Community Forestry Project in Mexico, which has shown the effectiveness andsustainability of biodiversity conservation planned through participatory rural appraisals,

participatory land use planning, inter-community information sharing, forest managementplans, and market studies for non-timber forest products. Given appropriate support,many communities throughout the region will be able to establish communityconservation areas and achieve greater biodiversity protection than will likely occurunder governmental management. The proposed project will be supporting culturally-driven ecosystem models designed and implemented by indigenous communities on theircommunity lands.

1.16 Value of Information Exchanges Among Indigenous Peoples. The World Bank IDFindigenous peoples training programs were highly successful in transferring resourcesdirectly to indigenous community networks to organize training events and in buildingtheir institutional capacity Horizontal learning among indigenous organizations has


16/79


17/79


18/79

- 8 -

or ethnic minority communities; recognize the value of the MBC as a tool forenvironmental sustainability; and give importance to incorporating indigenousdevelopment and natural resource management into poverty reduction strategies. The

project supports these development goals and regional vision through promotingsustainable use of natural resources and generation of sustained benefit flows fromstrengthened regional cooperation and emerging networks among indigenouscommunities involved in IEM. The project offers opportunities to strengthenrepresentation and meaningful participation of indigenous communities and, as such, isconsistent with the IDB Plan of Action for promoting social inclusion of ethnicminorities. In addition, by reinforcing each countrys capacity for managing significantportions of the MBC, it contributes to regional integration in environmental management,

a core commitment of the IDB.

1.25 During the preparation of the Program, a set of activities was determined to be eligiblefor GEF co-financing under its Operational Program for Ecosystem Management. Atechnical cooperation financed by a PDF Block B grant (ATN/PD-7951-RS) was used toconfirm the GEF contribution to the Program, including the analysis of incremental costs(see annex). A regional indigenous consultation (ATN/JF-7695-RS) has also been carriedout as part of the preparation process (see 1.13).

1.26 The Program is consistent with the strategies and principles of the GEF OperationalStrategy, supporting long-term protection of globally important ecosystems. This projectsupports GEF Multifocal Area for Biodiversity and Climate Change, addressing landdegradation issues related to these two focal areas. It supports the GEF Strategic Priorityfor implementation pf innovative and indigenous ecosystem management practices andthe GEF Strategic Priority Forest Ecosystems.

II. THE PROGRAM

A. Objectives


19/79

- 9 -

2.3 The regional project will achieve its objectives by supporting: (i) the creation of anetwork of indigenous communities engaged in IEM, (ii) organizational and institutional

capacity building across countries and groups, (iii) promotion of inter-communityexchanges on indigenous traditional knowledge, experiences, and lessons learned; (iv) thedevelopment of an enabling environment to reorient sustainable rural development andconservation areas projects to include activities and approaches that promote IEM inindigenous lands and regions with the participation of indigenous communities; (v) theconsolidation of culturally-based sustainable natural resource management practices andland use standards across the region; (vi) projects for sustainable use of ecological goodsand services, including indigenous subproject grant financing through a Community Fund

(project account); and (vii) participatory monitoring and evaluation of progress inconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

2.4 The Project has five components. The GEF grant funds will be used to financeincremental activities, which are described briefly below.

C. Project design

2.5 The project will have incremental activities proposed for financing by the GEF topromote an emerging organizational network of indigenous communities engaged inIntegrated Ecosystem Management (IEM) in the Central American region (Guatemala,Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama). This would enhancethe sustainability of human-managed systems that have been evolving for centuries inCentral America, conserving high levels of biodiversity, but that are under increasingthreat.

1. Component 1: cultural and institutional strengthening and capacitydevelopment (US$3,3 millions)

2.6 The component consists of: (i) generation and strengthening of the organizational,


20/79

- 10 -

covered by other projects, to enable communities to develop the credibility needed forlonger-term fund management. This component would be co-financed by activities in the

projects with institutional strengthening activities, such as the municipal and social fundsprojects.

2.8 Specific GEF activities include: (i) capacity building regarding institutional management,legislation, cultural land use sustainability practices, customary law and communityindigenous rights; (ii) study tours regarding institutional and community functions; and(iii) community interchange of experiences and design of projects for integratedecosystem management.

2. Component 2: promotion of sustainable cultural land use and traditionalintegrated ecosystem management (US$3,0 millions)

2.9 Under this component, communities will be supported to prepare sustainable culturalland-use plans for their communal lands that will permit the creation of a communitynetwork of conservation areas that will cover high priority ecosystems in the MBC. Sixpriority areas have been identified during project preparation (see table below), along

with an estimated demand of 45 land-use plans for integrated ecosystem management.Selection criteria for priority areas include the characteristics of communal areas,vegetation cover, ecological importance as to the richness and number of endemicspecies, coverage by other projects and financing, and the range of indigenous knowledgefor management and sustainable use.

Table II-1. Priority Eco-Regions

Eco-Region Countries Indigenous People Priority (P)

Deforestation danger (DD)

Biologic Importance (BI)

1. Tehuantepec Belize-

Guatemala

Mopan, Maya, Mam, K'iche,

Kaqchikel Ixil Itza Achi

P = 2,93 (Very high)

DD = 0 430 (medium)


21/79

- 11 -

2.10 Activities would include: (i) development of sustainable cultural land-use plans in theproject intervention areas; (ii) strengthening of technical capacities for integrated

management of the ecosystems in the community areas; and (iii) interchange ofexperiences of traditional ecosystem management.

3. Component 3: development of culturally appropriate financial mechanismsfor the environmental sustainability in indigenous communities (US$3,2millions)

2.11 This component would finance pilot projects for sustainable use of natural resources and

environmental services that would be financed on demand, according to clear criteria andthrough participatory processes based on community interest. It is expected that thiscomponent would result in long-term benefits to communities and that it would be thefoundation of social sustainability as well as a major impulse for conservation. Thiscomponent would also finance the establishment of a fund (project account) for financingof smaller grants (seed-money) supporting local studies, training and preliminaryefforts to establish markets for environmental services, such as water conservation andcarbon sequestration, derived from community lands and to assess their impact on

indigenous traditional systems of reciprocity and redistribution.

2.12 Activities would include: (i) design and implementation of pilot projects for sustainableuse within the six eco-regions mentioned in component 2, including marketingdevelopment for derived services and goods, (ii) evaluation of community projectproposals for traditional sustainable ecosystem management; (iii) establishment of aproject financing mechanism (project fund), that may convert into a more permanentRegional Community Conservation and Sustainable Investment Fund if and when the

conditions exist; (iv) partial financing of activities regarding traditional sustainableintegrated ecosystem management through the project fund.

