GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACUfVproduccionsostenibleybiodiversidad.org/wp-content/... · 2017-05-02 · Tourism Authority (Autoridad de Turismo de Panama – ATP formerly IPAT), and the

MONIQUE BARBUT

ChIef Executive Officer and ChcirpersonGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACUfV

'818 H Street NW

Washington. DC 20433 USA

Ie,: 202.473.3202

;ai: 202.5223240,3245

March 9, 201 I

Dear Council Member,

The IADB a:-, the Implementing Agency for the project entitled Panama: A.faillstreaming biodiversity conservation through low-impact ecotourism ill the SINAP has :-,ubmitted the attached proposed project document for CEO endorsement prior to final Agency approval of the project document in accordance with the IADB procedures.

The Secretariat has reviewed the project document. It i~ consistent with the project concept approved by the Council in June 2009 and the proposed project remains consistent \\-ith the Instrument and GEF policies and procedures. The attached explanation prepared by the IADB satisfactorily details how Council's comments and those of the STAP have been addressed.

We have today posted the proposed project document on the GEF website at \\Jll~'(dll'l~

for your information. We would welcome any comments you may wish to provide by April 5, 201 J

before 1 endorse the project. You may send your comments to 2" I, IU[h l\J\d! d I \

If YOll do not have access to the Web, you may request the local field office of UNDP or the World Bank to download the document for you. Alternatively, YOll may request a copy of the document from the Secretariat. If you make such a request, please confirm for us your current mailing address.

'I \

\

Attachment: Project Documellt

cc: Country Operational Focal Point GEF Agencies, ST AP, TrU~lee

CEO Endorsement Template-December-08.doc 1

Re- Submission Date: February 15, 2011

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION

GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3889

GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PN-X1003

COUNTRY(IES): Panama

PROJECT TITLE: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation

through low-impact ecotourism in the SINAP

GEF AGENCY(IES): IADB

OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): National Environmental

Authority (ANAM: Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente),

Panamanian Tourism Authority (ATP: Autoridad de Turismo

de Panama)

GEF FOCAL AREA(s): Biodiversity

GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAMs: BD-SP1, BD-SP2, BD-SP4, BD-SP5

NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: n/a

A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK

Project Objective:

To generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) that

contributes to biodiversity conservation and sustainability of Protected Areas, in a framework of innovation, entrepreneurial

integration, and sustainable social development at the local scale.

Project

Components

Invest-

ment,

TA, or

STA2

Expected

Outcomes

Expected

Outputs

GEF

Financing1

Co-Financing2 Total

($) ($) % ($) %

1. Policies and

regulatory

framework for

biodiversity

conservation and

sustainable

management of

ecotourism in the

SINAP.

Sub-components:

1.a: Strategies,

policies and

regulatory

framework.

1.b: PAs financial

sustainability.

TA

Establishment of

an ecotourism

policy and

regulatory

framework,

reconciling

Tourism Master

Plan and

ANAM`s

SINAP Plan,

and contributing

to biodiversity

conservation

and sustainable

management of

PAs.

Policy and

methodology for

planning and

management of

public use of PA`s

approved by ANAM

and ATP.

2 Procedural manuals

for Public Use Plans

and granting

administrating

concessions, co-

management and

permits approved by

ANAM and ATP.

1 List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively of the total amount for the

component. 2 TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & Technical Analysis.

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project

THE GEF TRUST FUND

INDICATIVE CALENDAR Milestones Expected

Dates

Work Program (for FSP) March 2009

CEO

Endorsement/Approval

February 2011

GEF Agency Approval April 2011

Implementation Start August 2011

Mid-term Review August 2013

Project Closing Date August 2015


200% increase

in PA revenues

generated from

fees and other

financial

mechanisms for

ecotourism

activities

(representing

30% of SINAPs

operating

budget)

60 staff from ANAM

and ATP trained on

application of new

public use planning

tools.

5 sets of ecotourism

related fees revised

and updated to cover

operational costs.

2 financial

instruments in place

and monitored.

513,700

20 2,100,000 80 2,613,700

2. Planning and

investments to

increase quality

ecotourism

products in PAs

conserving

biodiversity

TA

Inv

est

me

nts

Yearly rate of

increase of

visitation to PAs

improves from

2.2% to 4.5%.

All ecotourism

activities in

selected PAs

comply with

regulations and

criteria in Public

Use Plans for

biodiversity

conservation.

7 Public Use Plans

(PUP) approved by

ANAM and 4 being

implemented, 6

management plans

updated and approved.

5 PAs with

ecotourism facilities

constructed and in

operation.

Ecotourism Impact

Monitoring System

(ETIMS) integrated in

PMEMAP and public

use plans in 9 Pas.

Ecotourism unit in

ANAM-DAPVS in

place and

functioning.

6 PAs have 1 trained

public use manager

and 1 assistant.

Environmental

management and

monitoring capacity

is increased in at least

10 Municipalities

around 5 PAs

1,990,600

32 4,185,000 68 6,175,600


3. Strengthening of

income generation

potential for local

stakeholders

through ecotourism

in selected PAs.

TA 5% increase in

the number of

local and

community

based businesses

providing

demand driven,

quality

ecotourism

services in and

around PAs.

At least 20

Organizations and

operators working in

PAs trained in

public use

management and

ecotourism good

practices.

Capacity of existing

local networks of

tourism service

providers to develop

business

opportunities around

5 Pas strengthened.

5 business plans

formulated and

being implemented.

At least 4 tourism

concessions and 4

operating permits

and 4 co-

management

agreements granted

on the basis of

enhanced

procedures and

compliance with

technical-

environmental

criteria.

Environmental

education campaign

on economic

benefits from PAs

developed and

carried out.

Marketing and

promotion strategy

formulated with

public and private

sector involvement,

funded,

implemented and

being monitored.

1.095,700 30 2,600,000 70 3,695,700

4. Project management 400,000 26 1,115,000 74 1,515,000

Total Project Costs 4,000,000 10,000,000 14,000,000

1 List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively of the total amount for the component.


2 TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & Technical Analysis.

B. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT

Name of Co-financier (source) Classification Type Project %*

Autoridad de Turismo de Panama (ATP) National

Government Grant 411,700 4

Marviva – Parque Nacional Isla de Coiba National

Government /NGO Grant 1,700,000 17

Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) /

Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas

Protegidas

National

Government Grant 1,500,000 15


FIDECO

National

Government Grant 1,800,000 18


IADB (loan 1912/OC-PN) Multilateral Loan 2,523,214 25

Autoridad Marítima de Panama (AMP)/IADB

(loan 1724/OC-PN) Multilateral Loan 300,000 3

Fondo Manejo del Parque Nacional

Chagres(TNC)

Debt Exchange

EEUU/Panama Grant 865,086 9

IADB-MIF-Marviva: Desarrollo de Alternativas

Económicas Sostenibles y Estratégicas de

Conservación en Áreas de Protección Marina del

Golfo de Chiriquí(MIF grant (ATN/ME-12186-

PN)

Multilateral/NGO Grant 900,000 9

Total Co-financing 10,000,000 100.0

* Percentage of each co-financier‟s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.

C. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)

Project

Preparation

a

Project

b

Total

c = a + b Agency Fee

For comparison:

GEF and Co-

financing at PIF

GEF Financing 100,000 4,000,000 4,100,000 400,000 4,500,000

Co-financing 118,000 10,000,000 10,118,000 8,500,000

TOTAL 218,000 14,000,000 14,218,000 400,000 13,000,000

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY(IES), FOCAL AREA(S) AND COUNTRY(IES)1 n/a

http://gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C21/C.20.6.Rev.1.pdf


E. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:

Component Estimated

person weeks

GEF

amount ($)

Co-

financing

($)

Project

total ($)

Local consultants* 3,489 1,910,400 1,000,000 2,910,400

International consultants* 158 105,000 450,000 555,000

Total 3,647 2,015,400 1,450,000 3,465,400

* Details to be provided in Annex C.

F. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST

Cost Items

Total

estimated

person

weeks

GEF

amount

($)

Co-

financing

($)

Project

total ($)

Local consultants* 416 249,600 430,000 679,600

International consultants* 42 150,000 150,000

Office facilities, equipment,

vehicles and

communications*

15,400 215,000 230,400

Travel* 70,000 180,,000 250,000

Others** 65,000 140,000 205,000

Total 458 400,000 1,115,000 1,515,000

* Details to be provided in Annex C. ** „Others‟ includes funds for the audit required.

G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? No

H. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M & E PLAN:

1. The project has two levels of monitoring: 1) monitoring and evaluation of project progress,

with the principal objective of tracking and assessing progress in achieving outcomes and

outputs detailed within the Results Framework and other project documents, and 2) the

establishment of an Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System (ETIMS), fully linked to

ANAM`s Protected Area Management Effectiveness Improvement Program or PMEMAP

(Programa de Mejoramiento de la Efectividad de Manejo de las Areas Protegidas), and

sustainable beyond the execution of the Project.

2. Monitoring and evaluation at the project level, including the day-to-day monitoring of project

activities, will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator based within ANAM (the

Executing Agency), with support from a Financial Specialist assigned for this operation within

ANAM. The Project Coordinator will liaise with ANAM‟s upper-level management, the Panama

Tourism Authority (Autoridad de Turismo de Panama – ATP formerly IPAT), and the Bank to

ensure adequate communication and smooth coordination throughout the execution of the

project. The total estimated cost for Project progress monitoring and evaluation is US$120,000.


3. For the design and operation of an Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System (ETIMS), during

the first six months of the project, the Ecotourism Specialist will assist the biodiversity personnel

at ANAM to develop a locally appropriate, adaptive, integrated and cost-effective data

management system, building on existing scientific and socioeconomic monitoring initiatives

and information. Resources for this activity have been incorporated in Component 2 with a view

to later integrating this program`s monitoring system into the PMEMAP and applying it to the

entire SINAP. The ETIMS is intended to expand the data already being collected for PMEMAP,

providing more specific information on the following aspects of ecotourism and biodiversity in

PAs: (i) an ecological dimension, with a view to assessing the impacts of tourism visitation

(including specific activities such as hiking, rafting, diving) on ecosystem health through the

analysis of trends in biological and threat reduction indicators compared against established

baselines in line-transects or quadrants around visited sites such as trails and overlooks. The

monitoring approach which is fully described in the Biodiversity Report and summarized in the

Monitoring and Evaluation Annex calls for the use of biological and threat reduction indicators

for the following: (a) vegetation (% cover, degree of fragmentation, species/community

diversity/abundance, presence of threatened and/or endangered species); (b) avifauna

(resident/migratory populations, species diversity/abundance, nesting concentrations, threatened

and/or endangered species, critical habitats); (c) mammals (presence/absence of primates,

predators, carnivores etc…; relative abundance, threatened and/or endangered species, critical

habitats); (d) freshwater biota (index of biological integrity); (e) coral reefs (live coral cover,

species diversity and abundance, coral condition including mortality, disease and bleaching); (f)

marine turtles (species diversity, nesting populations). Biophysical indicators (water quality, soil

stability and erosion, and solid waste) will also be monitored at and in the vicinity of ecotourism

sites. Threat reduction indicators will be monitored in each PA on the basis of the specific and

predominant threats identified (see Annex E), including forest fires, invasive species, illegal

settlements, illegal logging and other illegal activities etc… Protocols have been recommended

for each indicator to assess the impact of ecotourism activities on ecosystem condition and

diversity; (ii) a socioeconomic dimension, with a view to assessing the impact of ecotourism

visitation on social, cultural and economic context of local communities, as well as local and

national stakeholders; (iii) an ecotourism management dimension, assessing both demand

characteristics (visitor demographics and profile, preferences, satisfaction, expenditure patterns

as well as visitation flows) and supply (facilities, quantity and quality of services offered); and

(iv) a PA management dimension, including both the application of the GEF Tracking Tools to

assess implementation effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of PAs management, and the

linkage of the ETIMS to PMEMAP. The total estimated cost for the development and

implementation of the program`s monitoring system for the 9 protected areas (Project

Component 2) is expected to reach US$195,500.

4. The ETIMS will provide the information for the impact evaluation plan required by the IDB for

all its projects. The proposal is to use a reflexive methodology relying on the management

effectiveness monitoring and evaluation tool generated by PMEMAP (expanded to include the

ecotourism management data) to be applied individually to the 9 protected areas included as

priorities for the project. PMEMAP is based on an internationally recognized methodology that

is used for all protected areas that receive GEF financing and enables a comparison of


management effectiveness within national systems and across systems.3 A preliminary baseline

of the management effectiveness index exists. A new baseline will be collected in the first year

of the project using the „expanded‟ PMEMAP methodology. It will involve surveys of protected

area experts, management staff and stakeholders as well as on-site visitor and ecotourism

operators. The ex-post impact evaluation will be carried out via follow-up surveys in the year in

which the project is completely executed (end of Year 4). These follow-up surveys will make it

possible to compare the PMEMAP index before and after the implementation of the project.

Costs of the surveys and data analysis have been incorporated in Component 2.

Internal Evaluations and Reporting

5. The Project Coordinator will produce the following annual reports to monitor and evaluate

general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in the Results Framework

prepared for the Program: (i) a proposed Annual Work Plan (AWP) at the beginning of each year

of project execution based on progress achieved to date, and it will define activities and expected

results for the forthcoming year. A series of milestone deliverables will also be identified to

enable continuous monitoring of the project‟s implementation throughout the year; (ii) a Mid-

Year Progress Report half-way through each year, which will summarize progress made against

the content of the Annual Work Plan, and will focus on short-term results and challenges related

to the execution of the AWP; (iii) an Annual Project Report at the end of each project year,

which will concentrate on project performance towards achieving the project objective and

outcomes; project performance in relation to component progress and the fulfillment of

indicators and outputs; the identification of problems, risks and corrective measures; expenditure

reporting and the presentation of an updated procurement plan; and recommendations for

project/component adjustments based on lessons learned (adaptive management); and, (iv) a

GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) at the end of September of each year, in

collaboration with the Bank and to be submitted by the IDB to the GEFSEC. The PIR will

include ratings for the project on overall development objectives and implementation progress,

as well as risk ratings. Moreover it will comprise the project´s contribution to the Biodiversity

Focal Area strategic objectives and targets. Within the first 6 months of the project, the Project

Coordinator will also be responsible for consolidating all baseline information required for the

indicators identified in the Results Framework.

6. During the last three months of the project, the Project Coordinator will lead a Comprehensive

Participatory Evaluation (CPE) with key stakeholders to examine the results, outcomes, and

processes of the project, as well as to assess the institutional collaborative arrangements and

progress in mainstreaming biodiversity into the ecotourism sector (including the final application

of the GEF Tracking Tools during the project‟s executing period).

7. The Bank will conduct at least one supervision visit per year to Panama and generate the Project

Monitoring Report (PMR), which is the Bank‟s main tool for day-to-day monitoring of projects

and for tracking the project‟s progress toward achieving the results indicated in the Results

Framework.

3 See Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (Second edition), World Wildlife Fund and World Bank. July 2007.


Independent Evaluations and Reporting

8. Following each project year, an independent audit of the Project will be conducted by a national

external auditor approved by the Bank. The Audit Report will be contracted by the Executing

Agency, financed by the project, conducted in accordance with Bank requirements and submitted

directly to the Bank. The Project Coordinator and other specialists will support the auditors as

needed.

9. A mid-term and final evaluation of the Project will be carried out by (an) independent

consultant(s) hired and financed through resources from the GEF (ägency fees¨) received for

this Project.

10. The Mid-term Evaluation, carried out when 50% of the GEF resources have been disbursed or

24 months after the project contract goes into effect, will address such matters as: (1) an

assessment of general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in the

Results Framework; (2) a critical assessment of project administration, coordination and

execution; (3) the effectiveness of project and individual component design including progress in

inter-institutional coordination, development of a coherent regulatory framework, advances

towards the long-term financial sustainability of the PAs and implementation of the Ecotourism

Impact Monitoring System (ETIMS); and (4) local perception (community, private sector and

other stakeholders) of ecotourism development and community involvement. To ensure that the

findings of the Mid-term Evaluation are incorporated into future annual operating plans, the

Project Coordinator will organize a workshop to discuss the evaluation with relevant

stakeholders and reach clear agreements on adjustments in roles and responsibilities in the event

that changes are recommended. The Final Evaluation will assess the project‟s contribution to

achieving global environmental benefits as identified in the project documentation using the

results from the ETIMS and will make recommendations to on how to further promote

mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in the SINAP, based on project

results. The mid-term and final evaluations will be carried out using resources from the fee

granted to the project by GEF for supervision purposes.

11. Evaluations will assess the project‟s relevance (to international, national, and local conservation

priorities), effectiveness (achievement of outcomes), efficiency (cost-effectiveness), results (in

accord with results framework and other project documents), and sustainability (potential to

deliver environmental, social, financial, and institutional benefits over time).

12. As per the new GEF M&E policy, the IDB Team Leader will ensure that the Operational Focal

Point is fully informed and receives all project documentation including project and program

implementation reports, mid-term reviews and final evaluations.

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION:

A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO ADDRESS IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED:

The Role of Ecotourism in Panama´s Protected Area System

1. With a territory extending 75,517 km2, Panama is considered one of the countries with the

highest biodiversity of the Central American region, performing an important function of natural

connectivity between North America and South America. Over 1,300 endemic species have


been identified among plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and fresh water fish4. In

recognition of this significant biodiversity, the Government of Panama has established the

National System of Protected Areas (SINAP: Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas). The

system‟s objective is to protect and maintain biological diversity in terrestrial, coastal, marine

and other ecosystems, and to promote recreation, education, and natural resources research.

Under the authority of the Panama National Environment Authority (ANAM), the SINAP has

been expanded and strengthened over the last decade and many of the existing protected areas

have achieved international recognition as World Heritage Sites, RAMSAR sites and Biosphere

Reserves. At present, the system includes 89 protected areas (PAs) covering a total area of

approximately 2,922,648.72 ha, which represents 34% of the national territory. Only 19 (21%)

of the PAs in the system currently have their management plans and most are still in need of

developing and implementing strategic planning, operating and financing plans and monitoring

and supervision plans. In most of these PAs, ANAM is implementing an innovative monitoring

program of management effectiveness (“Programa de Monitoreo de la Efectividad del Manejo

de las Areas Protegidas de Panama – PMEMAP”), which is applied on a annual basis in each

PA with the participation of local communities and stakeholders.

2. This significant biodiversity and a unique ethnic-cultural base are two of the country‟s greatest

assets that have helped propel the tourism sector to the forefront of the country`s competitiveness

efforts. At present, tourism is a driving force in Panama´s economy, with an average 10% annual

increase registered from 2004-2008. A total of 1,573,070 persons visited Panama in 2008 of

which 80% were tourists5. Past inventories (IPAT/OEA, 1993) have concluded that about 72% of

the country‟s attractions were within the SINAP at that time. Yet only about 3% of total visitors

reportedly visited a protected area in Panama between 2004-2009 (compared to 54% in Costa

Rica, 2006), resulting in significant financial challenges for the SINAP as most of the resources

for management come from entrance fees, which have amounted to no more than $300,000/year

according to ANAM´s statistics and a diagnostic conducted during project preparation.

Challenges

3. The main issue to be addressed by this project is the limited sustainable use of the high

biodiversity of Panama‟s PA system, associated mainly with low levels of visitation and limited

ecotourism services both within the PAs and in surrounding areas. As one of the consequences,

the PAs in SINAP are exposed to a multitude of threats such as deforestation through illegal

logging that assign a low value to biodiversity. This situation can be traced to three main root

causes identified during project preparation, which represent obstacles standing in the way of

mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas:

a. Lack of a sound and consistent ecotourism policy and institutional framework for the

SINAP, including: (i) failure of national sector policies and plans to mainstream the objective

of sustainable use of biodiversity conservation in the SINAP, shortcomings in terms of

regulations for public use and the provision of quality, demand-driven ecotourism services in

PAs (i.e., concessions), as well as norms and procedures for and the availability of public

use plans for PAs with a high ecotourism potential; (ii) limited coordination between the two

key sector agencies (ANAM and the Panama Tourism Authority – ATP) and partnerships

4 ANAM 2007. Estado del Conocimiento y Conservación de la Biodiversidad y de las Especies de Vertebrados de Panamá.

5 Informe Económico 2008 del Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas de Panamá.


established between public, private and community-based agencies and organizations; and,

(iii) lack of innovative financial and legal instruments to enhance financial sustainability of

the PA system, in particular, for PAs that have a clear competitive advantage in terms of

visitation and public use. Overall, the projected income from PA visitation fees, concessions

and other activities represented only 15% of the total projected budget for the SINAP in

2010. In the case of Parque Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos, one of the most popular sites

in the system, entrance fees generate approximately US$28,000 yearly while the PA‟s

business plan estimates that potential annual revenues from ecotourism could reach

US$250,000.

b. Limited operational management of ecotourism and associated environmental impacts.

While some PAs have management plans and research is undertaken on a regular basis, there

is limited on-site operational capacity to address the findings of the research studies or to

implement the recommendations of the plans related to ecotourism management. While

carrying capacity studies have been done for a few of the PAs (e.g., Parque Internacional La

Amistad, Parque Nacional Volcan Baru), the annual monitoring required to assess

compliance with carrying capacity limits has not been feasible due to institutional

weaknesses and other limitations. Contributing to this situation is the significantly low levels

of investments in ecotourism public facilities and services, equipment, staffing, and

management systems, which are only in part due to a low level of visitation in a context of

incipient integration of ecotourism in the promotion of Panama`s touristic assets and

products. For example, while the management plan for the Parque Internacional La Amistad

calls for at least 17 officials to manage the protected area, there is only 9 staff working for

this 256,195 ha site. Coiba National Park is running on a budget deficit of approximately

US$9 million in five years. As of January 2010, the nine protected areas selected as priority

sites for this operation had 104 park rangers, providing an average of one park ranger per

11,000 hectares.

c. Lack of entrepreneurial capacity of nearby community organizations for offering a

quality product and the absence of opportunities for participation of local stakeholders in

tourism services, management of the PAs and conserving biodiversity. For example, only

five of the nine PAs selected as priority sites for this project have some type of business

plans and most lack the capacity and resources to implement the plans. Moreover, existing

concessions or other co-management financing options of the five PAs have focused on the

installation and operation of telecommunications facilities, not on ecotourism-related

services. In general, ecotourism tour packages are offered by tourism agencies in Panama

City, without close coordination with the management personnel of the Parks. This results in

potential conflicts between tour operators and park personnel over access to and visitation

limits for fragile sites, as well as missed opportunities to promote activities that are more

sustainable for the PA. In Parque Nacional Chagres, for example, most tourists are not being

informed about potential visits to indigenous villages in the area.

4. In general, the limited coordination and few partnerships established between public institutions,

private sector and community-based organizations have translated into: (i) limited integration of

the PAs in the national strategy for tourism promotion; and (ii) limited offer by either the

surrounding communities or the private sector of quality, demand-driven ecotourism services

associated with the PAs. The inventory of ecotourism services and associated facilities

completed during project preparation show that although all selected PAs have walking trails (33


trails, 103Km), only two PAs have a visitor center building, seven have sanitation facilities, and

4 have access to potable water. Moreover, only the Altos de Campana Park (PNAC) has trail

guides onsite. In terms of food and lodging services, less than 6 PAs offer these services.

Project approach

5. The project objective is to generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the

National Protected Areas System (SINAP) that contributes to biodiversity conservation and

sustainability of protected areas, in a framework of innovation, entrepreneurial integration, and

sustainable social development.

6. The project takes a two-pronged approach aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation

through ecotourism in protected areas both at the national and local scale. At the national level,

the project will contribute to developing a model for sustainable ecotourism development in the

SINAP through activities which will: (i) strengthen national-level strategies and norms for

promoting ecotourism in accordance with the objectives of the SINAP; (ii) improve SINAP´s

financial sustainability; (iii) create an enabling environment for private and public investment

that foster replication of similar activities in PAs of considerable socio-economic and ecological

importance; and (iv) enhance sectorial institutional collaboration and coordination, particularly

between the environmental agency (ANAM) and the tourism authority (ATP). At the local level,

the project will finance activities that correspond closely to the particular context encountered in

nine PAs selected as priority destinations, and it will promote and strengthen community

participation in the development and implementation of the project.

7. The selection of the nine PAs that will pilot the Program was based on a set of specific technical

criteria jointly agreed to by ANAM and ATP, including: (i) biodiversity value; (ii) conservation

status; (iii) presence of endangered species; and (iv) status of management plans. Furthermore,

for the selection was also important the presence of biodiversity of global significance and thus

international criteria were considered (i.e. RAMSAR, Biosphere Reserve and WWF Global 200).

Priority was given to those sites which register most endangered species (UICN Red List). The

presence of endemic species was also considered. These criteria were cross referenced with the

current and potential ecotourism demand statistics, as well as with the close proximity of each

area to the official tourism destinations included in the Master Tourism Plan for Panama (2007-

2020). With regards to social and economic aspects the following was taken into account: (i) the

potential to replicate lessons-learned from those protected areas with representative social and

environmental conditions within the SINAP; (ii) the level of community participation and the

capacity of their organizations; (iii) the potential to link this initiative with other projects and (iv)

the availability of baseline data. The nine selected areas are: Parque Nacional Marino Isla

Bastimentos (PNMIB), Parque Internacional La Amistad (PILA), Parque Nacional Volcan Baru

(PNVB), Parque Nacional General de Division Omar Torrijos Herrera (PNGDOTH), Parque

Nacional Darien (PND), Parque Nacional Soberania (PNS), Parque Nacional Chagres (PNCh),

Parque Nacional Altos de Campana (PNAC), and, Parque Nacional Coiba (PNC) (see Map in

Annex F).

8. The terrestrial extension of the nine PAs represents 42.2% of the total of terrestrial PAs within

SINAP, while the marine parts of PN Coiba in the Pacific and PN Marino Isla Bastimentos in the

Caribbean represent 49.3% of the total extension of marine protected areas in the SINAP. Taken

together, these nine PAs account for 60% of the current visitation to the SINAP. Three of the

selected terrestrial protected areas are among the most important in size in Panama (PN Darién,

PN La Amistad and PN Chagres). PN Chagres and PN Soberanía are key protected areas of the


Panamá Canal watershed, and part of a rich cluster of natural, historical and cultural touristic

attractions linked to the Canal. Baseline biological data analyzed during preparation and

presented below (Table 1) confirm the importance of the 9 selected Pas for the protection of

Panamanian biodiversity, including endemism.

Table 1: Summary of biodiversity baseline in the nine selected PAs of SINAP

9. In addition to an analysis of biodiversity, a review was also undertaken of the ecotourism

resources and ecotourism activities (existing and potential) in each PA. In 2009, visitation to the

9 PAs totaled in the order of 43,000 with the highest levels reported for PN Chagres, PN Coiba,

PN Bastimentos and PN Soberania (see Table 2). These are extremely low visitation levels when

compared to countries with similar ecotourism potential such as Costa Rica and Colombia.

Annex E summarizes the main characteristics of each protected area in terms of ecotourism

resources and activities as well as potential threats.

Table 2: Visitation to selected PAs in 2009

Protected Area Students Foreign National Retired and

youth Total

Soberanía 1,165 2,742 1,540 132 5,579

Isla Bastimentos 156 5222 2247 47 7,672

La Amistad 11 179 10 0 200

Omar Torrijos Herrera 626 190 373 11 1,200

Volcán Barú 566 1,655 979 75 3,275

Altos de Campana 1,259 265 761 48 2,333

Darién ND 15 ND ND 15

Chagres 701 13,041 424 17 14,183

Coiba 441 5,919 1,742 43 8,145

Total 4,925 29,228 8,076 373 42,602

Fuente: CBMA, ANAM en Hernandez, A. 2010

10. Panama´s current tourism sector market targets mostly on the upper-level market niche

(shopping, conventions, business travelers, etc) and is mostly centered on Panamá City, with the

exception of specific segments such as bird watching and coastal tourism. Based on studies

undertaken for the Tourism Master Plan and an analysis conducted during the PPG, market

potential for Panamanian PAs should clearly differentiate: (i) a cluster of PA which offers an


array of natural, historical and cultural attractions linked to the trans-oceanic route (from colonial

times to modern era) and benefits from the international image of Panama. This “Panama Canal

cluster” includes PN Soberanía and PN Chagres and has a very high development potential

given the rapid rise in the cruise ships business and other high-end segments of the market;

(ii) Marine PAs such as PN Isla de Bastimentos and PN Coiba, which are experiencing a rapid

rise in visitation, but are not linked to the mainstream flow of visitors around Panama City;

(iii) Areas which are part of various bird watching circuits offered by national and international

tour operators, such as PN Altos de Campana or PN General de Division Omar Torrijos; and

two large PAs in the extreme East and West of the Country, of more remote access and low

visitation levels (PN Pila connected to Costa Rican PAs and PN Darien on the border with

Colombia).

11. The selected nine PAs were also analyzed in terms of their current management effectiveness

(see Table 3 below). In summary, overall scores ranged from 45% 6(PN Bastimentos, Altos de

Campana, Darien) to 67% (Coiba). The PAs generally received above average scores for

planning and the lowest scores for outputs and outcomes.

Table 3 : List of Selected Protected Areas

Score

Summary PNMIB PILA PNAC PNCH PNC PND PNS PNVB PNGDOTH

Context 53 58 58 61 77 61 65 58 54

Planning 64 71 71 79 71 78 79 64 64

Inputs 57 57 50 71 50 43 71 50 43

Process 52 56 44 52 68 44 52 48 60

Outputs 27 36 27 30 64 27 39 33 52

Outcomes 37 59 41 52 67 37 55 52 59

Final Score

% 45 54 45 53 67 45 57 49 52

PNMIB: Isla Bastimentos Marine National Park PNC: Coiba National Park

PILA: La Amistad International Park PND: Darien National Park

PNC:

Altos de Campanas National

Park PNS:

Soberania National

Park

PNCH:

Chagres National

Park PNVB: Baru Volcano National Park

PNGDOTH: General Division Omar Torrijos Herrera National Park

12. The project has been structured into three components. The first component addresses the

critical gaps and limitations in the institutional and regulatory framework and existing inter-

institutional coordination and capacities. It also addresses the challenge of increasing sustainable

financing for SINAP, by promoting the design and establishment of alternative sources of

financing for development, management and promotion of ecotourism, as these sources also

depend on policies and regulatory frameworks to operate. The second component will improve

the quality of planning, operational management and monitoring of the nine PAs selected as

priorities for ecotourism development. The third component will focus on fostering private

sector and community participation and the generation of tangible local benefits from ecotourism

6 Percentage is calculated as total score of PA over an adjusted maximum score of 139.


and alternative sources of income generation in PAs, while promoting the adoption of good

practices and sound management systems. A description of the activities included in each

component follows:

13. Component 1: Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation and

sustainable management of ecotourism in the SINAP. This component is divided into two

subcomponents:

14. The first subcomponent seeks to establish a national strategy shared by ANAM and ATP for the

development of low-impact ecotourism that enhances the biodiversity values in and around

SINAP. With the resources allocated to this subcomponent, technical assistance and training will

be provided for the following activities: (i) the formulation of a national policy for ecotourism

that reconciles the priorities of the SINAP, including those of the new Strategic Plan 2010-2014,

and the relevant programs of the National Tourism Master Plan -particularly with respect to

product development, tourism destination planning, development control and marketing. This

will be accompanied by the creation of a national-level coordination mechanism (National

Ecotourism Coordination Committee) with representation from the institutions playing a role in

the planning, development and management of ecotourism resources (ANAM, ATP, ARAP,

INAC and ACP). This coordination mechanism, to be created during year 2 of the project, will

be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the policy, establishing targets for SINAP

and the ecotourism segment in general, and evaluating performance of SINAP; (ii) elaboration

and official endorsement of guidelines and a procedural manual for the formulation and

monitoring of public use plans, including the identification of a nation-wide set of performance

indicators for ecotourism (i.e., compliance with acceptable levels of change, visitor satisfaction,

environmental and social impacts, financial sustainability); (iii) definition and validation of a set

of policies and technical, social and environmental criteria for tourism concessions, co-

management agreements and tourism operation permits. This would encompass a diagnostic of

needs of the SINAP and the potential offer from private sector and local communities;

(iv) elaboration of a procedural manual for granting and administrating concessions, co-

management agreements and permits, including the crafting of administrative procedures to

streamline the concessions and co-management approval process through a single window

facility; and (v) training courses and knowledge-building sessions, both at the regional and

national levels, to improve the technical capacity of at least 60 of ANAM´s DAPVS staff, as well

as ATP in public use planning, monitoring and financial administration.

15. The second subcomponent complements the reforms described above by focusing on ecotourism

as a mean to increase revenues for PA management; and secondly on broadening the array of

sustainable financing options for the SINAP. Technical assistance will be provided for: (i) the

definition of a clear ecotourism-based financial sustainability strategy for PAs, using the

recommendations of various recent studies including the 2009 study undertaken for Coiba which

recommended six financing mechanisms for that PA (trust fund, co-management, improvements

in entrance fees and fees for services, fishing licenses, concessions, improvements in fines). This

will entail the development of a proposal for the revision of the existing entrance fee and fees-

for-services structure as well as the fees for concessions and operations permits (to be

accompanied by a financial analysis of alternatives), consultations with stakeholders in the

tourism sector, and the selection and official endorsement of an improved fee structure; and

(ii) the definition of alternative financial mechanisms (e.g., cruise ship or airport entry fees,


payments for environmental services) to support biodiversity conservation through collaborative

agreements between public and private sector institutions.

