WORLD BANK GEF A World Bank–Global Environment Facility Initiative for Conserving Biodiversity in Ecuador Postimplementation Impact Assessment The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project A W o r l d B a n k G r o u p G l o ba l E n v i r o n m e n t Fa c i l i t y P r o g r a m P u b l i c at i o n WORLD BANK GEF Postimplementation Impact Assessment The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Global Environment Facility Program The World Bank © 2007 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Printed in the United States of America This report was prepared by Tim Boyle, Alain Lafontaine, and Evan Green of le Groupe-conseil baastel ltée, Gatineau, Québec, for the World Bank’s Global Environment Facility Coordination Team. The study was financed through the Canadian Consultant Trust Fund and was managed by Samuel Wedderburn, Environment Department. The assessment team expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the cooperation of all those interviewed in Ecuador and in other countries. Their perceptions, and the information and data they provided, greatly enriched the analysis. The team also thanks the staff of the World Bank office in Quito for their assistance with the logistical arrangements for the field mission. The Mentefactura group led by Jose Galindo provided valuable updated financial data and information on protected area infrastructure. EcoCiencia, Fundación Natura, and Fundación Antisana also shared useful statistical and environmental data. Esther Monier-Illouz assisted in editing the final report. Book design: The Word Express, Inc. based on work by Jim Cantrell. Cover design by The Word Express, Inc. Cover images: Wolfgang Kaehler/CORBIS, Joe McDonald/CORBIS Rights and permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permis- sion to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. All rights reserved The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to the members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. Contents Foreword vii Abbreviations and Acronyms ix Executive Summary 1 1. Background and methodology 7 A new type of evaluation: Postimplementation impact assessment 7 Methodology 9 2. The project and its outcomes 11 Project description 13 Findings of earlier evaluations 16 3. Impact assessment 19 Policy making and planning 19 Financial sustainability 23 Protected area management 29 Awareness raising and monitoring 38 Local beneficiaries, NGOs, and other stakeholders 42 Global environmental benefits 45 Sustainability and replicability 48 4. Conclusions 49 Policy making and planning 49 Financial sustainability 50 iii Protected area management 50 Awareness raising and monitoring 51 Local beneficiaries, NGOs, and other stakeholders 52 Global environmental benefits 52 Sustainability and replicability 52 5. Lessons and recommendations 55 Lessons 55 Recommendations 58 Appendixes A. Protected areas in Ecuador 61 B. Longitudinal analysis of studies of vegetation cover in Ecuador 63 Bibliography 67 Boxes 1. Components and principal planned activities of the biodiversity 13 protection project 2. Financial profile of the protected area system 25 3. Models of NGO protected area management 31 4. Examples of park management by municipalities and 33 indigenous communities 5. Outsourced surveillance: vigilancia verde 34 6. Case study: the SEC’s contributions 39 7. Grassroots responses: findings from field visits to four communities 43 near national parks Figures 1. Map of Ecuador’s National System of Protected Areas 15 2. Number of park guards per 100,000 hectaresin selected project and 36 nonproject protected areas in Ecuador B-1. Bands of disturbance for areas of different sizes 65 Box 2 Figure A. Sources of financing for Ecuador’s National System 25 of Protected Areas, 2003 Tables 1. Capacity for policy making and planning: Project impacts and 20 main challenges 2. Capacity to pool resources and generate revenue: Project impacts 24 and main challenges 3. Funding generated by the protected areas, 2003 27 4. Capacity for managing protected areas: Project impacts and 29 main challenges 5. Capacity for awareness raising and monitoring: Project impacts and 38 main challenges 6. Capacity of local beneficiaries, ngos, and other stakeholders: 42 Project impacts and main challenges 7. Capacity for realization of global environmental benefits: 45 Project impacts and main challenges 8. Forest cover: Numbers of plant species and endemic plant species, 47 Ecuador, 1998—2000 B-1. Trends in undisturbed and disturbed area: Three vegetation types in 64 protected areas in Cotopaxi Province, 1979, 1991, and 2004 B-2. Trends in undisturbed area: Three vegetation types in Cayambe-Coca 65 and Antisana Ecological Reserves, 1990 and 2001 Foreword Biological diversity–biodiversity–is the development of the portfolio. Three projects web of life on which all living things, large designed to protect biodiversity and promote and small, depend. In 2005 the Millennium its sustainable use were selected for review: Ecosystem Assessment, an international ap- praisal of the health of the earth’s ecosystems, • Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project found that changes in ecosystems during the • Indonesia Kerinci Seblat Conservation and preceding 50 years had been more rapid than Development Project in any comparable period of human history, • Uganda Bwindi Impenetrable National and it warned that this degradation could Park (BINP) and Mgahinga Gorilla Nation- worsen significantly. al Park (MGNP) Conservation Project Since 1991, the Global Environment Facility The project areas are significant from the (GEF) has been supporting biodiversity con- standpoint of global environmental conser- servation projects. To date, the GEF Council vation. Ecuador, with its diverse habitats has approved 135 projects, accounting for ranging from arid lands to high mountains over $1 billion in grants during 1991—2006, and tropical forests, has one of the highest with the World Bank as the implementing concentrations of biodiversity per unit area agency. With over 50 projects now closed in the world. It is one of the few countries and generating global environmental ben- described as “megadiverse” because of the efits, the World Bank’s GEF Coordination variety of its ecosystems and species. Indone- Team initiated in 2004 a series of in-depth sia has the third most extensive forest cover postimplementation impact assessments of of any tropical-forest country but suffers from completed projects to assess the sustainabil- the second highest deforestation rate in the ity of outcomes and draw lessons for further world, as a consequence of illegal logging, vii Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project setting of forest fires, and clearance of land aim is to use the lessons from the reviews for agricultural expansion. Uganda has the to improve the design of future projects and highest population densities in eastern Africa promote further integration of the global and some of the most densely populated agri- biodiversity agenda into country assistance cultural landscapes in the region. A high level strategies and lending programs while im- of poverty among the local population has proving the measurement of development led to excessive reliance on forest resources outcomes. for subsistence and income generation in the project area. Hunting and other local extrac- At its 33rd summit held in June 2007, the tive uses of forest products have combined Group of Eight emphasized the importance with large-scale commercial activities such of biodiversity and reiterated its commitment as logging and mining to threaten the biodi- to the agreed goal of significantly reducing versity of these rich forests. the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. For their part, the GEF and the World Bank are The assessments reported in these companion working toward this goal by developing new volumes involved extensive interviews with environmental programs, building on project government officials, local communities, and experience, and using the lessons learned World Bank and project staff and made use from reviews such as these to replicate suc- of direct or proxy measures to assess changes cesses and strengthen the GEF-supported in the biodiversity of the project areas. The biodiversity portfolio. Monique Barbut Katherine Sierra CEO and Chairperson Vice President, Sustainable Development Global Environment Facility The World Bank viii Abbreviations and Acronyms BIC Biodiversity Information Center CIAM Centro de Información Ambiental [Environmental Information Center] CLD Corporación Latinoamericana para el Desarrollo [Latin American Development Corporation] FAN Fondo Ambiental Nacional [National Environmental Fund] GEF Global Environment Facility ICR Implementation completion report INEFAN Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre [Ecuadorian Institute of Forestry, Natural Areas and Wildlife] NGO Nongovernmental organization NSPA National System of Protected Areas [Ecuador] PCU Project coordination unit PPAR Project performance assessment report RBM Results-based management RCC Regional consultative committee SEC Sistema de Educación y Capacitación TRA Threat reduction assessment WWF World Wide Fund for Nature Note: All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. ix Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a post- sustainable use of biodiversity in Ecuador. implementation impact assessment of the The constraints identified during the project Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project. design included (a) lack of definition of The project was funded by the World national policy on protected areas ; (b) an Bank and the Global Environment Facility inadequate institutional framework for ad- (GEF) with a grant of $7.2 million and was dressing biodiversity protection; (c) incon- implemented between 1995 and 2000. The sistent enforcement of laws and regulations; assessment was conducted a little over five and (d) insufficient budgetary allocations to years after the project ended. A description support the management of the National Sys- of the study methodology is presented in tem of Protected Areas (NSPA) at the central chapter 1. and regional levels. Accordingly, the project aimed at supporting the restructuring and The project was one of three biodiversity strengthening of institutional capacity and projects selected for long-term impact as- of the overall policy and legal framework so sessment. The aim of this type of assessment as to ensure the adequate management and is to identify the long-term impacts, sustain- financial sustainability of the NSPA. ability, and replicability of projects and the lessons to be drawn to improve the design Project outcomes and implementation of World Bank–GEF The overall conclusion of the assessment biodiversity projects. is that some capacity for biodiversity con- servation was built through the project but The Biodiversity Protection Project was a that there is significant scope for further response to the persistent constraints for strengthening. Capacity was assessed in the the effective protection and appropriate following areas. 1 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Policy making and planning for protected Revenue generation and financial sustain- areas. The central authority–the Ministry ability of protected areas. The NSPA does of Environment–still lacks critical resources not have enough resources to cover its basic and capacity and is not well connected to the costs. The project contributed to the devel- periphery. Feedback loops and mechanisms opment of the Fondo Ambiental Nacional are weak, and the ministry has little authority (FAN), which now assists with meeting at the park level. the basic operational costs of some parks. Although FAN has demonstrated capacity The project did not achieve significant main- to pool resources, it cannot underwrite the streaming of global environmental concerns financial sustainability of the system as a into national development and sector poli- whole. Tourism holds potential for bringing cies. At the time of the review, there were in additional revenue, as some NGOs and still no clear laws and policies for park local communities have demonstrated. management, for information sharing and collaboration, for natural resource extraction Protected area management . The NSPA and use, or for environmental management faces many systemic challenges, including a in general, nor was there a clear definition weak enabling environment. Pressures from of roles and responsibilities within the NSPA oil, mining, and timber companies to gain and in protected areas. Persistent economic concessions in protected areas are growing, and political instability appear to have im- and institutional weaknesses have made peded progress. enforcement difficult. Parks lack sufficient guards to cover the areas for which they are The project recorded some achievements in responsible, and park management has con- building capacity, but it worked principally sequently lost much of its ability to punish with the Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de violators in recent years. Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre (INEFAN), and when that body was absorbed into the Management capacity of staff. There is no Ministry of Environment, much of the capacity systemic capacity development program that had been developed was not carried over. for park management and enforcement At the local level the project helped build staff, and data gathered in the course of planning capacity through the development park monitoring are not utilized, shared, or of several protected area management plans. followed up regularly. Significant manage- Although these plans were not put into effect, ment capacity, encompassing knowledge, they were to be reviewed and updated under skills, commitment, influence, and ability the follow-up National System of Protected to foster and maintain good relationships, Areas Project, cofunded by the GEF. exists at the local level, particularly among 2 Executive Summary NGOs, park management and staff, and and capacity and on relationships between municipalities and local communities. Part local communities and park staff. of this capacity can be traced to the proj- ect; notably through the SEC program and The remaining findings relate to the impact the project’s infrastructure and equipment on local beneficiaries, the global environ- investments. ment, and sustainability. Many examples of collaborative forms of Impacts on local beneficiaries. The project management exist at the local level. Clarifi- engaged about 40 communities through cation of legislation would allow for better participatory planning and implementation regulation and guidance of participation. of resource management and biodiversity protection and through the SEC educational The project began to address some of the component, but there is little evidence of ef- above challenges through the development fects on livelihoods. The increased awareness of the NSPA strategic plan, but that plan was of protected areas and biodiversity achieved not put into effect. Follow-up activities in the through the SEC component and through biodiversity area would offer a good opportu- demarcation of boundaries was not sustained nity to address many of these issues. at the national level, however. Awareness raising. The overall marked posi- Global environmental benefits. Immediate tive change in local attitudes since the early environmental changes were not an expected 1990s cannot be definitely attributed to the outcome of the project, which focused on project because other projects conducted changes in capacity for environmental man- during the same period had similar objec- agement at the national and local levels. tives. The project did succeed in increasing awareness of protected areas, but many of Sustainability and replicability. Previous these gains have faded for lack of continued evaluations concluded that the project had support. Project achievements such as the not built the institutional and social sup- creation of the Biodiversity Information port and ownership necessary to ensure Center have not been sustained, and an in- the sustainability of project gains, and this stitutional “culture of not sharing” persists. assessment confirms this finding. It should There is no biodiversity database and no be recognized that the project was one of mechanisms for sharing and disseminating the first GEF-funded biodiversity protection relevant information. The SEC component of initiatives in the region and that sustainability the project, however, did have clear impacts now receives more attention. Replication of on local community awareness, knowledge, project activities was minimal except insofar 3 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project as other donors continued to fund SEC pro- servation and economic development, gramming for a time. including improved livelihoods, as well as its cost-effectiveness, to mainstream Lessons and recommendations environment in national development Experience with the Biodiversity Projection policy making. Project offers lessons that will be beneficial • Political will is necessary to ensure the for other protected area–related initiatives NSPA’s financial sustainability. Wider dis- in Ecuador and the region. semination of knowledge of the potential benefits from Ecuador’s biodiversity and Protected area policy making and plan- protected areas can promote commit- ning, mainstreaming, management ca- ment. pacity, awareness raising, and financial • Government agencies need not be re- sustainability sponsible for all aspects of protected area • Business administration and manage- management. NGOs can play a critical ment skills throughout the system would role in managing protected areas. increase the ability to deal with pressures • Experiences and lessons from various on protected areas by extractive industries forms of collaboration at the park manage- and other activities and to increase the ment level should be shared among Latin protected areas’ economic and financial American countries to improve the design potential. and implementation of future biodiversity • Poor collaboration, coordination, and protection projects. communication between the center and the periphery weaken planning, imple- Project design, management and mentation, and enforcement capacity. implementation • In a context of decentralization, local gov- • The creation of a distinct project coordina- ernments require training and adequate tion unit hampered the project’s integra- resources so that they can participate ef- tion, effectiveness, and ownership. In ad- fectively in the management of protected dition, such “enclave structures” often fail areas. to transfer needed capacity at the national • Clear and improved laws, policies, and level. regulations regarding management of • Consulting a range of stakeholders at all protected areas and extraction of resources levels through participatory committees from them would provide a stronger en- and other mechanisms promotes wide abling environment. ownership of project goals. • It is important to demonstrate and pub- • Projects aimed at achieving change at the licize the link between biodiversity con- system level are more efficient when they 4 Executive Summary have adequate resources, a sufficiently Global environmental benefits long time frame, and a realistic scale of • Lack of key performance indicators for activities. biodiversity can impede the ability of a • GEF and World Bank biodiversity proj- project to track performance and assess ects would benefit from an emphasis on sustained results. A well-developed system results-based management principles and of monitoring and evaluation also facili- ongoing measurement of performance. tates an adaptive management approach The project’s intended objectives and the during implementation. activities for achieving them should be • Long-term impacts in biodiversity conser- clearly articulated. vation and protected area management require sustained efforts in awareness Impacts on local beneficiaries raising at the local level by donors, NGOs, • Communication and capacity develop- and government. A public that is aware of ment programs in natural resource man- environmental benefits may place a higher agement can significantly raise awareness valuation on protected areas and support and improve local beneficiaries’ capacities a higher government priority for them. and benefits both immediately and in the long term. Impact assessment of biodiversity projects • Participation by local communities and • In selecting cases for impact assessment, NGOs in conservation efforts is more ef- the optimal projects are those that em- fective when participants’ thoughts and ployed an adequate monitoring system ca- ideas are seen as being put in action by pable of generating quantitative informa- those who make decisions and implement tion on global environmental benefits. programs. • It is best to choose for study projects that targeted a single protected area, if the time allocated for assessment is short. 