annex i- elaboration of the narrative · web view39. as and when called for by undp, undp-gef...

Government of Chile

Project Document

United Nations Development Programme

Global Environment Facility

Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast

Brief description

The project would establish three MUMPAs with the purpose of demonstrating integrated management of marine and coastal resources, and building capacities for their management and replication. The three areas have been chosen for their distinct biodiversity and for the range of challenges covered and will be entirely replicable in future MUMPAs along the Chilean coast. The MUMPAs will be established in conjunction with Regional Governments and co-managed by local stakeholders. The project would provide: [1] The legal establishment, delimitation and initial operations of 3 MUMPAs; [2] The administrative and governance structures and capacities developed for these; [3] Adaptive management systems and MUMPA management plans; [4] Three pilot projects to manage different types of tourism for benefits to conservation, local inhabitants and private sector partners; [5] Livelihoods pilot projects in two MUMPAs that include sustainable management of native species for biodiversity and income benefits; [6] Awareness and outreach programmes in each MUMPA; [7] An enabling programme to facilitate replication of experiences and provide a framework for a national network of MUMPAs.

Table of Contents

Acronyms.............................................................................................................................................................1Section I- Brief Narrative.....................................................................................................................................2

Part I. Situation Analysis.................................................................................................................................2Part II. Strategy................................................................................................................................................2Part III. Management Arrangements...............................................................................................................2Part IV. Monitoring and Evaluation................................................................................................................4Part V. Legal Context....................................................................................................................................17

Section II- Total Workplan and Budget.............................................................................................................18Signature Page...............................................................................................................................................20

Section III- Other Agreements...........................................................................................................................21Description of UNDP Country Office Support Services...............................................................................21Implementation Services as part of UNDP responsibilities as GEF IA........................................................23Complementary resolutions...........................................................................................................................25

Appendix – A Project Brief approved revised to include response to Council and GEF comments.................30Summary........................................................................................................................................................31Matrix of Reponses to GEF Council comments............................................................................................34Country Ownership........................................................................................................................................44Programme and Policy Conformity...............................................................................................................45Project Context..............................................................................................................................................46Institutional, Policy and Regulatory Frameworks.........................................................................................47Baseline Course of Action.............................................................................................................................49Alternative Course of Action.........................................................................................................................56Project Implementation..................................................................................................................................73Financial Arrangements.................................................................................................................................75Sustainability of Project Results....................................................................................................................77Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................................................79Annexes.........................................................................................................................................................81

Annex A: Incremental Cost Matrix...........................................................................................................82Annex B: Logical Framework Matrix.......................................................................................................94

Table B1: Chile Marine Logical Framework Matrix...........................................................................94Table B2: Results Measurement Table..............................................................................................104

Annex C: STAP Review and Responses................................................................................................107Annex D: Support Letters (provided in file II).......................................................................................114Annex E: Map of Chile and Maps of Demonstration MUMPA.............................................................131Annex F: Selection of Demonstration Sites and their Biodiversity Value.............................................135Annex G: Threat and Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss in Chile’s Marine and Coastal Areas.............138Annex H: Stakeholders and Public Participation....................................................................................144

H1: Analysis of Stakeholders and Public Participation in MUMPAs Project...................................144H2: Stakeholders’ Participation Mechanisms in MUMPA Project...................................................151H3: Description of Stakeholders’ Participation.................................................................................152in the MUMPA Project Design..........................................................................................................152HH4: Conflict Resolution Mechanisms................................................................................................155H5: Agreement Protocol for Setting Up the Atacma Region MUMPA............................................161H6: Letter of Indigenous Commitment to Los Lagos MUMPA and Participation in Project...........163

Annex I: Tourism and the Economic Sustainability of the MUMPA.....................................................166Annex I:1. Viability of tourism generated revenues for covering MUMPA operation costs...........166Annex I:2: Economic viability of project sustainable use demonstrations........................................173

Annex J: Project Indicative Work plan Showing Activity Phasing........................................................175Annex K: MUMPA Budgets...................................................................................................................179Annex L: Bibliografic References..........................................................................................................182Annex M: Detailed Species Information of Selected MUMPAs (provided in file III)..........................186

Appendix B – Additional Information.............................................................................................................209Terms of Reference......................................................................................................................................210LPAC Minutes.............................................................................................................................................228

Section I- Brief Narrative ....................................................................................................................................2Part I. Situation Analysis .................................................................................................................................2Part II. Strategy ................................................................................................................................................3Part III. Management Arrangements ...............................................................................................................3Part IV. Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................4Part V. Legal Context ....................................................................................................................................18Section II- Total Workplan and Budget .........................................................................................................19Signature Page ...............................................................................................................................................21Section III- Other Agreements .......................................................................................................................22Description of Undp Country Office Support Services .................................................................................22Implementation Services as part of UNDP responsibilities as GEF IA ........................................................25Appendix – A .................................................................................................................................................27Project Brief approved revised to include response to Council and GEF comments ....................................32Annexes .........................................................................................................................................................66Annex A: Incremental Cost Matrix ...............................................................................................................67Annex B: Logical Framework Matrix ...........................................................................................................78Annex C: STAP Review and Responses .....................................................................................................111Annex D: Support Letters (provided in file II) ............................................................................................117Annex E: Map of Chile and Maps of Demonstration MUMPA ..................................................................132Annex F: Selection of Demonstration Sites and their Biodiversity Value ..................................................136Annex G: Threat and Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss in Chile’s Marine and Coastal Areas .................139Annex H: Stakeholders and Public Participation .........................................................................................145Annex I: Tourism and the Economic Sustainability of the MUMPA .........................................................170Annex J: Project Indicative Work plan Showing Activity Phasing .............................................................177Annex K: MUMPA Budgets (provided in file III) ......................................................................................181Annex L: Bibliografic References (provided in file III) ..............................................................................185Annex M: Detailed Species Information of Selected MUMPAs (provided in file III) ...............................190Appendix B – Additional Information .........................................................................................................213Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................................214LPAC Minutes .............................................................................................................................................231

AcronymsCRONYMS

CONAMA National Commission for the EnvironmentCONAF National Forestry CorporationCONICYT National Commission on Science and TechnologyFNDR National Regional Development FundGEF Global Environment FacilityGoC Government of ChileMUMPA Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected AreaNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanRD Regional (Project) Director RG Regional GovernmentRMUMPA Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas CommissionNPD National Project DirectorNSC National Steering CommitteeSNASPE National System of Wildlife Protected Areas SERNAPESCA National Fisheries ServiceSERNATUR National Service for TourismSUPPESCA Under secretariat for the FisheriesSUBMARINA Under secretariat for the NavyUNDP United Nations Development Programme

- 1 -

Section I- Brief Narrative

Part I. Situation Analysis

1. 1. The proposed project is fully consistent with the Nude’s Country Co-operation Framework with Chile that has three main strategic lines of action, Human Development and Poverty Alleviation, Decentralization and Governance, and the Environment. While the project will fall within this last category, it will contribute substantially to the second as it focuses on decentralized action and the establishment of governance structures. It will also contribute to an area the UNDP-Chile office has been focusing more recently that of the integration of the private sector in actions that achieve global and local environmental benefits. By seeking to promote the sustainable use of the coastal and marine resources it will also contribute to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7. The project also complies with the criteria for Chile GEF portfolio established during the Country Workshop Dialogue in 2002.

1. A full situation analysis is presented in Appendix A Section Project Context and Baseline-. The design has incorporated lessons from other GEF projects as described in Appendix A Section Links xxx… The design of the project has drawn from lessons learned in coastal management projects in Argentina, Belize, Dominican Republic and Cuba, especially regarding early involvement in project preparation of all government and non-government sectors, management structures and in the use of tourism as a source of income for the MUMPAs. It has also benefited from experience with wetlands in Jordan and Uruguay, particularly especially regarding the sequencing of activities and the importance of early and firm commitments from governments. The active exchange of information with these projects will be sought during implementation. Special attention will be given to lessons learned from the Galapagos on sustainable tourist loads and tourist management and these will also be applied in this project. The specific objective, or purpose, of the project will be to remove barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country.

2.

2. 2. A full situation analysis is presented in Appendix A Section Project Context and Baseline. The design has incorporated lessons from other GEF projects as described in Appendix A in the section on linkages with other GEF initiatives (Paragraph 82). The specific objective, or purpose, of the project will be to remove barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country. The legal and regulatory frameworks are also described in AAppendix A Section Country driveness. While the regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries management has been consolidated substantially over the past decade, that for conservation and preservation of resources and the broader marine and coastal ecosystem on which they depend, is still incomplete. Although considerable advances were made in the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems through the 1984 SNASPE Law, this framework does not apply to marine and coastal ecosystems. The third category established under the 1991 General Law of Fishing and Aquaculture is intended for preservation areas through Marine Parks but this has yet

- 2 -

to be applied. In addition, through the Ministry of Defense Decrees Nº 223 and 660, the Navy can assign legal status and allocate user rights (concessions) over marine areas in addition to their authority to control, inspect and oversee the coast and territorial sea, conferred under Decree 340 in 1960. Under Decree No 223 the Navy delimited three marine areas in Easter Island as Marine and Coastal Protected Areas for promoting scientific research and environmental education rather than biodiversity conservation per se.

3. 3. A further Ministry of Defense Decree, Nº475 of 1994, established the National Policy for the Use of the Seaboard and a special Commission for this. The mandate of this Commission is to plan land use in the coastal zone within 80 meters from the high tide line. An extensive program related to this is being implemented throughout the country and particularly in the Regions I, II, IV and IIX (see Annex Appendix A). Finally while the regulatory framework for main and coastal areas is complex and still incomplete in terms of biodiversity conservation, the Basic Law for the Environment, enacted in 1994, provides an important tool in pursuing this goal as it established the National Commission for the Environment-CONAMA- and conferred it the authority to coordinate other governmental agencies in the development and execution of environmental and biodiversity policies and projects. CONAMA is the focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity, coordinates the execution of the NBSAP and was the lead institution for seeking GEF support to overcome barriers for marine and coastal biodiversity conservation through the proposed project.

Part II. Strategy

3. 3The project would fit the UNDP strategy would be under its the gGoal: Environment, sub- goal Instrument for Environment Sustainability, which includesere some as expected outcomes are: “Improved capacity of local and sectoral authorities, and private sector in environmental management” and “Global Environment concerns and commitment integrated in national development planning and policy”.

1. 4 5. In terms of the Respect to the Partnership Strategy, the projectis will include many institutions such as like: CONAMA, as the Executing Agency, with the support of The Regional Government of III, X and XII regions, National Fisheries Service (SERNAPESCA), Under secretariat for the Fisheries, Under secretariat for the Navy, and private sector and civil society, including particular emphasis on artisan fishermen and indigenous communities. .1. 6.A fully description of these partnerships and their relative roles are provided in Strategy is inAppendix A, Annex A for details of respective funding contribution and H in terms of stakeholder participation agreements and mechanisms.xxx

Part III. Management Arrangements

2. 5 6. The Project would be executed under NEX modalities. Financial management and accountability of resources as well as other project execution activities will be under UNDP country office responsibility (see Section III: Other Agreements).

3. 6. 67. The Project implementation would be overseen by a specially created Project Steering Committee (PSC) vested with the responsibility of approving the project’s annual operational

- 3 -

plans and reports and ensuring that project activities are in line with those outlined in the approved project documentation and with national policy frameworks. This ten to twelve person committee would be chaired be a senior CONAMA staff member and would be composed of representatives from the UNDP, the Ministry of National Assets and for Development Planning, the Under secretariat for the Fisheries, National Fisheries Service, National Service for Tourism, the Under secretariat for the Navy, a representative of the civil society, a representative of the academic sector and the three regions where demonstration MUMPAs are to be established. In at least the first years of project operations, these regional representatives would be from the RMUMPA Commissions established during the project preparation phase as such these would be form xxx society. As these Commissions are presided by the Regional Intendant, their representative on the PSC would facilitate the direct flow of information on the project to Regional Governments. Once each MUMPA has a formally incorporated Corporation, a representative from this would also form part of the PSC. This representative would be selected by stakeholders from within the MUMPA and, as such, would increase local access to, and role in, overall project monitoring and evaluation.

[4.] 7 8. The PSC would meet at least twice a year, and on other occasions as needed, to review partial progress reports, monitor results, receive other reports that they may request on an ad hoc basis and to approve annual project reports and work plans. The National Project Manager (NPM) would be the Secretary of the PSC and would be responsible for setting up their meetings, circulating documentation for review, taking minutes and preparing their reports.

4.[5.] 7. .

[6.] 8 9. The The NPM would head a Project Management Unit (PMU) responsible for the general oversight and running of project implementation. This Unit would be largely decentralized with only the NPM and an administrative assistant housed in Santiago, and a Regional Project Director and a financial assistant for each of the pilot MUMPAs to be housed in the regional government offices of those regions.

5.[7.]

8. 910. The National Project Manager would be responsible for the timely achievement of all project objectives. His/her duties would include overseeing and coordinating project implementation at the operational level and would be the key contact for UNDP in regards to operational aspects (contracts; equipment procurement etc). The NPM’s responsibilities would also include developing work plans and corresponding budgets that enable the project objectives to be achieved within frameworks outlined in the project’s logical matrix. It would also include providing guidance and support to the Regional Project Director (RPD) to ensure that the implementation of activities in each region is coherent with the overall project structure and objectives, and that lessons learnt at each site are shared with others. The NPM would also be responsible for the periodic reporting to UNDP on lessons learnt and would be the key point through which lessons learnt in similar projects in other parts of the world would be channeled to enhance project operations. In addition to this overall co-ordination role, the NPM would be directly responsible for the implementation of those activities to be undertaken at the national level (mainly Output 7).

- 4 -

3. 9. 101. NPM responsibilities would also include periodic evaluation of progress and the preparation of progress reports based on inputs from the Regional Project Directors and regular field visits. The end of year project reports to be submitted to the NSC and UNDP would be prepared by the NPM, as well as other reports specifically required for GEF projects such as the PIR. Part of the NPM’s Monitoring and Evaluation functions would also ensure the timely measurement of indicators to objectively verify and record progress towards the project objectives and the achievement of targeted impacts. An administrative assistant would provide support to the NPM.

4.

5. 1 0. 112. The Regional Project Director (RPD) would oversee project activities on a daily basis within each of the MUMPAs. They would also be responsible for developing regional workplans and budgets and providing these to the NPM in agreed formats that enable them to be aggregated into the overall project workplans and budgets. The RPDs would have the support of a financial assistant that would be responsible for monitoring project expenditure, processing project resource requests and general financial management of each region’s project activities.

6.

11. 123. Until a Corporation for each MUMPA is incorporated, the RPD and Assistant would essentially undertake the role of managing the MUMPA as most MUMPA related activities in year one and two would be those contemplated in the GEF project. Once the staffing plan for the Executive Unit of the MUMPA Corporation is finalized and implemented, the Regional Director’s contribution to overall management of the MUMPA will decrease as new staff are hired, or seconded, and as resource flows into the MUMPA increase from external sources (e.g. returns from fees, concessions, public and private investments). The RPDs would, however, still be entirely responsible for oversight of GEF funded activities but will increasingly liaise with the MUMPA Executive Unit to ensure these are in line with the management and operational plans of the MUMPAs once developed. Thus, while the RPDs are hired through the project, form part of the Project Management Unit and report directly to the NPM, they will also have reporting and liaising responsibilities at the regional level. During the first years of the project this will be to the RMUMPA Commissions, but once the Corporations are in place this will be to the Manager of the Executive Unit of the MUMPA Corporation. At this point the Manager of the Executive Unit, rather than the RPD, would then report to the Commissions.

12. 134. AAs the RMUMPA Commissions, and eventually Corporations, will have representation on the PSC, a coordinated and parallel flow of information regarding the project will occur both through the governmental and project structures. To ensure this co-ordination between project and related government actions on a more daily basis at the local level, CONAMA would appoint a national and regional level project focal point to facilitate more regular communication and information exchange with the PMU. These focal points have already been established as part of the project preparation process and have taken an active role in design and preparation of project documentation.

- 5 -

13. .45In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, all projects documents should include a paragraph to explicitly require that a GEF logo appear on all relevant GEF project publications, including among others, project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF. The UNDP logo should be more prominent -- and separated a bit from the GEF logo if possible as, with non-UN logos, there can be security issues for staff.

13. [14.] For further information, detailed Terms of Reference are included in Appendix B. Annex 1.

Part IV. Monitoring and Evaluation

1465. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex 1 provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built.

1576. The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

1. MONITORING AND REPORTING

1.1. Project Inception Phase

1687. Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as appropriate.

1798. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's log frame matrix. This will include reviewing the log frame (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize an Operationalthe Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the first year with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. Particular attention will be given to ensuring that the first year of activities places emphasis on establishing baseline values for impact indicators.

182019. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis a vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring

- 6 -

http://intra.undp.org/gef/programmingmanual/gef_logo_page.htm

http://intra.undp.org/gef/programmingmanual/undp_logo_page.htm

and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings.

19. 210. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.

1.2. Monitoring responsibilities and events

2021. A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.

2132. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator, Director or CTA (depending on the established project structure) based on the project's Annual Work plan and its indicators. The Project Team and CONAMA will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

2243. The Project Coordinator and the Project GEF Technical Advisor will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. At this time the use of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) will be discussed to determine how this should be applied once the MUMPAs have been set up and what adaptation may be required for it to more effectively address coastal and marine scenario. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work plan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.

24235. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative Impact Measurement Template at the end of Part IV Table 2.this Annex. The measurement of these indicators will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions (e.g. vegetation cover via analysis of satellite imagery, or populations of key species through inventories) or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities (e.g.

- 7 -

measurement carbon benefits from improved efficiency of ovens or through surveys for capacity building efforts) or periodic sampling such as with sedimentation. The costs of this monitoring are indicated in Table 2 at the end pf Part IV

2465. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

2576. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as appropriate will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often based on and agreed upon schedule to be detailed in the project's Inception Report / Annual Workplan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the SC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all SC members, and UNDP-GEF.

2687. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments.

2798. The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The project proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.

Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)

28. 3029. The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The project proponent is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LAC-GEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

29310. The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks will be developed at the Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

- 8 -

1.3. Project Monitoring Reporting

3021. The Project Coordinator in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.

(a) Inception Report (IR)

3132. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed Firs Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures.

3243. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame.

3363. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation.

3474. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, CONAMA, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.

(b) Annual Project Report (APR)

3585. The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management. It is a self -assessment report by project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key input to the Tripartite Project Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work.

3696. The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following:

An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome

The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these

- 9 -

The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results AWP, CAE and other expenditure reports (ERP generated) Lessons learned Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress

(c) Project Implementation Review (PIR)

374037. The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF and has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for learning lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project and presented annually by the end of June of that year. The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. The format is defined by UNDP/GEF.

(d) Quarterly Progress Reports

384138. Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. See format attached.

(e) Periodic Thematic Reports

394239. As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team and CONAMA in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.

(f) Project Terminal Report

4030. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

(g) Technical Reports (project specific- optional)

4141. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized

- 10 -

analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels.

(h) Project Publications (project specific- optional)

4252. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The project team (this include CONAMA) will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.

2. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

43. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:-

(i) Mid-term Evaluation

4463. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

(ii) Final Evaluation

4574. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

. LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING

- 11 -

4685. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:

The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in CONAMA and/or UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.

4796. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessonslessons, as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

- 12 -

TABLE 1: INDICATIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION WORK PLAN AND CORRESPONDING BUDGET

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$Excluding project team Staff time

Time frame

Inception Workshop

CONAMA Project Executive Unit

(UEPPEU) PNUDUNDP Country Office PNUDUNDP-FMAMGEF

US$ 4,000 (CONAMA)

Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report

CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit


None

Immediately following IW

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Impact indicators particularly at the project pPurpose level Indicators

Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Indicative cost duringcost during he project US$ 101,000 (GEF)

Start, mid and end of project

MMonitoringeasurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance indicators ( measured on an annual basis)

Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be determined as part of the Yearly AnnualOperational Work Plan's preparation. Indicative Cost during the project US$ 97,500 (GEF)

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans plans

APR and PIR CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit

(PEUUEP) PNUDUNDP Country Office PNUDUNDP-FMAMGEF

Included in Project Coordinator functions – no additional budget requiredNone

Annually

TPR and TPR report CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit


NIncluded in Project relevant staff functions – no additional budget requiredone

Every year, upon receipt of APR

Steering Committee Meetings

CONAMA Project Executive Unit

(UEPPEU) PNUDUNDP Country Office

Included in Project relevant staff functions – no additional budget required None

Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year

Periodic status reports CONAMA Project Executive Unit

(UEPPEU)


To be determined by Project team and UNDP CO

Technical reports Project Executive Unit (UEPPEU)

Hired consultants as needed

US$ 2,000 (CONAMA, annually) (approximately US$ 10,000 during the project)

To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term External Evaluation

Project Steering Committee PNUDUNDP Country Office UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating UnitExternal Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)


US$ 15,000 (GEF)At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation Project Steering Committee At the end of

- 13 -

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$Excluding project team Staff time

Time frame

PNUDUNDP Country Office UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating UnitExternal Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)


US$ 15,000 (GEF) project implementation

Terminal Report CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit



At least one month before the end of the project

Lessons learned CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit

(UEPPEU) PNUDUNDP Country Office Project Steering Committee UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc)

US$ 2,500 (GEF)(approximatelyApproximately US$ 4,000 during the project)

Yearly

Audit CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit


US$ 1,000 (CONAMA) (approx. US$ 4,000 during the project)

Yearly

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees and not project resources)

CONAMA (supervision) Project Executive Unit

(UEPPEU) PNUDUNDP Country Office UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit Government Representatives Project Steering Committee

US$ 12,000 (CONAMA only for its representatives) (approx. US$ 60,000 during the project)

Yearly

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses

US$ 238,500 (GEF)US$ 78,000$ 78,000 (CONAMA)

- 14 -

TABLE 2: IMPACT MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS

Objectives Key performance indicator

Purpose(Year 5)

Sample Frequency

Additional Information

ValueUS$

Provide increased protection to Chile’s unique coastal biodiversity by removing barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country.

Number of hectares of seascape and critical associated coastal lands under protection in each coastal bio-geographic region of Chile

Warm temperate biographical area: Caldera MUMPA (Region III) At least 8,682 ha of seascape (Humboldt current), and 10,366 ha critical associated coastal lands along 30 linear km of coastline are under legal protection including 70 hectares of the last Atacama wetlandsTransitional Temperate biographical area Bahia Mansa (Region X)At least of 9,931 ha seascape and 269 ha critical associated coastal lands along 30 linear km coastline, are under legal protection including 45 ha of Valdivian forest Cold Temperate biographical area: Carlos III (Region XII)At least, 67,197 ha seascape and 33,586 ha of critical coastal land in 770 km of coastline are under legal protection habitats including 32,000 hectares of Magallanes Forest Warm temperate biographical area: Caldera (Region III)

Start of project; mid term and end

Indicates contribution to GEF 3 targets of additional hectares under protection

5,000

Populations of key species, selected as indicators of improved protection from threats in each MUMPA

Caldera Populations of Lessonia. Nigrescens and trabeculata (measured

by area covered in hectares) remain the same as at project outset or have increased. Intertidal marine invertebrate populations stay at levels that indicate pollution levels by terrestrial sources are within Chilean standard.

Records of terrestrials pollutants in marine invertebrates remain under Chilean regulation

Bahía Mansa The populations of Goose Barnacle (Picoroco

Austromegabalanus psittacus in MUMPA core zones increases steadily each year and in other MUMPA zones stays the same as levels at project outset. Moreover

, this species will demonstrate pollution levels under Chilean regulation. Populations of Lessonia species remain the same as at project

Start of project and then annually

Increases in Lessonia indicate reduced fishing.Marine invertebrates populations indicatepopulations indicate a reduction of pollutions from terrestrial sources

Increases in Picoroco indicate lower extraction rates of this species and thus effectiveness of MUMPA zones. Furthermore, it

20,000

- 15 -


Purpose(Year 5)

Sample Frequency


ValueUS$

outset

Carlos III Populations of Spheniscus magellanicus (penguins) in Rupert

Island, measured by number of nests and nest densities, remain the same as levels at project outset. [1989 values = 3,764 nests with densities of 4.5 to 22.7 per 100m2].

indicatesshows low levels of terrestrial pollutantConstant levels of penguin nests indicate controlled or avoided tourism threat. The marine invertebrates will show none contamination from terrestrial

Populations of key species selected as indicators to illustrate biodiversity levels in each MUMPA remain the same or have increased

Caldera Macrocystis integrifolia populations of “forest” in Caldera MUMPA have increased 10% (measured in ha)Bahia Mansa Natural populations of Choromytilus chorus (Choro Zapato) in the MUMPA stay at least the same as year one Carlos IIIThe number of adult humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) with their offspring feeding in the waters of Carlos III between November and March each year remains the same as at project outset.


Macrocystis holdfasts harbor 70% of micro-invertebrate species in area Endemic species under threat in some areas of Chile. Migratory species that use this area for feeding

20,000

Outcome 1 (Output 1,2,3)Three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures

% MUMPA costs covered by tourism revenue

At least 70% of theof the 3 demonstration3 demonstration MUMPA costs are covered by tourism related revenue and the remaining 30% have identified and agreed upon sources

Mid and end Indicates sustainability of MUMPA long term funding

5,000

Funding operationsProcedures for collection, investment and disbursement of resourcesof resources from tourism to MUMPA management are in place place

Mid and end Indicates sustainability of MUMPA long term funding

5,000

Adaptive management plans

MUMPA management plans are reviewed and fine tuned annually with input from stakeholders and monitoring systems

End year 2 and annually

Indicates potential for management to continually improve and count on stakeholder support

5,000

- 16 -


Purpose(Year 5)

Sample Frequency


ValueUS$

Avoided incompatible conservation activities

The number of requests for permits for activities not compatible with MUMPA zone uses drops 15% each year

Start and annually

Indicates buy-in from stakeholders and effectively of MUMPA role

5,000

Number of infractions

The number of infractions in different MUMPA zones decreases annually at least 20% from year three

Start and annually from year 3

Indicates effectiveness of MUMPA and role potential in biodiversity conservation

2,500

Outcome 2Benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs

% income from shingles production

The contribution of alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) shingle production to the Huilliches income decreases by at least 50% with no reduction in overall income

Start and annually

Indicates reduced pressure on forest and avoided potential soil erosion that would effect water quality

5,000

Areas of forest surrounding the Bahia Mansa MUMPA is the same as at project start

5,000

% fish capture/ unit effort

10% increase in fish capture per unit of effort in the zones of permitted use in MUMPA III and 5% in Bahia Mansa Annually

Measures increased fish stocks from effect of core area and controlled fishing enforcement

7,000

% income from sustainable management of native species

Resources coming from Macrocystis related tourism and sustainable extraction of Lessonia in Calderas, & Choro zapato in Bahia Mansa, increase by at least 30% compared with year 3

Start and annually

Indicates reduced reliance on fishing and shingles & also local benefits

8,000

Habitat structure rehabilitation

Sampling of benthic invertebrates and fishes in permanent plots/transects show that species associated with kelp forest increase and black sea urchin densities decrease at Caldera

Start and annually

Indicates the reduced fishing on keystone predators and restoration of biodiversity levels

20,000

% Tourists reporting attraction related to MUMPA existence

At least 80% of overnight tourists indicate they selected location for biodiversity related attraction

Start, mid term, end

Indicates probable continued interest of tourism ventures in MUMPA support

5,000

Outcome 3 ((Outputs 6 and 7)Local and national understanding of the MUMPAs role in achieving combined

% Stakeholders that recognize MUMPA and zones

90% of inhabitants of MUMPA and buffer zones recognize it boundaries and can explain its main function

Start mid and end

Indicates potential effectiveness of MUMPA for conservation

20,000

Regional and local user and benefit groups know the different uses permitted in each MUMPA zone and can recognize their boundaries

Start, mid and end

10,000

Local and regional government officials can locate the MUMPA in their region and explain its main function

Mid and end 5,000

- 17 -


Purpose(Year 5)

Sample Frequency


ValueUS$

goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions

Local awareness and knowledge on biodiversity

Regular talks and guidance in biodiversity are given to tourists arriving at the three MUMPAs Mid and end

Indicates potential of continued increase in appreciation of conserving marine and coastal resources

10,000

Local schools incorporate MUMPA related activities in their curriculum

Start, mid, end

10,000

Access to awareness and information material on biodiversity

30 national and regional government representatives and 50 private sector representatives have visited demonstration MUMPAs

Start, mid, term and end

Indicates possibility of replication in other areas

5,000

The number of programmesof programmes and information slots on coastal and marine biodiversity in a selected set of media has doubled since project start

Start and end Indicates increased exposure to information and potential increase in knowledge

7,500

Information request The number of potential tourists that request specific information on marine and coastal nature related tourism hastourism has increased 30% from project start up

Start, mid and end

Indicates changes level of awareness

10,000

Number of RMUMPA Commissions

There will be at least one RMUMPA Commissions formed in regions other than III, X and XII

Start and end

Indicates success of replication facilitation Indicates success of replications facilitation activities

3,500Number of MUMPAs in other regions

At project completion at least one additional MUMPAs and by five years after the end of project. Chile will have at least 9 MUMPAs fully functioningfully functioning (this 5 year targetyear target at the highest level of the matrix and will depend on assumptions holding)

Start, end and 5 years post

- 18 -

Part V. Legal Context

487. This UNDP Project is funded from resources made available to the Government by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of this Project Document.

48.

49. This project document will be the instrument referred as such in Article 1 of the Basic Agreement on Technical Assistance, signed in January 15th 1957, between the Government of Chile and United Nations, ILO, FAO, UNESCO, the OACI, OMM, UIT and OMM. The host country and the implementing and executing agencies should refer to the Government Cooperation Agency described in the Agreement, regarding the Basic Agreement on Cooperation Regulations. The following types of revisions to this Project Document could take place, following authorization of the UNDP Resident Representative, provided that he/she is absolutely sure that the other signing parties to the project are not going to object the proposed changes:

- Revisions to, or extensions to any of the annex of the Project Document;

- Revisions that do not involve significant changes to the immediate objectives, activities or results of the Project, but they are a result of changes in the agreed contributions, or due to cost increase because of inflation; and,

- Compulsory annual revisions that reconsider the already agreed contributions or the need to include more experts, or other costs related to inflation or in consideration to expenses flexibility by the agency.

4950. The legal context under which this project document will be ruled by, is the one shown in Section III: Complementary Resolutions of the Project Document. Also, and for all-purpose, the Executing Agency of the host country refers to the governmental assistant agency as described in Section III, Complementary Resolutions.

- 19 -

Section II- Total Workplan and Budget

Award: tbdAward Title :Title: PIMS 2041 BD: Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast

Project Objective/Atlas Output = FSP :FSP: Chile MarinoProject ID :ID: tbd

Project Outcome/Atlas Activity

Responsible Party

Source of Funds

BudgetBudget Description (General) Year 1 US$ Year 2

US$Year 3 US$

Year 4 US$

Year 5 US$

Year 6 US$

Total US$

Three MUMPAS have been

legally established, demarcated

and have essential

infrastructure to start up operations

CONAMA GEF71300 Local Consultan

54.800

70.713

3.000 128.513

72200 Equipment and Furniture 42.102

230.647

125.000

50.000

447.749

74500 Miscellaneous expenses 30.603

13.823

44.426

71600 Travel 3.817

19.665

12.000

35.482

72100 Contractual Services-Companies

26.400

8.000

10.048

16.598

61.046

CONAMA Regional Gov.

292.916

234.533

234.533

234.784

175.900

-

1.172.666

TNC

-

40.000

-

40.000

-

-

80.000

Administration and

governance systems are in place for each

MUMPA


6.000

61.251

62.000

4.223

2.053

4.398

139.925

71200 International Consultants 4.000

18.000

18.000

52.800

52.800

26.400

172.000


7.321

8.500

10.800

12.000

5.000

48.621

71600 Travel 15.000

12.000

16.000

15.000

12.000

5.000

75.000

72100 Contractual Services-

- 20 -


Responsible Party

Source of Funds


US$Year 3 US$

Year 4 US$

Year 5 US$

Year 6 US$

Total US$

Companies 52.800 16.901 10.973 30.400 36.620 11.200 158.894

Other -

-

-

-

-

-

-

Adaptive Management Systems for

each MUMPs have been developed,

agreed upon and

implemented


9.116

9.017

9.616

27.749

71600 Travel 4.300

4.300

4.300

12.900


3.100

3.100

9.200


149.000

149.000

146.000

444.000

-

CONAMA Regional Gov

-

112.756

112.756

112.756

112.757

-

451.025

TNC

-

84.000

84.000

168.000

84.000

-

420.000

Three pilots projects have

been implemented

to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can

generate multiple

benefits for the conservation

of global biodiversity

CONAMA GEF72200 Equipment and Furniture

182.572

112.142

30.900

325.614


27.900

28.730

21.100

26.200

103.930


4.542

14.142

-

-

CONAMA Regional Gov

-

507.404

507.404

507.404

507.403

2.029.615

Private sector

-

-

92.065

92.065

92.066

-

276.196

Livelihood CONAMA GEF 71300 Local Consultan

- 21 -


Responsible Party

Source of Funds


US$Year 3 US$

Year 4 US$

Year 5 US$

Year 6 US$

Total US$

pilot projects established in each MUMPA

to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation

of, native biodiversity,

and to diversify the

economic base of local

inhabitants and improve their qualify of life

6.000 12.000 12.000 6.025 5.000 41.025


1.275

2.500

2.500

4.888

13.663


22.775

18.000

16.025

22.750

5.000

84.550

72400 Admin Personel 52.800

52.800

52.800

26.400

184.800

-

CONAMA Regional Gov

-

-

-

45.102

45.103

-

90.205

WWF

-

52.667

52.667

52.666

-

-

158.000

Private Sector

-

-

42.244

42.244

42.245

126.733

Biodiversity Conservation awareness and

outreach programmes have been

implemented in each

MUMPA and vicinity


5.000

8.000

13.000

72200 Equipment and Furniture 52.000

71.000

71.000

71.000

265.000


20.664

6.665

4.715

6.665

8.000

46.709

CONAMA Regional Gov

-

191.686

191.686

191.686

191.686

-

766.744

Private Sector

139.555

139.555

139.555

139.555

139.555

697.775

An enabling programme

has been implemented

to facilitate the replication of


17.500

17.500

17.500

17.500

10.210

80.210


5.000

5.000

5.000

4.000

24.000

71600 Travel 12.000

12.000

12.900

12.000

6.000

54.900

- 22 -


Responsible Party

Source of Funds


US$Year 3 US$

Year 4 US$

Year 5 US$

Year 6 US$

Total US$

MUMPAs in other regions


22.921

22.921

20.521

22.921

7.000

96.284

72400 Admin Personel 52.800

52.800

52.800

52.800

26.400

237.600

Adaptive management of the project

has been achieved

through active monitoring

and evaluation

CONAMA GEF72400 Admin Personel

24.300

48.600

48.600

48.600

48.600

24.300

243.000


46.333

46.333

46.333

46.333

23.167

208.499

71200 International Consultants 15.000

15.000

30.000

Sub-Total by Source GEF 264.822

1.148.302

948.304

772.531

513.109

225.363

3.872.431

Other

292.916

1.362.601

1.456.910

1.626.262

1.390.715

139.555

6.268.959

Grand Total 557.738

2.510.903

2.405.214

2.398.793

1.903.824

364.918

10.141.390

- 23 -

Signature Page

Country: CHILE

Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s): Improve capacities of local, sectorial authorities and of the private sector in environmental management.

Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s): To establish three MUMPAs with the purpose of demonstrating integrated management of marine and coastal resources and building capacities for their management and replication.

Implementing partner: CONAMA

Other Partners: Regional Governments and Public Services

Agreed by Ministry of Foreign Affairs: _______ _______________________________

Agreed by UNDP: __ ________________________________________

Agreed by CONAMA: _____ _________________________________________________

- 24 -

Total Budget US$ 10,141,391General Management Support Fee: NAAllocated resources: GEF US$ 3,872,431$

3,872,431 Government US$ 4,510,256 Private Sector US$ 1,100,704 Other:

o TNC US$ 500,000o WWF US$ 158,000

In kind contributions _________

Programme Period: 2004-2009Programme Component: Energy and Environment for Sustainable DevelopmentProject Title: Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean CoastProject ID: CHIProject Duration: 5 yearsManagement Arrangement: NEX Execution

Section III- Other Agreements

Description of UNDP Country Office Support Services

1. Reference is made to consultations between CONAMA, the institution designated by the Government of Chile and officials of UNDP with respect to the provision of support services by the UNDP country office for the nationally managed project: Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast.

2. In accordance with the provisions of the project document, the UNDP country office shall provide support services for the Project as described below.

3. For a description of the support services to be provided see table below.

The total agreed costs of the support services are 5% of the project budget for the five years project duration.

These amounts shall be apportioned upon certification of actual expenditures incurred by the Project and shall be automatically deducted as disbursements are made. Occasional variations in the Project’s total budget over which the respective operational costs will apply shall be reflected in successive budget revisions. Receipts corresponding to the appropriation of referred costs will only be issued upon specific request of CONAMA.

UNDP RESPONSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF EXECUTION ACTIVITIES

(Funded through the above cited on agreement with the GoC and UNDP CO)

UNDP-CO CONAMARecruitment of Consultants (International and National) Review TORs Issue contracts where applicable Authorize salary/consultancy fee/missions

where applicable Ensure adequate supervision of

consultants’ work, review and approve outputs

Prepare draft TORs Participate in interviewing candidates Authorize salary/consultancy fee/missions where

applicable Supervise consultant's work, review and approve outputs

Sub-Contracts Review TORs Assist in identifying suitable

subcontractors (advertisement, website, rosters)

Assist in evaluating bids Assist in issuing contract (when applicable) Ensure inputs as per contract TORs Ensure payments are made accordingly Ensure adequate supervision of sub-

contractors' work (in terms of quality and meeting of milestones)

Prepare draft TORs Assist in identifying suitable subcontractors Participate in evaluating bids Supervise sub-contractors’ work (in terms of quality and

meeting of milestones) Critical review of sub-contractors’ performance

- 25 -

UNDP-CO CONAMA Critical review of sub-contractors’

performanceProject Co-ordination and Execution Those tasks covered under the

Implementing Agency (IA) A responsibilities shown in the following table

Execute the project to ensure quality delivery of outputs to meet project objectives

Participate in monthly meetings with UNDP to ensure smooth project execution

Chair Steering Committee to ensure smooth project execution

Participate in Technical Committee meetings to ensure smooth project execution

Provide advice and information to project staff on a regular basis in order to ensure the effectiveness of the project and its relevance to Government policies.

Financial Management and Accountability Making direct payments and ensuring flow

of funds for project activities Training of staff of executing agency on

financial disbursement and reporting Financial monitoring and record keeping Financial reporting Budget revisions

Financial monitoring and record keeping Financial reporting Budget revisions Issue requests for disbursements and budget revisions

Technical Reporting Prepare progress reports Prepare and submit APR to UNDP CO

Monitoring and Evaluation Making appropriate arrangements for

logistical and technical support of the evaluation teams and missions.

Those tasks covered under the IA

responsibilities shown in the following table

Validate and implement the project monitoring and evaluation system, including punctual measurement of specified indicators

Provide information required by evaluation teams and missions

Provide logistical and technical support for evaluation teams and missions

Ensure incorporation of results of evaluation missions into project strategies and activities

Training/Workshop Support the development of training and

workshop activities Making appropriate arrangements for the logistical and

technical support of the training and workshop activitiesAwareness Those tasks covered under the IA

responsibilities shown in the following table

Ensure effective dissemination to key regional and national stakeholders of information on the project and lessons learnt through publications, workshops, seminars, conferences, project website and other means.

Equipment Review and approve specifications Identify suppliers of goods and services Evaluate contracts Award contracts Undertake Customs clearance (when

applicable)

Prepare specifications and request equipment

- 26 -

UNDP-CO CONAMA Authorize paymentOffice Premises Assist with procurement of services

(furniture in setting-up office, telephone etc.)

Authorize budget for rent Authorize payment

Ensure the availability of adequate office space.

- 27 -

Implementation Services as part of UNDP responsibilities as GEF IA

(Funded through GEF IA Fees)

Project launching Responsibilities of UNDP as a GEF IA Assist in preparation and delivery of Project Inception Workshop Project Management Oversight Responsibilities of UNDP as a GEF IA Hold regular meetings with project executing agency to ensure smooth project execution including field

visits to the project at its site (at least once a year); preparing and circulating reports no later than two weeks after the end of the visit.

Participate in Steering Committee meeting to ensure smooth project execution Participate in Technical Committee meetings as appropriate to ensure smooth project execution Keeping clear communications and taking necessary interventions to ensure co-ordination between

different co-financiers in implementing and completing project activities Operational completion activities: Determining when the project is operationally complete and advising

all interested parties accordingly.Monitoring and Evaluation Responsibilities of UNDP as a GEF IA Ensuring progress reports are prepared and submitted timely Ensuring Annual Programme Report and Project Performance Report (APR- PIR) are prepared and

submitted to UNDP CO by the due date and, when relevant, at 2 weeks before the Tripartite Finalizing and submitting APR/PIR to UNDP-GEF Organizing Tripartite (TPR) meetings, participating and ensuring that decisions are taken on important

issues and that follow up action is undertaken to implement these decisions Contribute to preparation of TPR reports Undertake project monitoring/site visits Supporting and ensuring the development of clear guidelines for assessing project progress and impact,

for improving monitoring, and for identifying lessons learned and including them in the following years’ workplans

Preparation and finalization of TOR for evaluation (mid-term and mandatory evaluation) Trouble shooting and arranging independent evaluations (hiring personnel, mission planning) Reviewing editing, responding to reports Overseeing project document revisions to incorporate evaluations recommendations Policy negotiations Awareness Building Responsibilities of UNDP as a GEF IA Disseminating relevant information to host and other countries in the region through UNDP COs Sharing of project best practices with other UNDP offices Sharing of training materials from training workshops for other similar UNDP workshops Disseminating information through UNDP CO website Create links between this project and other GEF projects, and linking up national and international

scientific communities that are addressing similar issues Working with media and journalists to publicize project activitiesFinancial Management & Accountability

- 28 -

Budget Revisions. The 1st. revision within two months of the signing of the project document to reflect the actual starting date and to enable the preparation of a realistic plan for the provision of inputs for the first full year. Annual revision approved by 10 June of each year to reflect the final expenditures for the preceding year and to enable the preparation of a realistic plan for the provision of inputs for the current year.

Ensuring annual audits of NEX projects are completed and the audited financial statements together with the audit report reach UNDP headquarters (Office of Audit and Performance Review) no later than 30th April.

Verifying expenditures, advancing funds, issuing combined delivery reports Financial completion activities: Ensuring projects are financially completed not more than 12 months after

the date of operational completion by ensuring the final budget revision is promptly prepared and approved.

- 29 -

Complementary resolutions

Disposiciones complementarias del documento de proyecto: Contexto Legal

I RESPONSABILIDADES GENERALES DEL GOBIERNO, DEL PNUD Y DEL ORGANISMO DE EJECUCION

1. Todas las fases y todos los aspectos de la asistencia del PNUD al proyecto se regirán por las disposiciones del presente Anexo así como por las resoluciones y las decisiones pertinentes de los órganos competentes de las Naciones Unidas que sean aplicables. La asistencia que preste el PNUD a la ejecución del proyecto, así como el seguimiento, evaluación y la preparación de informes relativos a dicha asistencia se ajustarán a las políticas y procedimientos pertinentes adoptados por el PNUD.

2. El gobierno, a través del Organismo de Ejecución, seguirá siendo el responsable de este proyecto de desarrollo que recibe asistencia del PNUD y del cumplimiento de sus objetivos que se describen en el Documento de Proyecto.

3. Dado que la asistencia prestada en virtud del presente Documento de Proyecto va en beneficio del Gobierno y del pueblo de Chile, el Gobierno correrá con los riesgos asociados a los resultados de las operaciones ejecutadas en el marco del presente proyecto, una vez finalizado.

4. El PNUD complementará y suplementará la participación del Gobierno en la ejecución del proyecto y aportará, por conducto del Organismo de Ejecución, los servicios necesarios de expertos, las actividades de capacitación, el equipo y otros servicios, dentro de las disponibilidades de fondos destinados al proyecto.

5. El Organismo de Ejecución asumirá las actividades relativas a la ejecución del proyecto una vez iniciada su implementación efectiva. Sin embargo, dichas actividades se ejercitarán en consulta con el PNUD. En el Documento de Proyecto se estipularán las disposiciones a este efecto, así como la eventual transferencia de esas actividades al Gobierno o a una entidad designada por el Gobierno durante la ejecución del proyecto.

6. Una parte de la participación del Gobierno podrá realizarse en forma de contribución en efectivo al PNUD. En esos casos, el Organismo de Ejecución prestará las facilidades y los servicios conexos y rendirá anualmente al PNUD y al Gobierno las cuentas de los gastos efectuados.

(a) Participación del Gobierno por medio de la Entidad Gubernamental que corresponda según caso

1. El Gobierno, y/o el Organismo de Ejecución autorizado por éste, aportará al proyecto los servicios, el equipo y las instalaciones que correspondan, en las cantidades y en las fechas que se indiquen en el Documento de Proyecto. Las asignaciones presupuestarias, en especie o en efectivo, para la participación del Gobierno o del Organismo de Ejecución, se consignarán en el Presupuesto del Proyecto.

2. El Organismo de Ejecución designará, en consulta con el Gobierno y con el PNUD, un Director del Proyecto a jornada completa que se hará cargo en el país de la participación del primero en la ejecución del Proyecto. Incumbirán al Director las responsabilidades del proyecto que le asigne el Organismo de Ejecución.

- 30 -

3. El costo estimado de las partidas incluidas en la contribución del Gobierno o del Organismo de Ejecución autorizado por éste y detallado en el Presupuesto del Proyecto, se basará en la mejor información disponible en el momento de redactarse la propuesta del proyecto. Queda entendido que las fluctuaciones de los precios durante el período de ejecución del proyecto pueden requerir un reajuste de esa contribución en términos monetarios; esos reajustes se determinarán en todo momento conforme al valor de los servicios, el equipo y las instalaciones necesarias para la correcta ejecución del proyecto.

4. Dentro del límite de número de meses de trabajo de los servicios de personal descritos en el Documento de Proyecto, el Gobierno, en consulta con el Organismo de Ejecución, podrá introducir pequeñas modificaciones a las misiones individuales del personal del proyecto aportado por el Gobierno, si se considera que ello va en beneficio del proyecto. Se informará al PNUD en todos los casos en que esas modificaciones involucren consecuencias financieras.

5. Respecto al personal nacional de contraparte en disfrute de becas del PNUD, el Gobierno, cuando corresponda, seguirá pagando los sueldos locales y los subsidios del caso durante su período de ausencia del proyecto.

6. El Gobierno, o el Organismo de Ejecución autorizado por éste, pagará todos los derechos de aduana y otros costos relacionados con el despacho de aduanas del equipo destinado al Proyecto, su transporte, manipulación, almacenamiento y gastos conexos en el interior del país. Igualmente, se hará cargo de su instalación y mantenimiento, de los seguros y de su sustitución fuere necesario, después de la llegada de dicho equipo al lugar del proyecto.

7. El Gobierno, o el Organismo de Ejecución autorizado por éste, facilitará todos los informes, mapas, historiales y demás antecedentes, publicados o inéditos, que se consideren necesarios para la ejecución del Proyecto, a reserva de las prohibiciones o restricciones de cualquier naturaleza que imponga la legislación chilena.

8. Los derechos de patente, los derechos de Copyright y otros derechos análogos relacionados con descubrimientos o trabajos surgidos con motivo de la ejecución del Proyecto, pertenecerán al PNUD. Sin embargo, y salvo acuerdo en contrario, el Gobierno podrá utilizar en trabajos dentro del país cualquiera de esos descubrimientos sin pagar derechos o cualquier otro costo de similar naturaleza.

9. El Gobierno ayudará a todo el personal no nacional del proyecto a encontrar alojamiento adecuado a un alquiler razonable, cuando sea necesario.

10. Los servicios y las facilidades especificados en el Documento de Proyecto que ha de aportar el Gobierno, o el Organismo de Ejecución autorizado por éste, al Proyecto mediante una contribución en efectivo, se enumerarán en el Presupuesto del Proyecto. El pago de esa cantidad se hará al PNUD conforme al calendario de pagos establecido por el Gobierno o el Organismo de Ejecución designado por éste.

11. El pago al PNUD de la contribución mencionada en el punto precedente, en las fechas especificadas en el calendario de pagos del Gobierno o del Organismo de Ejecución autorizado por éste o antes de ellas, es un requisito previo para el inicio o la continuación de las operaciones del Proyecto.

(b) Participación del PNUD y del Organismo de Ejecución

- 31 -

1. El PNUD aportará al proyecto, por conducto del Organismo de Ejecución, los servicios, el equipo y las facilidades que se describen en el Documento de Proyecto. En el Presupuesto del Proyecto se establecerán los créditos presupuestarios para la contribución del PNUD.

2. El Organismo de Ejecución consultará con el Gobierno y con el PNUD acerca de la candidatura del Director Nacional del Proyecto, quien se hará cargo en el país, bajo la dirección del Organismo de Ejecución, de la participación de éste en el proyecto. El Director Nacional del Proyecto, quien también podrá denominarse Coordinador del Proyecto, según proceda, supervisará a los expertos y al resto del personal del organismo asignado al proyecto así como la capacitación en el empleo del personal nacional. Igualmente, le incumbirán la gestión y la utilización eficiente de todos los aportes financiados por el PNUD, comprendido el equipo aportado al proyecto.

3. El Organismo de Ejecución, en consulta con el Gobierno y con el PNUD, destinará al Proyecto el personal internacional y otro personal, de conformidad con lo que se especifique en el Documento de Proyecto; seleccionará a los candidatos y resolverá las becas que se otorguen al personal nacional, cuando corresponda, y establecerá las normas para la capacitación del personal nacional de.

4. Las becas, cuando estén comprendidas en el proyecto, se administrarán de conformidad con las normas del Organismo de Ejecución en esta materia.

5. El Organismo de Ejecución, de acuerdo con el Gobierno y el PNUD, podrá ejecutar todo o parte del proyecto por subcontratación. La selección de los subcontratistas se hará, previa consulta con el Gobierno y con el PNUD, de conformidad con los procedimientos establecidos por el propio Organismo de Ejecución.

6. Todo el material, el equipo y los suministros que se adquieran con cargo a recursos del PNUD se destinarán exclusivamente a la ejecución del Proyecto y se considerarán de propiedad del PNUD, en cuyo nombre los utilizará el Organismo de Ejecución. El equipo aportado por el PNUD estará debidamente individualizado con los distintivos del PNUD y del Organismo de Ejecución.

7. Durante la ejecución del Proyecto, se podrá, en caso necesario, transferir temporalmente la custodia del equipo mediante comodato a las entidades que corresponda, durante la ejecución del proyecto, sin perjuicio de la transferencia definitiva de su propiedad que realice el PNUD al término del Proyecto.

8. Antes del término de la asistencia del PNUD al proyecto, el Gobierno, el PNUD y el Organismo de Ejecución celebrarán consultas acerca del destino que se dará al equipo aportado por el PNUD al Proyecto. Por regla general, la propiedad de dicho equipo o de parte del mismo se transferirá al Gobierno, o a la entidad que éste designe, cuando ello sea necesario para la continuidad de las actividades resultantes de la ejecución del Proyecto. Sin embargo, el PNUD podrá mantener, a su discreción, el título de propiedad de todo el equipo o parte del equipo.

9. En una fecha convenida, después del término de la asistencia del PNUD al Proyecto, el Gobierno y el PNUD, y si es necesario, el Organismo de Ejecución, se reunirán para determinar si quedan pendientes actividades propias de la ejecución del Proyecto o que sean una consecuencia directa de él y, en tal caso, acordarán la forma de evaluar sus resultados.

10. El PNUD podrá informar a terceros aquellos antecedentes relativos al proyecto en materia de inversión de capital, salvo que el Gobierno haya pedido al PNUD por escrito limitar la divulgación de tal información.