16. Component 2: Planning, operational management and monitoring of ecotourism in PAs.

This component is aimed at enhancing planning and the quality of ecotourism products in

selected PAs leading to an increase in quantitative and qualitative indicators of visitation, while

at the same time improving capacities to monitor the effects of these products on the biodiversity

of the PAs. The following activities will be financed: (i) conduct studies to define carrying

capacity7, flow management and visitor monitoring for each of the 9 selected PAs. This will

encompass the design and demonstration of visitor survey methodologies to collect key data on

ecotourism use (e.g., visitor characteristics, expenditure patterns, willingness-to-pay) as a basis

for setting fee structures that could be replicated to the entire SINAP. Once the survey

instruments are designed, data will be collected in Year 1 to establish a baseline and each year

subsequently; (ii) develop, approve and implement at least seven management and public use

plans to identify and set objectives for ecotourism attractions, services and visitor use

management in line with the each area´s conservation mandate and biodiversity values. This will

entail analyses of the visitor baseline data collected in Year 1, the development of detailed public

use zoning maps and norms, holding focus group sessions with key stakeholders (hotels, tour

operators and guides, community representatives, research institutions), reaching consensus and

approving the plans and promoting their dissemination. The plans will integrate adaptation

strategies to respond to the impacts of climate change (e.g., coral bleaching, sea level rise,

increase in storm surges, saltwater intrusion) in coastal, marine and terrestrial areas; (iii) identify

a public investment portfolio for PAs jointly defined by ANAM and ATP, which will add value

and attractiveness to ecotourism products (e.g., trails, observation towers, camping sites). Once

defined and approved by the Bank, the portfolio will be financed by the Program; (iv) adaptation

and expansion of the existing PMEMAP in the nine selected PAs to include cost-effective

monitoring of biological and threat reduction indicators associated to the impacts of ecotourism

on biodiversity (as designed in the ETIMS). The monitoring initiative will be undertaken in

partnership with national universities and international research institutions with existing

biological monitoring programs in Panama. It will also involve local businesses and communities

with a presence in the PAs for the data collection activities after having received the appropriate

training (see below); (v) training of PA on-site personnel to enhance their capacity to implement

and enforce public use plans, maintain ecotourism facilities, work with local ecotourism service

providers (i.e., guides) as well as to promote visitor appreciation and understanding of the

biodiversity values of the PAs.

17. Component 3: Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through

ecotourism in selected PAs: This component encompasses the creation of conditions, which

allow local key stakeholders in selected PA´s to obtain concrete economic benefits as a result of

planned and organized management of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural and cultural

resources within PA´s and their buffer zones. Activities to be financed include: (i) training of a

minimum of 20 local organizations and operators in various aspects related to demand-driven,

high-quality ecotourism services and products (e.g., integrating best practices, business

management, certification and other types of environmental standards). The training and

7 To support the definition of Public Use Plans, the project will either use carrying capacity-base or Limits of Acceptable

Change (LAC) based methodologies.


technical assistance includes dissemination of innovative technologies for ecotourism promotion

in target markets, .enhancing energy-efficiency in tourism services, visitor safety, and private

sector and community participation in biodiversity monitoring; (ii) capacity building of existing

local networks of service providers and development of ecotourism business opportunities. In the

case of the PAs where indigenous communities are present (e.g., La Amistad, Chagres, Darien),

capacity building will be preceded by a socio-cultural process of familiarization or

„rapprochement‟ with the communities to assess their interest in providing ecotourism services

that are compatible with the principles of development with identity, their needs, expectations

and concerns; (iii) elaboration of a minimum of 5 individual PAs business plans linking each PA

to potential services providers, and the articulation of those plans within a broader strategic

sustainable financing plan for all selected 9 PAs; (iv) development and implementation of

environmental education campaigns aimed at key local and national stakeholders (public and

private) and focusing on the economic value of PAs and the benefits of their sound management

and use; (v) support to ATP and ANAM to undertake market studies, promotion strategies, and

marketing campaigns to position the 9 pilot PAs and their service networks in the national and

international ecotourism markets, including tools, participation in trade shows, printed and

audiovisual material etc; (vi) issuing at least 4 concessions, 4 operating permits and 4 co-

management agreements under a streamlined and cost-efficient system, and; (vii) consolidation

of at least 2 productive value chains connecting tourists, national tour operators and local service

providers for two PAs with the greatest competitive advantage to ensure that communities and

small businesses have better access to markets.

EXPECTED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED

18. The project contributes to advance the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the CBD (in

particular the goals of program elements 1, 2 and 4), the Plan of Implementation of the World

Summit on Sustainable Development (in particular section IV), the World Ecotourism Summit

2002 and its Quebec Declaration, and the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism as adopted by the

UN World Tourism Organization, in order to increase the benefits from tourism resources for

local communities while mainstreaming the cultural and environmental integrity of those

communities and enhancing the protection of ecologically sensitive areas and natural heritage.

19. This project contributes to the generation of global environmental benefits through:

a. Improved overall management effectiveness and financial sustainability of a network of

protected areas totalling an extension of 1,264,534 ha of terrestrial PAs (42.2% of the

national system‟s total) and 213,253 ha of protected marine PAs (49.3% of the national

system‟s total), including three areas of international recognition (Darien National Park and

International Park “La Amistad”, which are declared Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO

World Heritage Sites, while the Coiba Marine National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage

Site). All nine PAs selected as priorities are also classified as Important Bird Areas (IBA) of

Panama for their global relevance in providing habitat for the conservation of bird

populations, including globally threatened and restricted range species.

b. Contribution to the protection of habitats for globally threatened species, including several

endangered or vulnerable (as defined by the IUCN Red List) frogs (e.g., Atelopus certus, A.

glyphus, A. zeteki), marines turtles (e.g., Eretmochelys imbricata, Demochelys coriacea),

birds (e.g., Ara ambigua) and mammals (e.g., Tapirus bairdii). Moreover, the network of

nine pilot PAs presents a high level of biodiversity and endemism, such as is the case with


the International Park “La Amistad”, which alone has 84 species of mammals (of which 24

are protected by the Panamanian Wildlife Law and 2 are bi-national endemic species), 285

species of birds (29 bi-national endemic and 23 migratory), 32 species of amphibians (of

which 23 are endemic) and 25 species of reptiles (of which 9 are endemic). In the Coiba

National Marine Park, 224 species of vertebrates (of which 7 are amphibians) have been

recorded. The reptiles are represented by two species of crocodiles, six species of turtles (4

marine and 2 fresh water turtles), nine species of saurians and 15 species of snakes. Detailed

studies of birds revealed 147 species of which 121 are resident and 37 migratory. Also

present are 41 species of land mammals, 7 species of sea mammals and 814 species of

saltwater fish.

c. Demonstration of international best practices for the promotion, public use planning,

monitoring and evaluation of ecotourism resources and services that: (i) enhance the

economic value of, the biodiversity mentioned above; (ii) accrue local economic

development benefits; and, (iii) include benefits to indigenous communities (such as the

Ngöbe-Buglé, Naso y Bribri in La Amistad International Park). Innovative partnerships will

be created between international research institutions, local universities and public entities

such as ANAM and ATP to ensure that the results of scientific biodiversity research and

monitoring conducted in SINAP are fed back into the design of ecotourism and

environmental education services. The best practices for mainstreaming biodiversity

conservation in ecotourism services will be replicable throughout the SINAP and

internationally.

d. Ensuring that PAs which are part of wider binational or regional conservation initiatives (La

Amistad between Panama and Costa Rica, and Coiba island as part of the Eastern Pacific

Marine Biological Corridor) benefit from best practices in the field of ecotourism

management and monitoring and improved overall management.

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL AND/OR

REGIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS

1. The proposed Project is officially included as one of the measures that will be implemented

during the current 5-year administration, as presented in the Government Strategic Plan 2010-

2014(pg. 125). The 5-year Plan consists of an Economic and Social Strategy, a Financial

Program and an Indicative Public Investment Plan. The Plan recognizes that the natural richness

of Panama is exceptional, that its ecosystems provide key environmental services for the Country

that provide unique opportunities for creating high economic revenue in key sectors of the

Panamanian economy, such as tourism. As such, the proposed Project contributes directly to

strengthening environmental management in Panama as called for in this Plan. For instance, the

proposed project will result in national reforms for the regulation and administration of

ecotourism services in PAs. The project will also lead to a formalization of the cooperation

between ANAM and the Tourism Authority (ATP) thereby contributing to mainstreaming

environmental management and biodiversity conservation in tourism planning, development and

monitoring.

2. ANAM has updated the National Environmental Strategy or ENA (Estrategia Nacional del

Ambiente) with the objective of providing both a short- and long-term vision for Sustainable

Development within the period of 2008-2012. The ENA, officially published under the title


“National Environmental Strategy: Environmental Management for Sustainable Development

2008-2012”, has four strategic guidelines that include: (i) Strengthen ANAM´s regulatory

functions in the environmental arena; (ii) Promote the development of an environmental culture;

(iii) Work in close collaboration with the State, the private sector, and civil society for the

promotion of the competitive advantages of Panama in environmental matters; (iv) Protect,

recuperate, restore, and improve the ecosystems in order to contribute to the creation of

employment opportunities, population well being, and sustainable development. The Project

contributes directly to Strategic Guideline 4, Strategic Objective Nine: Conservation and

Sustainable Use of Protected Areas.

3. A SINAP National Plan 2010-2014 is currently under preparation by ANAM. This plan is based

on the principles of the National Biodiversity Policy that will set the bases for the definition of a

mission, vision, and objectives of the SINAP, as strategic premises of these statements. The

proposed project is expected to be highly consistent with the system plan under preparation,

particularly the new focus given to participation in management schemes with the private sector

and civil society based on social responsibility and the opportunities to create alliances that will

solidify ANAM‟s initiatives in the SINAP.

4. The National Biodiversity Policy (approved in December 2008) and its Strategic Plan call for

action in five areas: (i) scientific and technical knowledge of the biodiversity; (ii) priority

conservation of biodiversity; (iii) selective, sustainable, and rational use of biodiversity; (iv)

citizen participation in the attack to poverty and the improvement of the quality of life, and (v)

contribution to Country competitiveness. The proposed project is consistent with all five areas of

actions.

5. The proposed project is consistent with the priorities and plans of tourism development in

Panama, promoted by the Panama Tourism Authority. For instance, the project contributes to

the specific objectives, strategic lines and programs contained in the Panama Sustainable

Tourism Master Plan 2007-2020 in that it fosters programs identified in the Tourism Master

Plan, such as the Sustainable Development of Sustainable Tourism in the SINAP. Specifically,

the project is aligned with the subprogram calling for improved management of sustainable

tourism in the SINAP, an initiative that has been identified as a high priority for ATP. This plan

also determined priority tourism destinations which were taken into consideration in the selection

of the project´s 9 pilot PAs. The plan emphasizes specific comparative advantages for increasing

the participation of Panama in ecotourism, including the SINAP. It also identifies several

bottlenecks for competitiveness in the tourism sector, among them, that “Panama‟s brand” in not

highly visible to outsiders and that the promotion directed to visitors is inefficient and has no

targeted market. The proposed project is consistent with the priorities identified for the tourism

sector in that it addresses these bottlenecks, as in the area of promotion and development of

demand-driven quality ecotourism services based on unique „products‟ (the biodiversity of the

selected PAs) that are differentiated from the competition.

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES

AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:

1. This project is consistent with the Strategic Programs aimed at: (1) enhancing sustainable

financing mechanisms of PA systems at the national level (SP-1); (2) increasing representation

of effectively managed marine PA areas in PA systems (SP-2); (3) strengthening the policy and

http://gefweb.org/uploadedFiles/Projects/Templates_and_Guidelines/C31-10%20Revised%20Focal%20Area%20Strategies-07-23-07_Final.pdf


regulatory framework for mainstreaming biodiversity (SP-4); and, (4) fostering markets for

biodiversity goods and services (SP-5). The project will place particular emphasis on

establishing a national ecotourism strategy that is shared by both environmental and

tourism public agencies of the country, and will enable a policy and regulatory frameworks

to support ecotourism development and PA financial sustainability, together with

mainstreaming biodiversity conservation.

2. Contribution to both SP-1 and SP-4 will be achieved mainly through: (i) definition and

validation of a set of policies and technical, social and environmental criteria related to

ecotourism management, including, public use planning, co-management, concessions, and

tourism operation permits; (ii) definition and validation of instruments and mechanisms for

supporting the financial sustainability of the PAs system, in particular, instruments to support

biodiversity conservation through collaborative agreements between public and private sector

institutions; (iii) development and approval of PAs management and public use plans that

integrate ecotourism aspects and services; and, (iv) development of studies and evaluations that

support ecotourism adaptive management and enhance biodiversity protection and conservation.

Contribution to SP-2 will be achieved through improved public use planning, on-site

management and monitoring of the two most important marine protected areas in the system,

Coiba Marine National Park, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and Isla Bastimentos

Marine National Park. Contribution to SP-5 will be achieved through: (i) mainstreaming

SINAP and biodiversity considerations in national tourism promotion initiatives; (ii) an

environmental education campaign on the economic benefits of the PAs; (iii) technical assistance

in the elaboration of individual PAs business plans linking each PA to potential services

providers, and the articulation of those plans within a broader strategic sustainable financing plan

for all selected PAs; (iv) training and capacity building for local ecotourism organizations and

operators in various aspects related to demand driven, high quality ecotourism services and

products, integrating best practices and business management, including certification and other

types of environmental standards, protection laws and good practices for biodiversity

conservation in ecotourism.

D. JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF FINANCING SUPPORT PROVIDED WITH THE GEF

RESOURCES.

1. The financial support provided with the GEF resources will take the form of a grant that will

serve as a catalyst to significantly improve the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the

tourism sector in Panama. The grant is needed to finance actions at the national level such as

regulatory and administrative reforms in the way ecotourism is managed in SINAP and in its

revenue-generating potential as well as at the local level where measureable results are sought in

public use planning, on-site management of ecotourism facilities and monitoring. The GEF grant

financing will strategically complement IDB loan funding and local resources. Although there

was a potential new loan for tourism included in the IDB pipeline for Panama at the time of

approval of the PIF, in 2009 the Government of Panama made an adjustment in the list of loan

investments agreed to with IDB for fiscal reasons. However, the Government also specifically

requested that the GEF project be maintained in the pipeline and committed to identifying

alternative sources of co-financing. Co-financing is now currently structured as follows: (a) co-

financing resources from ANAM, through funds dedicated to the PA system management

(FIDECO – see below); (b) co-financing from the Tourism Authority of Panama (ATP) to

develop a shared promotion strategy and marketing campaign to position the selected PAs, their


service networks and supply chains in the national and international ecotourism market; (c) funds

from a debt-for-nature swap with the United States to support management of Chagres National

Park; and (d) co-financing from three IDB approved projects (Loan PN-L1013, Loan PN-0152

and Multi-Lateral Investment Fund [MIF] project PN-M1018). The complementarity between

these projects and the proposed GEF project is explained below. Supporting documentation is

provided for all sources.

E. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:

1. ANAM and ATP will support and complement the activities funded with the GEF grant through:

(1) human resources capacity; (2) training and technical assistance; and (3) direct investments.

ANAM will support the creation of an Ecotourism Unit within the Protected Areas System

Division (DAPVS), at ANAM, and the required staff needed to support ecotourism management

in the selected PAs. In addition, ANAM will improve training opportunities for PA staff, in

particular, the PA-based staff, as well as equip PAs with the minimum infrastructure and

instruments required for ecotourism management. ATP will strengthen their staff capacity to

address ecotourism planning and evaluation, in particular, strengthening their ecotourism

marketing and evaluation capacity.

2. FIDECO is a trust-fund, created in 1995, with the participation of the Finance Ministry of

Panama and The Nature Conservancy. The Fund was created to finance natural resources

conservation and protection, with a special focus on protected areas management. Today, the

Fund amounts to $25 million dollars and is managed by Fundación Natura of Panama. USAID

contributes with US$8 million to the Fund, TNC with US$2 million, and the Government of

Panama with US$15 million. Forty-five percent of FIDECO funds target ANAM`s protected

areas management capacity; another 45% supporting NGOs executing conservation projects in

PAs, and the remaining 10% going to management effectiveness monitoring and the Funds

overall impact. As a complement to this GEF project, the Fund will be used to finance

equipment, public infrastructure and maintenance in the nine PAs.

3. The Chagres National Park Debt Swap Fund finances recurrent management programs in the

Park as well as environmental initiatives implemented by not-for-profit organizations in

accordance with the Park‟s management plan. The Fund, which will generate $10 million to

improve management of the Upper Chagres River Basin, provides sustained funding to key PAs

of the Panama Canal watershed and will be instrumental for exploring deeper coordination

mechanism with the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) for the sustainable management and

financing of canal-related PAs. A second debt-for-nature swap, which will generate $11 million

over 12 years, will help conserve 1.4 million acres (579,000 hectares) of the exceptionally rich

forests of the Darien National Park, providing a unique opportunity to land bridge North and

South America, and to ensuring protection of rare species such as the jaguar, harpy eagle, wild

dog and tapir. As a complement to this proposed GEF project, the Fund will finance community-

based tourism initiatives in both national parks.

4. The ANAM-Marviva “Isla de Coiba National Park” initiative (US$ 5.2 million - 2009-2013) is a

major marine protected area conservation endeavor in the Pacific Ocean. It aims at strengthening

the conservation and sustainable use of the main biodiversity components of Coiba National Park

through activities such as scientific investigation, ecotourism development, environmental

education, sustainable fisheries. Marviva is a non-profit organization, based in Costa Rica, with

offices in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia, that specializes in conservation and sustainable use


of coastal and marine resources. The project in Coiba National Park has three main objectives:

(1) improve marine conservation and protection by improving the regulatory framework that

govern and control economic and tourism activities within the Park (e.g., sports fishing guides,

cetacean observation guides, regulations for boat operators); (2) strengthen capacity of marine

protected areas` staff, through training and development of best practice guides and manuals to

support their park management capacity; and, (3) education and information dissemination about

the Coiba management regulations and the framework in place for responsible use and

appreciation of marine natural resources. This initiative will complement the proposed GEF

project through its capacity building activities.

5. Another initiative being carried forward by Marviva and funded through a grant from the IDB

Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) (PN-M1018) , will provide significant support to the Coiba

Marine Protected Area and other marine protected areas in the Chiriqui Gulf. This grant will

particularly focus on the development of entrepreneurial capacity of local communities to create

environmentally and economically sustainable alternatives around coastal and marine protected

areas, including the promotion and development of public use plans, standards and regulations to

guide ecotourism activities within the PAs (e.g., water sports, recreational fisheries, diving and

cetacean observation). As such, this Marviva/IDB MIF initiative particularly the surveillance and

monitoring activities will greatly contribute to the objectives of the GEF project, particularly in

Coiba.

6. The IDB-funded project -- “Modernization of Environmental Management for Competitiveness”

(PN-L1013) is a US$ 12 million loan to modernize the capacity of ANAM and of local

governments to promptly address the growing environmental management challenges of

competitiveness. As such, this project complements the goals of this proposed GEF project by:

(i) enhancing the effectiveness of the environmental management instruments needed to foster a

business climate that will promote competitiveness (e.g., tourism), help integrate Panama into

the global market, and make the country's major economic activities and megaprojects

environmentally sustainable; and (ii) strengthening the capacities of ANAM at the regional level,

and those of local governments and communities, to carry out their environmental management

responsibilities and support the government's current policy of decentralizing environmental

management. In addition, the focus of this operation on upgrading ANAM`s environmental

systems and standards significantly supports the objective of the GEF project to strengthen the

regulatory framework and standards for ecotourism management, in the context of global

tourism competitiveness.

7. The proposed GEF project will also be complemented with financing from the IDB-funded

project “Strengthening of the Management Capacity of the Panama Aquatic Resources Authority

(ARAP) for Integrated Coastal Management” (PN-0152), a US$5 million loan aimed at building

the environmental management capacity of the Authority, improving revenue-generating

effectiveness and promoting integrated coastal management at the national, regional and local

levels. Specifically, the development of four regional integrated coastal management plans and

pilot projects in coastal management in areas that encompass the 9 targeted PAs will provide a

coastal and marine spatial planning framework for the public use plans to be financed through

the GEF project.

8. In addition to the above co-financing initiatives, the present project complements a number of

national and international efforts, such as:


a. The World Bank full size GEF project “Rural Productivity and Consolidation of the Atlantic

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor” (CBMAP II - US$18.100.000. 2007-2011), supports the

consolidation of a network of Panamanian PAs, which partly overlaps with the 9 selected

PAs under the proposed project (Isla Bastimentos Marine National Park, La Amistad

International Park, Volcán Barú National Park, and the Omar Torrijos Herrera National

Park). CBMAP II promotes the conservation, use and management of biological diversity of

Panama, by emphasizing community investments in environmental resources, development

of co-management policies and operational arrangements.

b. The UNDP full size GEF project “Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in the operation

of the tourism and fisheries sectors of Panama‟s archipelagos” approved in 2010 (GEF grant

US$1,727,066) is aimed at integrating biodiversity conservation into the fisheries, tourism

and property development sectors that operate in the archipelagos of Panama. Two of the

archipelagos (Coiba and Bocas del Toro) encompass marine Protected Areas selected for the

proposed GEF project (Bastimentos and Coiba). The UNDP project is highly

complementary to the SINAP ecotourism project in that it involves another key agency

(Aquatic Resources Agency – ARAP) and that it focuses on certification of both tourism and

fisheries products.

c. The Project “Red de oportunidades empresariales-propuesta conjunta” initiative

(US$12.580.466 - 2009-2012), funded by the Spanish Government and implemented by the

United Nations, aims at contributing to the UN`s Millenium Development Goals through

supporting start-ups of small local businesses in poverty affected areas, and the consolidation

of efficient clusters of small-enterprises, including providers of local ecotourism services and

craftsmen and women. This project is expected to contribute to meeting the targets set under

component 3 of the GEF project.

9. ANAM (the DAPVS) will have lead responsibility to coordinate among these related activities as

most fall under its jurisdiction. Agreed upon coordination mechanisms include (see also below

under „Coordination‟): (a) a cooperation agreement between ANAM and ATP which must be

signed as a condition prior to first disbursement; (b) a Steering Committee also to be formally

established as a condition prior to first disbursement and which is to provide representation of

the network of institutions involved in the main related initiatives (e.g., ARAP, Marviva); and (c)

a Project Operating Manual establishing the administrative requirements for managing the GEF

project including the rules and procedures for the Steering Committee. Finally, a comprehensive

coordination plan is being prepared by ANAM and ATP and is to be approved by the Steering

Committee as a condition prior to first disbursement to ensure close coordination between these

related initiatives. The plan will: (a) establish the formal communication channels and

responsibilities between executing agencies and corresponding project units; (b) propose

dissemination mechanisms to ensure timely distribution of information on progress and technical

areas of common interest; and (c) set a schedule of joint sessions for exchange of experience and

lessons learned.


F. DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH

INCREMENTAL REASONING :

WITHOUT THE GEF ALTERNATIVE

1. In the sustainable baseline scenario, the Government of Panama is using its own resources to

strengthen environmental management of the tourism sector through the implementation of the

National Tourism Master Plan. The Master Plan includes goals, objectives, strategies and an

investment plan, all of which recognize the need to ensure that future tourism development is

environmentally and socially sustainable. However, while the Master Plan identifies ecotourism

as a target tourism product, it makes limited provisions for mainstreaming biodiversity

conservation in ecotourism in the SINAP. As a consequence, without GEF involvement,

ecotourism services derived from the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and its

scenic value will remain very limited, diminishing the economic value of PAs and their long-

term viability. In the specific case of the nine prioritized PAs, which account for the bulk of

visitors today and generate the majority of revenues from entrance fees, concessions and permits,

there will be limited opportunities for international and national visitors to access the areas and

enjoy a meaningful experience learning about the biodiversity values of SINAP in both a

national and international context. As a consequence, the income-generating opportunities

available to local businesses and communities providing ecotourism services will be diminished.

2. To exacerbate this situation, the lack of system-wide norms and regulations for ecotourism use in

Pas will persist, resulting for example, in a lack of technical consistency in public use plans as

well as the ad-hoc granting of concessions and tourism operation permits. This, in turn, could

lead to poorly planned ecotourism development in and around popular PAs and the consequent

negative environmental impacts on critical habitats and species.

3. The business as usual scenario will also be characterized by:

a. Ad-hoc institutional coordination between ANAM and ATP (the national Tourism

Authority), that will translate into poor integration of biodiversity conservation and the goals

of SINAP in tourism destination planning, development and promotion in target international

markets.

b. Absence of a marketing strategy for ecotourism in PAs in Panama in the short term, resulting

in a continued lack of differentiation of Panama‟s offer in comparison to some of its

neighbouring competitors, who are better established and more visible on the international

ecotourism market.

c. Loss of potential revenues derived from increased demand for ecotourism services, which in

turn can be re-invested in improving management effectiveness.

d. Limited or inexistent capacity for monitoring information on ecotourism trends in SINAP,

including key data needed for planning and effective operations and the consequent inability

to link biodiversity and socio-economic monitoring.8

e. Weak linkages between public sector authorities (ANAM and ATP in particular) and

businesses and community networks interested in the provision of ecotourism services and

8 Currently, biological monitoring is limited to very few PAs such as PN Chagres, PN Coiba or the Smithonian Institute-

run Barro Colorado Island reserve.

http://gefweb.org/uploadedFiles/Documents/Council_Documents__(PDF_DOC)/GEF_31/C.31.12%20Operational%20Guidelines%20for%20Incremental%20Costs.pdf


the absence of standards for business operations in Pas. This could result in a loss in the

interest of on the part of stakeholders in supporting the biodiversity conservation objectives

of SINAP.

WITH THE GEF ALTERNATIVE

4. The GEF project will be a catalyst for advancing biodiversity conservation through the

promotion of ecotourism services across the SINAP, particularly in the nine individual PAs

selected on the basis of their biodiversity value and competitive potential. GEF funding will be

instrumental in the following:

a. Promoting system-wide technical soundness and consistency in public use planning, the

determination of carrying capacity and the granting of concessions and operations permits in

PAs. Under the GEF project scenario, measureable gains in terms of the conservation of

critical habitats and species as well as improvements in the quality and breath of services

offered to international and national visitors particularly in the nine PAs selected as priorities

will result. This in turn will increase the level of public appreciation, understanding and

support for SINAP‟s biodiversity conservation goals.

b. Coordinated institutional action, particularly on the part of ANAM and ATP, resulting in

tourism planning, development and promotion that incorporate the unique features of each

PA, carrying capacity considerations and conservation goals. A permanent Ecotourism

Coordination Committee will ensure more efficient planning, investment and monitoring,

including coordinated budgetary allocations. A dedicated ecotourism unit within ANAM

headquarters and field personnel trained in the management of ecotourism will ensure that

biodiversity values are protected while also providing the basis for demand-driven quality

services. SINAP will be fully integrated in national promotion initiatives thus ensuring better

differentiation of Panama in the international ecotourism market.

c. Increased revenues from improved tourism assets and services, which can be re-invested in

enhanced PA operations and which can contribute to the financial sustainability of SINAP.

At least 5 PAs will also benefit from individual business plans which will include private

sector participation schemes and define public-private partnerships. GEF funding will allow

for an effective yearly monitoring of progress made towards attaining increased financial

sustainability and business development targets identify emerging barriers and propose

remediation measures.

d. More efficient and transparent procedures for granting concessions, implementing co-

management arrangements, extending tourism operation permits and charging PAs entrance

fees, will be put in place, resulting in increased “ease of business” for investing and operating

in the ecotourism sector. This improved enabling environment will allow for the

strengthening of local networks of trained ecotourism providers linked to national or

international operators, and progressively lead to the consolidation of more structured and

efficient ecotourism value chains around at least two PAs.

e. Accurate monitoring information on ecotourism trends in SINAP will be readily available,

including key data needed for planning, effective operations and impact evaluation (e.g., data

on visitation levels, visitor characteristics, activities, expenditure patterns etc). The

Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System to be piloted through the project will enable PA

managers to link ecotourism use patterns with biodiversity conditions, enabling them to

adjust public use plans and meet the standards of an adaptive management approach.


5. In summary, the incremental reasoning is based on the significant improvements the GEF project

will bring about in terms of planning and controlling ecotourism services in PAs and monitoring

their impacts on biodiversity values in key units of the SINAP. Overall, the project will

contribute to remove or attenuate the main barriers to mainstreaming biodiversity into the

ecotourism sector. This progress would not be possible under the baseline scenario or would be

extremely slow. These advances will allow the project to effectively contribute to improved

conservation of global biodiversity values through improved management effectiveness of PAs

and increased financial sustainability, while providing increased economic opportunities around

PAs.

G. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT

OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES:

1. Limited inter-institutional coordination for ecotourism management both at the national and

local level - The proposed program will address this potential risk by ensuring that both ANAM

and ATP continue to work jointly together as they have throughout the preparation of this

project, and that a shared strategy is reached. This will involve not only the formulation and

establishment of a common coordination mechanism and regulatory framework to strengthen the

cooperation between governmental agencies (national and local), but also establish mechanisms

for financial sustainability that will consolidate local and national partnerships for ecotourism

management in the SINAP.

2. Lack of specific financing to support private sector involvement in the project – Expectations

exist for parallel financing of private ecotourism initiatives either on the part of local businesses

or communities, and this could represent a risk to the project if expectations are unmet. This risk

is mitigated by activities in components 2 and 3 of the program, particularly the improvements in

„public goods‟ in PAs (trails, observation towers, etc.) upon which private initiatives are

dependent, the allocation of new concessions or co-management arrangements which will open

local income generating opportunities and the development of business plans for the PAs. The

private sector and local community-based enterprises will also benefit directly from capacity

building to improve their services to meet the quality standards of international ecotourism

markets.

3. The climate change risk assessment carried out by ANAM’s Climate Change and Desertification

Unit and the specific data for PAs show that risks associated with climate change factors such as

increased storm and hurricane events, sea level rise, increase in occurrence and severity of

drought episodes, and invasive species proliferation are low to moderate in the 9 PAs. However,

ocean warming and coral bleaching constitute higher risks in marine PAs such as Bastimentos

Island in the Caribbean and Coiba Island in the Pacific. Scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical

Research Institute (STRI) in Panama recently documented an extensive bleaching event affecting

the entire Caribbean coast of Panama from Kuna-Yala to Bocas del Toro (where Bastimentos

Island is located).9 Coral mortality was limited to shallow areas. A similar event in 2005 in the

wider Caribbean included intense bleaching in Panama. However, mortality was less than 12% in

this zone and reefs were reported to be relatively resilient. In experts‟ opinion, the hurricane

season may be enhancing the current problem, resulting in low water circulation in the

9 http://smithsonianscience.org/2010/10/coral-bleaching-event-caused-by-warming-ocean


Southwestern Caribbean and creating warm pockets of water along the coast of Panama and

Costa Rica. These events could have an impact on coral biodiversity and the ecotourism potential

of those areas during and post-Project. ANAM‟s Climate Change and Desertification Unit is tasked

with assessing vulnerability to climate change impacts in key ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors and

to formulate required adaptation and mitigation measures and plans. To mitigate climate change risk,

several sites in SINAP, including some sites among the 9 targeted PAs, have been selected for mitigation

measures such as vulnerability assessments, applied research on the linkages between climate, climate

variability and ecosystem services, biological monitoring and the development of multi-sector adaptation

plans. For example, Chagres National Park, which services as the main source of water for the Panama

Canal, has been selected as the site for a pilot project to determine the impacts of climate change and

associated mitigation measures on protected area‟s water resources. The findings and lessons learned

from that pilot project will be used to mainstream climate change adaptation in the formulation and

update of PA public use plans to be undertaken as part of Component 2 (see Part II, Section A, paragraph

16).

H. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN

1. Ensuring cost effectiveness of proposed solutions has been at the heart of the project design

during preparation. The following description lays out the principles that were applied during the

formulation of this Project, which support the cost-effectiveness of its design:

a. Selection of the nine priority protected areas was made on the basis of cost-effectiveness,

particularly by focusing the project's interventions in 9 of the 89 protected area units of the

SINAP which, together, account for over 60% of the current visitation flow to protected areas

and are located within 50 km of the ten priority tourism destinations in accordance to the

National Tourism Master Plan. As such, these areas have the highest potential, either on their

own or when combined with nearby complementary tourism assets, to compete for an

international demand from target markets (United States and Europe). In addition, these 9

protected areas accounted for over 95% of the revenues generated by visitor fees for the

entire SINAP in 2009.

b. The Project builds on existing institutions and processes, both at local and national levels.