2 13 As part of the pilot projects the Project will co-finance items like workshops training


22/79

- 12 -

will include mid-term reviews and the documentation of lessons learned to facilitate thedissemination of project findings to other communities throughout the region.

2.15 Activities would include: (i) capacity building on participatory monitoring and evaluationof both project global impacts and project implementation as well as humandevelopment; (ii) monitoring and evaluation of project global benefits; (iii) monitoringand evaluation of project activities, (iv) evaluation of project intervention model based oncultural values and traditional management practices that indigenous communities havedeveloped over the centuries.

5. Component 5: administration and audit (US$1,7 millions)2.16 This component will increase the capacity to coordinate project activities and to manage

elements of the project critical to the realization of all components. There will be a smallregional Project Coordination Unit (PCU) consisting of seven persons (see 3.3). Expensesfor this unit will be covered as administration costs.

2.17 Activities would include: (a) strengthening the administrative capacity and financial

management systems of the Project Council and indigenous communities, as well asrelevant national and regional agencies, and (b) assisting the Project Coordination Unit tomaintain adequate accounting, financial reporting, and auditing systems to ensure that itcan provide accurate and timely information regarding project resources and expenditures

D. Cost and financing

2.18 The estimated cost of the incremental activities described in this Plan of Operations is

US$12.5 million, to be financed with non-reimbursable funds from the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) through the IDB and the World Bank and local counterpartfinancing from CCAD and local communities. The GEF financing to be managed throughthe IDB is US$5 million and an equal amount will be financed through the World Bank.


23/79

- 13 -

Table II-2

Summary of budget for GEF-financing through IDB and WB (In 1,000 US$)

COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES GEF Local TotalCOMPONENT 1:Cultural and institutional strengthening andcapacity development

2,799 500 3,299

Courses 978 230 1,208

Practical training 488 115 603

Interchanges 630 140 770

Field visits 12 3 15

Workshops 53 12 65Consultancies 638 0 638

COMPONENT 2:Promotion of cultural use and traditionalintegrated ecosystem management

2,470 500 2,970

Inventory and planning of land use 450 100 550

Local capacity building and inst. strengthening 450 100 550

Local projects for sustainable natural resource management 1,400 300 1,700

Technical assistance 170 0 170COMPONENT 3: Development of financial mechanisms culturallyappropriate for the environmental sustainability in indigenouscommunities

2,709 500 3,209

Pilot projects 950 250 1,200

Regional dialogue and development of agreements 945 250 1,195

Seed money (fund) 814 0 814

COMPONENT 4:Participatory Project Monitoring and Evaluation 822 500 1,322

Improvement of monitoring system 191 125 316

Monitoring 631 375 1,006

COMPONENT 5: Administration and Auditing 1 200 500 1 700


24/79


25/79

- 15 -

3.3 ACICAFOC will implement the project through a Project Coordination Unit (PCU)consisting of a coordinator, financial administrator, secretary, procurement officer,

accountant and two technical officers. The PCU will be responsible to ACICAFOC forimplementation and administration of the project, including procurement of goods andservices, follow-up on contracts, review of local project proposals and approval offinancing and coordination of data collection for the monitoring system. PCU will presentannual plans of operation (including budget) and annual reports (including accounts andresults) to the Project Council and the Banks through CICAFOC. The unit will work inclose collaboration with the national and local indigenous communities in the projectpriority areas established by CICA and ACICAFOC.

3.4 Draft Operative Regulations (OR) for the project have been developed as part of theproject preparation. The estimated period of implementation is five years. Theparticipating indigenous communities in component 1 and 2 are selected within the sixpriority areas (as mentioned in table II-1: Priority Eco-Regions) identified during projectpreparation. The selection criteria include the characteristics and scope of communalareas, vegetation, ecological importance as to the richness and number of endemicspecies, coverage by other projects and financing, and the range of indigenous knowledge

for management and sustainable use.

3.5 For component 3, the cost of the local pilot projects depends on the type of project(according to the activities included), with a range of US$5,000-20,000 for each project.The following table shows the type of projects to be financed, according to the proposaland the needs of each community. The counterpart financing from the community will befrom 10 to 50% of the project, depending on the type of project to be financed and theproposed budget. The selection criteria (defined in the OR) are based on feasibility,

organization, replicability, environmental aspects and need for the resources. The PCUwill approve the financing and inform the Project Council of the approved projects,project types, contents and amounts.


26/79


27/79

- 17 -

Table III-2. Disbursement Schedule (in US$ Thousands)

Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

GEF 1,680 2,003 2,102 2,452 1,763 10,000Local 500 500 500 500 500 2,500

Total 2,180 2,503 2,602 2,952 2,263 12,500

Percentage 17.5 20.0 20.8 23.6 18.1 100

D. Monitoring and evaluation

3.13 Participatory monitoring and evaluation is one of the five components and it includes:(i) the support for scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity andcultural land use to follow project execution as well as biodiversity and cultural land usechanges over time; (ii) baseline environmental information would be determined throughin-depth environmental assessments in the six priority eco-regions, the use of CLANremote sensing analysis and collaboration with other complementary initiatives; (iii)baseline social economic information for the same eco-regions, including gender, age,use-rights to natural resources, income level. life quality, etc. (iv) evaluation activities

would include mid-term reviews and the documentation of lessons learned to facilitatethe dissemination of project findings to other communities throughout the region;(v) establishment of community advisory groups in each project area, as well asmonitoring of the managerial and administrative aspects of the project, with specificindicators relating to efficiency and performance.

3.14 The program will be carried out in accordance with annual work plans setting out targets(in relation to the benchmarks and impact indicators), activities, schedule and budget for

the relevant year. The key performance indicators include: (i) 10% increase in the totalarea under integrated ecosystems management, recognized by legal and/or communitynorms; (ii) stabilization of biological diversity indicators in the project priority areas;(iii) 100% increase in the n mber of indigeno s comm nities ith medi m or high


28/79

IV. BENEFITS AND RISKS

A. Benefits and target population

4.1 The primary beneficiaries and target population will be the indigenous peoples and theircommunities in the seven participating Central American countries, who could beexpected to establish community conservation areas and the other indigenouscommunities who will participate in training and capacity-building. Support for anemerging network of indigenous communities engaged in IEM will conserve high levels

of biodiversity, enhance the sustainability of human-managed systems, and provideincome generation opportunities for the communities based on conservation of naturalresources.