- 32 -

II DERECHOS, FACILIDADES, PRERROGATIVAS E INMUNIDADES

1. De conformidad con el Acuerdo entre el Gobierno de Chile y el Fondo Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre Asistencia del Fondo Especial, de 22 de enero de 1960, el personal del PNUD y de otros órganos u organismos de las Naciones Unidas relacionado con el proyecto gozará en Chile de los beneficios contemplados en la Convención sobre Prerrogativas e Inmunidades de las Naciones Unidas, de 13 de febrero de 1946, y en la Convención sobre Prerrogativas e Inmunidades de los Organismos Especializados, de 21 de noviembre de 1947.

2. Los mismos derechos, facilidades, prerrogativas e inmunidades que se concederán a los Voluntarios de las Naciones Unidas, en el caso de que el Gobierno solicite sus servicios para la ejecución del Proyecto

3. El Gobierno eximirá o asumirá el pago de todo impuesto, derecho, tarifa o gravamen aplicables a empresas u organizaciones que contrate el Organismo de Ejecución para llevar a cabo el Proyecto o al personal de las mismas, siempre que tales empresas u organizaciones y su personal no sean nacionales de la República de Chile, en relación con:

a) los sueldos o salarios percibidos por dicho personal con motivo de la ejecución del proyecto;

b) todo el equipo, el material y los suministros introducidos en el país para los fines del proyecto o que sean posteriormente reexportados;

c) toda cantidad considerable de equipo, materiales y suministros obtenidos localmente para la ejecución del proyecto, siempre y cuando los tipos y las cantidades aproximadas que serán objeto de exención y los procedimientos pertinentes que se habrán de seguir sean acordados con el Gobierno y, cuando proceda, mencionados en el Documento de Proyecto, y

d) los bienes, incluido un automóvil, ingresados al país por la empresa, la organización el personal de éstas, para su uso o consumo privados, o que sean reexportados al término de sus respectivas actividades en Chile.

4. El Gobierno se encargará de:

a) el despacho aduanero rápido y expedito de los expertos y otras personas que presten servicios en relación con el proyecto;

b) la salida rápida de las aduanas de del equipo, los materiales y los suministros necesarios en relación con el proyecto, así como de las pertenencias del personal del PNUD, del Organismos de Ejecución u otras personas que presten servicios en su nombre en relación con el proyecto, o destinadas a su uso o consumo privados, siempre que no se trate de personal nacional.

5. El Organismo de Ejecución, si correspondiere, podrá renunciar a las prerrogativas e inmunidades mencionadas en los párrafos precedentes a las que tengan derecho esas empresas u organizaciones y su personal, cuando, a su juicio o a juicio del PNUD, esa inmunidad se oponga al buen desempeño de la justicia, y esa renuncia podrá efectuarse sin perjuicio de la terminación con éxito del proyecto ni de los intereses del PNUD ni del Organismo de Ejecución.

6. El Organismo de Ejecución facilitará al Gobierno, por conducto del Representante Residente, la lista del personal al que se aplicarán las prerrogativas y las inmunidades enumeradas precedentemente.

- 33 -

7. Ninguna de las disposiciones del Documento de Proyecto ni de sus Anexos podrán interpretarse en el sentido que restrinjan los derechos, las facilidades, las prerrogativas ni las inmunidades conferidas en cualquier otro instrumento a cualquiera otra persona, física o jurídica, mencionadas en ellos.

SUSPENSION O TERMINACION DE LA ASISTENCIA

1. El PNUD, mediante notificación escrita al Gobierno y al Organismo de Ejecución interesado, podrá suspender su asistencia a cualquier proyecto si a juicio del PNUD surge alguna circunstancia que obstaculice la terminación con éxito del proyecto o el logro de sus objetivos. En la misma notificación escrita o en otra ulterior, el PNUD podrá indicar las condiciones en la que está dispuesto a reanudar su asistencia al proyecto. Toda suspensión de este género continuará hasta el momento en que el Gobierno acepte esas condiciones, y el PNUD notificará por escrito al Gobierno y al Organismo de Ejecución que está dispuesto a reanudar su asistencia.

2. Si cualquiera de las situaciones mencionadas en el párrafo número 1 precedente continúa durante un período de 14 días después de la notificación por el PNUD al Gobierno y al Organismo de Ejecución y de la referida suspensión, en cualquier momento en que continúe esa situación, el PNUD, mediante notificación escrita al Gobierno y al Organismo de Ejecución, podrá dar por terminado el proyecto.

3. Las disposiciones precedentes deben entenderse sin perjuicio de cualquier otro derecho o recurso que corresponda al PNUD, de conformidad con el Derecho Internacional o de otro modo.

4. Las Partes convienen en que la responsabilidad en la ejecución del Proyecto recaerá exclusivamente en el Organismo Ejecutor identificado en la carátula del Documento de Proyecto.

- 34 -

Appendix – A Project Brief approved revised to include response to Council and GEF comments

- 35 -

A

Sub-Total GEF 4,082,432Co-financing* 7 ,913,121*Details pro

GEF Agency

Others 7 ,913,121

Sub-Total Co-financing:

7 ,913,121

Total Project Financing:

11,995,553

Financing for Associated Activities If Any: 24,115,000

Leveraged Resources If Any:

Summary

The Chilean territorial sea, covering more than 4,500 km along a 6,435 km coastline, has unique biodiversity with high levels of endemism similar, or even higher, than those of oceanic islands. Parts of the extensive coastline are suffering from a range of development-related pressures that are threatening this biodiversity. These include fishing, with Chile being one of the world’s four

major fishing powers, and land based pollution, including partially treated domestic and industrial effluent reaching coastal waters, along with run-off from agricultural and mining activities and soil erosion from deforestation. Existing frameworks strictly regulate benthic and

- 36 -

FINANCING PLAN (US$)GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT Project 3,872,432PDF A

PDF B 210,000PDF C

CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN: At least 87,494 ha of additional seascape, and 42,537 ha of critical associated coastal lands along 83km of coastline are under legal protection and management in the three main biogeographical regions of Chile’s coast Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government(s):Name, Position, Ministry Date: Jaime Rovira, GEF Political Focal Point CONAMA Ximena George-Nascimento, GEF Operational Focal Point CONAMA

September 5th 2003

PROJECT BRIEFEXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRESENTED AT GEF COUNCIL NOVEMERB 2003 AND REVISED TO ADDRESS COUNCIL COMMENTS GEF COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM SUBMISSION

pelagic fisheries but high permitted fishing levels, along with limited refuges for the natural repopulation of stock, have reduced keystone predators to a level that affects biodiversity in some inter-tidal and sub-tidal biological communities.

The implementation of a National Programme for Use of the Coastal Zone seeks to address the land based pollution threat and in the long term guide urban and industrial development in a more co-ordinated manner. However, this is a long process and waiting for the completion of baseline ICZM actions to provide protection would have high opportunity costs and incur losses in globally significant biodiversity. Marine and coastal protected areas would afford more immediate control of threats in areas of high value biodiversity. The Government of Chile (GoC) has committed to developing such protected areas as a mechanism to protect these valuable assets, however, a range of systemic, institutional and individual capacity barriers hampers their establishment. The GoC is seeking assistance to remove these barriers as a cost-effective way of providing protection to biodiversity in still highly conserved areas.

In the quest to develop protected areas, Chile has selected as a guiding principle management categories that integrate the needs of all sectors of society (fishing, recreation, tourism) and the environment (wildlife, marine habitats, and ecological processes). As such it has chosen to focus on multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) rather than parks or other restricted

use management categories. The GoC has also placed growth of tourism as a priority for national development. Within this arena it is interested in supporting sustainable nature-based tourism that will lead to conservation and development. This includes marine and coastal related nature tourism. Accordingly the GoC wishes to combine the commitment to protection of coastal and marine biodiversity with its policy to increase nature-based tourism.

The long term goal of the proposed project is thus to conserve globally significant marine and coastal biodiversity in Chile through catalysing the formation of a network of multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) that integrate national development and conservation objectives, and optimise public and private partnerships using nature based tourism as a main vehicle. In order to contribute to this long-term goal, the specific objective of the project will be to remove barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country. The actions proposed to achieve this, fall into seven separate outputs which will deliver three outcomes each with specific impacts as detailed in the Annex B: Logframe Matrix and Results Impact

- 37 -

Approved on behalf of the UNDP. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion

Yannick GlemarecIA/ExA Coordinator

Helen Coles de NegretProject Contact Person

Date: 12 September 2003 Tel. (52-55) 5263-9816 email:[email protected]

Measurement Table along with verifiable indicators and assumptions, targets and verifiers, sampling frequency and reasons for selection.

The first outcome will be three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures. The actions to achieve this outcome focus on the establishment of three protected areas using a new regulatory mechanism that has been developed during the preparatory phase. This is the new and innovative legal figure of Multiple-use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas –MUMPA- created by drawing on existing laws and joining these under a single instrument to form protected areas with zones under varying degrees of protection. Existing decrees would confer control to the respective zones. The sites for the demonstrations were selected for their distinct biodiversity and for the range of challenges covered. They will be located in Region III, X and XII representing the principle bio-geographic divisions of the Chilean coast. The project will finalise the legal creation of the MUMPAs and provide support for demarcation of the different zones, and essential infrastructure for start up of operations.

Actions under this outcome will also include setting up governance structures for each MUMPAs that would include oversight by a multi-institutional Regional Commission and administration by a multi-stakeholder Corporation composed of public and private representatives including from local communities. The statues and procedures for each Corporation will be defined and capacities for co-management built through training, including conflict resolution, the management of MUMPAs and their link to ICZM at local and regional levels. A long-term business and investment plan will be developed for each MUMPA determining recurrent cost estimates and funding sources such as the collection of user fees based on initial agreements reached during project preparation and/or increased budgets of National Services where tourism revenues fall short. Adaptive management plans will also be developed for each MUMPA with the strategies and operations needed to obtain overall conservation objectives and the tools by which these can be reviewed and updated periodically.

The second outcome will be that benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs. The actions to achieve this focus on developing pilot projects within the MUMPAs that will provide multiple benefits to conservation of biodiversity and also to local stakeholders and private sector investors in win-win solutions. This will include developing partnerships with tourism ventures in each MUMPA and providing tourism facilities for nature-based visitation, resources to the MUMPAs for long term funding and new sources of employment and income for local inhabitants. Three different models have been selected to demonstrate the types of partnerships that can be developed.

In Region III the project will demonstrate how the management of a planned high foreign investment “sand and sun” tourism complex can be transformed into an instrument for conservation. In Region X it will demonstrate how the management of eco-tourism in a community and Amerindian setting can be an option for indigenous alternative development based on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In Region XII it will demonstrate how the management of national and internationally-funded cruise tourism in an area of charismatic marine mammals (penguins and whales) can be used as a means of supporting biodiversity conservation.

- 38 -

This second outcome will also require actions for the provision of livelihoods from sustainable management of native biodiversity as a means of reducing the dependence of unsustainable extraction activities and improving local incomes thus increasing local buy-in to MUMPA objectives and facilitating the sustainability of project impacts.

The third outcome will be that local and national understanding of MUMPAs in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased, thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions. The proposed actions to achieve this outcome will focus on awareness and outreach programmes both at the regional level and nationally. The regional awareness programmes will serve to increase the local understanding of the importance of marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the provision and maintenance of livelihoods and local economies and enhance their participation in MUMPA management. National programmes will focus on facilitating understanding of the importance of marine and coastal biodiversity conservation across a broad range of stakeholders. It will also enhance decision makers understanding of the role protected areas play in the ICZM process particularly in regions that do not have demonstration MUMPAs. Elements that provide support for replication and advancement in establishing a coherent network of marine and coastal protected areas along the coast are also included.

At the end of the project these three outcomes will have collectively provided a tested institutional mechanism for the establishment of MUMPAs along the Chilean Coast that has been applied for the creation of three MUMPAs. These will have brought at least 87,494 ha of additional seascape, and 42,537 ha of critical associated coastal lands along 83km of coastline under legal protection in the three main bio-geographical regions of Chile’s coast. The specific targets for each MUMPA are included in the impact measurement table in Annex B. Populations of key benthic invertebrate and algae species selected as indicators of fishing pressure in the two more northern MUMPA will have increased compared to levels at project start up, indicating reduced pressure on resources. Algae and invertebrate species selected, as indicators will show that populations of biodiversity levels in each MUMPA remain the same or have increased compared to levels at year one.

A framework for facilitating the replication of these MUMPAs within demonstration regions and throughout the country will be available with clear guidelines and incentives on how best to undertake this. There will be a RMUMPA Commission established in at least one region other than Regions III, X and XII and at least one additional MUMPAs, covering a further 10,000ha of seascape and coastal area will be officially created and in the initial stage of establishment.

- 39 -

Answer Matrix of Reponses to to GEF Council comments

The following table presents the responses to the comments from specific Council members and makes reference to those sections of the Project Document that have been revised to reflect these comments and address the issues. In some cases similar comments were received from different members. In these cases the comment is responded under the first listed member and reference made to this in the relevant comments from other Council members. At the end of this table GEF Sec comments are included along with the respective responses. (Unless otherwise stated paragraph numbers refer to those of this Appendix A that is the A pproved Brief revised to reflect responses to GEF Council and S ecretariat comments . ’s Observations

OBSERVATIONS COMMENT S

RESPONSE ANSWER SUMMARY

FROM SWEDEN Comments from SwedenFeasibility1. TTourism has been chosen as the main vehicle for promoting private sector partnerships and as a source for long term funding. The feasibility of tourism activities as a substantial and sustainable economic activity is not clear from the proposal, nor is its ecological or socio-economical acceptability

Economic feasibility: Assessments undertaken during the preparatory phase, indicate the feasibility of tourism activates in each site. Projected tourism visitation and spending rates were based on real tourism data, and where possible from areas of similar characteristics and data used from the tourism sector. These are collaborated in the Caldera MUMPA by studies undertaken by KIN ENTERPRISES during the negotiation of their purchase of land for the multimillion dollar tourist complex; in Bahia Mansa by comparison to a park in the region with similar characteristics; and in Carlos III (now officially created under the name of Francisco Coloane) by cruise ship tourism rate. Details of these are presented in Annex I. The resources that can be derived from these tourist rates and the capacity to cover operation costs of the MUMPS are described in Annex I and in more detail below in the response to the comment Council Member from the Germany Ecological acceptability : Several mechanisms will be applied in order to assure the ecological acceptability of

- 40 -

AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: 2041COUNTRY: ChilePROJECT TITLE: Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast GEF AGENCY: UNDPOTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): DURATION: Five YearsGEF FOCAL AREA: BiodiversityGEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP 2GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: SP 1 ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: February 2004IA FEE: US$ 382,000



described. the proposed tourism activities. The most important of this is the strict application of the Basic Law for the Environment (Law 19,300). This makes compulsory an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for any potentially environmentally negative activity to be developed within a protected area. Tourism falls into this category. As the project will create legally protected areas under the category of Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas, this regulatory provision will apply to the tourism plans to be designed for each MUMPA. As such an Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIA) will be undertaken on these developments to evaluate potential impacts, and if appropriate modify its design to meet environmental and cultural conservation criteria, and ensure the ecological sustainability of tourism plans. Socio-economic acceptability. This EIA process includes a Citizen Participation Mechanism to guarantee transparency and the informed participation of the organized community in the evaluation of all proposed developments subject to this Law. This mechanism is described in a new Annex H4- Conflict Resolution Mechanisms and involves a public presentation and discussion of the proposed activities. In addition to providing transparency to defining ecological acceptability, this mechanism will also help ensure social acceptability of the proposed tourism plans. Furthermore, social acceptability was ascertained during preparation of this project through extensive participation of local stakeholders from civil society, resource users, indigenous groups and government agencies. These consultations are summarized in paragraph 80 and described in detail in new Annex H3-Description of Stakeholder Participation in the MUMPA project. These culminated in the formal acceptance by key stakeholder groups of the proposed MUMPAs, the tourism models to be tested in them, and the project strategy by which this would be achieved. The signed Protocols of agreement are provided in a new Annex H5- Letters of Agreement and Commitment and include one that indicates the agreement of indigenous communities and support, for eco-tourism development in their lands in the Region X in Bahia Mansa and a letter of support from CONADI – the National Commission for Indigenous Development. A final indication that the proposed tourism will have socioeconomic acceptability is the fact that within each tourism plan, care has been taken to ensure that local stakeholders that live near the proposed MUMPAs or that will forfeit some uses in specific zones within them, will be involved with sustainable use activities that will provide alternative livelihoods. We have incorporated annexes H5 and H6 with the agreement protocols reached with the local stakeholders, which reflect the social acceptability of tourism as a sustainable activity, in the long term. Regarding tourism ecological sustainability, information has been included in paragraph 61 that reports about the way this subject will be approached. Regarding economic sustainability, table 5 and 6 have been included in annex I in order to explain the areas’ economic feasibility. Also, in order to complement the information we have included annex H3 which reports about the process carried out for the active participation of local stakeholders in the project. Finally, in paragraph 32, the information regarding tourism feasibility in Chile is complemented.

Risk and problems Fisheries a

- 41 -



21. There are potential risks in relation to this proposal whichproposal that need to be further addressed. First, there is a high incidence of conflicts in other coastal areas in Chile between local/indigenous people and private interests and/or the State regarding 1) customary rights and 2) negative impacts on local livelihoods from private enterprises such as aquaculture.

2. The risks of such conflicts are not mentioned in the proposal. However, clear conflict resolution mechanisms are needed if the project is to be successful, and if it is to serve as a model for other areas where conflicts may be more common.

re governed mainly through the General Law for Fishing and Aquaculture. Amongst others, this Law establishing fishing rights including artisan fishing. This establishes a five-miles marine strip for Artisan Fishing to guarantee the historical fishing rights of artisan fishermen and sets up an Artisan Fishing Registry that identifies the fishermen and practices that can carry out this activity, thus controlling the admission of new resource users. The Law also establishes an administrative measure, based on a multi-stakeholder National Fishing Council, and Zonal and Regional Councils to facilitate the stakeholders participation in the discussion of fishing issues and to act as a specific conflict resolution mechanism for the fishing sector. This and other conflict resolution mechanisms will be sourced as needed and are described in a new Annex H 4 and paragraphs 12,13 and 15 have been edited accordingly.

Notwithstanding these mechanisms, conflicts in the selected sites are expected to be reduced due to the extensive consultation that have already been held with artisan fishers in each MUMPA and their clear support of these PA and the initial zoning has been secured (see Letter in Annex 5). Furthermore the locations were selected in part due to the reduced pressures on them so as to facilitate the setting up of the MUMPAs structures and regulations whilst threats and potential conflicts are still.

In specific terms of indigenous peoples interest, the proposed MUMPA in Region X is an indigenous reserve inhabited by 200 Amerindians (Huilliches) living two very small communities. The land used by these communities used to belong to private owners, but has been regularized through a land-tenure regulation program developed by the Indigenous National Commission, (CONADI), thus there are no pending issues regarding historical rights over the territory. Working with resources users to develop alternative sources of income in those core areas where they have forfeited current practices will also reduce negative effect on local livelihoods. These activities include kelp repopulation and Choro Zapato cultivation and will be developed in the MUMPAs only by artisan fishermen in the III region and by indigenous communities in the X region, so local ways of living will not be affected by eventual aquiculture activities of private companies. Furthermore, in consistency with the project objectives, the fishing authority will revoke the current areas declared as Suitable Areas for Aquiculture in the sites where MUMPAs are to be created. Any other activity to be developed inside the MUMPA would obey Management Plans for these PA to be developed through Output 2 with the participation of local communities and that would establish the area zoning and permitted use in each the allowed uses. Paragraph 42 has been complemented for clarifying the position of the historical rights of the Huilliche communities and 70 to address the issue of eventual negative impacts of aquaculture.Regarding point 1 of this comment, information has been complemented in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13, in order to clarify the position of the historical rights of artisan fishing, and paragraph 42 has been complemented for clarifying the position of the historical rights of the Huilliche communities.Regarding eventual negative impacts of aquaculture (point 2), this point is clarified in paragraph 70.

- 42 -



Regarding conflict resolution mechanisms applied in the framework of the project, in annex H4, the relationship with the project’s activities is identified and explained.

3. At present, the design does not envisage "participation and conflict resolution" mechanisms to "increase stakeholder participation in MUMPA management" until the "End of Year 4". This looks like retroactive participation and we question whether it is accordance with GEF and UNDP standards.

Extensive participation occurred during the preparation of the project. These consultations included not only the overall design of the project but also the initial siting and zoning of the MUMPAs. These consultations have been outlined above and are summarized paragraph 82 of this Appendix and described in detail in Annexes H, 2, 3 and 4. In addition the Corporations for managing the MUMPSa will include local stakeholder representatives and the Management Plans that will de developed for them through the project will be highly participatory. These plans and the MUMPA statues will define specific mechanisms for conflict resolution for each MUMPA that are adapted to local conditions but that build on the existing array of legally established conflict mechanisms that are indicated in previous comments and that are described in detail in a new Annex H 4. Thus participation in management started from very initial point in the conception of the MUMPAs. The time fame of the indicator cited by the Council member is due to the fact that the MUMPAs will only be fully established with legally incorporated Management structures at end of year two, and Management Plans will be developed and adjusted from then until end year five. Thus stakeholder participation in the implementation of the MUMPA will be further increased once these are in place but will also to occur during the actual setting up process as it has to date in project design. Conflict resolution mechanisms will be tested during years three and four so that they will be in place by end of year four. This explains the reason for the time frame in the indicator, however to enable correct interpretation of this the indicator has been modified to “By end of year four. Consultation and conflict resolution mechanisms specific to the MUMPA have been established, validated and incorporated into the MUMPA statutes and Management Plan to further facilitate stakeholder participation in MUMPA management “

4. There is also concern regarding the certainty of providing alternative incomes and livelihoods (mainly from tourism, but also from alternative marine production) once current customary resource rights and subsistence levels activities have been restricted

Much of the response in terms of the concern over restriction of customary rights and alternative incomes has been given in previous comments. However it should be noted that loss of fishing revenues is expected to be temporary and only occur during the period of time needed for recovering fishing populations to levels that can maintain a sustainable exploitation. The protected breeding zones should in the longer term keep the sustainable exploitation at higher levels than present. The Huilliches peoples community rights over fishing are protected under the General Law of Fishing and Aquiculture, and described in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 however they practice this at very low levels or for subsistence. Their main source of income is exploiting “dead” Alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) for shingles (production of wood roof tiles). This activity is already under a management plan approved by the National Forestry Corporation. Further regulation through the MUMPA Management Plan that will be developed with participation of these communities. In terms of sustainable management of biodiversity to compensate resource users, estimates indicate that the initial and eventual percentages of current resource users that will benefit from these livelihoods possibilities are

- 43 -



significant. In Caldera the initial number of resources users that would benefit from tourism related activities is 12% rising to an estimated eventual 55%. Those benefiting directly from the sustainable use of algae pilots would be 12% of the users with an eventual increase to 45%. In Bahia Mansa the initial number of resources users that would benefit directly from tourism related activities is 8.3% rising to an estimated 28%. In the case of indigenous communities that benefit from tourism related activities, it is estimated that the initial number would be 12 families, representing 15% of the population, rising to an estimated 50% by the end of the project. Those benefiting directly from the sustainable extraction of giant mussel would be 100% of the indigenous community. Paragraphs 65 and 71 have been adjusted regarding the level of restrictions of subsistence activities, and in paragraphs 12 and 42, where the condition of historical rights or artisan fishermen and indigenous communities is indicated. This response is complemented by the information in Annex I-2, regarding the economic feasibility of the areas, and Annexes H5 regarding support from local communities to this project.

5. The UNDP policy on Indigenous peoples requires the free and prior informed consent of indigenous peoples to "development planning and programming that may affect them" [VA.28, UNDP Policy "UNDP and Indigenous Peoples - a policy of engagement"]. How has the design and preparation of this project been screened against this principle?At present, the design does not envisage "participation and conflict resolution" mechanisms to "increase stakeholder participation in MUMPA management" until the "End of Year 4". This looks like retroactive participation and we question whether it is accordance with GEF and UNDP standards.

There is also concern regarding the certainty of providing alternative

The project fully complies with the UNDP Policy "UNDP and Indigenous Peoples - a policy of engagement. Within the already extensive stakeholder consultations in project design, special emphasis was given to the opinions and aspirations of the Huilliche indigenous communities in Region X. As such 15 site visits were undertaken to the region and meetings with the community were held. Participative work meetings were facilitated by experts in customs and beliefs of the Huilliche indigenous people and through the “Huellelhue General Committee”. This is the main participation and negotiation institution validated by the indigenous communities of the X region. The General Board of Caciques created this Committee, set up in 1997, in coordination with the National Commission for Indigenous Development (CONADI) -public institution specialized in indigenous matters. This Committee was created in order to deal with conflicts and to facilitate communication between the indigenous communities, the regional authorities and the public services. As a result of the working meetings, the Huilliche communities became familiar with the scopes and objectives of the project, and defined how they would participate in it, while safeguarding their customs and intra-communitarian mechanisms in decision-making processes. The participation process in design was finalized through an extended workshop with the attendance of approximately 80 people, including indigenous representatives, municipal authorities and from the regional public services, where the project’s opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses for that area were discussed and input obtained for finalizing the project design.

The agreements between the indigenous communities and the institutions submitting the project are the following: (1) to guarantee the indigenous communities living in the area the right to be properly represented during the decision-making process through the RMUMPA Commission, and the Corporation’s Board of Directors that will administrate the MUMPA. (2) To give priority to community training for the generation of tourist products and services, emphasizing the participation of women and young people. (3) To give priority

- 44 -



incomes and livelihoods (mainly from tourism, but also from alternative marine production) once current customary resource rights and subsistence levels activities have been restricted.

5.The UNDP policy on Indigenous peoples requires the free and prior informed consent of indigenous peoples to "development planning and programming that may affect them" [VA.28, UNDP Policy "UNDP and Indigenous Peoples - a policy of engagement"]. How has the design and preparation of this project been screened against this principle?

to training and participation of communities in the development of sustainable productive projects, such as the giant mussel (Choro Zapato) cultivation, and the production and commercialization of non-wood forest products. Protocols signed by the leaders of the two involved indigenous communities are proved in Annex 5 signed and confirming the free and prior informed consent of their communities in the development planning of the project and in their support to and participation in, its implementation and the MUMPA. Paragraph 67 shows the kind of activities that will be carried out at the X region’s area, and these will not imply collection and/or use of traditional knowledge in the project’s objectives. A letter of support from CONADI – the National Commission for Indigenous Development is also include in Annex H 6. Further information has been included in annexes H2 that describes the stakeholders’ participation mechanism designed for the project, and annex H3 that informs about the local stakeholders’ involvement process in this initiative..

The answer to this observation has been included in paragraph 65 and 71 regarding the level of restrictions of subsistence activities, and in paragraphs 12 and 42, where the condition of historical rights or artisan fishermen and indigenous communities is indicated. This answer is complemented by with the information on table 6 of annex I, regarding the economic feasibility of the areas, and annexes H5 and H6, regarding support from local communities to this project.

This comment is answered through the following annexes and paragraph: annex H3 which widely recounts the involvement process of local stakeholders; annex H6 which has the agreement protocol 1 and 2 reached with Huilliche communities, and paragraph 67 that shows the kind of activities that will be carried out at the X region’s area, which will not imply collection and/or use of traditional knowledge in the project’s objectives.

Comments from Germany:Comments from Germany:Specific Comment, Regarding 1. (3)Indicator 2.5 states that by completion of the project 70% of the core costs are available from tourism related services and sources for the remaining 30% are identified and agreed upon.There is no indicator referring to funding sources in Output 7. Furthermore, there is no estimate of

Tourism derived revenues have been calculated based on conservative estimates of potential tourism visitation rates and viable MUMPA entrance fee charges and potential systems of eco-fees or surcharges on concession in the MUMPAs and tourist related services. These are detailed in revised Annex I-1 along with estimates of initial operational costs of MUMPAs. As there are currently no such PAs in Chile on which to draw, these costs were estimated on figures for costs of marine and coastal monitoring and on the information from salaries and staff of terrestrial PA. The operational costs of PA include a range of cost categories (staff costs, maintenance, investment etc) and depend on the operations standards and projected expansion over time. As this detailed planning would form part of the project, for the present assessment estimated have been based on an estimated MUMPA setup at end of project and are included in a single category denominated MUMPA operational costs without making distinctions at this time on individual cost categories. These are detailed in Annex I-1. In this Annex Table 6 Estimated MUMPA Operational Costs Compared to Tourism Generated Revenues indicates that estimated gate-fee generated r ev enue s alone could cover the operational

- 45 -



the core or recurrent costs for the MUMPAs. What does 70% mean? It could be a realistic figure or a mere wish. To better assess the risks involved it would be extremely helpful, if the proposal would compare the estimated tourism based income generation (in Annex I) with first estimates of recurrent costs for management and maintenance of the planned MUMPAs. It should also be made clear what is included in the “core” costs (Indicator 2.5) and “recurrent” costs (as mentioned elsewhere in the text).

costs of the MUMPAs. (178% in Caldera, 98% in Bahia de Mansa and 168% in Caldera). Furthermore when resources derived from the eco-fees to be levied on concessions and tourist services are included this increases significantly to 890%, 125%, and 250% respectively. Agreements have already been reached with the key players (KIN ENTERPRISES, Indigenous communities and cruise ship companies to set up these eco-fees. The Corporations to be established for the MUMPAs will be empowered to collect manage and distribute them (Logframe indicator “Procedures are in place for the collection, investment & disbursement of tourism-derived resources to local MUMPA management”. This clearly indicates the feasibility of funding operation costs of the MUMPA through tourism and leaves significant margin both for the risk of tourism rates not meeting expected levels and also for eventual increases in MUMPA running costs as installation grow.

The further detailing and fine-tuning of this viability will form part of the tourism plans to be developed through Output 3 and the detailed business plan for each MUMPA to be developed through Output 2. These business plans will place emphasis on financial planning and strategies to ensure that a variety of tourism related and non-tourism related revenues generation sources are explored, that resources are managed prudently to allow gradual expansion of facilities and services within the limits of expected resource generation, and that investments are made to provide cash flow to safe guard unexpected fluxes in visitation. Despite these provisions, and in recognition of the danger of over reliance on tourism for revenue generation, a highly significant government commitment has been obtained to meet any unexpected shortfall in tourism revenues. This has been formalized through the letter Annex D3 that indicates it will mediate the mobilization of resources for meeting this operational cost in the event of any shortfall. This would take the form of working through relevant Governmental services and the National Regional Development Fund (FNDR) as the main funding mechanism through which the Central Government transfers resources to the regions for development projects with regional, provincial and local impacts. Paragraphs 32 and 61 have been revised to reflect these points and new tables and sections included in Annex I- Tourism and Economic Sustainability of the MUMPA

USA 1. The logframe has comprehensive measurable indicators and description of risks and assumptions that affect successful achievement. It also contains milestones for achievement of some of the indicators

The Results Measurement Template with measurable impact indicators and timeframe for measuring these is included in the M and E section of Part IV of the Prodoc along with the budget allocations assigned to the measurement of these. The final definition of milestones for the outstanding indicators will be undertaken in the inception workshop. The finalization of baseline values for all indicators will occur in the first 6 months of the project implementation (see Part IV).

Comments from Switzerland:

- 46 -



Comments from Switzerland:The 1. Concern on the effectiveness of the project to control the main threats of biodiversity conservation. :Although we fully recognize the complementarities of the GEF-MUMPA-Project and ICZM, the design of the GEF project should at least sufficiently refer to the component of land-based pollution.

In the same sense, the species selected by the proposed GEF project as indicators for the monitoring of biodiversity conservation only refer to the threats by fishing.

Regarding the pilot character of the establishment of the three multi-use protected areas, we feel that an integral view on biodiversity conservation should be developed.

Land-based pollution is affecting biodiversity in some areas of Chile however large areas of coastline are unaffected by this threat.

This is the case of the selected areas for creating MUMPAs, where according to base line assessment studies, pollution from terrestrial sources is low and almost non-existent due to the low demographic level and to the non-existence of important terrestrial pollution sources such as mining, industry and domestic effluents. This last source is low in the X and XII regions areas, because they have very low or almost none human population density. In the case of the III region, domestic effluents are subject to processing, and industrial effluents must carry out the S.D. 90, on emissions to surface waters. Also, some mining activity occurs in the Atacama region, however most is monitored by follow-up programs (SEIA; POAL), resulting in a seaboard with mining pollution levels (heavy metals) under the Chilean standard. The MUMPAs were selected in part because of this low level of pollution threat as a model to will help prevent the growth of these threats and is thus a cost effective mechanism that could be replicated across other areas of the coast of similar characteristics. In parallel the ICZM process will be accelerated for those areas of increased threats as in such areas a range of mechanisms are required to reduce BD threats and not only the establishment of PAs. This project focuses on removing institutional and regulatory capacity barriers for catalyzing PA (BD 1) and is not seeking to mainstream biodiversity in productive sector (BD 2) as is usually the focus of ICZM processes. Thus indicators are more related to PA issues and the role of resources-users within these. However it should be noted that many of the invertebrate species selected as indictors also serve to indicate water pollution levels and as such will demonstrate that the MUMPA are effectively keeping these levels within Chilean standards . Finally a monitoring program in the MUMPAs will be developed and this will include land based pollution sources and levels. Monitoring of the intertidal marine invertebrates selected for determining fishing pressure rates will also serve as indicators of terrestrial pollution has been included (effluents, heavy metals, fecal contamination) (Annex B, table B2, page B-12)is observation has been clarified in paragraph 22.

Paragraph 98 shows that there will be a monitoring program for controlling the threats identified in the project design. Also, a monitoring program for intertidal marine invertebrates as indicators of terrestrial pollution has been included (effluents, heavy metals, fecal contamination) (annex B, table B2, page B-12)

This observation is clarified in the description of duties of stakeholders’ participatory instances in annex H2, where we explain that the RMUMPA Commissions will be in charge of developing analysis regarding this subject nation-wide.

- 47 -



2. Financial sustainability:Considering the high dependency of the financial sustainability of the MUMPAs on the successful development of tourism and related fees, the mechanism of future financing through fees should be clarified, and possible barriers (e.g. legal) should be identified.

Furthermore, although the estimate of future tourism might be considered as conservative, alternatives for sustainable financing should anyway be considered

This concern has been largely addressed the several of the above responses. In relation to the potential legal barriers regarding financing, much has been advanced in the preparatory phase through the recognition of the MUMPA as a PA category and the proposals for setting up Corporations and mandated for their administration including that of the financial resources for running costs of the PA. The project will address this and other operational issues as the subject of Output 2 (see this Appendix Paragraphs 55-57). . subject was considered in the project’s design, specifically in paragraph 54 which shows that there will be legal frameworks for ensuring the commission collection, and the possibility of crossed subsidy among the areas.

This subject has also been considered in the design, and will be approached through sustainable exploitation pilot project activities from output 5, in paragraph 70.

2. Benefits of biodiversity for local stakeholders: Considering that some species have already been identified for sustainable production and collection / harvesting / cropping information should be given about the species selected.

Regarding the objective to improve the economic benefits of the local stakeholders through the sustainable use of identified species, the economic potential of identified species should be estimated and compared with the current benefits of unsustainable uses, which have to be substituted.

Additional information has been included regarding species’ cultivation and harvesting technology in the Aannex. I.

In chartsthis Annex, charts 2 and 3 we have included information about the economic potential of species to be produced under the cultivation systems specified. Regarding benefit comparison between sustainable and non-sustainable uses, we should explain that the difference difference is not does not lie on higher or lower income levels but on the continuity of the activity overin time. World-wideWorldwide experience shows that the resource exploitation without a management plan will generate income reaching a peak, then a to decrease then as resources are used up, or that these do not have the adequate size. In the case of exploitation with management plan, income levels are similar to the previous case, but constant over time, asbecause it considers aspects related to the biologicalthe biological cycle of resources and and the to the conditions of the environment that surrounds it are considered to determine sustainable harvesting levels. .

Anyway, as an example, chronological information is delivered on kelp production in the country.

- 48 -



The role of the Regional Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Commission in the project implementation is not clear

The Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area Commissions (RMUMPA Commissions) are institutions developed during the project preparation stage (PDF-B), in order to support its implementation and facilitate the direct flow of information to Regional Governments where MUMPAS are to be established. The Commissions are chaired by the highest authority in the Region, the Regional Intendant, and constituted by regional public services that will participate at the PSC. The Commissions will be in charge of coordinating and participating in the decision-making process during the project implementation at the respective region, until the proposed MUMPAs Corporations, are formally established, which is estimated to occur at the end of the second year of the project. Also, the Commissions will be in charge of continuing the discussion on marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the region to ensure this is guided by different points of view. This will achieve an integral view of the subject in the region that will continue to operate once the project comes to an end. This has been clarified in the new Annex H2role of this instance is clarified in annex H2.

GEF Sec Comments1. Inclusion of Civil Society on the Steering Committee NGO

The participation of civil society was contemplated through the representative on the Steering Committee from the demonstration MUMPAs once these are formed, however, to address this concern the GoC has opened two new seats in the Steering Committee – one NGO representative and one from academia- to enable this representation from project start up.

2. Links with CBD Clearing House Mechanisms

The BC-CDM is under development by Chile and progress on this can be tracked and disseminated through the CONAMA page. It has close links with a long process undertaken at regional levels to define priority conservation areas, and contains information on the characteristics of these and of conservation programmes. As the CDH is further developed in Chile links would be made with the information dissemination processes to be set up in the project. This would be facilitated, as CONAMA is the lead agency in both cases.

3. More clarity on communication strategies.

There are a series of communication strategies in the project. At local levels focus will be on awareness and outreach both in terms of the project process and implementation per se, and in terms of the MUMPA process and benefits that it can impart on local stakeholders. This will occur through workshops, forums, meetings, visit to MUMPAs etc. At the national level the strategy is more web based and the project will set up WebPages linked to existing information strategies (such as the CDH), Workshops at the national level would be undertaken to disseminate lessons learnt to those regions that do not have MUMPAs but that are interested in and committed to replicating the projects advances.

4. Include a mix of instruments and approaches to generate financial revenues for areas and not over reliance on tourism

This issues has been addressed in several of the responses to the GEF Council Comments

- 49 -

Project Brief approved,revised to include response to Council and GEF comments

1. Identifiers:

Project Number: PIMS 2041 Name of Project: Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean CoastDuration: Five years Implementing Agency: UNDPExecuting Agency: National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA) Requesting Country: ChileEligibility: Chile ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity September 9 th, 1994

and is eligible for UNDP technical assistance GEF Focal Area: BiodiversityOperational Programme: OP2: Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater EcosystemsStrategic Priority: SP1

2. Summary: The coast of Chile has unique biodiversity with high levels of endemism, but is experiencing rapid development inconsistent with conservation of biological diversity. The Government of Chile (GoC) is seeking to remove capacity barriers at the systemic, institutional and individual levels for the establishment of a network of Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (MUMPAs) along its coast that would allow for both biodiversity conservation and development. The project would establish three MUMPAs with the purpose of demonstrating integrated management of marine and coastal resources, and building capacities for their management and replication. The three areas have been chosen for their distinct biodiversity and for the range of challenges covered and will be entirely replicable in future MUMPAs along the Chilean coast. The MUMPAs will be established in conjunction with Regional Governments and co-managed by local stakeholders. The project would provide: [1] The legal establishment, delimitation and initial operations of 3 MUMPAs; [2] The administrative and governance structures and capacities developed for these; [3] Adaptive management systems and MUMPA management plans; [4] Three pilot projects to manageto manage different types of tourism for benefitsfor benefits to conservation, local inhabitants and private sector partners; [5] Livelihoods pilot projects in two MUMPAs that include sustainable management of native species for biodiversity and income benefits; [6] Awareness and outreach programmes in each MUMPA; [7] An enabling program to facilitate replication of experiences and provide a framework for a national network of MUMPAs.

3. Financing Plan (US$): US$

GEF Full Project 3,872,432PDF B GEF 210,000Sub-total GEF 4,082,432

Co-financing GoC PDF B 90,000Regional Governments Regions III, X and XII 4,470,819CONAMA 505,724SERNAPESCA 20,481DIRECTEMAR 1,027,956Private Sector 1,100,704WWF 158,000TNC 500,000IDB 39,437

- 50 -

Sub total Co-funding 7,913,121Total Project Cost without preparation costs 11,695,553 Total Project Cost 11,995,553

4. Operational Focal Point Endorsement:

Name: Mr. Jaime Rovira Title: Head of Development and Information Organization: CONAMA Date: September 2003

Tel (56-2) 2495640 Fax (56-2) 2441262 , email ([email protected])5. IA Coordinator: Frank Pinto 6. Project Contact person: Helen Coles de Negret UNDP/ GEF LAC Regional Unit,

Tel (52-55) 5263-9816 Fax (5255) 5250-2524 ; email ([email protected])

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CONAMA National Commission for the EnvironmentCONAF National Forestry CorporationCONICYT National Commission on Science and TechnologyFNDR National Regional Development FundGEF Global Environment FacilityGoC Government of ChileMUMPA Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected AreaNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanRD Regional (Project) Director RG Regional GovernmentRMUMPA Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas CommissionNPD National Project DirectorNSC National Steering CommitteeSNASPE National System of Wildlife Protected Areas SERNAPESCA National Fisheries ServiceSERNATUR National Service for TourismSUPPESCA Undersecretariat for the FisheriesSUBMARINA Undersecretariat for the NavyUNDP United Nations Development Programme

- 51 -

mailto:[email protected]

Country Ownership

1. In 1984 Chile enacted a Law for the Establishment of a National System of Wildlife Protected Areas (SNASPE). The system now counts with 94 areas, 31 of which are National Parks, 48 National Reserves and 15 Natural Monuments. Collectively they cover 14 million hectares and represent 19% of the national territory, excluding the Chilean Antarctic1. However, the SNASPE Law is limited to terrestrial ecosystems. In 2000, the Undersecretariat for the Navy (hereafter referred to as the Navy) designated limited marine areas in Easter Island as Protected Marine and Coastal Areas to promote scientific research and environmental education. These have yet to be implemented and do not focus on biodiversity conservation (paragraph 22).

2. More recently, in its environmental agenda (2001) the Government of Chile (GoC) has committed, to the conservation of 10% of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the country, including coastal and marine ecosystems. Despite considerable advances towards this target in the terrestrial ecosystems, a series of barriers that include institutional, financial and capacity related factors has impeded progress to marine and coastal ecosystems. The result is that Chile’s extensive coast with unique biodiversity, rich in endemism, currently has no established and effective system of protected areas. As the proposed project will remove barriers for the establishment of a network of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) along the coast, it is a major step forward in such a system and in achieving the nation’s conservation goals. As such, it falls squarely within country priorities and has the full support of relevant institutions. Amongst these are the Government of Regions III, X and XII thatXII that have illustrated their commitment not only through the establishment of Regional Commissions for MUMPAs (paragraph 25) but also through the high levels of resources committed to the project by them (Annex A).

6.[8.] The commitment of the GoC to the project objectives is further exemplified in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of Chile (2002), which specifically flags the establishment of marine and coastal protected areas in the country as a priority and in particular for the areas of Regions III, X and XII2. In line with these priorities, the three demonstration marine and coastal protected areas to be established through the proposed project are located in these three regions as follows: the Caldera site in region III; the Bahia Mansa site in Region X; the Carlos III site in Region XII. Furthermore, each is included in the list of 68 sites that the National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA) has recently determined as priority sites for conservation in the country, falling within the sites 12, 53, and 65 respectively (see www.conama.cl/portal; www.conama.cl/portal/article-28019.html).

7.[9.]

1 The 1984 Law gives the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) the authority to administer these areas. See www.conaf.cl for more information on the SNASPE. 2 Chile is a unitary country rather than federative but is has very strong decentralised action. It is administratively divided into a north-south sequence of 13 “Regions”, with Region I being in the extreme north and Region XII in the extreme south part of the country. The area surrounding Santiago is the Metropolitan Region. “Regions” are biologically and ecologically distinct, and act as semi-autonomous political and administrative units.

- 52 -

http://www.conaf.cl/

8.[10.] The proposed project has also followed other policy priorities of the GoC in the selection of intervention design alternatives. These are described in more detail in paragraph 36 and include the choice to: (i) develop protected area management categories that integrate the needs of all sectors of society and the environment rather than those that focus primarily on preservation; (ii) place the focus of the project responsibilities at the regional level; (iii) maximize public-private partnerships as an alternative for long-term funding of the protected areas; (iv) select the tourism sector to be the main vehicle for private sector involvement in the project.

9.[11.]

10.[12.] The project also falls clearly within priorities at the regional and global levels. For example, the global study of marine protected areas edited by the Great Barrier Reef Authority, the World Bank and IUCN (1995) highlights the absence of marine protected areas in the eastern south Pacific, especially in Chile, and encourages their development. In addition, to creating three such protected areas in sites of globallyof globally outstanding marine and coastal biodiversity, the project will also facilitate the replication of these along the Chilean coast and lay the foundation of a network system that will contribute significantly to the protection of representativeof representative biodiversity inbiodiversity in the eastern south Pacific. The goals of establishing marine protected areas and the sustainable uses of coastal resources are also consistent with the Jakarta Mandate of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the proposed project will help the GoC meet its obligations under this international mandate.

11.[13.]

Programme and Policy Conformity

12.[14.] The proposed intervention has been designed based on an analysis of the key elements of national development and the strengths and weaknesses at the system and institutional levels. The selected intervention strategy is to focus on removing barriers to the establishment of multiple-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) in three areas that are representative of different ecological and social conditions along Chile’s coast. This would include developing institutional and individual capacities in both private and public sources for MUMPA management and the establishment of long term funding mechanisms to cover recurrent costs, thus ensuring sustainability of these demonstration sites. These MUMPAs would have a strong demonstration effect, that together with project activities designed to develop and facilitate replication nation-wide, would contribute to significant progression towards the maturation of a national network of MUMPAs. As such, the main focus of the project falls within Strategic Priority 1. However, by catalyzing the engagement of the private sector in the development of innovative ventures that demonstrate commercial profit and biodiversity benefits within the context of multi-use marine protected areas, the project would also provide important inputs to Strategic Priority 2.

13.[15.] As the project focuses on conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity of global significance it falls under Operational Programme #2. It fully complies with the guidelines and goals of the Convention of Biological Diversity and will contribute directly to Article 8 on in situ conservation, particularly items (a) and (b), by laying the foundations for a network of marine and protected areas and significantly contributing to the maturation of the National System of

- 53 -

Protected Areas. It will adopt an ecosystem approach aiming to conserve interdependent marine and coastal areas under a single legal figure for protection and integrating this with conservation efforts over wider areas, thus addressing item (8d) and Article 10 item (b). It will enhance sustainable land use in areas adjacent to core zones, building on the participatory testing of techniques by local communities including indigenous groups, thus addressing Article 8 items (i) and (j). It will include significant components for raising public awareness on biodiversity conservation as well as training institutions and technical staff , thus complying with Articles 13(a) and 12(a) respectively. The project’s goals are also consistent with the Jakarta Mandate and the policies of the GoC.

Project Context

Global Significance of Biodiversity

14.[16.] The Chilean territorial sea extends from 18ºS to 56ºS latitude along the South Pacific Coast of South America, covering more than 4,500 km in extension and 6,435 km of coastline. Between 18ºS and 32ºS, the continental shelf is narrow and widens to the south, reaching its peak at 56ºS. The topography of the continental coast clearly delineates two principal coastal regions. Between Arica (ca. 18°S) and Puerto Montt (ca.41°S) the coast forms an almost straight line exposed to winds and waves. There are few protected bays and the few sandy beaches are exposed to the prevailing winds. To the south of Puerto Montt, the coast is jagged and has numerous islands that protect the coastline from storms. The Central and Northern portions of the coast are periodically impacted by El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, resulting in a superficial spill of warm and highly saline waters coming from the equator. Southern waters have Antarctic and deep sea influences.

15.[17.] The heterogeneity in physical features of the marine environment has resulted in high levels of endemism, with a number of relict taxa and the presence of latitudinal discontinuities in the species composition of assemblages from different taxonomic groups. Recently, Lancellotti and Vasquez (1999) distinguished three broad bio-geographical regions along the Chilean coast. These are the: (i) Warm Temperate Region between the border with Peru at 18º latitude to 35º in Central Chile. The northern part of this region is heavily influenced by warm waters from Peru and has been declared of the highest conservation priority in a recent study for Latin America and the Caribbean (Sullyvan and Bustamante, 1999); (ii) Transitional Temperate Region between 35º and 48º latitude and is impacted by north-south variations in the cold Humboldt up-welling current; and the (iii) Cold Temperate Region between 48º and 56º South that is influenced mainly by the Cape Horn cold waters.

16.[18.] These regions house a plethora of endemic species with percentages similar, or even higher, than those of oceanic islands. Analyses of coastal benthic macro invertebrates belonging to 7 phyla (Annelida, Cnidaria, Crustacea, Echinodermata, Porifera, Urochordata), 835 genera, 336 families, and 76 orders, show that 38.2% of the species have restricted distributions and exhibit high levels of endemism. In the Warm Temperate Region this endemism is about 35.4% and in the Transitional Temperate Region 21.8%. It rises to 52.0% in the Cold Temperate Region. Bryozoan species exhibit a similar pattern, with an endemism of 38% between 18 and 42 °S, and 55% between 42 and 56 °S. In terms of overall endemism along the entire coast, Bryozoan and Ophiuroid species have a level of 40%; Polyplacophoran species 17.3%; Isopods 51%, Bivalve

- 54 -

species 27%; Asteroid species 20%; and Prosobranch gastropods 52.6%. Littoral teleost fishes exhibit similar levels of endemism, at 17%, while macro-algal species reach 27%. These extremely high percentages of endemism are similar to or even higher than those of oceanic islands and comparable seas3. Annexes F and M provide more specific information on marine and coastal species and include several threatened and vulnerable species.

Institutional, Policy and Regulatory Frameworks

17.[19.] Due to up-welling systems, the Chilean coast is among the worlds most productive. Indeed, Chile is one of the world’s four major fishing powers with marine landings and mariculture activities accounting for approximately 10% of global fisheries and contributing 12% to the export value of national economy. ExploitationManagement of these resources is governed mainly through the General Law for Fishing and Aquaculture enacted in 1991 to ensure sustainable fisheries management, establish fishing rights, establish specific exploitation categories that can be applied to marine areas and confer the Undersecretariat for Fisheries the authority to administer marine resources in these areas. Regulatory norms can be divided into two main components: those for the zone restricted to artisan fishing and corresponding to waters within five miles from the coast, and those governing waters reserved for industrial fishing between 5 and 200 miles from the coast. Industrial fishing is strictly regulated following a precautionary approach, adopting the use of close seasons and strict quotas to control catches. Regulatory norms also include the obligatory use of GPS by authorized boats to ensure that resources are not over-exploited despite the population changes characteristic of benthic species submitted to the periodic environment changes associated with the ENSO events.

18.[20.] The main regulatory tool for artisan fishing is the establishment of the five-miles marine strip kept for Artisan Fishing that guarantees the historical fishing rights of the artisan fishermen, and the adoption of specific measures and administration such as a) the establishment of the Artisan Fishing Registry which identifies the fishermen and crafts entitled to carry out this activity, controlling the admission of new agents; b) the establishment of specific administrative measures for the artisan fishing; c) the establishment of a specific conflict resolution mechanism for the fishing sector, and e) the establishment of Management Areas, one of three regulatory categories created in the 1991 Law. This is a community-based management scheme that restricts access in defined management areas, to a specific community of fishers and regulates catch levels in these through a management plan. This has proven to be successful in avoiding problems often associated with open access resources and around 400 Management Areas have been established as result of the Law. The other two of the three categories established to ensure sustainable fisheries management, have been applied less extensively. One category is that of Marine Reserve and is for the protection of specific species. To date Chile has one reserve and for the purpose of protection of scallops in La Rinconada Reserve, Antofagasta.

19.[21.] A part from the aforementioned administration measures, the General Law of Fishing and Aquaculture includes an instrument called National Fishing Council whose role is to contribute in the effective participation of the fishing sector agents in subjects regarding fishing and

3 The Galapagos Islands have an overall endemism of 20%, and for algae this reaches 35%, 17% for fishes, and 18% for invertebrates; the Mediterranean Sea has 14% of endemic species; the Hawaiian Islands, 20% of endemic coral reef species; the Red Sea, 15% of endemic fish species and 7% of endemic mollusc species. In the southwest Atlantic sea 11% of fish species in continental shelves are endemic and 15% of species in highly isolated habitats.