From an administrative standpoint, the approach will be to rely on existing resources and

processes with ANAM assigning full-time personnel (2) with professional degrees in tourism

and training them in ecotourism management and monitoring. In addition, the GEF project is

intended to build on and improve ANAM‟s existing monitoring system (PMEMAP) so that

the impacts of ecotourism on biodiversity can be monitored. In this case as well, existing

trained personnel and logistical resources will be used to implement project activities. The

project will also support the strengthening of the ecotourism component of the Plan Maestro

de Turismo being implemented by ATP, and concentrate actions on PAs where management

is currently taking place and supported by other agencies (USAID in Chagres and Darien,

MarViva in Coiba, etc). Likewise, the project will build on existing processes, standards and

protocols. For example, for the definition of carrying capacity, the project will adapt existing

approaches and protocols from neighboring countries, and tailor them on a case by case

basis, giving priority to PAs with the highest registered and expected visitation levels. Thus,

by building on existing institutions and processes, the project can take advantage of existing

experiences and initiatives and foster improvements at a reduced cost.


c. Creating the conditions for up-scaling and replication is at the heart of the project strategy

and will contribute to its cost-effectiveness: a) while the project will concentrate its specific

field activities on the most promising of the 9 pilot PAs, improvement of the policy and

regulatory framework under component 1 will create an enabling environment for further

public and private investment in the SINAP as a whole; b) lessons learned from applying

specific tools in the PAs (PUPs, business plans, monitoring protocols, etc) will be swiftly

integrated into normative work and channeled to other PAs as additional financing becomes

available.

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT:

1. The institutional framework in which the current project will act is composed of the following

elements:

2. Environmental Authority of Panama (ANAM) as the national authority responsible for the

management of the country`s biodiversity. ANAM was created by the General Environmental

Law (Ley 41, 07.01.1998), which also established the National Protected Areas System

(SINAP). Within ANAM, the Division of Protected Areas and Wildlife (DAPVS) is the division

responsible for managing the network of protected areas in the country. With respect to other

sectors that have specific interests in natural resources, ANAM has established relationships with

the Maritime Authority of Panama (AMP), the Aquatic Resources of Panama (ARAP) and with

the Panama Canal Authority (ACP).

3. Tourism Authority of Panama (ATP) as the national authority responsible for matters of tourism

and responsible for the implementation of the national tourism law, recently created (Ley N. 4,

02/27/2008). The main objective of ATP is: (i) to develop, promote and regulate tourism as a

national public and social priority; (ii) to identify and protect the tourism attractions of the

country and promote their use in a responsible and ecologically friendly manner; and, (iii) to

promote tourism quality and accreditation and harmonization with international tourism

standards. Tourism Councils operate at the local level and are integrated by representatives of the

local tourism sector organizations. Although there is a mandate to promote sustainable tourism,

there is no legal instrument to facilitate collaboration and coordination between ATP and

ANAM. This deficiency has been identified during the preparation of the National Tourism

Master Plan. The GEF project proposed here is a key step to addressing this situation, as it is

aimed at emphasizing and facilitation such collaboration between ANAM and ATP.

4. Local governments. Panama has a decentralized system, with 4 indigenous areas, 9 provinces, 74

municipalities and 588 “corregimientos.” The provincial government deals with the

infrastructure of the province and Municipalities manage key elements of local development

such as water supply, sewers, solid waste, and tourism. Municipalities can contribute to protected

areas management through the provision of basic infrastructure and public services to the

selected protected areas.

B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT:

1. The Executing Agency will be the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM), which will

assume full responsibility for project coordination, administration, financial and accounting

management, including procurement and the preparation of annual operating budgets and

progress monitoring and evaluation reports. Specific responsibilities of the Executing Agency


include, but are not limited to: (i) maintain adequate accounting and financial controls, including

a separate account for the purposes of this project; (ii) maintain appropriate support

documentation filing systems for verification by the Bank and the external auditing firm;

(iii) prepare and submit to the Bank disbursement requests and corresponding justification of

expenses; (iv) prepare and obtain Bank approval for all bidding documents required to hire

consulting firms, consultants and for the acquisition of goods; (v) coordinate the bidding

processes according to Bank policies and Panamanian norms; (vi) monitor quality of the goods

and services provided by contracted parties and making the corresponding payments;

(vii) prepare and submit to the Bank the Program`s Financial Plan, which results from the

procurement plan and the annual plan of operations (APO); and, (viii) record and control the

results of the project through the agreed indicators.

2. ANAM will assign a project coordinator and an ecotourism specialist to support the DAPVS to

carry out the activities of the project and to closely monitor the financial management of the

program. A financial specialist will also be contracted to assist ANAM in the execution of

procurement activities, supervision of main contracts and provision of other financial assistance.

These specialists will be based at DAPVS located within ANAM offices in Panama City.

Coordination

3. The coordination between ANAM (responsible for SINAP) and ATP (responsible for tourism

promotion and development) is a key aspect of for the project‟s success. To formalize the close

cooperation between these two institutions displayed during the preparation of the project, a

cooperation agreement has been drafted which establishes the obligations of the parties, the

agreed coordination mechanisms and the procedures for reaching consensus on the targets,

annual work plans and any necessary adjustments. Signature of the cooperation agreement will

be a condition prior to first disbursement. To further support coordination, a Steering Committee

will be established prior to first disbursement with the following functions: (i) strategic guidance

for the project; (ii) approval of the comprehensive coordination plan (see above); (iii) approval of

annual work plans and mid-year and annual progress reports, and (iv) clearance of annual

financial audits.

4. Central to the execution of the entire project is the participation of the local community, private

sector and institutional stakeholders. In this regard, the Steering Committee will ensure that the

activities of the Program are carried out in active, close collaboration with stakeholders in each

of the nine PAs, and shall nominate other institutions (such as ARAP in the case of the marine

protected areas) to participate in the Committee, as required. From year two onwards, an

Ecotourism National Coordination Structure should be in place with defined participation and

decision mechanisms, which will open consultation channels towards the private sector,

governmental entities, NGOs, academic institutions, and local communities. Towards the end of

the project, it is expected that this structure will become permanent.

Operating Regulations

5. The administration of the project will be based on a Project Operating Manual (POM) to be

approved by the Steering Committee as a condition prior to first disbursement. The POM, for

which a draft has been prepared, establishes responsibilities, technical criteria for selecting

activities, standards and procedures for contracts, acquisitions, financial management,

accounting, audits and monitoring and evaluation of the operation.


PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:

1. The PIF was approved by the GEF Secretariat on February 24, 2009. The project design

presented here is fully in line with the project rationale, objectives and amounts of funding

presented in the PIF Request, as explained in the following paragraphs.

2. The project maintains the original objective of generating a model of low environmental impact

ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) in Panama, contributing to

biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas. It adopts a two-pronged approach

aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas both at

the local and the national scale. Taking available resources into account, the PPG resulted in a

better focusing of financed activities based on the particular context encountered in the 9 selected

PAs. The initial design has been deemed consistent with the analysis of root causes of the low

development of ecotourism in the SINAP and the identification of opportunities and limitations

carried out during PPG (See part II.A).

3. In relation with the original design, the decision was made during the IADB/ANAM/ATP project

revision workshop (July 2010), to merge the original components 3 and 4 into a single

component, in order to obtain a slimmer and more efficient design and taking into account: a)

observed redundancies between outcomes in both original components, and b) the decision of not

including formal certification of ecotourism products and services, to avoid potential duplication

with the recently approved UNDP GEF project for the archipelagos (Project ID 3021) and based

on the results of the capacity assessment of local organizations which indicated that most would

require basic capacity building in the provision of ecotourism services prior to embarking on a

formal certification process. A decision was also made to divide component 1 into two separate

sub-components in order to reflect the need to raise SINAP´s level of financial independence on

the basis of a wider array of sustainable financing sources, as advocated in various technical

reports produced during PPG. A specific outcome indicator has been introduced to reflect this

shift.

4. In the PIF and the PPG, the cost of the project was estimated at US$12.5 million, of which

US$4.0 million were to be GEF funds and most of the remaining US$8.5 million to be provided

primarily by an IDB-financed loan under preparation which was to implement the National

Tourism Master Plan (2007-2020) also financed by the IDB and officially approved

(http://www.atp.gob.pa/archivos/pdf/planmaestro/Resumen%20Ejecutivo-Ingles.pdf). Although

this potential tourism loan was included in the IDB pipeline for Panama at the time of approval

of the PIF, in 2009 the Government of Panama made an adjustment in the list of loan

investments agreed to with IDB for fiscal reasons. The decision was made to maintain the

National Tourism Master Plan as a priority and to pursue its implementation using national rather

than multi-lateral funds. At the time, the Government also specifically requested that the GEF

project be maintained in the pipeline and committed to identifying alternative sources of co-

financing. The Government maintains the National Tourism Master Plan as one of the highest

priorities of its administration and has been implementing its provisions using its own resources

as exemplified by the ATP 2010-2011 budget (for market research, promotion, development and

sector coordination). In this regard, the activities that would have been financed by the loan are

being implemented thus ensuring a sustainable baseline as originally contemplated. . A combined


effort by ANAM-ATP, the IDB and other stakeholders supportive of the present Project resulted

in the co-financing structure presented in Part I above. Based on this level of funding, most of

the expected outputs and outcomes presented in the PIF, with only minor adjustments and

additions made for technical reasons, have been retained in the project design presented here. In

addition, in the recently approved IDB Country Strategy for Panama (2010-2014), the

Government and the Bank have agreed to an environmental action plan aimed at strengthening

environmental management capacity in key economic sectors and geographic areas and provides

a renewed basis for the policy dialogue between the Government and the Bank with respect to

the mainstreaming of environment and biodiversity conservation in the tourism sector.

PART V: AGENCY CERTIFICATION

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for

CEO Endorsement.

Ricardo Quiroga

GEF Agency Coordinator

INE/RND, IADB

Date: February15th, 2011

Michele Lemay

Natural Resources Lead Specialist

INE/RND, IADB

Project Contact Person

Tel.:202-623-1838

E-mail: [email protected]


ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Results Framework

PN-X1003

Project Objective To generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP)

that contributes to biodiversity conservation and sustainability of Protected Areas, in a framework of innovation,

entrepreneurial integration, and sustainable social development

Outcome Indicators Base Level 2010 Target Level Comments Increase in Protected Areas`management

effectiveness (as measured by GEF

Tracking Tool for BD-SP2 and PMEMAP)

Tracking Tool baseline for 9 PAs: 45-67% Tracking Tool

target for 9 PAs:

60- 75%

Measures effectiveness of

PA management and public

use plans implementation

and PA protection.

Increase in PA revenues generated from

fees and other financial mechanisms for

ecotourism activities (expressed as gross

revenues and % of SINAPs‟ operating

budget)

Baseline 2009: US$300,000/year (17% of

SINAP operating budget) US$530,000/yea

r

(30% of SINAP

operating

budget)

At least 30% of SINAP`s

budget is to come from

revised fee structure and

alternative sources of income

Increase in annual number of visitors to

PAs due to improvements in ecotourism

products and services in selected Protected

Areas

Current annual number of visitors to 9 PAs

is 42,602 (Current annual rate of increase in

visitation is 2.2%).

50,000 visitors

(Annual rate of

increase: 4.5%)

Yearly rate of increase in

visitation is expected to

double between 2011 and

2015

Percentage of international visitors to

Panama reported to visit at least one of the

selected PAs

3% of total visitation 10% of total

visitation

Proxy for the positioning of

Panamanian PA`s offer of

ecotourism services

(benchmarking with

competitive destinations)

Percentage increase of local and

community-based businesses providing

ecotourism services in PAs

Baseline to be established through

surveys in Year 1

5% increase Proxy for the expansion

and diversification of offer

of ecotourism services in


PAs

# of Protected Areas with linked biological,

physical and economic use indicators

clearly selected (wildlife, vegetation, water

quality, volume of visitor activities, number

of concessions).

Baseline: 0 PAs 9 PAs Integrated monitoring

system will provide the

basis for adaptive

management by ANAM.


Matrix of Indicators

Component 1 Base Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Target

Component 1 - Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of ecotourism in

the SINAP

Outputs

Sub-component 1.a: Strategies, policies and regulatory framework

1.1. Policy and

methodology for

planning and

management of public

use of PA´s approved by

ANAM and ATP

0 1 (publication in Gaceta

Oficial)

Applied to 3 PAs Applied to 7 PAs 1 policy and

methodology

institutionalized and

applied across SINAP

1.2. Criteria for granting

concessions, co-

management and

tourism operation permits

in PA´s defined

0 Diagnosis of needs and

opportunities

1 set of criteria

defined and approved

by ANAM and ATP

Criteria applied in 9

PAs

Evaluation of

application of criteria

carried out

1 set of criteria

defined and validated

1.3. Procedural manuals

for public use plans and

granting and

administrating

concessions, co-

management and permits

approved by ANAM and

ATP

0

Informal manual

exist, but not

implemented

1 procedural manual

approved (public use

plans)

1 procedural manual

approved

(concessions, co-

management

agreements and

permits)

Procedural manuals

improved and

replicated in remaining

sites of SINAP

2 Procedural

manuals for Public

Use Plans and

granting

administrating

concessions, co-

management and

permits approved

by ANAM and

ATP

1.4. Number of ANAM

and ATP staff trained in

application of new public

use planning tools

0 30 30 60 staff trained (80%

of DFCA and ANAM

staff at regional and

national level)

Sub-component 1.b: PAs financial sustainability

1.5. Number of

ecotourism-related fees

revised and updated

0

1 (entrance fee schedule

updated)

3 (concessions/

permits-based

financial

instruments updated)

1 (fees for services

updated)

5 instruments /

mechanisms applied

5 set of ecotourism-

related fees revised

and updated to cover

operational costs


1.6. Number of

alternative financing

mechanisms designed

and approved

0 Strategy for broadening

the sources of PAs

financing (i.e. cruise

ships/airport taxes,

environmental services

etc.) formulated with

partner projects

Strategic alliances

made with key private

operators,

municipalities and

public agencies.

3 instruments/

mechanisms defined,

ensuring

compatibility with

regulatory framework

1 instrument in place

2 instruments/

mechanisms in place

and monitored

Broader financial

sustainability strategy

formulated.

2 instruments/

mechanisms in place

and monitored

Intermediate outcomes:

Increase in annual

revenues from

ecotourism-related fees

US$300,000 US$530,000 US$530,000

Outcome:

Percentage of SINAP

operating budget

covered by ecotourism-

related fees

17% of SINAP

budget

25% 30% Revenues generated

from fees and other

financial mechanisms

cover at least 30% of

SINAP operating

budget



Component 2 - Planning and investments to increase quality ecotourism products in PAs conserving biodiversity

Outputs

2.1. Number of PA

Management and Public

use plans (PUP´s) with

ecotourism programs

updated and approved

2 PUPs elaborated and

without official approval, 1

PUP under revision

2 PA management

plans updated and

approved

2 of existing PUPs

approved with legal

backup.

2 more PA

management plans

updated and approved

2 new PUPs, 1

existing PUP

approved with

legal back up.

2 more PA

management

plans updated and

approved

2 new PUPs ;

4 PUP´s being

implemented

7 PUP´s approved

by ANAM and 4

being implemented,

6 management plans

updated and

approved

2.2. Number of PAs with

carrying capacity studies

completed

0 Methodology defined

and minimum of 15

staff trained in

methodology in 9

PAs

5 PAs with

carrying capacity

studies completed

5 PAs with carrying

capacity studies

completed and

applied to control

visitor flow


ecotourism facilities and

equipment constructed

and in operation

0 2 PAs 2 PAs 1 PA 5 PAs with

ecotourism facilities

constructed and in

operation


Ecotourism Impact

Monitoring System

indicators (ETIMS)

integrated into monitoring

(PMEMAP)

0

PMEMAP is applied in the 9

PAs but lacks indicators of

tourism visitation and its

impact on biodiversity.

Monitoring protocols

fine-tuned.

Baseline of visitation

established (visitors

profile, experience

and impact) and

biodiversity

established in 9 PAs.

5 PAs 9 PAs

9 PAs Ecotourism Impact

Monitoring System

integrated in

PMEMAP and

public use plans in 9

PAs

2.5. Number of staff at

national and local level

trained in public use

management

0 Result oriented job

descriptions approved

Ecotourism section in

ANAM-DAPVS with

3 trained

professionals in place

2 trained public use

managers and 2

assistants

4 public use

managers and 4

assistants

6 public use

manager and 6

assistants

Ecotourism section

in ANAM-DAPVS

in place and

recurrent.

6 PAs have 1

trained Public use

manager and 1



Component 2 - Planning and investments to increase quality ecotourism products in PAs conserving biodiversity

assistant

2.6. Number of

municipalities trained in

environmental

management for

ecotourism in buffer areas

0 Identification of

critical environmental

management issues in

up to 15

municipalities around

5 PAs

10 municipalities

receive training and

technical advice for

solid waste disposal

improvement.

Agreements with at

least 5 municipalities

for addressing solid

waste disposal or

other key issues.

Financing

identified.

3 municipalities

improve solid

waste disposal

around PAs

Environmental

management

capacity increased

in 10 municipalities

around 5 PA´s, with

3 municipalities

investing in

improved waste

management

Intermediate outcome

Increase in visitor

satisfaction with

ecotourism services as

measured by average

visitor expenditure in

PA survey

Average daily expenditure in

PA in 2009 estimated at

US$20/day (10% of total

average expenditure).

Baseline to be verified in

Year 1.

100% increase in

average daily visitor

expenditure in PAs

Outcome

Number of PAs with

improved ecotourism

management systems

0 2 5 9 9



Component 3 - Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through ecotourism in selected PAs

Outputs

3.1. Number of

private sector and

community-based

organizations and


PAs trained in public

use management and

ecotourism good

practices

0 Stakeholders analysis

fine-tuned,

participants selected

and training program

developed

10 organizations and

operators trained

around at least 2 PAs

10 more

organizations and

operators trained

around at least 3 more

PAs

1st monitoring

reports of good

practices of

environmental

protection and

biodiversity

conservation

received and fine

tuned

At least 20

Organizations and


PAs trained in public

use management and

ecotourism good

practices.

3.2. Number of PAs

where strategic

alliances strengthen

local networks of

service providers are

strengthened

Networks in 5 PA´s are

active and need

strengthening

Synergies in service

networks identified,

proposed and

approved by key

stakeholders

3 PAs 2 PAs Capacity of existing

local networks of

tourism service

providers to develop

business opportunities

around 5 Pas

strengthened.

3.3. Number of

business plans for

PAs produced and

implemented

2 PAs with business

plans (no evidence of

BPs being implemented)

No strategic financing

plan for the network of 9

pilot PAs.

Strategic financing

plan for 9 pilot PAs

includes a monitoring

/ benchmarking

system.

3 PA business plans

formulated and under

implementation

2 additional business

plans formulated and

being implemented

2 PAs obtain access

to private banks

financing

5 business plans

formulated and being

implemented

3.4. Environmental

education campaign

on economic benefits

from PAs developed

and implemented

0 1

1 Environmental

education campaign on

economic benefits from

PAs sound management

and use, aimed at key

local and national private

and public stakeholders,

including municipalities




3.5. Promotion

strategy and

marketing campaign

for SINAP approved

by ANAM and ATP

and implemented

0 International market

study elaborated and

ecotourism niche

markets identified.

Joint marketing

strategy highlights

adopted best practices

1 marketing and

promotion strategy

for 9 PA´s budgeted

20 local enterprise

design promotion and

marketing strategy in

harmony with ATP´s

international

campaigns

ATP-ANAM PAs

promotional website

Multilingual

promotional material

prepared

Marketing plan

conducted, 1 inter-

national ecotourism

fair

First monitoring

reports

Marketing and

promotional strategy

implemented, niche

market of Panama

as international

ecotourism

destination created

Marketing and promotion

strategy formulated with

public and private sector

involvement, funded,

implemented and being

monitored

3.6. Number of

concessions,

operating permits,

and co-management

agreements granted

7 out of 89 of SINAP´s

PA´s have been granted

concessions to date,

procedure not explicit

ANAM establishes a

first list of goods and

services for

concessions and co-

management

agreements in at least

3 priority PAs

2 co-management

agreements and 2

operation permits

granted

2 more co-

management

agreements and 2

more operation

permits

2 concessions

granted

1st report of

monitoring system for

first co-management

and operation permits

2 more concessions

granted

2d report of

monitoring system

for first concessions

At least 4 concessions, 4

operating permits, and 4

co-management

agreements granted on the

basis of enhanced

procedures and monitored

3.7. Number of value

chains PA´s

established

0 2 PAs selected by end

of year 2

1 local value chain

initiatives supported

and consolidated in 1

PA‟s

1 local value chain

initiative supported

and consolidated in

1 PA‟s

2 Value chains in 2 of 9

PA´s lead to increased job

creation and added value

Intermediate

outcomes

Number of active

networks of private-

community

providers involved

in PAs-related

activities established

0 Diagnostic of

entrepreneurial

capacity and

understanding of

advantages of

collaborative

processes in at least 5

PAs

Organized and active

networks of providers

of services around at

least 3 PAs


networks of providers

of services around at

least 5 PAs

2 networks evolve

towards PA-services

value chains


networks of providers of

services around at least 5

PAs, including 2 PA-

services value chains




Percentage of

international

visitors reported to

have visited a PA

Only 3% of the 1,5

million foreign visitors

reportedly visited an AP

in Panama in 2008

(against 54% in Costa

Rica, 2006)

6% 10% 10%

Outcome

Increase in numbers

of local businesses

providing

ecotourism-related

services in PAs

X number of businesses

identified in 9 PAs

Baseline to be fine-tuned

in year1

3% 5% 5%


ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and

Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat

and STAP at PIF)

1. GEF Secretariat Review for full/medium size projects

GEF-SEC IADB response

Project design February 23, 2009

a) As part of the project rationale, please further justify this investment through an analysis of the national and international ecotourism market and identify the niche that Panama is aiming to fill and incorporate this information into the final design.

b) Please clearly distinguish what the IADB loan will be supporting and the increment that the GEF is paying for that will generate global benefits.

c) Please identify for the nine sites appropriate biodiversity impact indicators or measures that the project will monitor to assess impact of tourism on the protected areas.

d) Please also include a description of the biodiversity of each PA and the threats to the biodiversity of each PA.

e) Please identify how ecotourism development will both help reduce site-based funding gaps for management and how the GEF project will complement ongoing management efforts within each PA to address the threats to biodiversity.

f) Please identify for each protected area the revenue shortfalls and propose how the ecotourism options will reduce that shortfall and include these measures as part of the project monitoring framework.

g) Please also clarify the added value of "certification" of the product (Component Four) and justify these investments. Please clarify what system the project will use and provide a rationale for whatever certification system is chosen.

a) See Part II, A in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. The market analysis undertaken during preparation shows that to date, a handful of protected areas around the Panama Canal and specific sites concentrate most of national and international visitation. The nine protected areas selected to pilot the Program account for 60% of the current visitation. The major market potential for ecotourism in Panama related to “soft ecotourism” is in the so-called Canal Cluster, where ecotourism is part of a combined and unique offer (canal, historical sites, and nature), as well as visitation of coastal/marine parks and PAs close to the Costa Rican border. The marketing strategy should be geared towards increasing of the proportion of total visitation to Panama to actually visiting a PA, and in articulating Panama´s ecotourism offer with Costa Rica.

b) See Part IV in paragraph 4 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. The loan has been postponed indefinitely. See Part II Section E for an explanation of how related initiatives complement the activities to be financed by the GEF grant.

c) See Part I Section H of the Request for CEO Endorsement. Biodiversity impact indicators have been included into the monitoring and evaluation plan (required Annex #3 of the Draft Grant Proposal).

d) See Part II, A in paragraph 19 (b) of the Request for CEO Endorsement and Annex E for a summary of biodiversity and ecotourism values and threats. See also Biodiversity Report (Optional Annex #2 of the Draft Grant Proposal).

e) See Part II, A in paragraph 15 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. As part of Component 1 of the project, entrance fees, fees for ecotourism services, concession and operation permit fees will be increased to reflect enhanced services and willingness to pay data collected in Year 1. It is expected that total revenues generated from these sources will be increased 200% in 5 years and will cover 30-35% operating costs (compared to a baseline of 17%), thereby reducing the current shortfall.

f) See Part II, A in paragraph 3 (a) of the Request for CEO Endorsement. See also Optional Annex #5 of the Draft Grant Proposal.

g) See Part IV in paragraph 3 of the request for CEO Endorsement. The decision was made to shift the focus away from certification using an international recognized system to the promotion of best practices and quality standards in the provision of ecotourism services, recognizing this as a more feasible first step given the current capacity of local and community-based enterprises in the vicinity of the PAs.


February 23, 2009 Please ensure coordination activities are clearly identified and costs identified

See Part III, B in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. Component 1 of the project will formalize the current cooperation between ANAM, the national tourism authority (ATP) and other public entities through the initial formation of a Steering Committee which would eventually be established as a National Ecotourism Committee with the aim of ensuring consistency between the implementation of the National Tourism Master Plan, the SINAP Strategic Plan and other policies. Costs are identified in Optional Annex #7 Detailed Budget.

February 23, 2009 During project design, please ensure that climate change risks are identified for those protected area sites that may be susceptible to climate impacts (particularly with regards to the specific ecotourism product being offered) and design appropriate mitigation actions.

See Part II, Section G, in paragraph 3 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. Climate change is addressed in the risk analysis and is considered moderate to low, with the exception of the potential impacts of coral reef bleaching, with is relevant for 2 of the 9 selected PAs. Mitigation measures have been tailored into the project design and monitoring program, taking advantage of the fact that the Project Executing Agency (ANAM) is in charge of the climate change national agenda. Climate change adaptation measures, including ecosystem-based measures, are to be mainstreamed in the public use plans to be formulated and implemented under the project.

STAP Comments Answers to STAP Comments

STAP notes this project focuses on developing ecotourism in Panama, including the development of eco-labeling and certification systems

See Part IV in paragraph 3 of the request for CEO Endorsement. The decision was made to shift the focus away from certification using an international recognized system to the promotion of best practices and quality standards in the provision of ecotourism services, recognizing this as a more feasible first step given the current capacity of local and community-based enterprises in the vicinity of the PAs.

The methodology for "analysis of biodiversity data for ecotourism purposes" (part of component 2) is not described in the PIF and should be discussed in the full project document

See Part I Section H of the Request for CEO Endorsement. Biodiversity impact indicators have been included into the monitoring and evaluation plan (required Annex #3 of the Draft Grant Proposal).

Climate change risks are not addressed at part F of the PIF and should be considered in the full project document. These may include changes that could impact on ecotourism opportunities in Panama, for example, coral reef bleaching.

See Part II, G in paragraph 3 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. Climate change is addressed in the risk analysis and is considered moderate to low, with the exception of the potential impacts of coral reef bleaching, with is relevant for 2 of the 9 selected PAs. Mitigation measures have been tailored into the project design and monitoring program, taking advantage of the fact that the Project Executing Agency (ANAM) is in charge of the climate change national agenda. Climate change adaptation measures, including ecosystem-based measures, are to be mainstreamed in the public use plans to be formulated and implemented under the project.


ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT USING GEF RESOURCES

Title of the Position $/ Estimat

e Tasks to be implemented

Week/

Person

Week/

person

Project Operational

Costs

600 416

Project Coordinator 700 208 Planning, coordination and monitoring of the activities

described in components I, II, and III of the Project.

Administrative Expert/

Acquisitions

500 208 Planning, coordination and monitoring of the acquisitions

processes and/or the acquisition of goods and services for

components I, II, and III of the Project.

For Technical

Assistance

International 3500 30

Component 1 – Total

Expert on Strategic

planning and

monitoring

3500 10 In charge of the supervision of the different technical-

administrative and financial activities done during Project

implementation.


Expert on Protected

Area Planning and

Management

3500 10 Definition, planning and implementation of the tourism flow

management methodology and as related issues.


Local Economic

Development Expert

3500 10 Responsible for the identification and planning mechanisms

for the establishment of the value chain at an inter-

institutional, local, and community level linking the public

and private sectors for the development of ecotourism

activities in Protected Areas.

Local 834 2290

Component 1 – Total 1000 347

Sub-component 1.a:

strategies, politics,

and legal framework

239

Inter-institutional

Coordination Expert

(ecotourism)

1000 24 Determine specific and common characteristics of ANAM‟s

and ATP‟s programs related to for the development of

ecotourism.




Week/

Person

Week/

person

Planning and

Institutional Policy

Expert

1000 12 Support the implementation of a national coordination

structure that responds to the strategic guidelines defined in

relation to ecotourism between ANAM and ATP, in both its

functional and legal aspects.

Ecotourism Expert

1000 124 Facilitation of the coordination processes between ANAM

and ATP in specific aspects related to ecotourism and

Protected Areas, biodiversity, visitation, and economic

sustainability. Training course for DFCA and ANAM

officials in specific aspects of ecotourism associated to

protected areas, biodiversity, and visitation, as well as

financial sustainability.

Analysis of the potential for ecotourism development in

specific PAs, involving the private and community sector in

the sustainable management of potential goods and services,

including concessions arrangements.

In charge of preparing guidelines that detail the procedures

for the administration of concessions, co-management, and

permits for the ecotourism activities.

Technical support in activities related to the planning,

coordination, monitoring and control of the preparation and

legalization of the legal documents that detail natural

resources use in protected areas.

Planning of technical, administrative, and financial measures

that allow the sustainable use of the protected areas through

tourism development.

Environmental

Economy and Natural

Resources Legislation

Expert

1000 38 Training course for DFCA and ANAM officials in specific

aspects of ecotourism associated to protected areas,

biodiversity, and visitation, as well as financial

sustainability.

In charge of preparing guidelines that detail the procedures

for the administration of concessions, co-management, and

permits in the legal and judicial areas.

Preparation of Management and investment instruments in

the protected areas, legalization mechanisms, administrative

procedures, follow-up on exploitation licenses, and the

respective adjustments.

Protected area

management and

planning expert

1000 41 Planning of activities related to co-management and

operation permits.

Planning, coordinating, monitoring and controlling the

preparation and legalization of the legal documents for

protected area natural resources use.




Week/

Person

Week/

person

Sub-component 1.b:

Protected area

financial

sustainability

108

Ecotourism expert 1000 10 Formulation of the financial sustainability strategy through

ecotourism. Establishing of strategic alliances with the

private sector.

Environmental

Economy expert

1000 5 Formulation of the financial sustainability strategy through

ecotourism. Defining mechanisms for the incorporation of

protected areas business plans and a strategic financial

sustainability plan.

Marketing Expert 1000 47 Definition of at least three financial instruments based on the

visitation and/or concessions or permits. Definition or

improvement of these mechanisms with the participation of

the private sector.

Investigate and propose ecotourism marketing opportunities

related to protected areas. Sign work agreements with private

operators, municipalities and public organisms.

Natural resources

legislation expert

1000 6 Identification of administrative and legal barriers for the

establishment of efficient fee mechanisms.

Ecotourism planning

and strategy Expert

1000 40 Definition and support to the implementation of ecotourism

packages between protected areas and traditional tourism or

other attractive sites in Panama.

Componente 2 -

Total 722 1170

Ecotourism Expert 1000 272 Conduction of the Protected Area Management

Effectiveness Monitoring Program in 9 protected areas.

Establishment of different protocols and instruments

(baseline and visitation profiles, monitoring the experience

and impact, defining key indicators, and data base).

Preparation, presentation, and approval for the application of

an ANAM ecotourism program in accordance to the

protected area management plans.

Articulation between ANAM / ATP for the supervision of

the tourism flow supervision for the 9 selected protected

areas and baseline.

Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for

improved in accordance with PA‟s pubic use strategies and

priorities.




Week/

Person

Week/

person

Monitoring and

Evaluation of Natural

Areas Expert

500 156 Monitoring of the Management effectiveness of 9 protected

areas, of the efficient application of public use plans, use of

GEF monitoring Tools, data gathering, regulation and

capitalization for the PMEMAP.

Protected area

planning and

Management Expert

1000 606 Preparation, revision, updating of management and public

use plans.

Management of protected areas‟s public use components

applying the different orientations, models, and instruments

prepared by ANAM-ATP.

Definition of human needs and activities corresponding to

the good Management of

protected areas and its uses for ecotourism. Validation and

coordination with ANAM-DAPVS.

GIS Expert

1000 24 Preparation of maps and cartography of the protected areas

considering geo-morphological, biodiversity and

anthropogenic aspects.

Staff and protected

area Management

expert

1000 16 Definition of job descriptions, employment and job

descriptions; evaluation of the internal organization of

protected area staff as well as the required staff number;

labor and hiring requirements.

Biodiversity Expert 1000 24 Support the definition of public and tourism use of

biodiversity in protected areas, limitations, and level of use.

Environmental Policy

Expert

1000 24 Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for


priorities.

Environmental

Engineer

1000 24 Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for


priorities.

Sociologist 1000 24 Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for


priorities.

Component 3 - Total 929 773

Sociologist 1000 26 Identification, awareness-raising and involvement of local

actors and organizations associated to ecotourism, and the

formation of public use Management and good practices in

protected areas.




Week/

Person

Week/

person

Biodiversity Expert 1000 36 Training actors and ecotourism organizations in

environmental protection good practices and the

conservation of biodiversity.

Ecotourism Expert 1000 220 Supporting the establishing local networks for the

development of business opportunities for 5 protected areas.

Support the elaboration of strategic sustainable financing

plan and of PA-specific business plans.