4.2 The networking supported by this project will help create a common vision among theindigenous communities on how to manage their traditional resources based on their owncultural values and customary norms. An increase in the application of indigenous IEMwill generate multiple benefits at different levels (locally, nationally, and globally) and

help to create a synergy between conservation and sustainable use of biological diversityand watersheds and reduction of net emissions and increased storage Carbon in terrestrialecosystems. This project will contribute to a participatory approach to natural resourceplanning and implementation on an ecosystem scale and a greater understanding of therole of humans in ecosystem management.

4.3 Domestic benefits will include enhanced resource and livelihood security due to firecontrol, improved recharging of water systems, and long-term stability of the ecological

system in traditional territories. Project activities will contribute to broadening thelivelihood strategies of participating communities and to enhancing cultural heritage, bypreserving traditional knowledge and practices for biodiversity conservation and

t C ti ti iti ill i l l f th l f F t


29/79

- 19 -

biodiversity and endangered species; (ii) sustainable management of critical habitats inthe long-term; (iii) development of incentives to maintain protected areas and forest

habitats in the long-term; (iv) established capacity to ensure adequate management ofcommunity protected areas in a sustainable way; and (v) new knowledge concerning thefeasibility of community conservation approaches and the factors associated withsuccess.

B. Sustainability

4.6 The proposed project will achieve sustainability by focusing the capacity building on

indigenous communities with IEM in Central America and recognizing and capitalizingon the crucial role of regional networking to expand the initiatives of national and localindigenous organizations and indigenous producers. The project is based on theexperience that training and capacity building have a more long-term impact whencommunities themselves are the catalysts to transfer knowledge and skills. Leadercommunities can maintain a training role that can be sustained after project financing.

4.7 The project also will build long-term sustainability of cultural based IEM in indigenous

communities by supporting traditional institutions and practices (i.e. traditionalauthorities, inter-community associations, sustainable cultural land use, customary lawand adaptive technologies). This strategy reflects the lessons learned from World Bank,IDB and GEF supported projects in Central America, which have attempted to introducenew technical approaches in rural areas rather than relying on traditional institutions andpractices. To obtain institutional sustainability, Wayib, the regional organizations(ACICAFOC, CICA) and the national federations will have a key role in mobilizing thelocal organizations and communities. The local institutional set-up will be studied case

by case, to assure collaboration with municipalities and other local stakeholders.

4.8 The following specific activities and outcomes will ensure sustainability beyond theproject period: (i) improving local national and regional institutional capacity of


30/79

- 20 -

communities who engage in effective ecosystem management with direct financialreturns.

4.10 Financial sustainability of community conservation should be feasible since much of thecommunity investment required is in the form of community labor, which is consistentwith long-standing, traditional indigenous systems of labor exchange for communitymaintenance. The support of projects for sustainable use of natural resources andenvironmental services that can be certified for marketing purposes increases theeconomic return and market scope of these activities for communities. In addition,creation and management of a regional community conservation fund during

implementation will increase the capacity of indigenous communities to manage financialresources and prepare and monitor subprojects, and demonstrate that communities in theregion are capable of developing and managing their own initiatives. By the end of theproject it is expected that communities will begin to leverage their own funds and attractnew funding or payment for the environmental services they are providing.

D. Replicability

4.11 It is expected that some indigenous community integrated ecosystems would bereplicated within and between the countries participating in the MBC. Specifically,experiences gained and best practices relating to conservation and sustainable use ofnatural resources in these production ecosystems, improved land and water managementand soil fertility techniques, enhanced productivity, and micro-watershed planning andmanagement would be disseminated to local (e.g. indigenous community organizations),national and international indigenous organizations. The latter will be accomplishedthrough the sharing of experiences that would be conveyed by those directly involved in

project development and implementation (i.e. project personnel). Project support for thedissemination of lessons learned envisioned under the proposed Component 1 would beconsistent with the GEF Outreach Strategy and will help the implementation of Article 7Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) and 8 (j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity


31/79

- 21 -

4.13 Consultations and Social Assessment:(i) the indigenous peoples country profiles that isstill underway, financed by the World Bank. (ii) he Japan Special Fund in the IDB is

financing a regional indigenous consultation, including consultations with targetcommunities located in the main ecosystems in the region, as part of the preparationprocess for the project. The consultations include the compiling of socio-culturalassessment information collected by other projects, collection of information throughparticipatory appraisal methods, and development of community selection criteria, usingsocial and environmental criteria and extent of complementary programs and projects.(iii) This is partly building on information collected by ACICAFOC and CCAD financedthrough the World Bank by the Netherlands Environment Program. The consultations

will result in an indigenous peoples strategy for the MBC, a list of eligible communities,cost-sharing criteria for communities with different financial needs or level ofdevelopment, institutional community analysis and the criteria for including futurecommunities within the project.

4.14 A list of communities in each priority IEM area has been developed for all countries.This categorizes the communities by organizational, and technical skills and experiencein natural resources and land use management and conservation, and whether they have a

land use management plan. Criteria used to identify eligibility were (a) high prioritybiodiversity and land degradation under the MBC; (b) organizational capacity forconservation activities; (c) basic norms and procedures or interest in establishment ofnorms for conservation processes; (d) ongoing projects for sustainable use orconservation activities; and participation in networks of communities.

F. Environmental impact

4.15 Overall, the operation will have positive environmental impacts, particularly bypromoting the prevention of further land degradation and conservation of globallysignificant biodiversity associated with measurable results in terms of: (i) increased localcapacity for environmental management; (ii) reduced deforestation due to introduction of


32/79

- 22 -

supports Operational Programs No. 3 (Forest Ecosystems), No. 4 (MountainEcosystems), and No. 2 (Freshwater Ecosystems).

4.18 During preparation of the project, the relevant indigenous organizations were activelyinvolved in the process (see E above). After extensive discussions between CCAD,ACICAFOC, CICA, RUTA, IDB and the World Bank, RUTA prepared the first draft ofthe concept note. Consultative discussions partially funded by the IDB and theNetherlands/World Bank agreement were held throughout the process, including aworkshop in Guatemala September 2000 to develop Central American standards forcommunity biodiversity and ecosystems management and a workshop with participation

of the above-mentioned organizations in Costa Rica in February 2001.4.19 These consultations, included (i) a preparation meeting with representatives of the main

indigenous regional organizations; (ii) discussions with the national governments, GEFFocal Points and CCAD (all National GEF Focal Points and ministries of finance haveofficially endorsed the project, while also the ministers of finance in Guatemala andHonduras have sent a formal request); (iii) discussions between the IDB and World Bankregarding joint implementation; and (iv) dialogue between staff from CCAD and

environmental ministers involved in the implementation of national projects withpotential to be included in the baseline. A regional consultation among the indigenouspeople in all the project countries was carried out during the preparation phase,coordinated by CICA and financed by the Japanese Special Fund in the IDB. Thisconsultation gave both inputs to the design and feedback on the draft project proposal andanalysis.