- 55 -

aquaculture. It is made up of representatives from the public and private sector (including the industrial and artisan fishing), from the labor sector and six advisers named by the President of the republic. This is a de-centralized instrument and includes Zonal and Regional Fishing Councils, from which only the first one have resolution capacities at their respective areas. Given the structure and role of this instrument, it is a conflict resolution mechanism regarding access to marine resources (number 1 annex H4).

20.[22.] While the regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries management has been consolidated substantially over the past decade that for conservation and preservation of resources and the broader marine and coastal ecosystem on which they depend, is still incomplete. Although considerable advances were made in the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems through the 1984 SNASPE Law, this framework does not apply to marine and coastal ecosystems. The third category established under the 1991 Fishing and Mariculture Law is intended for preservation areas through Marine Parks but this has yet to be applied. In addition, through the Ministry of Defense Decrees Nº 223 and 660, the Navy can assign legal status and allocate user rights (concessions) over marine areas in addition to their authority to control, inspect and oversee the coast and territorial sea, conferred under Decree 340 in 1960. Under Decree No 223 the Navy delimited three marine areas in Easter Island as Protected Marine and Coastal Areas for promoting scientific research and environmental education rather than biodiversity conservation per se.

21.[23.] A further Ministry of Defense Decree, Nº475 of 1994, established the National Policy for the Use of the Seaboard and a special Commission for this. The mandate of this Commission is to plan land use in the coastal zone within 80 meters from the high tide line. An extensive program related to this is being implemented throughout the country and particularly in the Regions I, II, IV and XIIX (see Annex A). This policy also has a consultation and conflict resolution mechanism described in number 2 from annex H4.

22.[24.]

23.[25.] Finally while the regulatory framework for main and coastal areas is complex and still incomplete in terms of biodiversity conservation, the Basic Law for the Environment, enacted in 1994 ,provides an important tool in pursuing this goal as it established the National Commission for the Environment-CONAMA- and conferred it the authority to coordinate other governmental agencies in the development and execution of environmental and biodiversity policies and projects. CONAMA is the focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity, coordinates the execution of the NBSAP and was the lead institution for seeking GEF support to overcome barriers for marine and coastal biodiversity conservation through the proposed project.

24.[26.]

25.[27.] The Basic Law considers a citizen participation mechanism for the environmental assessment of projects that involves both the project’s holder, the sectors affected by it, academic sectors, social organizations, NGOs and public in general. This instance acts as conflict resolution mechanism for the environmental assessment of projects...

26.[28.]

- 56 -

27.[29.] Finally, regarding the MUMPAs’ terrestrial strip, there is a General Law of Urban Affairs and Constructions, which manages the reservation of public or communitarian spaces through the Land Planning Instruments (LPI). Among the existing LPIs, there are two which can be applied to the project: The Inter-Communal Regulating Plans (IRP), and the Communal Regulating Plans (CRP), and as in previous cases, they have established procedures for the approval process (number 3 annex H4). It is worth mentioning that these instruments must be environmentally approved following its final considerations, so they must use the Citizen Participation mechanism for consulting, making modifications, and conflict solving.

B baseline Ccourse of Aaction

Threats description

28.[30.] As in many other parts of the world, the coastal zone of Chile is suffering from a range of development-related pressures that are threatening Chile’s marine and coastal biodiversity. These are summarized below:

29.[31.] Fishing. Most benthic and pelagic fisheries in Chile are regulated through the norms described above, principally the establishment of strict quotas and close seasons in industrial fisheries, and through community-managed management areas for artisan fishing. These successful measures will continue in the baseline scenario. However, continued growth in the fisheries markets has led to quotas being set at their utmost limits. Whilst this is expected to maintain catches at a sustainable level in terms of overall biomass, under the baseline scenario negative impacts on biodiversity in some areas can be expected. The reason for this is that the Chilean coast is reputed for the role of keystone predators in structuring its communities and when high levels of fishing deplete these predators, the rest of the biological community changes dramatically often resulting in local reductions in the number of species. The high permitted fishing levels, coupled with the limited refuges for the natural repopulation of stock, have already caused reduction of keystone predators to a level that affects biodiversity. This is particularly seen in inter-tidal and sub-tidal biological communities, increasing the pressures on threatened, vulnerable, endangered and endemic species (Moreno et al, 1984; Castilla, 1998).

30.[32.] An example of this can be found in one of the areas selected for a demonstration MUMPA in the proposed project. This is the proposed Caldera MUMPA in Region III that has unique subtidal biodiversity. In this area, two types of habitats can be distinguished. One is the patches of calcareous crustose algae-black urchin associations, and the other is the sea beds dominated by the brown algae Lessonia nigrescens (intertidal) and Lessonia trabeculata (subtidal). Recent studies show that the patches dominated by calcareous crustose algae-black sea urchin associations are in fact degraded states once dominated by “forests” of Macrocystis algae (Vasquez et al, 2001b). High fishing-levels have reduced predation pressure on the herbivorous black urchins and as a result overgrazing of the seabed has occurred. Lower fishing levels, and the consequent higher densities of fish predators, would reduce black sea urchins, and hence herbivore pressure, favoring the repopulation of Macrocystis which plays a critical role in providing habitat for a large number of coastal organisms (Vasquez et al, 2001a). Small scale experiments have shown that removing sea black urchins allows for the algae to re-colonize previously degraded areas (Lubshenko and Gaines, 1981). So far, removing urchins and re-colonizing with Macrocystis and Lessonia on a larger, commercial scale, has not been attempted.

- 57 -

31.[33.] The perceived high costs and risks have been the main deterrent. Current evidence indicates, however, that this process would have positive private benefits in the local market - ca. $ 2M in 200 ha (Vásquez: 2003). Demonstrating how this can be done and its private profitability would also have high biodiversity significance, as it would provide more complex habitat structures for other organisms. Under the baseline scenario, this demonstration will not occur nor would the permitted levels of fishing be reduced to permit a balance in natural predator populations, and as a result there would be continued loss to globally important biodiversity in different sites along the Chilean coast.

32.[34.] Land based-pollution . As is true in many other parts of the world, the coastal zone in Chile has historically been the main sink for land-based pollution. All major urban centers in Chile are located at less than 100 km from the coast. Not all have primary sewage treatment plants, and others have no treatment, with the result that varying degrees of domestic effluent reach coastal waters either through pipelines or through rivers. Urban development along the coastal zone has been explosive during the last 10 years (INE, 1996), and several associated large infrastructure projects have changed coastal geomorphology causing habitat disruption, fragmentation, and/or habitat loss. However, Chile’s 15.5 million populations is geographically very highly concentrated. Ninety percent live in Central Chile, mainly in cities, 40% of which are in the Metropolitan Region. Urban centers and population densities in the Southern and Northern areas, on the other hand, are very low. The result is that Chile still has long stretches of uninhabited coastline such that, in overall terms, the urban related threat is still low.

33.[35.] Run-off from land based productive activities is an increasing threat in some areas. Run-off from agricultural activities (fresh fruit make up 10% of exports) and soil erosion following deforestation is more prominent in the southern and central areas. To address this the GoC is taking measures to ensure the adoption of more sustainable practices and the application of existing norms that will reduce this negative impact, including water contamination. Run-off associated with mining is more common in northern areas (minerals form 62% of exports with copper alone contributing 42%). Copper mining facilities, for example, have disposed copper mine tailings in some sites along the coast, altering the geomorphology and chemistry of the area and affecting local communities (Castilla and Nealler, 1978; Castilla, 1983; Paskoff and Petiot, 1990). Other industries, such as fish processing plants, thermo electrical plants, chemical industries, paper and pulp industry, and oil and gas industry, also dispose of their effluents in rivers or directly into the sea, with different levels of treatment. (IFOP, 1987).

34.[36.] Albeit that this threat is significant in some areas, industrial distribution along the coast tends to follow the same as demographic patterns and, as a consequence, large areas of the coast line are unaffected by this threat. This is the case of the selected areas for creating MUMPAs, where according to base assessment studies, it is shown that pollution from terrestrial sources is low and almost non-existent due to the low demographic level and to the non-existence of important terrestrial pollution sources such as mining, industry and house effluents. This last aspect is common to the X and XII regions areas, because they have very low or almost none human population density. In the case of the III region, domestichouse effluents are subject to processing, and industrial effluents must carry out the S.D. 90, on emissions to surface waters. Also, somealthough there exists mining activity in the Atacama region, however mmost of it is monitored by follow-up programs (SEIA; POAL), resulting in a seaboard with mining pollution levels (heavy metals) under the Chilean standard. Nevertheless, in areas where this threat is high,

- 58 -

the GoC is taking strides to reduce the point sources of contamination. These include the strict application of the Environmental Impact Assessment. These measures also include the National Programme for Use of the Coastal Zone that will continue under the baseline scenario (Annex G) in a bid to address these issues and apply the existing regulatory frameworks for urban and industrial development in a more coordinated and effective manner and enable inter-sectoral planning and management of the coastal zone. Despite these commendable efforts to adopt a more integrated approach to coastal zone management (ICZM), to be successful this requires highly participatory processes over long periods of time. In Chile’s quest to expand it’s economic and development options, industrial and urban development along the coast will increase considerably in the baseline scenario. In the absence of marine and coastal protected areas that would afford greater control of land-use and development restriction in areas of high valued biodiversity, waiting for the completion of baseline ICZM actions could have high opportunity costs, and important sites may be lost. Unless other site-specific conservation mechanisms, which can be applied in the short term, are implemented, and shown to be successful, the current trends of degradation of the resources in some parts of the coast will continue.

Underlying Root Causes and Barriers

35.[37.] The GoC recognizes the urgent need for coastal and marine protected areas and has committed to this in the environmental agenda and NBAPS (paragraph 1). However, a number of barriers are impeding progress in this arena. These are summarized below:

36.[38.]

37.[39.] Institutional and regulatory mechanism for marine and coastal conservation: Institutional mandates for marine areas, coastal zones and the control of fisheries are clearly defined (paragraph 11-164) but are related to specific geographical limits (land, coastal zone, near shore and off shore areas). Effective conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity requires a framework that reflects the inter-dependencies characteristic of biological communities in the land-sea fringe. In this sense, the current institutional and regulatory framework for conservation of marine and coastal resources through protected areas has strong limitations. Furthermore, fishery reserves and management areas have very restricted uses and alone are likely to be of limited use in protecting the coastal biodiversity of the country. Reserves are for the protection of single species and also have very limited significance in protecting biodiversity. Marine parks are for preservation only and alone and in countries like Chile, they are likely to be of minor geographical significance. Furthermore, in a developing country like Chile, the scope of preservation initiatives is very limited as local stakeholders rely on the use of the coastal resources for their livelihoods. In line with national development priorities, the GoC is interested in achieving biodiversity conservation by combining conservation and development objectives. Thus, as a guiding principle in the establishment of marine protected areas, Chile has selected to develop management categories that integrate the needs of all sectors of society (fishing, recreation, tourism) and the environment (wildlife, marine habitats, and ecological processes). As such it has chosen to focus on multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) rather than Parks or other restricted use management categories.

- 59 -

38.[40.] Until the PDF B for this project was executed, there were no institutional agreements or legal mechanisms for the establishment of multi-use protected areas in marine and coastal areas or for providing a framework for integrating existing institutions and norms in this arena. For some time it has been well recognized that one of the main barriers to providing this effective framework in Chile was the high-level political decision to bring together the different relevant actors and create a new legal structure that would provide for their coordinated role in marine and coastal protected areas (Castilla, 1996). It was precisely such a high-level decision that the GoC made when it requested GEF for preparatory funds for developing the current proposal. Through concerted efforts during the preparatory phase of the proposed project, a legal and institutional mechanism has now been developed for the creation of multi-use marine and protected areas (MUMPAs). It is this mechanism that will be used to legally establish the demonstration MUMPAs and that would not have existed at this time if it were not for the actions undertaken through the PDF B project. As such, this mechanism (described in paragraph 49) constitutes the first, and highly significant impact, of GEF resources in overcoming barriers to marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in Chile. Legal establishment of MUMPAs automatically affords increased protection to resources as Chilean law requires that all projects neighboring legally established protected areas have to go through an EIA process.

39.[41.] Under the baseline scenario, this mechanism would not have been developed, MUMPAs would not be created and areas housing globally significant biodiversity would not be legally protected. Effective control of the use of coastal and marine resources would need to wait for the successful completion of the ICZM program that entails developing capacities over long periods of time and often requires successive intervention cycles of up to five years each to achieve significant impacts. This is particularly the case in areas that have strong, and often competing, economic interests that require long-term action to reach consensus. As stated previously, waiting for this to occur would result in the loss of important sites. While preparatory actions have already contributed substantially to laying the foundation for removal of this institutional barrier, the legal declaration of the MUMPAs needs to be completed, a General Administration Plan developed to legalize the different zones, physical delimitation of these zones, and the provision of basic infrastructure to start up operations and provide an on-the-ground demonstration of how the new instrument will work. Under the baseline scenario and in the face of naturally existing apprehension, despite the existence of this new instrument it is unlikely that any MUMPAs will be fully established.

40.[42.] Complex governance arrangements needed for MUMPAs . The newly developed instrument provides the framework for establishing MUMPAs. Operation of them, however, will require the development of careful governance arrangements that ensure coordinated action of the relevant government services through which control of resources occurs, as well as the full participation of local stakeholders to facilitate their consent and commitment to MUMPA goals. Again, considerable advances have been made in the preparatory phase of the project in terms of defining MUMPA governance structures, demonstrating still further the high commitment the GoC has afforded to marine and coastal conservation. In particular, this includes the creation of high level Regional Multi-Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Commissions (RMUMPA Commissions). These RMUMPA Commissions are to be presided by the highest political and administrative authority in each Region-the Intendant- delegated by the President of the Republic to head the Regional Government. The Commission will guide development at the regional level and will have oversight over all MUMPAs in their region, ensuring that management plans

- 60 -

comply with conservation objectives and are in line with regional priorities. The RMUMPA Commissions are constituted by the regional representatives of the relevant governmental institutions including the National Fisheries Service, National Service for Tourism, Maritime Authority and the Technical Office of the ICZM program, and representatives from important non-public stakeholders of the III, X y XII region, thus providing an effective way of coordinating existing norms and building consensus. At present, these Commissions have been set up in Regions III, X and XII, corresponding to those regions in which the proposed project will establish MUMPAs. It is expected that other political regions with access to the seaboard will also have them within the life of the project.

41.[43.] The RMUMPA Commissions would have oversight of all MUMPAs in a respective Region and are responsible for ensuring that Regional Development Plans incorporate their limits. However, once the General Administration of the MUMPA is complete, the operation and administration of the MUMPAs would be delegated to a specific organization. For the three project MUMPAs, it has been defined that this administration would be legally conferred to a Corporation that would count with representatives of stakeholders including fishermen, indigenous people, private sector, governments and relevant NGOs. The Corporations would lead the development and implementation of management plans and the mechanisms to ensure adequate human and financial resources for the MUMPA, informing the RMUMPA Commission as to the progress achieved. The setting-up of governance and administration structures and norms represent substantial barriers that under the baseline scenario are unlikely to be overcome, undermining effective operations in the MUMPAs and reducing the protection they afford to biodiversity conservation.

42.[44.] Effective knowledge and tools for adaptive management. Despite Chile’s long standing excellence in academic research related to natural resources, there are still a number of significant gaps in the knowledge and understanding of its marine and coastal biodiversity at both species and ecosystem levels. Information that does exist is dispersed and not always in formats or topics that are required for effective biodiversity management. More complete data and information management tools will be required to enable informed decisions as to correct actions for achieving MUMPA objectives. These will need to be in formats that are accessible to local stakeholders thus enabling greater participation in decision-making, and providing more comprehensive appreciation of why certain actions undermine the sustainability of the resources that provide their livelihoods.

43.[45.] Building consensus on the most appropriate management actions among the widely diverse stakeholder groups that characterize coastal zones not only requires access to reliable information (except the mentioned mechanisms that act by sector ) but also extensive and comprehensive consultation processes and a sound basis in conflict management- all of which are not currently available in selected sites and are unlikely to be developed in the baseline scenario. Under this scenario, universities will continue isolated research, gradually completing information on an ad hoc basis. Stakeholders will continue to support the creation of MUMPAs but are likely to face conflicts that are hard to resolve, delaying consensus on the definition of management actions. MUMPAs that are created would afford some protection to marine and coastal resources simply because of their existence; nevertheless, this would be sub-optimal and insufficient to afford the level of protection required to conserve the globally outstanding biodiversity housed within their boundaries.

- 61 -

44.[46.] Resources for Protected Area Management Costs. Chile provides resources for environmental management and protected areas through national budgetary allocation to the respective governmental services. In line with development policies and also partly due to fiscal pressures reducing available public resources, the GoC is exploring ways of increasing the participation of the private sector in conservation. It is also currently working on several initiatives with the private sector to foster tourism based on the diversity of ecosystems in the country. One of these initiatives is a set of regulations for the establishment of private protected areas providing revenues originating from sustainable uses of biodiversity. Currently in its final stages of approval, the regulatory framework complements the existing state system of protected areas and gives official recognition to private areas dedicated to preservation and to sustainable uses of biodiversity.

45.[47.] As the current protected areas system and its management categories do not contemplate multi-use areas in marine and coastal zones, these regulations do not currently apply to MUMPAs. Nevertheless, the potential for public-private partnerships in this scenario is great. Studies undertaken in the preparatory phase show that the areas selected for MUMPAs hold sufficient tourism attraction and potential visitor levels to develop partnerships with the private sector in MUMPA-related nature tourism and harness sufficient resources from this to cover MUMPA running costs (Corcuera, E. 2002). Despite this, and for reasons presented earlier, under the baseline scenario, these MUMPAs would not be established and the potential partnerships with private sector would be forfeited. Furthermore, such partnerships would be hindered because of the perceived risk in investment in protected areas. This barrier of perceived risks needs to be overcome by on the ground demonstrations of how MUMPAs could provide win/win solutions to public and private sectors alike and to local stakeholders while capturing benefits to global biodiversity.

33. Complementing the aforementioned, the data given by the National Service for Tourism (SERNATUR) for 1999-2002 period, show that the number of foreign visitors was 6,509,470, from which an average of 23% visited the units of the National System of Wildlife Protected Areas (SNASPE), and that during the same period of time the total amount of visitors to SNASPE’s parks, reserves and natural monuments reached 4,020,475. The aforementioned data confirm the following trends: a) an 18% average increase in foreign visits to the country; b) a 70% average increase in national visits to SNASPE unit and, c) natural areas are the Chile’s greatest tourist attraction. On the other hand, although there are no official statistics of eco-tourism world wide, some publications show that nature tourism generates 7% of all international trips expenses (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1993), and that while “typical” tourism has been growing at a 4% annual rate, nature tourism trips have grown between 10% to 30% (Reingold, 1993). The above helps to deduct that in our country the nature tourist activity has good development possibilities, and considering that currently there are no marine protected areas, the aforementioned figures regarding terrestrial area (SNASPE) are a good referent for potential visits to marine areas. .

34. Income generation of local stakeholders. In common with other developing countries, over exploitation of natural resources in Chile is often associated with the need for rural and isolated populations to cover basic necessities and provisions. This is particularly the case in isolated areas where non-extractive livelihoods are scarce. Despite MUMPAs including zones for the provision of sustainable fishing and exploitation of marine resources, in many cases

- 62 -

some temporal reduction in fisheries will be required by local stakeholders. In these areas, commitment to MUMPA objectives in the long term will need to be accompanied by providing new livelihood possibilities to compensate for temporal forfeited income from resource exploitation in zones designated as core areas. One way to achieve this is through developing livelihoods that are based on the sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity providing both benefits to local communities and to conservation. While work at the experimental level has provided encouraging results for the sustainable cultivation and management of several marine species (IFOP, 1995), this requires testing at field levels and local communities trained in the appropriate techniques. Under the baseline scenario, up scaling to field levels will not occur and the opportunity to provide livelihoods to local communities will be lost, undermining their commitment to the MUMPAs and reducing possibilities of improving their quality of life.

35. Low Awareness of the value of biodiversity . In part due to the absence of MUMPAs, there is a relatively low awareness in Chile on the value of biodiversity in marine and coastal ecosystems, and on the effects the loss of ecosystem integrity can have on livelihoods in the long term. While Chile has a series of programmes for awareness building on biodiversity, these focus more on terrestrial ecosystems and do not include the marine environment. Among the state awareness programmes, three have been developed by CONAMA: the Programme for Environmental Certification of Educational Establishments, the Environmental Leaders Programme, and the Chilean Trail; a fourth has been set up by CONICYT: the EXPLORA Programme. Additionally, the National Corporation of Forestry (CONAF) is developing an "environmental understanding" program for SNASPE visitors. More specifically in the marine field, the Navy's Oceanographic and Hydrographic Service (SHOA) implements dissemination activities targeted at children. The work of NGOs, such as Greenpeace Defenders of the Chilean Forest and CODEFF (Committee Pro Defense of Flora and Fauna) can also be mentioned, as well as the program Ecoeduca developed by La Casa de la Paz and the dissemination activities on cetaceans recently initiated by the Centre for Cetacean Conservation4. These initiatives will provide the basis on which marine and coastal focused programmes can build.

36. Outreach programmes linked to protected areas provide cost effective ways of increasing awareness on biodiversity values over a wide range of stakeholders. Visitor centers, for example, play a key role in this awareness building and serve as a tourist attraction. When linked to a fees-collection system they can also contribute to the financial sustainability of a given area. Furthermore, links with local education curriculum can help increase the participation of the local community in the MUMPA and increase their commitment to its goals. Under the baseline scenario no MUMPAs would be developed and the chance of developing cost effective awareness building programmes would be lost. Even if MUMPAs were to be created, although Regional Governments would provide essential infrastructure for visitor centers, trails and MUMPA outreach activities, additional support would be required to ensure that these comply with norms for protected areas and include information on biodiversity in the most appropriate formats for targeted audiences.

37. Guiding Framework for MUMPAs at the national level. Despite the fact that institutional responsibilities and mandates are clear as regards specific geographically defined areas on the

4www.forjadoresambientales.cl , www.senderodechile.cl, www.conaf.cl, www.greenpeace.cl, www.elbosquechileno.cl, www.codeff.cl, www.ecoeduca.cl, www.casapaz.cl, www.ccc-chile.org respectively

- 63 -

http://www.ccc-chile.org/

http://www.casapaz.cl/

http://www.ecoeduca.cl/

http://www.elbosquechileno.cl/

http://www.forjadoresambientales.cl/

sea-land fringe, the coordinated action of these in one single protected area has yet to be effected. Under the proposed project this will occur in the three demonstration sites in the MUMPAs, providing hands on experience of a co-coordinating framework for the regional branches of relevant National Services in Regions III, X and XII. This experience would eventually filter up to the centrally located sections of the relevant Services and those in other regions; however, this would be slow. For effective replication to occur, access to the learning experience would need to be facilitated through clear mechanisms. These would need to include not only documentation and orientation of how to go about forming the RMUMPA Commissions, MUMPAs and Corporations but also mechanisms that may provide encouragement to Regions such as technical support, incentives and networking. Furthermore, although CONAMA has recently defined priority sites for conservation these are more detailed for terrestrial areas than marine and coastal habitats. More detailed work is required to determine the specific priorities and locations within this general framework and to start addressing key issues such as connectivity across seascape for conservation of larger range species. This will also need to be more closely integrated with the baseline ICZM actions and for increased capacities and awareness on the role that protected areas play in this process.

38. The above paragraphs describe the threats that affect the Chilean coast at a generic level and the barriers that currently impede the establishment of successful MUMPAs. Specific threats at the three demonstration sites to be set up under the proposed project are much less significant and are described in Annex G. The barriers to be overcome in order to establish MUMPAs at these sites and make them sustainable over the long term are the same at each site. Under the baseline scenario these MUMPAs would not be set up, or there a framework for this at the national level. The effect of this in terms of biodiversity conservation at these specific sites is provided in Annex A.

Alternative Course of Action

Project Design - Strategic Decisions Taken in Defining the Alternative Scenario

39. In the face of growing threats to marine and coastal habitats and attendant depletion in species of both high national and global value, the GoC has committed to developing protected areas as a mechanism to increase protection to these valuable national assets. The GoC has also placed the growth of the tourism industry as a priority for national development and tourism is expected to increase significantly in the coming years. Within this arena, the GoC is interested in supporting sustainable nature-based tourism that will lead to conservation and development. This includes marine and coastal related nature tourism. The GoC wishes to combine the commitment to protection of coastal and marine biodiversity with its policy to increase nature-based tourism. In this context the GoC has taken a series of strategic decisions in defining the Alternative Scenario of the proposed project. These include the following:

Marine Protected Area System versus Integrated Coastal Zone Management Approach (ICZM). The first strategic choice in design was to focus the project on developing marine and coastal protected areas rather than on ICZM, which is commonly adopted to arrest threats to

- 64 -

coastal biodiversity. This is in part due to the long periods of time ICZM requires, and partly in view of the progress Chile is already making in developing national policies for ICZM and that will continue in the baseline scenario. . As large stretches of Chile’s coastline are still in pristine conditions, waiting for the completion of ICZM could have high opportunity costs, and important sites may be lost. Also, the utility of the marine protected areas in recovering marine resources affected by over fishing has been recognized in scientific publications, and has been adopted as management tool by countries with seaboard management expertise such as Australia. A complementary and cost-effective approach was selected that would focus on opportunities rather than on crisis management. This is to establish protected areas in regions that have globally significant biodiversity whilst threats are low or only potential, thus providing benefits in a shorter time frame. In the medium and long term these protected areas would be included into the longer term ICZM programmes in their respective regions. Moreover, successful MUMPAS could also be part of the coastal development options in other regions.

Multi-use protected areas versus preservation. For reasons presented in earlier sections of this document, the GoC has selected to develop management categories that integrate the needs of all sectors of society and the environment as a guiding principle in the establishment of marine protected areas. As such, the second choice in project design was to focus on multi-use marine and coastal protected areas rather than Parks or other restricted use management categories. In addition, MUMPAs involve building consensus amongst a range of local stakeholders to define the levels of restrictions in different zones and thus provide an input to the parallel ICZM processes as they reflect similar multi-stakeholder scenarios but on a much smaller scale.

A region-up approach versus a nation-down approach. A top-down approach to establishing MUMPAs would not be appropriate given Chile’s decentralizedChile’s decentralized decision and action policies. A third strategic decision was thus to let the regions take the initiative in MUMPA creation and to keep the main focus of the project at the regional level. Successful demonstrations would eventually lead to a nation-wide system as other regions replicate them. To facilitate this, regional action would be complemented by a national component to promote replication of MUMPAs nation-wide, and provide an enabling environment and guiding framework that would constitute a significant progression towards the maturation of a national network of MUMPAs.

Public versus private sector protected areas action . To avoid potential limitations in MUMPA management from over-reliance on public resources, a decision was taken to maximizing public-private partnerships as an alternative for long-term funding of MUMPAs. This is also in keeping with Chile’s policy of high profile of the private sector in national development. As Chile is prioritizing the development of tourism, this sector was selected to be the main vehicle for private sector involvement in the project. Furthermore, worldwide there are a number of successful cases of tourism revenues being used as a long-term funding mechanism for recurrent costs of marine and coastal protected areas and these could provide lessons to the project.

Selection of Regional Demonstration Sites . To provide protection to the main representations of the globally outstanding biodiversity along the coast, a decision was taken to select three sites for MUMPAs, one from each of the coastal bio-geographical regions of Chile. To

- 65 -

maximize replication possibilities these sites also collectively covered the main types of tourism being developed in Chile - sun and sand, cruise-based and ecotourism - and the largest possible range of actors (foreign and national investors; community and indigenous groups).

Description of Sites for Demonstration MUMPAs

40. The above strategic decisions on project design were used to define a set of criteria to select the sites for the demonstration MUMPAs in each bio-geographical region. These criteria include the following: (i) to be amongst the nation’s priority sites defined for conservation; (ii) to be far from large sources of urban waste;(iii) to be far from large sources of industrial waste; (iv) to have demonstrated political and financial interest of regional government; (v) to count with the enthusiasm of local community stakeholders such as fishermen and Amerindians; (vi) to have proven tourism potential and interest of private sector for combining tourism development goals with protection of marine and coastal biodiversity; (vii) to have tourism ventures still at the point that changes could be made; (viii) to count with the interest of NGOs in developing partnerships in conservation efforts; (ix) to have the possibility of up-scaling experimental levels of sustainable management of native species; and (x) to hold specific demonstration value in relation to threats.

41. Using these criteria, several demonstration areas were selected. Sites initially selected on the basis of their biodiversity were later discarded for lack of sufficient interest of local communities or insufficient financial commitment from Regional Governments. The full set of sites considered and their scoring against these criteria are provided in Annex F. More detailed biodiversity and social surveys were carried out for the selected sites during the PDF B. Information on biodiversity at each site is summarized in Annex F and the full studies are available on request (in Spanish). The three sites have very low levels of threat and will provide a rich base for future replication (Annex F). They are: (i) in Region III south of the town of Caldera and representing the Warm Temperate coastal bio/geographical region, (ii) in Region X south of the town of Bahía Mansa and representing the Transitional Temperate bio/geographical Region, and (iii) in Region XII around Carlos III island in the Straight of Magellan and representing the Cold Temperate Bio/geographical region. (Annex E provides a map with their location).

42. The Caldera area is located in the Atacama Desert, climatically characterized as coastal desert climate with abundant cloudiness. It includes numerous coastal, intertidal and subtidal ecosystems of great relevance to the conservation and preservation of coastal and marine biodiversity. Island areas, marshes, sandy beaches, and exposed rocky outcrops provide habitat for a wide range of species, including the most representative flora and fauna of temperate areas of northern Chile. The marsh, lagoons and coastal salt ponds just north of the Copiapo River are systems of enormous importance for the conservation and preservation of bird fauna, especially migratory species. This site represents the challenge of conserving and restoring coastal and marine resources currently exploited by subsistence fishermen, in the advent of a major sun and sand tourist project, and the potential of increasing urban development in the broader vicinity.

The Bahía Mansa is in the region of the Valdivian Rainforest, in an area still relatively intact. The near-shore oceanic conditions are influenced by fresh water run-off due to the high precipitation regime (2,400 – 2,600 mm) and discharges from two major coastal drainage basins, the

- 66 -

Cholguaco and the Huellelhue Rivers. As a result, there are seasonal local changes in water temperature and salinity, as well as nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, and organic matter derived from terrestrial run-off. Both estuaries have beds of long-living, gigantic endemic mussels, Choromytilus chorus, (more than 25 cm total length), that are extinct in many other estuaries due to over-exploitation. This area is an indigenous reserve inhabited by 200 Amerindians (Huilliches) living in 46 houses in two very small communities: Huellelhue and Caleta Condor . The land used by these communities used to belonged to private ownerships, but has beenposition that was regularized through a land-tenure regulation program developed by the Indigenous National Commission, thus there are no pending historical rights over the territory. They have a subsistence economy, practicing small-scale agriculture, raising a few livestock and fishing in nearby waters. Huilliches community rights over fishing are protected under the General Law of Fishing and Aquiculture, and described in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13,, however they practice this although at very low scale or for subsistence, are under the General Law of Fishing and Acquaculture, and described in paragraphs and 13. Their main source of income is exploiting “dead” Alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) for shingles (production of wood roof tiles). This activity is under a management plan approved by the National Forestry Corporation and will be further regulated through the MUMPA management Plan that will include the participation of these communities. . This site represents the challenge of conservation and sustainable uses of biodiversity in areas with rich coastal and marine biodiversity and inhabited by poor indigenous communities.

43. In the extreme south the selected area comprises the Island Carlos III and its neighboring areas on the western fringes of the Strait of Magellan. The area is very heterogeneous and biologically unique in part due to the meeting of Pacific and Atlantic waters, the strong winds, the influence of the glaciers, and the jagged coasts, comparable to areas with fjords in Norway or British Columbia. The area is inhabited by at least 10 species of medium and larger mammals (including four species of whales, two species of seals, and dolphins), 26 species of birds (including penguins) and 20 species of fish. Carlos III is an important feeding area in the migration of humpbacked whales between Colombia and Antarctica. The area is practically uninhabited and the main potential threat is future unregulated tourism from Punta Arenas and principally from numerous cruises traveling through the Strait. Thus this site represents the challenge of regulating private-based cruise tourism in a sustainable manner with benefits for biodiversity conservation.

Goals of the proposed project

44. The long-term goal of the proposed project is to conserve globally significant marine and coastal biodiversity in Chile through catalyzing the formation of a network of multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) that integrate national development and conservation objectives, and optimize public and private partnerships. In order to contribute to this long-term goal, the specific objective, or purpose, of the project will be to remove barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country. The actions proposed to achieve this, fall into seven separate Outputs which will deliver three outcomes each with specific impacts as detailed in the Results Impact Measurement Table, Annex B along with the indicators of performance, targets and verifiers, sampling frequency and reasons for selection.

- 67 -

45. The first outcome will be three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally establishedlegally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures. The actions to achieve this outcome focus on setting up the MUMPAs as protected areas and will include their legal establishment and demarcation with different sub-areas, including no-take core zones, the provision of essential infrastructure for operations, the definition of governance structures and building capacities for their management and long term funding and adaptive management. This Outcome incorporates Outputs 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed project.

46. The second outcome will be that benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs. The actions to achieve this outcome focus on developing pilot projects within the MUMPAs that will provide multiple benefits to conservation of biodiversity and also to local stakeholders and private sector investors. This will include developing partnerships with tourism ventures in each MUMPA, jointly developing tourism facilities that can provide nature based attractions to visitors, resources to the MUMPAS for long term funding and new sources of employment and income for local inhabitants. It will also include the provision of livelihoods from sustainable management of native biodiversity as a means of increasing incomes and compensating for the temporal reduction of fishing in core areas. This Outcome incorporates Outputs 4 and 5.

47. The third outcome will be that local and national understanding of MUMPAs in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased, thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions. The action to achieve this outcome will focus on awareness and outreach programmes both at the regional level and nationally. The regional level awareness programmes will serve to increase the local understanding of the importance of marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the provision and maintenance of livelihoods and enhance their participation in MUMPA management. National programmes will focus on facilitating understanding of the importance of marine and coastal biodiversity conservation across a broad range of stakeholders. It will also enhance decision makers’ understanding of the role protected areas play in the ICZM process particularly in regions that do not have demonstration MUMPAs. Elements that provide further support for replication and advancement in establishing a coherent network of marine and coastal protected areas will be included. This Outcome encompasses Outputs 6 and 7.

48. At the end of the project these three outcomes will have collectively provided a tested institutional mechanism for the establishment of MUMPAs along the Chilean Coast that has been applied to the creation of three MUMPAs. These will have brought at least 87,494 ha of additional seascape and 42,537 ha of critical associated coastal lands along 83km of coastline under legal protection in the three main bio-geographical regions of Chile’s coast. The specific targets for each MUMPA are included in the impact measurement in Annex B, Table B2. Populations of key benthic invertebrate and algae species selected as indicators of fishing pressure in the two more northern MUMPA will have increased compared to levels at project start up, indicating reduced pressure on resources. Algae and invertebrate species selected, as indicators will show that populations of biodiversity levels in each MUMPA remain the same or have increased compared to levels at year one.

- 68 -

49. A framework for facilitating the replication of these MUMPAs within demonstration regions and throughout the country will be available with clear guidelines and incentives on how best to undertake this. There will be a RMUMPA Commission set up in at least one region other than Regions III, X and XII and at least one additional MUMPA covering a further 10,000 ha of seascape and coastal area will be officially created and in the initial stage of establishment.

Detailed Description of Project Outputs

50. The proposed Outputs and Activities are detailed in the Logical Framework Matrix in Annex B along with the indicators, targets and assumptions. Outputs and activities are summarized below.

Output 1: Three MUMPAs protecting globally significant biodiversity legally established, demarcated and with essential infrastructure to start up operations

51. During project preparation significant advances were made to overcome the principal institutional barrier that impeded the creation of MUMPAs. The regulatory mechanism defined was to create the totally new and innovative legal figure of Multiple-use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas –MUMPA- by drawing on existing Laws and joining these under one single instrument, to be applied together with the different Governmental Branches with mandate in this arena through the Council of Ministers coordinated by CONAMA. The Governmental Branches are the Ministry of Defense (Undersecretariat for the Navy) the Ministry of the Economy (through the National Fisheries Service –SERNAPESCA- and Undersecretariat for Fisheries) and the Ministry of National Goods that has jurisdiction over land within the coastal fringe. The MUMPAs will constitute one single legal area containing delimited zones under different degrees of protection using existing decrees to confer control to these zones. Control of the use of marine resources is to be conferred through the Marine Concession Decrees 340 and 660, the protection of the core zone as a Marine Park for preservation through the General Law of Fisheries and Mariculture, and the state-owned lands in the coastal zone through the Decree 1939/77 governing acquisition, administration and disposition of State Goods. CONAMA, in line with its role in coordination of the environmental arena under Law 19.3000, assumes the role of developing the General Administration Plan of the area whicharea that defines the different zones and coordinates the action of the different State competencies within the MUMPAs.

52. This legal instrument represents an enormous step forward in overcoming one of the main institutional barriers to marine and coastal protection. It has been applied very recently for the first time with the creation of the Francisco Coloane MUMPA in Region XII on August 5th 2003. This corresponds to the Carlos III demonstration MUMPA to be set up under the proposed project. The final approval by the Council of CONAMA, and formal creation of the remaining two demonstration MUMPAs is expected to occur prior to project approval. Under this Output, activities would focus on those steps necessary to complete the establishment of the MUMPAs and the start up of operations. Once legally created, the initial proposals of zoning for each MUMPA that have been developed with stakeholders during project preparation would be up-dated through interviews, holding local workshops and reviewing data. This, as well as the type of uses allowed, would form the basis for the General Administration Plan for the MUMPA necessary to designate an entity for its administration.

- 69 -

53. This would be followed by consultations and a review of state-of-the-art practices to define the most cost-effective mechanism for demarcation of the MUMPAs. Different mechanisms may be used and could include physical demarcation through color-coded buoys and signs in the seascape and markers or fences in coastal areas of high sensitivity. It could also include virtual boundaries being defined by distances from easily visible or recognizable features. Demarcation would then proceed based on the agreed zoning and placing priority on those habitats that require most urgent protection. This would be linked to an information campaign in each area to ensure that local communities and resource users are familiar with demarcation mechanisms particularly those that are non-physical. Following this, the final design and execution of an infrastructure development plan would be undertaken to provide minimal conditions for the start-up of operations in each site. This would include administrative buildings, entry gates and basic telecommunications. Finally, in order for the MUMPA to have a more immediate effect on the prevention of new threats (such as requests for infrastructure development nearby) this Output would also include actions to assist municipal, provincial and regional governments to incorporate MUMPA limits into plans, maps and EIA and permit processes.

Output 2: Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA with operational procedures defined and agreed on within the context of regional and national decision-making processes, and with mechanisms for long term funding

54. This Output will focus on the creation and implementation of governance structures for each of the demonstration MUMPAs thus providing both the structure for long term management of individual sites and vital lessons that would facilitate the creation of future MUMPAs. General agreements have been reached in the preparatory phase to delegate MUMPA administration to a Corporation that would be composed of public and private representatives. These agreements also include the general characteristics and attributes of each Corporation. However these would be fine-tuned by holding further consultations with local stakeholders. This would be followed by the drafting of Corporation statutes including by-laws, legal status, procedures, provisions for electing representatives, definition of size and function of the assembly and executive secretary. In this, care would be taken to determine clear mechanisms through which the Corporations could oversee the functions to be undertaken by National Services in conformity with their mandates, for example, the surveillance of specific zones within the MUMPA. It would also include the definition of reporting procedures, mechanisms and information exchange between Corporations and RMUMPA Commissions and these and Regional Government Councils, and the transfer of command transferring from the RMUMPA Commissions to the Corporations. In conformity with Chile’s Law of citizen participation, public consultations would be held on the proposed MUMPA Corporation Statutes prior to the legal constitution of the Corporation.

55. As the demonstration MUMPAs will be the first marine and coastal protected areas in Chile, capacities for management will need to be built. This will be undertaken through a two-phase training program in MUMPA management for key personnel and regional institutions drawing on international experts in marine multi-use protected area management. The first step will target project staff and representatives of RMUMPA Commissions, including representatives of the communities participating in the Commission and governments and will include general training in marine and coastal conservation, management of MUMPAs, and their link to ICZM at local and regional levels. This will also include providing support and advice to RMUMPA Commissions for developing frameworks for the coordinated management of all future

- 70 -

MUMPAs in each region. Specific aspects of such frameworks would be ensuring that suitable legal arrangements are established for the collection of service charges by the respective Corporations and providing possibilities for cross-site subsidization of MUMPA costs, particularly for those that are more affected by seasonal falls of tourism and for which revenues from other sources will be required to cover recurrent costs. A second phase of the training program will focus specifically on the Corporations and the staff members of their Executive Units once these are conformed. This will focus more on building administrative and management capacities for overseeing daily operations of the MUMPAs.

56. During the initial years of the project it is expected that the main operations in the MUMPA would be undertaken by the Regional Project Directors (paragraph 88). However, over time as resources are generated within each MUMPA and as activities expand, each Corporation would require a project-independent staffing-table. As such, activities under this Output would also include the definition of a staffing plan for an Executive Unit of the MUMPA Corporation that would be responsible for MUMPA management and operations on a daily basis. It would also include training in business management for Corporation staff. As results from Outputs 3 and 4 become available, a long-term business and investment plan would be defined for each MUMPA that determines recurrent cost estimates for wages, services, and maintenance. The investment plan would fully determine the sources for funding recurrent costs including cost-recovery mechanisms from entrance fees, and service and concessions charges based on initial agreements reached in the preparatory phase of the project. It would also define the investment and expenditure policies needed to ensure the regular flow of resources to the MUMPA both within and between given years, providing a cushion in the annual tourism low seasons as well as in years of unusually low tourism rates.

57. Preliminary studies undertaken during project preparation indicate that visitation levels and related fees would be at sufficiently high levels to cover recurrent costs5, however, the investment plan would also define other sources to compensate for unexpected short falls in tourism related revenues. Other potential sources would include governmental resources, particularly if specific MUMPA zones are declared under protected area categories, such as National Parks6, whereby corresponding budgets would be provided through the relevant national institution resource allocations and would need to be increased from current levels. A further source would be the National Regional Development Fund (FNDR) as the main funding mechanism through which the Central Government transfers resources to the regions for development projects with regional, provincial and local impacts. The plan would define mechanisms for the collection, investment and management of fees and other MUMPA resources particularly as regards disbursement of the additional resources that may be required by those National Services that would execute activities falling under their mandate such as surveillance of specific zones or actions. These mechanisms would be finalized through consultations with local and regional stakeholders. In parallel to all these actions, and to facilitate the expected number of consultations required for critical issues, a series of conflict resolution workshops and training for the different stakeholders involved in the MUMPAs will be undertaken.

5 See Annex I 6 The Francisco Coloane MUMPA was formally established through a Decree signed on 5 August 2003 that includes the simultaneous creation of a marine park (under the Fisheries Law) constituting part of its no-take core zone, situated between the Carlos III Island and the Rupert Isle.

- 71 -

Output 3: Adaptive Management Systems developed, agreed upon and implemented in each MUMPA

58. This Output will focus on the provision of strategies and operations needed to obtain the overall conservation objectives of the MUMPA and its individual zones, and the tools by which these can be reviewed and updated periodically. It will include the fine tuning of information collected during the preparatory phase, supplementing this with critical data required to complete essential maps to develop adaptive management plans. Draft management plans will be developed for each MUMPA drawing on training provided through Output 2 and incorporating essential elements of CONAMA guidelines on preparing protected areas management plans.

59. The management plan will include the detailing of activities permitted in different zones and the more detailed definition of locations of facilities, equipment needs, transportation and conflict resolution mechanisms. A major component would be a surveillance plan to facilitate enforcement of these zones, building on the mandates of the regional divisions of national institutions with mandates on the use of natural resources. Care would be taken to ensure the co-ordination of enforcement actions of these different institutions, as they will take an active part in the definition of the administration plan of the MUMPA that would outline the reporting, responsibilities and integration of these different services. It is expected that some up grading of existing surveillance provided by the Navy will be required particularly in MUMPA core zones. As part of this up grading the possibilities of developing partnerships with, and support from, user groups in surveillance will be fully explored. Initial interest shown by fishermen unions indicates their willingness to participate in such surveillance schemes, as they are aware that the long-term maintenance of stocks requires the strict implementation of specific no-take zones.

60. A third element of this Output will be the design of processes and tools that permits updating and validation of zoning and limits as more reliable information and measurement of effectiveness of management strategies are obtained. This will include the use of the METT tracking tool that may require adaptation to better address coastal and marine PA scenarios. It will also include will include the setting up of a database for each MUMPA with a GIS system and biodiversity and threats monitoring systems. It will also include the provision of external evaluation procedures and information exchange with other MUMPAs initially internationally and in the future within Chile, by which lessons learnt and experiences can provide effective inputs to the fine-tuning of management strategies.

Output 4: Three pilot projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

61. This Output consists of three different models to demonstrate how partnerships with tourism ventures of distinct types can be developed and managed to maximize inputs to the conservation of global biodiversity and provide benefits to local stakeholders in win-win solutions. In the Caldera MUMPA, the project will demonstrate how the management of a planned high foreign investment sand and sun tourism complex can be transformed into an instrument for conservation. In the Bahia Mansa MUMPA, the project will demonstrate how the management of eco-tourism in a community and Amerindian setting can be an option for indigenous development based on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In the Carlos III MUMPA, it will demonstrate how the management of national and internationally funded cruise

- 72 -

tourism in an area of charismatic marine mammals (penguins and whales) can be used as a means of supporting biodiversity conservation. While each MUMPA would execute the specific pilot project, a cross-cutting activity under this Output would be included to capture lessons and feed these into the guidelines to be developed in Output 7 for Regional Governments and the tourism sector on how to build partnerships for nature tourism that provide benefits to conservation and to the private sector.

62.

63. Assessments undertaken during the preparatory phase, based on potential tourism rates and conservative estimate of acceptable entrance fee charges, have indicated the potential economic viability of generating resources from each type of tourism as a source for the long term funding of each MUMPA. Details of this are presented in Annex I along with first estimates of initial running costs of MUMPAs. Furthermore resources will also be generated through sustainable activities and concession. The further detailing and fine-tuning of this will form part of the tourism plans to be developed through this Output and the detailed business plan for each MUMPA to be developed through Output 2. Several mechanisms would be applied in order to assure the ecological acceptability of the proposed tourism activities. The most important of this is the strict application of the relevant articles of the Given that tourism is a kind of activity that may cause effects over the natural and human environment, and that Law 19,300, Basic Law for the Environment ( Law 19,300). This makes compulsory demands the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the any potentially environmentally negative activity ies to be dto be developed eveloped inside within a protected area. Tourism falls into this category and as such , the tourism plan to be designed for each MUMPA will be subjected to area should pass through athe n Environmental Impact Assessment Study (Eas EIA) in order to evaluate its potential impacts, and if appropriate modify its design, if appropriate, in order to meet the environmental and cultural conservation criteria, and ensure the ecological sustainability of tourism plans to be designed.

64.

65. Thise EIA processS as environmental management instrument includes a Citizen Participation Mmechanism for guaranteeing transparency. This is described in Athe EIA assessment process’s transparency, through Citizen Participation (annex H4 and involves a public presentation and discussion of the proposed activities. In addition to providing transparency to defining ecological acceptability this mechanism will also help ensure social acceptability of the proposed )tourism. On this point it is important to note the preparation of this project included extensive participation of local stakeholders from civil society resource users, indigenous groups and government agencies. These consultations are summarized in paragraph 80 and described in detail in Annex H3. The consultation culminated in the formal acceptance by key stakeholder groups of the proposed MUMPA the tourism models to be tested in them and the project strategy by which this would be achieved. The signed Protocols of agreement are provided in H5 and include a specific one that indicates the agreement with and support for eco-tourism development in the indigenous lands in Region X in Bahia Mansa.Finally, the tourism activities planned for the areas have been approved by the local stakeholders, as it is established in the respective agreement protocols (annex H5 and H

- 73 -

66. Caldera MUMPA. Private sector representatives in charge of developing the US $ 3million Caleta Cisnes tourist complex planned for the area selected as a MUMPA have confirmed their interest in developing a collaborative arrangement to develop tourism facilities that minimize environmental damage and that enable tourists to enjoy the wide range of marine and coastal biodiversity in the region. The Caleta Cisnes complex has agreed to adhere to the highest environmental standards, compatible with being in a marine protected area, thus ensuring there will be no damage to the biodiversity of the area. The environmental standards required for being in a MUMPA have increased the costs of their sand and sun project and these form part of the associated financing of the project.

67. The MUMPA would provide services to these tourists (ca. 400.000 per year) and entrance and other fees would be channeled to the recurrent costs of effective management and the preservation of core areas. Initial estimates indicate that even a small fee charged for each visitor would cover part or all expenses of the MUMPA, transforming this potential threat into a showcase conservation-promoting force (see Annex I). Without the project, very little would happen at Caldera for the protection of globally significant biodiversity, and the Caleta Cisnes tourist complex would develop as a purely sun and sand venture with attendant negative effects on biodiversity. The Regional Government has committed its strong political and financial support to the development of this tourism and conservation-linked MUMPA.

68. Under this pilot project, tourism related infrastructure such as trails and observation towers would be developed in the MUMPA and local guides would be trained to ensure controlled access of visitors to key habitat in coastal areas, including arid areas through bicycle trails and wetland for bird watching tours. A second component would undertake recovery of areas that have been impacted by over-fishing and use these to restore original biodiversity levels and provide tourist attractions. In the past, Macrocystis algae forming large kelp forests dominated this area. Over-fishing in some areas has reduced predation pressure on herbivorous black urchins which have increased in population and have caused overgrazing of the sea bottom and loss of kelp forest (a case of over harvesting of a key-stone predator and its impacts cascading down through the trophic chain). By excluding fishing from the planned restricted-use zones, fish densities are expected to increase with an associated rise in predation rates on black sea urchins. This reduced herbivore pressure would in turn result in the regeneration of algae forests. Small-scale experiments have shown that removing sea black urchins allows for the algae to re-grow and that this can be facilitated by replanting kelp species (Lubshenko & Gaines, 1981). However, so far, removing urchins and re-colonizing with Macrocystis and Lessonia on a larger, commercial scale, has not been attempted as the perceived high costs and risks have been a deterrent. Demonstrating how it can be done would have high biodiversity significance as it would provide a more complex habitat structure. It would also assume the risks of these ventures and once their success is demonstrated they would be replicated by other interested parties.

69. The Cisnes complex has agreed to fund this demonstration and link it to the provision of underwater trails for divers to explore the kelp forest. Activities would include the cultivation of Macrocystis (kelp forest) in 200 hectares of core zone using spore collection and planting on ropes that have proven successful in experimental conditions. Local fishermen would be hired for this, working under the guidance of technical experts, as a compensation for reduced fishing grounds during the initial stages of MUMPA development. . Direct benefits such as kelp cultivation training, business development from this resource and from the provision of tourist

- 74 -

related activities are expected to be available to fishermen through the commercial exploitation of Lessonia in other areas of the MUMPA (Output 4). Activities would also include the construction of the underground trails for visitors to Macrocystis forests and building a diving centre for controlled access; the preparation of tourist information pamphlets on the cultivated areas highlighting their role in biodiversity conservation; and the monitoring of associated biodiversity and of visitor perceptions and increased awareness. As tourism resources start flowing into the area, initial agreements on compensations for temporal restrictions to the fishing activity while marine resources are recovered, as well as the contribution of the Cisnes complex and MUMPA entrance, service and concession charges to the long term funding of the MUMPA, would be consolidated and finalized.

70. Bahia Mansa MUMPA . During project preparation, agreements were reached with the X Regional Government and Huilliche people to develop the management of ecotourism as an option for development of this indigenous group based on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Regional Government has agreed to channel resources to the development of the MUMPA in support of ecotourism (e.g. access facilities, including a road and infrastructure) as a way to change the current unsustainable resource use patterns in the community and alleviate the extreme conditions of poverty. They view this as a model of sustainable use with improvement of livelihoods and conservation that can be replicated in other coastal areas with Amerindian populations. The Huilliches people have agreed to channel a portion of eventual earnings from tourism reception and gate entrance fees to cover the recurrent costs of the MUMPA (Aannex H6).