Contribute to the elaboration of fact-sheets on the economic

contributions of protected areas, with emphasis on

ecotourism. Participate in the planning of a community

awareness and extension campaign.

Preparing promotion materials for ecotourism activities in

the 9 protected area; organizing participation in an

International ecotourism fair.

Preparing, managing and monitoring the granting of

concessions and co-management agreements.

Supporting the establishing of mechanisms for the

implementation of an ecotourism value chain in 2 protected

areas.

Organization of local commercial networks in

Protected areas, training actors and organizations in

ecotourism management and administration.

Marketing Expert 1000 167 Identification of marketing opportunities to integrate

established local networks (surveys, negotiation of

agreements) and support to the implementation of business

activities.

Supporting the establishing of mechanisms for the

implementation of an ecotourism value chain in 2 protected

areas.

Marketing studies and establishment of strategic alliances at

the national and international level; implementing a

promotion strategy of the 9 protected areas with its

respective operating plan; supporting promotional activities,

sales monitoring and reporting, web site reporting.

Information Systems

Expert

1000 20 Set-up of information, communication, and contracting

system via internet and intranet




Week/

Person

Week/

person

Financial management

Expert

700 226 Development of a strategic sustainable financing plan for the

9 pilot Pas, and of 5 PA-specific business plans. Monitoring

of Pas financial indicators. Negotiating with the banks to

obtain financial lines for the implementation of the business

plans.

Prepare fact-sheets on the economic contributions of

protected areas in coordination with the Ecotourism and

Sociology Experts.

Preparing, managing and monitoring the granting of

concessions and co

Social Sciences and

Social

Communications

Expert

1000 60 Preparing and implementing awareness campaigns related to

the economic benefits of the environmental services that can

be obtained from the protected areas, and community

extension campaigns.

Preparing multilingual materials that promote the ecotourism

activities in the 9 protected areas; organizing participation in

an International ecotourism fair.

Environmental

Legislation Expert

1000 18 Preparing, managing and monitoring the granting of

concessions and co


ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE

OF FUNDS

A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES

UNDERTAKEN.

1. The purpose of this PPG was to support the preparation of the project for ¨Mainstreaming

Biodiversity Conservation through Low-impact Ecotourism in the SINAP¨ with its 3 components

(i) Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management

of ecotourism in the SINAP; (ii) Planning, operational management and monitoring of ecotourism

in PAs; and (iii) Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through

ecotourism in selected PAs. The proposed consultation activities and studies have provided the

technical basis for planning and project design needed to successfully attain a model of low

environmental impact ecotourism for SINAP (system-wide) within the nine selected Protected

Areas. The reports (in Spanish) derived from this process, are in the Bank´s file system and can

be submitted any time upon request.

B. DESCRIBE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IF ANY:

No issues have been found.

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW:

Project Preparation Activities

Approved

Implementation

Status

GEF Amount ($)

Co-

financing

($)

Amount

Approved

Amount

Spent To

date

Amount

Committed

Uncommitted

Amount*

System wide review of

existing national policies, legal

and technical norms,

regulatory instruments and

administrative tools and

procedures for mainstreaming

biodiversity in the ecotourism

sector, including the process of

granting concessions or

outsourcing services and the

management of ecotourism

services in the SINAP.

8,000 8,000 0 0 0


Diagnostic of existing

ecotourism services and

analysis of opportunities

and investments for

expanded low-impact

services, including

community-based small

business opportunities in

nine protected areas and

buffer zones.

12,000 12,000 0 0 48,000

Ecotourism market analysis

(national and international)

to identify the niches and

adequate certification

schemes

10,000 10,000 0 0 60,000

Diagnostic of biodiversity,

assessment of biodiversity

threats, identification of

impact indicators, and

assessment of management

capacity to monitor the

potential impact of ecotourism

activities in 9 protected areas

11,000 11,000 0 0 0

Financial gap analysis of

revenue short-falls and

revenue-generating options

to reduce shortfalls and

obtain financial

sustainability in 9 protected

areas

15,000 15,000 0 0 0

Technical design of project

components based on cost-

effectiveness analysis

including results indicators

with baseline, detailed terms

of reference and budget

12,000 12,000 0 0 0

Institutional capacity and

coordination analysis

(ANAM, ATP and

municipalities) and design

of project execution scheme

(including operating

manual)

.

8,000 8,000 0 0 10,000


Design of Project

Monitoring and Evaluation

Framework

Disbursing

10,000 10,000 0 0 0

Elaboration of project

public participation

strategy, including

participatory stakeholder

workshops, and design of

education campaigns

Disbursing

14,000 14,000 0 0 0

Total 100,000 100,000 0 0 118,000

* The US$ uncommitted amounts will be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. This is not a physical transfer of money, but

achieved through reporting and netting out from disbursement request to Trustee. Please indicate expected date of refund

transaction to Trustee.


ANNEX E: Ecotourism resources and potential in priority protected areas

Name of

Protected Area

Resources with

differenciated potential

Ecotourism activities

Visitor type Ecotourism potential Threats

PN Isla Bastimentos - (13,069.62 ha: Land: 1,840.90 ha Marine: 11,228.72 ha)

- Isla Bastimentos and other nearby islands with Caribbean charm - Keys of Zapatilla I and II - Marine tours in to the mangrove swamps. - Coral reefs and beaches. - Unique fauna

- Snorkel, scuba diving - Bird watching and dolphin observation. - Sailing and boating. -. - Swimming in natural scenery. - Horseback riding (in Playa Larga). - Visits to indigenous communities.

- Foreign tourists. - National tourists: Panamanian from Panama City with high purchasing power; family trips; young professionals and students Annual visitors average: 6,000 people

- Leisure ecotourism; emphasis on marine and nautical activities; experience the Caribbean and indigenous cultures; - Mix between sun & beach tourism, and adventure/community/cultural and scientific tourism.

- Residential tourism: displacement of locals to the reef zones; land occupation for villas, gulf resorts and marinas

Parque Internacional de La Amistad: PILA Atlantico and PILA Pacifico -Reserve of the ¨La Amistad¨ Biosphere (2001) and World Natural Heritage by UNESCO (1990) - (215,225.73 ha)

PILA Atlantico Scenery along the Teribe river; settlements of Indigenous communities.

PILA Atlantico - Bird watching; scientific research. - Visits to the Naso indigenous community. - Canoe trips.

PILA Atlantico Foreign tourists (backpackers and adventurers). Students and researchers (nationals and foreigners). Annual visitors average: 225 people

PILA Atlantico - Intensive and educational ecotourism; emphasis on tours to river ecosystems and rain forests; - Mix between adventure tourism and community/cultural/scientific.

PILA Atlantico - Subsistence agriculture, which causes habitat fragmentation and land loss, and water contamination by agro-chemicals. - Legal and illegal hunting (sports and subsistence), which cause disturbance, reduction of fauna; flora and timber extraction.


Name of Protected

Area

Resources with




Parque Internacional de La Amistad: PILA Atlantico and PILA Pacifico -Reserve of the ¨La Amistad¨ Biosphere (2001) and World Natural Heritage by UNESCO (1990) - (215,225.73 ha)

PILA Pacifico - Cloudy rain forest; - Landscape resources; - Unique avifauna.

PILA Pacifico - Bird watching; - Hiking - Nature photography; - Natural history tours; - Visits to picturesque towns.

Pila Pacifico - National and foreign tourists; - Students and international/national researchers. Annual visitors average: 2,476 people

PILA Pacifico - Educational ecotourism; emphasis on picnic/camping activities; flora and wildlife observation and exploration of forest ecosystems; - Mix of adventure tourism with community/cultural and agro-tourism.

PILA Pacifico - Extensive ranching and permanent settlements inside the park and in its buffer zones. - Legal and illegal hunting (sports and subsistence), which cause disturbance, reduction of fauna; flora and timber extraction.

PN Volcán Barú - (15,680.48 ha)

- Crater; - View from two oceans (Atlantic and Pacific). - Quetzal birds - Cool weather

- Tour through the path track ¨Los Quetzales¨; – Bird watching; - Exploration of the cloudy rain forest; - Nature photography; - Visits to picturesque towns

- National and foreign tourists (almost 50%); - Students and international/national researchers Annual visitors average: 4,460 people

- Intensive ecotourism; emphasis on geology and study of volcano; - Observation of scenery and wildlife; - Mix of adventure tourism with community/cultural and agro-tourism.

- Forest fires generally caused by agriculture activities, garbage dumps, and deforestation; - Use of organic and chemical fertilizers in agriculture; land erosion and invasion.


Name of Protected

Area

Resources with




PN Coiba - World Natural Heritage by UNESCO (2005) - (270,125.00 ha: Land: 68,100.51 ha Marine: 202,024.49 ha)

- Coiba Island; landcaping resources; - Granito and Ranchería beaches. - Reefs, mangroves, marshes; - Species of sharks and whales - Endemism

- Marine mammal observation; - Scuba diving, snorkeling, swimming - Surfing in the buffer zones; - Bird watching; - Sport fishing; - Hiking

- Foreign tourists exceed almost 4 times national tourists. Annual visitors average: 7,908 people

- Ecotourism; emphasis on marine activities – nautical and tours to the mangroves, reefs and the endemic rain forest. - Mix of sports fishing tourism with cruises, adventure, sun & beach tourism and also scientific tourism.

- The inadequate management of livestock ranching causing land deforestation; - Land speculation, hotel development, summer houses, marinas, harbors and other infrastructures for traditional tourism; - illegal fishing.

PNGD Omar Torrijos Herrera - World Natural Heritage by UNESCO (2005) - (25,275.00 ha)

-Mountain landscapes; - Cool weather; -Unique avifauna; - Cloudy rain forest; - Sightseeing of both oceans (Atlantic and Pacific) at ¨La Cruz¨ viewpoint.

- Hiking; - Bird watching; - Horse riding; -research; - River bathing; - Visits to historical places; - Visits to picturesque towns.

- More national tourists than foreign tourists; - Panamanian families seeking cool weather and coming from the beaches or other central provinces besides Panama City; - Students and researchers. Annual visitors average: 1,986 people

- Educational and leisure ecotourism; Emphasis on activities such as fauna, flora and waterfalls observation; river bathing. - Mix of community/cultural tourism with agro-tourism and scientific tourism

- There are settlements inside the park and in its buffer zones, with agricultural activities such as subsistence crops and extensive ranching. This causes deforestation, pressures on wildlife and land erosion.


Name of Protected

Area

Resources with




PN Altos de Campana - (4,925.00 ha)

- Landscapes; - Cool weather; - Species of amphibians and reptiles; - Unique avifauna; - Hills of: ¨Trinidad¨, ¨La Cruz¨ and ¨Campana¨

- Hiking; - Climbing and rappel - Scientific research; - Visits to local fairs; - Observation of stars; - Landscape photography

- National tourists: students from nearby and central provinces, and Panama City; - Panamanians who live abroad; - Foreign tourists; -National and international researchers. Annual visitors average: 1,045 people

- Educational and leisure ecotourism; emphasis on hiking, picnic, camping; - Observation of flora and fauna; - Mix of community/cultural/agro-tourism/scientific and adventure tourism.

- Land conflicts inside the park; Contamination by agro-chemicals, use of land for stockbreeding (??); accumulation of solid waste along the access road to the park; -Illegal hunting

PN Soberanía - (19,543.55 ha)

- Panama Canal and watershed; - Unique avifauna; - Humid-tropical forest close to Panama City; - River Chagres - Paths: ¨Camino de Cruces¨ and ¨Venta de Cruces.

- Hiking; - Scientific research; - Bird watching; - Canopy at the observation tower; - Canoeing; - Mountain biking; - Visits to historical places

- Foreign tourists; - Bird watchers and business people who visit the country for a short time; - National tourists: primary and high school students from Panama City; -During summer it is a recreational destiny for low and medium income families from nearby communities; - It is the only park with sports facilities for mountain biking and nature´s exploration. Annual visitors average: 6,311 people

- Casual and educational ecotourism; emphasis on hiking, flora and fauna observation and natural history. - Mix of community/cultural/agro-tourism/scientific and adventure tourism

- Illegal hunting; - Some roads are a threat to animals crossing through the adjacent forests; subsistence agriculture and extraction of resources (timber and palms) for constructions in buffer zones; - Forest fires


Name of Protected

Area

Resources with




PN Chagres - (131,260.77 ha)

- Indigenous villages; - Panama Canal watershed; - Alajuela Lake; ¨Camino Real¨, - Jaguars, Arpía eagle; - High plant endemism

- Visitation to indigenous villages; - Rafting - Horse riding; - Bird watching; Boating; Sports fishing, Visits to historical places; - Scientific research; - River bathing.

- Foreign tourism exceed nine times national tourists; - Tourists coming from cruises that arrive to the Panama and Colon harbors and going to visit the indigenous villages. - National tourists: students, researchers, religious churches and journalists. Annual visitors average: 11,233 people

- Educational, casual and intensive ecotourism; - Mix of various activities, where cultural and historical attractions have development potential; - Coexistence with indigenous communities, nature and adventure; - Mix of sports fishing tourism, adventure, scientific and cultural/community.

- The 14 indigenous groups present in the area practice subsistence agriculture and extensive stockbreeding (??) causing deforestation and land erosion; - Urban development within and in the park´s buffer zone including some primary services, rural paths and clandestine solid waste disposal is a major issue, which contributes to erosion and soil and water contamination. - Mining activities and gold extraction are not regulated and the few concessions in place are not operating.


Name of Protected

Area

Resources with




PN Darién -Reserve of the La Amistad Biosphere (1983) and World Natural Heritage by UNESCO (1981) - (569,429.51 ha)

- Tropical forest; - Indigenous Peoples (Kunas, Embera, Wounaan) and afro-descendents; - Majestic and large rivers; - Fishing resources; - Mammals, Arpía Eagle and macaws.

- Bird watching; - Coexistence with indigenous communities; - Use of buffer zones´ resources; - Crossing of the Darien isthmus (Route of Vasco Nuñez de Balboa); - Sports fishing.

- It is the least visited PA according to registry data; -Foreign tourists; - National and international researchers. Annual visitors average: N/A

- Intensive and educational ecotourism; Tours of the humid tropical forest; Fauna observation; experimentation of coexistence with indigenous communities and äfrodarienitas¨;

- Mix of adventure tourism/community/cultural/scientific and sports fishing.


ANNEX F: SINAP AND PRIORITY PROTECTED AREAS

DOCUMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

PANAMA

MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION THROUGH LOW-IMPACT

ECOTOURISM IN THE SISTEMA NACIONAL DE AREAS PROTEGIDAS (SINAP)

(PN-X1003)

DRAFT GRANT PROPOSAL

This document was prepared by the project team consisting of: Michele Lemay

(INE/RND), Project Team Leader; Alexandra Ortega (INE/RND); Denise Urias Levy

(VPS/ESG); Viviana del Carmen Alva Hart (RND/CPN); Juan Carlos Dugand

(PDP/CPN); Karina Diaz (PDP/CPN); Gerardo Arias Tatis (CID/CPN); Bernadete

Buschbaum (LEG/SGO); and Elizabeth Chavez (INE/RND) who was in charge of

document production.

-iii-

CONTENT

PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 5

I. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS MONITORING .................................................................... 2

A. Background ........................................................................................................ 2

1. The Role of Ecotourism in Panama´s Protected Area System ................. 2

2. Challenges and lessons learned ................................................................ 3 3. Strategy and justification .......................................................................... 5

B. Objective, Components and Cost ....................................................................... 6

1. Objective and Component Description .................................................... 6

2. Cost and Financing ................................................................................... 8

C. Key Results Indicators ....................................................................................... 9

D. Viability ........................................................................................................... 10

II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS .................................................................. 10

A. Financing Instruments ...................................................................................... 10

B. Environmental and Social Safeguard Risks ..................................................... 10

C. Fiduciary Risk .................................................................................................. 12

D. Other Key Issues and Risks ............................................................................. 12

III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................. 13

A. Summary Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 13

1. Executing Agency .................................................................................. 13 2. Coordination ........................................................................................... 14 3. Operating Regulations ............................................................................ 14

4. Procurement............................................................................................ 14

B. Summary of Arrangements for Monitoring Results ........................................ 14

-iv-

ANNEXES ANNEX I: Summary Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM)

ANNEX II: Results Framework

ANNEX III: Summary Procurement Plan

ANNEX IV: Safeguard Screening Form and Safeguard Policy Filter Report

ELECTRONIC LINKS

REQUIRED

1. Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM) questionnaire

http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getDocument.aspx?DOCNUM=35360935

2. POA (Plan of activities for first disbursement and the first 18 months of implementation)


3. Monitoring & Evaluation Arrangements


4. Complete Project Procurement Plan


OPTIONAL

1. Ecotourism Report


2. Biodiversity Report


3. Biodiversity Tracking Tools


4. Social Report


5. Financial sustainability Study


6. Institutional and Legal Framework Analysis


7. Detailed Budget


8. Risk Assessment














-v-

ABREVIATIONS

ANAM Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente

APO Annual Plan of Operations

AP's Áreas Protegidas

ATP Autoridad de Turismo de Panamá

BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

DAPVS Departamento de Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre

DFCA Departamento de Fomento de la Cultura Ambiental

ESMR Environmental and Social Management Report

ESS Environmental and Social Strategy

FSP Full Sized Project

GEF Global Environment Facility

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

OEA Organization of American States

PA Protected Area

PILA Parque Internacional La Amistad

PMEMAP Programa de Monitoreo de la Efectividad del Manejo de las Áreas

Protegidas

PNAC Parque Nacional Altos de Campana

PNC Parque Nacional Coiba

PNCH Parque Nacional Chagres

PND Parque Nacional Darién

PNGDOTH Parque Nacional General de División Omar Torrijos Herrera

PNMIB Parque Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos

PNVB Parque Nacional Volcán Barú

POD Proposal for Operation Development

SINAC Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación

SINAP Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas

SSF Safeguard and Screening Form for Screening and Classification of Projects

PROJECT SUMMARY

PANAMA

- 1 -

Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation Through Low-Impact Ecotourism in the

Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas (Sinap)

(PN-X1003)

Financial Terms and Conditions

Beneficiary: Republic of Panama Amortization Period: n/a

Grace Period: n/a

Executing Agency: National Environmental

Authority (ANAM: Autoridad Nacional del

Ambiente)

Disbursement Period: 48 months

Source Amount

IDB (Grant from the

Global Environment

Facility - GEF) US$4.0 million

Supervision and

Inspection Fee:

n/a*

Other/Cofinancing US$4.248 million Interest Rate: n/a

Credit Fee: n/a*

Total US$8.248 million Currency: US$ dollars

Project at a Glance

Project Objective/Description:

To generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the national protected areas system

(SINAP) that contributes to biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas, in a

framework of innovation, entrepreneurial integration, and sustainable social development at the

local scale. To this end, the project will finance three components: (a) Policies and regulatory

framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of ecotourism in the SINAP;

(b) Planning, operational management and monitoring of ecotourism in Protected Area (PA)s; and

(c) Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through ecotourism in

selected PAs.

Special contractual clauses:

Prior to the first disbursement: (i) signature of the agreement between ANAM and ATP (¶3.3);

(ii) the approval of the Project Operating Manual (POM) by the Steering Committee, in accordance

with terms previously agreed between the Borrower and the Bank (¶3.5).

Exceptions to Bank policies: None

Project qualifies for:

SEQ[ ] PTI [ ] Sector [ ] Geographic[ ] Headcount [ ]

(*) The credit fee and inspection and supervision fee will be established periodically by the Board of Executive Directors as part of its

review of the Bank’s lending charges, in accordance with the applicable provision of the Bank’s policy on lending rate methodology for

ordinary capital loans. In no case will the credit fee exceed 0.75% or the inspection and supervision fee exceed, in a given six-month period, the amount that would result form applying 1% to the loan amount divided by the number of six-month periods included in the

original disbursement period.

- 2 -

I. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS MONITORING

A. Background

1. The Role of Ecotourism in Panama´s Protected Area System

1.1 With a territory extending 75,517 km2, Panama is considered one of the countries

with the highest biodiversity of the Central American region, performing an

important function of natural connectivity between North America and South

America. Over 1,300 endemic species have been identified among plants,

amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and fresh water fish1. In recognition of this

significant biodiversity, the Government of Panama has established the National

System of Protected Areas (SINAP: Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas). The

system’s objective is to protect and maintain biological diversity in terrestrial,

coastal, marine and other ecosystems, and to promote recreation, education, and

natural resources research. Under the authority of the Panama National

Environment Authority (ANAM), the SINAP has been expanded and

strengthened over the last decade and many of the existing protected areas have

achieved international recognition as World Heritage Sites, Ramsar sites2 and

Biosphere Reserves. At present, the system includes 89 protected areas (PAs)

covering a total area of approximately 2,922,648.72 ha, which represents 34% of

the national territory. Only 19 (21%) of the PAs in the system currently have

their management plans and most are still in need of developing and

implementing strategic planning, operating and financing plans and monitoring

and supervision plans. In most of these Protected Area (PA)s, ANAM is

implementing an innovative monitoring program of management effectiveness

(“Programa de Monitoreo de la Efectividad del Manejo de las Areas Protegidas

de Panama – PMEMAP”) which is applied on a annual basis in each PA, with the

participation of local communities and stakeholders.

1.2 This significant biodiversity and a unique ethnic-cultural base are two of the

country’s greatest assets that have helped propel the tourism sector to the

forefront of the country`s competitiveness efforts. At present, tourism is a driving

force in Panama´s economy, with an average 10% annual increase registered from

2004-2008. A total of 1,573,070 persons visited Panama in 2008 of which 80%

were tourists3. Past inventories (IPAT/OEA, 1993) have concluded that about

72% of the country’s attractions were within the SINAP at that time. Yet only

about 3% of total visitors reportedly visited a protected area in Panama between

2004-2009 (compared to 54% in Costa Rica, 2006), resulting in significant

financial challenges for the SINAP as most of the resources for management

come from entrance fees and these raise no more than $300,000/year, according to

ANAM statistics and a diagnostic conducted during project preparation.

1 ANAM 2007. Estado del Conocimiento y Conservación de la Biodiversidad y de las Especies de Vertebrados

de Panamá.

2 Sites recognized under the Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance)

3 Informe Económico 2008 del Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas de Panamá.


- 3 -

2. Challenges and lessons learned

1.3 The main issue to be addressed by this project is the limited sustainable use of the

high biodiversity of Panama’s PA system, associated mainly with low levels of

visitation and limited ecotourism services both within the PAs and in surrounding

areas. This situation can be traced to three main root causes identified during

project preparation, which represent obstacles standing in the way of

mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas:

a. Lack of a sound and consistent ecotourism policy and institutional

framework for the SINAP (see Legal and Institutional Framework Analysis),

including: (i) failure of national sector policies and plans to mainstream the

objective of sustainable use of biodiversity conservation in the SINAP,

shortcomings in terms of regulations for public use and the provision of

quality, demand-driven ecotourism services in PAs (i.e., for concessions), as

well as norms and procedures for and the availability of public use plans for

PAs with a high ecotourism potential; (ii) limited coordination between the

two key sector agencies (ANAM and the Panama Tourism Authority – ATP)

and partnerships established between public, private and community-based

agencies and organizations; and, (iii) lack of innovative financial and legal

instruments to enhance financial sustainability of the PA system, in

particular, for PAs that have a clear competitive advantage in terms of

visitation and public use. Overall, the projected income from PA visitation

fees, concessions and other activities represented only 15% of the total

projected budget for the SINAP in 2010. In the case of Parque Nacional

Marino Isla Bastimentos, one of the most popular sites in the system,

entrance fees generate approximately US$28,000 yearly while the PA’s

business plan estimates that potential annual revenues from ecotourism could

reach US$250,000 (see Financial Sustainability Study).

b. Limited on-site operational management of ecotourism and associated

environmental impacts (see Biodiversity and Ecotourism diagnostics). While

some PAs have management plans and research is undertaken on a regular

basis, there is limited on-site operational capacity to address the findings of

the research studies or to implement the recommendations of the plans related

to ecotourism management. While carrying capacity studies have been done

for a few of the PAs (e.g., Parque Internacional La Amistad, Parque

Nacional Volcan Baru), the annual monitoring required to assess compliance

with carrying capacity limits has not been feasible due to institutional

weaknesses and other limitations. Contributing to this situation is the low

levels of investments in ecotourism public facilities and services, equipment,

staffing, and management systems, which are only in part due to a low level

of visitation in a context of incipient integration of ecotourism in the

promotion of Panama`s touristic assets and products. For example, while the

management plan for the Parque Internacional La Amistad calls for at least

17 officials to manage the protected area, there is only 9 staff working for this

256,195 ha site. Coiba National Park is running on a budget deficit of

approximately B/. 9 million in five years. The annual budget invested per





- 4 -

hectare in SINAP is about half the budget invested per hectare in Costa Rica

(US$2.63/ha and US$6.50/ha respectively. See Financial Sustainability

Study).

c. Lack of entrepreneurial capacity of nearby community organizations for

offering a quality product and the absence of opportunities for participation

of local tourism stakeholders in managing the PAs and conserving

biodiversity, limit the generation of tangible local benefits from ecotourism

and alternative sources of income generation in the PA system (see social

diagnostic). For example, only five of the nine PAs selected as priority sites

for this project have some type of business plans and most lack the capacity

and resources to implement the plans. Moreover, in terms of concessions or

other co-management financing options, of the five PAs with concession

mechanisms in place, such concessions are for the installation and operation

of telecommunications facilities and not necessarily for ecotourism-related

services. In general, ecotourism tour packages are offered by tourism

agencies in Panama City, without close coordination with the management

personnel of the Parks, resulting in potential conflicts as well as missed

opportunities to promote activities that are more sustainable for the PA. In

Parque Nacional Chagres, for example, most tourists are not being informed

about potential visits to indigenous villages in the area (see Financial

Sustainability Study).

1.4 In general, the limited coordination and few partnerships established between

public institutions, private sector and community-based organizations have

translated into: (i) limited integration of the PAs in the national strategy for

tourism promotion; and (ii) limited offer by either the surrounding communities

or the private sector of quality, demand-driven ecotourism services associated

with the PAs. The inventory of ecotourism services and associated facilities

completed during project preparation show a broad variation in terms of quality

and supply of services and a disconnection between existing services and visitor

needs. For example, although all of the nine PAs have walking trails, only two

PAs have a visitor center and one has trail guides onsite.

1.5 Recognizing that one of the main challenges to implementing the Convention on

Biological Diversity is the failure to incorporate and integrate biodiversity

considerations in other sectors,4 and that ecotourism is a poorly developed but

growing and promising segment of tourism, the Government of Panama has

solicited the Bank’s assistance, in its role as a GEF Agency, in the preparation and

presentation of this Full-Sized Project (FSP) to the GEF, which has been included

in the project portfolio of the Government`s Strategic Plan 2010-2014.

1.6 Experience in Latin America5 in the development of ecotourism in protected areas

points to several lessons learned that are applicable to Panama: (i) as is the case

4 Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente. Tercer Informe Nacional de Biodiversidad. 2007.

5 See “El turismo en América Latina y el Caribe y la Experiencia del BID” “Ecotourism and Economic

Growth in the Galápagos”, E. Taylor. 2009; and World Ecotourism Summit Final Report, Quebec City.

World Tourism Organization, 2002 (www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/FinalReport-WES-eng.pdf).










http://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/Final

- 5 -

for all tourism initiatives, successful projects focus their interventions on

destinations with the greatest competitive advantages and promote demand-driven

services; (ii) even in the case of ecotourism, instruments and trained human

resources for managing public use and guiding public and private sector

investments must be in place at the outset to maintain the environmental quality

of protected areas and their buffer zones; (iii) local communities and businesses

must derive measureable benefits from the sustainable use of biodiversity to

meaningfully support the conservation goals of protected areas; and (iv) local

residents must be the main beneficiaries of the direct benefits of ecotourism and

must be given an opportunity to participate in all phases, from planning,

implementation and monitoring of ecotourism.

3. Strategy and justification

1.7 The project takes a two-pronged approach aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity

conservation through ecotourism in protected areas both at the national and local

scale. At the national level, the project will contribute to developing a model for

sustainable ecotourism development in the SINAP through activities which will:

(i) strengthen national-level strategies and norms for promoting ecotourism in

accordance with the objectives of the SINAP; (ii) improve SINAP´s financial

sustainability; (iii) create an enabling environment for private and public

investment and foster replication of similar activities in PAs of considerable

socio-economic and ecological importance; and (iv) enhance sectorial institutional

collaboration and coordination, particularly between the environmental agency

(ANAM) and the tourism authority (ATP). At the local level, the project will

finance activities that correspond closely to the particular context encountered in

nine PAs selected as priority destinations, and it will promote and strengthen

community participation in the development and implementation of the project.

1.8 The selection of the nine PAs that will pilot the Program was based on a set of

technical criteria jointly agreed by ANAM and ATP, including: (i) current and

potential ecotourism demand; (ii) close proximity to the official Tourism

Destinations, as included in the Master Tourism Plan for Panama (2007-2020);

(iii) biodiversity values and vulnerabilities; and, (iv) potential to maximize

community participation in the development and implementation of the project.

The nine selected areas are: Parque Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos (PNMIB),

Parque Internacional La Amistad (PILA), Parque Nacional Volcan Baru (PNVB),

Parque Nacional General de Division Omar Torrijos Herrera (PNGDOTH),

Parque Nacional Darien (PND), Parque Nacional Soberania (PNS), Parque

Nacional Chagres (PNCh), Parque Nacional Altos de Campana (PNAC), and,

Parque Nacional Coiba (PNC). Taken together, these nine PAs account for 60%

of the current visitation to the SINAP and approximately 40% of the system’s

territory.

1.9 Through the strengthening of appropriate planning and management tools

(e.g. public use guides, concession and co-management policies and procedures),

the project will support the development of financial mechanisms to increase PA

conservation and sustainability. It is expected that ecotourism products,

- 6 -

infrastructure, technology and equipment for mainstreaming biodiversity

conservation will be significantly improved and that PA managers, municipalities,

and the business community will be trained to better handle increased visitation,

while at the same time contributing to the monitoring and control of potential

impacts on these areas` biodiversity values. Community organizations and

tourism operators will be part of local environmental education campaigns, which

will give them a sense of ownership and stewardship of the natural resources that

provide them with viable livelihoods.

1.10 Monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of ecotourism in PAs is a key element

that permeates most activities of the project. The project will assist the country to

implement its official PA monitoring program – PMEMAP and, as such, will

provide the information necessary for the government to consolidate its efforts to

develop payment for environmental services schemes (e.g., for the contribution of

PAs to the Panama Canal watershed), which require economic valuation of

effectively preserved natural resources.

1.11 The project is consistent with the objectives of the Bank`s Country Strategy

with Panama (EBP-PN 2010-2014) in that it contributes directly to consolidation

of the institutional and regulatory framework for environmental management as

well as strengthening of the capacity for monitoring environmental compliance

called for in the action plan included in the Strategy. The project is also included

in the Country Program Document 2010 (CPD 2010, Annex II of Operational

Program Report 2010, GN-2576). Moreover, and in line with the main

institutional priorities of the latest capital increase of the Bank, the project aims

at closing the growth gap while contributing to global environmental

sustainability, through the development of the right mix of regulations and market

incentives for protected area management that is responsive to climate change

adaptation in both terrestrial and coastal and marine areas. As such, the project is

consistent with the institutional priority of protecting the environment, responding

to climate change, and promoting renewal energy and food security.

B. Objective, Components and Cost

1. Objective and Component Description

1.12 The project objective is to generate a model of low environmental impact

ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) that contributes to

biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas, in a framework of

innovation, entrepreneurial integration, and sustainable social development.

1.13 The first component addresses the critical gaps and limitations in the institutional

and regulatory framework and existing inter-institutional coordination and

capacities. It also addresses the challenge of increasing sustainable financing for

SINAP, by promoting the design and establishment of alternative sources of

financing for development, management and promotion of ecotourism. The

second component will improve the quality of planning, operational management

and monitoring of the nine PAs selected as priorities for ecotourism development.

The third component will focus on fostering private sector and community

participation and the generation of tangible local benefits from ecotourism.


- 7 -

1.14 Component 1: Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity

conservation and sustainable management of ecotourism in the SINAP. This

component is divided into two subcomponents.

a. The first subcomponent seeks to establish a national strategy shared by

ANAM and ATP through the implementation of various coordination

mechanisms, including a national coordination structure for the development

of ecotourism in and around SINAP. With the resources allocated to this

subcomponent, ANAM will hire consultants to provide technical assistance

and training for: (i) the formulation of a national policy for ecotourism that

reconciles the priorities of the SINAP and National Tourism Master Plan;

(ii) elaboration of formally endorsed guidelines for the formulation and

monitoring of public use plans, including the identification of a nation-wide

set of performance indicators for ecotourism; (iii) definition and validation

of a set of policies and technical, social and environmental criteria related to

tourism concessions, co-management agreements and tourism operation

permits; (iv) elaboration of a procedural manual for granting and managing

concessions, co-management agreements and permits, including the crafting

of administrative procedures to streamline the concessions and

co-management approval process; (iv) introductory training courses and

knowledge-building sessions, both at the regional and national levels, to

improve the technical capacity of ANAM´s staff in the Departamento de

Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (DAPVS) and the Departamento de

Fomento de la Cultura Ambiental (DFCA), as well as ATP in public use

planning, monitoring and financial administration.

b. The second subcomponent focuses firstly on ecotourism as a mean to

increase PA´s income; and secondly on broadening the array of sustainable

financing options for the SINAP. ANAM will hire consultants to provide

technical assistance for: (i) the definition of a clear ecotourism-based

financial sustainability strategy for PAs; and, (ii) the definition of alternative

financial mechanisms (e.g., cruise ship or airport entry fees, payments for

environmental services) to support biodiversity conservation through

collaborative agreements between public and private sector institutions.