4.20 The proposed implementing agency ACICAFOC has a broad experience in project

implementation, including projects financed by the Ford Foundation, RockefellerFoundation, Department for International Development (DFID) and NGOs in theNetherlands, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany. The organization was recently namedofficial observer to the United Nations ACICAFOCs financial management capacity is


33/79

- 23 -

the coordination between CCAD, national and local governments and the indigenousorganizations; (iv) problems with land tenure and ownership will be mitigated through WB and

IDB cadaster, titling and land management program in the region will be working together withthe project regarding titling and land management.


34/79

- 24 -

Table IV-1. Risk rating and mitigation

Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measure

From Outputs to ObjectiveLack of adequate control measures for verifyingcompliance with natural resource norms inindigenous communities.

M Use participatory methods for identifying appropriate andoperational measures for compliance with natural resourcenorms. CLAN use to assess land use changes through remotesensor analysis.

Lack of participation from communities andgovernment in natural resource management.

M Regular stakeholder review meetings and the need to assumelocal ownership of project in order to begin implementation.

Lack of financial resources for regionalparticipatory planning and development.

M Adequate allocation of funds to allow for regional participatoryplanning and development.

Economy continues to create incentives to convertforest to other land uses. M Ensure that adequate economic information is available in thecontext of long-term community viability.Government programs in other sectors promoteactivities incompatible w/ project goals (eg.Roads, energy, etc.)

M Steering committee members at local and national level transmitconcerns on development plans and policies to respectiveGovernments

Government does not provide adequate budgetresources for the project.

M CICA, CICAFOC and local governments confirm respetiveMinistry of Finance agreements with planned categories ofexpenditure.

Lack of adequate level of community organization

to sustain conservation activities and inter-governmental processes.

M Targeting of communities will include clear criteria on

organizational level and training will be targeted toorganizational capacity-building and customary law assessment.Challenges to legitimacy of the project counciland its decisions.

S Project preparation has included extensive consultation andparticipation of the leadership of the indigenous communities inCentral America

Problems with land tenure and ownership S WB and IDB cadaster, titling and landmanagement program in the region will beworking together with the project regardingtitling and land management

From Components to Outputs

Lack of grassroots promoters with experience int hi / l b ti ti l

M Utilize promoters from related projects to work with and trainth t


35/79

- 25 -

Annex A

Project Logical FrameworkProject Design Summary

CENTRAL AMERICA: Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous Communities

\

Hierarchy of Objectives

Key Performance

Indicators

Data Collection

Strategy

Critical

AssumptionsSector-related CAS Goal: Sector Indicators: Sector/ country reports: (from Goal to Bank

Mission)Reduce poverty in indigenous

communities in the Mesoamerican

Biological Corridor (MBC).

Global Objective:

Outcome / Impact

Indicators: Project reports: (from Objective to Goal)

Recuperate, conserve and

develop Integrated Ecosystems

Management (IEM) in indigenous

and local communities in Central

America (Guatemala, Belize,

Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,

Costa Rica and Panama).

10 percent increase in thetotal area under integratedecosystems managementas recognized by legaland/or customary law.

Stabilization of biologicaldiversity indicators in theproject priority areas.

100 percent increase in thenumber of indigenouscommunities with medium orhigh management andorgani ational capacit

Project progress reports Community institutionscomply with their norms.

Stable regimes for use andmanagement of indigenouslands and territories.

Governments acknowledgecommunity norms formanagement and

conservation of naturalresources; do not promoteactivities incompatible withproject objectives, andpro ide adeq ate financial


36/79

- 26 -

biodiversity, informationtechnology, andempowerment and

lobbying, collective identityand rights, techniques forparticipatory investigation,project formulation (1,229participants)

82 study tours regardinginstitutional functioning,cooperation administrationand community promotion(164 participants),

31 exchanges ofexperiences regardingcommunity production,community mapping,cultural land use andsustainable uses,preparation of managementplans and eco-tourism (310participants),

67 consultancies regarding

institutional developmentplans, business plans, andpolitical lobbying.

30 participatorysystematization activitiesand studies regardingtraditional management ofecosystems for indigenouscommunities.

286 community meetings

regarding IEMconsultations at the projectintervention zones level($500)

Systematization ofexperiences of thecommunities in addition to a

dissemination strategy.

Proposals for territorialmanagement and capacityto negotiate theseproposals.


37/79

- 27 -

institutional diagnosis andstrategic plans.

Plan for regionalization ofexperiences

38 exchanges for design ofproductive and culturalmanagement ofecosystems projects (275participants)

26 study tours for design ofproductive systems (52participants)

5 regional consultationmeetings regarding issuesof integrated ecosystemsmanagement

2. Promotion of cultural use and

traditional integrated

ecosystems management

45 Plans for cultural landuse

45 subprojects forstrengthening of local

capacities for IEM 62 subprojects for

promotion of sustainabledevelopment, and naturaland cultural conservation

25 proposals regardingmitigation of social, culturaland environmentalvulnerabilities

Project progress reports Community norms for landmanagement andconservation.

Adequate tools and enabledpromoters for thepreparation of plans forintegrated ecosystemmanagement.

Productive proposals thathave been validated locally.

Successful experiences andmethodologies concerninglocal productiveadministration.


38/79

- 28 -

global benefits andgeneration of an indicatormechanism with an

indigenous vision, includingdecentralized digitalizedmonitoring.

Formulation andimplementation of aparticipatory monitoring andevaluation plan of projectactivities, includingdevelopment of communitycapacities, effectiveness of

community networks, andtechnical assistanceactivities.

Monitoring of the projectintervention model.

Participatory tools andmechanisms.

Information qualified andvaluated by the indigenouscommunities.