5 1 Background and methodology The World Bank’s project monitoring and sessments examines a cluster of projects in a evaluation policy (Operational Directive specific GEF thematic area. Issues evaluated 10.70) recommends that impact evaluations include be conducted for selected projects several years after project completion, to measure • Overall results at the outcome level long-term effects. Similarly, the Global • Impacts on the global environment Environment Facility (GEF), under its own • Impacts on institutional development monitoring and evaluation policy, encour- • Impacts on beneficiaries ages its partner agencies to conduct impact • Sustainability evaluations of completed projects. Because • Replicability of the outcomes achieved the existing types of review (such as the proj- and the catalytic effect of the project ect performance assessments carried out by • Lessons for improving the design and the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group) do management of future activities not focus on long-term impacts, a need for a • The extent to which the project contrib- new set of assessments was identified. uted to mainstreaming global environmen- tal concerns into the country’s national A new type of evaluation: development and sector policies. Postimplementation impact assessment In 2004 the World Bank’s GEF team initiated The first reviews focused on four energy a series of assessments that would address the efficiency and climate change projects. long-term impacts, sustainability, and replica- The 2005 series, to which this assessment bility of projects and the lessons relevant to belongs, concentrate on biodiversity. Three World Bank and GEF policies and strategies. projects were chosen: the Biodiversity Each of these postimplementation impact as- Protection Project in Ecuador; the Bwindi 7 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga tain system-level data, the assessment team Gorilla National Park Conservation Project conducted interviews with central govern- in Uganda; and the Kerinci Seblat Integrated ment and local stakeholders, including staff Conservation and Development Project in of the Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Indonesia. The criteria for selecting projects Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre (INEFAN, for study were the Ecuadorian Institute of Forestry, Natu- ral Areas and Wildlife), which is now part • Elapse of at least five years since closure of the Ministry of Environment. Particular • Coverage by the selected projects of three attention was given to staff members who main biodiversity conservation topics: were involved in the project. In addition, the protected area management, conservation assessment team reviewed existing data on trust fund, and integrated conservation and vegetation change from remote-sensing im- development ages and independent studies (see the section • Distribution of the selected projects among on global environmental benefits in chapter different parts of the world 3). This evidence, however, is inconclusive for evaluating project impacts. The postimplementation impact assessment of the Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project At the local level, two approaches were was conducted between June and August used: interviews with local stakeholders, and 2005, a little over five years after project assessment of data from physical measures. completion. Since the latter data were rare, the report mainly uses proxy measures, as described Methodology next. Because the project framework did not es- tablish standards for “biodiversity protection” Questions for stakeholders, especially villag- or a time frame for improving performance, ers, were largely based on threat reduction it was difficult to assess the effects of the assessment methodology and were directed project on biodiversity. Relevant indicators to individuals or to group sessions, depending for capturing biophysical changes were not on the time available.1 As a supplementary developed, nor were the data subsequently surrogate measure of changes in biodiversity collected cast in a format that could be used to status, local stakeholders were asked when assess impacts. The assessment did however use indirect methods to estimate impacts. 1 The threat reduction assessment (TRA) method measures in a participatory way whether threats to The project operated both at the system biodiversity in a given area have been reduced. If they have, biodiversity changes could be expected to level and at a number of target sites. To ob- follow, even though they may not yet be evident. 8 Background and methodology they had last seen certain rare or scarce spe- methods, and sampling approaches. Data cies of animals and birds and whether they collection tools were used to construct a thought these species were more or less baseline for comparing vegetation cover common than in the past. This methodology from which to measure sustained out- is in line with that suggested in a GEF work- comes and impacts in the sector and the ing paper (GEF 2003a)–the use of effects on country. perceptions as a proxy for measuring project 4. The review team identified and con- impacts on biodiversity conservation and tacted relevant stakeholders, especially sustainable use. The advantage of the cho- original project implementers and ben- sen approaches is that they do not depend eficiaries. on the existence of baseline data, which 5. An in-depth desk review of all available the project documents did not provide. The project-, country-, and sector-related data gathered were analyzed by site and by documents allowed the evaluation team overall averages. to better understand the project and its context. The following steps were used for this as- 6. The evaluation team then undertook a sessment: two-week field mission to Ecuador to interview key informants and collect both 1. The evaluation team conducted a prelimi- qualitative and quantitative data. The nary review of documentation, including team interviewed informants from the reports, Web sites, and other sources project teams for the project under review relevant to the project and to the long- and for the follow-up National System of term impact assessment of protected area Protected Areas (NSPA) Project; relevant projects. A bibliography follows the ap- persons from the Ministry of Environment pendixes to this volume. and other ministries; representatives of 2. On the basis of the preliminary review, environmental and international NGOs, discussions with World Bank staff, and donors, and the private sector; park lessons from other impact assessments, the heads and protected area personnel; team developed an evaluation methodol- and members of local communities and ogy. other relevant groups who were primary 3. Specific evaluation matrices were devel- beneficiaries of the project. Focus groups oped for each aspect of the project. The with local communities and park staff in matrices included detailed questions, and around two protected areas provided indicators of performance using results- information and allowed verification of based management (RBM) methodology, findings from other sources. The team relevant data sources, data collection also collected further documentation, 9 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project including relevant reports, statistical 7. The final step was compilation and analy- analyses, sectoral documents, policies, sis of the data collected. Data triangulation and laws. allowed for verification of the findings. 10 2 The project and its outcomes Ecuador, with its diverse habitats ranging from areas. Many protected areas and buffer arid lands to high mountains and tropical zones are occupied by indigenous groups forests, has one of the highest concentrations and nonindigenous poor farmers, but until of biodiversity per unit area in the world. It is the early 1990s there were no government one of the few countries in the world catego- policies for involving local communities in rized as megadiverse because of the variety the management of conservation units, and of its ecosystems and species (World Bank conflicts between indigenous peoples and 2002e). Its globally important ecosystems park administrators were frequent. Multiple include coastal and tropical humid forests, and sometimes contradictory laws, regula- Andean slope forests, and tropical Amazonian tions, and property rights made natural forests. Ecuador is home to 10 percent of the resource management particularly complex. world’s plant species, and 20 percent of its Indigenous people laid claim to 40 percent 25,000 vascular plant species are endemic. of the Amazon, including some protected The country harbors an estimated 800 spe- areas. Exploration and drilling in the parks cies of freshwater fish, 450 species of marine by oil and gas companies and the interaction fish, 422 amphibian species, 375 reptile of local and indigenous populations with species, 333 mammalian species, and 1,618 these companies complicated the situation. bird species. All this biodiversity is sheltered In the absence of a complete and coherent in a country of 256,370 square kilometers, environmental law, each sector regarded equivalent to about 0.18 percent of the Earth’s its own legal instruments as prevailing land surface (World Bank 2002e). over others. Highly centralized but weak government institutions and cumbersome Strong pressures from economic activity bureaucratic structures exacerbated these constantly threaten Ecuador’s protected problems. 11 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project In the 1980s Ecuadorian civil society gener- In 1996, while the project was being imple- ated a variety of environmental initiatives mented, the Ministry of Environment was and projects, and the government became created, and it absorbed INEFAN, which had more active in the sector. By 1991 the gov- been the primary participant in most aspects ernment had taken steps to begin manag- of the project. A consequence was some ing tourism in the Galápagos, and in 1992 disruption of continuity and institutional it formed a new agency for biodiversity memory. protection, INEFAN (which, however, was given inadequate staffing and funding). Historically, civil society played an important Within INEFAN, a Directorate for Biodi- role in the establishment of environmental versity and Protected Areas was accorded institutions and practices. Various well- a position equal to a national forestry di- designed NGO initiatives contributed to rectorate. At the time of the appraisal of improvements in specific areas, but coordi- the Biodiversity Protection Project, the nation and systemwide focus were lacking. government had established the National Mistrust existed among NGOs, particularly System of Protected Areas (NSPA), which between national and international organiza- covered 15 conservation units that were of tions. Many NGOs perceived a lack of trans- global importance for their endemism and parency in large international donor projects, high levels of biodiversity. Fourteen of these and some national and indigenous groups sites were located on the mainland; the 15th claimed that a small circle of organizations was the Galápagos Marine Reserve in the was hijacking biodiversity funding. Pacific Ocean. Although Ecuador was the third country These advances occurred during a decade to sign the United Nations Convention on that was economically and politically diffi- Biodiversity, it was the last signatory to cult for Ecuador. During the period 1990—99 enact and implement a law for biodiversity there was virtually no economic growth, the management and sustainable use. This is- currency was devalued by three orders of sue has led to significant tensions at the magnitude, and annual inflation was more local level and some strains between NGOs than 50 percent. Between 1996 and 2001 and indigenous groups. The indigenous the country had five presidents. Economic communities represented by the Confed- issues dominated the work of the state, eración de Nacionalidades Indígenas del relegating environmental policy to a lesser Ecuador (CONAIE, the Confederation of place and rendering medium- and long-term Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) view planning very difficult (Albán and Barragán Ecuador’s biodiversity as belonging to the 2001). community. They are convinced that the 12 The project and its outcomes proposed Biodiversity Law would put their of institutional capacity and of the overall natural resources on the market and that policy and legal framework so as to ensure the law is being pushed by large NGOs and the adequate management and financial by U.S. organizations. The Alianza para la sustainability of the NSPA. This would entail Biodiversidad (the Biodiversity Alliance) improvement of the organizational perfor- and the Comité Ecuatoriano para la De- mance of INEFAN and of the capacity of fensa de la Naturaleza y el Medio Ambiente decentralized units to plan for and manage (CEDENMA, the Ecuadorian Committee for the protected areas. The project compo- Defense of Nature and the Environment), nents comprised institutional strengthening, an umbrella environmental NGO, have reform of the legal framework, outreach advocated passage of the Biodiversity Law, activities, and investments in protected but there is not much middle ground for areas (box 1). discussion and compromise. The NSPA currently includes 33 protected Project description areas covering nearly 4.6 million hectares, The Biodiversity Protection Project was a equivalent to 18.5 percent of Ecuador’s na- response to the persistent constraints on the tional territory (see figure 1), as well as 14 effective protection and appropriate sustain- million hectares of marine area. The system able use of biodiversity in Ecuador. At the extends over 22 political provinces. Most time of project appraisal, these constraints of the country’s ecosystems and vegetation included (a) lack of definition of national provinces, as well as its four geographic ar- policy on protected areas, (b) an inadequate eas, are represented. institutional framework for addressing biodiversity protection, (c) inconsistent en- Officially, the NSPA is coordinated by the forcement of existing laws and regulations, Dirección de Biodiversidad y Áreas Protegi- and (d) insufficient budgetary allocations to das (Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected support NSPA management at the central and Areas), which is under the subsecretary of regional levels. A GEF grant of $7.2 million natural capital in the Ministry of Environ- was approved by the World Bank on May 9, ment. The system has recently undergone 1994, and became effective July 24, 1995. decentralization. The project was scheduled to close on June 30, 2000, but closed three months early, on Managers of protected areas (responsables) March 31, 2000. report to regional biodiversity leaders, who report to the regional directors, who report to The main objective of the project was to the Ministry of Environment. The Directorate support the restructuring and strengthening of Biodiversity and Protected Areas has no di- 13 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Box 1 Components and principal planned activities of the Biodiversity Protection Project Institutional strengthening was aimed at enhancing the capacity of the Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre (INEFAN) to manage the National System of Protected Areas. Activities were to include (a) training for INEFAN staff and other public officials under the project’s educational component, the Sistema de Educación y Capacitación (SEC); (b) review and updating of existing management plans for protected areas with the participation of local communities; (c) studies to determine the economic value of goods and services generated through use of protected area resources; (d) analysis of the relationship between local populations and protected areas, focusing on the popula- tion’s use of resources and on ways to maximize the benefits accruing to communities; (e) design of a new system for collecting and allocating revenues from resource use activities; and (f) review of the role and responsibilities of tour operators in promoting conservation while allowing for sustainable revenue generation. Activities relating to the reform of the legal and regulatory framework included (a) a comparative review of current legislation affecting protected areas; (b) identification and establishment of legal reforms for the protection and management of biodiversity; (c) drafting and promulgation of new regulations for granting operating permits to official and private users of the National System of Protected Areas and for limiting extractive activities within these areas; (d) development and establishment of regulations that would apply to both public and private property within a management regime and allow private property owners to participate in the management of the area; (e) development of regulations and a strategy to allow community participation in the administration of the protected areas and their buffer zones; and (f) analysis of the institutional, legal, and social problems related to landholding within protected areas, with a view to identifying effective legislation for solving these problems. Outreach activities aimed at (a) conflict resolution among key target groups through a national forum to promote project activities and obtain the support of all interested groups; (b) creation of regional coordination committees to oversee the implementation of management plans and the conflict resolu- tion process; (c) a study on problems of tenancy and resource use within protected areas; (d) public awareness campaigns at the national level to promote biodiversity conservation and the new legal system relating to protected areas; (e) development of a strategy at the national and regional levels to educate the public on the National System of Protected Areas; and (f) technical assistance and pilot studies for Chachi and other native communities located in buffer zones and areas surrounding the Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve. Investment activities included provision of financing for civil works and infrastructure for selected protected areas, border delimitation, establishment of trails for visitors, and the construction of visitor information centers. In addition, INEFAN field staff in the protected areas were to receive logistical support in the form of vehicles, motorcycles, survival equipment, and the like. rect contact or authority regarding protected cases. Administration is further complicated area management in the field. Municipalities because many protected areas extend over are also involved in protected areas in many more than one municipality and even over 14 The project and its outcomes Figure 1 Map of Ecuador’s National System of Protected Areas 90 GALAPAGOS ISLANDS ARCHIPIÉLAGO ISLA PINTA ECUADOR NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS DE COLÓN ISL A M ARCHE NA ISLA GE NOVE SA Galápagos National Park and 0 0 Marine Biological Reserve PROTECTED AREAS AIRPORTS ISLA SAN SALVADOR ISLA FERNANDINA PORTS PA C I F I C ISLA SANTA CRUZ PAVED ROADS RIVERS ISLA ISLA SAN OCEAN CRISTÓBAL OTHER ALL-WEATHER ROADS PROVINCE BOUNDARIES ISABELA 1 1 RAILROADS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 0 25 50 75 100 ISLA SA NTA M ARÍ A KILOMETERS ISLA 91 90 ESPA ÑOLA 81 80 Manglares-Cayapas- 79 78 77 76 Mataje Ecological Reserve San Lorenzo La Chiquita Wildlife Refuge El Angel C O L O M B I A 1 ESMERALDAS 1 Ri Ecological Reserve o P A C I F I C San M TULCÁN Rio Cotacachi- ESMERALDAS Cayapas ig CARCHI Es ue Ecological m Cofán-Bermejo l er al Reserve da Ecological Reserve O C E A N Mache- s Bonita Estuario Rosa IMBABURA Chindul Zárate IBARRA Río Muisne Ecological Rio Sa n Otavalo Wildlife Reserve M ig uel Refuge Pululahua Lago Agrio Geobotanical Reserve Cayambe-Coca S U Puerto el Carmen Cayambe de Putumayo 0 Ecological C U 0 PICHINCHA M B Shushufindi I O Santo Domingo Reserve Limoncocha S de los Colorados QUITO Rio Aguarico Cuyabeno N A P O Biological Pasochoa Wildlife Refuge Sumaco Fauna Reserve Reserve National M A N A B I Antisana Park Puerto Francisco de Orellana Isla Corazón Los Ilinizas Cotopaxi R io National Ecological Bahía de Caráquez Na Wildlife Refuge Ecological po Park Reserve Reserve O R E L L A N A COTOPAXI El Boliche Nat’l. Recreation Area Nuevo Rio Calceta Manta Archidona Ya Rocafuerte LATACUNGA su 1 ni 1 Velasco Ibarra Quevedo TENA Llanganates PORTOVIEJO National Yasuní ISLA LA Ri o AMBATO Park Cononaco PLATA National Park Sucre Chimborazo TUNGURAHUA Baños Fauna le Mera R io Dau Machalilla Reserve PUYO C u ra ra y National Park LOS RIOS GUARANDA Rio ISLA SALANGO BOLIV AR RIOBAMBA Palora P A S T A Z A Ri o BABAHOYO Pin toy acu Manglaralto CHIMBORAZO Sangay Rio yo ba io 2 ho Manglares-El Salado National Ba R 2 Ri o Fauna Production Reserve Naranjito Park Pa Bo sta bo Salinas G U A Y A S Cumandá za na El Lago National GUAYAQUIL za Recreation Area MACAS Manglares- Sucua MORONA- Churute C A Ñ A R SANTIAGO ano Ecological Rup Reserve Naranjal e Mendez a im Posorja ng AZOGUES Ca Cajas Gu lf of R io National CUENCA General L. Plaza 3 3 Park A Z U A Y Gutiérrez Guayaquil o ra P E R U Zam Isla Santa Clara MACHALA Wildlife Refuge Ri o Gualaquiza Huaquillas E