1.15 Component 2: Planning, operational management and monitoring of

ecotourism in PAs. This component is aimed at enhancing planning and the

quality of ecotourism products in selected PAs through the design and

implementation of public use plans and ecotourism management systems, leading

to an increase in quantitative and qualitative indicators of visitation. ANAM will

use the resources of this subcomponent to contract services and purchase goods

for the following purposes: (i) develop, approve and implement at least seven

management and public use plans with a view to identifying and setting objectives

for ecotourism attractions and services that are in line with the PA’s conservation

mandate and that promote knowledge and appreciation of its biodiversity. The

plans will integrate adaptation strategies to respond to the impacts of climate

change (e.g., coral bleaching, sea level rise, increase in storm surges, saltwater

intrusion) in coastal, marine and terrestrial areas; (ii) conduct studies to define

- 8 -

carrying capacity6, flow management and visitor monitoring for each of the 9

selected PAs. This will encompass the design and demonstration of visitor survey

methodologies to collect key data on ecotourism use (e.g., visitor characteristics,

expenditure patterns, willingness-to-pay) as a basis for setting fee structures and

with a view to expanding to the entire SINAP; (iii) identify a public investment

portfolio for PAs jointly defined by ANAM and APT, which will add value and

attractiveness to ecotourism products (e.g., trails, observation towers, camping

sites). Once defined and approved by the Bank, the portfolio will be financed by

the Program; (iv) implement of a participatory monitoring process of the impact

of ecotourism in the 9 PAs, in coordination with the existing PMEMAP;

(v) enhance PA on-site personnel’s capacity to implement and enforce public use

plans, and to enhance their guidance capacity towards the public through

appropriate training and capacity building.

1.16 Component 3: Strengthening of income generation potential for local

stakeholders through ecotourism in selected Pas. This component seeks to

support local stakeholders in obtaining concrete economic benefits from the

mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in ecotourism within PA´s and their

buffer zones. With the resources allocated to this component, ANAM will hire

consultants for the following purposes: (i) training of a minimum of 20 local

organizations and operators in providing demand driven, high quality ecotourism

services and products, integrating best practices and business management. This

will include training and technical assistance in innovative technologies for

ecotourism promotion in target markets, the provision of energy-efficient

services, visitor safety and private sector and community participation in

biodiversity monitoring; (ii) capacity building of existing local networks of

service providers and development of business opportunities; (iii) elaboration of a

minimum of 5 individual PAs business plans linking each PA to potential

services providers; (iv) development and implementation of environmental

education campaigns aimed at key local and national stakeholders (public and

private) and focusing on the economic value of PAs and the benefits of their

sound management and use; (v) support to ATP and ANAM to undertake market

studies and develop a shared promotion strategy and marketing campaign to

position the 9 pilot PAs and their services networks in the national and target

international ecotourism markets, including tools, participation in trade shows,

printed and audiovisual material etc; (vi) issuance of at least 4 concessions, 4

operating permits and 4 co-management agreements using a streamlined and cost-

efficient granting system, and; (vii) consolidation of at least 2 productive value

chains connecting tourists, national tour operators and local service providers for

two PAs with the greatest competitive advantage.

2. Cost and Financing

1.17 Total project cost is estimated at US$8,248,000, US$4 million of which will be

provided as grant funding from the GEF, through the Bank in its role as GEF

6 To support the definition of Public Use Plans, the project will either use carrying capacity-base or Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC) based methodologies.

- 9 -

Agency. As parallel co-financing, a total of US$4,248,000 will be contributed

jointly by both ANAM and ATP. The contributions of the counterpart are

confirmed through Letters of Commitment, as required by the GEF, and a

Memorandum of Understanding will be signed at project initiation. Table 1

provides the summary cost table for the project.

Table 1- Summary Cost Table (USD)

C. Key Results Indicators

1.18 The Project has adopted the key results indicators presented in Table 2. The

complete Results Framework is presented in Annex II.

Table 2- Key Results Indicators

Indicator Rationale

Improved Protected Areas` management

effectiveness (as measured by GEF Tracking Tool

for BD-SP2 and PMEMAP)

Measures effectiveness of PA management

and public use plans implementation & PA

protection

Percentage increase in SINAP´s external sources

of income

Measures financial independence of

SINAP and the potential for sustaining

improved ecotourism management systems

in PAs

Percentage increase of visitation due to

improvements in ecotourism products and

services in selected PAs

Measures increase in attractiveness of PAs

with investment in improved public use

and ecotourism management

Percentage of international visitors to Panama

reported to visit at least one of selected PAs

Proxy to the positioning of Panamanian

PA´s offer of ecotourism services

(benchmarking with competitive

destinations)

Percentage increase of local and community-

based businesses providing ecotourism services in

PAs

Measures increase of provision of

ecotourism services by local stakeholders

and the capacity to generate higher income

Component IADB

(GEF)

Local

ANAM

Local

ATP

Total % of

Total

1. Regulatory framework

and financial sustainability

513,700 800,000 0 1,313,700 16%

2. PAs ecotourism

management system

1,990,600 1,248,000 800,000 4,038,600 49%

3. Private sector

participation

1,095,700 1,000,000 200,000 2,295,700 30%

Project Administration

(including coordinator,

evaluations and audits)

400,000 200,000 0 600,000 5%

TOTAL 4,000,000 3,248,000 1,000,000 8,248,000 100%

% of Total 48.5% 39.4% 12.1% 100%

- 10 -

# of PA with linked biological, physical and

economic use indicators clearly selected (wildlife,

vegetation, water quality, volume of visitor

activities, number of concessions); baseline

completed; and monitoring methodology defined

Although overall monitoring of

biodiversity will take place during the

Project, it is important to define keystone

indicators that will enhance quality of

monitoring efforts in the long run

D. Viability

1.19 Selection of the nine priority protected areas was made on the basis of

cost-effectiveness. This selection was the main factor in ensuring effectiveness of

the interventions, particularly the operational improvements in planning,

monitoring, and on-site training (Components 2 and 3). Cost effectiveness was

achieved by focusing the project's interventions in 9 of the 89 protected area units

of the SINAP. These protected areas account for over 60% of the current

visitation to protected areas and are all located within 50 km of the ten

priority tourism destinations selected in the National Tourism Master Plan. As

such, these 9 protected areas are rated as having the highest potential either on

their own or when combined with nearby complementary tourism assets

to compete for an international demand from target markets (United States and

Europe). In addition, these 9 protected areas accounted for over 95% of the

revenues generated by visitor fees for the entire SINAP in 2009. With the US$4

million investment of the project, 50% of the protected areas annual operating

costs would be covered by the revenues generated from entrance fees by the end

of the project. A comparable investment of US$4 million in the next ten most

visited protected areas would have covered only 35% of annual operating costs.

II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS

A. Financing Instruments

2.1 The project was designed as a technical cooperation grant. It will be financed

through non-reimbursable resources from the Global Environment Facility and

local counterpart contributions. The disbursement schedule is based on the

referenced amount for priority activities to be initiated in each year of the Project.

The predicted flow of financial resources is as follows:

Table 3-Anticipated Disbursement Timetable

Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

GEF 35% 30% 25% 10%

B. Environmental and Social Safeguard Risks

2.2 While most impacts from this operation are expected to be positive and to derive

from the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and the socio-economic

improvement of local people, the Environmental and Social Review of the Bank

(ESR 09-09) assigned a Category “B” classification, mainly due to the

anticipation of potential direct, indirect or cumulative impacts that could result

- 11 -

from the development of small ecotourism investments in the selected PAs object

of this operation, and/or the presence of indigenous communities. ESG did not

require an Environmental and Social Management Report for this operation.

2.3 The likelihood for such anticipated impacts was fully studied during project

preparation and measures have been integrated into the project’s design to prevent

and minimize their potential occurrence. Given its focus on the protection,

conservation and sustainability of natural resources in the selected areas,

on-the-ground activities will only be initiated or promoted once the required legal

and administrative framework is in place at the national level (i.e., the policies

and procedures included in Component 1). Potential ecotourism concessions,

co-management or other management alternatives will be based on the

conclusions and recommendations from the management and public use plans and

carrying capacity studies, and will take place under rigorous scrutiny and

evaluation by the authorizing agency (ANAM). The same studies that will orient

the definition of management alternatives for each protected area will also guide

the identification of a portfolio of investments that are geared towards

environmental viability and sustainability (component 2), thus minimizing risks

that could occur during construction and operation of ecotourism services (which

in general are small and localized). Finally, the project has been designed to

integrate substantial support for training and capacity building, and for monitoring

and evaluation. These two elements permeate the components of the project, and

are tools to enhance monitoring capacity at the local, national and international

levels, guaranteeing the achievement of global environmental benefits required

for all GEF-supported projects.

2.4 Regarding the local communities, the project has integrated key aspects to ensure

participation on the planning as well as on the reaping of economic benefits from

ecotourism activities (Component 3). Local communities (inclusive of indigenous

groups) will have equal access to environmental education campaigns, and

economic and business development opportunities, through training on

developing alternatives for sustainable use of natural resources.

2.5 In compliance with OP-765, the Program also includes a process to build

awareness and relationships as a first step to identifying the cultural values to be

safeguarded and highlighted through the tourism experience. The executing

agency will promote the involvement of indigenous peoples and provide them

with culturally appropriate information to access the opportunities presented by

the Program.

2.6 This operation is in line with ecotourism`s basic principles (i.e., conservation,

education, traveler responsibility and active community participation) and,

although it is located in environmentally valuable and sensitive areas, it has been

designed to protect, conserve and sustain the responsible use of the area, resulting

in positive net impacts. By design, the project triggers the Convention on

Biological Diversity given that it falls within the Biodiversity Focal Area of the

Global Environment Facility.

- 12 -

C. Fiduciary Risk

2.7 Based on the risk analysis conducted during project preparation, the project has a

moderate to low fiduciary risk. The GEF grant will be administered by DAPVS

within ANAM (the Executing Agency) which has adequate experience and tools

to administer projects. ANAM managed the execution of two recent loans

(PN-0122; 1222/OC-PN and PN-L1013; 1912/OC-PN), a National Environmental

Program and a Modernizing Environmental Management for Competitiveness,

respectively). ANAM will have overall responsibility for the financial

management of the program comprising accounting and financial reporting, flow

of funds and external auditing arrangements. The proposed operation will build on

the existing organizational and management structures of the ANAM/DAPVS.

2.8 The project annual financial statements will be audited under Terms of Reference

prepared in line with Bank guidelines to be performed by independent auditors

and following auditing standards acceptable to the Bank. The audit report shall be

submitted to the Bank within 120 days of each fiscal year end.

D. Other Key Issues and Risks

2.9 The present limited inter-institutional coordination for ecotourism management

both at the national and local levels could affect conditions for efficient

implementation of the project. The proposed program, however, has been

designed to ensure that both ANAM and ATP continue to work jointly together as

they have throughout the preparation of this project, and that a shared strategy is

reached, which involves: (i) the formulation of a common coordination

mechanism and regulatory framework to strengthen the cooperation between

governmental agencies (national and local); and, (ii) the design of financial

sustainability mechanisms to foster and consolidate local and national

partnerships for ecotourism management in the SINAP.

2.10 The development of a model for sustainable ecotourism through activities that

enable an environment for private and public investment could raise private sector

expectations for special funding opportunities. To counter such situation, the

program will support key investments in public goods improvements, such as

improved infrastructure and facilities that will indirectly benefit private providers

of ecotourism services, in particular those of concessions or co-management

opportunities, and minimize expectations for special funding.

2.11 The long-term financial sustainability of the nine selected PAs could be at risk if

insufficient or inappropriate financial mechanisms are approved by the

Government. This situation could also undermine full implementation of

ecotourism management systems that will result from the activities of this project.

To mitigate this risk the project will: (i) establish public-private strategic alliances

to explore innovative mechanisms, and (ii) support the elaboration and

implementation of PAs business plans.


- 13 -

2.12 The climate change risk assessment carried out by ANAM’s Climate Change

Unit in 2010, along with specific data for PAs, show that climate change factors7

have a low to moderate risk regarding the activities of this project. However,

factors such as ocean warming and coral bleaching could constitute strong risks

for the biological diversity of marine PAs such as Bastimentos Island in the

Caribbean and Coiba Island in the Pacific. To mitigate such risk, the project will

work in close collaboration with ANAM’s Climate Change Unit to streamline

ecological monitoring programs and integrate protocols for climate change and

invasive species on a regular basis as part of the PMEMAP and the project`s

monitoring schedule.

III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

E. Summary Implementation Arrangements

1. Executing Agency

3.1 The Executing Agency will be the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM),

which will assume full responsibility for project coordination, administration,

financial and accounting management, including procurement and the preparation

of annual operating budgets and progress monitoring and evaluation reports.

Specific responsibilities of the Executing Agency include, but are not limited to:

(i) maintain adequate accounting and financial controls, including a separate

account for the purposes of this project; (ii) maintain appropriate support

documentation filing systems for verification by the Bank and the external

auditing firm; (iii) prepare and submit to the Bank disbursement requests and

corresponding justification of expenses; (iv) prepare and obtain Bank approval for

all bidding documents required to hire consulting firms, consultants and for the

acquisition of goods; (v) coordinate the bidding processes according to Bank

policies and Panamanian norms; (vi) monitor quality of the goods and services

provided by contracted parties and making the corresponding payments;

(vii) prepare and submit to the Bank the Program`s Financial Plan, which results

from the procurement plan and the annual plan of operations (APO); and,

(viii) record and control the results of the project through the agreed indicators.

3.2 ANAM will assign a project coordinator and an ecotourism specialist to support

the DAPVS to carry out the activities of the project and to closely monitor the

financial management of the program. A financial specialist and a procurement

specialist will also be contracted to assist ANAM in the execution of procurement

activities, supervision of main contracts and provision of other financial

assistance. These specialists will be based at DAPVS located within ANAM

offices in Panama City.

7 Such as increased storm and hurricane events, sea level rise, increase in occurrence and severity of drought

episodes, and iinvasive species proliferation.

- 14 -

2. Coordination

3.3 A Steering Committee will be established to ensure close coordination between

ANAM and ATP. The Committee will have the following functions: (i) strategic

guidance for the project; (ii) approve annual work plans and mid-year and annual

progress reports, and (iii) acknowledge annual financial audits. Before the

initiation of the project a Cooperation Agreement between ANAM and ATP will

be signed to establish the obligations of the parties. Signature of the agreement

between the Executing Agency and the ATP will be a condition prior to first

disbursement.

3.4 Central to the execution of the entire project is the participation of the local

community, private sector and institutional stakeholders. In this regard, the

Steering Committee will ensure that the activities of the Program are carried out

in active, close collaboration with stakeholders, and shall nominate other

institutions to participate in the Committee, as required. From year two onwards,

an Ecotourism National Coordination Structure should be in place with defined

participation and decision mechanisms, which will open consultation channels

towards the private sector, governmental entities, NGOs, academic institutions,

and local communities. Towards the end of the project it is expected that this

structure will become permanent.

3. Operating Regulations

3.5 The administration of the project will be based on a Project Operating Manual

(POM) agreed by the parties. The POM includes the responsibilities, standards

and procedures for contracts, acquisitions, financial management, accounting,

audits and monitoring and evaluation of the operation. The approval of the POM

by the Steering Committee, in accordance with terms previously agreed

between the Borrower and the Bank, will be a condition prior to the first

disbursement of the Financing.

4. Procurement

3.6 The procurement of contracts to be financed with resources of the financing will

be carried out in accordance with the Policies for the Procurement of Works and

Goods Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (GN-2349-7); and the

Policies for the Selection and Contracting of Consultants Financed by the

Inter-American Development Bank (GN-2350-7) both of July 2006. A

procurement plan for the first 18 months has been produced (see Annex III) and

will be reviewed by the Executing Agency and the Bank every 6 months.

F. Summary of Arrangements for Monitoring Results

3.7 The Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) System will be coordinated by the Project

Coordinator within the DAPVS of ANAM and will: (i) monitor the progress of

outputs and outcomes based on the Results Framework (See Annex II), and

- 15 -

(ii) assist in the preparation of Mid-Year Progress Reports and Annual Project

Reports. The Annual Project Reports will present: (i) progress towards achieving

the expected outcomes and the project objective, referencing the baseline for the

indicators provided in the Results Framework; (ii) progress in generating the

expected outputs, (iii) an updated Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and threats (SWOT Analysis) and a list of lessons learned and

recommendations for adjustments to the project strategy and Results Framework,

(iv) Budget Execution Report (BER), and (v) updated Procurement Plan. The

Mid-Year Progress Reports and Annual Project Reports will be analyzed and

approved by the Steering Committee.

3.8 An independent external mid-term review and a final evaluation will be

undertaken (Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Project) upon disbursement

of 50% and 905 of the resources of the Financing. Both evaluations will be

undertaken by consultants with demonstrated experience in the evaluation of PA

management and to be contracted by ANAM with resources of the loan. The mid-

term review will evaluate if the project is achieving the expected outcomes and

adequately moving towards the project objective. The final evaluation will:

(i) verify that all expected outputs and outcomes and the project objective have

been achieved; and (ii) identify project impacts. A key element to assess will be

the long-term sustainability of the PAs selected for development of ecotourism

activities. An external financial audit of the project financial statements, to be

contracted by ANAM, will be performed each year by a firm acceptable to the

Bank8. The findings of these evaluations will be shared with all the key

stakeholders.

8 Financial statements and the hiring of auditing firm must comply with OP-273-1 and with document: “Guías

de Informes Financieros y Auditoría Externa de las Operaciones Financiadas por el BID.”

pcdocs://IDBDOCS/35359729/R

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

1

Applying the GEF Tracking Tools in GEF-4

Note: Given changes in the GEF’s biodiversity strategy in GEF-4, a slightly modified Tracking Tool for this

strategic objective has been developed. Please use this tool for all GEF-4 funded projects that fall under this

strategic objective. Please also note the addition of the “Financial Sustainability Scorecard for National Systems of

Protected Areas” that UNDP developed and that the GEF is using for GEF-4 for projects focused on sustainable

financing.

Objective: To measure progress in achieving the impacts and outcomes established at the portfolio level under the biodiversity focal area. The following targets and indicators are being tracked for all GEF-4 projects submitted under Strategic Objective One and the associated Strategic Programs. Impact and Outcome Indicators for Strategic Objective One and Associated Strategic Programs

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Long-Term Impacts Indicators

To catalyze sustainability of protected area systems

Biodiversity conserved and sustainably used in protected area systems

• Extent of habitat cover (hectares) by biome type maintained as measured by cover and fragmentation in protected area systems

• Extent and percentage increase of new habitat protected (hectares) by biome type in protected area systems that enhances ecosystem representation

• Protected area management effectiveness as measured by protected area scorecards that assess site management, financial sustainability, and capacity

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators

1. Sustainable financing of protected area (PA) systems at the national level

• PA systems secure increased revenue and diversification of revenue streams to meet total expenditures required to meet management objectives

• Reduction in financing gap to meet PA management objectives

• Total revenue and diversification in revenue streams


2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators

2. Increasing representation of effectively managed marine PA areas in PA systems

• Increased coverage of marine ecosystems globally and in national PA systems

• Improved management of marine PAs

• Number and extent (coverage) of national marine PAs compared to 2006 global baseline for GEF-eligible countries

• PA management effectiveness as measured by individual PA scorecards

3. Strengthening terrestrial PA networks

• Improved ecosystem coverage of under-represented terrestrial ecosystems areas as part of national PA systems

• Improved management of terrestrial PAs

• Terrestrial ecosystem coverage in national PA systems


Rationale: Project data from the GEF-4 project cohort will be aggregated for analysis of directional trends and patterns at a portfolio-wide level to inform the development of future GEF strategies and to report to GEF Council on portfolio-level performance in the biodiversity focal area.

Structure of Tracking Tool: Each tracking tool requests background and coverage information on the project and specific information required to track the indicator sets listed above. Please note that Section Two of the tracking tool provides an assessment of protected area management effectiveness and is derived from the “World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Protected Areas” and complete instructions on how to apply the METT are provided with the METT. Please note that this is a revised version to reflect experience gained with the version of the METT that the GEF used in GEF-3. Please note that Section Three of the tracking tool, “Financial Sustainability Scorecard” is new in GEF-4 and is to be submitted for all projects that are being submitted under Strategic Program One of this Strategic Objective: “Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level.” Guidance in Applying the Tracking Tool: The tracking tools are applied three times: at CEO endorsement1, at project mid-term, and at project completion. In GEF-4, we expect that projects which fall clearly within Strategic Objectives and support specific Strategic Programs under each Strategic Objective hence only one tracking tool will need to be completed. On very rare occasions, projects may make substantive contributions to more than one strategic objective. In these instances, the tracking tools for the relevant strategic objectives should be applied. It is important to keep in mind that the objective is to capture the full range of a project’s contributions to delivering on the targets set for each of the strategic objectives. The GEF Implementing Agency/Executing Agency will guide the project teams in the choice of the tracking tools. Please submit all information on a single project as one package (even where more than one tracking tool is applied).

1 For Medium Sized Projects when they are submitted for CEO approval.


3

Multi-country projects may face unique circumstances in applying the tracking tools. The GEF requests that multi-country projects complete one tracking tool per country involved in the project, based on the project circumstances and activities in each respective country. The completed forms for each country should then be submitted as one package to the GEF. Global projects which do not have a country focus, but for which the tracking tool is applicable, should complete the tracking tool as comprehensively as possible. The tracking tool does not substitute or replace project level M&E processes, or GEF Implementing

Agencies’/Executing Agencies’ own monitoring processes. Project proponents and managers will likely be the most appropriate individuals to complete the Tracking Tool, in collaboration with the project team, since they would be most knowledgeable about the project. Staff and consultants already working in the field could also provide assistance in filling out the Tracking Tool. Submission: The finalized tracking tool will be cleared by the GEF Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies before submission. The tracking tool is to be submitted to the GEF Secretariat at three points:

1.) With the project document at CEO endorsement2; 2.) Within 3 months of completion of the project’s mid-term evaluation or report; and 3.) With the project’s terminal evaluation or final completion report, and no later than 6 months after

project closure.



4

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name: Program for the Conservation of Biodiversity through the Ecotourism in protected Areas of Panama

2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): FSP 3. Project ID (GEF): 3889 4. Project ID (IA): PN-X1003 and PN-X1004 5. Implementing Agency: Inter-American Development Bank 6. Country(ies): Panama

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

7. Project duration: 4 years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): National Environmental Authority, Autoridad Nacional

del Ambiente (ANAM) 9. GEF Strategic Program: Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level (SP 1)

10. Project coverage in hectares:

Targets and Timeframe

Total Extent in hectares of protected

areas targeted by the project by

biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project

Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems 1,262,626.50 ha in total for the nine Protected Areas

Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno

Biologist Specialist

Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable.

Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type

Global designation or

priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World

Heritage site, Ramsar

site, WWF Global 200, ,

etc.)

Local Designation of

Protected Area (E.g,

indigenous reserve,

private reserve, etc.)

IUCN Category for each

Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI

Marine National Park Bastimentos Island

No 13,069.62 ha marine and terrestrial ecosystem: - 1,840.90 ha terrestrial

• Component of the nucleus area of the Reserve of the Biosphere La Amistad (2001)

• Important areas for

Marine National Park X

3 I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems


6

ecosystem - 11,228.72 ha of marine ecosystem

Birds in Panama (BT-5)

La Amistad International Park

No 215,225.73 ha terrestrial ecosystem

• UNESCO World Heritage site (1990)

• Reserve of the Biosphere La Amistad (2001)

• Important areas for Birds in Panama (BT-10)

National Park National System of Protected Areas (SINAP)

X

Altos de Campana National Park

No 4,816 ha terrestrial ecosystem

• Important Areas for Birds in Panama (PM-1)


X

Chagres National Park No 131,260.77 terrestrial ecosystem


National Park National System of Protected Areas

X


7

(SINAP)

Coiba National Park No 256,195 ha aarine and terrestrial ecosystems 53,732 ha terrestrial ecosystems 202,463 ha marine ecosystems


• Important Areas for Birds in Panama (VR-3)


X

Darien National Park No 579,000 ha Terrestrial ecosystem


• Component of the area nucleus of the Reserve of the Biosphere of Darien


X


8

(1983)

Important Areas for Birds in Panama (DR-4)

Soberania National Park

No 22,104 ha terrestrial ecosystems



X

Baru Volcano National Park

No 15,680.48 ha terrestrial ecosystems

• Component of the area nucleus of the Reserve of the Biosphere of the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve (2001

• Important Areas for Birds in Panama (CH-2))


X

Omar Torrijos Herrera National Park


• Important Areas for Birds in Panama (C-1))


X

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One:

Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area

9

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for

Protected Areas

Please complete the management effectiveness tracking tool for each protected area that is the target of the GEF intervention.



10

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1

Protected Area 2: La Amistad International Park

Name, affiliation and contact details of person responsible for completing the METT (email etc.)

Marta C. Moreno, Biologist [email protected]

Date assessment carried out August 6, 2010

Name of protected area La Amistad International Park

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)

Designations

National

National Park IUCN

Category II

International - Important Bird Area of Panama (BT-10); - La Amistad Biosphere Reserve (2001) -UNESCO World Heritage site (1990)

Country Panama Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference)

Province of Bocas del Toro (district of Bocas del Toro, Changuinola and Chiriquí Grande), Province of Chiriquí (district of Renacimientos, Bugaba, Dolega, Boquete, Gualaca and part of David) and part of the Native Region Ngäbe Bugle (district of Kankintú, Mironó, Müna, Nole Duima, Ñürüm, Kusapín and Besiko)

Date of Establishment INRENARE Resolution of the Board of Directors 022-88 of Sept 2, 1988. (Resolución de Junta Directiva 022-88 del 2 de sept. 1988)

Ownership details (please tick)

State

X Private

X Community

X Other

Management Authority National Environmental Authority (Autoridad

Nacional del Ambiente) (ANAM) Size of protected area (ha) 215,225.73 ha Terrestrial ecosystem

Number of staff

Permanent PILA (Pacific side) – One Protected Area Chief and 4 park rangers PILA (Caribbean side) – One Protected Area Chief and 3 Park

Temporary 0



11

Annual budget (US$) – excluding staff salary costs

Recurrent (operational) funds -FIDECO (2010)= 53,200.00 US$ -SINAP (2010)= 81,124.00 US$

Project or other supplementary funds

- CBMAP II = 385,500 US$

What are the main values for which the area is designated?

The presence of a great biodiversity and endemic, the key function of the ecosystem of the present mountain in the high basins of the hydrologic network, that is born in the Pacific and Atlantic slopes; in order to guarantee its functions of strict conservation of the present cultural and natural resources. The provision of environmental services and the improvement of the quality of life of the settlers of the area of influence.

List the two primary protected area management objectives

Management objective 1

- To protect a significant sample of the biological diversity of one of the richest zones in fauna and flora that still remain a little altered in the Republic of Panama.

Management objective 2 - To maintain a natural environmental framework and stable that assure the cultural and socioeconomic development of the settlers down the water, diminishing the risks of flood and ensuring the continuity of the activities industrial farming that are given at present in the adjoining areas of the provinces of Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, as well as, in the Republic of Costa Rica.

No. of people involved in completing assessment

2

Including: (tick boxes)

PA manager

PA staff

Other PA

agency staff

NGO

Local community

Donors External experts

Other

Please note if assessment was carried out in association with a particular project, on behalf of an organization or donor.

- FIDECO - SINAP - CBMAP II



12

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list)

Date listed Tentative

UNESCO World Heritage site (April 1990)

Site name

La Amistad

International

Park

Site area

215,225.73 ha

Geographical

coordinates

N 9 24 25.5 W 82 56

Criteria for designation

(i.e. criteria i to x)

-They are outstanding examples that represent significant, progressive, and geological processes of biological evolution and the interaction of the man with their natural environment. - It Contains samples of the natural habitats more important and significant, where there is conservation of species of animals or threatened plants.

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)

Date listed

Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml)

Date listed

2000

Site name La Amistad Biosphere Reserve

Site area

655,558 ha

Geographical co-ordinates


(vii)(viii)(ix)(x)

Fulfillment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

-Maintaining a natural environmental framework and stable that assure the cultural and socioeconomic development of the settlers. - To Guarantee the continuity of the industrial farming activities.Those are given at present in the adjoining areas of the provinces of Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, as well as, in the Republic of Costa Rica. - To take advantage of the tourist potential of the stable natural landscape, as well as, their biological components.

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting information below

Name: Important Bird Area

Important areas for Birds in Panama (BT-10)



13

Protected Areas Threats: Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low

are threats which are presen,t but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint

High Medium Low N/A x 1.1 Housing and settlement x 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

x 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture

High Medium Low N/A x 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation x 2.1a Drug cultivation x 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations

x 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing x 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

3. Energy production and mining within a protected area Threats from production of non-biological resources

High Medium Low N/A x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling x 3.2 Mining and quarrying

x 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality

High Medium Low N/A x 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals)

x 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) x 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals

x 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals)

High Medium Low N/A x 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of

animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) x 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) x 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting

x 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources

High Medium Low N/A x 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism

x 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises

x 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas

x 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams)

x 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors



14

7. Natural system modifications

Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase

High Medium Low N/A x 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) x 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals

x 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems)

x 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources

High Medium Low N/A x 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water x 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets,

hotels etc) x 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water

quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, other pollution)

x 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides)

x 9.4 Garbage and solid waste x 9.5 Air-borne pollutants x 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a specie or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited.

High Medium Low N/A

x 10.1 Volcanoes x 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis x 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides

x 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events

outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A

x 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration x 11.2 Droughts

x 11.3 Temperature extremes x 11.4 Storms and flooding

12. Specific cultural and social threats High Medium Low N/A

x 12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices

x 12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values

x 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc

High Medium Low N/A x 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) x 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use

x 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area x 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without

effective aquatic wildlife passages) x 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values

x 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)



15



16

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box

per question

Comment/Explanation Next steps

1. Legal status

Does the protected area have legal status (or in the case of private reserves is covered by a covenant or similar)?

Context

The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted

0 The PILA was declared on 1988 INRENARE. By Resolution of Board of Directors 022-88 of Sept. 2, 1988 and it was published in Official Gazette No. 21.129 of September 6, 1988

There is agreement that the protected area should be gazetted/covenanted but the process has not yet begun

1

The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but the process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant)

2

The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3

2. Protected area regulations

Are appropriate regulations in place to control land use and activities (e.g. hunting)?

Planning

There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area

0 The Resolution that creates The PILA, establishes some prohibitions and regulations, above all in resources extraction matter, likewise in the management plan regulations as for the zoning they exist and the type of activity that is permitted.

Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist but these are major weaknesses

1

Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps

2 2

Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

3

3. Law

enforcement

Can staff (i.e. those with responsibility for managing the site) enforce protected area rules well enough?

Input

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

0 Although the staff of the protected area has the capacity to implement environmental regulations within the protected area, resources are limited. Currently the staff is not sufficient to monitor the area, so great efforts have to be done to control illegal activities in the area.

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, lack of institutional support)

1

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

2 2

The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

3



17


per question


4. Protected area objectives

Is management undertaken according to agreed objectives?

Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool of support to the management of the park that establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, possible uses and strategies. To improve the common participation, the protection, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystem and its zone of neighborhood.

The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to these objectives

1

The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed according to these objectives

2 2

The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these objectives

3

5. Protected area design

Is the protected area the right size and shape to protect species, habitats, ecological processes and water catchments of key conservation concern?

Planning

Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of the protected area is very difficult

0

Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of appropriate catchment management)

1

Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological processes)

2

Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc

3 3



18


per question


6. Protected area boundary demarcation

Is the boundary known and demarcated? Process

The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users

0

The Limit of PILA counts between him 50% and 75%on the demarcation of the area, the same are acquaintances by the authorities and local. Nevertheless, it is recommended chiefly in the Caribbean, to finish indicating the area limit with Costa Rica and recommends revising the limit with the Bosque Protector de Palo Seco, since both areas recover.

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users

1

The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but is not appropriately demarcated

2 2

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users and is appropriately demarcated

3


per question


7. Management plan

Is there a management plan and is it being implemented?

Planning

There is no management plan for the protected area

0 The management plan of the PILA has a specific activity that are established to carry out in a period of 5 years with the elaboration of the annual operating plans (POA), as well as the responsible for their execution.

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

1

A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems

2 2

A management plan exists and is being implemented 3

Additional points: Planning



19


per question


7a. Planning process

The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan

+1 +1 Management plan brought up to date (Resolution AG-0304-2004, force of 5 years G.OR. 25,116), at present an extension of the management plan was granted to so much be concluded with the updating of the same one. Upon having inside the territory of the PILA diverse indigenous groups, it is considered in the planning, their participation in the management of the area. The annual operating plans (POA 2009), the goals, activities, dates and responsible for the execution of some activities of the management plan. This POA devises with the participation of the stakeholders and activities that are identified, which are executed with the support of these groups.