71. The main focus is to develop Huilliche capacities for planning and managing ecotourism, maximizing the opportunities provided by this unique mix of people, temperate rainforest and coastal and marine biodiversity. The project would design and build visitor accommodations for 45 visitors (based on initial calculations of tourism potential) and develop trails and reception centers for visitors. It would train local communities in tourism reception emphasizing traditional cultures and practices. In parallel, community representatives will be trained in key elements of ecotourism management, including the development of business plans, marketing techniques, resource management and the definition of a long term ecotourism plan that includes mechanisms on how to select those families that will provide accommodation, food, interpretation guides and commodities. It will also design and implement a two-phase marketing strategy. The first phase will be based on current visitor estimated loads to be provided through the project, and the second will be broader based and follow a more extensive study on potential visitor rates for such specialized tourism. As tourist numbers increase, initial agreements reached with Huilliche communities on the contribution of resources derived from the provision of accommodation and from entrance fees and service charges to the long term funding of the MUMPA will be finalized.

72. Carlos III MUMPA. The Regional Government of Region XII has agreed to support this pilot project to demonstrate how nationally funded cruise tourism can be used as a means of supporting biodiversity conservation. Initial studies undertaken in project preparation indicated that, during the last four years, on average about 30,000 international passengers travel through the Straight of Magellan during the spring and summer seasons of each year. Chilean passengers coming from Punta Arenas could add a further 1,000 additional visitors per year. Without the project, no experience-based regulatory frameworks for tourism in the area would be established. A handful of local entrepreneurs would continue taking a few selected tourists to Carlos III, and

- 75 -

unregulated use could jeopardize the whales and the rest of the wildlife in the area. An opportunity of capturing rent from the cruises and devoting those resources to conservation of globally significant biodiversity would be lost.

73. This pilot project would develop a tourism plan for the region that includes the establishment of minimal distances for cruise liners in relation to key populations; on-shore norms and regulations; and the definition of carrying capacities. It would build essential infrastructure for cruise passenger landings, for receiving on-shore visitors and for enhancing their sighting of charismatic mammals (e.g. by way of trails and observation towers). The running of tourist facilities would be opened to the private sector. Building on initial agreements, the negotiation and approval of contributions from concessions and from shipping companies and individual tourists to support the long term funding of the MUMPAs would be finalized.

Output 5: Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity, and to diversify the economic base of local inhabitants and improve their quality of life

74. The tourism pilot projects to be undertaken in Output 4 would provide new possibilities for tourism related employment and income for MUMPA inhabitants and those in surrounding areas. Activities under Output 5 would complement this by supporting biodiversity-friendly pilot projects in the Caldera and Bahia Mansa MUMPAs to provide other livelihood possibilities that would reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity as well as to diversify the economic base of MUMPA inhabitants and improve their quality of life. Collectively, these two Outputs would provide sustainable incomes to local inhabitants that would have the effect of increasing commitment to the MUMPA while reducing their reliance on other forms of livelihoods that have negative impacts such as fishing and shingles production. Activities included are kelp repopulation and Choro Zapato cultivation that will be developed in the MUMPAs only by artisan fishermen in the III region and by indigenous communities in the X region,, so local ways of living will not be affected by eventual aquiaculture activities of private companies Furthermore,. On the other hand, being in consistencyt with the project objectives, the fishing authority will revoke the current areas declared as Suitable Areas for AcquacultureAquiculture in the sites where MUMPAs are to be created. A, and anny other activity to be developed inside the MUMPA wouldshould obey what is stated in the General Management Plans for these PA to be developed through Output 2 with the participation of local communities and, that wshould establish the area zoning and permitted use in theeach the allowed uses.

75.

76. Estimates indicate that the initial and eventual percentages of current resource users that will benefit from these livelihoods possibilities are significant. In Caldera the initial number of resources users that would benefit from tourism related activities is 12% rising to an estimated eventual 55%. Those benefiting directly from the sustainable use of algae pilots would be 12% of the users with an eventual increase to 45%. In Bahia Mansa the initial number of resources users that would benefit directly from tourism related activities is 8.3% rising to an estimated 28%. In the case of indigenous communities that benefit from tourism related activities, it is estimated that the initial number would be 12 families, representing 15% of the population, rising to an

- 76 -

estimated 50% by the end of the project. Those benefiting directly from the sustainable extraction of giant mussel would be 100% of the indigenous community.

77. In the Caldera MUMPA, the activities under Output 5 would focus on the sustainable management of biodiversity to compensate local fishermen for the temporal loss of fishing revenues during the period of time needed for recovering fishing populations at levels that can bear a sustainable exploitation and provide products that could be a tourism attraction, thereby strengthening the tourism and conservation links to be developed through Output 4. The pilot project would focus on the sustainable management of two species of brown algae - Lessonia trabiculata in sub tidal areas and L. nigrescens in intertidal areas - adopting similar approaches as the Macrocystis project in Output 4 but focusing more on management for commercial products rather than diving attractions. Depleted areas would be repopulated and harvested to provide both food and talasotherapy services for visitors. As with Macrocystis, this has been undertaken at experimental levels and current evidence indicates that it would have positive private benefits in the local market (ca. $ 2M in 200 ha). Demonstrating how it can be up-scaled profitably would provide a livelihood and would also have high biodiversity significance as this alga species also provides a critical habitat for coastal biodiversity. The pilot projects would be undertaken with the support of universities to determine the best locations for repopulating and management pilots, most appropriate methods for collection, cultivation and planting of spores.

78. In Bahia Mansa a similar approach would be adopted to provide livelihoods and biodiversity benefits. This would focus on management of the giant mussel Choromytilus chorus (Choro zapato) to provide local incomes and maintain viable populations of this endemic species that is extinct in several regions of Chile due to unsustainable harvesting. An additional benefit would be to reduce the reliance of the Huilliches on shingles production, in turn reducing pressures on native forest, avoiding deforestation, soil erosion and related sedimentation in near-shore habitats. Choro zapato management would be set up in the estuaries of the Huellelhue and Colhuaco rivers where native populations are still high but local indigenous inhabitants harvest these for subsistence and nearby artisan fishermen are starting exploitation for commercial ventures. The pilot would involve approximately 195 members of the Mapuche-Huilliche peoples (men, women and children) and would employ low impact techniques using m2 trays for cultivation. Present commercial values indicate that even using these low-impact cultivation systems an attractive income for local inhabitants could be provided. Additional income could be derived from the mussels as ecotourism increases and these are introduced into the food offered in tourism services in the MUMPA7. The pilot project will hire technical experts that will work together with Huilliche members to determine sites for setting up the trays; ensuring that the capture of “seed” mussels is planned to avoid population depletion; provide training on how to build, seed, maintain and harvest trays in a way to minimize impacts; and set up monitoring systems of cultivation areas to determine optimum densities, handling techniques and tray design to maximize production and avoid negative environmental effects.

7 A kilo of giant mussels (10 individuals) has a commercial value of US$ 1 and each tray would be harvested when densities of 15kg are reached (150 individuals) in approximately 24 months. Each member would have at least 70 trays. From year 3 onwards-annual returns would be US$ 1,000 per harvester. Aggregated value is expected as harvests are increasingly sold as meals with a cost of approx. US$ 5 per plate with 3-4 mussels. Fondeff, 2001

- 77 -

79. In addition to the project on Choro Zapato, this Output will provide a further input to livelihoods in Bahia to improve quality of life and alleviate the poverty in this region. To be fully supported through co-funding, this would seek to diversify the economic base and provide increased income from non-extractive livelihoods. It would provide assistance to the Huilliche people in the development of proposals to provide income from endeavors such as small scale poultry raising and agricultural production in restricted areas using practices and techniques that do not cause negative environmental impacts. The most viable of these would be implemented with support from a WWF and IDB-funded livelihood program.

80. A cross-cuttingcrosscutting line of action would be included for all three demonstration MUMPAs that would provide advances for both this Output and Output 4. This would focus on building small business management capacities in MUMPAs as a means of facilitating the replication and up-take of the livelihood pilots and the community provision of services related to tourism. This line of action would include the training of selected representatives from the MUMPA in small business management. These would act as focal points for providing advice and support to inhabitants that seek to set up small businesses related to biodiversity conservation and the provision of services to MUMPA visitors. It would also include a review of existing micro-credit schemes in Chile to determine which would be most appropriate for channeling seed capital for setting up small businesses in MUMPAs. The review would incorporate state of the art guidance on the use of micro finance in biodiversity conservation and the negotiation of potential adaptations and partnerships with the most appropriate schemes to facilitate their applicability in MUMPA contexts. The small business focal points would be responsible for disseminating the findings of this review to the inhabitants and providing support on access to these schemes.

Output 6: Biodiversity conservation Awareness and Outreach programmes implemented in each MUMPA and vicinity

81. As a key element in increasing and maintaining stakeholder commitment to the demonstration MUMPAs, this Output would provide a series of awareness building and outreach activities. These would target a range of different stakeholders such as local school children, resources users, local and regional governments as well as national and international tourists. Specific types of awareness activities and materials would be defined for each target group and MUMPA. Where appropriate they would incorporate the results from studies to be undertaken in Output 7 to identify the economic role that coastal and marine ecosystems, their environmental services and renewable resources play in the national, provincial and more local levels of the economy and the economic value of these services and resources to different economic sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism. A visitor centre would be built in each of the three MUMPAs in accordance with preliminary zoning and following governmental procedures for bidding and licensing to ensure minimal negative impacts. These visitor centers would be fitted in accordance with an awareness building strategy defined for target groups and maximizing the use of local specificities (e.g. including captions in the Huilliche language in Bahia Mansa). Trails would also be fitted with signs and information. Links with regional education systems and curriculum would be developed and a series of activities would be designed to increase local participation in the definition of symbols associated with the MUMPAs.

- 78 -

Output 7: An enabling program implemented to facilitate the replication of MUMPAs in other regions of the country and to increase knowledge on marine and coastal biodiversity management at the national level

82. This Output seeks to build an enabling environment at the national level that would facilitate the replication of the MUMPAs throughout the country within a framework that would maximize the capture of biodiversity benefits. It would consist of four complementary lines of action. The first would focus on the provision of first hand knowledge and support to relevant stakeholders throughout the country on how to set up and run Commissions and MUMPAs and on the multiple benefits that these can provide. It would include a study tour programme to demonstration MUMPAs for representatives of Regional Governments as well as those from the tourism sector. It would also include the development of a set of “how to” manuals and guidelines that would target a broader audience than the study tour programme and that would draw from the demonstration MUMPAs and from other international inputs. These activities would be enhanced by the training of a core MUMPA support team that would provide advice to Regional Governments in setting up and funding RMUMPA Commissions and MUMPAs and in the external appraisal of management plans of those already established to help ensure that best practices are adopted. Finally, as part of this line of action, information packages for a multi-facet (TV, radio, press) national outreach programme would be developed to increase local stakeholder buy-in to replication efforts by raising awareness on Chilean marine and coastal biodiversity and the role MUMPAs have in its conservation as well as in attaining national and local development objectives. A series of studies would be undertaken to provide input for these information packages and for the awareness building actions in each MUMPA. These would identify the economic role that coastal and marine ecosystems, their environmental services and renewable resources play in the national, provincial and more local levels of the economy and the economic value of these services and resources to different economic sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism.

83. The second front would focus on the development of a framework for guiding replication efforts to maximize the contribution to the conservation of globally significant biodiversity and the attainment of national conservation objectives. This would consist of a planning exercise on marine and coastal protection, led by CONAMA in the first year of the project, to classify coastal areas that are priorities for conservation. This exercise would also include the definition of criteria for the selection of MUMPAs to ensure that these optimize contributions to national conservation goals and start addressing the challenge of providing sufficient connectivity and areas for migratory species and large range species. In the second half of the project, and in those Regions that have established RMC Commissions, the MUMPA support team will provide assistance to regional governments in determining the areas that are most feasible for MUMPA creation while falling within the framework established through the planning exercise. Implementation of MUMPAs in these areas would not be supported through project funds but rather through regional and local public and private sources, the availability of these would form part of the criteria used to determine the most feasible sites. In parallel, and as a potential contribution to these resources, a review of existing national incentive systems would be undertaken to identify and develop mechanisms that could be applied to facilitate replication of MUMPAs in these areas. This would also include guidance on best ways of providing resources for the recurrent costs of MUMPAs in those areas that do not have high tourism potential and where increased budgets of National Services and other funding mechanisms would be required.

- 79 -

Within this arena, support would also be provided for defining possible cross-site subsidizing of MUMPAs within and between regions to ensure that areas of high conservation value but less tourism potential are not excluded.

84. The third front would focus on providing the basis for a national network of MUMPAs as an additional way to enhance replication and as a contribution towards the consolidation of the national system of protected areas. This would entail developing a public access website of the project at project inception that would provide advances on the demonstration MUMPAs as well as links to international sites on marine and coastal area sites and networks. As experience increases, a second step would be to hold periodic workshops between the demonstration MUMPAs with the participation of national and regional governmental staff and academics interested in Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Systems. These workshops would focus on information exchange and lessons learning and on the definition of best approaches for establishing a national network of MUMPAs. These approaches would be gradually implemented in the second half of the project so that at completion a national network would be functional with its own website providing links to the priority areas defined through the planning exercise, to the guidelines and manuals produced by the project and internationally, and to other national protected area sites. The network would also have a programme of well defined activities, outreach and support services that would provide continued assistance to facilitate replication of MUMPAs once the project ends and clearly defined resources for its maintenance, be these public or private. The outreach activities of this network would be linked to a cross-cutting activity under this Output that would develop a specific biodiversity related component for the tourism sector that would include guidance for developing cruise based, sun and sand, and nature based tourism partnerships drawing from the pilot projects of Output 3. It would also include national marketing campaigns on tourism to attract visitors to those regions that have established MUMPAs and that form part of the network.

85. The final line of action in this Output would focus on integrating the project related work on MUMPAs with the baseline actions that focus on Coastal Zone Management. This would consist primarily of a series of workshops and seminars for representatives of CONAMA, Regional Governments, and RMUMPA Commissions, on ICZM. These seminars would seek on the one hand to increase participants’ awareness on the role MUMPAs play in ICZM, and on the other to illustrate the role ICZM plays in enhancing long-term sustainability for MUMPAs in such locations where adjacent areas have high levels of threats and a broader framework for guiding development is essential. They would also provide the forum for discussing and defining mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the MUMPAs are incorporated in relevant sectoral plans and programmes.

86. Stakeholder Participation : During project preparation, CONAMA held extensive discussions with all relevant ministries and regional governments to reach agreement on the establishment of MUMPAs. Agreement with regional governments and their full political and financial support for the project was a key factor in deciding which candidate areas to select. Formal meetings were held with the three Intendants and all sectors involved in the management and monitoring of activities along the coast of each one of the Regions. Out of these meetings, support for the goals of the project was formally obtained. Also, during these meetings, the three RMUMPA Commissions for overseeing MUMPAs were conceived and formally established by decree. All this process is available in annex H2 and H3.

- 80 -

87. After securing the formal framework with the Regional Governments, meetings with the rest of the stakeholders started, including fishermen, indigenous communities, private sector, universities, and NGOs. CONAMA also held workshops and bilateral discussions with all local stakeholders to discuss threats and root causes to biodiversity losses at each one of the three demonstration sites. Agreement with local stakeholders (fishermen, indigenous communities, private sector, and government agencies) was a key factor in deciding among candidate sites. These consultations are described below. In addition, working groups with participation of all stakeholders were established. These groups met periodically and at least once a month to discuss the project. A final workshop was held to define the main actions of the project in this MUMPA and endorse the project objectives.

Region III (Caldera): Three workshops were held with all stakeholders to identify threats, root causes, and desirable and acceptable solutions. At the end of these workshops, participants agreed on a preliminary zoning for the MUMPA. In addition, there were twelve other meetings and a number of phone conversations with regional CONAMA and Regional Government staff to discuss commitments and financial arrangements.

Region X (Bahia Mansa): There were seven meetings with the Huilliche communities. During these meetings, project staff discussed with them threats, root causes, and desirable and acceptable solutions. Similar meetings were held with fishermen based in Bahia Mansa itself. At the end, a workshop with representatives of all stakeholders (Regional and municipal governments, fishermen, Huilliches) and about 80 people was held to discuss the project and endorse its approach. In addition, there were twelve meetings and phone conversations with regional CONAMA and Regional Government staff to discuss commitments and financial arrangements.

Region XII (Carlos III): From the very beginning, regional and municipal authorities were very interested in the project. The Regional Commission was quickly established. Unlike the previous two regions, there are no numerically significant groups living in the area, and stakeholders at Carlos III are limited to government, academia, and private entrepreneurs.

82. Linkages with UNDP commitments, other GEF Initiatives and L essons Learned: The proposed project is fully consistent with the UNDP’s Country Co-operation Framework with Chile that has three main strategic lines of action, Human Development and Poverty Alleviation, Decentralization and Governance, and the Environment. While the project will fall within this last category, it will contribute substantially to the second as it focuses on decentralized action and the establishment of governance structures. It will also contribute an area the UNDP-Chile office has been focusing more recently that of the integration of the private sector in actions that achieve global and local environmental benefits. By seeking to promote the sustainable use of the coastal and marine resources it will also contribute to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG).

85.

86. 83 . The project also complies with the criteria for Chile GEF portfolio established during the Country Workshop Dialogue in 2002. The design of the project has drawn from lessons learned in coastal management projects in Argentina, Belize, Dominican Republic and

- 81 -

Cuba, especially regarding early involvement in project preparation of all government and non-government sectors, management structures and in the use of tourism as a source of income for the MUMPAs. It has also benefited from experience with wetlands in Jordan and Uruguay, particularly especially regarding the sequencing of activities and the importance of early and firm commitments from governments. The active exchange of information with these projects will be sought during implementation. Special attention will be given to lessons learned from the Galapagos on sustainable tourist loads and tourist management and these will also be applied in this project.

87. In addition CONAMA, as the GEF Focal Point, has liaised with an international waters GEF project currently under formulation for the Integrated Management of the Humboldt Current Large Marine Ecosystem. This regional project will include actions in the northern part of the Chilean Coast and could provide important links with the proposed project as it expects to include a component on planning biodiversity conservation across the larger seascape. Furthermore, it will focus on the fishing sector and as such will provide important inputs to address this threat that could be significant in potential future MUMPAs. Close co-ordination will continue during the formulation of the IW project to ensure synergies between the projects are maximized. Close links will also be developed with a further project under GEF development. This is a national GEF project in Chile that will focus on building a regional system of protected areas in the Valdivian Forest areas of Region X. In its early stages of development, this Valdivian Forest proposal will complement this marine and coastal project particularly in regards to the MUMPA to be established in Region X, as it will develop a conservation matrix for the forest area including that in the coastal range, providing further control over the potential risk of land based pollution affecting coastal habitats.

P project Iimplementation

88. Implementation and Execution Arrangements The Project would be executed under NEX modalities. Project implementation would be overseen by a specially created Project Steering Committee (PSC) vested with the responsibility of approving the project’s annual operational plans and reports and ensuring that project activities are in line with those outlined in the approved project documentation and with national policy frameworks. This ten to twelve person committee would be chaired be a senior CONAMA staff member and would be composed of representatives from the UNDP, the Ministries for National Assets and for Development Planning, the Undersecretariat for Fisheries, National Fisheries Service, National Tourist Services, the Under-secretary for the Navy, and the three regions where demonstration MUMPAs are to be established. In at least the first years of project operations, these regional representatives would be from the RMUMPA Commissions established during the project preparation phase. As these Commissions are presided by the Regional Intendant, their representative on the PSC would facilitate the direct flow of information on the project to Regional Governments. Once each MUMPA has a formally incorporated Corporation, a representative from this would also form part of the PSC. This representative would be selected by stakeholders from within the MUMPA and, as such, would increase local access to, and role in, overall, overall project monitoring and evaluation.

89.

- 82 -

90. The PSC would meet at least twice a year, and on other occasions as needed, to review partial progress reports, monitor results, receive other reports that they may request on an ad hoc basis and to approve annual project reports and workplans. The National Project Manager (NPM) would be the Secretary of the PSC and would be responsible for setting up their meetings, circulating documentation for review, taking minutes and preparing their reports.

91. The NPM would head a Project Management Unit (PMU) responsible for the general oversight and running of project implementation. This Unit would be largely decentralized with only the NPM and an administrative assistant housed in Santiago, and a Regional Project Director and a financial assistant for each of the pilot MUMPAs to be housed in the regional government offices of those regions.

92. The National Project Manager would be responsible for the timely achievement of all project objectives. His/her duties would include overseeing and coordinating project implementation at the operational level and would be the key contact for UNDP in regards to operational aspects (contracts; equipment procurement etc). The NPM’s responsibilities would also include developing workplans and corresponding budgets that enable the project objectives to be achieved within frameworks outlined in the project’s logical matrix. It would also include providing guidance and support to the Regional Project Director (RPD) to ensure that the implementation of activities in each region is coherent with the overall project structure and objectives, and that lessons learnt at each site are shared with others. The NPM would also be responsible for the periodic reporting to UNDP on lessons learnt and would be the key point through which lessons learnt in similar projects in other parts of the world would be channeled to enhance project operations. In addition to this overall co-ordination role, the NPM would be directly responsible for the implementation of those activities to be undertaken at the national level (mainly Output 7).

93. NPM responsibilities would also include periodic evaluation of progress and the preparation of progress reports based on inputs from the Regional Project Directors and regular field visits. The end of year project reports to be submitted to the NSC and UNDP would be prepared by the NPM, as well as other reports specifically required for GEF projects such as the PIR. Part of the NPM’s Monitoring and Evaluation functions would also ensure the timely measurement of indicators to objectively verify and record progress towards the project objectives and the achievement of targeted impacts. An administrative assistant would provide support to the NPM.

94. The Regional Project Director (RPD) would oversee project activities on a daily basis within each of the MUMPAs. They would also be responsible for developing regional workplans and budgets and providing these to the NPM in agreed formats that enable them to be aggregated into the overall project workplans and budgets. The RPDs would have the support of a financial assistant that would be responsible for monitoring project expenditure, processing project resource requests and general financial management of each region’s project activities.

95. Until a Corporation for each MUMPA is incorporated, the RPD and Assistant would essentially undertake the role of managing the MUMPA as most MUMPA related activities in year one and two would be those contemplated in the GEF project. Once the staffing plan for the Executive Unit of the MUMPA Corporation is finalized and implemented, the Regional Director’s contribution to overall management of the MUMPA will decrease as new staff are

- 83 -

hired, or seconded, and as resource flows into the MUMPA increase from external sources (e.g. returns from fees, concessions, public and private investments). The RPDs would, however, still be entirely responsible for oversight of GEF funded activities but will increasingly liaise with the MUMPA Executive Unit to ensure these are in line with the management and operational plans of the MUMPAs once developed. Thus, while the RPDs are hired through the project, form part of the Project Management Unit and report directly to the NPM, they will also have reporting and liaising responsibilities at the regional level. During the first years of the project this will be to the RMUMPA Commissions, but once the Corporations are in place this will be to the Manager of the Executive Unit of the MUMPA Corporation. At this point the Manager of the Executive Unit, rather than the RPD, would then report to the Commissions.

96. As the RMUMPA Commissions, and eventually Corporations, will have representation on the PSC, a coordinated and parallel flow of information regarding the project will occur both through the governmental and project structures. To ensure this co-ordination between project and related government actions on a more daily basis at the local level, CONAMA would appoint a national and regional level project focal point to facilitate more regular communication and information exchange with the PMU. These focal points have already been established as part of the project preparation process and have taken an active role in design and preparation of project documentation.

F financial Aarrangements

97. Incremental Costs: The total project budget excluding preparation costs is US$ 11.696 million of which US$ 3.872m is being requested from GEF (excluding PDF B funds of US$ 0.210). Confirmed co-funding in millions is as follows. NGOs: a) WWF: US$ 0.158; b) TNC: US$0.500; b) Government: Regional Government US$4.470 million (investments), CONAMA: US$0.506; SERNAPESCA US$ 0.020, DIRECTEMAR: US$1.028; Private Sector US$ 1.100; BID: US$ 0.039. Funding has been partitioned to ensure that non-GEF resources provide the bulk of the resources for the establishment of the MUMPAs and for tourism related infrastructure and livelihood pilots. GEF resources would cover the incremental costs of removal of barriers associated mainly with capacity building to ensure effective protection of biodiversity such as MUMPA design, zoning, demarcation, management plans, monitoring, ranger facilities and training. Annex A provides more information on this partitioning. In addition to project costs, there is an associated cost related to the environmental component of clean sand, sun and sea tourism in the Caldera MUMPA. At least 1% of the overall cost will be dedicated to environmental protection and this has been estimated at US$ 20 million.

- 84 -

General Budget

Outcomes and Outputs Total (US$)

GEF (US$) Co-funding (US$)

Outcome 1. Three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures

4,895,295 2,100,316 2,794,979

Output 1. Three MUMPAS legally established, demarcated and with essential infrastructure to start up operations

2,093,312 904,103 1,189,209 38,453 TNC 828,450 RG 123,400 CONAMA 198,906 DIRECTEMAR

Output 2. Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA

701,764 578,364 123,400 123,400 CONAMA

Output 3. Adaptive Management Systems developed, agreed upon and implemented in each MUMPA

2,100,219 617,849 1,482,370 378,846 RG 49,360 CONAMA 204,633 TNC 20,481 SERNAPESCA 829,050 DIRECTEMAR

Outcome 2. Benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs

4,013,943 902,027 3,111,916

Output 4. Three pilots projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

3,356,166 704,289 2,651,877 2,309,156 RG 66,525 CONAMA 276,196 PRIVADOS

Output 5. Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity, and to diversify the economic base of local inhabitants and improve their qualify of life

657,777 197,738 460,039 91,550 RG 44,319 CONAMA 126,733 PRIVADOS 158,000 WWF 39,437 BID

Outcome 3. Local and national understanding of MUMPAs in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine & coastal biodiversity and development has increased thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions

2,786,315 870,089 1,916,226

Output 6. Biodiversity Conservation awareness and outreach programmes implemented in each MUMPA and vicinity

2,107,647 497,695 1,609,952 862,817 RG 49,360 CONAMA 697,775 PRIVADOS

Output 7. An enabling programme implemented to facilitate the replication of MUMPAs in other regions of the country

678,668 372,394 306,274 256,914 TNC 49,360 CONAMA

Total Cost (M US$) 11,695,553 3,872,432 7,823,121

- 85 -

S sustainability of Pproject Rresults:

98. Sustainability - A substantial institutional barrier for establishing coastal and marine reserves has already been overcome during project preparation indicating a clear commitment by the GoC to the project objectives and boding well for the sustainability of its impacts. The GEF alternative has been carefully designed to overcome the remaining institutional and other capacity related barriers to effectively establish three MUMPAs, make them operational, and provide for their long-term maintenance. As in other barrier removal projects, once these obstacles have been overcome, impacts of the project are expected to continue over the long term. To further ensure this, several specific design elements have been included. Ecological sustainability will be assisted by the fact that the MUMPAs are to be established prior to threats reaching critical levels. The presence of legal protection will ensure that existing norms for controlling development in protected areas are brought into effect. Furthermore, adaptive management systems are to be implemented at each site and these will monitor the effectiveness of management efforts in biodiversity management and allow adjustments that focus specifically on the ecological sustainability of impacts. The participatory nature of MUMPA governance and the inclusion of components on sustainable use and provision of local livelihoods will help ensure social sustainability. The selection of tourism as a vehicle for promoting private sector partnerships and the provision of resources for long term funding for the MUMPA addresses the financial sustainability of impacts. Specific abatement measures included to reducereducing risks that could constrain project results are described in the Brief.

99.

RISK RATING ABATEMENT MEASURES

Tourism rates to MUMPAs are lower than expected and provide fewer resources for MUMPA recurrent costs.

Medium to Low

Tourism rates have increased steadily in Chile. Studies undertaken in the PDF B indicate nature based tourism is expected to increase more and that the sites for the MUMPAs have high attraction for tourists. Agreements have already been made with private sectors in these areas for the return of tourism derivedtourism-derived revenues to the MUMPAs. This includes the Cisnes company that has further underlined its commitment with the contribution of high levels of co-funding resources to the project, and the Huilliche communities that have agreed to channel some of the resources derived from tourism to the MUMPA costs. Bidding processes for tourist concession in all the MUMPAs would call for similar agreements to be made as one of the selection criteria for contenders, thus ensuring the return of revenues to running costs. In the event of a short fall of tourist related revenues for MUMPA recurrent costs, resources wouldresources would also be available through the National Services that would cover the maintenance costs of some of the zones within the MUMPAs, for example, parks in core zones. Given the high commitment indicated by the Regions in which MUMPAs are to be established, in the event of an unexpected short fall, efforts would also be made by the RGoC to provide resources for MUMPA through the Fund for Regional Development. Furthermore, activities in Output 2 and Output 7 would develop mechanisms and frameworks for MUMPA funding sources other than tourism revenues, including incentives and potential cross-site subsidization particularly for those to be established in areas with lower tourism potential.

High visitation levels to MUMPA could incur negative effects on biodiversity

Low One of the selection criteria of sites for MUMPAs was the fact that tourism ventures were still at a point that could be altered. Agreements with the Cisnes venture have been reached to ensure that visitation to sensitive habitats will be carefully controlled and monitored. Indeed, the idea of zoning in all sites would to a large extent be to ensure key habitats are carefully controlled or excluded from visitation. The adaptive management plans will include monitoring of visitor levels and the continual adjustment of permitted levels as carrying capacities are defined. Contingency plans will be developed for potential cruise ships in the Carlos III that are already visiting the areas. The Cisnes complex will meet

- 86 -

RISK RATING ABATEMENT MEASURESenvironmental requirements for such complexes and will need to fulfill stricter EIA norms as they will fall within the permitted use zones of the MUMPA. These expenditures are estimated at 20m US $.

Constraints imposed by socio-cultural and economic conditions could inhibit the implementation of planned activities

Low One of the underlying principles for selecting multiple use coastal and marine protected areas as a management category for pursuing national conservation targets was to ensure that advances in conservation do not exclude advances in the provision of development options and alleviating poverty. As such one of the goals of the demonstration MUMPAs is to define specific zones in which local stakeholders could continue extraction activities but in a controlled and sustainable manner, providing more stable incomes over the long term. A specific component has also been included in the project that seeks to provide livelihoods to alleviate poverty conditions in areas surrounding the MUMPAs and to contribute to threat reduction. Stakeholder consultation in project development indicated a high acceptance of the project objectives because they view this as an opportunity to adopt new practices and as a chance to improve their livelihoods in the long term. Care will be taken to ensure that these livelihoods respect socio cultural conditions prevalent at the MUMPAs (see below). Planned awareness building activities and the emphasis placed on participatory management will also assist in reducing any potential constraint to implementing arising from socio-cultural conditions.

New livelihoods are not successfully adopted by MUMPA communities or are not effective in substituting those livelihoods that currently pose threats

Low Selection of pilot projects has counted with the active participation of local stakeholders. During the project, development and implementation of these will be participatory and will be supported with extensive training in new techniques as needed, thus reducing the possibility of low adoption rates. The technical feasibility of selected ideas has been shown at the experimental level and there are good indications of successful results at the field level. In some cases these new livelihoods will be substituted immediately and hence reduce threats, as certain zones of the MUMPA will be no-take areas. In others the process of substitution will occur over time as the awareness building components take effect and as resource users better understand the importance of conservation of habitats to the long term sustainability of livelihoods, and respect established catch and “take” limits. This will increase as more diversified incomes lower dependencies on natural resources extraction based incomes. Considering that current populations levels are very low, the resulting substitution will produce far-reaching impacts on existing threats.

Local stakeholder commitment to MUMPAs is low

Low The level of enthusiasm, interest and commitment of local stakeholders was one of the criteria applied in the selection of the sites for demonstration MUMPAs. Extensive consultations were held in project preparation and initial agreement has already been made by user groups on different use restrictions and zoning. Project components will include specific mechanisms to ensure participation in MUMPA governance and project oversight. The project will also include a component on awareness building to increase local buy-in to the MUMPA and sustain their commitment in the long term.

Delivery of co funding from the Regional Governments does not occur in the expected time fares

Medium to low

The commitment of resources from RGoC has been made in the letters provided in Annex D. These have been signed by the highest level of authority in Regional Governments and are very detailed. Political support of the project has already been exemplified by the creation of the Regional Commissions and in the case of Carlos III by the MUMPA itself. The risk of default on co-funding has thus been rated as low. However, the risk of changes in scheduling is somewhat higher as much of this will be provided through new orientation of the annual budgets available for infrastructure. To ensure that this is delivered in a timely manner and alongside GEF funded actions in the MUMPAs, detailed disbursement schedules have been agreed upon with the RGoC. Furthermore, each MUMPA will count with a Regional Project Coordinator housed in the RGoC offices to facilitate the close planning of these expenditures and the annual allocation of resources according to planned project schedules and activities. The high political profile of this project at the central governmental level will also assist in the fulfillment of co-funding commitments at the Regional level.

100. Replicability - The focus of the project is on the removal of barriers that currently impede the creation of marine and costal protected areas in Chile. At the end of the project Chile will

- 87 -

havewill have a proven institutional mechanism established to create MUMPAs and three demonstrations of how this can be applied and how governance structures and long term funding sources for their maintenance can be developed. These demonstrations will cover a range of environmental scenarios, threats and challenges and as such will provide a broad range of experiences and lessons that can be replicated in different areas of the Chilean coast. Indeed demonstration potential and the potential for replication were two of the criteria used in the selection of sites for the demonstration MUMPA (Annex F Main Brief).Furthermore. Furthermore, the project has been designed to include a component to facilitate the replication of the three MUMPAs to other areas along the coast. This includes the preparation of how to guidelines, study tours, training and related capacity building activities and the definition of a framework with priority setting and incentives for MUMPA creation building on the existing list of priority biodiversity sites that need to be conserved. Governmental authorities and relevant organizations in Regions other than the demonstration areas will be trained on how to establish these MUMPAs and specific support will be available to those that seek to establish MUMPAs in other regions during the life of the project. Following the project, once the barriers have been successfully removed and with the enabling programme implemented, replication of MUMPAs will continue. The project will also provide important lessons that could be replicated in other regions of Latin America that are developing new approaches to the conservation of marine and coastal habitats and indeed to other regions of the world.

M monitoring and Eevaluation

101. Standard UNDP monitoring and evaluation procedures would be applied throughout project execution as well as those required for GEF norms. These include an independent evaluation to be held at mid-term and project end, and an Annual Project Implementation Review (APR/PIR) exercise to measure advances in project implementation. This APR/PIR report would serve as the input for yearly Tripartite Reviews (GoC, UNDP, and the Project Management Unit) to discuss achievements. The GoC will convene the Tripartite Reviews (TPRs) after consultation with all its members and review the results of measurement of the indicators of achievement described in the log frame matrix and reports on biodiversity and threats at each site. Particular care will be given to the measurement of impact using the Results Measurement Table in Annex B. These meetings would provide a formal opportunity to provide input and guidance from lessons learnt throughout the GEF portfolio to the project, and conversely to draw lessons from this project for others of similar characteristics throughout the world.

102. A part of the Monitoring and Evaluation system would also draw from the adaptive management systems to be set up in each site, including a biodiversity and threats monitoring system, in order to constantly assess the threats identified in the project document: Fishing and terrestrial pollution (Pesca y Contaminación Terrestre). For this purpose, biological indicators will be considered such as marine invertebrates linked to kelps and that exist at the intertidal kelp belts.. During the PDF B, detailed transects of presence and abundance of species were carried out at each site. These transects will be used in monitoring biodiversity during project execution and after project completion. At each site, and in each transect, presence and abundance of species will be assessed once or twice a year, depending on taxa and situation. Threats are also known at each site and a similar periodic assessment will be made to evaluate their change. Variables to be used in monitoring threats will include: number of infringements in MUMPA zones and events of illegal use of the MUMPA resources; regulations regarding sustainable uses,

- 88 -

core areas and number of fires in the coastal zones of MUMPA. Particular importance will be given to the number of tourists visiting the MUMPA as sustainable visitation levels will need to be empirically assessed at each site on a trial and error base.

- 89 -

AnnexesANNEX A: Incremental Cost Matrix

ANNEX B: Logical Framework Matrix

B1: Chile Marine Logical Framework MatrixB2: Results Measurement Template

ANNEX C: STAP Review and Responses

ANNEX D: Support Letter (provided in a separated file II)

D1: GEF Focal Point Enndorsment lLeetterD2: . Cofinancing Commitment LlettersD4 Cofinance Letter from Asesorias e Inversiones Barrilliet Limitada

ANNEX E: Map of Chile and Maps of Demonstration MUMPA

ANNEX F: Selection of Demonstration Sites and their Biodiversity Value

F1: Selection Criteria for Demonstration SitesF2: Potential Replication of Demonstration SitesF3: Description of MUMPAs Selected for Demonstration

ANNEX G: Threat and Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss in Chile’s Marine and Coastal Areas

ANNEX H: Analysis of Stakeholder and Public Participation

H1: Analysis of stakeholders and public participation in MUMPAmumpas projectH2: Stakeholders’ participation mechanisms in mumpa MUMPA projectH3: Description of stakeholders’ participation and joining in the MUMPA project designH4: Conflict resolution mechanisms H5: Stakeholders Agreement Protocols for the Setting Up of MUMPAs (Region III, X and XII)H6: Letter of Indigenous Commitment to Los Lagos MUMPA and Participation in the ProjectAgreement protocol 1*H6: Letter of Commitment 1*H7: Letter of Commitment 2*

ANNEX I: Tourism and the Economic Sustainability of the MUMPA

I1: Viabilityof tourism generated renueves for covering MUMPA operation costs

I2: Economic viability of project sustainable use demonstrations

ANNEX J: Project Indicative Work Plan Showing Activity Phasing

ANNEX K: MUMPA Budgets

ANNEX L: Bibliographic References (provided in a separated file III)

ANNEX M: Detailed Species Information of Selected MUMPAs (provided in a separate file III)

M1: Prominent Bird Species at the MUMPA Sites and their Conservation Status M2: Prominent Mammals Species at Bahia Mansa and Carlos III and their Conservation StatusM3: Fish Species Present in Demonstration MUMPAM4: Invertebrates Present at Calderas and Bahia Mansa MUMPAsM5: Seaweed Present at MUMPA sites

* The original signed Commitment letters in Spanish are proveided in electronic file III. The letters provided here correspond to the are translations to English translation of thoseto letters.

- 90 -

Annex A: Incremental Cost Matrix

BROAD DEVELOPMENT GOALS

1. The GoC commitment to sustainable development and conservation of biodiversity values has been described in the main Brief. This includes the commitment to bring 10% of the surface area of all relevant ecosystems under legal protection. It also includes a special interest in supporting sustainable nature-based tourism that will lead to conservation and development as part of the expected sharp increase in tourism in Chile. Progress towards these targets is varied. In terrestrial ecosystems, an increasingly consolidated system of protected areas now protects large areas of key ecosystems. In addition, regulations are being finalized for creating private protected areas in these terrestrial areas that can capture revenues from sustainable uses of biodiversity including ecotourism. In coastal and marine areas, progress has been less significant. To date, Chile’s extensive coast with unique biodiversity has no established effective system of coastal and marine protected areas. The existing management categories established under the Fisheries Law, have very restricted uses for biodiversity. Marine reserves, for example, are restricted to single species and marine parks, intended for preservation, and are likely to be of minor geographical significance given Chile’s very extensive coastline and development pressures. As part of its broad development goals the GoC is interested in protected areas categories that combine conservation with development.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVE

2. Chile’s coast is home to a plethora of endemic species of clear global significance. This has been summarized in the main Brief in paragraphs 8 to10 and detailed in Annexes F and M. Development along this rich coastline is increasing rapidly and often with insufficient regulation or within one-dimensional sectoral frameworks. The result is overlapping or conflicting land uses and a development pattern that is inconsistent with conservation of biological diversity. This includes urban, industrial and rural developments that are affecting coastal and marine habitats in some areas of the country. Over-fishing and increasing mariculture along the coast is further impoverishing ecosystems. These threats, described in paragraphs 15 to 20 of the main Brief and Annex G, have resulted in increasing pressure to several species of global importance. While the commitment to provide protection to marine and coastal ecosystems has been clearly expressed by the GoC, a series of barriers impede the establishment of multiple use coastal and marine protected areas, MUMPAs that would meet both conservation targets and development objectives.

3. The goal of the proposed project is to lift these barriers by creating MUMPAs in three demonstration sites and by developing tools and mechanisms to facilitate their replication in other parts of the country. These sites have been selected for the presence of globally significant biodiversity that is currently in highly conserved states and with few threats. The creation of the demonstration MUMPAs at these locations will provide significant global benefits in the short term and guard against future intrusions in these areas. Over the longer term, the removal of these barriers, and the demonstration of win-win scenarios for private sector and community benefits along with conservation, will permit MUMPA replication in other areas. This will be further enhanced by the provision in the project of specific mechanisms for facilitating replication. The

- 91 -

resulting network of MUMPAs in key areas of the coastline will provide significant further global benefits.

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

4. The underlying principle of the proposed project is one of barrier removal. Barriers will be removed at three specific sites to create MUMPAs that will be sustainable over the long term. Capacity barriers at the national level that would hamper the replication of the demonstration MUMPAs will also be overcome. The systems boundary for the project is thus largely restricted to the sites in which these demonstration MUMPAs will be created. To a lesser extent it will also include certain actions at the national level that would have a direct bearing on the sustainability of the demonstration MUMPAs and the probability of their replication. The temporal scope of analysis is five years. The thematic boundary includes the various interventions required to effectively set up the three MUMPAs, provide appropriate governance and administration systems, develop partnerships with tourism ventures that will provide resources for their long term maintenance and demonstrate the feasibility of the win-win scenarios, thus removing perceived risks for private sector investment in MUMPAs.

5. The thematic boundary will also include the development of awareness to enhance local stakeholders’ understanding of the role of MUMPAs and biodiversity in livelihoods and thus increase their commitment to, and participation in, these areas. It will also cover those actions required to remove barriers for replication along the coast, including: the definition of national frameworks, support systems and incentives for these, and capacity building and awareness actions in Regions other than those of the demonstration MUMPAs. This national dimension of the systems boundary will thus include actions needed to coordinate and better regulate development actions along the coast that have higher levels of threats, such as the use of the coastal zone programmes and a few specific actions of the national protected areas system.

BASELINE

6. Prior to the proposed project, there were two models of development along the Chilean coast. On the one hand, largely a laissez-faire approach with various sectors growing independently of each other and adversely affecting the natural resource base, and, on the other, the possibility of creating marine parks for preservation of marine resources. The latter option does not hold real interest for the GoC given its development limitations nor does it permit for an integrated approach to conservation of the coastal marine fringe. Despite the interest of the GoC to establish protected areas categories that combine conservation with development of both marine and coastal areas, a range of barriers currently impede the creation and implementation of appropriate management categories and regimes. These are described in the main Brief in paragraphs 21 to 35. They include weaknesses in institutional instruments and capacities for the creation of such MUMPAs, information gaps and inexperience for co-management structures and governance, undefined mechanisms for their long-term funding, the perceived risks for private sector investment in these, and low awareness amongst local resources users of the role of biodiversity in livelihoods and that of protected areas in conserving these over the long term. Under the baseline scenario, development along the coast would continue largely along the laissez faire modality with very little being accomplished to overcome these barriers.

- 92 -

7. Nevertheless, since the start of the preparatory phase, the proposed project has already had a catalytic role in overcoming key barriers. Broad discussions of the concept of MUMPAs were held within various political Regions of the country. Several expressed keen interest in developing the concept and demonstrating how it could be a win-win solution to poverty, land degradation and improving revenues through tourism. CONAMA selected three demonstration areas representative of the three main bio geographical regions of the coast and constituting different challenges to conservation. The three sites have manageable threats and will provide a rich base for future replication of development and conservation areas along the coast. In the preparatory phase, some of the most significant barriers were overcome to the creation of these MUMPAs. The definition of a legal mechanism was developed that brings different institutions together under a single figure of a MUMPA, providing for the regulation of conservation and development needs in a variety of restricted use zones, including no-take core areas. Regional Commissions providing oversight for these MUMPAs were also formed in the three Regions to have demonstration MUMPAs. While these are significant advances, other barriers remain and are unlikely to be removed without the full implementation of the proposed project. The baseline scenario is described below for each site.

Site Specific Baseline

8. The Region III site, near the city of Caldera in the north, represents the challenge of conserving and restoring coastal and marine resources currently exploited by subsistence fishermen, with the potential of unregulated rural development in the future and in the advent of a major US$3 billion sun and sand tourist project by Caleta Cisnes. Under the baseline scenario, little would happen at this site for the protection of globally significant biodiversity. The Caleta Cisnes tourist complex would develop as a purely sun and sand venture. The complex would adopt measures to avoid direct negative impact on coastal habitats from effluents and infrastructure, with an estimated expenditure of US$ 20 million. However, there would be no link to nature tourism or regulation of the visitation to sensitive habitats with the potential of significant impacts to biodiversity. Furthermore, an opportunity would be lost to capitalize the flow of affluent tourists to fund biodiversity conservation. Urban development often associated with tourism complexes would be sub-optimally regulated and would be likely to sprawl around the complex and in sensitive habitats with little or no concern for global biodiversity values. Fishermen would continue exploiting resources to the limit, not only effecting keystone predators and the attendant impacts on inter-tidal and tidal communities, but also jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of livelihoods. During the PDF B representatives of the Caleta Cisnes complex expressed their interest in developing a collaborative arrangement to create a MUMPA, recognizing benefits that could be derived from this and the role tourist revenues (ca. US$400,000 per year) from entrance and other fees would play in MUMPA maintenance costs (Annex I).

9. The Region X site, near Bahía Mansa in the central-south, represents the challenge of conservation and sustainable uses in an area dominated by poor indigenous communities (Huilliches). Without real opportunities, these Amerindian communities have already caused some degradation to the surrounding environment. Under the baseline scenario, few global values would be protected at this site. The Regional Government and WWF would implement commendable, but small-scale, efforts to support the development of livelihoods that would provide some protection to the Valdivian forest, and by association, nearby coastal habitats. This

- 93 -

has been estimated at 0.049m and 0.250m respectively. The complete development effort needed to ensure sustainable protection of integrated coastal and marine habitats would not occur. The Huilliche communities would continue current unsustainable resource use patterns under fairly isolated conditions. Forest resources around the small “protected” spots would continue being removed and degraded, causing increased sedimentation of estuarine and coastal habitats. Degradation of coastal marine resources through fishing would continue its trend as elsewhere along the coast, and the loss of globally significant biodiversity would increase.

10. The challenge is to overcome the barriers to create a MUMPA that would help develop the indigenous communities and make them custodians of biodiversity. The project has been able to capture the attention of both the Huilliche communities and the Regional Government. Capacities for ethno-eco-tourism and sustainable livelihoods will be developed in two Huilliche communities and these have committed to developing collaborative arrangements that allow revenues derived from the expected tourist flow and other services to cover the recurrent costs of the MUMPA. The Regional Government has committed substantial amounts of new resources for the area, seeking to transform the community into a model of sustainable uses, with improvement of sustainable livelihoods and conservation. A model that the RGoC will be interested in replicating in other areas with Amerindian populations along the coast.

11. The Region XII site, in the extreme south around Carlos III in the Straight of Magellan, represents the challenge of management of private-based cruise eco-tourism in a sustainable manner, and the avoidance of future intrusions into a currently pristine area. The site is practically uninhabited with only two fishermen settled in the area so far. Although fishermen are known to pass through the area, their fishing efforts in the target area are unknown and the main threat identified is future unregulated tourism. Currently, boat and cruise based tourism originates in Punta Arenas and is unregulated. Without the project, local entrepreneurs would continue taking as many tourists as possible to Carlos III. Free access to an area with such sensitive species is very likely to produce degradation in the near future. Unregulated tourism would jeopardize the whales and other wildlife in the area. Without the project, no clear and experience-based regulatory frameworks for cruise-based tourism in the area would be established. Unregulated use could also mean more fishermen and colonizers inhabiting the area. The project would facilitate tourism to Carlos III, becoming a win-win situation. It would help capture the revenues produced by the flow of tourist ships passing through the Straight and those originating in Punta Arenas to cover the sustainable conservation of biodiversity in the area. Without the project, an opportunity of capturing rent (ca US$2M/year) from the cruises and devoting those resources to conservation of globally significant biodiversity would be lost.

National Baseline

12. The National Policy for the Use of the Coastal Board is adopting an ICZM approach to improving co-ordination and planning in the coastal area. Action in this arena will take place largely through an extensive baseline programme, the Bi-century Programme, that will complete land use zoning in the regions I, II, IV, V and X at the scale of 1:20,000. It will also include rehabilitation projects in the coastal fringe in Regions I, II and IV, a master plan for ports, fishing tourism and recreational use in Region IV, a coastal land use plan in Region VIII with support from GTZ, the harmonization of Puerto Montt port development with urban development in Region X, and an urban development plan for Region XII that will include

- 94 -

specific zones for conservation. These actions will provide the broader framework in which the demonstration MUMPA will fit in the long-term. In those regions that will not have demonstration MUMPAs it will provide a framework in which replication can occur. It will also provide strengthened capacities for conflict management and multi-stakeholder planning required in those areas where threats to biodiversity are greater and challenges for integrated planning of the coastal zone larger. While these baseline expenditures are very high, only those associated with this increased capacity for integrated planning and for rehabilitation of areas with globally significant biodiversity have been considered. A conservative baseline value for these actions is US$2 million.

13. In the context of the implementation and administration of a National State-Protected Wild Areas System (SNASPE), several activities related with the different project outputs will take place in the baseline scenario. Established in 1984, starting from a rearrangement of the existing units, the system has seen a sustained growth in the number of units and surface area, reaching to this date a total of 31 National Parks, 48 National Reserves and 15 Natural Monuments, covering a total of 14 million hectares, corresponding to 19% of the national territory. The management of these areas falls under the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), which will have an estimated budget of US$5m in the baseline scenario, for management tasks and programmes oriented to foster sustainable tourism and interaction with neighboring communities. Of this, an estimated 0.5m will provide actions and experiences that could have a positive effect on future protected areas in the coastal regions and as such has been included as part of the national baseline calculation.

14. The GoC will also continue general efforts oriented to increase protection coverage for the different ecosystems such as the evergreen forests and high Andean peat lands. This includes the national level work related to the Biodiversity Strategy and its strategies and plans of action for every region of the country. Specific action would include strengthening normative frameworks for conservation, regulatory measures to promote public-private partnerships in private reserves, and programmes to control invasive species. This has been estimated at US$1M. More specifically, the y Undersecretariat for the Fisheries, through the Fund for Fishery Research (www.fip.cl), will continue developing studies for the diagnosis and analysis of a national system of marine reserves, as well as ecological and socio-economic studies in potential areas for marine reserves in Regions III, IV VIII and X. This has been estimated at 0.3M. Whilst these two actions will provide an important support to developing a future integration of marine and terrestrial protected areas, they have not been included as co funding under the recent new definition but rather have been included as baseline associated funding.

THE GEF ALTERNATIVE

15. The long-term goal of the proposed project is to conserve globally significant marine and coastal biodiversity in Chile through catalyzing the formation of a network of multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) that integrate national development and conservation objectives, and optimize public and private partnerships. In order to contribute to this long-term goal, the specific objective, or purpose, of the project will be to remove barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country. The activities required to achieve this purpose are

- 95 -

described below, along with their costs and the sources of funding. In barrier removal projects, the incremental cost is the cost of removing the barrier. However, the GoC recognizes that the demonstration MUMPAs would provide domestic benefits at these sites in the medium and long-term. As a result they have committed substantial resources to co-fund the incremental costs of barrier removal. The GoC will provide basic support for the establishment of the MUMPAs and is requesting GEF support in smaller complementary activities intimately linked to effective protection of biodiversity, and that associated with developing capacities for eco-tourism. The assumption during negotiations with Regional Governments and others has been that in this barrier removal project, local institutions would cover expenses related to infrastructure, extractive uses of native algae (Caldera) and giant endemic mussels (Bahia Mansa), and some livelihoods not linked to uses of native biodiversity. The GEF would cover non-extractive uses (eco-tourism at the three sites), capacity building related to biodiversity management, and dissemination. This portioning is described in more detail below.