L Arenillas O R O El Cóndor Ecological Binational Park Reserve Yantzaza ZAMORA- 4 CHINCHIPE 4 LOJA Catacocha ZAMORA L O J A Malacatos Podocarpus 0 25 50 75 100 Macara National Canamanga Park KILOMETERS This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on 5 P E R U this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment 5 on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of IBRD 35425 such boundaries. APRIL 2007 81 80 79 78 77 76 15 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project more than one province or regional district restructured and strengthened institutional (see appendix A).2 The consequence can be capacity to manage the NSPA. a fragmentation of management of protected areas, with responsibility divided among The PPAR and the independent evaluation several (regional) biodiversity leaders whose pointed to two specific activities that led to priorities may not be in harmony. significantly strengthened institutions: the training and education system implemented Findings of earlier evaluations by the Sistema de Educación y Capacitación Three evaluations of the Biodiversity Protec- (SEC) and the development of protected area tion Project preceded this postimplementa- management plans. The project also sup- tion assessment: the 2000 implementation ported the creation of consultative groups completion report, the 2002 project perfor- formed by local communities and other mance assessment report, and an indepen- resource users to discuss problems, options, dent evaluation undertaken by the Corpo- and strategies relating to park management. ración Latinoamericana para el Desarrollo Although most of these groups have since (CLD) in 1999. disappeared, the attempt to incorporate stake- holder participation systematically in park The CLD independent evaluation concluded management was a significant step. that the project was overambitious, undertak- ing too many activities that were not coordi- All three evaluations found that the project nated. Significant changes had been made in supported the legal and regulatory framework the original design, including a scaling down through such activities as the design of a plan of capacity development activities, and the to decentralize the NSPA. That proposal was project failed to clarify the roles of the main incorporated into the NSPA master plan and players in the project execution structure became part of the draft Biodiversity Law (CLD 1999). and of Special Law 278 of 1998. These ac- complishments however, contributed little The project performance assessment report to the improvement of the management of (PPAR) rated the project outcome as “mod- protected areas (World Bank 2002c). The erately unsuccessful” (World Bank 2002a, NSPA master plan was never approved by 2002b, 2002c). Among the main factors af- fecting project implementation were poor de- sign, lack of ownership by the implementing 2 Regional districts are decentralized units empow- ered to make everyday decisions. Each such district agency, and overly centralized decision mak- coordinates the management of forestry activities and of protected areas within its jurisdiction. A regional ing in the project coordination unit (PCU). district may include two or more provinces and The PPAR asserted that the project had not protected areas (World Bank 1994). 16 The project and its outcomes INEFAN’s management, and, at the time of the support of INEFAN’s management. A writing the draft Biodiversity Law had not trust fund was eventually established under been enacted. The follow-up project includes the management of the Fondo Ambiental a proposal for development of a Protected Nacional, using information developed by Areas Law to support sustainable manage- the project. ment of the parks. The ICR and the PPAR concluded that the According to the implementation completion project had failed to produce a functioning report (ICR), some dissemination of com- institutional and financial framework or to se- munication materials through mass media cure a sustainable source of financing for the was carried out, and there was evidence of maintenance and management of protected increased public awareness (World Bank areas. The CLD evaluation found that the 2000a). The PPAR and the independent project had not developed an overall system evaluation, however, found that gains in for protected area management during its outreach and citizen participation were five-year lifespan. Continued and increasing modest; achievements were localized in a pressures on protected areas from mining, oil, few protected areas and had little impact on and timber interests and from uncontrolled the system as a whole. Much of the initial tourism demonstrated the absence of a broad impact of the activities diminished because policy for protected area management and reinforcing messages were lacking. conservation. Most of those interviewed for this assessment confirmed the findings and Investments in protected areas–design, recommendations of the previous evalua- construction, and development of trails, tions. construction of guard posts and basic park infrastructure, and provision of automobiles All the evaluations stated that a follow-up and equipment–exceeded the targets at project would be vital for achieving impacts project appraisal and significantly increased from the project. According to the stakehold- the ability of local staff to patrol protected ers interviewed, during the five to six years areas and reach out to local communities. that elapsed after the end of the Biodiversity Under the project, studies were conducted Protection Project, critical opportunities for a protected area trust fund to be financed were missed. The delay was frustrating for through tourist fees, tariffs, fines for illegal stakeholders who had invested significant tree felling and wildlife harvesting, and al- time and effort in developing management locations from the national budget. This fund plans. Some initiatives simply ended, and would be used exclusively for biodiversity the uncertainty led some NGOs to seek other protection. The proposal, however, lacked projects to work with. 17 3 Impact assessment According to the PPAR, of the 35 activi- four staff members. Although these people ties planned for the Biodiversity Protection are highly competent, they are overstretched. Project, 24 were completed or partially Constant changes in political power and in completed. The remaining 11, mainly related senior officials compromise the sustainability to the Galápagos protected area, were only of the capacity that has been developed. The partially undertaken, largely because of prob- integration of INEFAN into the Ministry of lems with government disbursements (World Environment resulted in loss of institutional Bank 2002c). memory and of some of the capacity devel- oped by the project. This chapter discusses the impacts of the project according to the type of capacity There is evidence that some of the knowledge targeted. and skills developed through the project are still present in the ministry. For example, Policy making and planning Antonio Matamoros, who was a biologist Table 1 summarizes the most important proj- and wildlife expert in INEFAN, studied at ect impacts on capacity for policy making and Arizona State University, with support from planning and the outstanding challenges. the project. There, he earned a master’s de- gree in natural resource management, with a At the national level specialization in biodiversity. He returned to The interviews carried out during the field the Ministry of Environment and eventually mission made it clear that Ecuador’s Minis- because head of the Directorate of Biodiver- try of Environment is generally understaffed sity and Protected Areas and national focal and underfunded. The ministry’s unit for point for Ecuador to the United Nations Biodiversity and Protected Areas has only Convention on Biodiversity. 19 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Table 1 Capacity for policy making and planning: Project impacts and main challenges Type of capacity Project impacts Main challenges Policy making • Some capacity was developed in • Human and financial resources are and planning the Ministry of Environment through insufficient for adequate NSPA policy programming by the Sistema de making and planning. Educación y Capacitación (SEC). • The enabling environment for • Some local planning capacity protected area and environmental was built through development of management is inadequate. protected area management plans. • There is a need for business • A strategic plan for the National administration capacity and language System of Protected Areas was training. formulated. • Environment and biodiversity are • Important studies were completed. not mainstreamed into the national agenda and government operations. • The design of a plan to decentralize the NSPA contributed to the proposed • Interministerial coordination and Biodiversity Law and to Special Law collaboration on environmental and 278, on decentralization. biodiversity issues remain poor. • Environment was mainstreamed into • Laws and policies often conflict. the government agenda and priorities and into public discourse for a time during the project. Nevertheless, the ministry, by its own admis- ments–including the 1999 Law on Environ- sion, is missing some important skills needed mental Management–and through a slight to assist with and improve NSPA manage- increase in the government’s environment ment. Among these is the ability to speak budget and staffing (World Bank 2002d). English, which would facilitate contacts with Interviews conducted for this assessment sug- donors and others. Ministry representatives gest, however, that the increases have been also stressed the need to build internal capac- insufficient. Most stakeholders interviewed ity in business administration and manage- did not believe that the new environmental ment so that they can deal more adequately law had had a significant influence on the with oil companies, mining companies, institutional capacity of the Ministry of Envi- and other private sector actors that extract ronment or its ability to manage the NSPA, resources from the parks. and most respondents did not give the Biodi- versity Protection Project credit for the law. According to a World Bank report, by 2000 the Ministry of Environment’s operating The project contributed to the completion of capacity had been improved through the the 1996 strategic plan for the NSPA, which development of legal and technical instru- is intended to lend clarity and focus to poli- 20 Impact assessment cies, vision, and the system as a whole. The versity and Protected Areas have impeded plan’s main elements are (a) to strengthen the progress and cooperation on these issues and administration of the NSPA; (b) to implement have had negative effects on sustainability new regulations and programs that increase over time. private and public capacity for protected area management; (c) to enhance public support Capacity for NSPA planning seems stronger for protected areas by strengthening govern- outside the central government structures, in mental and nongovernmental communica- particular among national and international tion and environmental education programs NGOs, academic institutions, and park man- at the local, regional, and national levels; (d) agement. Most nongovernmental stakehold- to implement protected area management ers noted that there is more participation plans; (e) to establish a long-term financial and more cooperation with the Ministry of mechanism for protected area management; Environment now than in the past but that (f) to strengthen mechanisms for the partici- there is still room for improvement in inte- pation of local communities, NGOs, and the grating and utilizing existing knowledge and private sector in the administration of the capacity for common ends. At the time of the NSPA; and (g) to implement new mechanisms assessment, according to the data collected, for the participation of regional entities. The both the ministry and NGOs seemed willing revision and implementation of the plan as to cooperate for protected area management part of the GEF-cofunded follow-up project planning. All recognized that the ministry offer an opportunity to address some of the should take the lead in NSPA planning but institutional and systemic challenges in the also that collaboration was necessary to NSPA. achieve the ministry’s goals. Many stakeholders noted that the project Mainstreaming of global environmental gave impetus to discussion of a common strat- concerns into national development and egy for the protected areas and that it set in sector policies motion the institutionalization of the system Environment is the subject of several portions overall, at a time when many protected areas of Ecuador’s 1998 constitution. Article 3 calls were only “paper parks.” A comprehensive for the government to defend the country’s system now exists, partly because of project natural and cultural patrimony and to protect efforts, but lack of a common vision among the environment. Article 23 (in the chapter stakeholders and even within INEFAN itself on civil rights) affirms the right to live in a has hampered the effectiveness of the strat- healthy, ecologically balanced environment, egy. Internal political conflicts between the free of pollution, and states that the law will forestry unit and the Directorate for Biodi- establish restrictions on the exercise of cer- 21 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project tain rights and freedoms in order to protect inputs into the ministry’s biodiversity the environment. A whole section of title III, strategy and other strategies and laws. on rights, guarantees, and duties, is devoted 4. The project partly influenced the 1999 Law to the environment; article 86 in that sec- on Environmental Management, which is tion provides for the establishment of the reported to have effectively separated the NSPA.3 These provisions demonstrate some production-oriented forestry unit from the mainstreaming of environment in the national Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected agenda. Although there is little indication Areas in the Ministry of Environment. The that the project contributed directly to their law also established a decentralized envi- inclusion, it did have some effects on other ronmental management system that pro- legislation. vided for involvement of municipalities. 1. The project financed some of the first The project achieved little in the way of workshops on the Biodiversity Law, which coordination between the Ministry of Envi- envisioned the integration of biodiversity ronment and other ministries such as energy, management, protection, and sustainable mining, and agriculture. This review supports use into nonenvironmental sectors, and it the findings of the PPAR, which suggested contributed to the completion of a plan that creating alliances with relevant ministries for decentralization that was subsequently should have been more of a priority for the incorporated into the master NSPA plan project in order to improve the effectiveness and the Biodiversity Law. (At the time of of regulations regarding extractive activities writing, however, the Biodiversity Law had in protected areas. not yet been approved by Congress, and capacity development in the decentralized The project helped bring biodiversity and pro- system has been inadequate.) tected areas into the government agenda and 2. The project contributed to the develop- public debate. Most stakeholders interviewed ment and adoption of Special Law 278, noted that during and immediately after the which provides for decentralization and project, environment was mainstreamed into can be seen as facilitating participation in government discourse for a time, but most environmental management at the local also pointed out a deterioration since then. A level. The law has, however, had negative slight majority of stakeholders believed that repercussions on the financial resources available for the NSPA, as discussed in 3 See Base de Datos Políticos de las Américas, the next section. “República de Ecuador: Constitución Política de 1998,” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/ 3. As noted in the PPAR, studies produced Ecuador/ecuador98.html. For an English-language under the project were used as important summary, see Lopez (2005), 344. 22 Impact assessment environment was less mainstreamed than contained useful information that remained before and could not be considered a cross- valid after the project ended. Once updated, cutting theme or priority in Ecuador. as envisaged for the two parks targeted in the follow-up NSPA Project (Cotacachi-Cayapas At the local level and Machalilla), these studies and plans could Several protected area management plans become operational management plans. were completed with the leadership or co- operation of NGOs, with assistance from Financial sustainability the project.4 According to most stakeholders, Table 2 summarizes the most important proj- little management planning has been done in ect impacts on capacity in the financial area the protected areas since the project ended. and the outstanding challenges. A few management planning efforts spear- headed by NGOs were linked to or were a The Ministry of Environment has one of the continuation of activities that took place dur- smallest budgets in the public sector, and ing the project. Examples include the work even as the state budget has increased, the of Fundación Antisana in Antisana and of ministry’s has declined. A financial gap analy- Fundación Natura in Sangay. In most cases sis (Galindo and others 2005) demonstrated these activities were initiated by the NGOs that the NSPA had not improved its financial with funding from other sources. situation since 1998 and noted significant shortfalls in personnel, transportation, and Most of the protected area management equipment in many protected areas. Accord- plans were shelved after the project ended, ing to the ministry, financing for the NSPA apparently for lack of funds. The plans were in 2003 totaled $2.7 million, which was said to be too complex and theoretical, and about 0.0004 percent of the 2003 budget most stakeholders stated that management for the government as a whole. This level of planning in the project was not sufficiently funding was significantly less than funding participatory. According to the basic country for protected area systems in other develop- assessment by the United Nations Develop- ing countries in the same year, according to ment Programme (UNDP) and the GEF, “only an analysis by Bruner (2004). One reason six protected areas have their management was that under Special Law 278, approved plans up to date, while ten areas of the sys- in 1998, the funds available for the NSPA tem do not have a management plan at all” (Galindo, Baus, and Aillón 2005, 9). 4 Protected area management plans are key man- agement tools; they contain the baseline scenario for biodiversity, socioeconomic information, and It is widely agreed that the studies and man- information on zoning and park boundaries, and they agement plans completed through the project define monitoring systems. 