5. Project Administration and

Audits Project management

structure in ACICAFOCestablished, functioning,

and able to coordinate/integrate actions withthose of other programs ofthe CCAD and agencies inthe MBC region

Project reports preparedand submitted on a timelybasis over the life of theproject

Work plans, procurementand budgets prepared on atimely and systematic basis

Bank supervision missions

PMRs and M&E reports

Midterm Review

Project supported analytical,institutional and sectorstudies

Independentassessment

Efficient projectmanagement permits high-quality implementation

Project Components / Inputs: (budget for each Project reports: (from Components to


39/79


40/79


41/79

Annex B

Incremental Cost Analysis

Overview

The project development/global objective of the project is to achieve Integrated EcosystemsManagement (IEM)/Sustainable Land Management in indigenous lands in Central America,including the countries of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,Nicaragua, and Panama, which will, as a result, conserve high levels of biodiversity that areunder increasing threat and enhance the sustainability of human-management systems. Thebuilding of community networks across the region would create links between communitieswith established best practice examples of IEM and those with comparable environmentalcharacteristics and similar potential for IEM. The long-term outcome would be thatsuccessful and proven regional models are effectively adopted in local and nationalinitiatives, including World Bank and IDB-assisted projects, and that a common vision

emerges among indigenous communities on how to best manage their traditional values.

The GEF alternative intends to achieve this objective at a total incremental cost ofapproximately US$32.58 million through support to and expansion of the initiatives ofindigenous communities who inhabit priority areas of high biodiversity and whose livelihoodsare centrally linked to integrated ecosystem management within the MesoamericanBiological Corridor (MBC). The planned activities are designed to (a) strengthen the capacityof these communities by promoting an exchange of indigenous traditional knowledge andexperience between them, (b) consolidate culturally based management practices andstandards across the region to foment an institutional framework for the payment ofenvironmental services and conservation actions, and (c) encourage improved, cultural-based management practices in government protected areas.


42/79

- 32 -

indigenous peoples are concentrated in that areas that are less populated and that includethe remaining concentrations of intact natural forests and ecosystems. About 23 percent ofthe regions national protected areas overlap with indigenous populations, which is not

coincidental. Historically, indigenous peoples have had a strong relationship with the naturalresource base in their culture, livelihood strategies, and value systems. The ecosystems ofmany areas of high biodiversity have been shaped by human management practices relatedto subsistence agriculture, home gardens, forest extraction, hunting or gathering practices,and the use of forests as a refuge from mainstream society and as sacred sites.

In recent years, land regularization and registration initiatives have been shaped byenvironmental policy dialogue. First of all, these initiatives are more respectful of common

property regimes and comanagement schemes that maintain the environmental value ofupper watersheds and priority coastal and inland eco-zones through local action. Second,while none of the countries in the region have created an adequate legal framework forestablishing the tenure rights of indigenous peoples over their remaining traditionalterritories, there is partial recognition of communal indigenous rights, such as the comarcasin Panama and the autonomous region in Nicaragua with multiethnic governance. Third,various countries provide either comanagement rights in nationally declared protected areasor define long-term usufruct rights in lands contiguous to individually claimed indigenouslands. Fourth, there is also growing recognition that viable ecosystem management systems

can be found in existing indigenous lands in the form of cultural land use categoriesassociated with a system of land tenure, inheritance, and a traditional normative frameworkfor specific uses of each category, without the environmental community having to createthem.

In parallel, indigenous communities have themselves become more aware of theirconstitutional rights and of their international political space, including ILO Convention 169and Article 8(j) of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). They increasingly take public

stances on their cultural values related to community resource management and the need tosecure their tenure and control over those resources. A growing number of indigenouscommunities have developed modern land-use plans for their titled lands or those parts ofprotected areas established in their historical territories. These plans aim to enhance and


43/79

- 33 -

in a way that would allow them in an appropriate manner to successfully articulate theirtraditional subsistence economies to the market. Second, existing best practices should bedisseminated among indigenous communities on management standards and sustainable

cultural practices, nontimber forestry based enterprises, and integrated farming systems thatfoster biodiversity in gardens and agricultural plots. Third, recent progress should becontinued toward consolidating the legal tenure of indigenous territories and to fostercultural land use mapping, regularization, and management planning. Fourth, there is aneed to establish standards and criteria for indigenous ecosystem management thatprovides a basis for compensating indigenous communities for the environmental servicesthey provide, and which are needed by the local, national, and global community. Thesestandards will create sustainable mechanisms for providing such compensation, consistent

with the specific needs of indigenous communities. This fourth area has received very littleattention by the environmental programs in Central America overall, even thoughmaintaining these systems can be a very cost-effective means to meet environmental goals.Rather than restricting indigenous peoples activities, a compensation market would rewardthose management practices that achieve global and national goals, while helping tomitigate the extreme poverty in which indigenous peoples live.

The broad development goals of the seven participating Central American countries focuson poverty alleviation, natural resources management, and reduction of social and economic

inequalities, especially in rural areas. Costa Rica, Panama, and Honduras also share aspecific emphasis on indigenous peoples development. In addition, all Central Americagovernments value the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) as a tool for environmentalstability and the importance of incorporating indigenous development and natural resourcesmanagement into poverty reduction strategies. In this regard, there is an overall recognitionof the value of regional cooperation for the management and sustainable use of thesevaluable resources that are vitally interconnected across their national borders and whichprovide a wide range of environmental products and services, essential for the economic

competitiveness and social stability of the region. The project supports these developmentgoals and regional vision by promoting sustainable use of natural resources and generationof sustained benefit flows from strengthened regional cooperation and emerging networksamong indigenous communities involved in integrated ecosystem management.


44/79


45/79

- 35 -

efforts of the UNDP project that target CICA through directly working at the field level withindigenous communities and through project administration activities managed directly byindigenous communities. In addition, the proposed project will complement FOCADES by

offering the opportunity for indigenous communities to select and manage project activities.CCAD will serve as the vehicle by which the proposed project will coordinate activities withall GEF-financed projects in the region. Finally, in support of information dissemination, anecosystems map has recently been prepared for Central America with support from theBank Netherlands Partnership Program to consolidate information on indigenous peoples,their ecological knowledge and management of natural resources, ecological zones in theregion, protected natural areas, and priority areas for indigenous biodiversity conservation inthe Mesoamerican region.