Outcome 1. Three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management & funding structures (Output 1, 2, 3)

16. Output 1. Three MUMPAs will be legally established, demarcated and provided with the infrastructure essential to start up operations. This will involve plans and studies to finalize the definition of different zones within the MUMPA. These will be placed under varying resource-use restrictions thus forming a mosaic of no-take areas in critical habitats and sustainable use areas in others, including management reserves for controlled artisan fishing. Action will also be taken to demarcate these zones, for undertaking information campaigns aimed at potential users, and for supporting local governments and institutions to integrate the existence of MUMPAs into governmental management and decision-making processes. These actions, key to affording effective biodiversity conservation, will be financed largely by GEF and to a lesser extent by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which will support the final definition of zoning. Construction of basic infrastructure for the start of operations in each site will also be undertaken this Output. In view of the potential domestic benefits of this in the medium term, costs will be covered largely by resources from the Regional Government. CONAMA will provide resources that enable coordination of the project action with broader environmental actions at the regional level. It will also provide support services for project meetings, communications, and general facilitation. The maritime authority will cover marine signposting. Partitioning of funding for this Output is GEF 43%, TNC 1.8%, RGoC 40%, CONAMA 6% and 9.2% DIRECTEMAR.

17. Output 2. Administration and governance systems will be developed for each MUMPA with well defined and agreed upon operational procedures within the context of regional and national decision-making processes and with mechanisms defined for long term funding. A multi-institutional Regional Commission for overseeing all MUMPAs in each Region has already been created. Nevertheless, these require training in general concepts of marine and coastal biodiversity management and the integration of this in the broader ICZM approaches already underway. In addition, for each demonstration MUMPA there will be a Corporation for managing operations with the participation of all stakeholders, including government, resources users of various kinds, NGOs and distinguished donors. These Corporations will also require training and capacity generation for its members in topics such as management of marine protected areas, conflict management and resolution, the design of future investment plans as

- 96 -

well as operational procedures. Clear reporting and information exchange norms will be required amongst the entities involved in the generation and management of the created marine areas (MUMPA Corporations, RMUMPA Commissions, Regional Government and Regional Council). As all of these actions are essential for the effectiveness of the new areas in conserving biodiversity and constitute some of the most significant barriers that have impeded the creation of MUMPAs, they will be funded largely through GEF resources (82%). CONAMA will contribute 18% of the funds providing support for the focal points of the project as described above.

18. Output 3. Adaptive Management Systems will be developed and implemented for each MUMPA and consensus reached on these amongst local stakeholders. This implies the generation of management plans that will ensure that conservation objectives for each demonstration site are accomplished and the provision of tools through which these can be constantly reviewed and updated. For this purpose, information gaps will be identified and data collected to ensure informed management decisions can be made and management plans generated and regularly updated. A key aspect will also be the design and implementation of surveillance and enforcement plans, and the design of tools to allow the updating and validation of zoning, as well as measuring the efficiency of adopted management strategies. The portioning of these actions, that are clearly essential to optimize the contribution of MUMPAs to conserving globally significant biodiversity housed within the limits, are as follows: GEF 29.6%, the Regional Governments 18%, 9.7% from TNC, 39% from DIRECTEMAR (the maritime authority), and 1% from the National Fishery Service. CONAMA will contribute 3% of the funds for this Output, again in the aforementioned role. Outcome 2. Benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs (Outputs 4 and 5).

19. Output 4. Three pilot projects will be implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of biodiversity with global relevance. The pilot project in each MUMPA will have slightly different specificities, described in the main Brief in paragraphs 60 to 67. Generally speaking, however, the actions to be undertaken can be divided into those specifically focusing on ensuring that tourism does not have negative impacts on biodiversity and those that are geared to providing better services for the tourist and to experience the attractions related to the biodiversity. The first set of actions include the design of tourism and monitoring plans to ensure that visitation levels do not exceed carrying capacities particularly in highly sensitive habitats, the training of local communities for providing tourism reception services compatible with, and building on biodiversity attractions, and the provision of information for visitors on these attractions. These activities will be covered largely with GEF resources. The second and more costly set of actions includes the construction of support infrastructure for MUMPA-based tourism services, such as access and landing facilities that enhance visitation rates and increase the capture of resources for MUMPA maintenance. They also include the rehabilitation of degraded areas for tourism attraction in the Caldera site and the provision of lodgings in Huilliche houses to permit overnight stays in the Bahia Mansa site. In view of expected domestic benefits to be derived from these tourism services in the medium term, the Regional Governments and private sector partnerships constituting 68% and 9% of the Output cost respectively will cover the costs associated with this set of actions. GEF will constitute 21% and again, CONAMA 2% will provide support as a focal point in the regions.

- 97 -

20. Output 5. Livelihood pilot projects will be established in the Caldera and Bahia Mansa MUMPA to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity, and to diversify the economic base of local inhabitants and improve their quality of life. These will generate alternative lifestyles for local communities, considering their respective cultures, and the creation of capacity to generate small-scale economies compatible with the conservation objectives in each area. In view of the domestic benefits to be derived from this, funding for the larger part of this Output has been mobilized from non-GEF sources as follows: the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) has agreed to triple its projected baseline expenditure in the Bahia Mansa site and will cover 24% of Output costs; private sector 19%, the Interamerican Development Bank 6%; the Regional Governments 14%; and CONAMA 7%. GEF resources are being sought for 30% of the cost largely associated with support to the project administration in the region and the studies and training required to establish sustainable levels of extraction for the use of native species.

Outcome 3. Local and national understanding of MUMPAs in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions (Outputs 6 and 7)

21. Output 6. Biodiversity Conservation Awareness and Outreach programmes will be implemented in each MUMPA and vicinity. These will entail the development of programmes specially designed for different target groups to increase their awareness of the importance of biodiversity. Target groups will include local community, artisan fishers, visitors, students, researchers, government authorities, etc. As a cost effective means of imparting awareness building campaigns, visitor centre infrastructure and trails will be provided to facilitate controlled and informed visitation of permitted zones in the MUMPAs. Considerable co-funding resources have been levered to defer medium and long term benefits associated with this infrastructure. The larger part of the costs is to be covered from the Regional Government resources (41%) and involved private entities (33%). Of the remaining portion, 23.6% of the Output costs are being sought from GEF specifically for the design of awareness-creating strategies for different target groups and biodiversity related information for trails and visitation of sensitive habitats. The remaining 2.4% will come from CONAMA in the aforementioned role.

22. Output 7: An enabling programme will be implemented at the national level to facilitate the replication of MUMPAs in other regions of the country and to increase knowledge on marine and coastal biodiversity management at the national level. This Output will entail information and training programmes and direct support for the replication of marine areas in other parts of the country with particular emphasis on those areas that house globally significant biodiversity. Activities will be aimed at governmental, private and municipal institutions among others, from regions other than those where the demonstration sites have been implemented. It also considers activities such as training in planning of marine protected areas, mass media diffusion, training for the evaluation of marine protected areas, and the generation of a national network of marine areas, among others. Although potential domestic benefits from these actions would only be incurred in the long-term, significant amounts of co-funding have been mobilized for this Output. The Nature Conservancy will contribute to 38% of the costs; CONAMA 7% and the remaining 55% is being requested from GEF.

- 98 -

IINCREMENTALNCREMENTAL C COSTSOSTS ANDAND B BENEFITSENEFITS M MATRIXATRIX Component

Category

Cost US$ million

Domestic Benefit Global Benefit

Outcome 1.Three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures (Output 1,2,3)Output 1:MUMPA Legal creation and start up operations

Baseline 0 The absence of mechanisms to create coastal and marine multi-use protected areas under a single legal figure would continue impeding the creation of MUMPAs; existing reserves and marine protected areas would allow for minimal protection to certain fish species important for fisheries; a few small areas would be set aside for investigation. Fish stocks would not have sufficient areas for repopulation; permitted fishing levels would remain high, driven by market forces; depletion levels would increase with resultant impact on national assets and fall in domestic revenues.

Small-scale efforts to protect areas of coastal forest in Region X would have some effect on forests, affording some protection to biodiversity but these would not be integrated coastal areas and the opportunity to conserve integrated forested coastal and marine areas would be lost. Species depending on these habitat complexes would be affected; run off from deforested or degraded coastal areas would affect sensitive coastal habitats increasing loss to globally important species. High fishing levels in the other areas would remove keystone predators with attendant changes in other trophic levels, habitat and species assemblages of global value. Opportunities of protecting globally significant biodiversity still in a well-conserved state would be lost.

Alternative Total =2.093

Increment GEF =0.904TNC = 0.038RG = 0.828CONAMA=0.123DIR-MAR= 0.199

The legal creation of MUMPAs would automatically afford some protection to biodiversity, as it would imply the application of more stringent norms to development and public works in this area. Increased protection to resources valuable for local livelihoods would incur some domestic benefits in the medium term in these 3 areas.

Increased protection to globally significant biodiversity including the last Atacama wetlands; intact southeastern pacific forested shore; breeding sites for Magellan Penguin and humpbacked whale and areas of coast forested with Magallanes Forest. Globally significant marine habitats under greater protection would include 4,500 ha of the Humboldt current and 67,197ha at the meeting of Pacific and Antarctic seas.

Output 2: MUMPA Administration and Governance Structures

Baseline 0 (the total value of ICZM actions is included as a separate item at the end of the table and includes the expected actions of the ICZM Commissions )

In the absence of MUMPAs coastal habitats would fall mainly under the governance of ICZM Commissions that have been formed in the Regions. These are focusing on the development of broader coastal zoning and use plans that may provide some conservation governance but only in the long-term. With no clear governance over critical integrated land and sea habitats resources depletion will continue, and conflicts would arise with social and economic negative impacts as well as loss of national natural assets.

Even in the advent of legally created MUMPAs, Chile has no experience in these integrated protected area categories, and the coordination of multiple actors needed to be involved in co-management. Unless clear transparent and agreed upon governance mechanisms are developed and capacities for administration strengthened, the effectiveness of MUMPAs in conserving the above mentioned global values would be sub-optimal. The opportunity to provide these capacities and demonstrate governance systems at sites where conflicts are still relatively small will be lost.

Alternative Total = 0.701

Increment GEF = 0.578CONAMA= 0.123

The capacity building and new experience in governance and administration for co-management of the MUMPAs will provide concrete demonstrations of inter-institutional and multi-stakeholder co-ordination for the use of coastal and marine resources. This will feed into the ICZM efforts in the medium term, improving this essential but complex process. Clear government structures that permit stakeholder and have transparent systems of resources management will reduce conflicts and ensure local buy-in to MUMPA objectives.

Co-management governance structures will allow stakeholder participation in the MUMPA decision-making processes, increasing the effectiveness of different use zones and the contribution of the whole area to conservation of globally significant biodiversity. Clear mechanisms for collection and distribution of tourism derived resources and a detailed business and investment plan for the Corporation will contribute to administrative transparency and cost effectiveness. This will improve efficiency of conservation afforded by the MUMPA and increase its demonstration values, facilitating replication to other areas and increasing the capture of global values.

- 99 -

Component

Category

Cost US$ million


Output 3:MUMPA Adaptive Management

Baseline 0 Current levels of surveillance will continue providing some protection to biodiversity and fishing control along the coast. These will not be concentrated in key biodiversity areas. Information on marine and coastal resources will increase sporadically. Fishing levels will be determined using current data, and the danger of depletion of stocks will continue.

Many gaps will remain in the information essential for biodiversity management and for informed decision-making as regards different use restrictions and areas required for conservation. Fishing levels would continue without consideration for the conservation of globally significant species and habitats, and losses would be incurred.


Increment GEF = 0.618 RG = 0.379CONAMA = 0.049TNC =0.205SE-PESCA=0.020 DIR-MAR=0.829

Increased surveillance and enforcement of no-take core zones in MUMPAs would ensure repopulation of stocks with positive effects on fishing effort/catch levels in permitted zones; reviews of MUMPA management plans would permit continual participation of stakeholders, increasing local buy-in and providing opportunities for renewed commitment.

Threats and biological monitoring systems would provide data for informed decision making on effectiveness of different zones and for critical reviews of MUMPA plans and norms; this will ensure early action if critical habitats show increased signs of stress; up-graded surveillance will be available in critical areas. Collectively this will provide more effective conservation of globally significant biodiversity.

Outcome 2. Benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs (Outputs 4 and 5)Output 4:Tourism as a vector of multiple benefits

Baseline Private 20.000 In Region III the Cisnes Tourist complex would be developed incorporating environmental standards to avoid degradation and contamination of marine and coastal habitats, but it would not develop infrastructure or facilities for nature tourism. With no income from nature tourism employment, local fishermen would continue to fish at current levels, causing continued stress to coastal species assemblages and undermining the long-term sustainability of their own livelihoods.

The Caleta Cisnes tourist complex in Region III would develop as a purely sun and sand venture. An opportunity would be lost to capitalize the flow of resources from affluent tourists. In Bahia Mansa there would be no possibility of exploiting the area’s potential for ecotourism. Amerindian communities would continue extractive livelihoods, degrading their environment. In Carlos III, free access to areas with sensitive species would continue and unregulated tourism could jeopardize the whales and other wildlife of global significance.


Increment GEF = 0.704 RG = 2.309CONAMA = 0.067PRIVATE = 0.276

Local communities would be employed as guides in nature based activities in Caldera, providing incomes or compensating fishermen for reduced catches; the Cisnes complex would have an added attraction for marketing; Amerindian communities in Bahia Mansa would have incomes from activities that place value on their traditional customs, and inhabitants near Carlos III would have the opportunity to work in tourism concessions or as regulated guides.

The three tourism pilot models would provide win-win situations not only providing new sources of income for local communities but also allowing the capture of resources from tourists to cover management costs of the MUMPA, ensuring long-term sustainability of the conservation. Tourism numbers and activities would be carefully regulated, ensuring protection to critical habitats that would otherwise be exposed to unregulated visitation.

Output 5:Livelihood Pilots

Baseline RGoC =0.250WWF = 0.049

Despite efforts from the Regional Governments, livelihood opportunities in the sparsely populated areas of the sites of the proposed MUMPAs would continue to centre largely on extraction of natural resources. In Caldera, this would be mainly fishing, providing income at a steady but low level; in Bahia Mansa extreme poverty conditions of the Amerindian communities would continue.

In Caldera, the continued dependence on fishing would put pressure on fish stocks, including keystone predators with the knock-on effect on complex species assemblages. In Bahia Mansa, shingle production would continue and although this should be restricted to dead trees, increasing poverty would inevitably lead to illegal extraction of wood from living trees, putting pressure on globally significant forest, and increasing run-off to coastal areas and sensitive habitats.


- 100 -

Component

Category

Cost US$ million


Increment GEF = 0.198RG = 0. 092CONAMA = 0.044PRIVATE= 0.127WWF =0.158BID= 0.039

The provision of livelihoods from the sustainable management of native species (giant mussels) would provide additional income to the Amerindian communities, alleviating poverty and improving living conditions; in Caldera, sustainable management of algae would compensate fishers for forfeited catches in no-take areas and provide the potential for other livelihoods through the cultivation of Lessonia and production of tourism related articles (food, masks etc).

Livelihoods based on sustainable extraction, and non-extractive sources would reduce dependence on native forest species in Bahia Mansa, halting deforestation for shingles and for subsistence agriculture. Run-off rates would remain low and sedimentation to sensitive coastal habitats would not increase, thus conserving globally significant species in near shore waters. In Caldera, new livelihoods would also assist in keeping fishing levels down with the attendant effect on keystone predators and biodiversity values.

Outcome 3. Local and national understanding of MUMPAs role in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased, thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions(Outputs 6 and 7)Output 6:Awareness and Outreach

Baseline 0 Levels of awareness on the biodiversity in general would increase in Chile but this would focus mainly on terrestrial habitats and species. Awareness on the uniqueness of Chile’s coastal and marine diversity would remain low with the consequent low-level of support to any isolated conservation actions that may occur in the baseline along the coast.

The role of protected areas in conservation of this biodiversity and in providing long-term sustainability of livelihoods would remain low. Compliance with fishing levels and commitment to none-disruptive actions in sensitive coastal habitats would be low. Increased pressure would be placed on globally significant biodiversity in the proposed MUMPA as extraction activities would pervade these areas.


Increment GEF = 0.498 RG = 0.863CONAMA = 0.049PRIVATE = 0.698

Increased awareness on the uniqueness of coastal and marine biodiversity in national and international tourists will increase commitment of local communities to MUMPAs. It will also increase visitor rates to MUMPAs and in turn provide increased income generation in local communities, consolidating further local commitment to MUMPAs.

Increased awareness will help ensure appropriate behaviors and regard for MUMPA zoning and norms, avoiding any negative impact that could be associated with visitors in sensitive habitats. An increasing number of visitors will come for nature attraction and resources derived from these will increase, providing for more strengthened management of MUMPAs and improved conservation of globally significant species.

Output 7:Facilitating replication at national levels

Baseline GoC= 0.500CONAMA=1.000FIP=0.300

Chile will continue to make good progress towards its target of conserving 10% of terrestrial ecosystems as the SNASPE grows. Progress in marine and coastal areas will be very slow as barriers to the establishment of MUMPAs will remain. Replication of any ad hoc progress will be impeded in the absence of incentives and guidelines.

The few existing marine reserves will provide some protection to specific species and isolated areas along the extensive Chilean coastline. Large areas that are currently still well conserved will be increasing degraded as unregulated development occurs. Any ad hoc progress for coastal conservation will not necessarily occur in areas that house globally significant biodiversity.


Increment GEF = 0.372 TNC = 0.257CONAMA = 0.049

The provision of guidance on how to set up MUMPAs and integrate these in ICZM processes, together with technical and normative incentives developed for their creation will facilitate the replication of MUMPAs along Chile’s coast. Progress to national conservation targets will increase significantly.

Facilitated replication will increase the number of MUMPAs. The framework developed to guide this to sites with globally significant biodiversity will increase the capture of global values. The maturation of a network of MUMPAs will provide more long-term sustainability to this conservation and take significant steps forward in the advancement of the Chilean system of protected areas.

- 101 -

Component

Category

Cost US$ million


ICZM Programmes

Baseline GoC= 2.0 The considerable baseline efforts for rational and coordinated planning of land and coastal resource use will provide a broader framework for conservation of important national assets. Land based pollution sources will be more regulated, conflicting sectoral interests will be better harmonized and development projects that better conserve national assets will be selected in sensitive areas as a result of these zoning efforts.

The ICZM framework in the country and particularly in Regions III, X and XII will have positive impacts on conservation of globally significant biodiversity as development in surrounding areas is better regulated, facilitating the fulfillment of MUMPAs conservation role. The demonstration of the feasibility of MUMPAs, under co-management governance and providing both development and conservation opportunities, will also provide positive effects on the ICZM process, as they represent similar scenarios and partnerships required in the ICZM effort but at a smaller scale.

Increment 0

TOTALCOST

Baseline US$ 24.115 m

Alternative US$ 35.811m

Increment Full Project: US$ 11.695m (without PDF) GEF Full size: US$ 3.872Co-financing of full project: US$ 7.823 GEF PDF: B: US$ 0.210 PDF B co-financing US$ 0.090 Total GEF US$ 4,082,432

SE-PESCA= SERNAPESCA; DIR-MAR= DIRECTEMAR; RGoC = Regional Governments

- 102 -

Annex B: Logical Framework Matrix

Table B1: Chile Marine Logical Framework Matrix OBJECTIVES TARGETS AND INDICATORS MEANS OF

VERIFICATIONASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

Development Objective: To conserve globally significant marine and coastal biodiversity in Chile through catalyzing the formation of a network of multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) that integrate national development and conservation objectives and optimize public and private partnerships.

At project completion 1. At least one additional MUMPA covering a further 10,000 ha of

seascape and coastal area will be officially created and in the initial stage of establishment

2. At least 70% of management and support costs of existing MUMPAs are covered by direct and indirect user fees, and the remaining 30% have identified and agreed upon sources8

3. Coastal zone management plans and programmes specifically include the creation of MUMPAs as a tool for conservation of biodiversity and marine and coastal resources

By five years after the end of project4. Chile will have at least 9 MUMPAs fully functioning, protecting

at least 150,000ha of seascape and 70,000ha coastal areas (including the 3 MUMPAs established in the project)

1. Decree & field visits2. Financial status of

MUMPA Corporations3. Regional Coastal

Development plans 4. Official decrees and

delimitation

- MUMPAs continue being the most attractive option for conservation and development in Chile

Project Objective: Provide increased protection to Chile’s unique coastal biodiversity by removing barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) through the creation of three demonstration MUMPAs, building institutional and individual capacities for their management and facilitating replication in the rest of the country.

By project completion1. There will be a tested institutional mechanism for the establishment of

MUMPAs along the Chilean Coast2. At least 87,494 ha of additional seascape, and 42,537 ha of critical

associated coastal lands along 83km of coastline are under legal protection and include areas from the three main biogeographical regions of Chile’s coast9

3. Sampling shows that populations of key benthic invertebrate and algae species selected as indicators of fishing pressure in the two more northern MUMPAs have increased compared to levels at project start up, indicating reduced pressure on resources

4. Sampling shows that populations of algae and invertebrate species selected as indicators of biodiversity levels in each MUMPA remain the same or have increased compared to levels at year one

1. Decrees of creation; field inspection; and a CONAMA document detailing how to create MUMPAs

2. Decrees; field visits3. Sampling Surveys in

Permanent plots4. Sampling Surveys in

Permanent plots5. RMUMPAC statutes &

minutes 6. Corporation bylaws and

minutes

- Stakeholders from regions other than the demonstration sites continue showing the same interest in MUMPAs as a form of conservation and development

- The baseline actions for coastal zone management advance as planned

8 Amongst these alternative sources will be GoC contribution. This indicator means that durinDuring the implementation process, it should be discussed and agreed Regional Governments support to running costs of MUMPAs in their regions will be discussed to finalized in terms of the amounts and way in which this support will be provided way how Regional Governments will support MUMPAs in their regions.9 Individual targets for area protected in each MUMPA and specific indicator species are shown in Table B2 below.

- 103 -

OBJECTIVES TARGETS AND INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

5. At least 3 Regional Marine and Coastal Commissions (RMUMPAC) are functional and incorporated into Regional Government structures as a decentralized institutional arrangement for biodiversity and coastal/marine protection

6. At least 3 MUMPA Corporations are operational and reporting to their respective RMCC

7. Specific guidelines exist for the establishment of MUMPAs and for harnessing resources from different types of tourism to conservation of marine & coastal biodiversity.

7. Guidelines available at MUMPA & CONAMA websites, manuals; records of MUMPA visits and reception fees; records in Regional Government offices;

- Tourism rates to Chile do not decline substantially

Outcome 1: Three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures (Outputs 1 to 3)

To facilitate impact monitoring, specific targets and verifiers for this outcome are detailed in a Results Measurements Table as part B 2 of this annex, along with sampling frequencies and rationale for selectionOutput 1: Three MUMPAs protecting globally significant biodiversity legally established, demarcated and with essential infrastructure to start up operations

1. By the end of year one the 3 MUMPAs are legally established 2. By year two

(a) final contour maps of MUMPA zones are available(b) the external boundaries of the 3 MUMPAs are physically delimited(c) More than 50% of local stakeholders are familiar with the location and delimitation of different zones

3. By the end of year three(a) Administration & ranger facilities are built & equipped(b) Regional development planning documents include MUMPA limits & these are used in procedures for emitting licenses / permits (c) All the different user zones of the MUMPAs are physically delimited

4. The number of permit requests for activities not compatible with MUMPA zone use drops at least 15% each year

1. Official Decree; 2. (a) Maps available at

project office; (b) Field visits;(c) surveys and field visits

3. (a)Project reports and field inspections;

(b) Regional plans; records of permits; (c) field visits

4. Government records of permit requests

- Economic conditions in the regions remain stable, permitting regional contributions to be delivered in accordance with schedule.

- Sectoral planning processes continue respecting national environmental norms

Output 2:. Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA with operational procedures defined and agreed on within the context of regional and national decision-making processes and with mechanisms defined for long term funding

1. By the end of year one Draft bylaws, norms and procedures for the three Corporations are available for consultation

2. By the end of year two(a) Corporation bylaws, norms & procedures are agreed upon & signed by representatives of all local stakeholders

(b) 25 prospective managers trained in MUMPA management & 30 regional government staff trained in the role of MUMPAs in biodiversity conservation and regional development

(c) A five year business & investment plan is available for each MUMPA

(d) Local stakeholders are trained in conflict resolution3. By end of year three

1. Documents available at project offices; minutes of consultations

2. (a) Final signed documents available at project offices; minutes of consultations(b) syllabus and records of training courses(c) Document available at project office(d) Syllabus & records

- Local & regional stakeholders continue the current interest and commit to MUMPAs

- 104 -


ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

(a) 3 MUMPA Corporations are officially constituted & staffed(b) Regional Gov. regulations & procedures incorporate MUMPA Corporations in their norms & procedures(c) Procedures are in place for the collection, investment & disbursement of tourism-derived resources to local MUMPA management

4. By end year four the % of MUMPA staffing and running costs coming from the project to MUMPAs decreases at least 25%

5. By project completion resources to fund at least 70% of recurrent costs of MUMPA are available from tourism related services and sources for the remaining 30% are identified and agreed upon

of training courses3. (a) Official documents

of constitution and hiring records; (b) Regional government regulations; (c) Procedure manual available at project office; MUMPA financial records

4. MUMPA financial records

5. MUMPA records Output 3. Adaptive Management Systems developed, agreed upon and implemented for each MUMPA

1. By end of year one (a) All missing baseline values for project impact indicators are available and the monitoring of these is part of a biodiversity & threats monitoring system set up for each MUMPA(b) Draft outline of MUMPA management plans, including zoning discussed among stakeholders

2. By end year two (a) GIS system set up and zoning & key biodiversity and threats information relevant for management(b) MUMPA management plans agreed and signed by representatives of all local stakeholders(c) Surveillance and enforcement systems designed including components involving user groups(d) Annual biodiversity and threats monitoring reports available from year two onwards

3. By end of year three(a) External evaluation procedures and information exchange with other MUMPAs in Chile and internationally are in place(b) The number of infractions in different MUMPA zones decreases annually at least 20% from year three

4. By end of year four. Consultation and conflict resolution mechanisms specific to the MUMPA have been established, validated and incorporated into the MUMPA statutes and Management Plan to further facilitate stakeholder participation in MUMPA management

5. By project completion(a) MUMPA management plans have been reviewed and fine tuned at least once with input from stakeholders and monitoring systems (b) Fees collected from tourism will increase at least 100% compared

1. (a) Monitoring plan and baseline values for threats and biodiversity available at project;(b) Draft plan & minutes of consultation meetings

2. (a) field inspection; (b) Consultation minutes & signed plan (c) Plan available at project offices(d) Annual reports available at project office

3. (a) Documents with procedures available at project office. MUMPA webpage operational(b)MUMPA records

4. MUMPA norms5. (a) Records available at

project offices(b) MUMPA visitors records and surveys

Local communities actively take part in the revision and up-dating of park management plans

- 105 -


ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

to year twoOutcome 2 : Benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs

To facilitate impact monitoring, specific targets and verifiers for this outcome are detailed in a Results Measurements Table as part B 2 of this annex, along with sampling frequencies and rationale for selectionOutput 4. Three pilot projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

1. By end of project year one (a) Strategy to manage flow of tourists a& collection of fees is available for Caldera(b) Market strategy and business plan ready for ecotourism development in Bahia Mansa (c) Tourism management plan including a strategy to deal with tourist operators is available for Carlos III

2. By end of year two (a) At least 10 local stakeholders trained as nature guides in each MUMPA(b) The number of local stakeholders employed in MUMPA tourism related activities increases steadily from year 2 onwards

3. By end of year three (a) Infrastructure supporting tourism in each MUMPA is in place [Carlos III: piers, access road, trails, watching towers; Caldera diving centre, foot and bicycle trails; Bahia Mansa: guest Houses and trails] (b) Webpage ready with information on each MUMPA (c) Bidding opened to private entrepreneurs for tourism related concessions in Carlos III & Caldera; community agreements on running concessions ready in Bahia Mansa(d) Negotiations completed and agreements signed on the amounts of tourism derived resources to be returned to MUMPA management(e) First annual reports available on visitor perceptions of MUMPA as tourism attractions (f) Regional tourist circuits in all 3 regions include MUMPAs

4. By project completion:(a) Access to MUMPAs facilitated by additional infrastructure [air -heliport, land-roads, and sea-3 piers] (b) MUMPA management is sustained by resources from tourism(c) Tourism rates to MUMPAs have increased by at least 100% compared to year one as a result of project efforts

1. (a) Document available in project office;(b) Document available in project office(c) Document available in project office

2. (a) Training reports & syllabus (b) annual surveys ;

3. (a) field inspections; (b) Webpage(c) Bid announcement &signed agreements available at project office(d) signed agreements available at project office(e) Annual Report(f) Regional Tourism information pamphlets

4.(a) field visits (b) MUMPA financial records (c) MUMPA visitors records and surveys

1.

Tourist flows to MUMPAs are dramatically below those estimated during project design.

RMCC and MUMPA commissions adopt the strategies developed to ensure sustainability of protected areas

Output 5 Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity,

1. By the end of year one: Kelp repopulation (Caldera) and giant mussels cultivation (Bahia Mansa) pilot projects are starting up

2. By the end of year two: Local inhabitants have been trained in the management of kelp forests for commercial and tourist use in Caldera;

1. Minutes of meetings; field visits

2. Reports on training and syllabus

The management techniques developed in the pilot projects are adopted by the

- 106 -


ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

and to diversify the economic base of local inhabitants and improve their quality of life

locals have been trained for sustainable management of giant mussels in Bahia Mansa

3. From year three onwards: There is income coming from sustainable extraction of (a) Lessonia in Calderas and Choro zapato in Bahia Mansa

4. By project completion (a) The contribution of alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) shingle production to the Huilliches income decreases by at least 50% with no reduction in overall income (b) Resources coming from Macrocystis related tourism and sustainable extraction of Lessonia in Calderas, & Choro zapato in Bahia Mansa, increase by at least 30% compared with year 3(c) Areas of forest surrounding the Bahia Mansa MUMPA is the same as at project start(d) Sampling of benthic invertebrates and fishes in permanent plots/transects show that species associated with kelp forest increase and black sea urchin densities decrease at Caldera

3. Household surveys and MUMPA records

4. (a) Household surveys(b) MUMPA financial records(c) Aerial photography and satellite images(d) Sampling reports available at project office

communities.

Human resources trained in new alternatives remain within the region maximizing replication of pilot projects

Outcome 3: National understanding of the MUMPAs role in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regionsTo facilitate impact monitoring, specific targets and verifiers for this outcome are detailed in a Results Measurements Table as part B 2 of this annex, along with sampling frequencies and rationale for selectionOutput 6:. Biodiversity conservation Awareness and Outreach programmes implemented in each MUMPA and vicinity

1. By the end of year two: An awareness programme for different audiences is fully designed and starting

2. By year three: (a) A video show, posters and pamphlets describing biodiversity value and its role in local livelihoods of MUMPAs are available for each site(b) Visitor centers are built and equipped in line with awareness building plan(c) All land and sea trails are functional and well signed

3. By project completion(a) 90% of inhabitants of MUMPA and buffer zones recognize it boundaries and can explain its main function(b) Regional and local user and benefit groups know the different uses permitted in each MUMPA zone and can recognize its boundaries (c) Local and regional government officials can locate the MUMPA in their region and explain its main function(d) Regular talks and guidance in biodiversity are given to tourists arriving at the three MUMPAs (e) Local schools incorporate MUMPA related activities in their curriculum

1. Programme documentation

2. (a) Project reports and field visits; (b) Field visits;(c) Field visits

3. (a) survey; (b) survey;(c ) survey; (d) record of assistance & survey(e) review of curriculum and visits to schools

The inhabitants of the MUMPAs continue showing the same interest in increasing their participation in conservation actions

Stakeholders use the information disseminated through this output

Output 7. An enabling information 1. By end of year one Pamphlets with information on project goal and Pamphlets; visits to regional

- 107 -


ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS

programme implemented to facilitate the replication of MUMPAs in other regions of the country and to increase knowledge on marine and coastal biodiversity management at the national level

objectives disseminated to regional governments in the 13 political regions of Chile

2. By end of year three At least two additional regional governments showing interest in setting up MUMPA

3. At project completion:(a) At least 30 national and regional government representatives and 50 private sector representatives have visited demonstration MUMPAs(b) The number of potential tourists that request specific information on marine and coastal nature related tourism has increased 30% from project start up(c) An information exchange network is operational between existing and potential MUMPAs and includes links to CONAMA guidance on marine and coastal biodiversity protection(d) The number of programmes and information slots on coastal and marine biodiversity in a selected set of media has doubled since project start(e) A detailed strategy with specific implementation mechanisms exists in CONAMA for expanding the network of MUMPAs across the country and integrating this with the SNASPE (f) There will be a RMUMPA Commission in at least 1 other region

gov. offices(a) Records of Regional

Gov. and requests to project & MUMPA staff(b) Records of requests at Ministry of tourism (c) Review of network(d) Survey of selected media (M&E plan for awareness)

Activities of Output 1: MUMPA Legal Establishment and start up operations 1.1. Finalize the technical and legal documentation required for the official establishment of each of the three multi-use areas based on

the institutional agreements advanced during project preparation; proceed with the approval by the Directorate of CONAMA and publish the decrees legally establishing the three MUMPAs. (this is expected to be complete prior to project submission effectively overcoming the main institutional barrier for creating MUMPA)

1.2. Define the most cost-effective mechanism for demarcation of the MUMPA through consultations and through a review of state-of-the-art practices.

1.3. Fine-tune the initial proposals of zoning developed with stakeholders during project preparation through workshops, interviews, and reviewing & up-dating data

1.4. Design and execute a demarcation plan based on the agreed zoning, placing priority on those habitats that require most urgent protection and develop the general administration plan for each MUMPA

1.5. Implement information campaign in each area to ensure that local communities and resource users are familiar with demarcation particularly those that are based on non physical demarcation mechanisms.

1.6. Assist municipal, provincial and regional governments to incorporate MUMPA limits into plans, maps and EIA and permit processes

1.7. Finalize the design of, and execute, an infrastructure development plan to provide minimal conditions for the start-up of operations in each site (administrative buildings, entry gates, basic telecommunications etc)

Total =2.093GEF =0.904TNC = 0.038RG = 0.828CONAMA=0.123DIRECTEMAR= 0.199

- 108 -

Activities of Output 2 : MUMPA Administration and Governance Structures2.1. Finalize general agreements of the characteristics and attributes of the Corporation that would be responsible for the MUMPAs by holding consultations with local stakeholders. 2.2. Develop draft statues for the corporation including by laws, legal status, procedures and provisions for electing representatives,

definition of size and function of the assembly and executive secretary 2.3. Hold public consultation on proposed MUMPA Corporation in conformity with the Law of citizen participation 2.4. Legally constitute the Corporation2.5. Determine a staffing plan for the Executive Unit of the MUMPA gradually increasing this as resources available in the MUMPS from

tourism increase.2.6. Undertake a two phase training programme in MUMPA management for key personnel from MUMPAs and regional institutions. 2.7.Hold training for Corporations in business management2.8. Define and finalize reporting procedures, mechanisms and information exchange between Corporations and MUMPA Commission in

Regional Governmental and between MUMPA commission and Regional Council (this feeds into activity 1.6) 2.9. Undertake a series of conflict resolution workshops and training for the different stakeholders involved in the MUMPAs. 2.10. Draft a long-term business and investment plan for each MUMPA that determines recurrent cost estimates for wages, services,

maintenance and determines the sources from which these will be obtained including tourism derived revenue and public sources in the case of unexpected short falls in visitation levels or from the relevant government services for specific management categories established within the MUMPAs (for example National Parks

2.11. Hold consultations and define how these resources will be collected, invested and managed/disbursed.

Total = 0.701

GEF = 0.578CONAMA= 0.123

Activities of Output 3: Adaptive Management 3.1. Fill critical gaps in information required to develop adaptive management plans including completion of essential maps 3.2. Prepare draft management plan that outline the strategies and operations needed to obtain the overall conservation objectives of the MUMPA

and its individual zones 3.3. Hold public consultations on these plans3.4. Formalize and adopt management plans 3.5. Design and implement an enforcement and surveillance plan for the MUMPA building on existing local institutional mandates and the help

of user groups. This will form part of the overall administration plan of the MUMPA that outlines the lines of reporting, planning and co-ordination of the regional divisions of national institutions that have enforcement mandates on the use of natural resources within the MUMPA.

3.6. Design a process and develop tools by which updating and validation of zoning and limits is achieved as more reliable information and measurement of effectiveness of management strategies is obtained. This will include the use of the METT tracking tool that may require adaptation to better address coastal and marine PA scenarios.

Total = 2.100

GEF = 0.618 RG = 0.378CONAMA = 0.049TNC =0.205SERNAPESCA= 0.020 DIRECTEMAR= 0.829

Activities of Output 4: Tourism as a vector of multiple benefits 4.1. Implement a pilot project in the Caldera MUMPA to demonstrate how the management of a planned high foreign investment sand

and sun tourism complex can be transformed into an instrument for conservation. This will include the following activities:- Finalize the design and implement the cultivation of Macrocystis in 200hectares of core zone using local fishermen under the

guidance of technical experts. Plan and construct the underground trails for visitors to Macrocystis forests and build diving centre for controlled access Prepare tourist information pamphlets on the cultivated areas highlighting role in biodiversity conservation Set up monitoring of associated biodiversity and of visitor perceptions and increased awareness

Total = 3.356

GEF = 0.704 RG = 2.309CONAMA = 0.067PRIVATE = 0.276

- 109 -

Develop the controlled access of visitors to key habitats in MUMPA coastal areas including bicycle trails access to arid areas and bird watching tours to wetland

Building on initial agreements, continue to develop, negotiate & approve the Cisnes complex and MUMPA concessions contributions to long term funding of the MUMPA.

4.2. Implement a pilot project in the Bahia Mansa MUMPA to demonstrate how the management of ecotourism in a community and indigenous setting can be an option for indigenous alternative development based on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This will include the following activities: - Design a two-phase marketing strategy. The first phase will be based on current visitor estimated loads to be provided through the

project (45 beds). The second will be broader based and follow a more extensive study on potential visitor rates for such specialized tourism, and the training to be held in ecotourism.

Design and build visit accommodations and train local stakeholders in tourism reception emphasizing tradition cultures and practices.

Train communities in key ecotourism elements including the development of business plans, marketing techniques, resource management

Define a long term ecotourism plan with mechanisms on how to select the families that will provide accommodation, food, interpretation guides commodities

Building on initial agreements, continue to develop, negotiate & approve Huilliches individual and community contributions to the long term funding of the MUMPA.

4.3. Implement a pilot project in the Carlos III MUMPA to demonstrate how the management of national funded cruise tourism in an area of charismatic marine mammals (penguins and whales) can be used as a means supporting biodiversity conservation. This will include the following activities: - Developing a tourism plan for that includes the establishment of cruise liners minimal distances to key populations; on-shore norms;

carrying capacities etc Build essential infrastructure for cruise passenger landings, receiving on-shore visitors and enhancing sighting of charismatic

mammals (e.g. trails, towers) Open bids to the private sector for running tourist facilities Building on initial agreements, continue to develop, negotiate & approve shipping companies & individual tourists contributions to

the long term funding of the MUMPA.Activities of Output 5: Livelihood Pilots 5.1. Implement a pilot project for the sustainable management of brown algae (Lessonia) as a livelihood in the Caldera MUMPA.

Including: - Hire technical experts and determine ideal locations for the repopulating and management pilots; Hire local fishermen and train them in the planting of kelp forests and their maintenance Determine tourism rates and types of trails for the Macrocystis forest Develop sustainable harvesting rates for the Lessonia forests and associated sales and or processing ventures that would provide

income to local inhabitants Set up monitoring systems of repopulated areas for biodiversity levels and for optimal densities and productive Determine areas in MUMPA appropriate for replication of pilot projects and develop user-friendly guidelines on brown algae

management

Total = 0.658

GEF = 0.198RG = 0. 092CONAMA = 0.044PRIVATE= 0.127WWF =0.158BID= 0.039

- 110 -

5.2. Implement a pilot project for the sustainable management of the giant mussel (Choro zapato) as a livelihood in the Bahia Mansa MUMPA.

Hire technical experts and determine best sites for setting up the trays; Train local inhabitants in the collection of “seed” mussels, the tray building, seeding, maintenance and harvesting of giant mussels Set up monitoring systems of cultivation areas Determine optimum densities, handling techniques and tray design to maximize production and avoid negative environmental effects.

Implement a pilot programme to diversify the economic base and provide increased income from non-extractive livelihoods to local inhabitants of the Bahia Mansa MUMPA. This will include: -

Assist the Huilliches people in the development of proposals for livelihoods that do not cause environmental impacts but that would provide income to permit them to rely less on the production of shingles and fishing (e.g. small scale poultry raising, and agricultural production in restricted areas).

Select the most viable of these and implement them with support from the WWF and IDB funded livelihood programmes5.4. Strengthen the capacity of MUMPA inhabitants in setting up small businesses by training selected representatives from each

demonstration MUMPA in small business management to act as the focal point for providing advice and orientation to community members, and by undertaking evaluations of existing micro-credit systems in Chile that could be harnessed as sources of capital seed investment for inhabitants.

Activities of Output 6: Awareness and Outreach6.1. Design and construct visitor centre in each of the three MUMPAs in accordance with preliminary zoning and governmental

procedures for bidding and licensing 6.2. Design an awareness building strategy for different audiences at each site and in accordance with local specificities (e.g. language in

Bahia Mansa). Target audiences will include visitors to the visitors centre; local school children; resources users; local and regional governments and will draw on studies to be undertaken in Activity 7.4

6.3. Equip and fit out visitors centers in accordance with awareness building strategy for this target6.4. Construct and craft trails for visitors with information provided following awareness building plan6.5. Develop links with regional education systems and curriculum and working through them set up a series of activities focusing on

local participation in the definition of symbols, design etc associated with the MUMPAs and on awareness building activities such as visits, competitions etc.

Total = 2.108

GEF = 0.498 RG = 0.863CONAMA = 0.049PRIVATE = 0.698

Activities of Output 7: Facilitating replication at national levels. 7.1. Design & execute a study tour programme to demonstration MUMPA at mid term & end of project for representatives of regional

governments & tourism sector 7.2. Develop a set of “how to” manuals that draw from the demonstration MUMPAs and other international inputs to provide guidelines

for regional governments on the setting up, running, funding of MUMPAs and on the sustainable use of biodiversity 7.3. Develop a MUMPA support team to assist regional governments in setting up Commissions, and MUMPAs, to provide external

appraisal of management plans and provide support to define most feasible sites for MUMPA in those region that establish Commissions during project life

7.4. Develop and produce information packages for a multi facet (TV, radio, press) national outreach programme to increase the awareness on Chilean marine and coastal marine biodiversity and the role the demonstration MUMPAs have in contributing its conservation and to national development objectives. This will include studies on the importance of coastal marine ecosystems to local economies, providing relevant information for these packages..

Total = 0.679

GEF = 0.372 TNC = 0.257CONAMA = 0.049

- 111 -

7.5. Design and execute a planning exercise on marine and coastal protection that includes the classification of priority coastal areas for conservation and developing criteria for selection of MUMPAs to ensure these optimize contribution to national conservation goals and start addressing the challenges of connectivity and seascape level conservation needs. Through 7.2 provide support to regions in define of feasible priority sites for creation of MUMPAs

7.6. Review existing national incentive systems and develop possible mechanisms that could be applied to facilitate replication of MUMPAs defined in activity 7.5

7.7. Build the basis of a national network of MUMPAs by first designing and maintain a project website with links to international sites on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas and networks, second holding periodic workshops for information exchange between national and regional staff and academics in Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Systems, defining best approaches for the network in Chile and well defined activities, outreach and support services for providing support to MUMPA management and replication after project end, and setting up a network web page

7.8. Design a specific biodiversity related product for national marketing campaigns on tourism and link this to the MUMPA network outreach programme

7.9. Hold a series of workshops & seminars on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) for representatives of CONAMA, Regional Governments, & RCCMs. This would emphasis the role MUMPAs play in ICZM and would provide and develop mechanisms to ensure that the protection MUMPAs determine are incorporated in relevant sectoral plans and programmes

- 112 -

Table B2: Results Measurement Table

Objectives Key PerformanceIndicator

Target(Year 5)

Sampling frequency Additional Information

Provide increased protection to Chile’s unique coastal biodiversity by removing barriers to the establishment of multi-use protected areas (MUMPAs) in three representative demonstration sites, building institutional

1. Number of hectares of seascape and critical associated coastal lands under protection in each coastal bio-geographic region of Chile

Warm temperate biographical area: Caldera MUMPA(Region III) At least 8,682 ha of seascape (Humboldt current), and 10,366 ha critical associated coastal lands along 30 linear km of coastline are under legal protection including 70 hectares of the last Atacama wetlandsTransitional Temperate biographical area Bahia Mansa (Region X)At least of 9,931 ha seascape and 269 ha critical associated coastal lands along 30 linear km coastline, are under legal protection including 45 ha of Valdivian forest Cold Temperate biographical area: Carlos III (Region XII)At least, 67,197 ha seascape and 33,586 ha of critical coastal land in 770 km of coastline are under legal protection habitats including 32,000 hectares of Magallanes Forest

The increase in the management effectiveness of these newly created protected areas will be assessed by the application of the METT tracking tool that may require adaptation to better address coastal and marine PA scenarios.

Start of project; mid term and end

Indicates contribution to GEF 3 targets of additional hectares under protection

and individual capacities for their management and facilitating their replication to other regions of the country.

2. Populations of key species, selected as indicators of improved protection from threats in each MUMPA

CalderaPopulations of Lessonia. Nigrescens and trabeculata (measured by area covered in hectares) remain the same as at project outset or have increased. Intertidal marine invertebrate populations stay at levels that indicate will indicate pollution levels by terrestrial sources are withinunder Chilean standard.

Bahía Mansa The populations of Goose Barnacle (Picoroco Austromegabalanus psittacus in MUMPA core zones increases steadily each year and in other MUMPA zones stays the same as levels at project outset. Also, this species will indicate pollution levels under Chilean standard.. Populations of Lessonia species remain the same as at project outset Carlos IIIPopulations of Spheniscus magellanicus (penguins) in Rupert Island, measured by number of nests and nest densities, remain the same as levels at project outset. [1989 values = 3,764 nests with densities of 4.5 to 22.7 per 100m2]. Marine invertebrate populations will show very low levels of pollution by terrestrial sources.


Increases in Lessonia indicate reduced fishing.Intertidal invertebrates indicate a decrease in pollution from terrestrial sources. Increases in Picorojco indicate lower extraction rates of this species and thus effectiveness of MUMPA zones. It will also indicate that the level of terrestrial pollutants is very low in the area. Constant levels of penguin nests indicate controlled or avoided tourism threat. Invertebrates will show no pollution by terrestrial

- 113 -


Target(Year 5)


sources.

3. Populations of key species selected as indicators to illustrate biodiversity levels in each MUMPA remain the same or have increased

Calderas Macrocystis integrifolia populations of “forest” in Caldera MUMPA have increased 10% (measured in ha)Bahia Mansa Natural populations of Choromytilus chorus (choro zapato) in the MUMPA stay at least the same as year one Carlos IIIThe number of adult humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) with their offspring feeding in the waters of Carlos III between November and March each year remains the same as at project outset.


Macrocystis holdfasts harbor 70% of micro-invertebrate species in area Endemic species under threat in some areas of Chile. Migratory species that use this area for feeding

Outcome 1 (Output 1,2,3)Three MUMPAs with restricted use, and core zones, are legally established, demarcated, operational and with governance management and funding structures

% MUMPA costs covered by tourism revenue

At least 70% of the 3 demonstration MUMPA costs are covered by tourism related revenue and the remaining 30% have identified and agreed upon sources

Mid and end

Indicates sustainability of MUMPA long term funding

Funding operationsProcedures for collection, investment and disbursement of resources from tourism to MUMPA management are in place

Mid and end

Indicates sustainability of MUMPA long term funding

Adaptive management plansMUMPA management plans are reviewed and fine tuned annually with input from stakeholders and monitoring systems

End year 2 and annually

Indicates potential for management to continually improve and count on stakeholder support

Avoided incompatible conservation activities

The number of requests for permits for activities not compatible with MUMPA zone uses drops 15% each year

Start and annually

Indicates buy-in from stakeholders and effectively of MUMPA role

Number of infractions The number of infractions in different MUMPA zones decreases annually at least 20% from year three

Start and annually from year 3

Indicates effectiveness of MUMPA and role potential in biodiversity conservation

Outcome 2Benefits to conservation of

% income from shingles production

The contribution of alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) shingle production to the Huilliches income decreases by at least 50% with no reduction in overall income

Start and annually

Indicates reduced pressure on forest and avoided

- 114 -


Target(Year 5)


biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs

potential soil erosion that would effect water quality

Areas of forest surrounding the Bahia Mansa MUMPA is the same as at project start

% Fish capture/ unit effort 10% increase in fish capture per unit of effort in the zones of permitted use in MUMPA III and 5% in Bahia Mansa Annually

Measures increased fish stocks from effect of core area and controlled fishing enforcement

% income from sustainable management of native species

Resources coming from Macrocystis related tourism and sustainable extraction of Lessonia in Calderas, & Choro zapato in Bahia Mansa, increase by at least 30% compared with year 3

Start and annually

Indicates reduced reliance on fishing and shingles & also local benefits

Habitat structure rehabilitation

Sampling of benthic invertebrates and fishes in permanent plots/transects show that species associated with kelp forest increase and black sea urchin densities decrease at Caldera

Start and annually

Indicates the reduced fishing on keystone predators and restoration of biodiversity levels

% tourists reporting attraction related to MUMPA existence

At least 80% of overnight tourists indicate they selected location for biodiversity related attraction

Start, mid term, end

Indicates probable continued interest of tourism ventures in MUMPA support

Outcome 3 (Outputs 6 and 7)Local and national understanding of the MUMPAs role in achieving combined goals of conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and development has increased thus enhancing their sustainability and increasing the potential for replication in other regions

% stakeholders that recognize MUMPA and zones

90% of inhabitants of MUMPA and buffer zones recognize it boundaries and can explain its main function

Start mid and end Indicates potential

effectiveness of MUMPA for conservation

Regional and local user and benefit groups know the different uses permitted in each MUMPA zone and can recognize their boundaries

Start, mid and end

Local and regional government officials can locate the MUMPA in their region and explain its main function

mid and end

Local awareness and knowledge on biodiversity

Regular talks and guidance in biodiversity are given to tourists arriving at the three MUMPAs

Mid and end

Indicates potential of continued increase in appreciation of conserving marine and coastal resources

Local schools incorporate MUMPA related activities in their curriculum

Start, mid, end

Access to awareness and information material on biodiversity

30 national and regional government representatives and 50 private sector representatives have visited demonstration MUMPAs

Start midterm and end

Indicates possibility of replication in other areas

The number of programmes and information slots on coastal and marine biodiversity in a selected set of media has doubled since project start

Start and end

Indicates increased exposure to information and potential increase in knowledge

Information request The number of potential tourists that request specific information on marine and coastal nature related tourism has increased 30% from project start up

Start, mid and end

Indicates changes level of awareness

- 115 -


Target(Year 5)


Number of RMUMPA Commissions

There will be at least one RMUMPA Commissions formed in regions other than III, X and XII

Start and end

Indicates success of replication facilitation activities

Number of MUMPAs in other regions

At project completion at least one additional MUMPAs and by five years after the end of project. Chile will have at least 9 MUMPAs fully functioning (this 5 year target at the highest level of the matrix and will depend on assumptions holding))

Start, end and 5 years post

- 116 -

Annex C: STAP Review and Responses

STAP Review: Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast- Project Number CHI/00/GXX PIMS 2041

Overview:

The project documentation is the most comprehensive that this reviewer has been asked to assess in over 14 STAP reviews. Specific improvements could be made to the Draft that would allow the documents to achieve their full potential, in particular the identification and assessment of Risks that would adversely affect the successful implementation of planned activities and fulfillment of the objectives as set out in the LOGFRAME.

The proposed project is very ambitious given the complexity of the issues to be addressed within the planned time period at the three pilot project areas and the need to strengthen human resources and institutional capacities from the stakeholders at the sites through to regional and national government. There is clear evidence of careful project preparation to deal with this complexity, including the involvement of a representative cross section of stakeholders to achieve effective ownership of the objectives and planned activities, and assessment of the underlying causes of loss biological diversity and degradation of the selected coastal systems and how these could be counteracted through three innovative planning and management approaches.