23 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Table 2 Capacity to pool resources and generate revenue: Project impacts and main challenges Type of capacity Project impacts Main challenges Resource pooling • The project contributed • Resources are not sufficient to cover basic and revenue to the development of the costs of the National System of Protected generation Fondo Ambiental Nacional Areas. (FAN), which now covers • The budget of the Ministry of Environment operational costs of some decreased even as the state budget protected areas. increased. • Infrastructure investments • Almost all of NSPA’s financial resources in some protected come from 5 protected areas; 13 areas areas under the project generate no funds. contributed indirectly to tourism. • The enabling environment for tourism and other revenue-generation activities in protected areas is unclear. • Greater capacity on the part of local communities and nongovernmental organizations for providing tourism activities is needed. • Awareness of the potential value of the resources that can be generated through tourism activities in protected areas is low. were significantly reduced–the Galápagos included $2.9 million from a debt swap with protected area, which had previously sent the German government, $4.3 million from more than two thirds of its revenues to the the GEF, and $700,000 from the Netherlands. system, reduced its contribution to 5 percent An initial $1 million contribution from the and then, in 2004, to zero. The elimination of government of Ecuador demonstrated the this major source of financial support created government’s commitment to this private a wide gap between the NSPA’s actual and institution, but because of the national required financial resources (box 2). economic crisis, it was not until 2000 that FAN received these resources, in the form of national bonds with an amortization period Establishment of the Fondo Ambiental Na- of three years. cional (FAN, National Environmental Fund) and its protected area trust fund began as Throughout the history of environmental part of the project; FAN was created in 1996 management in Ecuador, various projects and became operational in 1999. The trust have been negotiated but not implemented fund was set up in 2002, with funding that for lack of national counterpart support. FAN 24 Impact assessment Box 2 Financial profile of the protected area system A financial analysis by Galindo and others (2005) estimated the financial requirements of the NSPA under two scenarios: • A basic scenario focusing on the minimum necessary requirements for the management of the protected areas. Three objectives are envisioned: to consolidate the presence of the Ministry of Environment in the NSPA; to guarantee the preservation of the integrity of the heritage of the mainland areas of the NSPA; and to facilitate participatory management and greater involvement of community organizations and local government in the management of protected areas. • An integrated scenario calling for the implementation of activities that would guarantee the long-term fulfillment of the NSPA’s objectives and the sustainable use of the protected areas’ intrinsic values. This scenario favors sustainable development principles in protected areas and outlines possibilities for using natural resources and encouraging the participation of the various social actors. It involves the development of initiatives and projects that aim to improve the quality of life of the population through the promotion of practices and alternatives compatible with conservation. Under the basic scenario, Ecuador’s 31 mainland protected areas require $5.9 million per year. Under the integrated management scenario, $15.2 million is needed. So, even in the most basic management scenario, funding for the NSPA—currently $2.7 million— would have to be increased more than 2.3 times. As the figure shows, NSPA funds come from the government (35 percent), from the protected areas them- selves, through entrance fees and tourism revenues (31 percent), from private sources (9 percent), from the protected area trust fund managed by the Fondo Ambiental Nacional (FAN) (10 percent), and from assistance provided through projects of international and bilateral donors (15 percent). Galindo, Baus, and Aillón (2005) note that 71 organizations and entities provide financial support to the NSPA: 8 international agencies and donors, 7 international NGOs, 15 national NGOs, 25 local NGOs, 8 government entities, and 8 private sector stakeholders. Box 2 Figure A Sources of financing for Ecuador’s National System of Protected Areas, 2003 (U.S. dollars) Total NSPA budget: $2.7 million External assistance Protected area trust fund 396,318 managed by the Fondo Ambiental Nacional (FAN) 267,081 Budgetary resources 953,762 Protected areas Private sources (self-management) 255,000 833,627 Source: Ministry of Environment 2005a. 25 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project has been able to increase the resources avail- that financial resources are skewed toward able and stimulate the investment of new the protected areas with the most tourism resources. Donors see FAN as independent potential. This leaves other protected areas and transparent, with a long-term vision for with inadequate resources to cover basic financial sustainability. FAN currently pro- costs. vides $45,000–$50,000 per year for nine protected areas. In 2003, according to the Ecuador Ministry of Tourism, mainland protected areas in the The project contributed to the development NSPA received more than 351,000 visitors. of funds that have been used to leverage Five protected areas–Cotopaxi, Machalilla, further financing for FAN. A key component Cuyabeno, Chimborazo, and Cotacachi- of the follow-up project is to increase FAN’s Cayapas–accounted for almost all the total funding to $12 million by 2005; this goal generated by the protected areas (see table 3). had already been achieved at the time of the Most protected areas do not currently have assessment mission. The next target is $30 the capacity to produce significant financial million by 2010. resources on their own; 3 parks generate less than $1,000, and 13 generate no funds. The The stakeholders interviewed generally Biodiversity Protection Project had intended agreed that much of the capacity to pool to address revenue generation but achieved needed financial resources for protected areas little. in Ecuador resides not with the government or even with FAN but with the protected Stakeholders agree that significant capacity areas themselves. Most felt that the project will have to be built in protected areas if tour- had not adequately addressed the need for ism potential is to be tapped; that regulations a system for autogeneration of funds for the governing tourism are needed; and that park protected areas. management’s capacity to collect fees has to be addressed. Issues of redistributive equity Resource allocation in the NSPA, according in the NSPA also need to be discussed. to the basic country assessment (Galindo, Baus, and Aillón 2005), tends to follow a Ecotourism and related capacities could be pattern and does not necessarily respond to further developed. The protected areas with current protected area needs and priorities. the greatest potential for financial revenues The financial analysis showed that in many are those close to Quito; they include Co- cases the protected areas that generate the tacachi-Cayapas, Cotopaxi, and El Boliche, most funds are also the largest recipients which are among the most visited parks in of funding from the system. The reason is the country, aside from Galápagos. Guided 26 Impact assessment Table 3 Funding generated by the protected areas, 2003 Areas with self-generated budgets U.S. dollars Percentage of total Cotopaxi National Park 328,864 39.45 Machalilla National Park 198,082 23.76 Cuyabeno Fauna Reserve 92,515 11.10 Chimborazo Fauna Reserve 62,306 7.47 Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve 52,681 6.32 El Boliche National Recreation Area 33,047 3.96 Pasochoa Wildlife Refuge 25,000 3.00 Podocarpus National Park 7,678 0.92 Pululahua Geobotanical Reserve 7,555 0.91 Los Ilinizas Ecological Reserve 6,793 0.81 Sangay National Park 5,415 0.65 Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve 5,115 0.61 El Angel Ecological Reserve 4,259 0.51 Manglares-Churute Ecological Reserve 2,047 0.25 Antisana Ecological Reserve 1,415 0.17 Limoncocha Biological Reserve 403 005 Sumaco National Park 168 0.02 Llanganates National Park 284 0.03 Total 833,627 100 Source: Galindo and others 2005. tours, opportunities for visitors to stay with beach (El Freiles) with hotels, seasonal whale communities in log cabins in the forest, and watching, humid forest, dry forest, cabin ac- other tourist-related entrepreneurial initia- commodations, various species of flora and tives could be undertaken or expanded, and fauna, local guides, and a visitor center. fees could be raised. Cotacachi-Cayapas has the highest number of tourists in the country The visitor centers built under the project are (almost 89,000 per year, according to the among the project investments that have had financial analysis), but it contributes only a long-term impact on the ability of certain 6.32 percent of NSPA funds; entrance fees parks to attract tourists and raise revenue. are among the lowest in the country and are The assessment team visited the centers in not systematically collected. An example of Cotacachi-Cayapas and Machalilla. Both are a protected area with potential for significant well known and appreciated, according to tourism revenue is Machalilla, which offers a most stakeholders; one respondent called 27 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project the visitor center in Cotacachi-Cayapas a have been active in protected areas include “showpiece” of the project. national organizations such as EcoCiencia, Fundación Natura, and Fundación Antisana Stakeholders observed that limited awareness and international NGOs such as Conserva- of the parks’ potential capacity for generat- tion International, the Nature Conservancy, ing funds leads to a low overall valuation of and the World Conservation Union. Private the protected areas. Relevant financial data protected areas run by NGOs are successfully related to the potential of protected areas for generating revenue in certain areas. Jatun revenue generation are not kept in any sys- Sacha, notably, raises outside funds, attracts tematized way in the NSPA. Indeed, Galindo volunteers, and is completely self-sustaining. and others (2005) conducted the first system- (See box 3 in the next section.) The enabling atic collection and analysis of this data for the environment for NGO activity–laws, policies, NSPA. The Biodiversity Protection Project and rules–remains unclear and weak, how- included a study on the value of goods and ever. There is much potential to expand and services generated through the parks, but that replicate NGO efforts throughout the NSPA study has not been well circulated. The links and to cement these collaborative efforts with between conservation and economic devel- strong, clear legislation and regulations. opment (such as benefits from development of tourism) should be discussed and shared In many cases communities within or adjacent with a wide variety of stakeholders. A study by to protected areas have been able to generate Balmford and others (2002) notes that in many revenues from tourism. For example, in Agua cases direct global and local economic ben- Blanca, a small community in Machalilla and efits from protection of biologically important perhaps the flagship case of good relations areas are greater than the costs of establishing with communities living in parks, revenues and managing protected areas. raised from tourism have significantly helped park-community relations to evolve from NGOs and donors have led the way in pro- antagonism to cooperation and mutual ben- tected area management and, in particular, in efit. Archaeological findings on the Manta pooling resources for this purpose during the people in the protected area have led to the past decade. One of the principal financial development of tourism, and the community mechanisms for the NSPA has been inter- has used both archaeological tourism and national assistance from sources such as the ecotourism to its advantage. The community GEF and from bilateral donors, including Ger- offers guided tours of archaeological and many, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the natural sites and has a museum of artifacts United States. Such assistance has, however, and history. (Community members said that been declining in recent years. NGOs that the project had no role in this success.) 28 Impact assessment Protected area management area management and the outstanding chal- Table 4 summarizes the most important lenges. project impacts on capacity for protected Table 4 Capacity for managing protected areas: Project impacts and main challenges Type of capacity Project impacts Main challenges Implementation • The project contributed • Coordination, collaboration, and communication and overall to the process of between the center (the Ministry of Environment) management decentralization, which was and the periphery (regional level, park integrated into the strategic management, and local level) remain poor. plan for the National • Feedback mechanisms and information sharing System of Protected Areas. are inadequate. • Management practices and biodiversity-related priorities differ among regions and protected areas; some protected areas cut across regions. • Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders are unclear. • The enabling environment is weak or unclear. • The Ministry of Environment is not seen as having sufficient authority or leadership. • Human and financial resources in the ministry are inadequate. Park management • Programming by the Sistema • Capacity levels differ among protected areas. de Educación y Capacitación • There is no systematized capacity (SEC) contributed to development for park management in the management capacity of NSPA. managers (responsables), park guards, and local • Further capacity is required for business communities. administration, for dealing with extractive businesses, and for tourism development • Protected area management and management. plans completed during the project have assisted park management in some cases. Enforcement • Park management capacity • Numbers of guards and staff in many protected was enhanced through areas are inadequate. infrastructure investments • The enabling environment for managing such as management protected areas is weak (e.g., absence of or lack offices, visitor centers, and of clarity in concession models and laws related vehicles. to resource extraction); laws are not harmonized across ministries and sectors. • Mechanisms for recourse against violators are weak or nonexistent; powers of protected area managers have recently been effectively reduced. • Record keeping on violations is not systematized. • The decentralized system is not harmonized across regions. 29 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project At the national level manage and monitor the protected area Capacity to implement decisions on pro- system. At the time of the assessment, the tected area protection and management at ministry’s unit for Biodiversity and Pro- the national level is hindered by various tected Areas had only four staff members, systemic constraints: and, as noted in the preceding section, the allocation for the ministry was a very small 1. Communication and collaboration be- proportion of the government budget. tween the center and the periphery–that 4. The enabling environment (laws, policies, is, between the Ministry of Environment and regulations for guiding, regulating, and the regional, park, and local levels– and supervising protected area manage- are inadequate. The NSPA’s increasingly ment) is weak or completely lacking. The decentralized governance requires both a PPAR found that “the project achieved strong center and close coordination and only a few changes to the most important communication with the periphery. Most institutional, legal, and social impedi- stakeholders reported that this was not ments to sound biodiversity management the case and that there were significant in Ecuador” (World Bank 2002c, 8—9). blockages in the system. Proposed plans and legal reforms did not 2. Decentralization without good commu- attract the necessary support within the nication and collaboration among actors government. has given rise to divergent priorities 5. The organizational structure of the NSPA and practices in particular areas. Much and roles and responsibilities are unclear. decision-making power has devolved to “More than one hundred legal bodies regional directors and biodiversity lead- now exist to regulate the environment. A ers at the regional level; few mechanisms plethora of environmental ‘institutes’ com- exist for maintaining close collaboration pose a confusing alphabet soup . . . Few between regional districts and the ministry people know what these institutes do, how or between districts. As a consequence, they are financed, or how they spend the decisions and implementation practices are money they receive” (Lopez 2005, 343). usually not coherent or consistent. Regional 6. Protected areas often cut across admin- districts are to some extent autonomous, istrative units. The overlap of authority and the degree to which priority is given and the sharing of authority for protected to protected areas and biodiversity varies. areas between administrative regions and 3. The Ministry of Environment is seen as regional directors or biodiversity leaders, lacking authority and as not providing whose priorities may not be coordinated strong leadership. It does not have suf- or coherent, can make collaboration dif- ficient human and financial resources to ficult. 30 Impact assessment 7. There is little coordination and collabora- for park managers or staff. The SEC program tion among ministries (such as the Min- could have served as a foundation for train- istries of Environment and Economy and ing, but neither the Ministry of Environment the sectoral ministries) on issues related to nor the Ministry of Education took ownership protected areas. of it, making the continuation of capacity development questionable. At the local level In many cases, park staff and managers The reputation of Ecuador as a megadiverse (responsables) have demonstrated good country attracts external support to the gov- capacity for park management, and useful ernment and to Ecuadorian NGOs. The NGO examples can be found of comanagement community has proved capable of effective ac- or collaboration between park staff and other tion in support of the NSPA and protected area stakeholders. Some NGOs, municipalities, management (see box 3). Most stakeholders and local communities are successfully man- interviewed agreed that NGOs in Ecuador have aging, or collaborating with others to manage, “filled a void” in assistance to park manage- protected areas. The Biodiversity Protection ment at the local level, and some believe that Project addressed management capacity at without their efforts many of Ecuador’s parks this level to a certain extent, catalyzed some would be in worse peril than now. The project collaboration, and achieved limited results brought NGOs and other actors together to dis- in particular protected areas. cuss the system and implement various aspects of its management, and the CLD independent In most cases, managers’ capacity cannot be evaluation credited the project for its success directly linked to the project, but there are in building the capacity of NGOs. instances in which the project is credited with building individual capacity for protected Many local community members benefited area management. Some park responsables– from the project’s SEC capacity building and among them, those currently in charge of educational component, which helped de- Cotacachi-Cayapas and Cayambe-Coca–are velop their capacity for park natural resource products of the SEC component of the project, management. Although local participation in and many park guards, such as those met by protected area management planning did take the evaluation team in Machalilla National place during the project, most stakeholders Park, benefited from the SEC capacity devel- believed that management of protected areas opment program. was not participatory enough. The project attempted to promote participation at the At the time of the assessment, there was no local level through the creation of regional systematic capacity development program consultative committees (RCCs), but most of 31 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Box 3 Models of NGO protected area management Collaboration in the management of NSPA parks In Sangay National Park, Fundación Natura has been working for the past eight years with municipalities, park management, local communities, and other NGOs on various aspects of park management, including review of management plans and monitoring. A management plan in Sangay was developed as part of the Biodiversity Protection Project. In 2005 Sangay was dropped from the Parks in Peril list maintained by the World Heritage Site program of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza- tion (UNESCO), reflecting a marked improvement in park management, largely thanks to the support of Fundación Natura. Fundación Antisana has been working in Antisana and Cayambe-Coca for 14 years, in cooperation with park staff and management, local communities, and relevant municipalities. The Ministry of Environment has approved the NGO’s management, and many stakeholders view it as the administrator of the protected area. Fundación Antisana assisted with development of a management plan indirectly through the proj- ect and has since worked on training plans in the protected area. It has helped build municipal capacity, including knowledge, skills, and commitment to environmental and natural resource management, and it works directly with park heads and staff, municipalities, and communities to improve park management. Members of the NGO said its involvement has been successful because of good cooperation with respon- sables, long-term dedication and familiarity as a result of working in the same place, and a participatory approach involving all relevant players—municipalities, communities, and those living in buffer zones. Private reserves Some NGOs, such as the Jatun Sacha Foundation, the Macipucuna Foundation, and Fundación Jocotoco manage private protected reserves. The reserves currently have no legal status, but they are considered protected forest. The NGOs buy land and work with local communities to manage the areas and their resources. Jatun Sacha, for example, currently operates eight biological stations; it also participates in the management of the Machi-Chindul Ecological Reserve and Gran Sumaco Biosphere Reserve in Amazonian Ecuador. In 2004, 800 volunteers worked on the foundation’s reserves, injecting new resources. According to a representative of the organization, Jatun Sacha, as a private entity, tries to mediate between