The GEF-assisted national MBC projects have concentrated on consolidating the protectedareas system in Honduras, Panama, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. They have focused onimplementing a people-oriented approach to conservation in the national parks andbiosphere reserves and on developing sustainable use activities in the buffer zones that areculturally viable and recognize indigenous lands and resource rights. These provide goodpractice examples that can be replicated and shared between indigenous communitiesoutside the formal national protected areas. There are also several WB-GEF medium-sizeprojects that focus on community conservation and sustainable use, such as the Bio-Itza

Maya Community Management (Guatemala); Shade Coffee (El Salvador); and aSustainable Cacao project (Costa Rica). These projects were created in response to theCentral American countries increasing recognition of their comparative advantage indeveloping an economy around their natural resource base through eco-tourism, thegeneration of environmental services, and the certification of biodiversity friendlyenterprises. Finally, the GEF-funded Small Grants Program is supporting projects in Belize,Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Honduras.

Costs. The cost of Baseline Scenario investments in the seven participating countries totalsUS$95.68 million. Of these resources, approximately US$25.39 million is directed towardsinstitutional strengthening and capacity building; US$33.20 million for promotion and supportof sustainable use and management of ecosystems; US$30.09 million for development of


46/79

- 36 -

Scope. The overall goal of the GEF Alternative is to promote Integrated EcosystemsManagement (IEM) in indigenous lands through support to an emerging network ofindigenous communities engaged in IEM in Central America.

Costs. The incremental cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated at US$32.58 million,detailed as follows: (a) institutional strengthening and capacity building US13.33 million(GEF financing - US$3.15 million); (b) promotion and support of sustainable use andmanagement of ecosystems US$12.34 million (GEF financing US$2.24 million); (c)development of financing mechanisms for financial sustainability of integrated ecosystemsmanagement (IEM) US$4.79 million (GEF financing US$2.79 million); (d) participatorybiodiversity and project monitoring and evaluation US$1.02 million (GEF financing

US$0.82 million); and (e) project administration and audits US$1.1 million (GEF financingUS$1.0 million).

Benefi ts. Implementation of the GEF Alternative would enhance the sustainability ofhuman-managed systems that have been evolving for centuries in Central America,conserving high levels of biodiversity, but that have become under increasing threat.Overall, the project will also build the capacity of indigenous communities to actively

participate in and benefit from rural development and land administration projects so thattraditional ecosystem models related to culturally based uses of the land that would benefit

global biodiversity conservation remain intact.

The more specific global benefits generated from the project would include (a) support to aregional network of indigenous communities involved in integrated ecosystem managementto (i) promote community-to-community learning and exchanges of knowledge onmanagement practices and standards, (ii) assist community leaders in areas that arebenefiting from existing GEF and other projects have an opportunity to share theirexperiences with communities across the seven Central American countries, and (iii)

identification and fostering of sustainable financing for landscape-wide conservation,including markets for ecological services and for financing recurrent costs of resourcemanagement in a manner to protect food security based on subsistence traditionaleconomies while fostering sustainable market alternatives.


47/79

- 37 -

conservation through the establishment and sustainable use and management of protectedareas within extensive indigenous communities in the biodiversity-rich parts of theMesoamerican Biological Corridor.

A GEF grant of US$10 million is proposed at this time; an additional US$22.58 million havebeen committed by participating local indigenous communities and governments throughWorld Bank and IDB loan activities as parallel financing to the project..


48/79

Incremental Cost Matrix

ComponentSector

CostCategory

US$Million Domestic Benefit Global Benefit

1. Cultural andInstitutionalStrengtheningand CapacityDevelopment

Baseline 25.39 Strengthened environmental andland administration institutions;increased public sector capacity tomanage natural resources andadminister natural resourcemanagement programs;development of policies forindigenous land rights

With GEFAlternative

37.87

(= 25.39+ 12.48)

Facilitation of discussion anddissemination of shared land rightspolicies across region to buildcapacity of indigenous communities todevelop legal and policy frameworksfor conservation and sustainable useareas.

Incremental 13.33 Note: Participating countriesand stakeholders (WB, IDB,and Indigenous counterparts)will provide an additionalUS$9.68 million to this

component beyond theUS$2.80 million financed bythe GEF.

2. Promotion ofcultural useand integratedecosystemsmanagement

Baseline 33.20 Development of mgt plans forforestry, agroforestry andsustainable biodiversity use (incl.Cacao, banana, and coffeeproduction) in national protectedareas and their buffer zones;increased support at the local levelfor biodiversity conservation and

sustainable resource use.Financing and development of landregularization process in indigenousareas, for protected areas system,


49/79

- 39 -

3. Developmentof culturallyappropriatefinancial

mechanismsforenvironmentalsustainability inindigenouscommunities

Baseline 30.09 Testing of sustainable models thatcan be disseminated to a muchwider audience with similarecosystems; evaluation of the

market for environmental goods andservices

Development of institutional capacityamong indigenous communities tobetter participate in national projectsand strengthen their capacity to

provide viable proposals for MCfinancing; Provision to communitiesparticipating in the national MBCprojects with a wider set of potentialprojects to pilot in their communities.

Promotion of sustainable modelsfrom MSP projects through networkspromoted by IEM.

With GEFAlternative

34.60

(=30.09+ 4..51)

Financing of similar IEM activitiesand projects that can be utilized asbest practice examples to bedisseminated and shared withcommunities in comparableecosystems across CentralAmerica;

Development of mechanisms tomarket environmental services inlocal, national, and internationalmarkets

Improved knowledge of value ofenvironmental services provided bydifferent types of ecosystems;increased sustainability of ESPprogram through establishment of abiodiversity conservation TrustFund; increased institutional capacityfor environmental marketing atnational and international level;creation of experience and lessonslearned exchanges, expanding thereach of national project outcomesby allowing mgt models andsustainable use projects to be

replicated to many morecommunities across region.

Replication facilitation of sustainablemodels to communities acrossCentral America, thereby avoidingneed to ID and retest similar modelsin other communities/countries.

Dissemination of findings toindigenous communities acrossregion and development ofstandards for environmental goods

and services that will complementnational activities.

Incremental 4..51 Note: Participating countriesand stakeholders (WB, IDB,

d I di t t )


50/79

- 40 -

administration and rural dev. projects.

Incremental 1.42 Note: Participating countriesand stakeholders (WB, IDB,and IndigenousCounterparts) will provide anadditional US$0.6 million tothis component beyond theUS$0.82 million financed bythe GEF.

5. ProjectAdministration and Audits

Baseline 0

With GEFAlternative

1.8 Increased capacity to coordinateproject activities.

Increased capacity to manage thoseelements of the project critical to the

realization of the planned GlobalEnvironmental Benefits.

Incremental 1.8 Note: Participating countriesand stakeholders (WB, IDB,and IndigenousCounterparts) will provide anadditional US$0.6 million tothis component beyond theUS$1.2 million financed bythe GEF.