20


per question


7b. Planning process

There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan

+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients it to take decisions on the protected areas of the country. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of PILA (average among, both results) was of 680 points that corresponds to good management; this evaluation was carried out with the participation of the stakeholders.

7c. Planning process

The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated into planning

+1 +1

8. Regular work plan

Is there a regular work plan and is it being implemented

Planning/Outputs

No regular work plan exists

0

A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented

1

A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented

2 2

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented

3

9. Resource inventory

Do you have enough information to manage the area?

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area

0

Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision making

1

Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making

2



21


per question


Input Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

3 3

10. Protection systems

Are systems in place to control access/resource use in the protected area?

Process/Outcome

Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in controlling access/resource use

0

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource use

1

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 2

Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ resource use

3

11. Research

Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area

0 The plan of management contains a research program and monitoring, but alone it defines some of the actions that have to be carried out,

There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management

1

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management

2 2



22


per question


Process

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs

3 among this to devise the plan of investigation that contain the priority lines. The protected area is being located in a private ecosystem, contains a high endemism, besides the studies of other sciences are required. It is being proposed in the plan to establish the capacity of load, but even it has not been elaborated. Nevertheless, in the area they have developed important an investigation of bi-national interest with foreigner’s contributions was Darwin Initiative; likewise they develop activities of investigation and tours of verification to the Paramo Fábrega Mountain.

12. Resource management

Is active resource management being undertaken?

Process

Active resource management is not being undertaken 0

Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented

1

Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key issues are not being addressed

2 2

Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented

3

13. Staff numbers

Are there enough people employed to

There are no staff

0 The management plan, contemplates the quantity of 17 officials to carry the management of the protected

Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities

1



23


per question


manage the protected area?

Inputs

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 2 area, likewise proposes a new chart of work, but this has not been implemented. It was indicated that there were not an agreement between the requests of personnel and it cited in the MP; personnel is needed to administer the infrastructures, support the programs and monitoring of the organizations and communities, attention to the tourists and environmental promotion; besides locate park rangers in the new areas (Candela, Los Pozos and Boquete).

Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area

3

14. Staff training

Are staff adequately trained to fulfil management objectives?

Inputs/Process

Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management

0 The personnel of the protected area is qualified to carry out the works of management. Nevertheless it is required to devise a plan or programs of training with the purpose of bringing up to date and to reinforce the abilities and know-how of the officials. Among some of the training that are required there, are related to the functions of the park ranger, besides, they request a devise of a training plan.

Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

2 2

Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the protected area

3

15. Current budget

Is the current budget sufficient?

There is no budget for management of the protected area

0 The PILA = TOTAL B/.

134,324 budget assigned in 2010 (SINAP + FIDECO).

The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage

1



24


per question


Inputs

The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully achieve effective management

2 2

The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the protected area

3

16. Security of budget

Is the budget secure?

Inputs

There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly reliant on outside or highly variable funding

0 (FIDECO) PILA Pacific 28,200 US$ - PILA Caribbean 25,000 US$ -(SINAP) PILA Pacific 35,998 US$ - PILA Caribbean 45,126 US$

(CBMAP) PILA Pacific 385,500 US$ - PILA Caribbean 205,779 US$

There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function adequately without outside funding

1

There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding

2 2

There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3

17. Management of budget

Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs?

Process

Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness (e.g. late release of budget in financial year)

0

Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness

1

Budget management is adequate but could be improved

2 2

Budget management is excellent and meets management needs 3

18. Equipment

Is equipment sufficient for management needs?

Input

There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs

0 The PILA -it has been built , but from the 75% of the necessary infrastructure for the adequate management of the area, besides to have acquired between the 50% and 75% of the necessary team for the management of the area

There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for most management needs

1

There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain management

2 2

There are adequate equipment and facilities

3

19. Maintenance of equipment

There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities

0



25


per question


Is equipment adequately maintained?

Process

There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities

1

There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities

2 2

Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3

20. Education and awareness

Is there a planned education programme linked to the objectives and needs?

Process

There is no education and awareness programme

0 The protected area counts on a plan of environmental education that is carried out as a group with community organizations of the area. A greater participation of the authorities for the achievement of the objectives is required, besides carrying out an evaluation on the results The environmental education plan is executed in some areas of neighborhood of the PILA. And it contemplates activities such as: Radio programs, videos, chats, posters, contests, environmental drawings, etc

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme

1

There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly meets needs and could be improved

2 2

There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and awareness programme

3

21. Planning for land and water use

Does land and water use planning recognise the protected area and aid the achievement of objectives?

Planning

Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area

0

Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the area

1

Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long term needs of the protected area

2 2

Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long term needs of the protected area

3

Additional points: Land and water planning



26


per question


21a: Land and water planning for habitat conservation

Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing the protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conditions (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats.

+1

21b: Land and water planning for connectivity

Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration).

+1 +1

21c: Land and water planning for ecosystem services & species conservation

"Planning adresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of

particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)"

+1

22. State and commercial neighbours

Is there co-operation with adjacent land and water users?

Process

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users

0

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users but little or no cooperation

1

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users, but only some co-operation

2 2

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management

3

23. Indigenous people

Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the protected area have input to management decisions?

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

0 Part of the protected area is located inside the Region of Ngäbe-Buglé, likewise inside the PILA we have the ancient areas of the Naso, who for many years have demanded the creation of their region and likewise inside the lands of the PILA, we have a population of natives of the

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct role in management

1

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved

2 2



27


per question


Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

3 ethnic group Bri-Bri, who are located chiefly among the limit of Panama and Costa Rica. Besides, diverse communities of the Ngäbe-Buglé, inside the limits of the Park exist. These communities and ethnic groups participate in organized group’s activities of management and management of the protected area.

24. Local communities

Do local communities resident or near the protected area have input to management decisions?

Process

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

0 Through the work Plan, the interest groups participate in the activities and in some decisions on the management of the protected area.

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct role in management

1 1

Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved

2

Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

3

Additional points Local communities/indigenous people

24 a. Impact on communities

There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers

+1 +1

24b. Impact on communities

Programmes to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented

+1 +1

24c. Impact on communities

Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area

+1 +1

25. Economic benefit

Is the protected area providing economic benefits to local communities, e.g.

The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local communities

0

Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are being developed

1

There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities

2 2



28


per question


income, employment, payment for environmental services?

Outcomes

There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from activities associated with the protected area

3

26. Monitoring and evaluation

Are management activities monitored against performance?

Planning/Process

There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area

0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients it to take decisions of the protected areas. This program evaluates 37 indicators that permit to measure the level of management of the protected area. This program already carries 10 years of execution, and for the 2009 The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the PILA was of 680 points that corresponds to good management. Nevertheless, the implementation of new indicators is required to permit the verification of the relation of the protected area and its impact in the quality of life of the users and the communities involved; likewise an indicator is required to help to corroborate if the management of the protected area has impacted the effective form in the conservation of the biodiversity

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

1

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results do not feed back into management

2

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management

3 3

27. Visitor facilities

Are visitor facilities adequate?

There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need

0

The protected area has a potential for the tourism development, being increased in the sector of Las Nubes in PILA Pacific; the

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

2 2



29


per question


Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

3 area has paths, the administrative headquarters offers the service of lodging and also camping. While the sector of Caribbean PILA, it should develop more infrastructure. It causes lacks of personnel to attend the visitors, as well as tourist guides.

Upon being a protected area with ecosystems of mountain, the access to the area is difficult. The majority of the visitors use adventurous type of activities and the area can be very dangerous, but the necessary measures are taken.

28. Commercial tourism operators

Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?

Process

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area

0

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

1

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values

2 2

There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values

3

29. Fees

If fees (i.e. entry fees or fines) are applied, do they help protected area management?

Inputs/Process

Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected

0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by the use is established and the services offered in the protected area of the National System of Protected Areas. The collection of fines and by services, the fund collected is transferred to the Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow this is how the money goes to finance the SINAP activities.

Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or its environs

1 1

Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area and its environs

2

Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected area and its environs

3

30. Condition of values

What is the condition of the important values

Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded

0 Although the indicator on the decrease of the threats maintained stable, the condition of the resources has improved

Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded

1



30


per question


of the protected area as compared to when it was first designated?

Outcomes

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded but the most important values have not been significantly impacted

2 2 and the measure to endow the Park of the facilities for the necessary management (Budget and personnel), the condition of these resources improved notably.

Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact

3

Additional Points: Condition of values

30a: Condition of values

The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or monitoring

+1 +1

30b: Condition of values

Specific management programmes are being implemented to address threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values

+1 +1

30c: Condition of values

Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are a routine part of park management

+1 +1

TOTAL SCORE

72


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X



9


Protected Areas




10

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1 Protected Area 4 : CHAGRES NATIONAL PARK



Date assessment carried out June 10, 2010

Name of protected area Chagres National Park


Designations

National

National Park IUCN

Category

II

International - Important Bird Area of Panama (PM-15);


In the Province of Panamá, districts of Panamá and Chepo; and in the Province of Colon, districts of Colon, Portobelo, Nombre de Dios, and Santa Isabel.

Date of establishment INRENARE. Executive Decree No. 73 of october 2, 1984(GO20,238)


State X

Private X

Community

X

Other

Management Authority National Environmental Authority. Autoridad Nacional del

Ambiente (ANAM)) Size of protected area (ha) 131,260.77 ha

Number of staff

Permanent

One Protected Area Chief and 16 Park Rangers

Temporary

0


Recurrent (operational) funds

-FIDECO (2008)= 30,000.00 US$ -SINAP (2008)= 170,634.00 US$


- Chagres Fund= 223,268.00 US$

What are the main values for which the area is designated

Preserving the natural forest for: a) the production of water of quality and in sufficient quantity for the operation of the Panama, b) industrial, domestic and hydroelectric generation to be provided to the cities of Panama and Colón, c) to conserve the zones of life (4) and, d) to maintain the ecological diversity, the genetic flow and evolutionary processes of the flora and fauna.




11

Management Objective 1

Conserving the natural resources, the biological diversity, and the natural scenic beauties of a key portion of the central mountain range for the consolidation of the Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano del Atlántico Panameño (CBMAP)


Protecting the hydrologic state of the rivers that drain from the protected area toward the Caribbean side, the Pacific, and the Central region of Panama, which are of singular importance for the hydroelectric generation projects execution, production of drinking water, and river


2


PA manager

PA staff

Other PA agency staff

NGO

Local community


Other


In preparation of FSP GEF Project “…….” Using PPG funds managed by IADB, with inputs from: - Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá (FIDECO) - SINAP - Chagres Fund -ACP. Measures of mitigation – Clearing of the Program of Expansion of the Panama Canal - the reforestation of 40 ha in the Chagres National Park in its zone of neighborhood. The recovery of areas degraded is included and activities to sustainable agriculture.

.



12



Date listed Tentative ( Site name Site area

km2

Geographical

co-ordinates





Date listed Site name Site area Geographical

number



Date listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical

co-ordinates





Important areas for Birds in Panama (PM-15)

4



13


Please tick all relevant existing threats as either high, medium, low or N/A. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low

are threats which are present, but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.




2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and graz ing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, Mari culture and aquaculture




High Medium Low N/A x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling x(*) 3.2 Mining and quarrying (*) but possible in near future x 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams


High Medium Low N/A x 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) x 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,)

x 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals x 4.4 Flight paths







x 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises x 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected

areas x 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle

use, artificial watering points and dams) x 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected

area staff and visitors

5



14

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions

High Medium Low N/A x 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson)

x 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use x 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area x 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without









hotels etc) x 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor

water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, other pollution)



10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited.

High Medium Low N/A









x 12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values x 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc



15

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The Chagres National Park was declared in 1985 by Executive Decree No. 73 of October 2, 1984. Publisher in Oficial Gazette No. 20,238 of February 4, 1985; by INRENARE (ANAM´s present). The Park is administered continuing the features established by the plan of management approved in 2005, at present in force (ANAM Resolution No. AG-0296-2004, August 2, 2004).


1


2




Planning


0 Chagres National Park has a management plan that indicates the programs to assist and establish mechanisms to regulate unsustainable human activities; however, it has limitations for the actual human activities practices. There we have the hunting area, the expansion of the agricultural frontier (although this has decreased), the activities of cars in the Indigenous areas


1


2 2


3

3. Law

enforcement


Input


0 Although the staff of the protected area has the capacity to implement environmental regulations within the protected areas, the resources are limited. Presently, the staff is not sufficient to monitor the area, so great efforts have to be made to control illegal activities in the area.


1


2 2


3



16


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool of support to the management of the park that establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, possible uses and strategies; to improve, the common participation, protection, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystem and

its zone of neighborhood. Also, funds provided by both the SINAP, FIDECO and Chagres Fund contribute to achieve these objectives.


1


2


3 3



Planning


0 The boundaries of the protected area are known both for staff and most inhabitants of the area, however there are three different limits: the one established by Executive Order, field survey and management plan. However, to verify Executive Decree versus the management plan, the current limits are more in line that the ones set in the Executive Decree.

A field survey where the boundaries were changed, but never published officially, keeping problems of ambiguity in the interpretation of them. Moreover, according to Law 21 of 1997 (Ley 21 de la ARI), areas under the category of protected wilderness area that apparently had to enter the Park, but have not yet been transferred. These areas are mainly located on the shores of Alajuela Lake and most are occupied by locals, is to be determined based on


1


2 2


3



17


per question


current land use feasibility of joining the protected area or not.




0

The boundaries of the protected area are known both for staff and most inhabitants of the area, however there are three different limits: the one established by Executive Order, field survey and management plan. However, to verify Executive Decree versus the management plan, the current limits are more in line that the ones set in the Executive Decree.

A field survey where the boundaries were changed, but never published officially, keeping problems of ambiguity in the interpretation of them. Moreover, according to Law 21 of 1997 (Ley 21 de la ARI), areas under the category of protected wilderness area that apparently had to enter the Park, but have not yet been transferred. These areas are mainly located on the shores of Alajuela Lake and most are occupied by locals, is to be determined based on current land use feasibility of joining the protected area or not.


1


2 2


3


per question


7. Management plan

Is there a management


0 The plan of management of the PN Chagres has a specific activities established to carry out in a period

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1



18


per question


plan and is it being implemented?

Planning

implemented of 5 years with the elaboration of the annual operating plans (POA), as well as, the responsible for their execution.


2

A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 3




+1 +1 The annual operating plans (POA 2009) goals, activities, dates and responsible for the execution of some of the activities of the plan of management.



+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to make decisions of the country protected areas. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the PN Chagres was of 914 points, that corresponds to a good management.



+1 +1 Monitoring results are taken into account when preparing the operational planning.



Planning/Outputs


0


1


2 2


3




0


1



19


per question


Input


2

Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

3 3



Process/Outcome


0


1



3

11. Research


Process


0 There is a monitoring program in Alto Chagres, together with staff from SOMASPA, ANAM officials and personnel of the Park have been done. Among the conservation targets that we monitor amphibians, aquatic insects, the jaguar.

This monitoring program has increased the knowledge of the state of biodiversity and helped to implement better conservation actions.


1


2


3 3



Process



1


2 2


3

13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 The Plan of Management for the



20


per question


Are there enough people employed to manage the protected area?

Inputs

PN Chagres proposed, approximately 40 staff but only has 16 actual.


1

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 2


3

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 The personnel of the park concentrate on a basic training in administrative management, legal base and procedure for retentions/seizures, besides elaboration of annual operating plans (POA). That more training would be required to fully realize objectives).



2 2


3

15. Current budget


Inputs


0 PN Chagres= 423,902.00 US$

TOTAL budget assigned in 2010 (SINAP+FIDECO)

Through the Chagres Fund there is a long-term budget for 10 years, but the ANAM must meet an annual compensation to ensure the management of the park.


1


2


3 3




0 Chagres Funds 223,268.00 US$


1


2 2



21


per question


Inputs There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3



Process


0


1


2 2


18. Equipment


Input


0 The protected area has facilities and equipment necessary for operation, also is given the annual maintenance required for equipment.


1


2 2


3



Process


0


1


2 2




Process


0 Environmental education plan Chagres NP actively run impact is measured annually according to indicators established in the plan, also drawing up a document that contains the evaluations and systematization in a table the indicators.


1


2 2


3

21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 0



22


per question


and water use


Planning

the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area


1


2 2


3




+1



+1




+1



Process


0


1


2 2


3


Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the protected area


0 Indigenous and traditional communities living within the area, do not understand the established legal status, however, they are respected and considered in management planning and activities


1 1



23


per question


have input to management decisions?

Process


2 within the protected area, allowing tourism activities in their communities.

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

3



Process


0 Interest groups participate in certain management decisions. There is also some interest from other organizations to establish some mechanism for management, and this is being studied.


1


2 2


3




+1 +1



+1 +1



+1


Is the protected area providing economic benefits to local communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for environmental services?

Outcomes


0


1 1


2


3



0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1



24


per question



Planning/Process

and/or no regular collection of results Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to make decisions of the protected areas.


2 2


3



Outputs


0

The protected area currently lacks basic services and facilities for tourism and recreation levels, occurring within the Park. The aim is to build a visitors center and improve access by the sector of Alajuela.

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1 1


2

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

3



Process


0


1


2 2


3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by the use is established and the services that offer the protected areas of the National System of Protected Areas. The collections of fines and by services pass to the fund of the Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow, this is how that money SINAP Financing activity

goes.


1 1


2


3


What is the condition of the important values of the protected area as


0 As documented in recent years, both by other sources PMEMAP, as the condition of resources has improved somewhat.


1

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded 2 2



25


per question


compared to when it was first designated?

Outcomes

but the most important values have not been significantly impacted Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact

3




+1 +1



+1 +1



+1

TOTAL SCORE

69


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X


9


Protected Areas



10


Protected Area 5: COIBA NATIONAL PARK

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT (email etc.)

Marta C. Moreno [email protected]

Date assessment carried out July 5, 2010

Name of protected area

Coiba National Park


Designations

National

National Park IUCN

Category II

International - UNESCO World Heritage site (2005) - Important Bird Area of Panama (VR-3);

Country Panama

Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference)

Gulf of Chiriquí, in the South-Western region of the

Panamanian Pacific

Date of establishment - Law 44 of July 26, 2004 – (Ley 44 del 26 de julio de 2004) (GO 25,104).


State

X Private

Community

Other

Management Authority

National Environmental Authority - Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM)

Size of protected area (ha) 256,195 ha

Number of staff

Permanent One Protected Area Chief and 18 park rangers

Temporary 0

Annual budget (US$) –

excluding staff salary costs




- MarViva Foundation (2010)


It contains outstanding examples that represent the significant ecological and biological processes that influence in the evolution and the development of the terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic freshwater, coastal and marine, and of plants and animal of the communities, besides possessing places that contain the most important and significant natural habitat for the conservation of the biodiversity; including those that contain universal species threatened of value, by the point of view of the science or the conservationists.


11



To conserve the marine and terrestrial ecosystems, the biological diversity and the cultural resources of the PN Coiba

Management objective 2 To protect the outstanding species of the flora and wild fauna,

as well as, those species threatened or in danger of extinction.


4


PA manager �

PA staff �

Other PA

agency staff

�

NGO �

Local community �

Donors � External experts

�

Other �


- FIDECO - SINAP - MarViva


12




(date of submission)

July 17, 2005

Site name

Coiba National Park and its

Special Zone of Marine Protection

Site area

256,195 ha

Geographical co-

ordinates

7° 10’04” to 7° 53’37”N

8° 32’37” to 8° 56’15”W.


(i.e. criteria i to x) Criterion IX, stands out the outstanding examples that represent the significant ecological and biological processes that influence the evolution and development of the terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic freshwater, coastal and marine, and of the communities of plants and animal

-Criterion X stands out those places that contain the most important and significant natural habitats for the conservation of the biodiversity, including those that contain universal species threatened of value, since the point of view of the science or the conservation.



Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number



Date listed

Site name

Site area





Name: Important Bird Area of Panama (2003)

Important areas for Birds in Panama (VR-3)


13


Please tick all relevant existing threats as high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low




X 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure





High Medium Low N/A x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling x 3.2 Mining and quarrying x 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams
















14


High Medium Low N/A x 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) x 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use x 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area x 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without

effective aquatic wildlife passages) x 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values x 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)


High Medium Low N/A x 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) x 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals x 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased

problems) x 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)








High Medium Low N/A x 10.1 Volcanoes x 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis x 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides




x 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration x 11.2 Droughts x 11.3 Temperature extremes x 11.4 Storms and flooding






15

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The Coiba National Park was created by means of the Resolution of board of directors of the INRENARE No. 21-91 of December 17, 1991 (Official Gazette No. 21,958). And then in 2004 its creation was raised to Law of the Republic (Law 44 of July 26, 2004 (GO 25,104). Since July 17, 2005 in the meeting of Durban, the Park has been appointed as World Heritage Site for mankind.


1


2



Are appropriate regulations in place to control land use and


0 Through the Law 44, that creates the MPA norms, they established the mechanisms to regulate the activities of uses inside the Park, as for example: Art. 5: prohibiting certain


1


2 2



16


per question


activities (e.g. hunting)?

Planning


3 activities inside the park such as: long, human occupation, agribusiness activities, construction of infrastructures of high impact, among others Art. 10: the special zone of marine protection is established Art. 11: creates a zone of exclusion prohibiting fishing with networks of tuna fence Art 12: creates the commission for the sustainable management of the fishing in the special zone of marine protection, whose function will be to regulate the activities of uses and to define the conservation policies Art. 14: creates the scientific committee, who will support and assess the board of directors in technical and investigation questions Art. 19: creates the executive counsel that will have the task to approve and monitor the management plan Nevertheless, although, these instances have been recognized, it still exist a gap that prevents the application of the regulation in his totality

3. Law

enforcement

Can staff (i.e. those with responsibility for managing the site) enforce protected area


0 The personnel of the protected area and related officials have the capacity to enforce the application of the norms and laws, nevertheless, the lack of appropriate resources limits a little bit their performance; in the


1


2 2



17


per question


rules well enough?

Input


3 case of the Coiba MPA, diverse instances exist that support the work that refers to the control and caution.


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan of the Coiba NP is the tool of support to the management of the park, which establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, for possible use and strategies, to improve the common participation, the protection, conservation and sustainable management of the terrestrial and marinate resources and its zone of neighborhood. The implementation of the management plan supports the compliance of the objectives, in order that at the age of five, they have themselves, reduced the threats.


1


2


3 3



Planning


0


1


2



18


per question



3 3




0

The Law 44 establishes which are the limits of the national park, all the marine zone, nevertheless, has had limitations to demarcate them physically because of the costly process.


1


2 2


3


per question


7. Management plan


Planning


0 The plan of management is the document guidance counselor for the management of the PN Coiba, which contemplates objectives, norms, guidelines, actions and strategies to continue. In an extensive process of planning developed by the technical analysis of the natural resources with the participation of different actors involved. The management plan is approved in 2009, at present in force (ANAM Resolution No. AG-0449-2009) by a period of 5 years.


1


2 2





19


per question




+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plan (POA 2008), the goals, the activities, dates and responsibility for the execution of some of the activities of the management plan.



+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles the information on the management and orients to make decisions of the protected areas of the country. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Coiba NP was of 719 points that corresponds to a good management.



+1 +1 The results of the monitoring are taken into account in the devise of the operating planning.



Planning/Outputs


0


1


2 2


3




0


1


2



20


per question



3 3



Process/Outcome


0 ANAM and an NGO, MarViva are working together to strengthen the protection systems in place.


1



3

11. Research



0 The scientific investigation in the Coiba NP, particularly in the country marine, has been an important component that has been developed from the principles of the 1970´s, but has


1


2



21


per question


Process


3 3 not been until recent years that has been utilized for the management of the park. In some coral reefs manipulative experiments for more than 35 years have been carried out, and of to date, they have not caused significant negative effects. On this matter, the dive scientist is an important component of the scientific activities that are carried out in the marine middle. Likewise, the studies on the terrestrial flora have contributed to the enlargement of the knowledge on the terrestrial ecosystems of the Coiba NP, but without greater impact in its management. Nevertheless, the present management plan has incorporated happiness information to the decisions of management and proposes to carry out monitoring, particularly in the one that refers to the coral reefs, fisheries and the vegetation of the wetlands. The management plan establishes a research program and monitoring, whose objectives to orient chiefly the management of the Park, besides, the management plan creates the Scientific Committee, who supported these activities, so much in the elaboration of the plan of investigation and evaluation of said investigations. It is counted also with strategic allies that support these activities of investigation. Nevertheless, even themselves, not all the count on personnel and supplies for this program, for which limitations exist.



22


per question




Process



1


2 2


3

13. Staff numbers


Inputs

There are no staff

0 The management plan of Coiba NP, proposes 5 programs of management and an organizing structure. To be able to comply with the objectives established in the plan, the same one proposes 40 officials; nevertheless, alone the Park 19 officials work carrying out above all, works of control and caution.


1



3

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 During the PMEMAP sessions of 2009, the personnel of the Coiba NP explained, that they require greater training and updates in order to execute the actions according to the Management Plan; the personnel indicated that they require training in the English language; it was suggested to maintain the continuity of the personnel that labors in the park.



2 2


3

15. Current budget



0 The Coiba NP maintains

a current budget (2010) of B/. 138.040,00, divided between the financing of the

SINAP and FIDECO:


1 1


2



23


per question


Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the protected area

3

-FIDECO (2010)= 41,000 US$

-SINAP (2010)= 97,040 US$ Nevertheless, this budget is not sufficient for the management of a marine area as in the Coiba NP. The Law 44 creates the Fund of the Coiba NP, the same one that should supply the financial needs for the management of the Park; it has not yet been regulated neither implemented. In spite of the no culmination of the process of regulation of the fund, it has been achieved (August 2008) the partial disbursement of resources to attend the compliance established with the local governments and the University Regional Center (CRU) of Mildews. The transparency in the administration of said fund will serve of guarantee and compensation to the local and international management of sources of financing, with which the strategic alliances will be established as indicated. It is proposed, also, to carry out the pertinent studies to prepare the design of a conducive proposal to the application of measures oriented to the financial sustainability of the Management Plan of the Coiba NP, that permit 13 to define the financial mechanisms to vote for the costs of implementation of the operations in the Coiba NP during the next fifteen years.



24


per question




Inputs


0 In the interim, themselves they are identifying short-term investment funds, through CI, TNC, Foundation MarViva and the UNESCO. The SENACYT and the CYTED have signed a Covenant of Cooperation to establish a scientific station in the Coiba NP, and at the same time, the SENACYT will offer funds for the scientific investigation in the same one, through a process of public assembly directed by the investigators.


1


2 2




Process


0


1


2 2


18. Equipment


Input


0 The Coiba NP has acquired teams of field and of office, According to the PMEMAP, between the 50% and less than 75% of the team for the priority activities of management of the protected area has been acquired.


1


2 2


3


Is equipment


0


1



25


per question


adequately maintained?

Process


2 2




Process


0


1


2 2


3



Planning


0


1


2 2


3




+1



+1




+1



26


per question




Process


0


1


2 2


3



Process


0 So much inside the protected area as in the buffer zone and of influence of the protected area, it does not exist any established towns or native communities, nevertheless, natives exist and live in the communities of the coast in firm land, that just like they are all able in some moments to make use of the resources of the protected area, whenever they are adjusted to the regulations of the area. Likewise, the same has spaces of consultation through the diverse instances created for it.


1


2 2


3


Do local communities resident or near the protected area have input to management


0 During the PMEMAP sessions (2009), in the Coiba NP, in spite of the fact that the groups have a vote in the Counsel and Scientific Committee and in the Committee of the special zone; they perceive


1


2 2



27


per question


decisions?

Process Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

3 that themselves do not feel sufficiently represented. It is suggested that they utilize room courtesy and to cause the arrival of the local authorities, and the anxieties to be transmitted to the Counsel and Committees. The actors have participated in diverse moments in the elaboration/updating of the management plan of the Coiba NP.




+1 +1



+1 +1



+1 +1



Outcomes


0


1 1


2


3



Planning/Process


0 The Coiba NP has acquired

teams of field and of office, According to the PMEMAP, between the 50% and less than 75% of the team for the priority activities of management of the protected area has been acquired.


1


2


3 3



28


per question




Outputs


0

Facilities and infrastructure that exist for the visitors of the protected area, which is one of those visited, a center of visitor’s counts on themselves and a station where rooms exist where they can remain, besides the camp areas,

among others.



2 2


3



Process


0


1


2


3 3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by the use is established and the services that offer the protected areas of the National System of Protected Areas. The collections of fines and by services, they pass fund to the SINAP. As for this new rate, the Coiba NP differentiates itself, of the other marine protected area, by having different rates for admission, lodging, anchorage and to camp, relating to other protected areas. During the PMEMAP sessions of 2009, the personnel of the Coiba NP explained, that they requires greater training and updating to execute the actions according to the Management Plan of the personnel indicated that they require training in the English language.


1


2 2


3



29


per question



What is the condition of the important values of the protected area as compared to when it was first designated?

Outcomes


0 To weigh that themselves none of the threats have been able to be eradicated, the state of the resources is considered in good conditions, above all by the location of the protected area (distance) and the state in which was found, you said resources, to the moment to be declared protected area, has contributed to that so they be maintained. One must say that they have contributed to the management of the ANAM with the program of Control and Caution and the organizations and Institutions that collaborate, I gave to I gave with the management of the Park.


1


2


3 3




+1 +1



+1 +1



+1 +1

TOTAL SCORE

75


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X



9


Protected Areas




10


Protected Area 3: ALTOS DE CAMPANA NATIONAL PARK



Date assessment carried out

July 10, 2010 Name of protected area

Campana National Park

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-

Designations

National Park

IUCN Category

II

International - Important Bird Area of Panama (PM-1);

Countr Panama Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference)

Province de Panamá, district of Capira and Chame

Date of establishment

Decreto No. 153 del 28 de junio de 1966. Gaceta Oficial No. 15,655 del 6 de julio de 1966.


State X

Private X

Community X

Other


National Environmental Authority - Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM))

Size of protected area 4,816 ha Number of staff

Permanent One Protected Area Chief

and 8 Park Rangers

Temporary 0






At the time, was classified as a National Park and Biological Reserve, because it contained species of fauna and flora important and of great interest for scientific research, in addition to a scenic value and protect important water sources.



11



Support integrated and sustainable rural development in the region of Altos de Campana, through the conservation of basic resources of land, nature tourism, environmental education, recreation, directed and sustainable agricultural production.


Maintain water supply sources supplying agro-industries, irrigation systems and drinking water of the region and providing substantial inputs to Lake Gatun and coastal-marine ecosystem of the Bay of Chame


2


PA manager �

PA staff �

Other PA agency staff �

NGO �

Local community �

Donors � External

experts �

Other �


- Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá (FIDECO) - SINAP - ACP. Mitigation - Compensation Program Expansion of Panama Canal - the reforestation of 30 hectares in the PN Altos de Campana in their neighborhood. The recovery of areas degraded is included and activities to sustainable agriculture.



12



Date listed Tentative ( Site name Site area

km2

Geographical

co-ordinates






number



Date listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical

co-ordinates


Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)



Important Bird Area of Panama (PM-1); 2004



13


Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterised as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.





High Medium Low N/A x 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation

x 2.1a Drug cultivation x 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations

x 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing x

2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture










6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources






5



14

















High Medium Low N/A












15



16

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 Was The Campana National Park Declared in 1966 by Decree No. 153 of June 28, 1966 (Official Gazette No. 15.655 of July 6, 1966) and amended by Decree No. 35 of April 28, 1977. (GO. N º 18.645 of 21 August 1978). The Park is Administered Established Continuing the features of management plan by the year 1999, approved by resolution AG - 0033-2004, as amended by resolution AG - 0259-2007


1


2




Planning


0 Was The Campana National Park Declared in 1966 by Decree No. 153 of June 28, 1966 (Official Gazette No. 15.655 of July 6, 1966) and amended by Decree No. 35 of April 28, 1977. (GO. N º 18.645 of 21 August 1978).

Campana National Park, has a management plan that indicates which programs to assist and establish mechanisms to regulate unsustainable human activities, however it has limitations for the actual, Human activities practiced in the we have the hunting area, the agricultural frontier expansion, tourism and infrastructure development.


1


2 2


3



17


per question


3. Law

enforcement


Input


0 Although the staff of the protected area has the capacity to implement environmental regulations within the protected area, the resources are limited. Currently the staff is not sufficient nor has the resources to monitor the area.


1


2 2


3


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The boundaries of the protected area, are known both for staff and most inhabitants of the area


1


2


3 3



Planning


0


1


2



18


per question



3




0

The boundaries of the protected area, are known both for staff and most inhabitants of the area


1


2


3 3


per question


7. Management plan


Planning


0 The plan of management of the Campana NP has a specific activities are established to carry out in a period of 5 years with the elaboration of the annual operating plans (POA), as well as the responsible for their execution.


1


2





+1 +1 The annual operating plans (POA 2008) the goals, activities, dates and responsible for the execution some activities of the plan of management



19


per question




+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) compile information on the management and orients to it takes of decisions of the areas protected of the country. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Campana PN was of 699 points that corresponds to good management.