companies and indigenous groups or between the government and local groups while working directly with local groups and maintaining collaborative relationships. Jatun Sacha sees its private reserve initiatives as potential platforms for contributing to the management of larger protected areas and national parks. these efforts were unsuccessful. In some cases are Católica and San Francisco universities. indigenous local communities are managing These institutions bring the required techni- areas themselves (see box 4). cal knowledge and skills to bear in their initiatives, and they often provide resources Academic institutions also demonstrate and maintain good relationships with key capacity for park management; examples stakeholders in the protected areas. The two 32 Impact assessment universities have conducted training in park For example, a company seeking a permit management, including business administra- for an oil or gas drilling concession would tion. For example, the head of Yasuní National apply to the Ministry of Environment. Al- Park was trained through a distance learning though the law permits concessions, there is program of the Universidad San Francisco. no legal framework guiding their leasing or management. The Ministry of Energy is the Capacity to enforce legislation lead agency for issues in the energy sector, Responsibility for enforcement in Ecuador and there is little coordination or consultation is divided among different organizations. between it and the Ministry of Environment. Box 4 Examples of park management by municipalities and indigenous communities Although the cases described below cannot be attributed to the Biodiversity Protection Project, they may offer lessons for comanagement and participation by local communities in protected area management. Cajas National Park is administered to some degree by the municipality of Cuenca and is maintained through small fees added to water bills by a private water company. People understand that high-quality protected area maintenance yields the benefit of good, clean water. According to stakeholders, the arrange- ment has worked well; at a time when most local governments are seeking funds, Cuenca is generating them. This example of municipal comanagement should be seen as an exception rather than the rule, as local governments and municipalities typically do not have the necessary capacity for park management. Some stakeholders suggested that a similar setup might work in Machalilla if tourism capacity is developed. The Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve was established in January 2002 on 50,000 hectares of traditional lands of the Cofán people in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The reserve was created at the request of the Cofán communities, who were concerned that recently announced development plans would affect the integrity of their land. During negotiations for protected area status, the Ministry of Environment (the legal guard- ian of the area) offered protected area status if the Cofán organizations would create a boundary trail, conduct an accurate survey, and develop a management plan. This was done. Management of the reserve is entrusted to the Indigenous Federation of the Cofán Nation of Ecuador (FEINCE), which in turn delegates operations to an NGO, Fundación Sobrevivencia Cofán. The Yawa Jee Indigenous Reserve is a self-declared community-protected area of the Yawa Jee indigenous organization in Pastaza Province. It was established through a long process of demarcation and inventory of traditional lands, in the course of which the communities recognized that the land was at risk from oil exploitation and ranching in adjacent areas. Demarcation of the land, which was supported by financial and technical help from external groups, was necessary to secure legal recognition of land titles. Currently, the German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) supports the Yawa Jee community organization in managing its forest conservation areas so that their biological diversity is conserved and continues to provide livelihoods for local people. Yawa Jee runs small-scale ecotourism operations, but these are still improvised in many respects. The community wants to enhance its entrepreneurial capability for market- ing and for cooperation with national tour operators and travel agencies. 33 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Environmental licensing would offer an op- crucial capacity. Most stakeholders believe portunity to seek better coordination. that lack of political will is a key factor in this weakness. The case of Vigilancia Verde, With no general supervisory structures or described in box 5, is an example of effective procedures and little communication be- enforcement, although one that is not linked tween levels of the system, there is no orga- to the project. nized way for the Ministry of Environment to monitor or supervise activity in protected Most of those interviewed said that resource areas, making enforcement difficult. The extraction activity has been growing steadily government does not currently have systems since the end of the project. Pressure on pro- and structures in place for tracking and tected areas is certainly increasing, and there controlling activity in protected areas, and are systemic and institutional weakness in the the situation is exacerbated by a shortage of enforcement capacity of the Ministry of En- Box 5 Outsourced surveillance: Vigilancia Verde In 1999, after a nationwide participatory process, Ecuador’s Ministry of Environment developed a new public forest policy and introduced substantial changes in the regulations for applying the Law on Forestry and Conservation of Protected Areas and Wildlife. Its “Standards for Sustainable Forest Management in Ecuador” enabled the forest authority to monitor logging activities on the basis of verifiable indicators. This gave Ecuador “a modern, coherent legal framework for forestry, geared toward making forest management transparent, clear, simple and predictable” and providing “a sound basis for encouraging the sustainable management of natural forests and preventing illegal or destructive logging” (ITTO 2002, 1). In 2002 Ecuador initiated an Outsourced Forestry Supervision System, with the objective of combating corrupt and illegal practices by improving forestry administration services and making them transparent. The system would allow the Ministry of Environment to concentrate its human resources and capacity on law enforcement, the promotion of sustainable land use, and other strategic activities. One component of the system was Vigilancia Verde (“Green Surveillance”), a supervisory body made up of private and public institutions under the leadership of the Ministry of Environment, the armed forces and police, and five NGOs. It was responsible for controlling the transport of roundwood and timber between the forest and marketing and processing locations. Funded by a trust that received 50 percent of the value of all illegal timber that was detected, seized, and auctioned, Vigilancia Verde had seven checkpoints on roads throughout the country. It demonstrated its effectiveness in its first year by seizing five times the volume of timber seized by the government during the previous year. Nearly half of those interviewed for the impact assessment cited Vigilancia Verde as a successful program for environmental and biodiversity protection. The program was not operating at the time of this assess- ment because of questions about the constitutionality of assigning enforcement (nominally a government activity) to nongovernmental organizations. 34 Impact assessment vironment and the NSPA. Most stakeholders and was subsequently implemented, was believed that a well-managed concessional not accompanied by effective capacity model could encourage better services and development, and some negative conse- enhance park system revenues by charging quences have resulted. As noted earlier, the higher fees. Some asserted that oil companies Ministry of Environment now has no direct and others “are getting a good deal” and authority over protected area management would be willing to pay more to gain access in the field, and clear leadership from the to protected areas. state is consequently lacking. In addition, the authority of managers of protected areas The assessment measured progress in en- has effectively been reduced. Before reor- forcement capacity by analyzing skills, ganization, a single jefe was responsible for resources, and equipment available within an entire protected area, but now protected the protected areas. areas that extend across regional boundar- ies are under two or more responsables. Weaknesses in the enforcement process. Such important duties as law enforcement, Responsables who previously served as pro- formerly the responsibility of the jefe, now tected area chiefs (jefes) felt that they used lie with regional directors, who are distant to have much more power to stop damaging from local stakeholders and are much less activities in the park. As the park manager likely to take effective action. in Machalilla observed, instead of taking immediate action on witnessing illegal or Staffing levels. The number of park guards damaging activity, managers now fill out a can be expected to affect biodiversity conser- form and submit a report to the relevant mu- vation. Stakeholders in Machalilla noted that nicipality, where the report apparently often often donor projects temporarily pay for in- just sits in the legal department. Lawsuits are creased numbers of guards but that these are supposed to ensue, but these legal proceed- not retained after the project ends. According ings do not seem to bear fruit, and acts often to the financial analysis, 268 persons are go unpunished except for a small fine. Since working in the protected areas; of these, 158 violators are generally aware of this systemic are paid by the Ministry of Environment and weakness, there is little deterrent to damaging 110 by donors and related projects. At least activities in protected areas. five areas have no staff at all, and in some cases park guards are responsible for areas The ability of park management to enforce of up to 80,000 hectares. The overwhelm- the laws has been significantly eroded in ing majority of park personnel interviewed recent years. Decentralization, which was agreed that there are not enough guards to in the planning phase during the project control the entire park area. 35 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project The data in figure 2 can be interpreted In any case, the data for project and nonproj- to suggest some impact of the project in ect areas shown in the figure are not directly maintaining staffing levels in its sites while comparable, for two reasons. First, because of numbers continued to decline elsewhere– economies of scale, large parks can achieve although the difference is minor. But even a given level of protection with fewer guards if there was a small effect during the project per unit area than small areas. Second (as period, it proved unsustainable. By 2004 shown in figure B-1 in appendix B), in small the number of park guards in project sites parks disturbance on the periphery affects a averaged only 6 per 100,000 hectares, but greater proportion of the park area than in in nonproject sites the figure had climbed large parks (edge effects). to 22 per 100,000 hectares. Machalilla, a project site, had 29 guards in 1996; it now Equipment and infrastructure. The project has 12. seems to have contributed to the availability Figure 2 Number of park guards per 100,000 hectares in selected project and nonproject protected areas in Ecuador 40 35 Park guards per 100,000 hectares 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1986 Project parks Nonproject parks Source: Authors’ data. Note: The middle shaded area shows the period during which the Biodiversity Protection Project was imple- mented. a. Averages for four protected areas included in the project. Excludes Antisana and Cayapas Mataje, which had no park guards for much of the period covered by the data. b. Averages for seven protected areas not included in the project. Excludes the Galapagos Marine Reserve, protected areas with no park guards, and areas smaller than 4,000 hectares. 36 Impact assessment of office and field equipment, although data included, in addition to the construction of are not available for the period preceding the visitor centers and offices for park guards and project. The 1998 inventory conducted as management, the purchase of vehicles such part of the preparation of the NSPA strategic as cars and boats, which are essential for plan recorded, on average, one computer patrolling. All stakeholders agreed that the at each site compared with one computer project played a critical role in infrastructure at every 2 sites for the 14 nonproject sites. investment in protected areas in Ecuador, The differences are especially significant for especially since it was the only initiative on field equipment. Total numbers of binoculars, such a scale. cameras, and compasses for the 6 project sites averaged 13 units per site, but the 14 In some cases the original vehicles purchased nonproject sites had only 3 units per site. for the parks through the project are still there. In Cotacachi-Cayapas and Machalilla these There are indications, however, that this are the only vehicles at park management’s level of support was not sustained. Figures disposal. They are in bad condition, however, for computers are difficult to analyze because and will not be usable or safe much longer. of rapid technological changes. Llanganates Park management stressed that although cars National Park which had been a “paper park” were purchased, funding was not provided in 1998, with no units of any equipment re- for gasoline and maintenance. corded in the inventory for that year, had a computer, scanner, and four memory sticks The financial analysis (Galindo and others by 2004. Machalilla National Park, which 2005) found that protected areas involved had two computers in the 1998 inventory, with the project were better off than other apparently had eight by 2004, but several parks, as measured by investments in equip- appear to have been old, nonfunctional ment and infrastructure. The study, however, machines. Field equipment is less subject to also showed that investments made during becoming outdated. Machalilla, which had 7 the project period decreased or deteriorated binoculars, 2 cameras, and 11 compasses in significantly with time. This may signal a lack 1998, reported only a single camera in 2004. of commitment or political will to maintain In 1998 Sangay National Park had four bin- the equipment. The project did lay a founda- oculars, five cameras, and eight compasses, tion, but it now has to be built on. but by 2004 it had only two binoculars, two cameras, and six compasses. Awareness raising and monitoring Table 5 summarizes the most important project The project was instrumental in making in- impacts on capacity for awareness raising and vestments that assist park management. These monitoring and the outstanding challenges. 37 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project At the national level Awareness raising at the national level re- Under the project, a communication strategy quires not only government capacity but also to support biodiversity protection was drawn political will. The Ministry of Environment up, and the project coordination unit, with is not currently involved in any significant the participation of the NSPA’s technical awareness-raising efforts concerning biodi- staff, produced a number of publications.5 versity and protected areas. With inadequate According to the ICR, these publications staff and resources and limited authority, it enjoyed significant demand and public ac- lacks adequate capacity for awareness rais- ceptance. Earnings obtained from their sale were used to cover a project component for 5 The materials included a map of the National System of Protected Areas, a guide to Ecuador’s which grant funds were not available. The national parks and reserves (book and CD), a guide new authorities of the Ministry of Environ- to Ecuador’s alpine meadowlands (páramos), a guide to tourism at urban sites in the Galápagos, policies ment have shown interest in pursuing a for tourism in protected areas, and regulations for the similar program. administration of protected areas and biodiversity. Table 5 Capacity for awareness raising and monitoring: Project impacts and main challenges Type of capacity Project impacts Main challenges Awareness-raising • Programming by the Sistema • Human and financial resources in the de Educación y Capacitación Ministry of Environment are inadequate. (SEC) contributed to key • No programming is being done to build awareness raising at the awareness at the local level regarding local level in some protected protected area and biodiversity issues. areas that still can be observed today. • No indication of follow-up support for the SEC (now the Centro de Capacitación • Awareness-raising activities de Conocoto) is forthcoming from the by nongovernmental government or any other source. organizations begun during the project have continued to have an impact (not solely attributable to the project). Monitoring; information Not addressed by the project. • There are no standardized tools, monitoring collection and systems, or related data collection, storage, dissemination or dissemination activities within or among protected areas. • Interministerial coordination and collaboration on environmental and biodiversity issues are poor. • There is no feedback mechanism for sharing knowledge and lessons in order to improve management or address key issues. 38 Impact assessment ing (even though some individuals in the attributed to project activities undertaken ministry may have the desire and knowledge through the SEC, particularly in communi- to promote awareness). ties such as Agua Blanca and Casa Viejas in Machalilla (see box 6). Most local stakehold- Biodiversity leaders representing the Ministry ers noted that other, parallel initiatives could of Environment are in charge of biodiver- be equally responsible for positive effects, if sity- and protected area–related issues in not more so. their respective regions. Biodiversity leaders have a mandate to deal with issues such as By 2000 the SEC had become an independent protected area conservation and manage- program, the Centro de Capacitación de Cono- ment, biosafety, species protection and traf- coto, formalized in an agreement between the ficking, genetic resources, and marine and Ministry of Education and the Ministry of the coastal issues. The purpose of this position, Environment and with independent sources according to some stakeholders, is to serve of funding. From the end of the project until as a “counterbalancing force to the forestry recently, the program received funding from power in the country” at the regional level, the government of the Netherlands, but the with leaders linked by a network. Evidence, assessment team found that the program is however, suggests that the network is not yet struggling to survive and that funding is about fully functional, and awareness-raising capac- to end. At the time of the review, the govern- ity is not yet apparent or operational. ment had no plans to utilize the center for continued awareness-raising activities; gov- At the local level ernment staff noted that some of the training Other key stakeholders who promote aware- provided is outdated and may not fit well into ness about protected area and biodiversity future programming. Without funding from the issues include national NGOs such as Fun- government or another donor, this important dación Antisana, Fundación Natura, and service for raising awareness at the local level EcoCiencia, international NGOs such as will no longer function. Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy, and academic institutions. Information management Government capacity for collection, stor- At the local level, capacity for awareness age, and dissemination of data on biodi- raising lies with park staff and guards to versity is weak, according to most of those some extent and with members of local com- interviewed in the government and NGOs. munities who live in protected areas such as Under the project, an innovative idea for a Cotacachi-Cayapas and Machalilla. Some Biodiversity Information Center (BIC) that of this awareness-raising capability can be would be a central repository of knowledge 39 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Box 6 Case study: The SEC’s contributions Up to 2004 the Sistema de Educación y Capacitación (SEC) trained more than 1,700 people, mostly com- munity members age 16–65, in 14 provinces and 17 protected areas in Ecuador. The SEC had an academic component and a technical and environmental component. Students completed local environmental projects and could progress through primary and secondary levels of education and even receive high school or bachelor’s degrees for their multiyear studies. At first the SEC issued certificates to its graduates, but when it became part of the Ministry of Education, it was able to offer degrees and diplomas. Many local graduates of SEC programs have become leaders in their communities, promoting awareness and sharing knowledge about management of environmental resources and protected areas. The educational programs for communities often included park staff and other local stakeholders. Evidence of the SEC’s achievements can be seen in responses by local stakeholders in protected areas such as Machalilla who stated that at the community level, awareness of biodiversity and protected areas is high and people are more aware of the need to conserve biodiversity and understand the benefits of conservation and sustain- able natural resource management. for the country was pursued. Although some EcoCiencia, Fundación Natura, and Birdlife results were achieved, the information center International and by academic institutions. quickly became ineffective and outdated. Universities, museums, and herbariums Some stakeholders noted that it was expen- collect and store important biodiversity and sive to compile the database and even more protected area information as part of their expensive to update and maintain data with research initiatives. Private sector firms such limited government funds. The database was as Mentefactura now hold important informa- absorbed into the Centro de Información tion on the NSPA. Ambiental (CIAM) in the Ministry of Environ- ment. Although CIAM does have recent data Failure to share information is a significant for mapmaking purposes, this information is limitation on the use of information for deci- outdated or does not cover the whole system, sion making and planning at various levels. and the Ministry of Environment and other The project intended to promote biodiver- ministries rely on other sources for up-to-date sity data collection and sharing but did not information on biodiversity and protected achieve much in this regard, perhaps because areas. Management of the follow-up NSPA of lack of collaboration among key stakehold- Project stated that the new project plans to ers during the project and the failure to build build on CIAM. key alliances. This issue is exacerbated by the larger institutional and systemic challenges in Information on protected areas is maintained the NSPA, including shortcomings in commu- outside the government by NGOs such as nication and sharing between the center (the 40 Impact assessment Ministry of Environment) and the periphery Copies of the raw data did not appear to be (the parks and NGOs). Some stakeholders routinely maintained within the protected claim that competition between NGOs (and areas, and the protected areas never received other institutions) impedes information shar- the results of analyses of the data. The assess- ing even among NGOs themselves, although ment team was unable to establish whether many say that this competition has dimin- data collected by park guards were ever ished in recent years. analyzed or interpreted. Effectively, therefore, there is no monitoring beyond the general Local capacity for biodiversity monitoring impressions of park guards that a particular was not addressed in the project, but it is species is being sighted more or less often, a key aspect of biodiversity management. and this type of data collection obviously Ideally, up-to-date biodiversity information depends on continuity of employment among collected in the parks should be used in day- the guards. The tools for collecting informa- to-day park management. Good monitoring tion are not standardized from park to park, and performance measurement tools and a and so any aggregation of data would be a systematized monitoring system for tracking laborious task. biodiversity and activities in the parks would allow information to be collected and shared Local beneficiaries, NGOs, and other within and among parks, to be fed into on- stakeholders going planning and decision making and to Table 6 summarizes the most important proj- stimulate action on key issues. ect impacts on capacity of local beneficiaries and the outstanding challenges. The impact assessment mission looked at biodiversity monitoring and the use of data The project document (World Bank 1994) for management in Machalilla and Cotacachi- called for the project to “seek the active partici- Cayapas. In neither case was monitoring being pation of local communities, in the decision- carried out systematically. Park guards said making process of managing reserve areas” that they collected data on certain species of in the Galápagos (where no activities actually fauna and flora that they observed and on oth- occurred) and in the Chachi communities liv- er biodiversity phenomena. Most said that they ing around the Cotacachi-Cayapas reserve. At did not record this information in a database the latter site, the project was to “initiate a pilot but instead filled out a simple checklist. The effort to provide assistance in forest manage- information was sent to the municipal govern- ment and biodiversity protection to indigenous ment authority or to the national biodiversity communities settled in buffer zones of project directorate in the Ministry of Environment; it areas.” In addition, the project’s support for was not stored in any accessible system. the preparation of management plans was to 41 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project involve the participation of local communi- management plans.” The regional committees ties and NGOs. Its analysis of the relationship apparently never materialized. The project between local populations and the protected did secure citizen participation in protected areas was to focus on communities’ use of re- area planning in Machalilla, Sangay, Yasuní, sources and on ways to maximize the benefits and Cayapas-Mataje, where community accruing to communities. support groups were formed to assist in the formulation of management plans, but only The project envisaged support for the cre- in Machalilla did the support group develop ation of regional consultative committees into a permanent consultative body. composed of representatives of local com- munities, NGOs, and INEFAN’s regional Some local community members in Agua district staff. The committees’ mandate was to Blanca and El Pital remember attending meet- “assist in the process of conflict resolution and ings and consultations at the time of the proj- oversee the implementation of reserve areas’ ect to participate in developing management Table 6 Capacity of local beneficiaries, NGOs, and other stakeholders: Project impacts and main challenges Type of capacity Project impacts Main challenges Awareness of and • Attitudes of local • Local awareness-raising and capacity attitudes toward communities toward building programming is ending; no such protected areas protected areas have programming is foreseen to continue, aside improved, although this from possible NGO initiatives. cannot be solely attributed to • Continued capacity building is required the project. if communities are to reap benefits (in • Awareness of protected improved livelihoods, etc.) from protected areas has improved; this is areas. linked to programs of the • Mechanisms for participation by local Sistema de Educación y communities in park planning and Capacitación. management are inadequate. • Relationships with protected area management and staff have improved. Improved livelihoods of • No attributable impacts. • Almost all NSPA’s financial resources come local communities from 5 protected areas; 13 areas generate no funds. • Capacity among local communities and nongovernmental organizations for providing tourism activities is needed. • Awareness of the potential value of the resources that can be generated through tourism activities in protected areas is low. 42 Impact assessment plans. These respondents noted that although that their inputs had been underutilized. they appreciated being consulted, they felt In most cases there had been no attempt to that nothing had been done since then and sustain the results of the NGOs’ activities that their input was not utilized. Although except where they themselves sought subse- participatory workshops have recently been quent funding to continue their efforts. For held in Machalilla to discuss the terms of example, as part of the project, the NGO reference for the management plans for the FUNDEAL undertook a socioeconomic park under the follow-up project, many key and biological assessment of the lowlands community members were skeptical, and of Cotacachi-Cayapas and the surrounding more than half did not attend because of their landscape. The study was of good quality, experiences under the project. and it established a baseline of biological and socioeconomic information. But no attempt The effects of the project are, however, has since been made by FUNDEAL or other evident among local communities that have organizations to update this information or benefited from having members participate in to monitor changes. Although NGOs such as SEC educational and capacity development Fundación Antisana and Fundación Natura programs. Community members in areas have continued to work on management such as Antisana, Cayambe-Coca, Cotacachi- planning in the protected areas where they Cayapas, Machalilla, and Sangay have shifted operated during the project, this sustained from unsustainable environmental manage- cooperation has been the result of their own ment habits toward more sustainable ones– initiatives and efforts. for example, toward sustainable management of trees, which are important for ecotourism. The monitoring and evaluation component Stakeholders confirmed that commercials and of the project was to look at such indicators advertisements during and after the project as land use shifts in project sites and buf- built awareness of biodiversity and protected fer zones and attitudes toward biodiversity areas. In some cases natural resource manage- to measure progress in empowerment and ment practices and relationships with park capacity development in local communities. guards have improved as people have come Project assessments, however, found that this to understand not only the inherent value but component was virtually ignored. also the social and economic benefits of sus- tainable resource management (see box 7). Global environmental benefits Table 7 summarizes the most important proj- The NGOs interviewed–most of which ect impacts on capacity for capturing global had been involved in some way with the environmental benefits and the outstanding project–were uniformly of the opinion challenges. 43 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Box 7 Grassroots responses: Findings from field visits to four communities near national parks The assessment team visited two communities each in two locations: Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Re- serve, where the project sought to assist local communities directly, and Machalilla National Park, where project support was indirect, through development of a protected area management plan. Chilcapamba (Cotacachi-Cayapas) is geared toward cultural tourism, with an emphasis on traditional Chachi culture. Of about 120 families in the community, approximately half are Chachi, and 32 families are engaged in some aspect of the tourism industry. Five of these families manage tourist shelters that can accommodate up to 28 people at a time, at a cost of $12 per person. The community first began developing tourism in 1997 and claims to have received no external technical or financial assistance to date. Currently, tourism contributes 20–25 percent of household income for those involved; the figure is substantially higher for the families managing the accommodations. At Agua Blanca (Machalilla) tourism is centered on the archaeological sites in the vicinity of the village, which has a small museum and several tourist houses. Interviewees named several sources of financial and technical assistance that had helped develop the tourism industry, but most did not cite the project, although its contribution in preparing an archaeological and cultural inventory was acknowledged. At the other two communities visited by the assessment team—Morochos (near Cotacachi-Cayapas) and El Pital (Machalilla)—the development of alternative livelihoods was less evident. At El Pital there has been some attempt to develop an ecotourism and trekking center. In all four communities local residents reported similar trends in attitudes toward the protected areas. Until the late 1980s or early 1990s the attitude was generally antagonistic, with the villagers seeing no benefits and several potential drawbacks in being associated with protected areas. In the mid- and late 1990s these attitudes started to change as interactions with protected area staff increased and local people (not necessarily from the communities themselves) were hired as park guards. In all the communities visited, the attitudes of village leaders were generally favorable. Villagers felt that they were more effectively represented than in the past and that associations of local stakeholders had been supported in building capacity to improve their livelihoods. In each community, village leaders were able to list a number of sources of external assistance and funding. In many cases village leaders did not list the GEF project until prompted to do so, and in no case were they able to ascribe relative quantitative impacts. Assessment of biodiversity changes biological monitoring through remote Although the project document described sensing accompanied by on-the-ground the project’s main expected benefit as monitoring was to be an essential element “protection of biodiversity in areas of global of the monitoring and evaluation system to ecological importance,” immediate envi- be established under the project, there was ronmental changes were not an expected in fact no systematic effort to collect and outcome of the project. As a result, while analyze remote-sensing data or to imple- 44 Impact assessment ment on-the-ground monitoring. According with the baseline, but this would have been to the ICR, “the monitoring and evaluation very time consuming. system appears to have been designed so as to focus on the completion of the activities, For this report, the assessment team sought with much less attention paid to the effec- comparative data that, although not collected tiveness of the models being developed” or analyzed as part of the project, cast some (World Bank 2000a). light on its impacts. Studies of change in vegetation were reviewed, as discussed in Because the project never established quan- appendix B. The generally unsatisfactory and titative indicators of global environmental troubling situation in Ecuador with respect to benefits, baseline values, or a systematic deforestation supports the impression that the monitoring system, it is virtually impossible project had minimal global environmental to assess its impacts in this respect five years impact. Lopez, citing data from Fundación after project completion. The many studies Natura, states that “deforestation is 45 per- funded by the project did provide data and cent in the lowlands, 48 percent in the high- information that could have served as the lands, and 8 percent in the Amazon basin. basis for an impact assessment, but in no case Thousands of acres of forest disappear daily, were the data subsequently collected cast in a despite laws that prohibit the cutting down format that could be used to assess impacts. It of trees and the exportation of wood. It has would have been possible to collect new data been calculated that deforestation amounts to using methods that would allow comparison 680,000 acres per year (approximately 2,000 Table 7 Capacity for realization of global environmental benefits: Project impacts and main challenges Type of capacity Project impacts Main challenge Natural resource • The project contributed to • Clearly demarcated boundaries (some management raising local awareness and completed through the project) improved improving capacity through awareness and knowledge of protected Sistema de Educación areas. y Capacitación (SEC) • Awareness raising is low, and capacity- programs at the local level in building programming is ending; no such some areas. programming is foreseen to continue, aside from possible NGO initiatives. Protection of biodiversity No attributable impacts. • There is inadequate emphasis on biodiversity and protected areas; indicators and related monitoring and measurable biodiversity evaluation processes and tools. and biophysical impacts • All capacity challenges related to natural resource management are relevant here. 45 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project per day), and in less [than] forty years not a Cayambe-Coca and Antisana. As an NGO single forest will remain” (Lopez 2005, 341). stakeholder noted, “protected areas need to Lopez also cites research by the Pontificia become part of the Ecuadorian identity and Universidad Católica del Ecuador on the culture” in order to raise awareness, enhance disappearance of endemic plant species, as protection, and improve management of shown in table 8. these areas. Local communities in Machalilla National In many protected areas, especially those that Park say that there is noticeably less forest benefited from the project, there has been then 10 years ago. The situation in Machal- a substantial effort at boundary marking. illa, however, was affected by the activities Around Cotacachi-Cayapas, for example, of commercial timber companies, which most of the boundary has been marked ex- encouraged communities to clear large ar- cept where natural features create obvious eas of timber when it became apparent that boundaries. Stakeholders who frequently en- enforcement within the park was about to ter the protected area therefore have a good be dramatically strengthened. Local respon- understanding of its location. This, together dents around Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological with the local-level SEC components of the Reserve reported that the extent of the forest project, has led to significant awareness of had changed little from 10 years ago but that the protected areas among many local com- rural deforestation had weakened community munities that, in some cases, has been sus- management of forests outside the boundar- tained. Nevertheless, interviews conducted ies of the protected areas. The forest was in nearby communities indicate that some consequently neglected and overutilized. local stakeholders who do not actually enter Reports of trends in numbers of certain spe- the protected area are unaware of or only cies, such as bear, within the park suggest, vaguely aware of its existence. however, that forest cover is stable or may be increasing. Sustainability and replicability Previous assessments rated the sustainabil- Awareness of protected areas and ity of the Biodiversity Protection Project as biodiversity “uncertain” (ICR) and “unlikely” (PPAR). The Stakeholders suggested that Ecuadorians are project did not address well the sustainability generally unaware of the benefits they derive of NSPA-related initiatives, especially their from protected areas and therefore often as- continuing financial and capacity needs, but sign little value to them. For example, few it did lay the groundwork for the creation of residents of Quito recognize that their water FAN, which is a significant player involved comes from the nearby protected areas of with the financial sustainability of the NSPA. 46 Table 8 Forest cover: Numbers of plant species and endemic plant species, Ecuador, 1998—2000 Geographic area Original number Number in Percentage Number of Number of Percentage and type of forest of plant species 1998–2000 remaining species sampled endemic species endemic Western Ecuador Dry 20,000 200 1 100 19 19 Semidry 40,000 1,500 4 100 14 14 Wet 12,000 90 1 170 34 20 Rain forest 8,000 3,200 40 230 59 26 Subtotal or average 80,000 4,990 6 600 126 21 Andean Region Slopes 61,000 18,000 30 850 213 25 47 Highlands 41,000 8,000 20 200 50 25 Subtotal or average 102,000 26,000 25 1,050 263 25 Amazon Basin (Eastern Ecuador) Andean lowlands 39,000 11,700 30 600 100 17 Amazon Basin 42,000 30,000 71 220 23 10 Subtotal or average 81,000 41,700 51 820 123 15 Total or average 263,000 72,690 28 2,470 512 21 Source: Valencia and others 2000, 35. Impact assessment Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project According to the ICR, the project did not The Biodiversity Protection Project was the produce a functioning institutional and first GEF project in Ecuador and one of the financial framework, and the PPAR found earliest GEF projects in South America. As that the project largely failed to build the in- this review shows, the project’s scope was too stitutional backing, stakeholder ownership, wide, and it did not address sustainability in and social support necessary to ensure the the way that many GEF projects now do. In sustainability of project accomplishments. addition, the merger of INEFAN, the primary This assessment confirms and reinforces executor and recipient of the project, into the these conclusions. Ministry of Environment did not bode well for the continuance of activities and results. 