TOTALS Baseline 95.68

With GEF

Alternative

128.26

(= 95.68+ 32.58)

TotalIncrement 32.58

GEFIncrement 10.0


51/79


52/79

- 42 -

Comment: The greatest innovative aspect of the project is its integrated nature. This project could helpthe relevant departments or provinces, central government ministries, and international bodies to worktogether for promoting the land degradation program further.

Response: The project is among seven demonstration projects proposed in the PRC/GEF partnership.It is a pilot project that can serve as a platform for different interested local, regional, provincial,national, and international bodies to work together on controlling land degradation. It will provideexperience that could be replicated and would be beneficial in other regions of similar ecosystem.

New Comment: The project proposes an active participation of indigenous grassroots organizationsthat will implement the activities. It will coordinate with the National Biodiversity Strategies to avoid

duplication of efforts and to enhance the participation of indigenous communities in implementation ofintegrated ecosystem management. The project will also work with the UNDPs regionalEstabli shment of a Program for the Consolidation of the Mesoameri can Biological Corr idorand theWorld Banks regional program Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barr ier

Reef System.

Response: The Task Team agrees and informs that participatory consultation and social assessmenthas been carried out during project preparation to ensure that the Indigenous communities will have

active participation, not only in the implementation of the project, but also as important part of the

decisionmaking process. A list of communities in each priority IEM area has been developed for allcountries. This categorizes the communities by organizational, and technical skills and experience innatural resources and land use management and conservation, and whether they have a land usemanagement plan. Criteria used to identify eligibility were (a) high priority biodiversity and land

degradation under the MBC; (b) organizational capacity for conservation activities; (c) basic normsand procedures or interest inestablishment of norms for conservation processes; (d) ongoing projects

for sustainable use or conservation activities; and participation in networks of communities.

4. Monitoring and evaluationNew Comment: The monitoring and evaluation of the project consist of two separate areas: Themanagerial activities of the project and the progress in the conservation and sustainable use of the


53/79

- 43 -

5. Priority areas and indigenous maps

Comment: It is recommended that the total area and location of indigenous lands to be included in the

project be indicated. For this purpose, it is advised that the PAD include a set of maps illustrating theindigenous lands that the project will cover and their relation with the national systems of protectedareas in Central America.

Response: The Task Team fully agrees with the reviewer and has paid great attention to matters of

indigenous lands. During project design extensive research was carried out to identify indigenousland issues and a geographic information system has been developed that includes all the importantmaps related to priority ecosystems and the overlap with indigenous lands and territories.

(c) Response to comments from Secretariat

At the PDF-B approval stage, M Ramos concentrated his review on the TORs for the PDF-B only and hadthe following concerns:

Comment A:

The PDF-B only describes the preparation of the components supported by the GEF (US$10 m), but notthe components supported by cofinancing (US$18 m). What would this cofinancing support? How wouldthe GEF contribution build on this support? This is the case for project preparation funds too. Totalpreparation costs are estimated at US$2.15 m, but the budget only details the GEF contribution. What arethe others contributing? The budget matrix gives the impression that the GEF is the only one contributingpreparation funding. Cofinancing should also be spelled out the same as GEF funding.

Response A:

PDF-B activities: The section describing PDF activities and expected outcomes clearly states the differentfunding sources (GEF, RUTA, IDB, and/or WB/Netherlands Partnership) under each of the activities. Toaddress the observation from GEFSEC, the Project Preparation Cost Table has been reviewed to describei d t il th t ib ti f th diff t fi i A lt it h b l ifi d


54/79

- 44 -

World Bank parallel financing sources

Project

Total budget

(US$ million)

Parallel financingproposed

(US$ million)Land AdministrationGuatemala 38.8 1.7Land FundGuatemala 77.2 1.9Land AdministrationNicaragua 38.5 3.3Land AdministrationPanama 71.9 1.8Land AdministrationHonduras 70.0 4.6Central America Indigenous Peoples Sust. Dev. (TF ESSD) 0.6TOTAL World Bank 13.9

Inter-American Development Bank parallel financing sources

Project

Total budget

(US$ million)

Parallel financing

proposed

(US$ million)

Regularization of Cadastre and Property RegistryCosta Rica 92 1.5Land ManagementBelize 8.86 0.6Land Administration and RegularizationPanama 32.0 0.16Sustainable Development of the DarienPanama 88 1.7

Support for Indigenous and Black CommunitiesHonduras 2.9 0.72Socioenvironmental and Forestry Program-Nicaragua 32.7 1.5TOTAL IDB 6.18

Comment B:

The project preparation costs includes activities that should be supported by the baseline (e.g., output 1.2on legal studies analyzing the framework for land tenure rights) as the Bank funding is suppose to dealwith land tenure issues.

Response B:

For the PDF-B specifically, it is suggested to use US$95,000 for the evaluation of the current legalf k i th t t iti i d t i id tifi ti f th ti iti d d f


55/79

- 45 -

Comment D:

The overall balance between resulting project activities seem inadequate. About US$4 m would go to

capacity building (US$1 m of this to ACICAFOC and the decisionmaking structure of the project alone),US$2 m to community conservation and management of key areas, US$2.5 m to buffer zone activities(most of this should be paid by the IDB and WB money) and should be part of the baseline, and US$1.5m to M&E. There should be an overall balance from the various contributors. The GEF should only payits proportional part of total project costs (US$28 m). In addition, GEF contribution would be better usedfor the conservation aspects of the project while the sustainable use, market issues, and environmentalgoods and services should also be covered substantively by cofinancing. For example, the Bank has beenconducting extensive work (both conceptually and in the field through training and pilot projects) onenvironmental goods and services in the region. However, this project includes GEF funding for these

types of activities. Why not use what the Bank has generated to date?Response D:These issues will be further addressed during the rest of the project design period. However, the projectteam has moved output 4.2 (market standards) from component 4 (M&E) to component 3 (Buffer ZoneActivities) since it logically belongs under that component. As a result, the balance among the differentcomponents has been improved with only US$1 million for M&E.

Comment E:

All aspects related to project monitoring are charged to the GEF, while the GEF would pay about 30percent of total project costs. If this is the case, GEF should only pay a proportional part of thiscomponent too.

Response E:With reference to PDF-B activities, US$90,000 from GEF and US$90,000 from RUTA has been allocatedtoward monitoring and evaluation studies.