The project overall project design is comprehensive, well detailed and sound, as are the financial allocations set against objectives and associated planned activities. Overall, there is a good chance of success where adaptive management is put into practice to take account of unexpected problems and issues and to benefit from the planned monitoring of the effectiveness of the different management approaches.

A- Key Issues:

1. Scientific and technical soundness of the project

There is clear evidence of well conducted background studies and utilization of available scientific information on the coastal systems, and social-cultural and economic resources management issues linked with loss of biological diversity. The involvement of a wide cross-section of the relevant stakeholders at the three planned pilot project sites in three different climatic regions and at different levels of government will help ensure conditions where vertical and horizontal integration of planned management measures would receive a wide body of support.

The pilot project areas have been carefully selected based on sound scientific and management criteria. The planned activities associated with the different management models selected for each of the sites appear to be sound in respect to the overall project goal and objectives and the issues to be resolved. The design also allows for experimentation with three different approaches to the resolution of issues at the three sites. There are sound mechanisms built into the project that will support exchange of information and lessons learned as the three approaches are tested. The results of the pilot projects should provide a range of valuable insights that would help

117

inform policy, planning and investment at the different levels of government that would help in the transfer of the experience gained to other coastal areas and to the emerging ICZM process in Chile.

The documentation clearly spells out the institutional setting for the project and the governance measures that would support the planned activities. There also appears to be a high and potentially effective level of Country Ownership of the planned project and implementation arrangements.

2. Identification of the global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks of the project

The global environmental benefits are identified within the context of the rich and diverse ecosystems and corresponding rich and diverse biological diversity characteristic of the three nominated pilot project areas and other coastal lands and associated marine areas.

The inherent risks associated with the constraints imposed by socio-cultural and economic conditions, especially those of poverty and limited governmental capacities that could inhibit the successful implementation of planned activities need to be more clearly spelled out in the LOGFRAME and attendant text. While these constraints may well be offset by the care taken in developing a constructive dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders, measures need to be identified to counteract the inherent risks as part of the project design. This would help ensure the success of the project and enhance the potential for replication of the benefits to other areas and stakeholders.

3. How the project fits within the context of the goals of GEF, as well as its operational strategies, programme priorities, GEF Council guidance and the provisions of the relevant conventions

The project design complements actions taken by the Government of Chile (GoC) to enhance conservation of biological diversity. For example the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2002) that identifies the establishment of marine and coastal protected areas as a national priority, and more specifically a priority within the regions where the three pilot projects would be located. The project design also complements measures being developed by the GoC to experiment with different measures to integrate the needs of different sectors of society in the multiple-use and conservation of coastal and marine systems and their resources.

4. Regional context

In addition to complementing national priorities, the proposed project complements priorities for encouraging enhance protection of marine and coastal systems identified at a global and more regional scale in paragraphs 8-10. The documentation gives specific examples in paragraphs 5-7 and identifies the scope for developing a network of improved management areas that would significantly contribute to the protection of the biological diversity of the eastern south Pacific.

5. Replicability of the project (added value for the global environment beyond the project itself)

118

The care taken to incorporate a wide range of stakeholders in the preparation of the project and to apply different intervention measures at the three pilot sites should provide a strong base of public support as well as robust tests of the effectiveness of planned activities. Careful monitoring and feed-back of information gained to inform adaptive management (learning by doing and taking appropriate action to amend existing and planned activities to improve the effectiveness of management interventions) will reinforce the effectiveness of the project and its replicability. The emphasis given to human resources development and to institutional strengthening should enhance the utility of the experience gained and the technical and administrative capacities needed to replicate the project in other priority areas.

The experience gained and lessons learned should be transferable to neighboring Latin American and Central American nations, and even to regions such as Africa and Asia.

6. Sustainability of the project

There are good prospects for the project being sustained beyond the planned 5-year period of funding. There appears to be good potential for continuation of the changes the project aims to introduce as the project design incorporates measures for both local participation and for human resources development and institutional strengthening which complement the Government's policies and management priorities. The potential financial sustainability appears to be sound in that there is a high degree of County Ownership of the project and a reasonably diverse funding base, including support from the Private Sector. This “Ownership” could be further enhanced if the project design was to place greater emphasis upon identifying and communicating the economic role that coastal and marine ecosystems, their environmental services and renewable resources play in the national, provincial and more local levels of the economy and the economic value of these services and resources to different economic sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism, etc.

B- Secondary issues

1. Linkages to other focal areas

The project is directly associated with Operational Programme Number 2 dealing with the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. It will contribute to Article 8 (items a and b), concerning in situ conservation and the development of a regional network of protected areas as well as reinforcing the Chilean Nation system of protected areas. Other specific linkages with the Convention on Biodiversity and GEF priorities are clearly set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 on page 2.

Within the Chilean national context the project will assist the nation in meeting its international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and will help inform improvements in the management of fisheries and fishery habitats, and in the development of the national efforts to institute Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

2. Linkages to other programmes and action plans at regional or sub-regional levels

See above

3. Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects

119

The planned outcomes of the project would help to sustain fish stocks and fisheries, restore coastal ecosystems, and functional linkages among coastal and marine ecosystems.

There do not appear to be any potentially damaging environmental effects.

4. Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project

The efforts to engage stakeholders from an early stage in project preparation are well documented in the project design and supporting annexes. This efforts- if maintained through out the life of the project- should ensure a wide body of public support for planned activities and “ownership” of the resulting plans and longer-term public and private management interventions.

5. Capacity-building aspects

The project design clearly spells out a range of carefully designed measures to enhance human resources and institutional capacities to help sustain enhanced biodiversity conservation associated with coastal and marine ecosystems. It would be helpful if the Project Design would provide some more specific details of how poorly educated stakeholders, such as fishers or farmers, would be empowered to allow them to play a fully effective part in the development of management solutions to complex issues and problems affecting both biodiversity and their livelihoods.

6. Innovativeness of the project.

Conceptually the proposed project follows well-established principles and practices for good project design, stakeholder involvement from the outset of project formulation being one example. There is strong innovation in respect to the experimentation with different management intervention measures at the three proposed project sites. While the basic range of interventions may have been identified by the Chilean Government, their adoption is to be commended as it illustrates the flexibility that the GEF funding can support in respect to testing alternative means of achieving real and lasting improvements in biodiversity conservation.

Peter Burbridge

September 1, 2003

120

Response to Comments expert from STAP Roster

Comment 1: The project documentation is the most comprehensive that this reviewer has been asked to assess in over 14 STAP reviews. To allow the documents to achieve their full potential a recommendation is to include a clearer identification and assessment of Risks that would adversely affect the successful implementation of planned activities and fulfillment of the objectives as set out in the LOGFRAME.

Response 1: A Risk table has been inserted below paragraph 93 in the Project Brief. This identifies risks that could undermine project results, rates their potential occurrence, and describes the corresponding measures that have been included in the project design for their abatement.

Comment 2: The inherent risks associated with the constraints imposed by socio-cultural and economic conditions, especially those of poverty and limited governmental capacities, that could inhibit the successful implementation of planned activities need to be more clearly spelled out in the LOGFRAME and attendant text.

Response 2: Paragraph 31 of the Brief identifies the relationship between poverty levels common in many developing countries and pressures on natural resources. This is particularly the case in isolated areas where options for non-extractive based livelihoods are scarce. In these circumstances economic conditions could have constraints for the effective implementation of conservation actions. However, one of Chile’s underlying principles for selecting multiple uses coastal and marine protected areas as a management category for pursuing national conservation targets was to ensure that advances in conservation do not exclude advances in the provision of development options and alleviating poverty. As such one of the goals of the demonstration MUMPAs is to define specific zones in which local stakeholders could continue extraction activities but in a controlled and sustainable manner, providing more stable incomes over the long term. In addition, a specific component has also been included in the project that seeks to provide new livelihoods to alleviate poverty conditions in areas surrounding the MUMPAs and to contribute to threat reduction. Stakeholder consultation in project development indicated a high acceptance of the project objectives because they view this as an opportunity to adopt new practices and as a chance to improve their livelihoods in the long term. Care will be taken to ensure that these livelihoods respect socio-cultural conditions prevalent at the MUMPAs. Planned awareness building activities and the emphasis placed on participatory management will also assist in reducing any potential constraint to implementing arising from socio-cultural conditions. This explanation has been inserted in the risks table in paragraph 93 of the Brief.

As regards limited government capacities as a possible constraint to successful implementation, this too is an acknowledged barrier in the implementation of coastal and marine reserves. It was early recognized in project development. Strengthening this capacity forms a key part of the project purpose. Furthermore, the underlying principle of the project is that by setting up demonstration MUMPAs these will provide the best means of capacity building by learning through doing. In more specific terms a range of training activities have been included in the project to build government capacities at both regional and national levels, these include Activities 2.6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.9. The budgetary allocations for these activities have been carefully

121

reviewed to ensure that sufficient resources are channeled to them reducing any potential constraints that could occur related to limited government capacities. In addition the emphasis placed on co-management of MUMPAs and the development of private and public partnerships in conservation efforts will also counteract limited governmental capacities as responsibilities will be shared across a broad range of stakeholders.

Comment 3: There is a high degree of Country Ownership of the project and a reasonably diverse funding base, including support from the Private Sector. This “Ownership” could be further enhanced if the project design was to place greater emphasis upon identifying and communicating the economic role that coastal and marine ecosystems, their environmental services and renewable resources play in the national, provincial and more local levels of the economy and the economic value of these services and resources to different economic sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism, etc

Response 3: The need to increase stakeholder awareness on the role that conservation of coastal and marine ecosystems and biodiversity plays in sustaining livelihoods has been identified in the text. This in turn relates to the role it plays in the economies at different levels. The awareness-building component to be undertaken at each MUMPA will be designed to clearly illustrate this link, as will the information packages to be developed at national levels through activity 7.4. However, in response to the STAP comments and in recognition of the importance that specific studies could have in strengthening these awareness activities, budgetary revisions have been undertaken to provide resources for several key studies to be undertaken in this arena and to ensure input from these to awareness building at different levels (see paragraphs 73,74 and activity 7.4).

Comment 4: The project design clearly spells out a range of carefully designed measures to enhance human resources and institutional capacities to help sustain enhanced biodiversity conservation associated with coastal and marine ecosystems. It would be helpful if the Project Design would provide some more specific details of how poorly educated stakeholders, such as fishers or farmers, would be empowered to allow them to play a fully effective part in the development of management solutions to complex issues and problems affecting both biodiversity and their livelihoods.

Response 4: Administration of the demonstration MUMPAs will be conferred to a Corporation that will count with representatives of local stakeholders including fishermen, indigenous people, private sector, governments and relevant NGOs. The Corporations will lead the development and implementation of management plans. This provides the first mechanism for input of local stakeholders to management solutions. A second is through the joint fine-tuning of zones to be defined in the MUMPAs building on consultations already held with stakeholders in which preliminary maps of restricted and no-take zones have been developed with their active input. A third mechanism is through the public consultations that will be held prior to approval of management plans. However, the complexity of management actions and technical understanding required could be a potential barrier for the education levels of some local stakeholders that could reduce their effective participation. As such considerable attention will be placed on the preparation of consultation formats and documentation that will be accessible to these stakeholders, facilitating their empowerment and enabling a more effective participation at the previously identified entry points. Resources are available in the project for the preparation of

122

material in appropriate forms for consultation and for communication formats that can facilitate the integration of such a range of different educational levels in the provision of management solutions. This will be particularly important in the Region X MUMPA that involves Amerindian communities that have their specific vision and values associated with the environment.

Over time the potential obstacles associated with the disparate levels of educational of some stakeholder groups and the complexities of management solutions will be further overcome through the extensive awareness building activities and local education programmes that have been built into the project and that would continue in the long-term.

123

Annex D: Support Letters (provided in file II)

124

Annex E: Map of Chile and Maps of Demonstration MUMPA

131

Annex F: Selection of Demonstration Sites and their Biodiversity Value

Table F1: Selection Criteria for Demonstration Sites

N SELECTION CRITERIA VALUE CALDERA PUNTA CHORO

BAHÍA MANSA

CHILOE CARLOS III BAHIA TICTOC

1 Priority site in CONAMA targets Yes, No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Removed from large sources of industrial waste. More than 5 km up current Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes3 Removed from large sources of urban waste. More than 10 km up current Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes4 Interest of regional government High, low High Low High Low High Low5 Interest of private sector High, low High Low High Low High Low6 Interest of ONG High, low Low Low High Low Low Low7 Proven tourism potential. Yes, No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No8 On-going sustainable uses that can be up-scaled. Yes, No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No9 Community Interest High, low High Low High Low High Low10 Specific demonstration value High, low High High High Low High Low11 Bio-geographical value High, low High High High High High High

Number of positives points 10 6 11 5 10 4

Table F2: Potential Replication of Demonstration Sites

MUMPAMUMPA OTHER PRIORITY CONSERVATION SITES (CONSIDERING IN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN)

OTHER SITES WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS BUT NOT NECESSARILY PRIORITY CONSERVATION

CALDERA 1. Punta Choros 2. Punta Teatinos-Caleta Hornos 3. Estuario del río Huasco y Carrizal

Isla Chañaral Costa de Parque Nacional Fray Jorge

BAHIA MANSA 1. Curiñanco2. Costa de Parque Nacional Chiloé e Isla

Metalqui3. Chaiguata

San Pedro Puñihuil Estuario río Queule

CARLOS III 1. Isla Navarino2. Bahía Lomas

Melinka Islas Nalkayec y Huemules

- 135 -

Table F3: Description of MUMPAS Selected for Demonstration

MMAINAIN CCHARACTERISTICSHARACTERISTICS

SELECTED AREAS FOR DEMONSTRATION MUMPASCCALDERAALDERA BBAHIAAHIA M MANSAANSA CCARLOSARLOS III III

Bio-geographical Warm Temperate Region Transitional Temperate Region Cold Temperate region

Political Region III X XII

Latitude c. 27°10'S c. 40º 40’ S c. 72 09 36 S, 53 40 24 W

Location Between Punta Morro and the mouth of the Copiapo River

Near Bahia Mansa village Carlos III Island & neighboring areas; western fringe of Strait of Magellan

Climate Coastal desert with abundant cloudiness High precipitation 2,400-2,600 mm Cold temperate wet. Precipitation 160 –280 mm

Sea Area (km2 ) 4,500 ha of sea (Humboldt current); 30km coastline

9931 ha of sea; 30km coastline 67197 ha of sea; 33586 ha terrestrial, including continental and island areas

Land area 6,500 ha critical associated coastal lands; 269 ha critical associated coastal lands; including 250 hectares of Valdivian forest

33586 ha critical associated coastal lands including 32,000 ha Magellan Forest

Coastal Topography Very exposed to winds, waves; straight coastline; steep cliffs, few beaches

Highly exposed to winds and waves; straight coastline; few sandy beaches

Very jagged coastline, numerous fjords-like bays. Cliffs, glaciers. Sub Antarctic Magellan forests

Continental Shelf Narrow (4-5 kms) Narrow (800-1500m) Carlos III would be not a part of continental shelfWater Influenced by warm water from Peru;

periodically influenced by El NiñoImpacted by N-S variations in cold Humboldt up welling current and near shore coastal waters by high run-off and river discharges

Influenced by Cape Horn cold waters. It means waters from Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and thaws from Sta. Inés Glacier.

Habitats Tidal, intertidal, cliffs; rock outcrops sandy beaches,; islands, marshes, lagoons; coastal salt ponds

Tidal, brackish water; nursery sites in estuaries, cliffs, 3 Beaches, temperate rain forest on shore

Magellan Forest, tundra, cliffs. Nursery and reproduction sites for marine birds and mammals (humpbacked whales, penguins). Recruitment area for spider crab (Lithodes antartica).

Representative species

Bottlenose dolphins; sea otters; Humboldt Penguins. Alga Lessonia sp (brown) and Macrocystis sp (kelp).

Endemic giant mussels Choromytilus chorus, sea urchins, muricid snails, keyhole limpets giant kelps; on shore tree species Fitzroya cupresoides, Eucryphiac ordifolia, Nothofagus dombeyi, Podocarpus nubigena

Algae Durvillea antartica and Lessonia nigrescnes; kelps Macrocystis pyrifera. At least 10 species of medium and larger mammals including 4 species of whales; onshore Nothofaus betuiloides, Pilgerodendrum uvifera

Uniqueness

(See Annex L for Species List)

Highest Conservation Priority in National Strategy for Biodiversity Action Plan. Last Atacama wetlands

One of very few areas of intact SE pacific forested shore. Between two estuaries and in a transitional zone with subtropical and sub Antarctic fauna.

Meeting of pacific and Antarctic waters; breeding site for Magellan Penguin and humpbacked whale

Population of Urban Population 11741 (97.25 %) Rural population 600 Urban Population of Punta Arenas: 120.891

- 136 -

MMAINAIN CCHARACTERISTICSHARACTERISTICS

SELECTED AREAS FOR DEMONSTRATION MUMPASCCALDERAALDERA BBAHIAAHIA M MANSAANSA CCARLOSARLOS III III

Municipality Rural Population 320 (2.75 %)MUMPA Inhabitants Fishermen 200 Huilliches Amerindians 2 fishermen

Inhabitants in Buffer Caldera 4,000; Puerto Viejo <1,000 Bahia Mansa 450 -

Type of tourism Large sun and sand tourist complex Community based ethno-ecotourism Cruise tourism (30,000 passenger per year)Main potential threats Over fishing of benthic resources; illegal

harvesting of marine resources; expansion of nearby towns;

Currently very low threats. Some pressure could ensure on forest resources and deforestation would effect quality of run-off and near coastal water; potential expansion of harvesting marine resources

Unregulated passage of cruise ships in unprotected area could have effect on breeding colonies; ship accidents could cause impact; possible small growth in fisheries, increase in mariculture

- 137 -

Annex G: Threat and Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss in Chile’s Marine and Coastal Areas

The main direct or proximate threats to Chile’s coastal and marine biodiversity are described below along with the root causes and action planned to mitigate these. It should be noted however that while these threats do cause negative impacts in some zones of the country’s long coast line, they will not have a directly impinge on the project nor on the sustainability of its impact. This is because the strategic intervention of the project has been to select locations for the creation of multi-use marine and coastal protected areas (MUMPAs) in locations that do not suffer these threats, or have very low levels of pressure and that will be halted by the presence of a legally constituted and functional protected area. As such below each section description of the general and the action required to address it, an additional line has been included that describes the level of this threat at each selected site.

AACTUALCTUAL ANDAND P POTENTIALOTENTIAL P PROXIMATEROXIMATE THREATSTHREATS TOTO BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ALONGALONG THETHE C COASTOAST

PPROXIMATEROXIMATE T THREATHREAT 1: 1: LANDLAND BASEDBASED POLLUTIONPOLLUTION

46.[48.] The coastal zone in Chile has historically been the main sink for land-based pollution. This is mainly from urban, industrial and agricultural related effluents. Demographic and industrial distribution patterns however have meant that these threats are not of equal severity along the coastline Urban waste with varying degrees of treatment is discharged into waters affecting water quality and benthos of coastal habitats, especially those with sandy bottoms

such as: beaches, bays, and estuaries. These discharges also damage species from tidal and intertidal system like filtering shellfish (Perumitylus purpuratus, Littorina peruviana), crustaceans (Balanus psittacus), urochordata Pyura chilensis), seaweeds (Gracilaria sp, Ulva sp., Rhodimenia sp.) and littoral fishes. This is particularly prevalent in coastal areas of Central Chile that houses 90% of Chile’s 15.5 million populations, 40% of which are in cities. Large areas of the Chilean coast have no urban development or only small towns with populations below 2,000 inhabitants. In these areas urban effluent is having much less impact on coastal habitats.

Industrial waste follows similar patterns as urban related ones with large concentrations mainly in Regions I, II, III, IV, V, VIII and X. Here the effect on biodiversity depends on the specific industry. Fish processing related industries most common in Regions I, VIII and X cause impacts on water quality, substratum, and sessile species from tidal and intertidal system (with sandy or rocky bottoms) such as filtering or grazing mussels (bivalves and gastropods), and seaweeds. Other species affected include crustaceans (shrimps and crabs), and near coastal and bottom fishes. Other industries include thermoelectrical plants, chemical industries, the paper and pulp industry, and the oil and gas industry, also disposes of their effluents in rivers or directly into the sea, with different levels of treatment. (IFOP, 1987). The most serious of these is the case of Bio-Bio River in Region VIII. Despite significant impacts in some areas, still large tracts of the Chilean coast remain unaffected.

Agricultural related run off. Fresh fruit make up to 10% of Chilean exports and the use of agrochemicals in fertilizers and pest control is high. Inadequate application techniques and high dosages can lead to infiltration into subterranean waterways that make their way to coastal water through river systems. Land clearing of agricultural activities has included deforestation and the related increased rates in soil erosion has lead to high sediment loads reaching coastal areas with the related impacts on estuarine habitats and near coastal species. The more affected habitats are estuaries (river mouths) and their near coastal zones. The affected species include catadromous fishes such as Lisa (Mugil sp), Pejerrey (Austromenidia laticlavia) and Robalo (Eliginops maclovinus). These impacts are more prominent in the southern and central areas of Chile.

Mining. Minerals constitute 62% of Chile’s exports with copper alone contributing 42%. Mining facilities, for example, have disposed mine tailings in some sites along the coast, altering the geomorphology and chemistry of the area and affecting local habitats, especially beaches and bays with sand or rocky bottoms. These discharges have also damaged macro and microfauna benthic communities, seaweeds, recruitment zones and artisan fisheries areas. Some of the most affected species

- 138 -

AACTUALCTUAL ANDAND P POTENTIALOTENTIAL P PROXIMATEROXIMATE THREATSTHREATS TOTO BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ALONGALONG THETHE C COASTOASTare: Northern Scallops (Argopecten purpuratus), Mussels (Mesodesma donaceum), and Clams (Aulacomya sp), and Chilean Abalone (Concholepas concholepas), and big weeds: Macrocystis integrifolia, Lessonia trabeculata and Lessonia nigrences. Run off associated with mining is more common in northern areas particularly in Regions II and III.

Root causes 1. Legislation controlling effluent disposal in the past has not been

fully developed or applied2. Planning and management of the coastal zone is not undertaken

in a coordinated manner with effective land use zoning 3. Regulatory frameworks for urban and industrial development

along the coast have not been enforced in a more coordinated and effective manner

4. Treatment of municipal effluent is sub-optimal in coastal towns

5. There are protected areas that include coastal and marine zones no areas along the coast to enhance the application of regulatory norms on development in sensitive areas

Actions to Mitigate1. Law 19.300 of 1994 dictates Environmental Impact Assessment Studies be undertaken for

environmental consultancies. These studies are commissioned by the owner (person, agency or enterprise) responsible for the project and reviewed by governmental agencies responsible for environmental issues. This kind of governance has ensured the strict application of this law to new projects since the Policy for Impact Assessment Evaluation began operation in 1997.

2. Other environmental regulations such as D.S 9010, D.S 60911 y D.S 4612 establish several quality standards for urban and industrial discharges into marine and freshwaters ecosystems, sewer systems and underground waterways. This set of laws will stop water and sediment pollution and will help to achieve one of GoC’s environmental goals: to clean up 80% of sewage by 2010.

3. The MINVU13 is developing a series of inter municipal plans in the coastal zone of Regions I, II, III, IV, VI y VI that will ensure coordinated action and integrate sectoral planning within a one framework. The National Policy for the Use of the Coastal Board is adopting a ICZM approach to improving coordination and planning on the coastal area. Action Hill take place largely through an extensive baseline programme – the bicentury programme - that will complete land use zoning in Regions I, II, IV, V y X at the scale of 1: 20.000 (for municipalities). It will also include rehabilitation projects of the coastal fringe in Regions I, II and IV, a master plan for ports, fishing tourism and recreational use in Region IV, a coastal land use plan in the Region VII with support from GTZ, the harmonization of Puerto Montt port development with urban development in Region X, and an urban development plan for Region XII that will include specific zones for conservation III)

4. Regional Commissions for the Use of the Coastal Zone have also been formed to ensure coordinated action along coastal areas of each Region.

5. Baseline projects for domestic waste treatment plans have a projected target of 80% of all sewage treated by the year 2010

6. The Project’s objective is to remove barriers to the creation of costal and marine protected area and it Hill establish three demonstration MUMPAs (Outputs 1,2,3) By legally establishing the MUMPAs this automatically extends this law to any works undertaken within its boundaries. (Output 1). Activity 1.6 will assist municipal, provincial and regional governments to incorporate MUMPA limits into plans, maps and EIA and permit processes

10 D.S 90: Emission standards for the regulation of pollutants associated with liquid residue discharge to marine and continental surface waters11 D. S: 609: Emission standards for the regulation of pollutants associated with industrial liquid residue discharge to sewage systems12 D.S 46: Emission standards for the regulation of pollutants associated with industrial liquid residue discharge to sewage systems13 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

- 139 -

AACTUALCTUAL ANDAND P POTENTIALOTENTIAL P PROXIMATEROXIMATE THREATSTHREATS TOTO BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ALONGALONG THETHE C COASTOASTCALDERA BAHIA MANSA CARLOS III The main pollution risk in this area comes from the Copiapó River, which flows into the southern limit of the MUMPA. This river crosses the capital city of the Copiapó region and its basin has intense agricultural and mining activity. Of these the mining would be the most possible threat due to mining waste being dumped directly into the river. However, impacts in the proposed MUMPA will be minimal as the main tidal currents in the estuary flow away from the areas. Furthermore, studies undertaken in the PDF B show the existence of significant aquatic life in the Copiapó River, particularly in its mouth. An active participation in the Regional Committee on Use of the Coastal Zone is planned. This entity will implement risk prevention plans through the baseline projects developing coastal land zoning.

47.[49.] There are no populated or industrial centers in this area. Future restrictions to industrial use in neighboring areas will be effected by the proposed Activities 1.4 MUMPA zoning and, 1.6 incorporation of limits into municipal plans and permit process, and enforced through the surveillance activity 3.5.

48.[50.] A potential pollution threat comes from the movement of oil carriers crossing the Magellan Strait, only a few kilometers away from the MUMPA. As in many other parts of the world, this is a real threat to biodiversity, and in the event of a typical spill, the impact on the MUMPA would be catastrophic. By legally declaring the MUMPA the National Commission on the Use of Seashores forbids industrial activity and strengthens the overseeing mechanisms of the Maritime Authority for the crossing of the Magellan Strait by freight ships. This will also be strengthened through MUMPA surveillance plans activity 3.3. However, a contingency plan for oil spills will be included as part of the management and tourism plans to be developed through Activity 3.4 and 4.3 respectively

49.[51.] 49.[51.] PPROXIMATEROXIMATE T THREATHREAT 2: F 2: FISHINGISHING

50.[52.] The Chilean marine fisheries are based on large scale (industrial) fisheries, small-scale (artisan) fisheries, and mariculture (Castilla, 1997). In the past 20 years the three have experienced spectacular growth in landings and exports revenues, positioning Chile as one of the four leading fishery countries, accounting for approximately 10% of the total world fish production. Exploitation of these resources is governed mainly through the General Law for Fishing and Aquaculture enacted in 1991 to ensure sustainable fisheries management, establish specific exploitation categories that can be applied to marine areas and confer the Undersecretariat for Fisheries the authority to administer marine resources in these areas. Regulatory norms can be divided into two main components: those for the zone restricted to artisan fishing and corresponding to waters within five miles from the coast, and those governing waters reserved for industrial fishing between 5 and 200 miles from the coast. Industrial fishing is strictly regulated following a precautionary approach, adopting the use of close seasons and strict quotas to control catches. They also include the obligatory use of GPS by authorized boats to ensure that resources are not over-exploited despite the population changes characteristic of benthic species submitted to the periodic environment changes associated with the ENSO events.51.[53.] SERNAP (1994) estimates that the sector provides direct employment to over 70 000 fishers connected with sea-going, land based and commercial activities. Along the coastline subsistence fishery based on rocky intertidal harvesting of algae and shellfish by food-gathering fisher folk also exist. Although this user group has been less well studied SERNAP (1994) estimated their number at over 6000 people. Trends in the landings of this artisan fishery show two phases (Castilla, 1997). A first one representing almost exclusively domestic consumption, with landings between 70 000 ton (1968) and 128 000 ton (1978); and a second one, with an increased demand for exports, presenting a great opportunity to substantially increase small-scale fishery activities and revenues with an increase in landings of up to 274 000 tons currently and that reached a peak of 878 000 t in 1994. This development occurred under a policy of open access and brought with it the problems associated with this access category. Nevertheless, the characteristics of artisan fisheries in Chile facilitate the solution of the “tragedy of the common” paradigm (Castilla, 1997). These are the comparatively reduced scale of fishery operations; the existence of community fishery and cultural traditions in connection with the resource, environment and sustainability; the existence of a

- 140 -

AACTUALCTUAL ANDAND P POTENTIALOTENTIAL P PROXIMATEROXIMATE THREATSTHREATS TOTO BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ALONGALONG THETHE C COASTOAST

multispecies fishery; and an effective regulatory tool of Management Areas, under the regulatory category created in the 1991 Law. This is a community-based management scheme that restricts access in defined management areas, to a specific community of fishers and regulates catch levels in these through a management plan. This has proved to be successful in avoiding problems often associated with open access resources and around 400 Management Areas have been established as result of the Law.

Root Causes1. High demand keeps permitted catch levels high and specific species are being

depleted 2. Keystone predators populations are being reduced by high fishing levels causing

alterations species assemblages 3. Local communities do not understand the importance of maintaining land based

actions on marine and coastal ecosystem integrity nor the effect of biodiversity losses on the long term sustainability of their livelihoods

4. Existing protection categories do not adequately address biodiversity conservation of marine and coastal resources as they refer to either sector specific activities e.g. protection of single species for fisheries sector, or for education purposes

5. Existing institutional mandates are related to geographically defined areas either marine, high seas or coastal impeding more integrated planning and control of fishing across all habitats of key species and the actions that affect these.

Actions to Mitigate1. Develop agreed upon no take protected zones for annual repopulation.

Activity 1.3 1.4. Provide alternative sources of income to compensate for reduced and forfeited fishing in MUMPA areas through activities of Outputs 4 and 5

2. As above in item 1 and in addition undertake rehabilitation of effected habits through repopulation with native species Activity 4.1.

3. Develop and implement awareness building activities on biodiversity importance and on the role of protected areas in protection of resources , Activities of Output 6

4. Develop a new legal figure that brings together exiting norms to create a new protected area category that provides for the integrated protection of coastal and marine resources in areas with a range of different restricted use zones that provide for local community needs and conservation of biodiversity. The creation of this category MUMPA was achieved in the PDF B phase and will be implemented through Output 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed project.

5. ICZM baseline actions described in item I of threat 1 will improve coordinated sectoral planning and the protection of coastal and marine habitats. The establishment of MUMPAs in highly sensitive areas will prevent loss of key habitats in 3 areas currently well preserved. The bringing together of key institutions in Regional Commission for MUMPAs and the establishment of multi stakeholder governance and administration structures for MUMPAs through activities of Output 4 will address barrier.

CALDERA BAHIA MANSA CARLOS III There are 7 fishing organizations from small bays El Cisne, Caldera and Puerto Viejo with 982 associated fishermen near the MUMPA area with landings of about 20,000 tons/year. Nevertheless, only 100 fishermen work inside the MUMPA boundaries, and 30 fishermen are responsible for two benthic resource management areas authorized in MUMPA. Fishers have taken an active part in the design and execution of the project and are in agreement with this initial zoning. They will participate in the project actively particularly through the activities of repopulation of

52.[54.] Inhabitants from the area are indigenous people who concentrate mainly on foresting activities with only occasional perform artisan fishing. The few fishers in the neighborhood are food-gatherers and mostly shellfish gatherers. The community of Maicolpi Sur extracts algae for sale, but only on a reduced scale. Its fishing effort involves about 25 fisher folk. The fishers that have the largest potential impact on this MUMPA are from 9 Bahia Mansa´s associated organizations which have 185 associated artisan fishermen and with landings of 120 tons/year. This is a village located 10 kilometers away,

53.[55.] Artisan fishing activity is minimal in this MUMPA and is not considered a threat. In neighboring areas, some spider crab is gathered. Fisherfolk have no incidence here, but they will benefit from the protection of this MUMPA's spider crab gathering areas.

- 141 -

AACTUALCTUAL ANDAND P POTENTIALOTENTIAL P PROXIMATEROXIMATE THREATSTHREATS TOTO BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ALONGALONG THETHE C COASTOASTMacrocystis, as tourist and sea-diving guides, and in activities of construction and vigilance. They can also elect representatives to form part of the management structures of the MUMPA

and they visit the area sporadically. There are also fisherfolk from other regions who visit the area only on Chilean abalone (Concholepas concholepas) during fishing open season All artisan fisherfolk have taken an active part in the design of the project and will participate in its MUMPA incorporation They will be a part of the project implementation providing tourist services such as transportation, guiding, diving, sports fishing. Fishers from the native communities will have access to managed zones where they will be able to gather food resources according to a management plan.

PPROXIMATEROXIMATE T THREATHREAT 3: 3: V VISITORISITOR USEUSE ANDAND I INFRASTRUCTURENFRASTRUCTURE

The growth of unregulated tourism in the coastal area, particularly in the MUMPAs can imply several forms of threats, such as: a) habitat destruction by development of tourism related infrastructure and nearby services (hotels, recreational uses such as golf courses, trails, campsites, roads, employee housing, waste treatment); b) increased visitation and introduction of higher impact activities, which may contribute to soil erosion, disruption of critical wildlife behavioral patterns or propagation of introduced species. Tourism in Chile has experienced a notorious growth in the last few years. In 2001 Chile earned approximately 788 million US$ through tourism, with a total 1.723.107 arrivals. 71,9% of these come from South America, 10,3% from North America; 0,7% from Central America and the Caribbean; 13,8% from Europe and only 3,3% from other continents. Within the American continent, the most important markets in terms of visitors to Chile are bordering countries, particularly Argentina, but also Brazil and the United States. During 2001, 49,4% of all tourists came from Argentina; 8,0% from Peru; 5,5% from Bolivia; 4,2% from Brazil and 8,0% from the United States. In terms of seasonality in the demand, records show a high incidence of summer arrivals (January and February), which in 2001 accounted for 32,1% of the total. From March until June there is a decline in tourism, followed by an upturn from October on.

Root Causes1. Nature based tourism in protected areas is restricted to terrestrial ecosystems as no

marine and coastal protected areas exit areas2. Marketing strategies do not focus on marine and coastal attractions or do not include

elements that contribute towards biodiversity conservation3. Potential sand and sea developments have not been co-opted for contribution to

biodiversity conservation as no formal mechanism have existed 4. Capacities for ecotourism in small communities are incipient with scarce knowledge

on business management or the definition of structures sustainable for tourism that combines conservation objectives with increased local revenues.

5. Cruise based tourism is not linked to the provision of local livelihoods nor are their regulatory frameworks that control the effect on coastal biodiversity

6. Awareness levels of national and international stakeholders on Chile´-s marine and coastal biodiversity is low and tourists do not fully appreciate effects of their destination choices and structures on these assets.

Actions to Mitigate1. The project will implement the first three marine and protected areas in

Chile that will include controlled visitation of tourism and provide the legal and operational structures for its regulation Outputs 1,2, and 3 .

2. Marketing strategies and information for the three MUMPAs will be developed through Output 4 and for a national tourism strategy through Output 7 activity 7.8.

3. The joint efforts of a private sector development as part of a MUMPA in Caldera 5 and the definition of ecofee on the revenues of this to the MUMPA= Activity 5.1

4. Indigenous and community based capacities for eco tourism will be developed through Activity 5.2 along with commitments of the harnessing of returns from this to MUMPA maintenance.

5. MUMPA Carlos III will develop a cruise ship based tourism plan that established codes of conduct and provides land based opportunities that will ensure revenues return to local communities and MUMPA management through Activity 5.3

6. Output 6 is focused on raising visitor awareness on biodiversity values

- 142 -

AACTUALCTUAL ANDAND P POTENTIALOTENTIAL P PROXIMATEROXIMATE THREATSTHREATS TOTO BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ALONGALONG THETHE C COASTOASTand activity 7.4 will develop and produce information packages for a multi facet (TV, radio, press) national outreach programme to increase the awareness on Chilean marine and coastal marine biodiversity and the role the demonstration MUMPAs have in contributing its conservation and to national development objectives

CALDERA BAHIA MANSA CARLOS III

A high number of tourists are expected in this MUMPA due to the construction of a tourism resort in Bahia Cisnes. These could make intensive use of the MUMPA and this will be regulated though activities 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,3.1 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 and 4.1 to ensure appropriate tourist use and link this to the capture of resources for MUMPA management

Home based infrastructure for tourism will be developed to welcome national and foreign tourists to the indigenous community. This will necessitate the construction of paths and imply the generation of refuse. A load capacity will be established for this MUMPA following tasks 1,3 and 3.1, and a general administrative plan will be applied to regulate access according to this capacity

The linkage of cruise ships to land based tourism could have an impact on the island soil and neighboring lands which are extremely fragile, as well as on the associated flora. Also, a large number of tourists will partake in whale watching. Through the actions described in item 4.3, there will be a full study of tourist load and navigational capacities, with respect to the sustainability of the area.

- 143 -

Annex H: Stakeholders and Public Participation

H1: Analysis of Stakeholders and Public Participation in MUMPAs Project

Stakeholder Mandate/Function

Interest in the Project

Role in the Project Potential Conflicts

Element(s) of Project Design for Avoiding Conflicts

Potential Stakeholder Benefits

StateNational Environmental Commission(CONAMA)

All MUMPAs

CONAMA is the State institution whose mission is to promote the environmental sustainability of the development process and coordinate actions arising from the government’s policies and strategies in environmental matters.

Initiator of the project and regional coordinator.

CONAMA will take part in the project’s National Executive Committee, and will serve as focal point in regions where the proposed MUMPAs will be located (III, X, XII regions) CONAMA will be the main coordinator of Product 7 and will be responsible for promoting successful practices derived from the project

There are no potential conflicts involving this institution.

The project objective and design are in line with national environmental priorities and those of CONAMA.

Conserving Chile’s marine biodiversity through a replicable process that coordinates public, private and civil stakeholders.

National Fisheries Service SERNAPESCA

All MUMPAs

Implement national fisheries policy and enforce the laws and regulations governing this activity. Ensure the sanitary quality of fish products for the international market, propose plans to develop sport fishing, protect marine parks and reserves as defined in the Fisheries Law, and provide official statistics for the fisheries sector.

Supports the creation of a marine area that will include the regulation and monitoring of small-scale fishing in fulfillment of its institutional goals including biodiversity protection.

SERNAPESCA will regulate the uses of the MUMPA according to its aims, and the uses of the existing hydrobiological resources, and guarantee the protection of conservation areas to be created. The Agency will participate in enforcement of fisheries standards generally, and specifically for zones to be declared intangible in the 3 MUMPAS, providing co-financing for these activities.

Although the potential for conflict is low, minor problems with small-scale fishermen using the zone cannot be ruled out.

SERNAPESCA will participate in the Regional Coastal and Marine Commissions that have been formed in the regions having MUMPAs (III, X and XII regions)

Creating & administrating a replicable protected marine area in the context of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law.Gaining local experience in multi-institutional coordination that will facilitate the implementation of the organization’s mandate. Having the opportunity to work with small-scale fishermen in protecting fish resources.

- 144 -






Undersecretariat of Fisheries

(SUBPESCA)

Design fishing policies and regulations

Supports the creation of protected marine areas within the context of the Fisheries Law.

SUBPESCA will be a member of the Project’s National Executive Committee, ensuring that actions undertaken comply with the applicable guidelines set out in the Fisheries Law.

Low potential for conflict.

To guarantee more effective participation in the National Committee, SERNAPESCA will represent SUBPESCA at the regional level.

Strengthening of institutional policies and image in matters related to biodiversity conservation

National Service For Tourism

(SERNATUR)

Implement tourism development policy, taking into account the country’s cultural, human, economic and environmental variables.

Encourages the development of tourism as an alternative economic livelihood in the regions where MUMPAS will be created.

SERNATUR will be a member of the Regional Committee, and will also publicize and promote the Area. Additionally, it will support the regulation of tourism activities in the Area through sectoral instruments such as including the MUMPAS in Tourism Interest Zones, publicity campaigns & related training programs, among others.

No potential conflicts.

Included on the National Executive Committee. Additionally, through its regional representatives (SEREMIS), this service may participate in the administrative Corporation or in the Regional Coastal Commissions in which the MUMPAs are implemented (III, X and XII regions)

By means of this project, demonstrating the potential for ecotourism development as an alternative economic livelihood.

Undersecretariatfor the Navy

(SUBMARINA)

Administrate Chile’s coastline and those rivers and lakes that are navigable by ships of 100 gross tons or more.

Responsible for the application of Rules for Maritime Concessions and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law.

This institution will legally declare MUMPAS and their Zoning. It will participate in the project’s National Executive Committee. The Navy will be represented by the Port Authority at the regional level.

There are no potential conflicts that will affect the institution’s relationship with the project.

Participated in entire process to create the MUMPAs. Will form part of the project’s National Executive Committee.

Demonstrating the feasibility of creating protected marine areas within the context of national laws and international treaties.

Port Authority

(Gobernación Maritima)

An agency of the Chilean Navy that enforces national laws and international agreements currently in force, in order to protect human life at sea and the marine environment and its natural resources. The agency also regulates the activities

Responsible for protecting the coastal area and ensuring its safety and the safety of those using these areas.

The Port Authority will collaborate in Enforcement and Inspection of the respective MUMPA. The PA will form part of the Regional Coastal Commissions in regions where MUMPAs will be implemented, but will be represented by the Undersecretariat for the Navy at the national level.

Potential conflicts may arise if inappropriate use is made of the installations built in the context of the MUMPA.

The Port Authority has participated in the stakeholder consultation process as a member of the Regional Coastal Commissions for the creation of the MUMPAs. It also promotes the participation of local actors in monitoring the MUMPAs by designating “Sea Mayors” (Alcaldes de Mar) in each of the Areas.

Demonstrating the efficiency of the work carried out by the Navy in defining the boundaries of and monitoring the MUMPA. Increasing the institution’s participation in protecting Chile’s natural heritage.

- 145 -






undertaken in aquatic environments under its jurisdiction.

Ministry of National Assets

(Ministerio de Bienes Nacionales)

Implement State policies on the administration and organization of property and lands belonging to the state.

Supports the sustainable development of public lands under the Ministry’s jurisdiction, including the coastal strip of the MUMPAs and adjoining property and lands belonging to the State.

To provide information and support for the creation of MUMPAs particularly in matters related to state-owned lands. The Ministry will sit on the National Executive Committee, and will also be represented on the Regional Coastal Commissions through the respective SEREMIs (regional ministerial representatives) in regions where MUMPAs are to be implemented (III, X and XII regions)

There are no potential conflicts.

The Ministry of National Property has participated at every stage of the creation of the MUMPAS, and has been an active supporter of this initiative. In Chile, the first 80m of the entire coastal strip, measured from high tide line, is national property. Additionally, in two MUMPAS there is a significant portion of public lands adjoining the marine areas under protection.

Demonstrating the usefulness of a project-based concession mechanism for biodiversity conservation and the development of local tourism.

Regional Governments

(Intendencias)

(political-administrative divisions of the State)

Implement the government’s policies and plan of action at the regional level. Governors are the President’s representatives in the Regions, and preside over regional governments.

Supports the development and/or consolidation of local economic activities arising from the project.

To coordinate the national policies of institutions directly involved in the project. The Governor presides over the Regional Coastal Committee in regions where MUMPAs are to be implemented. The Regional governments will promote new MUMPAs in their regions and will ensure that the MUMPA regulations are taken into account in policies and instruments for regional development.

Infrastructure development projects may be limited by the existence of the MUMPAs. The Intendencias may feel removed from the overall coordination of the project

The support of the Regional Governor (Intendant) was a key criteria in the selection of the demonstration MUMPAs. Each Commission will include a delegate who shall be the Governor’s representative on the project’s National Executive Committee.

Demonstrating the political will to support projects that generate alternative livelihoods and promote the sustainable conservation of the natural resources exploited. Driving new forms of development through low-impact productive activities such as special-interest tourism and ecotourism, among others.

Regional Councils (COREs)

The Regional Councils form part of the Regional Governments (presided over by the Governors), and are responsible for advising, supervising,

Interested in using regional funds to finance alternative economic livelihoods and in promoting a model where conservation

To financially support the creation of a MUMPA and to help obtain resources for maintaining these areas if tourism revenues are less than expected.

Conflicts could emerge if regional emergencies arise that impede the timely transfer

The contributions of CORE to each MUMPA have been set out in the project design and pledged in writing. A schedule of payments has been drawn up, and for each MUMPA the Project

Demonstrating the political will to implement local sustainable development models that foster the creation of employment alternatives that are in

- 146 -






encouraging and facilitating the productive, cultural and environmental activities carried out in the respective regions.

and the use of natural resources is compatible.

of co-financing resources required for the project.

Coordinator will interact with CORE to ensure the schedule is followed.

keeping with the conservation of globally significant biodiversity

National Commission for Indigenous Development

(CONADI)

CONADI is the institution responsible for promoting, coordinating & implementing the activity of the State for the comprehensive economic, social & cultural development of indigenous peoples & communities, and for encouraging their participation in Chilean society.

Interested in ensuring the development of Indigenous Communities in accordance with the Indigenous Peoples’ Law.

CONADI will sit on the Regional Coastal Commission for the X Region MUMPA in order to ensure respect for the rights of the indigenous communities involved in the project. CONADI will be represented by MIDEPLAN at the national level.

Based on current information, there are no potential conflicts.

CONADI was consulted and participated formally in the design of the Bahia Mansa MUMPA Project. These local indigenous communities are also direct beneficiaries of the project.

Demonstrating the usefulness of this type of project for the development of alternative livelihoods that take into account the values of local indigenous peoples.

Ministry of Public Works

(MOP)

The Ministry plans, designs and constructs public infrastructure, and maintains, operates and administrates these works.

Interested in financing activities to improve access to public areas and resources.

To support the design and co-financing of infrastructure required for the MUMPA. The Ministry will be a member of the National Executive Committee, and will participate in the Regional Coastal Commission through the respective SEREMIs.

Based on current information there are no potential conflicts.

Formally participated in the project design of each MUMPA.

Demonstrating the political will to support conservation projects through infrastructure development in the respective zones.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

(MINVU)

This Ministry is responsible for the country’s housing policy and issues of urban, municipal and inter-municipal planning and their respective land use plans. The Ministry’s powers also include

To design land use plans, particularly Shoreline Master Plans.

To incorporate the MUMPAs into land use plans.Through its SEREMIs, the Ministry will participate in the Regional Coastal Commissions.

The PIUBC may consider undertaking activities that are not compatible with the objectives of the MUMPAs.

Through its SEREMIs, MINVU has participated in the regional commissions for the creation of the MUMPAs. Land use in the III region is compatible with the MUMPA. The X and XII regions are in the process of incorporation.

Demonstrating the validity and utility of this territorial planning instrument.

- 147 -






the creations of shoreline master plans.

UniversitiesRegion X: Magallanes and Austral Universities

Public, private or mixed (public-private) corporations that provide higher education under the plans and programs established by the Ministry of Education.

Interested in marine biodiversity studies and in supporting pilot projects for alternative marine products.

The universities will assist in generating biodiversity research and monitoring activities in the MUMPA (Activity 3.6). These institutions may also be hired in pilot projects for alternative marine products.

Current information indicates that there are no conflicts.

These institutions may participate in the administrative Corporations that must be created in the regions where the MUMPAs will be established (III, X, XII regions)

Generating scientific knowledge based on the biodiversity and natural resources contained in the MUMPAs.

Private CompaniesCompanies

Region III KING ENTERPRISES

Region XII Carlos Valladares

Public or private corporations or associations whose aim is to generate profits.

Interested in opportunities to generate tourism businesses and/or strengthen and capitalize on existing ones.

KING ENTERPRISES will be particularly involved in the development of the MUMPA located in Caldera, and has already agreed to contribute, through eco-fee mechanisms, to the maintenance of the operation and the administration of the Area. The company will also finance the creation of a botanical garden, a thematic museum, non-polluting water sports and scuba diving. The enterprise of Carlos Valladares will boost its tourism activities in the zone, where new tourism investment is also expected. All of these will pay eco-fees for the maintenance of the MUMPA.

Private companies may overburden the tourism capacity of the MUMPAs. Conflicts among different activities and uses may arise among different concessions such as sport fishing, wildlife observation, water sports and others.

Interested businesses have participated in the creation of the MUMPAs as workshop guests. The concession holders may also join the MUMPA administration corporations. Scientific studies on tourism capacity will form the basis for agreements with private companies.

Developing profitable businesses such as ecotourism and whale-watching, and demonstrating their compatibility with conservation of natural resources and local cultures.

Social SectorSmall-scale Fishermen’s Associations

Region III:

Organizations of fishermen listed in the national registry of small-scale fishermen, and dedicated to small-scale

Ensuring that fishing areas are maintained through exclusion of fishermen from

To reorient and complement fishing with tourism activities, specifically transportation, guides, fishing supplies, sport fishing guides, coastal sailing,

Fishermen could be interested in keeping historical small-scale fishing

The fishermen, directly and indirectly affected by the creation of the MUMPA, have participated in the consultations, project design

Maintaining or increasing the economic benefits derived from fishing and diversifying livelihood to include tourism activities

- 148 -






7 associations 14

Region X: 3 associations directly involved15

5 associations indirectly involved16

Region XII No fishermen directly involved

extractive fishing. other areas or regions. Increasing fishing recruitment and output and the recovery of depleted stocks in areas near the MUMPA.

scuba diving and other activities. To be available for hire for specific support activities in the development of the MUMPAs, for example, the Macrocystis and Bivalve Mollusc projects, monitoring activities, construction of minor infrastructure and monitoring of marine flora and fauna.

waters out of the zoning of the MUMPA.

and initial zoning.They will also participate in the Corporations to administrate the MUMPAs. The members of fishing organizations & the organizations themselves will be prioritized for receiving training and being hired for the activities to be carried out in the MUMPAs.

that are undertaken responsibly and in ways that respect locally and globally significant biodiversity.

Indigenous CommunitiesRegion X: 4 indigenous communities 17

These are communities of Chile’s native peoples, in particular the Huilliches or Mapuches of the south, who own the land they live on.

Interested in improving social conditions in their area, including improved accessibility, essential services, education and the opportunity to increase family incomes through opportunities for work.

To execute the development projects to be implemented within the MUMPA, specifically products 4 and 5. In turn, the communities will collaborate in the protection of the MUMPA, attending to tourists, caring for infrastructure, and serving as tourist guides and other activities.Additionally, through a comodato contract they will permit the use of their own coastal lands that are required for the installation of MUMPA

Conflicts could arise if the aims and expectations of the communities are not reflected in the project implementation, or if revenues generated are not in line with the activities undertaken.

The indigenous communities have participated in and designed part of the project activities and have signed agreements in the context of the MUMPAs.These communities will be members of the Corporation of the X Region MUMPA. They will be trained in tourism and in the development of sustainable alternative livelihoods.The MUMPA projects have been based on economic calculations that demonstrate

Strengthening the communities’ ethno-cultural identity, and improving their quality of life through diversification of income, while increasing their knowledge of the value of biodiversity.

14 Organizations of Small-scale Fishermen in III Region MUMPA S. de Pescadores Artesanales Independientes de Caldera (113); Asociación Gremial de Pescadores y Buzos Mariscadores de Caldera (1083 S. Armadores y Propietarios de Embarcaciones Artesanales de Caldera(28 ; S.T.I. de Buzos Mariscadores y Artesanos del Mar de Caldera (Punta Frodden) (36; S.T.I. Mixto de Buzos y Recolectores de Orilla de Caldera Punta Obispito (SICAPUL) (52; S.T.I. de Buzos Mariscadores y Recolectores de Orilla del Puerto de Caldera (SIBUCAL) (39; S.T.I. de Pescadores y Buzos Mariscadores Artesanales de Puerto Viejo(38)15 Organizations of Fishermen in the X Region MUMPA project. Directly involved: Asociación Indígena de Pescadores Artesanales caleta Cóndor; (27). Asociación Indígena de Pescadores Artesanales Huellelhue – Nirehue (30);; Sindicato de Pescadores Maicolpué Río Sur (25); 16 Organizations of Fishermen in the X Region MUMPA project. Indirectly involved: Sindicato de Pescadores Artesanales Buzos, Estibadores Armadores, Comerciantes y Recolectores de Orilla Bahia Mansa(117); Sindicato de Buzos y Pescadores Activos de Bahía Mansa (46); Sindicato de Trabajadores Independientes Buzos Pescadores Artesanales y Recolectores de Orilla de Bahía Mansa (31); Sindicato de Encarnadoras Bahia Mansa, (26) Sindicato de Pescadores Maicolpué Centro (25)17 Indigenous organizations in the X region MUMPA: Comunidad indígena de Caleta Huellelhue(59), Nirehue (71), Maicolpi Río Sur (30), Cóndor (65)

- 149 -






infrastructure. the potential revenues for these communities.