+1 +1 The results of the monitoring are taken into account when devises the operating planning



Planning/Outputs


0 The plan of management is approved 2009, at present in force (ANAM probado por Resolución AG - 0033-2004; modificado por Resolución AG - 0259-2007 by a period of 5 years


1


2 2


3



Input


0


1


2


3 3



20


per question




Process/Outcome


0


1 1

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2


3

11. Research


Process


0 The management plan has a sub-program of research. Which contains a series of research activities both biological, social, economical to use the results to the proper management of protected area. Although there are investigations that have been done in the area, very few respond to the needs of park management However, despite having a list of research activities have not yet succeeded in establishing the sub.


1


2 2


3



Process



1


2 2


3

13. Staff numbers

Are there enough people employed to manage the protected

There are no staff

0 The Plan of Management for the Bell NP, suggests the number of 26 staff (20 ranger) but currently has only nine staff members including the head of the area.


1




21


per question


area?

Inputs


3

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 The protected area staff is trained to perform their duties, however have indicated that they require more staff participation in training on the foreigner who as representatives of organized groups. Additionally, it requires training in the use of software and mapping, internships and experiences in other protected areas



2 2


3

15. Current budget


Inputs


0 budget assigned in 2010.

PN Campana B/. 8,250

(FIDECO) + B/. 25,905 (SINAP) = B/. 34,155


1 1


2


3



Inputs


0 FIDECO $ 8,250


1


2 2




0



22


per question



Process


1


2 2


18. Equipment


Input


0 The Campana NP has acquired teams of field and of office , Segun the PMEMAP, between the 50% and less than 75% of the team for the priority activities of management of the area protected has been acquired.

They are currently building new facilities in the park.


1


2 2


3



Process


0


1 1


2




Process


0


1 1


2


3



23


per question




Planning


0


1


2 2


3




+1



+1




+1



Process


0


1 1


2


3



24


per question




Process


0 In the area there are no indigenous communities. Local communities are composed mostly of peasants working in agriculture and livestock. It is these that are part of the interest groups to which they are invited to meetings and participate, but still not considered in making decisions.


1 1


2


3



Process


0 Interest groups participate in some planned activities in the protected area. Although not considered in management decisions. In PMEMAP sessions participants consider that to be taken into account and involve groups of Ares planned activities, incentives for producers in the area to improve their income and thus enhance the conservation of the AP.


1 1


2


3




+1 +1



+1



+1 +1


Is the protected area


0



25


per question


providing economic benefits to local communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for environmental services?

Outcomes


1 1


2


3



Planning/Process


0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to it takes of

decisions of the areas protected.


1


2


3 3



Outputs


0 The Campana NP is one of the major areas visited, especially towards its proximity to the city, and increasing tourism in the west, Chame and San Carlos.

There are facilities for visitors, a viewpoint, several paths, the administrative headquarters, but still lacking to establish other facilities to support tourism and public use as a visitors center and others



2 2


3


Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area


0


1 1


2



26


per question


management?

Process


3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by the use is established and the services that offer the areas protected of the National System of Areas Protected. The collections of fines and by services they pass to the fund of the SINAP.


1


2 2


3



Outcomes


0 The condition of resources, may have been maintained, however although it may have decreased the threat and the advancement of the agricultural frontier, the perceived loss of biodiversity in the area.


1 1


2

Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3




+1



+1 +1



+1

TOTAL SCORE 60


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X


9


Protected Areas



10


Protected Area 1: MARINE NATIONAL PARK BASTIMENTOS ISLAND


Marta C. Moreno, Biologist

[email protected]

Date assessment carried out June 10, 2010

Name of protected area Marine National Park Bastimentos Island


Designations

National

Marine National Park

IUCN Category

II

International (please also complete sheet overleaf )

- Important Bird Area of Panama (BT-5);

- Biosphere Reserve

Country Panama


Province of Bocas del Toro, archipelago of Bocas del Toro, districti of Bocas del Toro

Date of establishment INRENARE. Resolution of board of directors JD-022-88, September 2, 1988 (GO 21,129)

Ownership details (please tick) State

X

Private

X

Community

X

Other

Management Authority National Envrionmental Authority – Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM)

Size of protected area (ha) 13,069.62

Number of staff Permanent

4

Temporary

0



-FIDECO (2008)= 62,020.00 US$

-SINAP (2008)= 26,290.00 US$


- CBMAP II (2008)= 236.000.00 US$


Conserves a representative sample and unique of the marine ecosystems of the Caribbean and the protection of insular forests and in the conservation of the unique insular fresh water lagoon in the island of Bastimentos of the Archipelago of Bocas del Toro.



Conserve a significant sample of the coastal and marine ecosystems, with special attention to those of vital importance for the sea turtles

Management objective 2 Take advantage of the tourism potential of the natural landscape, as well as their biological components.

No. of people involved in completing assessment 2


11


PA manager PA staff � Other PA

agency staff � NGO �

Local community � Donors � External experts � Other �

Please note if assessment was carried out in association with a particular project, on behalf of an organisation or donor.

In preparation of FSP GEF Project “…….” Using PPG funds managed by IADB, with inputs from: - Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá (FIDECO) - SINAP - CBMAP II - The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Delimitation of the marine area of the PNMIB.


12




co-ordinates






number



Date listed

2000

Site name

La Amistad Reserve of the Biosphere (2001)

Site area

Total: 655,558 ha

Core:

Buffer:

Transition:

Geographical

co-ordinates

9°22’47”- 9°14’17” North

82°12’03”-82°01’05” East


These are outstanding examples that represent significant progressive and geological processes of biological evolution and the interaction between man and its natural environment.

It contains samples of the more important and significant natural habitats, where important species of threatened animals or plants are conserved

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

-Maintain a stable natural environment that supports the cultural and socioeconomic development of the settlers. -Guarantee the continuity of the agro-industrial activities that take place in the adjoining areas of the provinces of Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, as well as in the Republic of Costa Rica. -Take advantage of the tourism potential of the natural landscape, as well as of its biological components.


Name: Important areas for Birds in Panama

Detail:

Important areas for Birds in Panama (BT-5)

Name: Detail:

Name: Detail:


13


Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present, but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.




2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, Mari culture and aquaculture




High Medium Low N/A x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling (*) but possible in near future x 3.2 Mining and quarrying x 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams









High Medium Low N/A x 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism x 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises x 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected





14


High Medium Low N/A x 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) x 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use x 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area x 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without

effective aquatic wildlife passages) x 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values x 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or

are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A

x 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) x 8.1a Invasive non native/alien animals x 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased

problems) x 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)








High Medium Low N/A x 10.1 Volcanoes x 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis x 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides




x 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration x 11.2 Droughts x 11.3 Temperature extremes x 11.4 Storms and flooding





15

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The Marine National Park Bastimentos Island was declared

in 1988 by the INRENARE

(ANAM at present); the first marine park established in the Republic of Panama and is the unique one that conserves a sample of the marine ecosystems of the Caribbean side of the country. The Park is administered continuing the features established by the Plan of Management approved in 2004, at present in force (ANAM Resolution No. AG-0296-2004, August 2, 2004).


1


2




Planning


0 Fishing is taking place with no control (Lobster, mollusks, cucumber of sea, and other species), furtive shooting (agouti and sea turtles), sea turtles eggs harvesting, and extraction of woods trees. The marine, terrestrial patrolling in critical areas have been carried out with different levels of intensity and success in different periods; because they depend on the number of available officials, fuel and other supplies assigned.


1

1


2


3

3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

0 The national authority of the environment (ANAM) receives


16


per question


enforcement


Input


1 the support of other governmental institutions: The Authority of the Aquatic Resources of Panama (ARAP) develops a Plan of Coastal Management for the province of Bocas del Toro. It is a plan of action for the sustainable fisheries and strengthening of the organizations fishing grounds in the region. The Department of Government and Justice in Panama inaugurated the Naval Air Base of Rambala (Bocas el Toro) to give security to the area and to protect it from criminal acts.


2 2


3


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The plan of management of the PNMIB is a tool of support to the management of the park that establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, possible uses and strategies. To improve, the common participation, the protection, conservation and sustainable management of the terrestrial and marine resources of the PNMIB and its zone of neighborhood.


1


2 2


3


17


per question




Planning


0


1


2


3 3




0

In the first months of 1989 the establishment of the demarcation of the terrestrial limits was initiated to cover some 16 lineal km (sector east and western), this process was completed in 1991. The initial demarcation of the marine zone, with buoys, was lost partly with the earthquake of April of 1991. At present The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has supported the marine delimitation.


1


2


3 3


per question



18


per question


7. Management plan


Planning


0 The plan of management of the PNMIB has specific activities that are established to carry out in a period of 5 years with the elaboration of the annual operating plans (POA), as well as, the responsible for their execution.


1


2 2





+1 +1 The plan of management is approved in 2004, at present in force (ANAM Resolution No. AG-0296-2004, August 2, 2004).



+1 +1 The annual operating plans (POA 2008), the goals, activities, dates and responsible for the execution of some of the activities of the plan of management.



+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to decision making of the protected areas of the country. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2007) of the PNMIB was of 604 points that corresponds to a regular management.



Planning/Outputs


0 POA 2008 approved, executed and it evaluated in 2009.


1


2 2


3


19


per question




Input


0


1


2


3 3



Process/Outcome


0 Inside the Park there are several activities that take place, due to communities living inside the Park, like agriculture, pasture. Currently, it is still very difficult to control and monitor protection systems established by the environmental authorities.


1 1



3

11. Research


Process


0 The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute is the main investigator of the area, through its Station of Investigations (Colon Island) which carries out the majority of the studies in the park and its zones of neighborhood.


1


2 2


3



Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 Protection systems (permits, patrols) need to be strengthened in order to achieve active management of critical habitats.


1


2 2


20


per question


Process


3

13. Staff numbers


Inputs

There are no staff

0 The Plan of Management for the PNMIB proposed the most minimum number of seven officials [a director, five park rangers and a responsible for relations with the community]. At present, it counts with four officials (a director and three park rangers).


1



3

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 The personnel of the park concentrates on a basic training in administrative management, legal base and procedures for retentions/seizures, besides the elaboration of Annual Operating Plans (POA).



2 2


3

15. Current budget


Inputs


0 PNM Bastimentos Island =

TOTAL 322,290 US$, budget assigned in 2010


1


2 2


3

16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly reliant on outside or highly variable funding

0 0 FIDECO 60,000 US$


21


per question



Inputs


1 SINAP 26,290 US$ CBMAP II 236,000 US$ There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected

area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding 2




Process


0


1 1


2


18. Equipment


Input


0 The PNMIB has acquired teams of field and office equipment that include rowboats, outboard motors, and life preservers, as well as,

filing cabinets and desks. The PNMIB has less than the 50% of team required


1 1


2


3



Process


0


1 1


2




0 The production of basic informative pamphlets on the unit of


22


per question



Process


1 conservation has been one of the main activities, which are distributed at the local level (schools and institutions) and to national level, on displays and other events environmentalists. There are activities for the program of environmental education.


2 2


3



Planning


0


1


2 2


3




+1



+1 +1




+1



0


23


per question



Process


1


2 2


3



Process


0 There is monitoring of the projects of CBMAP II in the communities of the zone of neighborhood: San Cristobal Island, Tigre Island and Marañón ravine


1 1


2


3



Process


0


1


2 2


3




+1 +1



+1 +1


24


per question




+1 +1



Outcomes


0


1


2 2


3



Planning/Process


0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to it takes of decisions of the areas protected.


1 1


2


3



Outputs


0

Basic facilities, natural paths and visitor center, counts on itself



2


3


Do commercial tour


0


1 1


25


per question


operators contribute to protected area management?

Process


2


3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection for the use is established and the services offer by the protected areas of the National System of Protected Areas and the collections of fines goes to the fund of the SINAP.


1


2 2


3



Outcomes


0 The different ecosystems of the PNMIB are found in good conditions, the threats of the residential tourism in the areas of neighborhood are stopped by legal actions toward the construction companies.


1 1


2


3



26


per question




+1 1 The condition of values in the Park is constantly being evaluated. The two most critical management activities are: monitoring to conserve sea turtles and community projects as alternatives for residents of the island to alleviate poverty and inappropriate use of natural resources, through achieving financial sustainability to support long-term management of the Park.



+1 1



+1 1

TOTAL SCORE

62


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4


1. Project Name: PROGRAM FOR THE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY

THROUGH THE ECOTOURISM IN PROTECTED AREAS OF PANAMA 2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): FSP 3. Project ID (GEF): 3889 4. Project ID (IA): PN-X1003 and PN-X1004 5. Implementing Agency: Inter-American Development Bank 6. Country(ies): Panama









biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X



9


Protected Areas




10


Protected Area 8 : VOLCAN BARU NATIONAL PARK



Date assessment carried out

August 6, 2010 Name of protected area

Barú Volcano National Park WDPA site code (these

codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)

Designations

National National Park

IUCN Category

II

International - Important Bird Area of Panama (CH-2); - La Amistad Biosphere Reserve


Province of Chiriquí, including the districts of Bugaba, Boquerón, Boquete, Dolega and David

Date of establishment

Executive Decree No. 40 of Jun 24, 1976. Official Gazette No. 18,619 of Jun 13, 1978. (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 40 del 24 de junio 1976. Gaceta Oficial No. 18,619 de 13 de julio 1978)


State X

Private X

Community

X Other


National Environmental Authority (Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente) (ANAM)

Size of protected area 13,069.62 ha Number of staff

Permanent One Protected Area

Chief and 3 park rangers

Temporary 0



-FIDECO (2010)= 12,550 US$ -SINAP (2010)= 31,855US$

Project or other supplementary

funds

- CBMAP II (2010)= 348,000 US$



11


The presence of great biodiversity and endemic relies in the Barú Volcano, as the highest point in Panama (3.474 msnm), the weather depends on both, Pacific and the Atlantic (Not Carribbean) oceans. This mountain range is the source of the main hydrographic basins of the Caldera, Chiriquí, Chiriquí Viejo, David, Cricamola, Piedra, Fonseca and Gariché Rivers, which are considered the most important within the country. This is located in the Talamanca region of forests mount, tropical forests (very humid) and virgin rivers, where we find zones in the country that are very well conserved.



To protect a significant sample of the natural ecosystems found in the area and of the characteristic ecological processes of these environments.


To conserve the basins hydrographic superior areas of the region of Talamanca by its hydroelectric potential of vital importance for the future development of the country.


2


PA manager

PA staff

Other PA

agency staff

NGO

Local community


Other


- Ecological Trusts of Panama (Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá) (FIDECO) - SINAP - CBMAP II



12

International Designation Information


Date of Inscription

Site name

Site area

Geographical Coordinates


(i.e. criteria i a x)

Statement of outstanding universal value

Ramsar Site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)

Date listed

Site name Site area Geographical number



Date listed

2000

Site name

La Amistad Reserve of the

Biosphere (2001)

Site area

655,558 ha


9°22’47”- 9°14’17” North 82°12’03”-82°01’05”

East


- Outstanding examples that represent significant, progressive, and geological processes of biological evolution and the interaction of man with their natural environment. - Samples of the most important and significant natural habitats, where there are conserved animal species or plants threatened.


- To maintain a natural and stable environmental framework that ensures the cultural and socioeconomic development of the settlers. - Guaranteeing the continuity of industrial farming activities that are taken place at present in the adjoining areas of the provinces of Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, as well as, in the Republic of Costa Rica. - Take advantage of the potential tourism of the stable natural landscape, as well as, their biological components.


Name: Important Bird Area of Panama (2003)

Important areas for Birds in Panama CH-2.



13



are threats that are present, but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.


High Medium Low N/A x 1.1 Housing and settlement

x 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas x 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure





High Medium Low N/A x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling x 3.2 Mining and quarrying x 3.3 Energy generation, including hydropower dams


High Medium Low N/A x* 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) (*) but possible in

near future x 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) x 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals

x 4.4 Flight paths













14

7. Natural system modifications

Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions.





9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A

x 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water x 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets,





10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbances in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. High Medium Low N/A

x 10.1 Volcanoes (Although not activity) x 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis

x 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides x 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed) )changes)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A













15



16

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The Baru Volcano was declared as NP in 1976 by Executive Decree No. 40 of June 24, 1976 and published in the Official Gazette No. 18.619 of July 13, 1978 Component of the nucleus area of the La Amistad Reserve of the Biosphere (2001) and the Important areas for Birds in Panama (CH-2).


1


2




Planning


0 The Barú Volcano NP has established the basic norms to control the unsustainable human activities, likewise, the management plan, is the legal tool for the activities of management, through the established zoning and to regulate the activities inside the protected area.


1


2 2


3

3. Law

enforcement


Input


0 Although the staff of the protected area has the capacity to implement environmental regulations within the protected area, resources are limited. Currently, there is not enough staff to monitor the area, so there are great efforts to control illegal activities in the area.


1 1


2


3



17


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool of support to the management of the park which establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, possible uses and strategies, to improve the common participation, the protection, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystem and its zone of neighborhood.


1


2


3 3



Planning


0


1


2 2


3



18


per question





0

The land demarcation (limits) of the Barú Volcano NP area is between 50% and 75%, the same are acquaintances by the authorities and locals. Nevertheless, in the management plan, proposals exist to modify the limits, as for the affectation of the areas, where some communities are located, and besides themselves are suggested to include natural increase of the area, including natural ecosystems of importance for the objectives of the Park.


1


2


3 3


per question


7. Management plan



0 The management plan of the Baru Volcano NP has specific activities that are established to be carried out in a period of 5 years with the elaboration of the annual operating plans


1


2 2



19


per question


Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 (POA), as well as, the responsible for their execution. The Management plan brought up to date (Resolution AG-0295-2004, force of 5 years G.OR. 25,116). At present, an extension of the management plan was granted so that it could be concluded with the updating of the same one.




+1 The annual operating plans (POA 2009) the goals, activities, date and responsible for the execution are some of the activities of the management plan. This POA was devised with the participation of the stakeholder and the activities identified are executed with the support of these groups.



20


per question




+1 The Monitoring Program of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients the taking of decisions of the protected areas of the country. The total of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Barú Volcano NP was of 661 points that corresponds to a good management. This evaluation will be carried out to the stakeholders.



+1 Monitoring results are taken into account when preparing the operational planning.



Planning/Outputs


0


1


2 2


3




0


1 1


2



21


per question



3



Process/Outcome


0


1 1



3

11. Research



0 It exists inside the management plan a subprogram of Investigation (Program of Environmental Management), the same one


1 1


2



22


per question


Process


3 does not gives details of the investigations, but recommends to devise a prioritized list of investigations for the management of the protected area. The management plan contains a research program, but alone it defines some of the actions that have to be carried out, among which is to devise the plan of investigation that contain the priority lines. The protected area is being located in a private ecosystem, and it contains one high endemic, besides that, the studies of other sciences are required. It is proposed in the plan to establish the capacity of load, but still has not been elaborated.



Process



1


2 2


3



23


per question


13. Staff numbers


Inputs

There are no staff

0 The management plan does not determine the quantity of officials. Nevertheless, a proposal exists that the NP have as a minimum 8 park rangers. At present, only 4 officials exist.


1 1

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2


3

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 The personnel of the protected area are qualified to carry out the work of management. Nevertheless, it is required to devise a plan or programs of training with the purpose to be up to date and to reinforce the abilities and know-how of the officials. Some of the required training is related to the functions of the park ranger, for example: team management, data processing/GPS, maps, compass, first aids, basic English, control of fires, interpretation of paths and rescue of fauna.



2 2


3

15. Current budget



0 The Barú Volcano NP =

TOTAL 44,405 US$ budget assigned in 2010.


1



24


per question


Inputs


2 2 B/.12,550 (FIDECO) B/.31,855 (SINAP)


3



Inputs


0


1 1


2




Process


0


1


2 2


18. Equipment



0 The Barú Volcano NP maintains an

adequate infrastructure, besides it has

acquired between the 50% and 75% of the

necessary team for the management of the

area. Nevertheless, it requires to repair the


1


2 2



25


per question


Input There are adequate equipment and facilities

3 access roads to certain zones of the Park,

likewise, it is required to repair The

Quetzals path, to indicate the areas of

access to the Volcano, among others.

At present it counts with the support of

ATP and CONADES, who are interested

in financing some adaptations that are

required to facilitate the tourist’s access to

the Park.



Process


0


1 1


2




Process


0 The protected area counts with a plan of environmental education that is carried out as a group with community organizations of the area. A greater participation of the authorities is required for the achievement of the objectives, besides carrying out an evaluation on the results.


1


2 2


3


Does land and water use planning recognise


0


1



26


per question


the protected area and aid the achievement of objectives?

Planning


2 2


3




+1



+1




+1



Process


0


1 1


2


3


Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the protected area


0 According to the management plan most of the native population, nine small towns that conforms the area of influence of the PNVB; mostly belonging to the Ngäbe-Buglé


1 1



27


per question


have input to management decisions?

Process


2 ethnic group. Said the population concentrated are in the areas of Bajo Boquete, Palmira Central, Cerro Punta and Volcán, in conglomerates of over 300 inhabitants, above all, they are dedicated to agrarian activities in the farms of the region. Just likely the remainder of the communities participating, the native groups have participated on some activities of management, but nevertheless, their participation is minimal.


3



Process


0 During the elaboration of the management plan through workshops information was obtained where groups, organizations and communities participated. Nevertheless, at present, the interest groups participate on some activities that were planned in the area. The results of the PMEMAP 2009, shows this situation; for which it was recommended that annual workdays with the participation of the groups to devise the annual planning.


1 1


2


3




+1 +1



+1



28


per question




+1



Outcomes


0


1 1


2


3




0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to take decisions of the protected areas.


1


2



29


per question


Planning/Process


3 3 This program evaluates 37 indicators that permit to measure the level of management of the protected area. This program expects to carry 10 years of execution, and for 2009. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Barú Volcano National Park was of 661 points that corresponds to good management. Nevertheless, the implementation of new indicators is required to permit the verification of the relation of the protected area and its impact in the quality of life of the users and the communities involved. Likewise an indicator is required to help to corroborate if the management of the protected area has impacted of effective form in the conservation of the biodiversity.




0

Upon being a protected area with ecosystems of mountain, the access to the area used to be difficult, for which the majority



2



30


per question



3 of the visitors are adventurous type. The area can be very dangerous, but it is necessary to take measures to reach the top as to enter the paths on top of the Park. At present the access roads to a part of the Park remains in the administrative headquarters, the access roads are not in good conditions, so the entrance is limited. It should be fixed and adapt these deficiencies if really this area is proposed for tourist destiny.



Process


0


1 1


2


3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate was established of collection for the use and services of the protected areas of the National System of Protected Areas. The collections of fines and services were passed to the funds of the Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow this money is used by SINAP to financing activities.


1 1


2


3



31


per question




Outcomes


0 The personnel of the protected area are qualified to carry out the works of management. Nevertheless, it is required to devise a plan or programs of training with the purpose of bringing up to date and to reinforce the abilities and knowledge of the officials.

Some of the training required are: Related to the functions of the park ranger, for example: team management, data processing/GPS, maps, compass, first aids, basic English, control of fires, interpretation of paths and rescue of fauna.


1


2


3




+1



+1



+1

TOTAL SCORE

49


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X



9


Protected Areas




10

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1 Protected Area 9 : OMAR TORRIJOS NATIONAL PARK



Date assessment carried out August 6, 2010

Name of protected area General of Division Omar Torrijos National Park


Designations

National

National Park IUCN

Category II

International - Important areas for Birds in Panama (C-1)

Country Panamá Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference)

Province of Coclé, Districts of La Pintada and Olá, besides a small area belonging to the district of Donoso in the province of Colon.

Date of establishment - Executive Decree No. 18 of July 31, 1986. Official Gazette No. 21,211 of January 21, 1989 ( Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18 de 31 de julio 1986. Gaceta Oficial No. 21,211 de 21 de enero 1989).


State X

Private

Community

Other

Management Authority National Environmental Authority (Autoridad Nacional

del Ambiente) (ANAM)

Size of protected area (ha) 25,275.00 ha terrestrial ecosystem


One Protected Area Chief and 2 park rangers

Temporary 0



- FIDECO 21,650 US$ - SINAP 54,600 US$

CBMAP II 397,700 US$




11


The presence of great diversity and endemism, is the key function of the ecosystems of the present mountain range in the high basins of the hydrologic network which born in the Central mountain range, that divides the water line between the Caribbean and the Pacific; this bio-geographical characteristic does the PNGDOTH, because of its environments diversity and natural communities, an important area with the presence of flora species exchange and Fauna of North and South America. Also the conservation of the present natural and cultural resources presents contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of the settlers of the area of influence.



To conserve the natural resources, the biological diversity, and the natural beauties scenic of a key portion of the central mountain range for the consolidation of the Central American Biological Corridor.


To protect the hydrologic state of the rivers that drain from the protected area toward the side of the Caribbean and the Pacific side of the Central region of the country, of singular importance for the hydroelectric generation projects execution, production of drinking water, irrigation and river navigation


2


PA manager

PA staff ⌧


⌧

NGO �

Local community �


⌧

Other ⌧


- Ecological Trusts of Panama (Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá) (FIDECO) - SINAP -CBMAP II - ACP. Measurements of mitigation – clearing of the Program of Enlargement of the Panama Canal - the reforestation of 150 has in the PNGDOTH in its zone of neighborhood



12

International Designation Information


Date of Inscription

Site Name

Site Area

Geographical Coordinates

Designation Criteria

(i.e. criterio i a x)

Statement of outstanding universal value

Sitio Ramsar (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)




Date of Inscription

Site Name:

Site Area

Geographical

Coordinates

Designation Criteria


Please list other designations and any support information below

Name: Directory of Important Bird Areas of Panama (2003)

Important area for Birds in Panama (C-1)



13


Please tick all relevant existing threats as of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those that are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

















High Medium Low N/A x 6.1 Recreational and tourism activities







14








x 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) x 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals










High Medium Low N/A













15



16

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The GD Omar Torrijos National Park was declared in 1985 by Executive Decree No. 18 of 31 of July 1986 published in Official Gazette Not. 21.211 of 21 of January 1989 by the INRENARE (ANAM at present). The limits were established through the Executive Decree No. 27 of August 5, 1996 (Limits of the PNGDOTH) Official Gazette No. 23.099 of August 12, 1996.


1


2




Planning


0 The plan of management of the GD Omar Torrijos H. National Park contains the guidelines and norms that regulate the activities, through the zoning and the management programs. Although deficiencies the personnel in charge, has managed to diminish the illegal activities. Likewise, the support of the CBMAP II has contributed in diminishing the pressure on the natural resources.


1


2 2


3

3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

0 Although the staff of the



17


per question


enforcement


Input


1 protected area has the capacity to implement environmental regulations within the protected area, the resources are limited. Currently, the staff is not sufficient to monitor the area, so great efforts had been made to control illegal activities in the area.


2 2


3


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool of support to the management of the park that establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, the possible uses and strategies. To improve, the common participation, the protection, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystem and its zone of

neighborhood.


1


2


3 3


Is the protected area the right size and shape to protect species, habitats, ecological processes and water


0


1



18


per question


catchments of key conservation concern?

Planning


2


3 3




0

The protected area has demarcated approx. 40% of the area and the limits are so many acquaintances by the personnel as by the local communities.


1


2 2


3


per question


7. Management plan



0 The management plan of the GD Omar Torrijos H.National Park has specific activities that are established to carry out in a period of 5 years with the elaboration of the annual


1 1


2



19


per question


Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 operating plans (POA), as well as, the responsible for their execution. Nevertheless, the management plan is conquered, itself until the legal promulgation of the extension till we find the resources to bring it up to you. The Plan of Management is approved GD Omar Torrijos H.National Park, by Resolution AG-0301-2004, Force from 5 Years from the promulgation of the present Resolution G.O. 25,116.




+1 The annual operating plans (POA 2009) the goals, activities, dates and responsible for the execution some activities of the plan of management.



+1 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients it to make decisions of the protected areas of the country. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Omar Torrijos GD National Park was of 855 points that corresponds to the satisfactory management.



20


per question




+1 The results of the monitoring are taken into account when devising the operating planning.



Planning/Outputs


0


1 1


2


3



Input


0


1 1


2


3



Process/Outcome


0


1 1



3

11. Research

Is there a programme


0 The management plan counts on a research program applied and monitoring of resources,


1



21


per question


of management-orientated survey and research work?

Process


2 2 although this program has not been executed. The protected area is recognized as an interesting area and of high biodiversity by the presence of diverse habitats. Recently, I am publishing the findings of a new species of lizard that was discovered in this Park, which indicates that the same one has a high potential value for the biological investigations.


3



Process



1 1


2


3

13. Staff numbers


Inputs

There are no staff

0 The Management Plan for the GD Omar Torrijos H.National Park proposes to enlarge of a staggered form in 5 years to 40 officials. Nevertheless, at present it counts with 3 officials, which limits of form criticize the execution of the management plan.


1 1



3

14. Staff training


0 The personnel of the park concentrates on a basic training



22


per question



Inputs/Process

Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1 in administrative management, legal base and procedure for retentions/seizures, besides elaboration of annual operating plans (POA). That more training would be required for the fulfillment of the objectives).


2 2


3

15. Current budget


Inputs


0 GD Omar Torrijos H.National =

TOTAL 76, 250 US$ Budget assigned in 2010 (SINAP + FIDECO) FIDECO 21,650 US$ and SINAP 54,600 US$

CBMAP II 397,700 US$

(environmental investments)


1 1


2


3



Inputs


0


1 1


2





0


1


2 2



23


per question


Process Budget management is excellent and meets management needs 3

18. Equipment


Input


0 The protected area has facilities and equipment adequate for operation, also is given the annual maintenance required for equipment. Nevertheless greater budget is required to acquire new teams, besides necessary more institutional presence in the installations of the Park, it is done so that the same one receive maintenance.


1


2 2


3



Process


0


1 1


2




Process


0 The GD Omar Torrijos H.National Park, counts with an environmental education plan, which is executed and besides his impact is measured with the same one exercise to the groups evaluated yearly.


1


2


3



24


per question




Planning


0


1


2 2


3




+1



+1




+1



Process


0


1 1


2


3



25


per question




Process


0 In the protected area natives of the ethnic group live like the Ngäbe Bugle, who just likes the remainder of the locals to participate in activities planned of the Park.


1 1


2


3



Process


0 An active participation is observed in the PNGDOTH and it evidence that the groups are consulted for projects, activities, among others questions related to the protected area. Nevertheless personnel are required to attend these themes specifically.


1


2 2


3




+1



+1



+1

25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local communities

0 0



26


per question



Outcomes


1


2


3




0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients it to


1


2



27


per question


Planning/Process


3 3 make decisions of the protected areas. This program evaluates 37 indicators that permit to measure the level of management of the protected area. This program already carries 10 years of execution, and for the 2009, the total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the GD Omar Torrijos H.National Park was of 855 points that corresponds to satisfactory management. Nevertheless, the implementation of new indicators is required for the verification of the relation of the protected area and its impact in the quality of life of the users and the communities involved; likewise an indicator is required to help to corroborate if the management of the protected area has impacted of effective form in the conservation of the biodiversity.



Outputs


0

The protected area counts with some facilities and services for the visitors, counts with a visitor’s center, nevertheless, the construction of new installations in other entrances is required so that they can support the access of visitors to the Park.



2 2


3



28


per question




Process


0 0


1


2


3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by the use is established and the services that offer the protected areas of the National System of the Protected Areas. The collection of fines and by services, pass to the fund of the Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow this is how that money finances the SINAP activities.


1 1


2


3



Outcomes


0


1 1


2


3




29


per question




+1 +1



+1



+1

TOTAL SCORE

46


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X


9


Protected Areas



10

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1 Protected Area 6 : DARIEN NATIONAL PARK




Name of protected area Darién National Park


Designations

National

National Park IUCN

Category II

International - Important Bird Area of Panama (DR-4); - Biosphere Reserve (1983) -UNESCO World Country Panama


Province of Darién, district of Chepigana and Pinogana

Date of Establishment Executive Decree No. 21, August 7, 1980 (Decreto Ejecutivo № 21, del 7 de agosto del año 1980) Gaceta Oficial No. 19,142 de 27 de agosto de 1980


State

X Private

X Community

X Other

Management Authority Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM))

Size of protected area (ha) 579.000 ha


One Protected Area Chief y 12 Park Rangers

Temporary 11 staff between park

ranger and administrative





- Darien Fund (2010)= 264.202.00 US$


Protecting scenic and natural areas of national and international significance, for spiritual, scientific, educational, and recreational or tourist purposes.


11



- To conserve biological diversity that will guarantee the recovery of the territorial integrity of the park; to protect various ecosystems, to ensure internal and external connectivity of park essential areas, to maintain the diversity of fauna; and to improve knowledge of the biodiversity of the park.