Comment F:The PM (Mario) highlighted to the Team Leader (Herbert) that the Bio-Itza project appears several timesin the document under review (e.g., pages 7 and 12). The Bank has been lobbying the TL heavily on this.The PMs earlier recommendation based on the limited information that the Bank provided was that


56/79

- 46 -

An strengthening strategy for component 1 has been developed, based on the learning experiences from

the land administration project in Central America (Tolupn titling project in Honduras, and the LandAdministration project in Guatemala which provide good models for working in a coordinated fashionwith indigenous organizations), these processes include:

a. Identification of the problems regarding land tenure issues and priorities of indigenouscommunities7;

b. assuring that the projects are appropriated in the framework of community and territorialinitiatives;

c. identification and promotion of local capabilities for land tenure negotiations (legal advice,

technical assistance) and the implementation of economic development projects.d. supporting traditional (Consejo de Ancianos) and community (womens organizations, youth,

etc.) organizations to develop the capacity for conflict resolutions on land tenure and naturalresources management;systematically connecting external cooperation and government projects based on community needsfor land tenure security.

2. Operational Program- The Project has been presented under the GEF Operational Program 12

and addresses the capture of global benefits in both Biodiversity and Land Management GEF FocalAreas. The system boundaries for the project are large and include all of Central America. Althoughthis region is comprised of various ecosystem types, it has a consistent framework for BiodiversityConservation under the efforts of the Meso-American Biological Corridors Program. Similarly the landmanagement and land degradation concerns are regional in nature and require a systematic regionalapproach to achieve benefits of sustainable management. This particular project aims to workspecifically with the indigenous communities. Indigenous Communities make up about one quarter ofthe population of Central America (more in some areas than others) and therefore they have a significantrole toward reaching the achievement of sustainable ecosystem and land management.

3. Complement with other GEF ProjectsSection E 1.11 of the Plan de Operations describescomplements with other GEF Projects in Central America.


57/79

- 47 -

8. Indigenous Clearing House MechanismThe project will support Article 7 and 8j of the CBD asdescribed in Section D 4.11 of the Plan de Operations.

9. Institutional Set-upAfter several discussions among indigenous peoples in the region all agreedthat Fondo Indigena will not participate directly , however they will be indirectly involved through theiradvisory role to CACA. Sections 1.13 and 1.14, and Chapter 3 of the Plan de Operations describe keyIndigenous Organizations to be involved in the project.

10. Project Focus The project execution arrangements focus only on National Organizations.NGOs like the Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples in Tropical Forest are represented indirectlythrough their member communities. The Stakeholder consultations have also involved regional NGO

organizations concerned with project issues directly.11. Matching Funds GEF funds will not exceed 50% of the cost of the subprojects. Individualsubproject financing arrangements may vary, and will include local counterpart funds, Bank parallel co-financing, and donor funds.

12. Targeted Indigenous Communities A matrix describing targeted communities and their keycharacteristics has been presented in Annex 4 (Typology for Classification of Communities) of the Plande Operations.

13. Traditional Knowledge Traditional knowledge has been integrated throughout the projectdesign. Components 1, 2, and 3 will all include a strong emphasis on traditional knowledge. Section B4.7 and 4.8 of the Plan de Operations discusses these issues.

14. Fuel woodThe site evaluation methodology will look at fuel wood consumption and use as partof its assessments for sustainability.

15. Capacity Indicators Quantitative and qualitative capacity indicators are included in the outputindicators of the log frame.

16. Sustainability of Capacity Building Section B, chapter 4 of the Plan de Operations addresses


58/79

- 48 -

21.Co-financing Co-financing arrangements are described in part 4 of the Project ExecutiveSummary. Technical Annex 5 of the Plan De Operations is an analysis of the co-financing to beprovided from ongoing World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank loans.

22.Phasing of the ProjectBoth Banks agree with a long term approach which may justify a secondphase after this one has substantially advanced its objectives. The project being presentedaddressed the absorbative capacity of activities in 7 countries and 440 communities tocomplement ongoing Bank lending programs with these same areas. Capacity assessments havebeen part of the project development studies.


59/79

- 49 -

Annex 1: Documents in the Project File*

CENTRAL AMERICA: Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous Communities

A. Project Implementation Plan

B. Bank Staff Assessments

A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean, The World Bank/TheWorld Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., 1995.

Evaluacin del Potencial de los Servicios Ambientales en Pueblos Indgenas, RUTA, San Jose, Costa Rica, 2000.

LIST ALL INDIGENOUS PROFILES

C. Other

Ostrom, E. 1999. Principios de diseo de sistemas sostenibles de recursos gobernados por la comunidad.Santiago de Chile, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologa, V Conferencia electrnica y exposicinvirtual en internet "De cara a la globalizacin: Organizaciones econmicas campesinas en Amrica latina

y el Caribe".

Tucker, Catherine M. 1999. "Private Versus Common Property Forests: Forest Conditions and Tenure ina Honduran Community". Human Ecology 27: 201-230.

*Including electronic files


60/79

- 50 -

Additional Annex 2: Social InformationCENTRAL AMERICA: Integrated Ecosystem Management in Indigenous Communities

SOCIAL INFORMATION

Central America is pluricultural and multilingual, with 14 distinct ethnic groups speaking 39 languages,totaling about 6.7 million people (24 percent of the total population in the seven countries in the region).The distribution is highly skewed, with Guatemala having the largest concentration of indigenous peoples(66 percent), mainly of Mayan descent, followed by Belize (20 percent), and Honduras (15 percent)

(International Labor Organization- ILO - figures). Indigenous peoples in Central America include (a)various ethnicities of Mayan descent who have settled in Guatemala and eastern Honduras; (b)descendents of ethnic groups that lived in subsistence economies in more remote traditional territorieswhere cultural practices developed in relation to the natural resource base; and (c) the Afro-Caribbeanpeoples who settled along the coastal and island reefs to escape plantation slavery in the Caribbean. Thedistribution of indigenous peoples in Central America varies widely throughout the region. Notsurprisingly, outside of Guatemala, indigenous peoples are concentrated in the less populated areas andthe areas with the remaining concentrations of intact natural forests and ecosystems (backgroundinformation fromIndigenous Peoples Profilesof each country produced by the World Bank and RUTA).

Over hundreds of years, some indigenous peoples integrated into the mainstream, abandoning theircultural identity, traditional institutions, and changing sustainable cultural uses of the land. Othersadopted the outward characteristics of the nonindigenous society, speaking only Spanish and makingcommunal decisions out of the public eye. A subset retreated to areas of refuge where there wasgeographic and political space to maintain their cultural identity and practices, kee