Community OrganizationsCommunity

Region X: 3 organizations18

Civil society organizations that represent and promote the economic activities of their members.

Obtaining concessions or taking advantage of other business opportunities generated by the MUMPA.

To contribute goods and services such as labor during the project construction phase and also tourism services during the operational stage.

There may be competition for the adjudication of contracts and concessions.

These organizations are represented in the MUMPA administration Corporation.Procedures are designed to be transparent.MUMPA plans will be disseminated and promoted.

Generating income through the provision of tourism services and working in MUMPA infrastructure. There is an indirect benefit of greater economic activity in the area

NGOsThe Nature Conservancy NGO

An international organization dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth, by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.

Disseminating methodologies and systematic approaches to establishing Protected Marine Areas and to conserve marine biodiversity.

To support the development of training programs for replication of the MUMPAs, establish criteria for the selection of new sites and support the dissemination of material related to biodiversity management at the national level. Serve as the principal co-financers of Product 7 and support the development of adaptive management plans.

Based on current information, no conflicts are expected.

This group has financed a workshop during the preparatory phase to define the activities related to product 7.

Disseminating knowledge of management systems for protected marine areas, and generating a context for action in Chile

World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

NGO

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is dedicated to protecting the world's wildlife and wildlands. It directs its conservation efforts toward 3 global goals: protecting endangered spaces, saving endangered species and addressing global threats.

Participating in the conservation of a habitat with high global priority.

The WWF will assist in activities aimed at diversifying the income base of local inhabitants through non-extractive activities in the Bahía Mansa MUMPA.

There are no conflicts, based on current information.

The WWF has participated in the design of the Bahia Mansa MUMPA and has increased its contribution to this area to support actions related to good management practices and sustainable use of native forests, as well as providing training for administration of the indigenous park

Supporting the conservation of a site chosen as a priority for biodiversity protection in Chile and at the global level. Strengthening the management of this site through exchange of experiences with other organizations in the sector.

18 Community Organizations in the X Region MUMPA: Organización de mujeres artesanas Maicolpi (20);, Junta de Vecinos Bahia Mansa (120)

- 150 -






MAPULAHUAL.

- 151 -

H2: Stakeholders’ Participation Mechanisms in MUMPA Project

In order to ensure the participation of main privatenon-public and community stakeholders in the project (i.e. fishermen and native people), development of the the development of the following mechanisms institutions hare proposedas been considered. Two of them have been already created, and the other two will be developed for the pproject implementation and for the continuacontinuation of actions following project closurence. These are the Regional MUMPA

Such institutions are RMUMPA Commissions, the Project Steering Committee (PSC), the MUMPA Corporations, and the Huellelhue General Committee. The proposed

Following, there is a description of the role, responsibilities and structure of each one are described belowof these institutions:

Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area Commissions (RMUMPA Commissions) are instrumental institutions developed during the project preparation stage (PDF-B), in order to support its implementation and contribute the direct flow of information to Regional Governments where MUMPAS are to be established. The Commissions are chaired by the Regional Intendant and constituted by regional public services that will participate at the PSC.

Furthermore, main local stakeholders, fishermen and indigenous communities, joined during the regional project discussion process, in order to speed up the flow of information and their participation in the project design.

Commissions are in charge of actively articulating and participating in the decision-making process during the project implementation at the respective region, until the organizations without profit aims, the MUMPAs Corporations, are formally established, which is estimated to occur at the end of the second year of the project. Also, the Commissions will be in charge of continuing the discussion about marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the region, which being dealt by various public sectors will ensure that the analysis considers different points of view. This will achieve and integral view of the subject in the region, and will continue to operate once the project comes to an end.

Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area Commissions (RMUMPA Commissions) are instrumental institutions developed during the project preparation stage (PDF-B), in order to support its implementation and facilitate the direct flow of information to Regional Governments where MUMPAS are to be established. The Commissions are chaired by the Regional Intendant and constituted by regional public services that will participate at the PSC. During the regional project discussion process main local stakeholders, fishermen and indigenous communities joined in order to speed up the flow of information and their participation in the project design. The Commissions are n charge of coordinating and participating in the decision-making process during the project implementation at the respective region, until the proposed MUMPAs Corporations, are formally established, which is estimated to occur at the end of the second year of the project. Also, the Commissions will be in charge of continuing the discussion on marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the region to ensure this is guided by different points of view. This will achieve an integral view of the subject in the region, that will continue to operate once the project comes to an end.

152

National Steering Committee (NSC), will be in charge of supervising the project implementation, and willshould be made official once the project is signedapproved. It will be responsible for approving the project’s annual plans and operational reports; making sure that the activities are in line with those outlined in the approved project documentation and with national policy frameworks. The National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA) will chair it. It will be also composed of representatives from the UNDP, the Ministry of National Assets, the Undersecretariat for Fisheries, the National Fisheries Service, the National Service for Tourism, the Undersecretariat for the Navy, and representatives from the three regions where MUMPAs are to be established and from civil society and another from academia. During the first two years of project execution, regional representatives will come from the RMUMPA Commissions, from each of the regions where the MUMPAs are to be established. Once MUMPAs Corporations are legally made up, regional representatives from them will form part of the PSC.

MUMPAs Corporations will be established at each MUMPA, and will consist of relevant public and non-public stakeholders. Public stakeholders of each Corporation will be the Regional Governments, which represent all the public services, and the privatenon-public stakeholders are people living at the area and/or developing economic activities inside the area, including. Among the non-public stakeholders we find artisan fishermen, native communities, private investors, and tourist operators.

During the project preparation phase (PDF-B), multiple meetings were held with local non-public stakeholders in order to inform about the scope and objectives of the project, to confirm their commitment with the initiative, and to agree the kind of relationship with the project. The Corporations will be in charge of supervising the implementation of the project at their respective areas, guaranteeing that the economic benefits derived from the project are correctly managed at each MUMPA, and managing the MUMPA once the project ends.

These responsibilities (as explained in point 1) will be taken up by the respective RMUMPA Commissions during the first 4 semesters of the project execution, and will be transferred to the Corporations once these have been legally established.

The role of the Corporations will be to coordinateactively articulate and guide the decision-making process for the implementation of the project; explore and analyze new financing sources; and once the project ends, will be responsible for the administration of the MUMPAs.

153

H3: Description of Stakeholders’ Participation and Joining

in the MUMPA Project Design

Stakeholder participation of the FSSP through PDF B funds The execution of project PDF-b CHI/00/G42 “Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast” started the second week of January 2002. During the month of February, meetings were held with the most important regional authorities (Intendants), and with all the public services involved in the administration and control of the maritime and coastal area, and the associated hydrobiological resources. This aimed at obtaining support and consensus regarding the project’s objectives and goals. The aforementioned allowed the creation of decentralized structures at a regional level for management and decision making, through a decree signed by the Intendants. This led to the creation of the Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area Commission (RMUMPA Commission) inat each selected region (III, X and XII), chaired by the Intendant (Intendente), and the Regional Director of CONAMA, as Executive Secretary.

Once this goal was reached, the second stage of the project design was undertaken. This was specially designed to address the following four objectivesdeveloped, whose specific objectives were: 1) To socialize among stakeholders, living and/or developing subsistence activities in the area, the objectives, the scope, the benefits and the challenges of the proposed project whilst inat its preliminary design stage. 2) To agree on communication mechanisms and means of participation of the communities during the project design, the decision-making process, and the administration of the area. 3) To agree on a set of objectives and activities for the execution and generation of benefits, that give a whose p priority towill be the communities, regarding the execution and generation of benefits. 4) To obtain the informed consent and the support commitment to the project.

This process was carried out following the guidelines of the document “The UNDP and the indigenous communities: a commitment policy”, that, although it was designed for the indigenous communities, it may be applied also to artisan fishermen communities.

Following, we describe tThe participation process at Caldera, Bahía Mansa and Carlos III areas are described below:

a. III Region (Caldera): Between February 2002 and December 2003, ten site visits, including group and bilateral meetings with each one of the organizations, trade unions, and artisan fishermen leaders present at the core area.

The first set of visits focused on defining the situation of stage was devoted to be aware of reality and of fishermen and identifying their aspirations, and at the same time, to inform the community about the scope and objectives of the project. Experts in working with artisan fishermen, and especially with communities of the III region, participated in this process. At the end of the process, 3 workshops were held with the participation of a larger great audience of artisan fishermen and regional state services. The resultoutput of t of this his work was the identification of threats, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, and a preliminary zoning exercise. Then, during the second semester 2003, several rounds of negotiation rounds were carried out between the artisan fishermen’s trade union organizations, the governmental institutions linked to the access and use of marine resources at a regional and national level, and CONAMA. The President

154

of the Artisan Fishermen Federation and the most important leaders of the trade unions at the area represented the fishermen. The Intendant, the Ministerial Regional Secretary of Economy and the Regional Director of CONAMA represented the Regional Government. Representing the fishing authority, the representatives of the Undersecretariat for Fisheries (policies and fishing regulations), and the National Fisheries Service (control); and, representing the submitting organization, CONAMA, the PDF-B National Coordinator.

During this process fishermen emphasizedpointed out the need toof makeing compatible the MUMPA conservation objectives with the possibility to keep at least their current income levels. In this discussion it was made clear that the project strategyt should ensure thatwas raised that as non-fishing activities related to tourism begin to generate resources, these willwould be re-invested in benefit of those projects with greater social and ecological profitability inat the MUMPA, in order to develop productive diversification through non-extractive activities which have a direct positive impact on employment and income. This way, agreements for the participation of fishermen in the RMUMPA Commission were obtained, particularly regarding decision makingdecision-making, and in the Corporation’s Board of Directors that will be created to manage the area. This board of directors will have to deal with addresssubjects such as surplus reinvestment, review of annual reports, and consideration of new members, among others. Also, guarantees were given regarding access to training benefits, and support to productive diversification in activities related to tourism and kelp repopulation.

As a result The output of this work was an agreement protocol was signed endorsing fishermen union leaders and the most important authorities of the Regional Government of Atacama and the support to the project. among fishermen union leaders and the most important authorities of the Regional Government of Atacama. (A copy of the agreement is provided in Annex H5enclosed).

Furthermore, during these conversations they discussed the benefits of the creation of a marine protected area as a management tool, useful for recovering and/or improving over-exploited fisheries or in recovery process, and also the possible temporary restrictions for achieving the mentioned objective. These restrictions must be in agreement with the conservation and final zoning objectives proposed by the General Law for Fishing and Aquaculture regarding access and use of fishing resources. In this context, as tourism and non-extractive activities generate revenue, the scope of the possible restrictions should be agreed, in order to allow fisheries recovery. The aforementioned willshould be agreed byamong the members of the respective Regional Commissions and /or the MUMPA Corporations that, as shown in annex H2, areis composed by public and privatenon-public stakeholders of each area.

X Region (Bahía Mansa): SA special emphasis was given to interest for including the feelthe opinions and ing and aspirations of the Huilliche indigenous communities in the project design. As such, justified 15 site visits were undertaken to the region and , where meetings with the community were held in understand order to know about ththeeir reality and needs inside the MUMPA core area. Participative work meetings , regardless of sex and age, were held facilitated by , regardless of sex and age, with experts in customs and own beliefs of the Huilliche indigenous people and throughworldview.

the “Huellelhue General Committee”. This is the main participation and negotiation institution validated by the indigenous communities of the X region. The General Board of Caciques created

155

this committee, set up in 1997, in coordination with the National Commission for Indigenous Development (CONADI) -public institution specialized in indigenous matters. This Committee was created in order to deal with conflicts and as a means of communication between the indigenous communities, the regional authorities and the public services.

As a As a rresult of the working meetings of this work, the Huilliche communities became familiarized with the scopes and objectives of the project, and defined set out thei how they would r way of pparticipateion in it, while safeguarding their customs and intra-communitarian mechanisms infor the decision-making process. The participation process at this stage finalized through an extended workshop with the attendance of approximately 80 people, includingamong indigenous indigenous representatives, municipal authorities and from the regional public services, where the project’s opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses for that area were defined, proving . This was used as an input for fine-tuningmodifying the the project design.

It is worth mentioning that the aforementioned process was carried out through the “Huellelhue General Committee”, which is the main participation and negotiation institution validated by the indigenous communities of the X region. The General Board of Caciques created this committee, set up in 1997, in coordination with the National Commission for Indigenous Development (CONADI) -public institution specialized in indigenous matters. This Committee was created in order to deal with conflicts and as a means of communication between the indigenous communities, the regional authorities and the public services.

The agreements between the indigenous communities and the institutions submitting the project are the following: 1) to guarantee the indigenous communities living in the area the right to be properly represented during the decision-making process through the RMUMPA Commission, and the Corporation’s Board of Directors that will administrate the MUMPA. 2) To give priority to community training for the generation of tourist products and services, emphasizing women and young people participation. 3) To give priority to training and participation of communities in the development of sustainable productive projects, such as the giant mussel (Choro Zapato) cultivation, and the production and commercialization of non-wood forest products.

XII Region (Carlos III): Unlike other regions with local and indigenous communities living at the coastal area, the Carlos III Island and bordering coasts are uninhabited, so the participation process was less complicated and involved mainly the public, private and academic sector. The strong commitments of these sectors made the creation of the RMUMPA Commission and work groups much easier, agreeing to design and develop a management strategy and image target for this site.

156

HH4: Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

The project will focus on establishing multi-use protected areas and as such will involve a wide range of stakeholders. These are identified in H1 alongside the potential conflicts they may have with the project and with each other. In recognition of the need to establish clear mechanisms to resolve these conflicts should they arise, specific actions were included the project. These include the identification of conflict mechanisms as part of the manamgent plan for each MUMPS and the training of MUMPA manager s to facilitate these processes. The definition of these mechanisms would build existing legal instruments including those described below. All these regulating frameworks and their conflict resolution mechanisms are in force, and have been implemented prior to this project, and will be used to solve possible conflicts in the administration of marine resources, marine space and terrestrial space.apply the conflict resolution mechanisms available in the legal instruments applied to the activities to be developed in the project. Such legal instruments are:

The Basic Law for the Environment assesses the tourism pilot projects, and extractive activities of Caldera and Bahía Mansa, from an environmental point of view. The conflict resolution mechanism of this law is called the Law of Citizen Participation.

The General Law for Fishing and Aquaculture and its regulations applied to the fishing and aquaculture activities carried out at the marine zone of the MUMPA. This Law has conflict resolution mechanisms in the scope of its jurisdiction called Zonal Fisheries Councils.

The National Policy for the Use of the Seaboard establishes the preferential use of the seaboard, through marine concessions. In the case of this project, once zoning of the MUMPA is performed, and allowed uses are identified, they proceed to give the concessions of the areas. This Policy has a conflict resolution mechanism called Commission for the Use of the Seaboard.

The Basic Law for the Environment assesses the tourism pilot projects, and the cropping activities of Caldera and Bahía Mansa, from an environmental point of view. The conflict resolution mechanism of this law is called the Law of Citizen Participation.

The General Law of Urban Affairs and Constructions that manages the terrestrial public spaces through the Land Planning Instruments, that through the Inter-communal Regulating Plans and the Communal Regulating Plans establishes the priority use of the terrestrial strip of the MUMPA. This law uses the citizen participation mechanism defined in the Basic Law for the Environment for conflict resolution.

All these regulating frameworks and their conflict resolution mechanisms are in force, and have been implemented prior to this project, and d will be used to solve possible conflicts in the administration of marine resources, marine space and terrestrial space.

Following, there is a description of the aforementioned conflict resolution mechanisms, their structure, their role, and their link with the project.

157

The National Fisheries Council (NFC) is an institution created in 1991 under the General Law for Fishing and Aquaculture, whose role is to contribute to the effective participation of members of the fishing sector in matters regarding fishing and aquaculture. These matters are the establishment and management of fishing quotas, the declaration of fishing areas, declaration of close seasons, declaration of fisheries status (in full exploitation, under recovery, incipient or developing), authorization for management areas of benthic fisheries for artisan fishing, and authorization for aquaculture facilities.

The Council is in the nature of consultative and has decision making mandatesdecisive in those matters that the law establishes, and is made up of:

The Undersecretariat for Fisheries, which represents the fishing authority at a national level and chairs such Council

Public sector representatives, such as: The Director of the National Fisheries Service, institution in charge of executing and

controlling fishing regulations; The General Director of the Chilean Maritime Administration (DIRECTEMAR), an

organization pertaining to the Navy, in charge of executing and controlling laws devoted to protect human life at sea, the marine environment, natural resources, and to rule maritime activities.

The Executive Director of the Institute for Fishing Promotion (IFOP), in charge of developing research regarding fisheries matters.

4 representatives of the trade union organizations from the private sector, including industrial shipbuilders, small and medium-sized shipbuilders, marine products manufacturers, and aquaculture entities.

4 representatives of trade union organizations of the working sector, including officers and crew of fishing ships, workers from processing plants, and artisan fishermen, and;

Seven advisers nominated by the President of the Republic

The National Fishing Council (NFC) is a de-centralized structure whose design includes the following institutions:

The Zonal Councils for Fisheries (ZCF), whose role is to contribute to decentralizing the administrative measures adopted by the authority, and to facilitatemake the participation effective of members of the fishing sector at a zonal level regarding fishing and aquaculture activities. The ZCFs are also of an advisory and decisidecision makingve nature in the regions of jurisdiction. The ZCF is made up of the following:

Zonal Director of the Service (chairs) Regional Director of the National Service for Fisheries The Maritime Governor of the Region’s Head Office The Zonal Director of the Institute for Fishing Promotion A Ministerial Secretary of Economy A Ministerial Secretary for Planning Two representatives of universities or professional institutes

158

Four representatives of shipbuilders’ trade union organizations legally made up; of small-sized shipbuilders from processing plants of fishing products, and of aquaculture concession holders.

Six representatives from trade union organizations of special ships’ officers; from special ships’ crew, from industry workers, and three representatives from artisan fishermen.

A representative from all legal institutions without profit aims whose statutes include, jointly or separately, two of the following aims: protection of the environment or preservation of natural resources, or research on natural resources.

The Regional Councils for Fisheries (RCF), whose main role is to identify and discuss the problems of the fishing sector at a regional level, and to develop, and to implement technically sound develop solution proposals –technically justified- to be sent by the Regional Intendant to the Undersecretariat for Fisheries, and to the corresponding Zonal Council for approval.

The Regional Council is made up of:

The Regional Director of the National Fisheries Service, who chairs it; Four institutional representatives from which one of them must belong to a university or

academic institute related to fishing activities, and other to the maritime authority; Four representatives from the business sector, from which two of them should belong to the

artisan sector.

During The project implementation and following closureand its continuity w ill resort to this conflict resolving mechanism will be used for matters regarding access to fishing resources and the development of aquaculture activities and marine biodiversity conservation at MUMPAs. This would be made operationale way of operation will be through the Regional Fisheries Councils of the respective regions (III, X and XII) for setting out and discussing the subject in order this institution presents the subject and a solution proposal to the corresponding Zonal Fisheries Council (ZFC) where the problem should be solved. It is worth mentioning that there are five ZFCs from which the ZFC from the III and IV regions, from the X and XI regions, and the ZFC from the XII region and the Chilean Antarctic belong to MUMPA areas.

Finally, further information about the operation and powers of the NFC, the ZFC and the RFC is described in Title XII of the General Law of Fishing and Aquaculture, whose English version is found at the web page of the Undersecretariat for Fisheries (www.subpesca.cl).

The Commission for the Use of the Seaboard (CUS) is an institution created by a Presidential Instruction in 1994, depending from the Chilean Navy. Its role is to rule and encourage an organized administration of the national maritime space, to propose the President of the Republic actions for implementing the National Policy for the Use of the Seaboard, and to coordinate all the public organizations with land and sectoral jurisdiction at the protected area.

The Commission is made up by:

The Minister of National Defense, who chairs it The Undersecretary for the Navy A representative of the Undersecretariat for Regional Development of the Ministry of the

Interior A representative of the Undersecretariat for Fisheries of the Ministry of Economy and Energy

159

A representative of the Ministry of Planning and Cooperation A representative of the Ministry of Public Works and of Transport and Telecommunications A representative of the Ministry of National Assets A representative of the Chilean Navy A representative of the National Service for Tourism A representative of the National Commission for the Environment

The Commission is a decentralized structure from which the Regional Commissions for the Use of the Seaboard (RCUS) depend, at each politic-administrative division of the country with seaboard. The role of the RCUS is to propose the preferential use of the coast, support the work of the National Commission, and to make a Regional Land Registry.

The RCUS are made up of the following:

The Regional Intendant who chairs it Province Governors with land jurisdiction over the Seaboard of the Region Regional Ministry Secretaries, Regional Directors, Chiefs of Ministry Services, Institutions

and Organizations making up the National Commission (according to the operation structure established by the region itself)

Chilean Navy – Port Authorities Mayors of coastal communes with land jurisdiction over the Seaboard Representatives of the private sector, Universities and Higher Education Institutes, and of

regional trade union organizations, including artisan fishermen trade unions

The project will have close continuity and its links with the described mechanisms for managing the seaboard will be verified in order to solve possible access and use problems at the coastal area of each MUMPA, and/or possible problems derived from zoning and the allowed use at each area inside the MUMPA. In order to achieve this, the Regional Commissions for the Use of the Seaboard of the III, X, and XII regions will be in charged of with analyzing issuesthe subject, and and then they will presenting them it to the National Commission for its final resolution.

Further information about the operation and powers of the CUS and RCUS is described at the web page of the Ministry of National Defense, Undersecretariat for the Navy, Operational Area (www.defensa.cl).

The Land Planning Instruments (LPI) are mechanisms described in the General Law of Urban Affairs and Constructions, designed for managing the public or community spaces, belonging to each kind of space a type of LPI. As mentioned before, the General Law of Urban Affairs and Constructions uses the citizen participation mechanism for conflict resolution. However, it is worth explaining the LPIs applied in the scope of this project before describing the citizen participation mechanism.

There are four types of LPI: the Regional Plan of Urban Development, the Inter-communal Regulating Plan, the Communal Regulating Plan, and the Sectional Plan. For the case of the project only the Inter-communal and Communal Regulating Plans and their linkage to the project are applied.

160

The Inter-Communal Regulating Plans (ICRP) control the physical development of urban and rural areas of diverse communes that, due to their kind of relationship, fit into a urban unit. The plan is prepared by the respective Regional Secretariat of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in consultation with the institutions participating in the State Administration that it considers advisable.

Application do For approving this instrument involves, the following steps are to be considered:

Consultation to Municipalities whose land is included or is neighbor to the Plan Approval by the Environmental Impact Assessment System Sending of the Inter-Communal Regulating Plan to the Regional Government for its

consideration Once approved by the Regional Council, the Plan must be enacted through the Intendant’s

resolution. The provisions of the Inter-Communal Regulating Plan will be automatically included in the

Communal Regulating Plans.

On the other hand, the Communal Regulating Plan only controls the urban and rural areas of a commune or district. The Communal Regulating Plan is prepared by the respective Municipality, and must start a citizen discussion process including the following main steps:

Inform and disseminate the main features of the Land Planning Instrument and its effects Hold one or more public hearings to explain the community about the project Consult the opinion of the Communal Economic and Social Council at a session deliberately

dated for that purpose Start the approval process of the Communal Regulating Plan and its modifications showing

the project to the community, and assessing the environmental impact Once the aforementioned steps are fulfilled, the Mayor presents the project in order to be

approved by the Council The Plan project approved is sent to the respective Regional Ministry Secretariat of Housing

and Urban Affairs for its consideration If the report of the Secretariat is favorable, the Communal Regulating Plan or Sectional Plan

Project will be enacted by a mayor’s decree.

The project link (withand its continuity once its implementation ends) with the aforementioned institutions will depend on the land use planning established at the Inter-Communal Regulating Plans (ICRP) prepared for regions X and XII. In this sense, CONAMA together with the Ministry of National Assets are working for introducing priority sites of biodiversity conservation in regions, and for introducing environmental considerations such as ecological protection areas, vulnerableand vulnerable areas into ,plans etc. Among thesem we find are the areas where MUMPAs are to be created in the III, X and XII regions. At the III region, there already exists an inter-communal plan for the Atacama seaboard, which covers the terrestrial area that will be considered in the Caldera MUMPA. Finally, further information about the LPI is described in Chapter 2 of the General Law for Urban Affairs and Constructions (www.minvu.cl). Also, additional information is found at the web page www.sit.cl.

161

http://www.sit.cl/

The citizen participation mechanism is created under the Basic Law for the Environment, and its role is to establish mechanisms that guarantee the informed participation of the organized community in the assessment oprocess of the Environmental Impact Studies presented to them.

The citizen participation process is coordinated by CONAMA and starts with a public explanation of the project to citizen organizations, natural people and state organizations. In that opportunity, the special features of the project are explained, and a first workshop is developed. The idea is that citizens have a general opinion about the subject, in order that the formal consideration process is fluent. State the authorities with environmental jurisdiction, or competent in citizen participation and/or community or social development, participate during the mechanism implementation, and there is a specified period of time within which the person in charge must publish an approved abstract with basic information about the project.

Citizen organizations with existence as legal entities, and natural people directly affected may be informed about the content of the Environmental Impact Study through the copies available at the places specified in the official publication.

These may be Municipality offices, offices of the respective Secretary of the Regional Commission for the Environment or of the Executive Director of the National Commission for the Environment. Organizations and people may express their observations in writing regarding the Environmental Impact Study to the competent organization, in a period of 60 days from the publication of the abstract. Responses to observations should be included in the EIA addendums, and the clarification procedures must be done during a certain period. Once this procedure is ended, the regional or National Commission, as appropriate, should consider the observations posed, which will constitute the fundamentals of the environmental resolution of environmental assessment, which is the approving or rejecting of the Environmental Impact Assessment.Such mechanisms will be specifically established in each case, depending on the features of the project or activity.

State authorities with environmental jurisdiction, or competent in citizen participation and/or community or social development, participate during the mechanism implementation, and there is a specified period of time within which the person in charge must publish an approved abstract with basic information about the project.

Citizen organizations with existence as legal entities, and natural people directly affected may be informed about the content of the Environmental Impact Study through the copies available at the places specified in the official publication.

Such places may be Municipality offices, offices of the respective Secretary of the Regional Commission for the Environment or of the Executive Director of the National Commission for the Environment. Also, the Environmental Impact Assessment may be consulted not matter its proceeding status. Organizations and people may express their observations regarding the Environmental Impact Study to the competent organization, in a period of 60 days from the publication of the abstract. Such observations should be sent in written and should include the respective reasoning. Answers to observations should be considered in the EIA addendums, and the clarification procedures must be done during a certain period.

162

Once this procedure is ended, the regional or National Commission, as appropriate, should consider the observations posed, which at last will constitute the fundamentals of the environmental resolution of environmental assessment, which is the approving or rejecting document of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The citizen participation process starts with a public explanation of the project carried out by the people in charge, attended by citizen organizations, natural people, state organizations, and coordinated by CONAMA. In that opportunity, the special features of the project are explained, and a first observation workshop is developed. The idea is that citizens have a general opinion about the subject, in order that the formal consideration process is fluent.

This mechanism will be used not only for discussing project activities that, because of being carried out inside a protected area should submit to the EIAsS. It will be also useful for analyzing with stakeholders the creation of corporations, for negotiating alternative funds for the continuity of the MUMPA, and in general for discussing with stakeholders about subjects related to the progress of the project.

163

H5: Agreement Protocol for Setting 1Up the Atacma Region MUMPA

CREATION OF A MULTIPLE USE MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREA IN THE ATACAMA REGION

In Caldera, III Region of Atacama, on 20 December, 2003, by and between the Regional Intendance of Atacama, represented by Ms. Yasna Provoste Campillay, the National Commission for the Environment, hereafter CONAMA, represented by its acting Regional Director, Mr. René Ramírez Díaz, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the Artisan Fishermen Federation of the III Region, represented by Mr. Juan Morales, the Independent Workers Union, Shellfish Divers, and Seaside Fisherfolks of Caldera SIBUCAL, represented by Mr. Raúl Yaryes; the Independent Workers Union and the Shellfish Divers of Puerto Viejo, represented by Mr. Pedro Gómez; the Independent Workers Union and the Shellfish Divers and Sea Artisans of Caldera from Punta Frodden, represented by Mr. Elvis Stipelcovich, the trade fishermen's association of Puerto de Caldera, represented by Mr. Miguel A. Ávalos M.; the Independent Workers Mixed Union of Divers and Seaside Fisherfolks of Caldera from Punta OBISPITO SICAPUL, represented by Mr. Patricio Muñoz V.; the Craft Shipbuilders Union of Caldera, represented by Mr. Hipólito López Rojas, hereby agree, on the basis of the considerations below, to sign this Agreement Protocol, related to the execution of the "CREATION OF A MULTIPLE USE MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREA IN THE ATACAMA REGION”

WHEREAS

FIRST: the Chilean government, by virtue of its environmental policy on biodiversity protection, is promoting the creation of marine protected areas intended to foster the sustainability of the use and exploitation of marine and coastal natural resources.

SECOND: By Exempted Resolution No. 113 2003, the establishment was created of the “Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Commission”, made up by representatives of public agencies of the Atacama Region, including the possibility of inviting third parties to participate in their work sessions.

THIRD: One of the primary tasks for the Commission is to undertake the necessary co-ordinations for the execution of the regional component of the Project "Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast" as presented for international financing to the Global Environmental Fund (GEF)) by the National Commission for the Environment, CONAMA.

FOURTH: The regional component of the said Project corresponds to the creation of a multiple use marine and coastal protected area located in Caldera, between Punta Morro and the north bank of the Copiapó river-mouth.

FIFTH: The implementation of the said project implies the active participation of these artisan fishing organizations based in the area, and under their direct influence.

SIXTH: At different meetings related to the citizen participation component in the project, its recommendations have been disseminated between the related artisan fishing organizations.

SEVENTH: On 10 December, 2003, a preparatory meeting was held to deal with this agreement, with the participation of the central level members Álvaro Rodríguez Otero, the national project coordinator; Messrs. Leonardo Sasso B., and Francisco Ponce, on behalf of the Undersecretary

164

for the Fisheries; and, at the regional level, of Mr. Daniel Molina Cárcamo, Director of the National Fishing Service; the Regional Economy Ministerial Secretary, Gerardo Vergara Cañumir; Mr. René Ramírez Díaz, Regional Acting Director of CONAMA; and Mr. Darío Aguirre de la Lastra, regional coordinator of the project; all of them public authorities and State Administration officers.

EIGHTH: The following artisan fishing organization representatives attended the meeting: Mr. Juan Morales, President of the Artisan Fishermen Federation of the III Region; Mr. Raúl Yaryes, President of the Independent Workers, Shellfish Divers and Seaside Fisherfolks of Caldera SIBUCAL; Mr. Pedro Gómez, President of the Independent Workers, Fishermen, and Shellfish Divers Union of Puerto Viejo; Mr. Elvis Stipercovich, President of the Independent Workers, Shellfish Divers, and Sea Artisan Union of Caldera from Punta Frodden; Luis Palacios V., from the Punta Frodden Union; Patricio Muñoz V., President of the Mixed Workers, Divers and Seaside Fisherfolks Union of Punta Obispito SICAPUL; Mr. Juan Morales Alfaro, President of the Artisan Fishermen Union of Caldera; and Mr. Roberto García, from the Artisan Fishermen Union of Caldera; Francisco González, secretary of the Artisan Fishermen Federation of the III Region; Miguel Ávalos M., President of the Union Association of Fishermen of Caldera Port.

IT IS AGREED THAT:

FIRST: The Artisan Fishing Organizations concerned will support the Creation of a Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area in Caldera between the Punta Morro Sector and the North Bank of the Copiapó River Mouth, participating as specified below in this protocol.

SECOND: The Public Authorities and State Administration officers signing this protocol shall execute this project on the terms and conditions specified below.

THIRD: Artisan fishing shall participate of the administration of the Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area so that each one of the Artisan Fishermen accredited in any categories of the Artisan Fishing Registry can have a representative, including Shipbuilders, Artisan Fishermen as such, Divers, and Seaside fisherfolks.

FOURTH: The administrative agency Board should see to it that all those participating in the Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area (MUMPA) are duly represented. Without prejudice of the above, the number of the artisan fishing representatives from the sector who make up the Board may in no case be less than the number of the business sector representatives.

FIFTH: Fish extraction activities within the protected area shall be regulated by the General Law of Fisheries and Aquiculture.

SIXTH: Non-fishing activities within the area shall be regulated by its administration.

SEVENTH: Historic artisan-fishing users at the project area shall have priority access to the project-related benefits in matters of training, alternative economies that may come up, production diversification and linking, and labor training in line with their specialization.

EIGHTH: The longitudinal extension for the area shall be 30 km., and its width shall be 0.5 nautical miles

The original Spanish document is attached as a separate file (see File III)

165

H6: Letter of Commitment 1H6: Letter of Indigenous Commitment to Los Lagos MUMPA and Participation in Project

Letter 1

In Osorno, on 14 June, 2002, the communities of Nirehue, Caleta Cóndor, and the Lahual Indigenous Association of Butahuillimapu hereby express their will and commitment to participate in and contribute to the execution of the project "Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast", sponsored by the National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA), which main purpose is to develop institutional, administrative and financial bases that will permit the making of a joint project to be proposed to the Global Environment Fund (GEF) in order to implement a Marine Protected Area at the coast of Osorno.

This commitment will result in the following:

a) The community, or communities, hereby agrees to give access facilities to the community territory and contribute to the extent of their capacity in terms of transportation by land and sea for public officers and consultants for the purpose of producing relevant biological, socio-economic and cultural information and maps (baseline) according to a work schedule to be proposed by both parties. Any contribution made by the community, or communities, whether by way of material means provided by them (vessels, animals, etc.) or man hours, should be quantified and regarded as an economic contribution made by the community, or communities, to this project.

b) The community, or communities, and the Indigenous Association agree to participate in the process of finding and locating places for future support infrastructure intended for the project to be proposed to the GEF whether for tourism or scientific research. Following approval of the places and surfaces, formal commitments will be established conducive to their transfer to the agency responsible for the administration of the Marine Protected Area on the understanding that this would happen always and provided the GEF project is approvedwon in order to implement and develop a Marine Protected Area adjacent to our community territory and Parques Mapu Lahual. The legal figure as a Corporation, Foundation or any other definition for the agency's administration of this future Marine Protected Area should include the representation of the higher bodies of the indigenous community, or communities, and the indigenous association signing the protocol in a manner that will protect all our ancestral rights and customs according to the current legislation.

c) The community, or communities, and the Indigenous Association agree to participate in the zoning process and make administration plans for the future Marine Protected Area, which will necessarily include some modifications in the existing Management Areas and/or procedures concerned in order to guarantee the preservation, conservation, and sustainability of biodiversity and inherent resources in consonance with our people's ancestral principles and beliefs.

This Agreement Protocol is signed below by:

Jorge Loy Pailalef Ariel Millacheco Quintul President Nirehue Community President Caleta Condor Community

166

President Mapu Lahual Indigenous Association

167

Letter 2: Participation in Project and in H7: Letter of Commitment 2Creation of a MUMPA in the Los Lagos Region

On this day, 6 February, 2004, at Río Bueno, the undersigned indigenous communities wish to express, by this Letter of Commitment, and duly represented by their representatives, their support and commitment to participate in the project "Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast" pursuant to the creation of a Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area on the coast of Osorno, in the area of Río Negro, between Punta Tiburón and Punta Lobería, including the estuary zones of the rivers Huellelhue and Cholhuaco.

We herein declare that we have volunteered to participate with great interest in a number of meetings and visits to our communities and “Huellelhue General Committee” ("Mesa Huellelhue") in particular, where the local representatives of the Regional Municipal Government (CONAMA) (Mayor of Río Negro), the National Coordinator of the PDF-Bb project, and the body of consultants associated with thisto it, giive us all the requested information ofinformation of them, both verbally and in writing, so as to acquire a full knowledge of the objectives and implications of the project and related "baseline" studies carried out within the framework of the project.

We are aware of the fact that the implementation of this project will be possible through funds provided by CONAMA, the Regional Government, the Global Environmental Fund (GEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

All of the above added to the free and voluntary agreement expressed within our communities, has permitted for us to give our valid and confirmed consent and approval to participate enthusiastically in this project, as expressed in the points below:

- The undersigned indigenous communities herein express their will and interest in participating, through their representative appointed by the MUMPA within the Regional Commission, chaired by the Regional Intendent, in decisions to be made in relation to the implementation of this project.

- The undersigned communities herein express their will and interest in participating in the Board of the Corporation that will manage the MUMPA so as to safeguard their ancestral rights and watch over their participation in decision-making pursuant to the objectives agreed on within the framework of the GEF project. The Corporation will decide, year after year, on the investment of surpluses of social and ecological significance within the MUMPA.

- The undersigned communities herein express their commitment to the authority in that, to the extent that revenues from tourist products and services keep on increasing, a similar gradual reduction should result from the revenues produced by the fishing activity within the MUMPA.

- The undersigned communities herein express their willingness to contribute with lands on a Loan basis intended for the tourist facilities and infrastructure that will be required for the construction and operation of the MUMPA. The size of the land surface required for this

168

Loan will be determined following approval of the said project, which will not be in a total excess of 15 hectares.

- We, the undersigned communities, as historic users based in the project area, herein express our interest to participate, with at the labor basis, as historic users based in the project area, in those projects and activities generated from the implementation of the MUMPA related to the construction, maintenance and care of the infrastructure, assistance in inventory-making, environmental monitoring and scientific research as well as in any alternative economies that may be generated together with productive diversification and linking. Likewise, we stress our great interest to participate in any forthcoming activities and benefits associated to the project in matters of training and education.

Name: Jorge Loy Name: Juan Fica C

Indigenous Community Indigenous Community

Representative: Nirehue Representative: Caleta Huellehue

ID: 12.137.670 - 9 ID: 6.030.307 - K

Signed: Signed:

Name:

Indigenous Community

Representative:

President Fishermen, Divers, and Fisherfolks

Caleta Huellehue

ID: 9.952.366 - 2

The signed original letters in Spanish are attached in a separate file original letters (see File III)

Letter 3. Letter of Support to the Los Lagos region (X) MUMPA by National Commission for Indigenous Development (CONADI) is included in a separate file along with the above-mentioned original letters in Spanish. (See File III).

169

Annex I: Tourism and the Economic Sustainability of the MUMPA19

MUMPA - III REGION (CALDERA)Annex I: Tourism and the Economic Sustainability of the MUMPA

This Annex contains information to substantiate the viability of Outcome 2 of the project “benefits to conservation of biodiversity and local stakeholders and private sector investors will occur in the three demonstration MUMPAs”. These benefits will be achieved through two Outputs:

Three pilot projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity, and to diversify the economic base of local inhabitants and improve their quality of life

The first will include developing partnerships with tourism ventures in each MUMPA jointly developing tourism facilities that can provide nature-based attractions to visitors, and revenues to the MUMPAS for long term funding. The second will develop new sources of employment and income for local inhabitants including the provision of livelihoods from sustainable management of native biodiversity as a means of increasing incomes and compensating for the temporal reduction of fishing in core areas.

In keeping with this structure this Annex consists of two parts. The first (Annex I-1) provides an assessment of the viability of tourism as a long-term financing source for the MUMPAs and is made up of (i) a review of the estimated recourses to be generated at each MUMPA through tourism-related fees; (ii) an estimate of initial MUMPA operation costs and (iii) a table comparing these estimated tourism generated revenues to the estimated MUMPA operational costs. The second part of the Annex (I-2) provides a review of the economic viability of the sustainable use practices that will be demonstrated through the project to promote alternative livelihoods for resources users in the MUMPAs. While these demonstrations are sought to reduce any negative affects on local resources users by the establishment of no-take zones and restrictions on critical resources, they also represent a potential source of MUMPA financing through the negotiation of contributions from these sustainable uses to the MUMPA.

Annex I:1. Viability of tourism generated revenues for covering MUMPA operation costs

These estimates have been based on initial surveys undertaken during the PDF B and on other relevant available information. Figures used for projecting tourism rates have been conservative, but indicate that there is a high viability of tourism related resources covering the long-term cost of MUMPA operations. However, it should be noted that as part of the project each MUMPA will undertake more detailed surveys to determine visitation rates, fine-tune possible entry fee levels and systems, identify additional generation of income sources and determine operational costs and standards for each site. This will allow the more detailed planning of financing

19 Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Area (Area Marina Protegida Costera, or AMPC in Spanish)

181

strategies for the MUMPA and also help determine the expansion of operation and services in each.

(i) Estimates of Resource Generation from Tourism at Each MUMPA

Region III: Caldera MUMPA

The analysis of the potential tourism related resources generation in Caldera MUMPA is based on data from two sources. The first is the studies undertaken by KIN ENTERPRISES as part of their assessments when buying public land on which the sun and sand Los Cisnes tourism complex will be built. The second is the studies carried out during the PDF B project. In the case of the Caldera MUMPA two resource-generating mechanisms have been agreed upon. The first is a surcharge to be levied by the tourism enterprise (KIN ENTERPRISES) on visitors to the hotel complex and the second is related to entrance fees into the surrounding MUMPA.

During the PDF B negotiations for co-funding an agreement was reached with the KIN ENTERPRISE that a US$ 2 “eco-fee” for each hotel visitor would be paid to the future MUMPA administration by the tourism enterprise. This is in recognition of the fact that a MUMPA would increase the attraction of the complex for potential visitors. This flat fee would be charged to all hotel visitors by the KIN ENTERPRISE that would then channel the resources to the MUMPA.

The second mechanism would apply to only those hotel visitors that visit the MUMPA during their stay. This would be the gate fee charged to visitors at the point of entry into the MUMPA. A third possible source of resources is that derived from concessions within the MUMPA for sales and services.

The KIN ENTERPRISE have projected a total of 400,000 visitors per year for their tourism complex, however for the viability assessment undertaken here more conservative estimates were used as follows. To determine the potential resources from the hotel related surcharge (US$2 per visitor per night) an estimate of 100,000 hotel complex visitors has been used. Of these it is estimated that slightly under half would visit the surrounding MUMPA (40,000). Initial surveys indicate the a gate fee of US$ 5 would be possible, however as part of the business plan to be developed for the MUMPA during the project, the possibility of differential national and international visitors gate fees would be fully assessed. The average duration of stay in the hotel complex has been estimated by KIN ENTERPRISES as four days. For this review it has been estimated those visiting the MUMPA would do so only once during those four days. Based on these numbers the following table has been developed.

Table 1. Visitors and income at year 5

Item/profile Tourism Complex MUMPA TotalNumber of days charged 4 1Visitor Flow 100,000 40,000Complex Eco-fee 2 0MUMPA Entrance Fee 0 5Income 800,000 200,000 1,000,000

182

SOURCES: Final Socio-economic Report MUMPA Caldera; Information to CONAMA: Barrilliet Ltda. Consultants and Investors.

Region X Bahia Mansa MUMPA

The assessment for the viability of tourism related income as a main source of resources for long term financing of the MUMPA are based on the study “Estimation of Tourism Impact of the Creation and Implementation of a Marine Park on the Coast of Osorno (Eliza Corcuera). This study identifies that three different types of tourists that would visit the land-based portion of MUMPAs in this area, and determines an estimated average amount that each would spend during these visits and as such the level of fee that could be generated through the suppliers of tourism services and/or through concessions.

Two income-generation mechanisms have been identified for this MUMPA. The first is a entry permit to the MUMPA that has been initially estimated as US$10 to be applied to all visitors. Again during the project and based on further assessments, this may later be divided into lower fees for national visitors and higher ones for foreign visitors.

As the tourism model to be tested in this MUMPA is ecotourism in a community and Amerindian setting, many of these services will be provided by the Huilliche themselves (food, interpretation, rooms, traditional fare etc). During project preparation agreements have been reached with the key communities and commitments made in terms of the general contribution of a proportion of the tourism service derived income to the MUMPA running costs. Annex H5 and 6 include letters from these communities indicating their participation in the project to date, support for the MUMPA and commitment to developing inputs to these long terms funding mechanisms. Although this commitment is clear the exact nature and amounts will only be detailed during the project itself, in parallel with support to the Huilliches to develop these services and train community members to deliver them. Setting the level of resources to be derived from Huilliche tourist related services, and any other concessions, will form a key element of business plan of the MUMPA with the full participation of the Huilliche communities that will form part of this administration. Thus for the purpose of this viability assessment indicative figures have been set for the concession derived resources (“eco-fee”) drawing from the different tourism types and spending levels estimates in the above mentioned study.

A figure of 8,000 visitors annually has been used for the estimates for Bahia Mansa and was derived from the annual number of visitors to Chiloe National Park. This park is further south in the Region X but has some similar characteristics that make it a suitable comparison. Chiloe is a small island with Temperate Forest habitat and several indigenous communities that live in and around the park. The tourism model to be explored in Bahia Mansa is based on ecotourism in the Coastal Temperate Rain Forest and on services offered by the Huilliche indigenous communities. Using these figures and the analysis from the Corueca tourism consultancy an estimated number of visitors per visitor type was determined as follows:

1,200 trekkers per year visiting the MUMPA. Many of these visitors would visit the MUMPA as part of the indigenous footpath that is being developed along the coastal zone in the Region X. Their use of the MUMPA has been estimated as a one day stop over and as

183

such for the case of this study an estimate of only US$1 to be levied through service providers has been estimated plus the US$ 10 gate entrance.

5,000 Chilean tourists have been estimated annually drawn principally by the outstanding scenic attributions of the area (dense coastal forest bordering complex coastlines and open sea). Many of these would stay either in the rooms to be provided in the indigenous communities or in nearby camping grounds that would also charge permits that incorporate a surcharge to be channeled to the MUMPA administration to contribute to its up-keep. The estimated length of stay would be 3 days and a total of US$ 3 has been estimated as an “eco-fee” from the different concessions that they may use plus the US$ 10 gate entrance.

1,800 special interest visitors annually, drawn by characteristics related to the forest or marine resources and indigenous communities. A higher international component is expected for this category and as such a value of US$ 5 has been estimated from services and concession generated surcharges plus the US$ 10 gate entrance.

Table 2. Visitors and Income at year 5Item/profile Trekker Chilean

TouristSpecial Interest Tourist

Total

Stay 1 day 3 days 3 daysVisitors 1,200 5,000 1,800Gate fee- one time entry permit 10 10 10Eco-fee to be levied through tourism service operators/suppliers and concessions

1 3 5

Income with minimum flow of visitors 11,000 65,000 27,000 103,000Study “Estimation of Tourism Impact from the Creation and Implementation of a Marine Park on the Coast of Osorno,” by Eliza Corcuera

Region XII MUMPA (formerly referred to as the Carlos III MUMPA and now created officially as Francisco Coloane)

Estimates of tourism to the area are based on the report from the Economic Study of the Carlos III Protected Coastal Marine Area undertaken by the Magallanes University and the report from a workshop held in Punta Arenas with the participation of all stakeholders. As with the other MUMPAs two tourism-related long term funding mechanisms have been initially determined. One is a gate fee for all visitors entering the MUMPA to be charged at the entry point by the MUMPA administration. The second would be an “eco-fee” to be levied through the providers of tourist services including concession in the MUMPA and cruise ship operators. Whilst agreement has been reached in principle amongst relevant stakeholders for this second mechanism it will be developed and fine-tuned during the project.

For effects of this study the following figures have been used, based on the above-mentioned study and on the number of passengers cruises and passengers passing through the Straight of Magellan.

184

Tourism accounted for 4.2% of the XII regional economy in 200120 compared to 1.4% of GDP at the national economy level;

The per diem spending per tourist in the Magellanes region was approximately US$11621; MUMPA visitors will be mainly derived from the cruise ships passing through the Straight of

Magellan with more than 30,000 international passengers (see Table 4 below) and on smaller boats from Punta Arenas that could add an additional 1,000 visitors annually. The conservative estimate of 15,500 visitors per year was fixed to determine potential income and within this a division made between cruise ship passengers and special interest tourists. Many of the cruise passengers would spend only one day in the MUMPA however special interest tourists would be estimated at staying 2days, but with a one time gate fee would be charged;

In view of the difficult access, remote location and absence of local population the eco-fee visitors are expected to arrive through well establish tourism operators that may also provide many of the services. Thus a figure has been established of US$ 30 an estimate income derived from US$ 20 paid per visitor at the gate and US$10 derived from the operators and concessionaries. The exact mechanism of how this US$ 10 surcharge or eco-fee would be collected and channeled to the MUMPA administration would form part of the project activities both in terms of the legal attributions as the MUMPA administration is set up and in the business plan of the MUMPA.

Table 3. Visits and Income at year 5 (Values in dollars)

Item/profile Foreign Cruise-ship Tourists

Special Interest Tourists

Total

Stay 1 day 2 daysVisitors 10,500 5,000MUMPA Entry permit 20 20Eco-fee from concessions and services 10 10Income with maximum visitor flow 315,000 150,000 465,000

Table 4. Passengers traveling through terminals (transatlantic) and regional passengers

SHIPS Month 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalChilean Passengers JAN 526 421 836 1,783

FEB 501 418 784 1,703 MAR 494 404 866 1,764 APR 438 279 608 1,325 MAY 0 0 SEP 0 0 OCT 428 672 1,100 NOV 369 677 1,046 DEC 476 702 1,178

Total Chilean Passengers 3,232 3,573 3,094 9,899

20 The Regional Domestic Product for 2001 was US$1.071 Billion, and that tourism generated income for the same year on the order of US$45 Million21 This figure is 135% higher than average spending patterns of foreign tourists in other parts of Chile and was calculated as follows: the Magallanes region for the year 2000 generated a total of US$ 45,042,930 in the regional balance of trade from the arrival of 242,950 foreign tourists (statistical information from the 1990s). Thus foreign tourist per capita spending was US$ 185 per visit, for an average stay of 1.6 days per passenger.

185

SHIPS Month 1999 2000 2001 2002 TotalTransatlantic JAN 8,662 7,991 10,211 26,864

FEB 9,880 9,013 8,057 26,950 MAR 4,732 3,859 9,039 17,630 APR 1,885 2,183 1,036 5,104 JUL NOV 2,120 541 1,260 3,921 DEC 3,984 6,647 6,419 17,050

Total Transatlantic 6,104 32,347 30,725 28,343 97,519Total 6,104 35,579 34,298 31,437 107,418

Sources: Socioeconomic study for the Protected Coastal Marine Area Carlos III. Universidad de Magallanes, and the Report from the Workshop on the Creation of the Protected Coastal Marine Area Francisco Coloane (formerly Carlos III), XII Region. Values in dollars

(ii) Estimates of MUMPA Operational Costs

To estimate the viability of the tourism-derived resources for covering the operational costs for MUMPA a first step is to determine these costs. As no MUMPAs exist in Chile there is no existing data for this and the clear definition will be an integral part of the project itself. The management and business plans to be developed for each MUMPA will include a detailed assessment and projection of operational costs and their different categories (recurrent costs of staff, maintenance needs over a period of time, investment requirements etc). This will also require establishing the operational standards targets for this new management category as part of the project work.