- to promote respect for the ecological, geo-morphological, religious or aesthetic attributes which have justified the designation


2


PA manager

PA staff

Other PA

agency staff

NGO

Local community


Other


In preparation of FSP GEF Project “…….” Using PPG funds managed by IADB, with inputs from: - FIDECO - SINAP - Darién Fund



12




UNESCO World Heritage site

( October, 1981)

Site name

Darién

National Park

Site area

579.000 ha

Geographical

coordinates

7° 49´ N

77°44’ W



-This is a representative example of the different historical periods of the land, including the registration of its evolution, significant geological processes under way, development of terrestrial forms, and significant geo-morphological or physio-graphic, elements

-it contains extraordinary natural phenomena or areas of a natural beauty and important,

exceptional aesthetic elements.






Date listed

1983

Site name Reserve of the Biosphere Darién

Site area

859.333 ha


7° 49´ N 77°44’ W


iii, iv


- The Darien National Park is long enough to ensure the continuation of the evolutionary processes and survival of the endangered species contained therein. -The park is one of the richest anthropological zone in the New Tropic World, with two major indigenous groups: Kuna and Embera-Wounnan



Important bird area in Panama (DR-4) in 2004



13


Please tick all relevant existing threats as high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low

are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.










High Medium Low N/A x(*) 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) (*) but possible in

near future

x(*) 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) (*) but possible in near future




animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict)

x 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) x 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting x 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources


x 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises x 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas




14



High Medium Low N/A x 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson)

x 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use x 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area

x 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages)

x 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values x 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)



x 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) x 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals










High Medium Low N/A











15




16

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The Darién National Park was declared by Executive Decree 21, of August 7, the year 1980 and published in Official Gazette Not. 19.142 of August 27, 1980 UNESCO World Heritage site ( October, 1981) and Reserve of the Biosphere Darién (1983) Important Birds areas in Panama (DR-4).


1


2



Are appropriate regulations in place to control land use and


0 In this PA a special situation is presented, since inside the park native communities live permanently, that makes use of the resources, like the shooting for family consumption, the


1 1


2



17


per question


activities (e.g. hunting)?

Planning


3 long one of trees and the extraction of another type of products of the forest (lianas or reeds). These uses are not controlled on the part of the Administration of the PND, they are not regulated in specific form, and this means that not regulations for the use of each of these resources exist for the communities that live inside the park.

3. Law

enforcement


Input


0


1


2 2


3


per question



Is management undertaken according

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The Darién National Park had you defined its objectives in the Management Plan of 2004, the organizing structure that has the PND, at present, does


1


2 2



18


per question


to agreed objectives?

Planning


3 not respond to the needs for the compliance of these objectives. In the first case, the program of management that functions traditionally is that of Control and Caution, does not yet develop in an optimum form, but is working itself in its adaptation with the implementation of the Control and Caution Plan. In the same objective, in the theme of the knowledge of the biodiversity of the park, since a year ago the administration of this PA has placed a special interest by developing this specific objective, appointing the resources, as for example, a professional in charge.

For the objectives of conservation of the cultural patrimony, the development of the recreation and tourism, the actions that are carried out are sporadic; they do not obey to programs of management structured. The previous thing has their justification, so much like in the financial and human resources, with whom the Administration of the park counts, are not sufficient. Besides, there is a situation that has not permitted to orient the management from the objectives of conservation which is the high rate of rotation of the personnel caused by the changes of government that occurs every five years.



19


per question




Planning


0


1


2 2


3




0 Although, it is indicated that the limits are known in the country, there is confusion between the limits existence of the creation of the park and the interpretation of the location of the limits in the country, according to the technology of GPS carried out by the business that devised the Plan Management of 2004. The totality of the limits is not demarcated physically in the country (milestones).


1


2 2


3



20


per question


7. Management plan


Planning


0 The PND counts on a Plan to elaborate a Management Plan in the year 2004, the same one is not executed in its totality by the limitations of the financial resources. Besides, the administration of the park, ANAM considers that this plan does not orient the management of the park accordingly to the expectations, for which the implementation of the Management Plan is the product that will help them to implement it.


1


2





+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plan, (POA 2009) the goals, activities, date and responsible for the execution of some of the activities of the plan of management.



+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plan, (POA 2009) the goals, activities, date and responsible for the execution of some of the activities of the plan of management.



+1



21


per question




Planning/Outputs


0


1 1


2


3



Input


0


1


2 2


3



Process/Outcome


0


1 1



3

11. Research



0 The park does not count with a Program formally established, with human and financial resources, and with the definition of the priorities of investigation. The


1 1


2



22


per question


Process


3 Administration of the park is doing an important effort assigning a professional to be in charge of a program of this type that is fundamental for the management of a protected area, more if it has being considered with international designations as a World Heritage Site and Reserve of Biosphere.

On the other hand, the investigation that has been carried out to date, usually national and international investigators of universities carry out it to comply private objectives, already these themes will be of specific interest with specific financing. Also, the investigation in most cases obeys the studies for thesis, as requirements for graduation. In general, the majority of these investigations do not respond to the needs of the administration of the park (ANAM); in fact, this affirmation comes from the opinions of the personnel of the park, since it does not exist in the PA a list of the investigations that have been carried out since the creation of this national park.




1 1



23


per question



Process


2


3

13. Staff numbers


Inputs

There are no staff

0 The theme to define the optimums quantity for the management of a protected area has always been a theme of a lot of discussion. Nevertheless, if the management plan devise objectively and with a well specific horizon, yes it is possible to establish the optimum quantity to do management of a PA. The Management Plan put into operation defines 45 people as the necessary quantity to handle of efficiently the National Park.


1 1



3

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 The Administration has carried out an effort to give training to the personnel. It is organizing events of training to improve the capacity of the personnel, considering inclusive that there is a new personnel that never worked in protected areas. This effort should be promoted so that they remain not as remote facts.



2 2


3

15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area

0 As opposed to many protected



24


per question



Inputs


1 areas of Panama and of other countries of Latin-American region, the Darien National Park counts with the same important budget that stems from different sources of financing, such as: SINAP, FIDECO and Fund Darién. Nevertheless, this budget, but yet is not the required one to carry out an integral management of the park.


2 2


3



Inputs


0 There is a fund for long-term financing from FIDECO.


1 1


2




Process


0


1 1


2


18. Equipment



0 The protected area has facilities and equipment necessary for operation, also is given the annual maintenance required


1



25


per question


Input


2 2 for equipment.


3



Process


0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients it to make decisions of the protected areas.


1


2 2




Process


0 Although, the officials indicate that a Program of Environmental Education exists, in the practice what exists are activities of same, remote environmental education that depend on the availability of extraordinary resources. It exists within the personnel of the park, a person appointed, professionally qualified that initiates the development of a Program of Environmental Education.


1


2 2


3


Does land and water use planning recognise the protected area and aid the achievement of


0


1


2 2



26


per question


objectives?

Planning


3




+1



+1




+1



Process


0


1


2 2


3




0 Somewhat important in this protected area is that inside the park native communities live, such as: Emberá-Wounaan and Kunas. The access to take decisions for the management of the PND is not direct, because no legal


1 1


2



27


per question


Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

3 structures exist designed with that purpose. The participation is indirect and as an example, it can be cited that native leaders of different communities participated in the workshops of elaboration of the Management Plan (2004) for the discussion of the different themes of management of the park, but after that fact, there is not evidence of access in it to make of decisions



Process


0 Interest groups participate in certain management decisions.


1 1


2


3




+1



+1



+1


Is the protected area providing economic benefits to local communities, e.g.


0


1 1


2



28


per question


income, employment, payment for environmental services?

Outcomes


3



Planning/Process


0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients it to make decisions of the protected areas.


1


2 2


3




0

The current demand of visitors to the Darién National Park is very low, reason by which any path is appropriated for this



2 2



29


per question



3 number of visits. Potentially, Rancho Frío could be an important point to develop a zone of public use, by the present natural attractions and by the relative proximity with The Real community of Santa Maria (13 Km.). It is important to indicate that in the central part of the park, there is a place called Santa Cruz of Cana, which is awarded to ANCON Expeditions of Panama, for the use ecotourism. In this operation, the personnel of the park do not have control for the tourist’s number verification; the activities carry out by the visitors and the collection of the rights of income.



Process


0


1 1


2


3

29. Fees

If fees (i.e. entry fees or fines) are applied, do


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection, by use, is established and the services offer by the protected areas of the National System of


1 1



30


per question


they help protected area management?

Inputs/Process


2 Protected Areas (SINAP). The collections of fines and by services pass to the fund of the Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow, this is how that money goes to SINAP Financing activities.


3


What is the condition of the important values of the protected area as compared to when it


0 The natural values affected are several species of mammals by the illegal shooting (piggish of mount, rabbit painted, deer, among others); there is extraction of palm and long


1


2



31


per question


was first designated?

Outcomes


3

illegal, shooting of loudmouths, parrots and hawks; and permanent erosion in the edges of the rivers, because of the establishment of native communities in those places. Also, there are other indirect activities that are affecting the protected resources and that are difficult to handle because they are carried out of the limits of the PND, like they are the growth of the border agribusiness that favors the biological isolation and the fragmentation of habitats; the contamination and sedimentation of rivers and wetlands by the erosion.

Of all forms, is it necessary more and better information of this type to have a more detailed precision? The establishment of a Resources Management Program, with investigation and monitoring, would help medium time limit to determine the conditions of the natural values of the most important park.




+1



32


per question




+1



+1

TOTAL SCORE

49


1






financing.


Strategic Objective

One







Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators






2

Strategic Programs

for GEF-4 under

Strategic Objective

One

Expected Outcomes

Indicators















3




project closure.



4












biome type

Foreseen at

project start

Achievement

at Mid-term

Evaluation of

Project

Achievement

at Final

Evaluation of

Project


Name Title Agency

Work Program

Inclusion

Marta C. Moreno


Consulting

Project Mid-term

Final

Evaluation/project

completion


5


Name of Protected

Area

Is this a

new

protected

area?

Please

answer yes

or no.

Area in

Hectares—

please

specify

biome type


priority lists

(E.g., Biosphere

Reserve, World



etc.)



indigenous reserve,



Protected Area3

I II III IV V VI








6









X





X




X


7

(SINAP)





X





X


8

(1983)






X






X





X



9


Protected Areas




10



11


Protected Area 7 : SOBERANIA NATIONAL PARK




Name of protected area Soberanía National Park


Designations

National

National Park IUCN

Category II

International - Important areas for Birds in Panama (PM-8)

Country Panamá Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference)

Provinces of Panama small towns of Ancon, and Chilibre; Province of Colon, small towns of Santa Rosa, Limon and Cristobal.

Date of establishment - Executive Decree No. 13 of May 27, 1980, G.O. 20,333 of June 24, 1980 (Decreto Ejecutivo Nº13 de 27 de mayo de 1980. GO. 20,333 del 24 de junio de 1980)

Ownership details (please tick) State

X Private

Communi

ty

Other

Management Authority National Environmental Authority (Autoridad Nacional

del Ambiente) (ANAM)

Size of protected area (ha) 22,104 ha. terrestrial ecosystem


One Protected Area Chief and 14 park rangers and an

administrator

Temporary 0



-FIDECO (2010)= 30,000.00 US$



The National one of the Park contains representative ecosystems and restored of tropical forests, aside from being a corridor where the flora fauna species conserves still habitats adequate for its reproduction.



12



To conserve a significant sample of the present natural ecosystems in the reverted areas, that guarantees the preservation of the native species and its genetic diversity.


To create and maintain the necessary spaces for the active participation of the local actors that permit the best performance of the management of the protected area, contributing to the development of economic activities based on the maintenance of the so much environmental services for the Panama Canal, as for the city of Panama and neighboring communities.


2


PA manager �

PA staff �


�

NGO �

Local community �


�

Other �


- Ecological Trusts of Panama (Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá) (FIDECO) - SINAP



13



Date listed (Tentative ) Site name Site area

Geographical

co-ordinates






number



Date listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical

co-ordinates


Fulfillment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support)



Important area for Birds in Panama (PM-8)



14











High Medium Low N/A x(*) 3.1 Oil and gas drilling (*) but possible in near future x 3.2 Mining and quarrying x 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams


High Medium Low N/A x 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals)

x 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) x 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals

x 4.4 Flight paths













15













High Medium Low N/A

















16

Assessment Form


per question


1. Legal status


Context


0 The Soberanía National Park was declared in 1980 by Executive Decree Nº13 of May 27, 1980 and published in GO. 20.333 in Jun 24, 1980.


1


2




Planning


0 Soberanía NP has established the norms through the management plan. Likewise, the supports to the communities, the application of the program of control and caution, have permitted the stop of illegal actions inside the limits of the park.


1


2 2


3

3. Law

enforcement

Can staff (i.e. those with responsibility for managing the site) enforce protected area


0 Although the staff of the protected area has the capacity to implement environmental regulations within the protected area, resources are limited. Currently, the staff is not


1


2 2



17


per question


rules well enough?

Input


3 sufficient to monitor the area, so they have to make great efforts to control illegal activities in the area. The protected area counts also with the support of the ecological police and the users of the Park.


per question




Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The Soberanía NP management plan is a tool of support to the management of the park which establishes the objectives, norms and guidelines, possible uses and strategies; to improve the common participation, the protection, conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystem and its zone of neighborhood.


1


2


3 3



Planning


0


1


2



18


per question



3 3




0

Biological, economic, social information exists so much that support the planning and the take of decisions for the management of the area. Besides, the management plan, there is the plan of business and studies among others documents.


1


2


3 3


per question


7. Management plan


Planning


0 The management plan of the Soberanía NP has specific activities established to carry out in a period of 5 years, with the elaboration of the annual operating plans (POA), as well as, the responsible for their execution.


1


2





19


per question




+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plans (POA 2009) the goal, activities, dates and responsible for the execution are some activities of the management plan. This POA devises with the participation of the stakeholder and the activities are identified, which are executed with the support of these groups.



+1 +1



+1 +1 The Monitoring Program of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to make decisions of the protected areas of the country. The total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Soberanía NP was 796 points that corresponds to a good management; this evaluation is carried out with the stakeholder.




0


1


2 2



20


per question


Planning/Outputs A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented

3



Input


0


1


2 2


3



Process/Outcome


0 There are park guards, but the number of parks is no sufficient for complete and effective control of the Park.


1

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use

2 2


3

11. Research



0 It exists inside the management plan a subprogram of Investigation (Program of Environmental Management), the same one


1


2



21


per question


Process


3 3 does not give you details of the investigations, but recommends to devise a list of prioritized investigations for the management of the protected area. According to the results of the PMEMAP in the area they develop diverse types of investigation, but very few are directed to improve the management of the protected area, nevertheless, these investigations support the increment of the knowledge of the rich biodiversity that exists in the zone.



Process



1


2 2


3

13. Staff numbers

Are there enough people employed to manage the protected

There are no staff

0 The Management Plan for the Soberanía NP proposed that it requires 57 people; to supply the needs of the management of the area.


1




22


per question


area?

Inputs


3 It fits to mention that the Park receives students for practices of profession, and besides that, it maintains agreement of contribution with: Ecological police for the caution and with the STRI for investigations. At present, alone there are 16 officials in the Park, including the leader of the area.

14. Staff training


Inputs/Process


0 The personnel of the protected area are qualified to carry out the management work. Nevertheless, it is required to devise a plan or programs of training with the purpose of bringing up to date and to reinforce the abilities and know-how of the officials. Among some of the training that are required they are: • Visitors/tourism

management • GPS management



2 2


3

15. Current budget



0 Soberanía NP = TOTAL B/.

101,060 Budget Assigned in 2010.


1 1



23


per question


Inputs


2 B/. 30,000 (FIDECO) B/, 71,060 (SINAP) Other financing funds for the protected area exist but there are not counted, since they stem from the support of NGO and are not in-kind support necessarily.


3



Inputs


0


1 1


2




Process


0


1


2 2


18. Equipment

Is equipment sufficient for management


0 The Soberanía NP is equipped and has sufficient infrastructure to carry out the works of management and to


1



24


per question


needs?

Input


2 2 attend visitors. The area has paths, house of park ranger, administrative headquarters, and administrative secondary venues. Nevertheless, the personnel think that although the lack of infrastructures, itself should not be built more, since there is not sufficient personnel to guard these offices. Additionally, I built a harbor center of Visitors, but said what I built was given for harbor, a fauna rescue center. It then should request that they build another center of visitors.


3



Process


0


1 1


2





0 The protected area does not count on a plan of environmental education, although the management plan contains a series of activities in the subprogram of environmental education.


1 1


2



25


per question


Process


3 Educational activities exist and they are carried out in the schools of the zone of neighborhood; the administration of the area recognizes that this deficiency exists, but even so they have not elaborated the plan.



Planning


0


1 1


2


3




+1



+1




+1



0



26


per question



Process


1 1


2


3



Process


0 In the zone of neighborhood a native community exists, which is dedicated to the eco tourism activities. Likewise, they are invited to participate in the meetings, coordinated with the activities, but its participation in making decisions is limited.


1 1


2


3



Process


0 The interest groups participate in the planning and actions of management of the protected area. Even it lacks by reaching their full participation, but in many cases the groups take the initiative to improve the management of the protected area.


1


2 2


3




+1 +1



27


per question




+1



+1



Outcomes


0


1 1


2


3




0 The Program of Monitoring of the Effectiveness of Management of the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) compiles information on the management and orients to


1


2



28


per question


Planning/Process


3 3 the making of decisions of the protected areas. This program evaluates 37 indicators that permit the measurement of the level of management of the protected area. This program already carries 10 years of execution, and for 2009 the total praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of the Soberanía National Park was of 796 points, which corresponds to a good management. Nevertheless, the implementation of new indicators is required, that permit to verify the relation of the protected area and its impact in the quality of life of the users and the communities involved, likewise an indicator is required to help to corroborate if the management of the protected area has impacted the effective form in the conservation of the biodiversity.




0

The Soberanía National Park is one of the parks of great visitation of Panama, thanks to his proximity to the city; the



2 2



29


per question



3 same one has many attractions as paths, cafés, rivers, facilities for cyclists and it counts with tourist facilities and of public use. Nevertheless, the same one does not count with a center of visitors, since the one that was built, was delivered to harbor a fauna rescue center, which is required to redefine, if the same one was delivered to the Park or will continue harboring in fauna rescue center.



Process


0


1 1


2


3

29. Fees


Inputs/Process


0 In 2008, a new rate of collection for its used is established and the services that offer the protected areas of the National System of Protected Areas (SINAP). The collections of fines and for services, they pass the fund of the Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow this is how that money finances the SINAP activities.


1 1


2


3



30


per question




Outcomes


0 Although, the indicator on the decrease of the threats is maintained stable, the need of the resources has improved and in the measure to endow the Park of the facilities for the necessary management (Budget and personal), the condition of these resources have improved notably. Although, inside the protected area there are no communities exist, studies should be carried out to determine if the existence of the park has improved the quality of life of the surrounding populations. In every case the existence of the native community of San Antonio has been fortified, since the incomes that they perceive of the tourism are owed in part to the presence of the protected area.


1


2 2


3




+1 +1



+1



31


per question




+1

TOTAL SCORE

62

1

MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION THROUGH LOW-IMPACT

ECOTOURISM IN THE NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM (SINAP)

PN-X1003

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

A. Monitoring Plan and Impact Evaluation Plan

1.1 The project has two levels of monitoring: 1) monitoring and evaluation of project

progress, with the principal objective of tracking and assessing progress in

achieving outcomes and outputs detailed within the Results Framework and other

project documents, and 2) the establishment of an Ecotourism Impact

Monitoring System (ETIMS), fully linked to ANAM`s PMEMAP (Programa de

Mejoramiento de la Efectividad de Manejo de las Areas Protegidas), and

sustainable beyond the execution of the Project.

1.2 Monitoring and evaluation at the project level, including the day-to-day

monitoring of project activities, will be the responsibility of the Project

Coordinator, based within ANAM (the Executing Agency), with support from the

Financial Specialist assigned for this operation within ANAM. The Project

Coordinator will liaise with ANAM’s upper-level management, ATP, and the

Bank to ensure adequate communication and smooth coordination throughout the

execution of the project. The total estimated cost for Project progress monitoring

and evaluation is US$120,000.

1.3 For the design and operation of an Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System

(ETIMS), during the first six months of the project, the Ecotourism Specialist

will assist ANAM to develop a locally appropriate, adaptive, integrated and cost-

effective data management system, building on existing scientific and

socioeconomic monitoring initiatives and information. Resources for this activity

have been incorporated in Component 2 for the 9 protected areas selected as

destinations for this project with a view of eventually incorporating the system to

the PMEMAP and applying it to the entire SINAP. The ETIMS is intended to

expand the data already being collected for PMEMAP, providing more specific

information on the following aspects of ecotourism in PAs: (i) an ecological

dimension, with a view to assessing the impacts of tourism visitation (including

specific activities such as hiking, rafting, diving) on ecosystem health through the

analysis of trends in biological and threat reduction indicators compared against

established baselines in line-transects and quadrants around highly visited sites

such as trails, overlooks, dive sites and anchoring locations. The monitoring

approach which is fully described in the Biodiversity Report calls for the use of

biological and threat reduction indicators for the following:

(a) vegetation (% cover, degree of fragmentation, species/community

diversity/abundance, presence of threatened and/or endangered species). Data

collection protocols will include: satellite imagery/aerial photo interpretation of

cover; line transects, collection and measurement of specimens. Data to be

2

registered: number of individuals by species to determine abundance and relative

frequency; absolute and relative dominance of class sizes; conservation status

(threatened, endangered, endemic etc.)

(b) avifauna (resident/migratory populations, species diversity/abundance, nesting

concentrations, threatened and/or endangered species, critical habitats). Data

collection protocols will include: bird counts at congregation sites and vulnerable

habitats, capture and release by mist nets. Data to be collected include: species

richness, geographic distribution, relative abundance, ecological assemblages,

conservation status.

(c) mammals (presence/absence of primates, predators, carnivores etc…; relative

abundance, threatened and/or endangered species, critical habitats). Data

collection protocols include: species counts by line-transects. Data to be collected

include: species richness, relative abundance, ecological assemblages,

conservation status.

(d) freshwater biota (index of biological integrity IBI); Recommended data

collection protocol is based on Karra, J.R. and Chu, E.W. 1999. Restoring Life in

URGN Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press.

(e) coral reefs (live coral cover, species diversity and abundance, coral condition

including mortality, disease and bleaching). Data collection protocols include line

transects and quadrants. Data to be collected include: species richness (corals and

fishes), size, abundance, condition, water quality parameters.

(f) marine turtles (species diversity, nesting populations). Recommended data

collection protocol is based on Chacon et al. (2001). Data to be collected include:

estimate of nesting females, number of nests, number of juveniles liberated.

Further details on the recommended protocols are included in the Biodiversity

Annex. Protocols have been recommended for each indicator to assess the impact

of ecotourism activities on ecosystem condition and diversity. Biophysical

indicators (water quality, soil stability and erosion, and solid waste) will also be

monitored at and in the vicinity of ecotourism sites. Threat reduction indicators

will be monitored in each PA on the basis of the specific and predominant threats

identified (see Annex E), including forest fires, invasive species, illegal

settlements, illegal logging and other illegal activities etc…;

(ii) a socioeconomic dimension, with a view to assessing the impact of ecotourism

visitation on social, cultural and economic context of local communities and

stakeholders; (iii) an ecotourism management perspective to assess visitor

characteristics, preferences, satisfaction, expenditure patterns as well as visitation

flows versus carrying capacity; and (iv) a PA management perspective, including

both the application of the GEF Tracking Tool for BD-SP2 as a means to assess

implementation effectiveness, with a view to evaluating strengths and weaknesses

of PAs management, and the linkage of the ETIMS to PMEMAP. The total

estimated cost for the development and implementation of the program`s

monitoring system for the 9 protected areas (Project Component 2) is estimated at

US$195,500, which include US$144,000 for a biodiversity monitoring specialist,

3

US$40,500 for travel and US$11,000 for equipment and other monitoring

instruments required.

1.4 The ETIMS will provide the information for the impact evaluation plan. The

proposal is to use a reflexive methodology relying on the management

effectiveness monitoring and evaluation tool generated by PMEMAP (expanded

to include the ecotourism management data) to be applied individually to the 9

protected areas included as priorities for the project. The index is a score based on

six indicators of management effectiveness: context, planning, inputs, process,

outputs and outcomes. PMEMAP is based on an internationally recognized

methodology which is used for all protected areas that receive GEF financing and

enables a comparison of management effectiveness within national systems and

across systems. A partial baseline of the management effectiveness index exists

[see Tracking Tools]. A new baseline will be collected in the first year of the

project using the ‘expanded’ PMEMAP methodology. It will involve surveys of

protected area experts, management staff and stakeholders as well as on-site

visitor and ecotourism operators. The ex-post impact evaluation will be carried

out via follow-up surveys in the year in which the project is completely executed

(end of Year 4). These follow-up surveys will make it possible to compare the

PMEMAP index before and after the implementation of the project. Costs of the

surveys and data analysis have been incorporated in Component 2 (see above).

B. Internal Evaluations and Reporting

1.5 The Project Coordinator will produce the following annual reports to monitor and

evaluate general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in

the Results Framework (Annex II of the Project Document): (i) a proposed

Annual Work Plan (AWP) at the beginning of each year of project execution; (ii)

a Mid-Year Progress Report half-way through each year; (iii) an Annual Project

Report at the end of each project year; and, (iv) a GEF Project Implementation

Review (PIR) in October of each year, in collaboration with Bank and to be

submitted to the GEF via the Bank. Within the first 6 months of the project, the

Project Coordinator will also be responsible for consolidating all baseline

information required for the indicators identified in the Results Framework.

1.6 The Project Coordinator will lead the development of detailed Annual Work

Plans at the beginning of each project year. These AWPs will be developed with

the full participation of the project team and with input from the Advisory

Committee and other suitable mechanisms allowing for proactive responsive

project planning and participatory project implementation based on informed

decision-making. The AWPs will be based on progress achieved to date and will

define activities and expected results for the forthcoming year, ensuring an

adequate framework for the day-to-day monitoring of project progress. A series of

milestone deliverables will also be identified to enable continuous monitoring of

the project’s implementation throughout the year.

1.7 The Project Coordinator will produce a concise Mid-Year Progress Report for

the Bank, GEF, ANAM and ATP upper-management, half-way through each

4

project year, which will summarize progress made against the content of the

Annual Work Plan. The Mid-year Progress Report will focus on short-term results

and challenges related to the execution of the AWP to be resolved in the

remainder of the year.

1.8 The Project Coordinator will lead the production of an Annual Project Report at

the end of each project year. These Annual Project Reports will be developed with

the full participation of the project team and with input from the Steering

Committee and other suitable mechanisms. Annual reporting will precede the

production of the following year’s AWP. Annual Project Reports will be more

detailed than the Mid-Year Progress Report and will concentrate on project

performance towards achieving the project objective and outcomes; project

performance in relation to component progress and the fulfillment of indicators

and outputs; the identification of problems, risks and corrective measures;

expenditure reporting and the presentation of an updated procurement plan; and

recommendations for project/component adjustments based on lessons learned

(adaptive management). The Bank will evaluate the main findings of the Annual

Project Report and discuss its implications for the subsequent AWP. The results

of the Annual Project Report will be presented to the Bank as well as to ANAM

and ATP upper-management and summarized for their annual reports.

1.9 In addition to the Annual Project Report, the Project Coordinator will, in October

of each year, prepare the mandatory GEF Project Implementation Review

(PIR), following the GEF’s format, in collaboration with the designated Bank

contact. The PIR will include reports on project performance ratings and

contribution to the Biodiversity Focal Area strategic objectives and targets.

1.10 During the last three months of the project, the Project Coordinator will lead a

Comprehensive Participatory Evaluation (CPE) with key stakeholders to

examine the results, outcomes, and processes of the project, as well as to assess

the institutional collaborative arrangements and progress in mainstreaming

biodiversity into the ecotourism sector (including the final application of the GEF

Tracking Tools during the project’s executing period).

1.11 The Bank will conduct periodic supervision visits to Panama and maintain a

Project Monitoring Report (PMR), the Bank’s main system tool for day-to-day

monitoring of projects and for tracking the project’s progress toward achieving

the results indicated in the Results Framework.

C. Independent Evaluations and Reporting

1.12 Following each project year, an independent audit of the Project will be conducted

by a national external auditor approved by the Bank. The Audit Report will be

contracted by the Executing Agency, financed by the project, conducted in

accordance with Bank requirements and submitted directly to the Bank. The

Project Coordinator and other specialists will support the auditors as needed.

5

1.13 A mid-term and final evaluation of the Project will be carried out by (an)

independent consultant(s) hired and financed through resources from the GEF

(ägency fees¨) received for this Project.

1.14 The Mid-term Evaluation of the Project will be carried out when 50% of the

GEF resources have been disbursed or 24 months after the project contract goes

into effect, whichever comes first. This review will principally ascertain if project

objectives are in the process of being met by current implementation strategies

based on project component design and execution, and quality of project

coordination. The review will address such matters as: (1) an assessment of

general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in the

Results Framework; (2) a critical assessment of project administration,

coordination and execution; (3) the effectiveness of project and individual

component design including progress in inter-institutional coordination and

development of a coherent regulatory framework, and advances towards the long-

term financial sustainability of the PAs; and (4) local perception (community,

private sector and other stakeholders) of ecotourism development and community

involvement. The Mid-Term Review will serve as a formative evaluation,

meaning that it will be geared towards improving project implementation, the goal

being to improve effectiveness of future implementation by examining

implementation to date. Based on the findings, recommendations will be made to

ANAM and ATP, the project team, partners and stakeholders of ways to

strengthen implementation.

1.15 The Final Evaluation will be performed at the end of the project to determine if

the project has achieved its outcomes. The consultant(s) will evaluate project

outputs and outcomes as provided in the Results Framework and will assess the

project’s contribution to achieving global environmental benefits as identified in

the project documentation. The evaluation will make recommendations to ANAM

and ATP, the Ecotourism coordination committee, the new Ecotourism and public

use staff and partner institutions, on further consolidation of ecotourism in the

SINAP, based on project results. The Bank will conduct a final administration

mission to discuss the results of the Final Evaluation with the Government of

Panama (ANAM ATP, national and departmental government partners, and

interested public institutions).

1.16 Evaluations will assess the project’s relevance (to international, national, and

local conservation priorities), effectiveness (achievement of outcomes), efficiency

(cost-effectiveness), results (in accord with results matrix and other project

documents), and sustainability (potential to deliver environmental, social,

financial, and institutional benefits over time).

1.17 The evaluations will identify good practices and key results, and highlight lessons

learned, which will be disseminated through the Project website and to relevant

local, national and international institutions and organizations, and to other

relevant Bank and GEF projects in the region. The combination of internally and

externally led final evaluations will ensure that the best possible, most

comprehensive information is available to inform Protected Areas` management

in the future and to strengthen project replicability and sustainability.

6

1.18 The Project may be asked to participate in other evaluations, such as program-

specific or thematic evaluations performed by the GEF Evaluation Office to

determine effectiveness and impact of the overall GEF portfolio. The Project may

also be asked to participate in evaluations of country programs to determine

effectiveness of the project portfolios of participating institutions.

D. Information Dissemination, Education and Knowledge Sharing

1.19 Throughout the course of the Project’s execution, the project team will document

project processes and results that arise during the course of the execution of each

project component. Knowledge generated, best practices and lessons learned will

be shared by means of technical reports, publications, presentations, media

releases, etc., as well as at public meetings, stakeholder consultations, island-wide

education programs, conferences, workshops. Information will be disseminated

locally, nationally, regionally and internationally, and will be made available on

the project and ANAM and ATP’s web-sites, at institutional document centers,

and through project networking with all interested national, regional and

international parties, related GEF projects and ecotourism-related information-

exchange networks like the International Center for Responsible Tourism, the

Iniciativa de Operadores de Turismo para el desarrollo de turismo sostenible,

Centro de Ecoturismo y Desarrollo Sostenible (CREST), and UNESCO’s

Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). Collaboration will also be sought

with international technical partners such as UNEP, WWF, CI, Universidad

Marítima de Panamá, Corredor Marino del Pacífico Este, and others, in terms of

disseminating best practice in matters relating to specific project activities,. All

technical outputs will be of the highest quality and, when appropriate, subject to a

process of peer review prior to distribution.

http://mpa.gov/redirect.html?newURL=http://www.unesco.org/mab/

7

E. Detailed Budget and Timeline

Detailed Budget

- Project execution progress

monitoring, estimated at US$ 120,000 Personnel: US$ 80,000

Travel: US$ 40,000

- Project impact monitoring and

evaluation (ETIMS), estimated at

US$ 195,500

Personnel: US$ 144,000

- biodiversity monitoring

specialist-

Travel: US$ 40,500

Equipment and other

monitoring instruments

required: US$ 11,000

Total US$ 315,500

Timeline

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Month 1 AWP (Annual

Work Plan)

AWP AWP AWP

Month 6 Baseline for

impact

evaluation

consolidated

-- -- --

Month 7 Mid-Year

Progress Report

Mid-Year

Progress

Report

Mid-Year

Progress

Report

Mid-Year

Progress

Report

Month 10 PIR (Project

Implementation

Review - GEF

Format)

PIR PIR PIR

Month 12 APR (Annual

Project Report)

APR APR APR

-- Independent

Audit

Independent

Audit

Independent

Audit

8

Independent

Mid-Term

Evaluation

Independent

Final

Evaluation

Impact

evaluation