48 4 Conclusions Overall, there has been little replication of progress is being made in some areas and the project’s activities. The funding by the good potential exists for addressing the government of the Netherlands of the SEC’s challenges. outreach and educational activities immedi- ately following the project did allow continu- Policy making and planning ation of the programming that began during The Ministry of Environment lacks sufficient the project in many protected areas. (In fact, resources and some other key capacities in the Netherlands financed SEC programming policy making and planning. There is some twice.) Further replication of the SEC program evidence of project impact in this area, but would have made even greater impact from there is a need to further enhance collabo- its activities possible. ration with other players such as NGOs in order to strengthen ability at the national Overall, the impact assessment confirmed level to plan adequately for the system and the finding from previous evaluations that its management. the Biodiversity Protection Project did not adequately strengthen the NSPA’s institu- The risks of selecting as the implementation tional capacity. Some limited individual agency a new organization, INEFAN, were not capacity was built through the project’s fully appreciated at project design. Most of the SEC training and educational component capacity developed in INEFAN by the project and through a few other activities. The was lost when the agency was absorbed into NSPA, however, still faces significant chal- the new Ministry of Environment. In addition, lenges in planning, implementation, and the project coordination unit (PCU) had a enforcement, in the enabling environment, low status within INEFAN and was not well and in financial sustainability, although integrated into it, and little attention was paid 49 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project to whether INEFAN had incentives to adopt and local communities have shown, but the PCU’s recommendations. further capacity, and clear laws and rules governing the industry, will be required. The project contributed to planning capacity at Little information exists or is disseminated the local level through the completion of pro- about the revenue-generating potential of tected area management plans. Although these protected areas. The government, as well as were not used during or immediately following others, would benefit from this information, the project, there were plans, at the time of the which could catalyze further investigation review, for their review and updating. of such opportunities, contribute to the resolution of issues related to redistribu- Much like the situation 10 years ago, there are tion and resource allocation in the system, still no clear laws and policies for the NSPA and perhaps promote state commitment to as a whole, for managing individual parks, for protected areas overall. The follow-up NSPA roles and responsibilities in the system and Project correctly intends to look at ways in in protected area management, for sharing which the system can thrive apart from the and collaborating on park management, for FAN protected area trust fund, considering natural resource extraction and use, or for options such as tourism fees and conces- environmental management. Even though the sions and services in parks. project contributed to important initiatives such as the proposed Biodiversity Law and Protected area management Special Law 278, mainstreaming was limited. The NSPA faces many systemic challenges, The country’s economic and political instabil- including a weak enabling environment. ity contributed to the lack of progress. Laws, policies, and regulations for the NSPA are lacking or unclear, and the roles and Financial sustainability responsibilities of players at different levels At the time of the assessment, the NSPA of the system are not adequately defined. did not have enough resources to meet its The central authority is not well connected basic costs. The project contributed to the to the periphery, and feedback loops and development of FAN, which now helps mechanisms are weak, hampering effective cover the basic operational costs of some decision making and implementation. The parks in the system. Although FAN has Ministry of Environment has little authority demonstrated its capacity to pool resources, at the park level. Addressing some of these it cannot address the financial sustainability challenges began in the Biodiversity Protec- of the entire NSPA. Rising tourism offers tion Project with the development of the potential for addressing the crucial finan- NSPA strategic plan, which, however, was cial issues of the system, as some NGOs not put into effect. The goal of updating and 50 Conclusions eventually implementing the plan, which is manifest themselves, the increased capacity part of the follow-up project, presents a good of protected area management teams prob- opportunity to address many of these issues ably did not have a noticeable effect on and the wider enabling environment. biodiversity conservation. Significant management capacity is found at Park management has lost much of its abil- the local level among NGOs, park manage- ity to punish violators in recent years. Small ment and staff, and municipalities and local fines for violations and little follow-up of communities. Some of these cases demon- incidents result in weak deterrence within strate impacts from the project, especially parks. There is currently no systematic pro- its SEC program, and offer potential ways for gram for developing enforcement capacity the NSPA to integrate comanagement and among park management and staff. The other collaborative forms of participation lack of information sharing and commu- into protected area management at the local nication within the NSPA further weakens level. Clarifying legislation will be required enforcement capacity, as up-to-date data to regulate and guide participation. are not utilized, shared, or followed up regularly. The legal environment relating to protected area management and resource extraction Awareness raising and monitoring from protected areas is murky. This defi- The project and its SEC component suc- ciency is exacerbated by decentralization ceeded in heightening general awareness of and increasing pressures from oil, mining, protected areas and their importance during and timber companies in protected areas. the time of the project. At the national level, A weak or unclear concession model and capacity and resources for this work are law and a weak enabling environment have limited, and at the time of the assessment made enforcement difficult. The Ministry of there was no programming by the govern- Environment is not a deterring force in pro- ment to sustain or enhance local awareness tected areas, and parks do not have enough regarding management and protection of guards to cover their areas. The project did biodiversity and protected areas. NGOs do help build the enforcement capacity of pro- work in protected areas to raise awareness at tected area management and staff through the local level. the provision of equipment and through key infrastructure investments. Some project Project achievements such as the creation of sites have received more investments than the Biodiversity Information Center have not nonproject sites in the past decade. Because been maintained or pursued. An institutional impacts on biodiversity take many years to “culture of not sharing” persists among many 51 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project key biodiversity and protected area stake- awareness, knowledge, and capacity, in par- holders. At the national level, there is no ticular through the SEC program. There was updated database or systemic input, sharing, a positive effect on the relationship between or dissemination of information related to local communities and park staff in particular protected areas and biodiversity. At the local areas. Overall, NGO inputs appear to have level, monitoring within protected areas is been underutilized. weak, and the information collected (gener- ally, in nonstandardized ways) is not used for Global environmental benefits management and decision making. There is Studies on land use change in project and no feedback mechanism and no information nonproject sites over similar time periods system or database that connects parks to the by sources outside the project indicate that NSPA or to each other. little impact on biodiversity conservation can be attributed directly to the project Local beneficiaries, NGOs, and other (see appendix B). Although the annual rate stakeholders of disturbance to key vegetation types was The project engaged about 40 communities substantially lower in project sites, the effects in participatory planning and programs to of park size and staffing levels can explain build capacity and awareness, but little evi- most or all of the observed differences. dence was found of effects on livelihoods. Other available data confirm that not much Although since the early 1990s there has impact on biodiversity conservation can be been a marked change in attitudes among attributed to the project specifically. Such local stakeholders, with the majority now assessment is, however, tentative, as it is viewing protected areas at least neutrally and based on imperfect data. many regarding them in a favorable light, it is generally not possible to attribute these In fact, measurable environmental changes changes to the project in most of the areas were not an expected outcome of the visited. Many protected areas in Ecuador project, which had the “softer” goal of in- have benefited from multiple external proj- fluencing key conditions for environmental ects, most of which had similar objectives management and protection and promoting for building awareness and the capacity of the improvement of protected parks. Thus, local communities and institutions. The Bio- alternative criteria such as awareness of bio- diversity Protection Project was not unique diversity conservation, the effectiveness and in this regard and did not stand out in the capacity of protected area management, and minds of community leaders as being more enforcement were mainly used to estimate significant than others. It did, however, have the impacts of the project and served as sur- some clear impacts on local community rogate measures of progress in biodiversity 52 Conclusions conservation. The project heightened aware- Sustainability and replicability ness of protected areas, but this awareness As an early initiative, beginning in the mid- has not been well sustained at the national 1990s, the project generally did not address level. The SEC component helped increase sustainability in the strong manner that newer local capacity for sustained awareness rais- GEF projects now do. The merger of INEFAN, ing in particular parks and among certain the primary executor and recipient of the communities. In addition, the demarcation project, into the Ministry of Environment was of boundaries has increased awareness of detrimental to the sustainability of activities protected areas, especially some of the areas and results. There was little replication of involved in the project. activities from the project except that donor financing of SEC programming continued for some time. 53 5 Lessons and recommendations Many of the lessons from this assessment needed in order to deal with pressures on cannot be considered novel for the biodiver- protected areas by extractive industries sity focal area of the GEF–the Biodiversity and other activities and to increase the Protection Project was the subject of previous protected areas’ economic and financial assessments, including the CLD independent potential. evaluation in 1999, the ICR in 2000, and the • Poor collaboration, coordination, and PPAR in 2002. This assessment, however, communication between the center and highlights a number of lessons that are worth the periphery weaken planning, imple- noting or repeating. mentation, and enforcement capacity. Efforts to share lessons and experience and Lessons to secure the continuing participation of all The main lessons that emerge from the relevant stakeholders can enhance system project are presented next, followed by a capacity. discussion of general considerations con- • In a context of decentralization, local cerning protected area project design and governments require training on protected implementation. This pilot assessment also area management and adequate resources draws lessons for future impact assessments so that they can participate effectively in in the biodiversity portfolio. the management of protected areas. • A weak or unclear enabling environment Policy making and planning, management can greatly exacerbate capacity challenges capacity, enforcement, awareness raising, in the implementation and enforcement mainstreaming, and financial sustainability of a national system of protected areas. • Capacity in business administration and Clear and improved laws, policies, and management throughout the system is regulations for activities in protected areas 55 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project and extraction of resources from them stakeholders in protected areas in Ecuador can greatly improve implementation and and in neighboring countries, provide enforcement capacity. lessons that should be disseminated and • Demonstration and understanding of shared to improve learning and practice the mutually beneficial link between at all levels. biodiversity conservation and economic development (and livelihoods) are im- Project management portant. Heightened awareness of this • The creation of a distinct project coordi- link at the national level can contribute to nation unit hampered the effectiveness of mainstreaming environmental issues into the project because project management other sectors and into laws and policies. was not integrated into the operations of In Ecuador there is significant potential INEFAN and the PCU appeared to focus for increasing awareness about the pro- too narrowly on its own needs. More im- tected areas’ social, environmental, and portant, this structure inhibited sufficient economic value. ownership of the project. The “enclave • The unsatisfactory financial sustainability operation” had negative effects on capac- of the NSPA may be a result of limited ity development for government staff, as political will. Better knowledge of the the needed capacity was not transferred at potential social and economic benefits of the national level. The follow-up project protected areas may promote commitment has incorporated this lesson into its design; and support. for example, team members and ministry • Sharing responsibility may be a sensible staff are operationally integrated. policy response. Government agencies • Targeting a wide variety of stakeholders at need not be responsible for all aspects of all levels through permanent consultative protected area management. NGOs can participatory committees and other capac- play a central role in managing protected ity development outreach programs pro- areas, as they do in Guatemala and Bo- motes wide ownership of project goals. livia. In Ecuador some NGOs have pro- • Those involved in or associated with fu- vided long-term support to operations in ture biodiversity projects should be aware particular protected areas. There may be of the project goals and implementation legal constraints, however, on engagement strategy. Continuous consultation and of nongovernmental bodies in protected collaboration between the project team area management. Successful examples and the ministry should be maintained of comanagement by the government, to ensure ongoing capacity development municipalities, NGOs, and local commu- and institutional strengthening and the nities, and of fruitful interactions between sustainability of the initiatives. 56 Lessons and recommendations • Projects that seek to make changes at Global environmental benefits the system level are more efficient when • A well-developed system of monitoring project design provides for adequate and evaluation, able to measure per- resources, allows sufficient time for imple- formance continuously, is essential for mentation, and sets a realistic scale of field tracking performance and allowing for an activities. adaptive management approach during • Better accountability for results is needed. implementation. The project’s failure to Future biodiversity projects would benefit establish a viable monitoring program by emphasizing results-based manage- impeded its ability to monitor and assess ment principles and continuing perfor- performance throughout implementa- mance measurement, clearly defining and tion and severely hampered its ability to articulating the objectives of the project, measure global environmental impacts or and ensuring that project activities are sustained results. designed to achieve those ends. Decisions • Long-term impacts in biodiversity conser- on these issues should be made in coordi- vation and protected area management nation with other projects and should take require sustained efforts to raise awareness into account the broader context. Future at the local level. These efforts can be projects would need more adaptive man- supported by donors and local and inter- agement and flexibility to meet changing national NGOs. Significant benefits can be circumstances. reaped through government programming. Sustained awareness-raising and capacity Local beneficiaries development efforts can lead to changes • Local-level communication and capacity in attitudes and behavior that translate into development programs can have a sig- direct environmental benefits over time. nificant immediate and long-term effect by increasing community awareness of Impact assessment of biodiversity projects and capacity in natural resource manage- Biodiversity conservation projects seek to ment. Such programs can have cumula- influence social and ecological systems that tive effects and can enhance cooperation are incompletely understood and are subject between protected area staff and local to numerous external influences. Changes in communities. the ecological system are difficult to observe • Participation by local communities or and usually occur only over time scales that NGOs is more effective when participants’ are substantially longer than project lifetimes. thoughts and ideas are seen as being put For these reasons, quantifying impacts in into action by those who make decisions biodiversity conservation projects is inher- and implement programs. ently difficult. 57 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project The most appropriate choices of biodiver- • Ensure that the project team works in sity projects for impact assessment are as close collaboration with the Directorate follows: of Biodiversity and Protected Areas in the • Projects that used state-of-the-art monitor- Ministry of Environment in order to allow ing and that therefore may have gener- continued support and cooperation and to ated quantitative information on global effectively transfer capacity. environmental benefits. At a minimum, • Use the updating of the NSPA strategic the projects should have used some per- plan as an opportunity to clarify par- formance indicators during the project ticipation in protected area management, that can yield baseline data for the impact comanagement, and the roles and respon- assessment. sibilities of all stakeholders involved at the • Projects that achieved measurable bio- national, regional, municipal, and local physical results which can be used for levels of the NSPA system. Future initia- assessing sustainability of results and tives should work to enhance communica- measuring changes over time. tion, collaboration, and coordination at all • Projects that targeted a single protected levels of the NSPA. area; if the project attempted more, far more • Create and maintain, in the two protected time should be allowed for assessment. areas to be addressed in the follow-up project, consultative committees that Recommendations include government representatives such The following recommendations for the as regional district representatives and World Bank and the GEF pertain in particular biodiversity leaders, municipalities, a wide to Ecuador, but the principles are generally range of NGOs, protected area manage- applicable. ment, and local communities. • Draw up clearly articulated coherent sets • Include long-term local capacity develop- of short-term and long-term targets. ment and awareness raising that specifi- • Develop adequate and useful indicators cally targets local communities, as well as for biophysical aspects, as appropriate, park management and staff. and for capacity development. • Put in place and utilize a strong monitoring The following recommendations pertain to and evaluation system for project imple- future biodiversity projects in the region: mentation and adaptive management. • Gather and analyze the experiences in • Assign an external monitor with detailed comanagement and cooperation being knowledge of protected area and biodi- amassed in protected areas. These ex- versity management in the Ecuadorian periences should be documented, dis- context. 