In the absence of both these inputs (operation standards and costs) figures have been drawn from a variety of sources to develop estimates on which to compare resource generation potential. Estimates per MUMPA cost categories have been based on figures provided by the National Fisheries Service (SERNAPESCA) in each Region and are shown below:

Cost Category III Region X Region XII RegionSalaries: Base salary

Extra hours Per Diem allowance TOTAL

6,551 148 1706,869

11,123 960 50812,592

27,500 2.394 1.23131,127

Operational costs: Fuel Car maintenanceTransfers General suppliesTerrestrial infrastructure maintenance (guards’ house)TOTAL

344118

97141

701

622634 118 138 282

1,793

6,161 563

22,817 423 704

30,668Values in dollars

The costs of marine infrastructure maintenance (signs), maritime surveillance, control and monitoring are based on data from DIRECTEMAR presented in the co-financing letter nº A5 of Annex D, specifically in paragraphs, a3, b1, b3, c1 and c3 of Annex A and paragraph A from Annex B, respectively. With the mentioned data, table 5 of annual maintenance costs was made, as follows:

186

Table 5: Maintenance cost estimate of 3 MUMPAs (USD/YEAR)

ITEM CALDERA B.MANSA F.COLOANE Annual Total

Salaries 6,869 12,592 31,127 50,587Surveillance (Directemar) 52,930 21,171 42,344 116,445Visitors Center 33,803 28,169 42,254 104,225Monitoring (Directemar) 7,300 7,300 7,300 21,900Operational costs 495 1,512 29,963 31,970Infrastructure maintenance (terrestrial and marine)

681 3,627 14,954 19,262

Incidentals 10,208 7,437 16,794 34,439TOTAL 22 112,287 81,807 184,736 378,829Values in US dollars

(iii) Estimated MUMPA Operational Costs Compared to Tourism Generated Revenues

CALDERA B.MANSA FCO. COLOANE

Revenues from Gate fees 200,000 80,000 310,000Revenues from Eco-Fees 800,000 23,000 115,000Total tourist derived resources 1,000,000 103,000 465,000Estimated initial operation costs 112,287 81,807 184,736% Cover Costs from Gate fees alone 178% 98% 168%% Cover of Costs from total tourist derived revenue 890% 125% 250%

22 The distance, climate and geography of the XII region explain the higher maintenance costs of Francisco Coloane MUMPA. The second most expensive, Caldera MUMPA, is due to the need for increased surveillance of maritime traffic and fishing activity in the region.

187

Annex I:2: Economic viability of project sustainable use demonstrations

The above tourism- related demonstrations in the MUMPAs would provide new possibilities for tourism related employment and income for MUMPA inhabitants and those in surrounding areas. The project would complement these by supporting biodiversity-friendly pilot projects in the Caldera and Bahia Mansa MUMPAs to provide other livelihood possibilities that would improve conservation of native biodiversity as well as to diversify the economic base of MUMPA inhabitants and improve their quality of life.

In the Caldera MUMPA, the sustainable use demonstrations would be primarily to compensate local fishermen for the temporal loss of fishing revenues during the period of time needed for recovering fishing populations at levels that can bear a sustainable exploitation. It would also be to provide products that could be a tourism attraction, thereby strengthening tourism and conservation links. The pilot project entails the sustainable management of two species of brown algae - Lessonia trabiculata in sub tidal areas and L. nigrescens in intertidal areas for commercial products such as food and talasotherapy services for visitors. It would use similar techniques as the Macrocystis repopulation demonstrations to be undertaken enhancing diving attractions in the MUMPA. For both Macrocystis and Lessonia, cultivation has been undertaken at experimental levels and current evidence indicates there is a significant market for this. Macroalgae is used as food in the aquaculture facilities along the coast of the III and IV regions and as such a market already exists for this production, however as tourism grows the local demand in the MUMPA is expected to grow accordingly.

The demonstrations would be undertaken with the support of universities to determine the best locations for repopulating and management pilots, most appropriate methods for collection, cultivation and planting of spores. Cultivation activities will be carried out at levels that are compatible with the environment, and will be submitted to the national Environmental Impact Assessment System (EIAS). As these activities are to be undertaken in protected areas, in accordance with law 19.300 an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will be required for the EIAS rather than a Declaration for Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) that is less rigid. For further information regarding these modalities, visit CONAMA web page (www.conama.cl)

An area of 200 hectares will be repopulated with Lessonia trabeculata and Lessonia nigrescens. In order to achieve this, a hatchery will be built for obtaining the propagula (male and female gametophytes of these species). When the stalk or stipe reaches (15 to 20cm) these will be sown in a 200 hectares- sea area, tying the stalks in lines along the seabed in order to generate a basal disc or holdfast. The harvesting consists of cutting the stalk at a 15-20cms height from the basal disc in order to avoid the plant dies. Fishermen will be hired and trained in cultivation, harvest techniques and in business administration of this production to continue and develop this activity once the project ends.

An estimated average tray production per hectare is 15 tons, and it is possible to have two harvests per year at a sales price of US$ 63/tons. The aforementioned generates an annual income of US$ 378,000 (15*200*2*63

Kelp production 2 harvestsNº of harvested hectares Tray production: 15 ton/Ha Sales price: 63 USD/ton

200 6.000 378.000

188

In the case of Bahía Mansa, the sustainable use demonstration will be the giant mussel (Choro Zapato) cultivation that will be produced using a tray system. This is a low-cost and low-impact technology consisting of square wooden frames located at different heights over a base that separates them from the seabed in order to avoid predators. During the growing period the maintenance consists of cleaning the shells and trays. The minimum harvest size of a giant mussel (Choro Zapato) is 10 cm.

By the end of the project there will be 30 people trained for developing this cultivation, and each of them will manage 210 trays. Each tray has an annual production of 15kg/m2/year, the price per kilo (including the shell) is of US$ 1, so the estimated income for this activity is US$ 94,500 (210*15*1*30).

Item AmountNumber of trays by partner 210Partners 30Production per tray 15 kg/year1 kilo value US$ 1Annual sales US$ 94,500

In order to develop this activity, 30 people from the Huilliche community will be trained in culti-vation, maintenance and management of artisan facilities for mollusk cultivation. Also, other members of the community will be trained in key elements such as ecotourism for developing and managing this development alternative.

As an example, following there is some information about the chronological evolution of species production cultivated in Chile. The chart shows that there has been an increase in mollusk pro-duction, and an upturn in kelp production. This is mainly due to the enforcement of management plans for the extraction of this natural resource.

189

Annex J: Project Indicative Work plan Showing Activity Phasing

TIME SCHEDULE: TASK FOR EACH SEMESTER ACTIVITIES YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

1 sem. 2º sem. 1 sem. 2º sem. 1 sem. 2º sem. 1 sem. 2º sem. 1 sem. 2º sem. OUTPUT 1: Three MUMPAs protecting globally significant biodiversity legally established, demarcated & with essential infrastructure to start up operations 1.1. Finalize the technical & legal documentation required for the official establishment the 3 MUMPAs & proceed with approval 1.2. Define the most cost-effective mechanism for demarcation of the MUMPA (consultations & review of state-of-the-art practices.1.3. Fine-tune the initial proposals of zoning developed with stakeholders and prepare administrative plan of MUMPA 1.4. Design and execute the demarcation plan placing priority on those habitats that require most urgent protection1.5. Implement a demarcation information campaign for local stakeholders in each MUMPA 1.6. Assist municipal, provincial & regional governments to incorporate MUMPA into plans, maps EIA & permit processes 1.7 Design & execute, an infrastructure development plan for the start-up of operations in each site OUTPUT 2: Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA with operational procedures defined and agreed on within the context of regional and national decision-making processes and with mechanisms defined for long term funding2.1. Finalize general agreements of the characteristics and attributes of the Corporation.2.2. Develop draft statues for the corporation including by laws, and function of the assembly and executive secretary 2.3. Hold public consultation on proposed MUMPA Corporation in conformity with the Law of citizen participation 2.4. Legally constitute the Corporation 2.5. Determine a staffing plan for the Executive Unit of the MUMPA.2.6.Undertake a two phase training programme in MUMPA management for key personnel 2.7. Hold training for Corporations in business management 2.8. Define reporting procedures, mechanisms and information exchange between Corporations and MUMPA RMC Commissions 2.9. Undertake a series of conflict resolution workshops and training for the different stakeholders involved in the MUMPAs.2.10.Draft a long-term business & investment plan for each covering MUMPA recurrent costs & outlines cost-recovery mechanisms

- 190 -190

2.11. Hold consultations and define how these resources will be collected, invested and managed/disbursed OUTPUT 3: Adaptive Management Systems developed, agreed upon and under implementation for each MUMPA 3.1. Fill critical gaps in information required to develop adaptive management plans including completion of essential maps.3.2. Prepare draft management plan to obtain the overall conservation objectives of the MUMPA and its individual zones 3.3. Hold public consultations on these plans 3.4. Formalize and adopt management plans 3.5. Design and implement, enforcement and surveillance plan for the MUMPA 3.6. Design tools for updating & validation of zoning limits as more information is obtained on effectiveness of management strategies OUTPUT 4: Three pilot projects implemented to develop & evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity 4.1. Implement a pilot project in the Caldera MUMPA to demonstrate how the management of a planned high foreign investment sand and sun tourism complex can be transformed into an instrument for conservation. This will include the following activities:Finalize the design and implement the cultivation of Macrocystis in 200 hectares of core zone Plan and construct the underground trails for visitors to Macrocystis forests and build diving centre for controlled access Prepare tourist information pamphlets on the cultivated areas highlighting role in biodiversity conservation Set up monitoring of associated biodiversity & of visitor perceptions and increased awareness Develop the controlled access of visitors to key habitat in coastal areas of the MUMPA (bicycle trails, bird watching tours) Confirm the amounts of contribution of the Cisne complex & service and concessions to the long term funding of the MUMPA. 4.2. Implement a pilot project in the Bahia Mansa MUMPA to demonstrate how the management of ecotourism in a community and indigenous setting can be an option for indigenous alternative development based on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This will include the following activities:Design a two-phase marketing strategy for tourism to the site.Design and build visit accommodations and train local stakeholders in tourism reception emphasizing tradition cultures and practices. Train communities in ecotourism elements including the development of business plans, marketing techniques, resource management Define a long term ecotourism plan including mechanisms on how to select families that provide accommodation, food etc. Confirm and approve the amounts of contribution of the individuals and Huilliches community to the MUMPA long term funding

- 191 -191

4.3. Implement a pilot project in the Carlos III MUMPA to demonstrate how the management of national funded cruise tourism in an area of charismatic marine mammals (penguins and whales) can be used as a means supporting biodiversity conservation. This will include the following activities: -Develop a tourism plan for region that includes the establishment of minimal distances for cruise liners, on-shore norms & regulations etc. Build essential infrastructure for cruise passenger landings; for receiving on-shore visitors Open bids to the private sector for running tourist facilities Confirm and approve the amounts of contribution of the shipping companies and individual tourists to support the MUMPAsOUTPUT 5 Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on, and increase conservation of, native biodiversity, and to diversify the economic base of local inhabitants and improve their quality of life 5.1. Implement a pilot project for the sustainable management of brown algae (Lessonia and Macrocystis ) as a livelihood in the Caldera MUMPA. Hire technical experts and determine ideal locations for the repopulating and management pilots; Hire local fishermen and train them in the planting of kelp forests and their maintenanceDetermine tourism rates & trails for Lessonia & Macrocystis forest Develop sustainable harvesting rates for the Lessonia & Macrocystsis forests and develop associated sales and or processing ventures Set up monitoring systems of repopulated areas for biodiversity levels and for optimal densities and productive Determine sites for replication of pilot projects & develop user-friendly guidelines on brown algae management5.2. Implement a pilot project for the sustainable management of the giant mussel (Choro zapato) as a livelihood in the Bahia Mansa MUMPA. Including Hire technical experts & determine best sites for setting up the trays; Train local inhabitants in the collection of “seed” mussels, the tray building, seeding, maintenance and harvesting of giant mussels Set up monitoring systems of cultivation areas Determine optimum densities, handling techniques and tray design to maximize production and avoid negative environmental effects.

5.3. Implement a pilot programme to diversify the economic base and provide increased income from non-extractive livelihoods to local inhabitants of the Bahia Mansa MUMPAAssist the Huilliches in developing proposals for income sources to reduce reliance on the production of shingles and fishing Select the most viable of these and implement them with support from the WWF and IDB funded livelihood programmes 5.4 Train MUMPA inhabitants in small businesses management & review micro-credit schemes for seed capital for investment

- 192 -192

OUTPUT 6: Biodiversity Conservation Awareness and Outreach programmes implemented in each MUMPA and vicinity 6.1. Design & construct visitor centre in MUMPAs in accordance with zoning and governmental procedures for bidding and licensing 6.2. Design an awareness building strategy for different audiences at each site and in accordance with local specificities6.3. Equip and fit out visitor’s centers in accordance with awareness building strategy for this target.6.4. Construct and craft trails for visitors with information provided following awareness building plan 6.5 Develop links with education systems to increase participation in the definition of MUMPA symbols, design and plan visits etc OUTPUT 7: A training and information programme implemented to facilitate the replication of MUMPAs in other regions of the country and to increase knowledge on marine and coastal biodiversity management at the national level 7.1. Implement a study tour programme to the MUMPAs for representatives of regional governments and the tourism sector.7.2 Develop a set of “how to” manuals to provide guidelines for regional governments on setting up, running, funding MUMPAs 7.3. Develop a MUMPA support team to assist RGs in setting up Commissions, MUMPAs, appraisal of plans & defining sites 7.4. Produce information packages for a multi facet national outreach programme on Chilean marine & coastal biodiversity and MUMPAs 7.5. Execute a planning exercise on marine & coastal protection that includes the classification of priority areas, & site selection criteria 7.6. Review existing national incentive systems and develop possible mechanisms that to facilitate replication of MUMPAs 7.7. Build the basis of a national network of MUMPAs through developing websites and holding information exchange workshops 7.8. Design a specific biodiversity related product for national marketing campaigns on tourism 7.9. Hold workshops and seminars on ICZM for representatives of CONAMA, Regional Governments, and RCCMs.

- 193 -193

Annex K: MUMPA Budgets

MUMPA CALDERA

Outputs Total GEF Co-funding1. Three MUMPAS legally established, demarcated and with essential infrastructure to start up operations

0.726 0.225 0.013 TNC

0.392 RG 0.057 DIRECTEMAR 0.040 CONAMA

2. Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA with operational procedures defined and agreed on within the context of regional and national decision-making processes and with mechanisms defined for long term funding

0.230 0.190

0.040 CONAMA

3. Adaptive Management Plans/Systems developed, agreed upon and under implementation for each MUMPA

0.415 0.235

0.091 TNC

0.073 DIRECTEMAR

0.016 CONAMA4. Three pilots projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

0.667 0.097 0.277 RG 0.016 CONAMA 0.276 PRIVADOS

5. Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on and increase conservation of native biodiversity, diversify, economic base of local inhabitants and improve qualify of life

0.209 0.070 0.123 PRIVADOS 0.016 CONAMA

6. Awareness and outreach programmes implemented in each MUMPA and vicinity

1.464 0.163 0.588 RG 0.016 CONAMA 0.698 PRIVADOS

Total Cost 3.712 0.979 2.733

- 194 -

MUMPA BAHIA MANSA


0.578 0.421 0.013 TNC 0.040 DIRECTEMAR 0.063 RG 0.040 CONAMA

2. Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA with operational procedures defined and agreed on within the context of regional and national decision-making processes and with mechanisms defined for long term funding

0.240 0.199 0.040 CONAMA


0.415 0.235 0.090 TNC 0.076 DIRECTEMAR 0.016 CONAMA

4. Three pilots projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

2.201 0.154 2.031 RG 0.016 CONAMA

5. Livelihood pilot projects established in each MUMPA to reduce pressure on and increase conservation of native biodiversity, diversify, economic base of local inhabitants and improve qualify of life

0.412 0.107 0.091 RG 0.016 CONAMA 0.039 BID 0.158 WWF


0.314 0.078 0.226 RG 0.016 CONAMA

Total Cost 4.167 1.194 2.972

MUMPA CARLOS III


0.788 0.258 0.373 RG 0.013 TNC 0.101 DIRECTEMAR 0.043 CONAMA

2. Administration and governance systems in place for each MUMPA with operational procedures defined and

0.231 0.188

- 195 -

MUMPA CARLOS III

Outputs Total GEF Co-fundingagreed on within the context of regional and national decision-making processes and with mechanisms defined for long term funding

0.043 CONAMA


1.265 0.150 0.013 TNC 0.379 RG 0.024 SERNAPESCA 0.683 DIRECTEMAR 0.017 CONAMA

4. Three pilots projects implemented to develop and evaluate how different types of tourism can generate multiple benefits for the conservation of global biodiversity

0.436 0.402 0.034 CONAMA


0.323 0.257 0.049 RG 0.017 CONAMA

Total Cost 3.044 1.255 1.788

- 196 -

Annex L: Bibliografic References

Breen P.A. y K. H. Mann. 1976. Destructive grazing of kelp by sea urchins in eastern Canada J. Fish Research Can 33:83.

Castilla J.C y R.H. Bustamante.1989. Human exclusion from the intertidal zone of central Chile, the effects on Concholepas concholepas. (Gastropoda). Oikos 45:391-399.

Castilla, J.C. 1996. La futura red chilena de parques y reservas marinas y los conceptos de conservación, preservación y manejo en la legislación nacional. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 69: 253-270.

Castilla, J.C. & E. Nealler. 1978. Marine Environmental Impact due to Mining Activities of El Salvador Copper Mine, Chile. Marine Pollution Bulletin 9(3): 67-70.

Castilla, J.C. 1983. Environmental impact in sandy beaches of copper mine tailings at Chañaral, Chile. Marine Pollution Bulletin 14(12): 459-164

Castilla J.C. 1997. Chilean Resources of Benthic Invertebrates: Fishery, Collapses, Stock Rebuilding and the Role of Coastal Management Areas and National Parks. World Fisheries Congress. CSIRO Publishing.

Castilla, J.C. 1998. Marine biodiversity and community/Ecosystem functioning: Problems and challenges in coastal realms. In "Frontiers in Biology: the challenge of biodiversity, biotechnology and sustainable agriculture". C.H. Chou & K.T.Shao (Eds). Academia Sinica, Taipei, pp.87-97.

Corcuera, E. 2002. Estimación del impacto turístico de la creación e implementación de un parque marino en la costa de Osorno”.

CONAMA PNUD, 2002 Estudio Socioeconómico y cultural Area de Influencia Isla Carlos III.

CONAMA PNUD, 2002. Evaluación base para una eventual area marina protegida en el norte de Chile (III región).

CONAMA PNUD, 2002. Componente biológico marino del PDF-B “Conservación de la biodiversidad de importancia global a lo largo de la costa chilena para un área marina costera protegida en la costa de Osorno, entre Punta Tiburón y Punta Lobería, X región de los Lagos.Fernandez, M. 2001. Diversidad de organismos marinos en Chile: Patrones emergentes e implicancias para planes de conservación. Informe, Pontificia Universidad Católica.

FONDEFF, 2001. Biotecnología aplicada a la producción de choro zapato (Choromytilus chorus) para potenciar su cultivo en Chile. Universidad de Concepción.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, World Bank, IUCN, 1995. A Global Representative System Of Marine Protected Areas. Volume IV.

- 197 -

Informe País, Estado del Medio Ambiente en Chile 2002. Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Asuntos Públicos.

IFOP, 1987. Diagnóstico de la contaminación marina en Chile, Tomos I y II. . Corporación de Fomento de la Producción, Santiago, 203 pp.

IFOP, 1993. Diagnostico macroalgas en la zona costera Punta Lengua de Vaca, IV región.

IFOP, 1994. Diagnostico de la pradera de algas en el litoral de la III región.

IFOP, 1995. Investigación y manejo de recursos bentónicos en áreas de manejo de pescadores artesanales, III región.

IFOP, 2003. Boletín de exportación mensual: algas y derivados.

INE, 1996. Boletín Estadístico. Ministerio de Economía.

Lancelloti D & J A Vasquez. 1999. Biogeographical patterns of benthic invertebrates in the southeastern Pacific litoral. Journal of Biogeography 26: 1001-1006.

Lancelloti D & J A Vasquez.. 2000. Biodiversidad de macroinvertebrados submareales de la costa chilena: patrones zoogeográficos. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 73: 99129.

Lubchenco, J. y S. D. Gaines. 1981. A unifield approach to marine plant–herbivore interactions. J. Populations and community Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12: 405-437.

Moreno, C. A., K.M. Lunecke & H. F. Jara (1984). Man as a predator in the intertidal zone of southern Chile. Oikos, 42:155-160.

Paskoff and Petiot, 1990. Cited in National Environmental Health Forum Monographs, Cooper , Metal Series No. 3, 1997.

Sullivan, K. and Bustamante, G. (1999). Setting Geographic Priorities for Marine Conservation in Latin American and the Caribbean. Arlington, United States, The Nature Conservancy.

Vasquez JA, E Fonck & MA Vega. 2001a. Comunidades submareales rocosas dominadas por macroalgas en el norte de Chile: diversidad, abundancia y variabilidad temporal. En: Sustentabilidad de la biosiversidad. Un problema actual, bases científico-técnicas, teorizaciones y perspectivas. K. Alveal & T. Antezana (eds.):351-366. Universidad de Concepción-Concepción.

Vasquez JA, D Veliz & LM Pardo. 2001b. Biodiversidad bajo las grandes algas. En:Sustentabilidad de la biosiversidad. Un problema actual, bases científico-técnicas, teorizaciones y perspectivas. K. Alveal & T. Antezana (eds.): 293-308.Universidad de Concepción-Concepción.

Vasquez, J.A. (2003). Análisis de prefactibilidad para el repoblamiento de algas en la costa de Caldera.

General References

- 198 -

Araya B, M Bernal, R Schlatter & M Sallaberry (1995) Lista patrón de las aves chilenas. Tercera edición. Santiago, Chile. 35 pp.

Brattström H & A Johanssen (1983) Ecological and regional zoogeography of the marine benthic fauna of Chile. Sarsia 68: 289-339.

Cárdenas Jc, M Gajardo & H Verscheure (1984) Problemas de manejo que afectan a las poblaciones de cetáceos en Chile. Proposiciones para una política de conservación y manejo. Ambiente y Desarrollo 2: 107-116.

Castilla 1976 b. Ecosistemas marítimos de Chile. Principios generales y proposición de clasificación pp 22-37. En preservación del medio ambiente marino. Instituto de Estudios Internacionales, Universidad de Chile.

Castilla 1976ª . Parques y reservas maritima de chile, necesidad de creación, posibles localizaciones y criterios básicos. Medio Ambiente 2, 70-80.ç

Contreras Lc & Yañez J (1996) Mamíferos. Pp 336-349, en: Diversidad Biológica de Chile. Simonetti JA, MTK Arroyo, AE Spotorno & E Losada (eds) CONICYT, Santiago, Chile.

CONAF 2000. Guia de Parques Nacionales.

Di Castri F & E R Hajek. 1976. Bioclimatología de Chile. Vicerrectoría Académica, Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, 129 pp.

Fernandez M, E Jaramillo, P Marquet, S Navarrete, M George-Nascimento, F P Ojeda, C Valdovinos & J A Vasquez. 2000. An overview of the diversity, biogeography and dynamics of nearshore ecosystems in Chile: foundation for marine conservation ecology. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 73: 797-830.

Gibbons J, J Capella, R Matus & L Guzmán (1998) Ballenas jorobadas, Megaptera novaeangliae (Balaenopteridae) en los canales patagónicos de Chile. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (Chile) 26: 69 -76.

Gibbons, J., F. Gazitúa & C. Venegas (2000). Cetacean in the Straits of Magellan and Otway,Skyring and Almirantazgo Sounds. Anales Instituto Patagonia, Serie Cs.Nat.(Chile) 28: 107 – 118.Glade A (Ed) (1988) Libro rojo de los vertebrados chilenos. Corporación Nacional Forestal, Santiago (Chile).

Guiller ER. 1959. Intertidal belt forming species on the rocky coast of northern Chile. Papers and Proceedings, Royal Society of Tasmania 93: 33-58.

Guineo O (1999) Fauna de Magallanes en Peligro. Talleres de la Prensa Austral. Punta Arenas, Chile. 86 pp.

Jaramillo E, H Contreras, C Duarte & P Quijon. 2001. Relationships between community structure of the intertidal macroinfauna and sandy beach characteristics along the Chilean coast. PSZN Marine Ecology 22: 323-342.

- 199 -

Osorio C, J Atria & S Mann. 1979. Moluscos marinos de importancia económica en Chile. Biología Pesquera (Chile), 11: 3-47.

Rottmann J & M V Lopez (1992) Estrategia nacional de conservación de aves. División de Protección de los Recursos Renovables. Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero Serie Técnica (Chile) 1(1): 1- 16.

Santelices, B. 1988. Algas Marinas de Chile. Distribución, ecología, utilización, diversidad, Universidad Católica de Chile. Santiago. 399pp.

Schlatter RP & A Simeone. 1999. Estado del conocimiento y conservación de las aves en mares chilenos. Estudios Oceanológicos 18:25-33.

Torres JP, R Hucke-Gaete, FA Viddi, S Ribeiro, A Henny, K Acuña, R Vargas, C Christie & V Castillo (2002) Diversity and spatial distribution of cetaceans in Chiloe's inner sea and fjords of southern Chile, including the southernmost records of Trusiops truncatus in the eastern south pacific. Panel en 10° Reunión de Trabajo de Especialistas en mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur.

Vasquez, JA. 1992. Lessonia trabeculata, a subtidal bottom kelp in northern Chile: a case of study for a structural and geographical comparison. In Coastal Plant Communities of Latin America. U. Seeliger (Ed) Academic Press Inc., San Diego: 77-89.

Vasquez JA & A Buschmann. 1997. Herbivory-kelp interactions in subtidal chilean communities: a review. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 70:41-52.

Vila, I. 2001. La Diversidad Acuática: Estructura, Funciones y Salud de las Cuencas, Bases para el Manejo Integrado en Sustentabilidad. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad de Chile. Pág. 12-23.

Viviani C. 1979.Ecogeografía del litoral chileno. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 14: 65-123.

Westermeier, R. y P. Rivera. 1986. Caracterización ficológica del litoral rocoso de la Xª región (Valdivia, Osorno, Llanquihue y Chiloé) y de la XIIº región (Islas Diego Ramírez), Chile. En: R. Westermeier (Ed. Actas del II Congreso Sobre Algas Marinas Chilenas. pp: 125-146. Universidad Austral de Chile.

Yañez J (1997) Reunión de trabajo de especialistas en mamíferos acuáticos para categorización de especies según estado de conservación. Noticiario Mensual Museo Nacional de Historia Natural (Chile) 330: 8-16.

- 200 -

Annex M: Detailed Species Information of Selected MUMPAs (provided in file III)

- 201 -

Appendix B – Additional Information

- 209 -

Terms of Reference

NATIONAL STAFF

EXECUTING UNIT CONAMA-GEF-UNDP PROJECT

“Conserving Globally Significant Biodiversity along the Chilean Coast”

Background information and Justification

The Chilean coast is marked by its great biodiversity, high levels of endemism, and a fast, disorganized development affecting its marine-coastal biodiversity on account of degradation and/or suppression of habitats and food supplies.

To deal with this situation, the Chilean Government (ChGo) has looked for solutions permitting biodiversity conservation and development of alternatives for local economies, eventually choosing the establishment of a protected marine areas system.

Through this instrument, the ChGo seeks, among other things, to support the creation of institutional capacity and human resources while removing any barriers that might threaten these conservation instruments.

To materialize this solution, the ChGo has postulated a project to be funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) aimed at establishing, within 5 years, three multiple use marine protected areas (MUMPAs) capable of showing the potentials for the integral marine-coastal resources while building administration and replication capacities. The pilot areas should be based in Caldera (III region), in Bahía Mansa (X region), and on Isla Carlos III (XII region). These areas have been selected on account of their biodiversity and because they are representative of the wide spectrum of challenges in the establishment and replication of these conservation measures in Chile.

The following main outcomes are required of the project: 1) The legal establishment of the MUMPAs, their delimitation, and startup; 2) The generation of administration and management structures along with training in, and the fulfillment of, these tasks; 3) The generation of management systems and administration plans for each MUMPA; 4) The development of three pilot projects intended to show the benefits resulting from different types of tourism oriented to biodiversity conservation, users, local inhabitants, and private partners; 5) The development of alternative projects that can show the effectiveness of combining the sustainable management of native species and the development of local economies; 6) The development of a consciousness-raising and outreach program in each pilot area; 7) The development of a working program facilitating the replication of this experience and generating a work framework conducive to a MUMPA network.

The project will be implemented under NEX modalities. To this effect, an agency will be established and referred to as Project Management Unit (PMU) responsible for its supervision and implementation. The PMU will be made up of a National Project Manager or Director, three Regional Project Directors, and three Regional Technical Coordinators. The PEU will be a

- 210 -

decentralized agency with just the National Director in Santiago, the remaining staff being assigned to the regions where the Marine Protected Areas will be created.

The Project Executing Unit will have as technical counterparts a central CONAMA based in Santiago, a III-Region CONAMA based in Caldera's MUMPA, a X-Region CONAMA based in Bahía Mansa's MUMPA, and a XII-Region CONAMA based in Carlos III’s MUMPA.

As such, CONAMA will supervise and follow up the work carried on by the National Director and respective Regional Directors. Similarly, it will authorize the implementing agency (UNDP) to pay the Directors and provide the necessary facilities, implements, and support for the development of the activities conducted by the Directors and Technical Coordinators based in Santiago and the regions.

A specification is given below of the requirements of national staff to make up the National Executing Unit:

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE NATIONAL PROJECT MANAGER OR DIRECTOR

Definition of duties

The National Project Manager or Director will have the main responsibility for performance of activities, product satisfaction, and follow-up or monitoring of the project's fulfillment indicators. The NPM is to play a key role in the coordination and consistency of the activities to be performed in the regions pursuant to the objectives, structure and general purpose of the project. This includes both jointly financed activities and/or those which are carried on by other agencies contributing to the project.

Similarly, he must ensure that the work plans and associated budgets are consistent with the parameters defined in the project logical framework matrix and schedule.

The selection and contract for the NPM will be made as commonly agreed by and between CONAMA and UNDP Chile. The selection process should be in keeping with the selection and contract procedures used by the implementing agency (UNDP).

The position also implies reporting on the project's progress to the Project Steering Committee (PSC), which will be responsible for the analyses and sanctioning of the project's annual operations as well as with respect of Biannual Advance and Budget Reports. Additionally, through an extra-CONAMA representative, the PSC must assess the National Project Manager's performance.

The Committee is made up of representatives and decision makers from CONAMA (heading this Committee), the UNDP, the Ministry of National Assets, the Undersecretary of Fisheries, the National Fisheries Service, National Service for Tourism, the Undersecretary for the Navy., and representatives from the Regional Multiple Use Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of the three regions where the project is to be implemented.

- 211 -

The NPM will play the role of Executive Secretary to the Committee, organize and call for meetings, and prepare any relevant documents, minutes, and meeting reports.

The NPM should keep a fluent coordination and communication with his national CONAMA counterpart, the UNDP, the PSC, the Regional Project Directors, the services collaborating for the project with private groups, NGOs, Regional Marine Protected Area Commissions, and other agents participating in the project.

The responsibilities associated to the post are specified below:

Responsibilities

a) Conduct, coordinate, and supervise the Project Executing Unit.

b) Undertake the responsibility to acquire any expected products as scheduled and specified in the project's document.

c) Coordinate and supervise the implementation of the project at an operational level, setting forth the necessary guidelines and support to this effect while ensuring consistency between the stages and the general structure of the project.

d) Prepare, develop, and stick to the annual working plans and budgets linked to the objectives in logical framework matrix of the project, and within the stipulated time frame.

e) Coordinate and supervise the Regional Directors while giving them the necessary guidelines and support to ensure that the implementation of the project in each region is solid and consistent with the project's objectives and general structure.

f) Coordinate and support any necessary actions with external agencies, private agents and/or relevant state services in order to secure an efficient implementation of the activities undertaken by these agencies.

g) Prepare and coordinate with UNDP and CONAMA such operational aspects as the contracting and subcontracting for professional services (namely, setting the Terms of Reference), buying equipment and other necessary input required for the execution of activities. Similarly, he should take into consideration the necessary mechanisms to monitor the work plan fulfillment on the part of consultants and external personnel (contracts and subcontracts).

h) Assume the direct responsibility for the development and implementation of the activities in output 7: Develop a work program that will facilitate the replication of the experience concerned and produce a work frame for a MUMPA network.

i) Regularly assess the progress of the project and budgetary expenses on the basis of the information given to the Regional Directors, regular field visits and especially as suggested by the project's impact indicators. To this effect, he should count on steadily updated information on them.

- 212 -

This information should be given through a Biannual Progress and Budget Report which must be presented for the consideration of the Project's Reviewing Committee at a meeting to be held twice a year, where he will be required to submit the relevant information one month prior to the meeting. He will also be required to make an annual Project Implementation Report (PIR) for the consideration of the GEF financing agency.

Without prejudice of the above, he will be required to submit bimonthly Executive Information Minutes to the national technical counterpart (national CONAMA), and coordinate its preparation for the regional technical counterparts (regional CONAMA), the Regional MUMPA Commissions and MUMPA Corporations.

Similarly, the NPM should coordinate external audits and evaluations as requested by UNDP and (national and/or regional) CONAMA. There should be at least two external audit and evaluation processes during the project's life in agreement between CONAMA and UNDP.

j) Coordinate and transfer information on the experience gained from the project implementation sites, and make available spaces for discussions on the analysis of the information thus generated.

k) Regularly report to and inform UNDP, CONAMA and PSC on the experience gained during the project's implementation and, at the same time, channel and discuss the experience in initiatives similar to those from other parts of the world so as to improve the project's operation.

l) Others:

The NPM should inform on, and justify any budgetary changes in the annual plan for the operations as approved by the Project's Reviewing Committee.

The NPM may determine the hiring of support administrative personnel.

Performance evaluation

The criteria to evaluate the candidate's performance will be based on his fulfillment of the annual work and the progress made as shown by the project's impact indicators. The evaluation process will be in the hands of a joint team including the technical counterpart, UNDP and PSC. Similarly, additional performance evaluation criteria may be included as agreed by and between UNDP, CONAMA, and the candidate.

Professional profile

a) Professional postgraduate training in coastal, natural resources, environmental sciences management, and/or economy or administration related to natural resources.

b) Proven experience and skills in coordination, negotiation and leadership for dealing with public, private, multisectorial, NGO, and multicultural public work, foreign and/or national experts, technicians and scientists (a requirement).

- 213 -

c) Experience in dealing with mid- and long-term projects funded by several (public, private, international) agencies (highly desirable).

d) Experience in national or international sustainable biodiversity conservation and development (a requirement).

e) Proven capacity in dealing with conflicts and negotiations (a requirement).

f) Ability to establish formal and informal knowledge and technical exchange networks as required by the project (highly desirable).

g) Work experience in the public sector (a requirement).

h) Fluent English, both oral and written (a requirement).

Place and duration of postThe National Project Manager will be based in Santiago, specifically in national CONAMA facilities, his contract being effective for 12 months and renewable according to the evaluation of his performance.Salary and terms of payment

The gross remuneration associated to the post is US$ 2,950 (two thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars) a month to be paid in an equivalent amount in national currency if so previously approved by national CONAMA's executive activities minute.

Compliance with social security taxes and laws will be the candidate's responsibility.

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGER OR DIRECTOR

Definition of post

The Regional Project Manager or Director will be responsible for the execution of those activities associated to satisfaction with the products concerned as well as the follow-up and monitoring of the project's performance indicators in the region. The RPM will play a determining role in the coordination and consistency of the activities to be carried on in the region along with the objectives, structure and general purpose of the project's products for the said region, including activities conducive to co-funding and/or those developed by other entities cooperating with the project. He should also see to it that the associated budgets are executed in compliance with the parameters shown in the project’s logical framework and schedule.

The selection and contracting of the RPM should be in agreement by and between CONAMA and UNDP Chile. The selection process should be in accordance with the selection and contracting procedures of the implementing agency (UNDP).

The RPM should coordinate and keep up a fluent communication with his technical counterpart in regional CONAMA, with the state and private services, with NGOs and with other project-cooperating instances, with the NPD, the Regional MUMPA Commission and the MUMPA Corporations for the orientation and implementation of the project in the region.

- 214 -


Responsibilities

a) Prepare and reach an agreement with the NPM, regional CONAMA, the Regional MUMPA Commission, and the Regional MUMPA Corporation (once established) on the annual operating plans for obtaining the desired products for their region, within the framework of the project's logical matrix and as scheduled.

b) Coordinate and supervise the implementation of the regional project operation according to guidelines given by the NPM, regional CONAMA and the MUMPA Commission and Corporation.

c) In a joint action with regional CONAMA, coordinate the necessary efforts with the agencies and/or services concerned to ensure the efficient implementation of the project-related activities under the care of the said agencies in the region.

d) Prepare and coordinate with regional CONAMA the contracting and subcontracting for professional services, purchasing of equipment and other necessary input for the execution of the activities concerned. He should also watch over the execution of the work plans under contract on the part of external consultants.

e) Make progress evaluation reports on the activities in the region and the associated budgetary expenses based on regular field visits and the project's impact indicators. These reports will be an input for building the Biannual Progress and Budget Report and the Project's Implementation Report. He must also prepare Bimonthly Executive Minutes for his counterpart in regional CONAMA, for the Regional MUMPA Commission, and the respective regional corporation.

f) Coordinate the generation of information intended for the construction of impact indicators and their automatic updating.

g) Coordinate the systematization of the information reported and experience gained from the project's implementation sites and generate spaces and networks for the discussion and analysis of the information generated, in order to lay down the bases for the implementation of a protected marine area system.

h) Regularly report to regional CONAMA, the NPM, and the MUMPA Corporation and Commission and inform on the experience gained during the implementation of the project, at the same time analyzing and discussing the information channeled by the NPM with respect to the experience in similar initiatives in other parts of the world so as to improve on the project's operation and implementation.

m) Others:

The RPM will be required to justify any reapportionments in the budget as ap-proved by the annual regional operating plan. The said plan will be part of the project's operating plan, which is approved by the Reviewing Committee.

- 215 -


The evaluation criteria on the performance of the selected candidate will be based on his fulfillment of the regional work plan, which is projected each year, and on the progress shown by the project's impact indicators in the region. The RPM performance will be assessed by the regional CONAMA, a regional Corporation representative, a Regional Marine Protected Area Commission representative, the NPM, and national CONAMA.

Some other additional evaluation criteria may still be proposed by UNDP and CONAMA in agreement with the candidate.


i) Professional with postgraduate training in management of coastal resources, natural resources, environmental sciences, and/or economy or administration linked to the management of natural resources.

j) Accreditation of experience and skills as a coordinator, negotiator, and leader in dealing with public, private, multicultural and multisectorial environments as well as with foreign and/or national experts, technicians and scientists (a requirement).

k) Experience in the management of mid- and long-term projects financed by public, private and international agencies (highly desirable).

l) Experience in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development projects (a requirement).

m) Proven capacity in dealing with conflicts and negotiations (a requirement).

n) Capacity to deal with formal and informal knowledge and information networks as required by the project (desirable).

o) Experience working with the public and private sectors, multiethnic groups, the public and private sectors, and NGOs (a requirement).

p) Command of oral and written English (highly desirable).

Place and duration of post

The work of the Regional Project Manager should be based at CONAMA premises whose regions will see their Protected Marine Areas implemented; namely, Copiapó, Puerto Montt, and Punta Arenas.

The duration of the post will be 12 months and will be renewed annually according to performance evaluation.

Salary and terms of payment

- 216 -

The gross remuneration associated to the post is US$ 2,500 (two thousand five hundred dollars) a month to be paid in its equivalent amount in local currency following CONAMA's approval of the minute of executive activities.

The selected candidate will be responsible for the payment of social security and related taxes.

- 217 -

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL PROJECT TECHNICAL COORDINATOR

Definition of post

The Regional Project Technical Coordinator (RTC) will be supervised by the respective RPM, and his role will consist in giving technical and administrative support for the project's implementation. This will imply supporting the RPM in planning and following up those activities indicated in the annual operating plan for the region concerned, organizing meetings, minutes and records of meetings; preparation, follow-up and evaluation of contracts and subcontracts; updated information on budgetary expenses; supporting the making of reports; supporting technical and administrative coordination for the implementation of Marine Protected Areas; and, in general, assisting the RPM with the administrative, financial and technical management of the project.

The selection and contract of the RTC will be as agreed by and between CONAMA and UNDP Chile. The selection process should be according to the implementing agency's (UNDP) selection and contracting procedures.

The RTC should coordinate and keep up a fluent communication with his respective RPMs, the Regional Technical Coordinator, the other regional coordinators, the regional technical counterparts and technical and administrative state service agencies, NGOs, and private or other agents cooperating with the project in their respective regions.


Responsibilities

a) Assist the RPMs in the design, planning, management, implementation, monitoring and supervision of all the administrative and technical components of the project. Special attention should be given to the implementation and daily maintenance of the monitoring system for the project's impact indicators in the region.

b) Support RPMs in making annual regional operating plans and in establishing a detailed follow-up of technical and administrative activities in accordance with a procedure to be agreed nationwide.

c) Give technical and administrative advice to the NPM in determining the Terms of Reference for consultancies, subcontracts, and the rendering of external services intended to develop those regional activities as specified in the regional plan for annual operations. The ToRs should take into consideration the satisfaction indicators with regard to the works under contract. Similarly, selection and evaluation criteria should be determined for consultancy applicants.

d) Apply and evaluate the procedure related to the acquisition of the necessary input and equipment for obtaining the products expected of the project in the region.

- 218 -

e) Assist in the making of Regional Progress and Budgetary Reports, Executive Minutes, presentations, and other information and dissemination within the requirements for the project and/or regional marine protected areas commissions and technical counterparts. To this effect, he should create and apply the report structures or protocols as agreed with the National Technical Coordinator.

f) Permanently support and keep his RPMs informed about external contracts supervision and follow-up, and guide them with respect to their evaluation and fulfillment.

g) Support the establishment, extension and operation of contact networks for the analysis of experience derived from the project's technical and administrative implementation and other similar initiatives elsewhere in the world. He should further support the development and maintenance of information discussion instances and the compilation of conclusions.

h) The RTC will have the direct responsibility to start and maintain a record of the technical and administrative implementation experience of the project in the region so as to develop inputs for marine protected areas generation Manuals.

i) Support his RPMs in the development and facilitation of workshops, meetings and discussion instances for the analysis of the current project's results, information, and other requirements in the project.


The evaluation criteria on the selected candidate's performance will be based on his fulfillment of the annual operating plans for the region.

The evaluation process for the RTC will be the responsibility of the regional technical counterpart, the RPM, a representative of the protected marine areas, and a representative of the respective MUMPA Corporation (once established).


a) A professional trained in coastal resource and natural resource management, environmental sciences, and/or administration economy associated to natural resource management (a requirement).

b) Proven experience and skills in the administration of public, private, international or mixed, mid- and/or long-term projects (a requirement).

c) Experience in the administration of biodiversity conservation projects, and sustainable development projects (highly desirable).

d) Ability to contact formal and informal knowledge and information networks as required for the project (highly desirable).

e) Experience working with the public and private sectors, multiethnic groups and NGOs.

- 219 -

f) Management of the English language at a technical level (reading, writing) (desirable).

Place and duration of post

The Regional Technical Coordinator should work in those regions where the intended MUMPAs will be implemented, specifically in the cities of Copiapó, Puerto Montt, and Punta Arenas. The post will be renewed annually according to performance evaluation.

Salary and payment terms

The gross remuneration associated to the post is US$ 1,900 (one thousand nine hundred dollars) a month to be paid in its equivalent amount in local currency, following the regional CONAMA's previous approval of the minute of executive activities.

Payment of the selected candidate's social and related taxes will be his responsibility.

- 220 -

GENERAL TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. LEGAL CONSULTANCY ON OFFICIALISATION

Objective: Finish up the technical and legal documentation required to officialize the establishment of three marine protected areas to be created by virtue of the project, taking into consideration the institutional arrangements advanced during the project's preparation stage (PDF B). The documentation should come to be accepted by CONAMA’s Executive Director and those CONAMA regional directors based in the respective regions where the intended marine protected areas will be created, and then publishing it in the Official Gazette.

The activity contemplates means of transportation for traveling to the respective regions.

Expected outcomes: Official creation of the marine protected areas in Caldera, Bahía Mansa, and Carlos III, each one along with its corresponding technical and legal report on the full biological and environmental information and legal and institutional conditions agreed for their creation and publication in the Official Gazette.

Duration: 4 months.

Consultant's profile: a professional experienced in the generation of private and public alliances oriented to sustainable development.

Consultancy fee: US$ 29,578.

2. DEMARCATION STUDY

Objective: Define the cost-effective mechanisms for the demarcation of terrestrial and marine protected areas through consultation, land measurements, and revision of national and international experience in this issue.

Expected outcome: A detailed report indicating the most efficient mechanism(s) for demarcating those zones which will make up the marine and terrestrial portion of each marine protected area, taking into consideration the socio-economic, cultural, biological, and weather conditions in each zone where the said areas should be created.

Duration: 4 months.

Consultant's profile: A multidisciplinary work team with field experience in respective zones.


3. A TECHNICAL-PUBLICITY STUDY

Objective: Design and implement a publicity campaign in each marine protected area so as to ensure that the local communities, users, and the general public become familiar with the demarcation selected and implemented in each marine protected area.

- 221 -

Expected outcomes: The design and implementation of a publicity campaign in each region where marine protected areas should be created in order to disseminate and have their users and the general public internalized with the existing limits for these created marine areas. These campaigns should take into consideration the economic condition and social and cultural situation in each zone, showing the results of their implementation.

Duration: 3 months.

Consultant's profile: A multidisciplinary work team with experience in each one of the zones concerned.


- 222 -

4. LEGAL CONSULTANCY ON CORPORATION ESTABLISHMENT

Objective: Develop the corporate bylaws for each intended marine protected area, which includes regulations, statutes, procedures, protocols, and considerations on corporate functions; election of representatives; size, functions, and powers of the assembly and its members and the executive secretary in each corporation.

Expected outcomes: Technically and politically validated regulation of functions for each corporation.

Duration: 4 months.

Consultant's Profile: Attorney experienced in private-public corporation establishment.


5. MINIMUM-INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Objective: Design and execute an infrastructure plan to provide the minimum operation start-up conditions for the marine protected areas.

Expected outcomes: Design, value, and execute a plan providing the minimum infrastructure conditions to start up and develop the operations designed for the marine protected areas and guarantee its maintenance during the project's life.

Duration: 2 years.

Consultant's profile: One or more professionals making up a team with proven experience in the construction of infrastructure intended for parks or natural reserves based in distant, hard-access places with unfavorable weather conditions and a pristine environment.


6. CONSULTANCY ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT

Objective: Develop a training program in multiple use marine protected area management for the personnel that will be working in the corporation of each marine protected area, and for regional institutions. The program should include such aspects as planning, the administrative, financial and biological management of those areas intended for bio-diversity conservation and the development of multiple use marine protected areas of both a private and a public nature, develop practical exercises and analysis workshops, and provide technical tools applicable for the planning and management of marine protected areas.

Expected outcomes: A two-phase public-private training program in multiple use marine protected area management intended for those corporation members who will administer the areas, and for regional institutions which are competent managing natural resources, tourism development, and state-owned estates, lands and waters.

- 223 -

Duration: 4 months.

Consultant's profile: A senior administrator with proven national and international experience in designs, development and management of marine protected areas intended for the conservation of bio-diversity, economically significant natural resources, and the development of projects compatible with the conservation objectives for the area concerned.


7. CONSULTANCY ON BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

Objective: Train corporation members in business management and administration, with emphasis on the design, planning, monitoring and evaluation of local and/or regional development projects on the part of the local communities, and criteria and tools associated to revenue distribution. .

Duration: 3 weeks (a 1-week training program for three semesters in each protected area).

Consultant's Profile: A professional or work team with experience in the design and management of local development projects administered by local communities.


8. CONSULTANCY ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION TRAINING

Objective: Train members of regional corporations and institutions in the resolution of conflicts, with emphasis on public-private and private-private conflicts.

Expected outcomes: Workshops intended for participants with different economic and cultural levels of education and professional training, focused on general conflict-resolution techniques, case analyses, practical work and experiences in marine protected area administration with relevance on renewable natural resources, and biodiversity of a public-private character.

Duration: activity carried out during all the project’s life.

Consultant’s profile: Professional and/or work team with experience in techniques and management for interests-conflict facilitation.


9. A BIOLOGICAL-ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE STUDY

Objective: Develop field campaigns in order to complement and/or raise the biological and environmental baseline in marine protected areas, with emphasis on missing and/or relevant information that will ensure the conservation, recovery and sustainability of bio-diversity and conservation items in each area.

Expected outcomes: Protected-marine-area biological and environmental base lines stressing information on relevant ecological processes at the level of ecosystems, communities and species,

- 224 -

environmental services developed in the areas, characterization of key species and/or biological communities in danger of extinction in each protected area.

Duration: 6 months.

Consultant's profile: Biologist, ecologist, and/or multidisciplinary biological-sciences work team with a vast experience in ecological evaluations, baseline raising and interpretation, and field experience in respective areas.


10. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REINFORCEMENT AND VIGILANCE PLAN

Objective: Design and execute a reinforcement and vigilance plan for those marine protected areas included in its design and execution arrangements, the mandate of competent institutions and users in each area.

Expected outcomes: Design and agree with the institutional and private agents and users concerned on a vigilance and reinforcement plan for each area, and execute the actions designed during the project's life. The vigilance plan is part of the General Administration Plan and should be subordinate to it.

Duration: 4 years.

Consultant's profile: A team made up of professionals and experts with experience in the supervision and vigilance reinforcement of highly pristine and isolated natural parks, reservations and zones.

Consultation fee: US$ 250,000.

- 225 -

PROJECT'S IMPACT FOLLOW-UP DESIGN SYSTEM

Objective: Design, develop, and maintain a system that will permit to update and validate those actions developed in marine protected areas (zoning, limits, conservation and/or biodiversity recovery, local development, tourism, vigilance enforcement, institutional development, etc). To this effect, at least the indicators designed by the project document should be taken into consideration.

Expected outcomes: Design, implement, and maintain a project impact indicators follow-up system during its lifetime.

Duration: 4 years.

Consultant's profile: Multidisciplinary professional team with experience in the establishment and follow-up of biological, environmental baselines, finance, institutional management, local development and tourism, etc.


11. A STUDY OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Objective: Design tourism management plans in line with the preliminary conservation and zoning objectives for each area.

Expected products: Three tourist management plans in line with the conservation objectives identified by the principal tourist attractions and activities, the tourist holding capacity, the principal economic and potential tourist and cultural alternatives or other means of sustainable tourism in each marine zone. The plan methods should take into consideration all the agents in each area, and should be technically validated by the technical counterpart and the regional PMA corporations and commissions.

Duration: Design and validation of plans (2 months).

Consultant's profile: Consultant or work team with experience in tourist plan designs, with emphasis on the making of sustainable tourist projects, ecotourism or nature's tourism.


12. A TECHNICALLY SUPPORTED STUDY OF AQUACULTURE

Objective: Develop environment-compatible, sustainable natural resource farming, determine appropriate extraction levels, train communal indigenous and fishermen in aquaculture skills and maintenance, and implement monitoring systems for these areas.

Expected outcomes: Implement farming systems for natural resources in accordance with the permitted uses and capacities of the marine protected areas in the zones; train fishermen and communal residents in sustainable development and management of marine resources compatible with the environment; and develop a farming and biodiversity monitoring program.

- 226 -

Duration: 36 months.

Consultant's profile: Professional with experience in design and maintenance of sustainable farming and extraction systems compatible with the environment; also experienced in training fishermen and communal indigenous in farming techniques and maintenance of hydrobiological resource farming practices.


13. A STUDY OF A SENSITISATION STRATEGY

Objective: Design and implement a sensitization strategy oriented to the different audiences associated to each protected marine area (visitors, users, students, regional government) so as to raise the awareness of the local population, visitors, authorities, etc. with regard to the importance of marine protected areas in the development of local economies on the basis of conservation of the biodiversity and development of productive activities.

Expected outcomes: The design of a sensitization strategy which implies at least a sensitization and dissemination campaign oriented to the objective public in each protected marine area giving friendly information in accordance with the social, economic and cultural reality of the environments with respect of the benefits from the protected marines areas for the development of local alternative economies and the compatibility with the development of productive activities in each zone.

Duration: 1 month per semester, during four semesters.

Consultant's profile: A multidisciplinary work team with experience in publicity and marketing sciences, conservation concepts and the promotion of conservation and development, with experience in different public cultures, educational levels and interests.


- 227 -

LPAC Minutes

- 228 -

- 229 -

- 230 -