58 Lessons and recommendations seminated, and shared in order to improve boring countries such as Bolivia, Costa learning and practice at all levels. Rica, and Guatemala to learn from their • Conduct a comparative study of experi- experiences, successes, and challenges in ence with protected area systems in neigh- comanagement. 59 Appendix A. Protected areas in Ecuador Year Surface area (hectares) Location or Protected area created Land Marine Total province Antisana Ecological Reserve 1993 120,000 0 120,000 Napo Arenillas Ecological Reserve 2001 17,082 0 17,082 El Oro Cajas National Park 1977 28,808 0 28,808 Azuay Cayambe-Coca 1970 403,103 0 403,103 Imbabura/Pichincha/ Ecological Reserve Napo/Sucumbíos Cayapas-Mataje 1995 51,300 0 51,300 Esmeraldas Ecological Reserve Chimborazo Fauna Reserve 1987 58,560 0 58,560 Chimborazo Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve 2002 55,451 0 55,451 Sucumbíos Cotacachi-Cayapas 1968 243,638 0 243,638 Imbabura/ Ecological Reserve Esmeraldas Cotopaxi National Park 1975 33,393 0 33,393 Cotopaxi/ Pichincha/Napo Cuyabeno Fauna Reserve 1979 603,380 0 603,380 Sucumbíos/Orellana El Angel Ecological Reserve 1992 15,715 0 15,715 Carchi El Boliche National Recreation Area 1979 400 0 400 Cotopaxi El Cóndor Park 1999 2,440 0 2,440 Morona Santiago El Lago National Recreation Area 2002 2,283 0 2,283 Guayas Estuario Río Muisne Wildlife Refuge 2003 3,173 0 3,173 Esmeraldas Galápagos Marine Biological Reserve 0 0 14,110,000 14,110,000 Galápagos Galápagos National Park 1936 693,700 0 693,700 Galápagos Isla Corazón Wildlife Refuge 2002 700 0 700 Manabí Isla Santa Clara Wildlife Refuge 1999 5 0 5 El Oro La Chiquita Wildlife Refuge 2002 809 0 809 Esmeraldas Limoncocha Biological Reserve 1985 4,613 0 4,613 Sucumbíos (continued on next page) 61 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project (continued) Year Surface area (hectares) Location or Protected area created Land Marine Total province Llanganates National Park 1996 219,707 0 219,707 Tungurahua/ Cotopaxi/ Pastaza/Napo Los Ilinizas Ecological Reserve 1996 149,900 0 149,900 Pichincha/Cotopaxi Machalilla National Park 1979 56,184 0 56,184 Manabí Machi-Chindul Ecological Reserve 1996 119,172 0 119,172 Esmeraldas/Manabí Manglares El Salado Fauna 2002 5,217 0 5,217 Guayas Production Reserve Manglares-Churute 1979 49,894 0 49,894 Guayas Ecological Reserve Pasochoa Wildlife Refuge 1996 500 0 500 Pichincha Podocarpus National Park 1982 146,280 0 146,280 Loja/Zamora Pululahua Geobotanical Reserve 1966 3,383 0 3,383 Pichincha Sangay National Park 1975 517,765 0 517,765 Chimborazo/ Tungurahua/Morona Santiago/Cañar Sumaco National Park 1994 205,249 0 205,249 Napo/Orellana Yasuní National Park 1979 982,000 0 982,000 Orellana/Pastaza Source: Ministry of Environment 2005a. 62 Appendix B. Longitudinal analysis of studies of vegetation cover in Ecuador Martinez (2005) used Landsat images comple- as undisturbed. By 1991 the figure had fallen mented by published land use maps to com- by 30 percent and, by 2004, by another 26 pile vegetation cover data for undisturbed percent. In the protected areas within the areas and for areas of light, medium, and high province, the undisturbed area declined by disturbance in Cotopaxi Province in 1979, 27 percent between 1979 and 1991 and by 1991, and 2004. Within the province are four 18 percent between 1991 and 2004. These protected areas of the NSPA (percentages are figures suggest that in the period 1979—91 the proportion of the park area that lies within protection was ineffective, as the percent- the province): Los Ilinizas Ecological Reserve age declines in undisturbed vegetation were (81 percent), Cotopaxi National Park (33 per- similar within and outside protected areas. cent), El Boliche National Recreation Area (56 By contrast, between 1991 and 2004, which percent), and Llanganates National Park (2.8 includes the period of implementation of the percent). Three of these areas had no direct project, the effectiveness of the protected area Biodiversity Protection Project interventions; system improved; the rate of loss inside and El Boliche received a visitor center. Because outside protected areas was markedly differ- of the limited involvement with the project, ent, 18 and 26 percent, respectively. the protected areas in Cotopaxi Province can (cautiously) be regarded as a baseline Fundación Antisana (2002) and Maldonado, for comparison. Alvarado, and Cuesta (2003) undertook similar studies for part of the contiguous Table B-1 shows the trends in disturbance Cayambe-Coca and Antisana Ecological Re- over the 25-year period covered by the study. serves, located in the eastern Cordillera. Both In the entire province in 1979, a total area protected areas were included in the project of more than 355,000 hectares was classified (table B-2). The Maldonado, Alvarado, and 63 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Table B-1 Trends in undisturbed and disturbed area: Three vegetation types in protected areas in Cotopaxi Province, 1979, 1991, and 2004 (hectares) Disturbance level Vegetation type 1979 1991 2004 Undisturbed Natural forest 175,263 103,186 84,050 Páramo 145,940 127,310 86,510 Shrubby vegetation 33,957 19,154 15,222 Low disturbance Natural forest 9,503 45,485 36,416 Páramo 8,566 20,005 15,652 Shrubby vegetation 1,404 1,076 2,707 Medium disturbance Natural forest 22,580 40,980 41,190 Páramo 3,939 3,025 18,759 Shrubby vegetation 65 2,146 1,343 High disturbance Natural forest 36,347 38,816 39,556 Páramo 1,384 751 10167 Shrubby vegetation 1,929 10,778 4,089 Source: Martinez 2005. Note: Páramo is a high alpine ecosystem of grasslands, bogs, and meadows with a characteristic fauna and flora found in the Andes. Cuesta study compared vegetation coverage in the nonproject areas, as the diagrams in in 1990 and 2001. Between those dates, the figure B-1 illustrate. The diagram on the left- area of undisturbed vegetation in the study hand side represents the contiguous project area declined by 5.5 percent, or 0.5 percent sites of Cayambe-Coca and Antisana; that on per year, compared with 1.26 percent per the right-hand side, the nonproject sites in year for the protected areas in Cotopaxi Cotopaxi Province. Because of edge effects, Province studied by Martinez. Disturbance disturbance rates are dramatically different, in nonproject sites occurred at about 250 even though the bands of disturbance are percent the rate in project sites, suggesting about the same width. Using this comparison, that the project had some positive impacts the extent of the disturbed area in nonpro- on biodiversity conservation. The figures, ject sites would be only 137 percent that in however, require careful interpretation. The project sites. project sites, Cayambe-Coca and Antisana, form a contiguous area of over 520,000 hect- In addition to the effect of the sizes of the ares. Even the largest of the reserves in Co- protected areas, the number of park guards topaxi Province is much smaller. Assuming has to be considered. Two of the three that the greatest pressures occur around the contiguous nonproject protected areas in boundaries of protected areas (edge effects), a Cotopaxi Province had virtually no park higher rate of disturbance would be expected guards during the study period–Los Ilinizas 64 Appendix B. Longitudinal analysis of studies of vegetation cover in Ecuador Figure B-1 Bands of disturbance for areas of different sizes Band of disturbance = 1.09 km for a rate of 0.5% per year Band of disturbance = 1.49 km for a rate of 0.5% per year r = 20.73 km r = 40.69 km Area = 135,000 ha Area = 520,000 ha Ecological Reserve had no guards; and Llan- early in the study period, declining to 8 near ganates National Park received its first two the end. Since the two protected areas are park guards only in 1998, three years after managed as a single area, Antisana benefited the beginning of the project. Only Cotopaxi from Cayambe-Coca’s guards. National Park had a reasonable number of park guards, and the number declined from Taking into account the effects of park size and 10 early in the study period to 6 midway staffing levels, both of which would lead to through the study period and later. Of the an expectation of lower levels of disturbance two project areas, Antisana had no allocation in the project sites irrespective of any project of park guards, but Cayambe-Coca had 21 impacts, these data cannot be interpreted as Table B-2 Trends in undisturbed area: Three vegetation types in Cayambe-Coca and Anti- sana Ecological Reserves, 1990 and 2001 (hectares) Vegetation type 1990 2001 Forest 437,731 407,036 Forest/páramo 62,195 61,952 Páramo 202,659 187,184 Source: Fundación Antisana 2002; Maldonado, Alvarado, and Cuesta 2003. 65 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project demonstrating global environmental impacts to define and monitor quantitative indicators of the project. This is not necessarily to say means that, at the time of study, any impacts that there were no impacts; rather, the failure were impossible to determine. 66 Bibliography Albán, Jorge, and Lourdes Barragán. 2001. N. Stuart. 2004. “Coverage Provided “Evaluación Río más 10: Informe na- by the Global Protected-Area System: cional del Ecuador para el Ministerio Is It Enough?” BioScience 54 (12, del Ambiente.” Fundación Ambiente December): 1081—91. y Sociedad, Quito. Bruner, Aaron G. 2004. “How Much Will Balmford, Andrew, Aaron Bruner, Philip Effective Protected Area Systems Cooper, Robert Costanza, Stephen Cost?” Center for Applied Biodiversity Farber, Rhys E. Green, Martin Jenkins, Science, Conservation International, Paul Jefferiss, Valma Jessamy, Joah Washington, DC. Madden, Kat Munro, Norman My- Bruner, Aaron G., Raymond E. Gullison, and ers, Shahid Naeem, Jouni Paavola, Andrew Balmford. 2004. “Financial Matthew Rayment, Sergio Rosendo, Costs and Shortfalls of Managing and Joan Roughgarden, Kate Trumper, and Expanding Protected-Area Systems in R. Kerry Turner. 2002. “Review: Eco- Developing Countries.” BioScience nomic Reasons for Conserving Wild 54 (12, December): 1119—26. Nature.” Science 297 (5583): 950—53. Chapin, Mac. 2004. “A Challenge to Con- DOI: 10.1126/science.1073947. servationists.” World Watch 17 (6, Brooks, Thomas M., Mohamed I. Bakarr, Tim November–December). Boucher, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, CLD (Corporación Latinoamericana para el Craig Hilton-Taylor, Jonathan M. Desarrollo). 1999. “Informe de evalu- Hoekstra, Tom Moritz, Silvio Olivieri, ación del Proyecto GEF/INEFAN en Jeff Parrish, Robert L. Pressey, Ana S. Ecuador.” CLD, Quito. L. Rodrigues, Wes Sechrest, Ali Stat- CEPF (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund). tersfield, Wendy Strahm, and Simon 2002. “Chocó-Manabí Corridor: 67 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project Chocó-Darién-Western Ecuador Bio- Galindo, José, Christian Baus, and María diversity Hotspot.” Fact sheet, CEPF, Fernanda Aillón. 2005. “UNDP-GEF, Washington, DC. Financial Sustainability for National Cruz, Maria C. J. 1996. “Management Op- Systems of Protected Areas, Project tions for Biodiversity Protection and Preparation in Ecuador, Basic Country Population.” In Human Population, Assessment.” Draft. Mentefactura, Biodiversity, and Protected Areas: Quito. Science and Policy Issues, ed. Victoria Galindo, José, José Calvopiña, Christian Baus, Dompka. Washington, DC: American María Fernanda Aillón, and Sandra Association for the Advancement of Vela. 2005. “Estudio de necesidades Science. de financiamiento del Sistema Nacio- Cruz, Maria C. J., and Shelton H. Davis. nal de Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador.” 1997. “Social Assessment in World Dirección Nacional de Biodiversidad, Bank and GEF Funded Biodiversity Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre, Min- Conservation Projects: Case Studies isterio del Ambiente, with the support from India, Ecuador, and Ghana.” of Fondo Ambiental Nacional (FAN), Environment Department Paper 43, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the World Bank, Washington, DC. U.S. Agency for International Devel- Ervin, J. 2003. “Protected Area Assessments opment (USAID Ecuador), Conserva- in Perspective.” BioScience 53 (9, tion International, Kreditanstalt für September). Wiederaufbau (KFW), EcoCiencia, FAN (Fondo Ambiental Nacional). “Infor- Fundación Natura, World Conserva- mación general.” Quito. tion Union (IUCN), and Mentefactura, ————. “Information Sheet.” FAN, Quito. Quito. FIN (Forest Integrity Network), Secretariat. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 1998. 2002. “Progress towards Containment “Evaluation of Experience with Con- of Forest Corruption and Improved servation Trust Funds.” GEF Secre- Forest Governance . ” Information tariat, Monitoring and Evaluation note prepared for Transparency In- Team, GEF, Washington, DC. ternational’s annual general meeting, ————. 2003a. “Measuring Results of the GEF Casablanca, Morocco, October. Biodiversity Program.” Monitoring Fundación Antisana. 2002. “Estudio multi- and Evaluation Working Paper 12, temporal de la cobertura vegetal en GEF, Washington, DC. las reservas ecológicas Cayambe-Coca ————. 2003b. “Review of Financial Arrange- y Antisana (1997—2001).” Fundación ments in GEF-Supported Biodiversity Antisana, Quito. Projects.” Monitoring and Evaluation 68 Bibliography Working Paper 11, GEF, Washington, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Le DC. Groupe-conseil baastel Itée, Gatin- ————. 2003c. “Secretariat Managed Project eau, Québec, Canada. Reviews 2002, Pilot Phase.” Draft Lopez, Franklin. 2005. “Sustainable De- report, Project Performance Review, velopment and Institutional Failure: Inter-Agency Task Force, GEF, Wash- The Case of Ecuador.” Independent ington, DC. Review 9 (3, Winter): 339—51. http:// ————. 2004. “Building the Inter-American www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_ Biodiversity Information Network 3_2_lopez.pdf. (IABIN).” PDF A, Project Executive Maldonado, P., M. Alvarado, and F. Cuesta. Summary, GEF, Washington, DC. 2003. “Impacto de las intervencio- GEF (Global Environment Facility) and nes de conservación en la Reserva Consorcio BIDA. 1999. Estrategia Ecológica Cayambe-Coca (RECAY) y de manejo sustentable para el área la Reserva Ecológica Antisana (REA) de influencia de la reserva ecológica (1990—2001).” EcoCiencia, Quito. Cotacachi-Cayapas. Quito: GEF and Martinez, C. 2005. “Estudio multitemporal Consorcio BIDA. de cambios en la cobertura vegetal Ginsberg, Steve. 2000. “Battling Mining in (1979—2004) y modelización pro- Ecuador’s National Parks: Ecuador’s spectiva en la provincia de Cotopaxi.” Carlos Zorrilla.” http://www.planeta. EcoCiencia, Quito. com/planeta/00/0007eczorilla.html. Mecham, Jefferson. 2001. “Causes and INEFAN (Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Consequences of Deforestation in Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre), Di- Ecuador.” Centro de Investigación rección Nacional de Areas Naturales de los Bosques Tropicales (CIBT), y Vida Silvestre. 1998. “Resumen Quito. http://www.rainforestinfo.org. ejecutivo del plan de manejo del au/projects/jefferson.htm. National Park Machalilla.” INEFAN, Ministry of Environment, Ecuador. 2005a. Quito. “Análisis de las necesidades de finan- ITTO (International Tropical Timber Orga- ciamiento del Sistema Nacional de nization). 2002. “Ecuador’s New Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador.” Min- Approach to Enforcing Forest Law.” istry of Environment, Quito. http:// Tropical Forest Update 12/1. www.ceda.org.ec/descargas/biblio- Le Groupe-conseil baastel Itée. 2004. “Spe- teca/analisis_necesidades_snap.pdf. cially Managed Project Reviews ————. 2005b. “Primer informe actualizado 2003: Summary of Findings and de la evaluación de efectividad de Recommendations.” Report to GEF manejo del parque nacional Sangay 69 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project como Sitio de Patrimonio Natural de Fact sheet, February 9, TNC, Kuala la Humanidad.” Draft, Quito. Lumpur. Ponce, Carlos F., and Fernando Ghersi. United Nations Foundation. 2004. “The 2003. “Cordillera del Condor (Peru- World Heritage Management Ef- Ecuador).” Prepared for the workshop fectiveness Workbook: Revised Edi- “Transboundary Protected Areas,” tion.” United Nations Foundation, Governance Stream, 5th World Parks Washington, DC. http://www.en- Congress, Durban, South Africa, Sep- hancingheritage.net/docs/EoH_work- tember 8—17. book_V._2_final_Dec_04_v1.pdf. Quishpe, Salvador, Jorge Loor, Pedro De La ————. 2002. “Initial Evaluation Report of San- Cruz, and others. 2002. “Our World gay National Park as a World Heritage Is Not for Sale.” Open letter to the Site.” Quito. Minister of the Environment rejecting USAID (U.S. Agency for International Devel- the commercialization of life. April, opment) Mission. “Ecuador, Biodiver- http://www.accionecologica.org/we- sity Conservation Programme.” Data bae/index.php?option=com_conten sheet, USAID, Quito. t&task=view&id=79&Itemid=39. Valencia, Renato, Nigel Pitman, Susana Rival, Laura. 2004. “Partnerships for Sustain- León-Yánez, and Peter M. Jørgensen, able Forest Management: Lessons eds. 2000. Libro rojo de las plan- from the Ecuadorian Chocó.” QEH tas endémicas del Ecuador. Quito: Working Paper Series, Working Paper Pontificia Universidad Católica del 118, Queen Elizabeth House, Univer- Ecuador. sity of Oxford, Oxford, U.K. World Bank. 1994. “Ecuador Biodiversity Singh, Stephan, and Claudio Volonte. 2000. Protection Project.” Project Appraisal “Biodiversity Program Study.” GEF Document, Report 12363-EC, World Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Bank, Washington, DC. Washington, DC. ————. 1996a. “Memorandum and Recom- Smith, Scott E., and Alejandra Martin. 2000. mendation of the President of the “Report of a GEF Thematic Review: International Bank for Reconstruction Achieving Sustainability of Biodiver- and Development to the Executive sity Conservation.” Monitoring and Directors on a Proposed Loan in an Evaluation Working Paper 1, Global Amount Equal to US$15 Million to Environment Facility, Washington, the Republic of Ecuador for an En- DC. vironmental Management Technical TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2004. “Ec- Assistance Project.” March, World uador Implementation Partnership.” Bank, Washington, DC. 70 Bibliography ————. 1996b. “Technical Annex, Ecuador, En- World Bank Inspection Panel. 2001. “Ec- vironmental Management Technical uador: Outcome of the Inspection Assistance Project.” Report T-6716- Panel’s Investigation of the Ecuador EC, World Bank, Washington, DC. Mining Development and Environ- ————. 2000a. “Ecuador Biodiversity Protec- mental Control Technical Assistance tion Project.” Project Implementation Project (PRODEMINCA).” World Completion Report, Report 20481, Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank and WWF (World Wide Fund for ————. 2000b. “Monitoring System for the Nature). 2003. “Como informar sobre Galápagos Islands Project.” Project los avances en el manejo de áreas pro- Appraisal Document, World Bank, tegidas individuales: Una herramienta Washington, DC. de aplicación sencilla al nivel de sitio, ————. 2002a. “Building Governance through desarrollada para el Banco Mundial y Stakeholder Participation.” OED el WWF.” http://lnweb18.worldbank. Précis 228 (Fall). World Bank, Opera- org/essd/envext.nsf/48ByDocName/ tions Evaluation Department, Wash- ReportingProgressinProtectedAreasA- ington, DC. Site-LevelManagementEffectiveness ————. 2002b. “Ecuador Biodiversity Protec- TrackingToolbinSpanishb/$FILE/Re- tion Project.” Project Performance portingProgressinProtectedAreasTool- Assessment Report, Operations Evalu- inSpanish2003.pdf. ation Department, Report 24403, World Conservation Union. 2003.“Building Washington, DC. Partnerships for a Global Comprehen- ————. 2002c. “Ecuador Biodiversity Protec- sive Protected Area System.” Session tion Project.” 2nd Project Performance 5G, Stream 7, “Building a Compre- Assessment Report, Report 24605, hensive Protected Area System,” 5th World Bank, Washington, DC. World Parks Congress, Durban, South ————. 2002d. “Environmental Management Africa, September 8—17. Technical Assistance Project. (PA- World Resources Institute. 2003. “Country TRA): Implementation Completion Profile: Biodiversity and Protected Ar- Report.” Report 24360, World Bank, eas—Ecuador.” EarthTrends environ- Washington, DC. mental information database, World ————. 2002e. “The National Environmen- Resources Institute, Washington, DC. tal Fund for the National System of http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/ Protected Areas Project.” Project Ap- country_profiles/bio_cou_218.pdf. praisal Document, PID 11491, World WorldWatch Institute. 2005. “From Readers”; Bank, Washington, DC. responses to Mac Chapin, “A Chal- 71 Postimplementation Impact Assessment – The Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project lenge to Conservationists.” World Watch 18 (1, January—February): 5—20. 72 World Bank Global Environment Facility Coordination Team Environment Department THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433, USA Telephone: 202.473.1816 Fax: 202.522.3256 Email: GEOnline@worldbank.org Web: www.worldbank.org/gef