undp-gef dr npas re-engineering project€¦ · web viewalong that line, the project will create...

For GEF submission September 2009

United Nations Development ProgrammeExecuting Agency: Government of the Dominican Republic

PIMS 3424Atlas Award 00050707 - Atlas Project ID 62755

Re-engineering the National Protected Area System in Order to Achieve Financial Sustainability

Brief description: The Government of Dominican Republic is requesting assistance from GEF and UNDP to remove barriers to securing the long-term conservation of the country’s biological diversity. The project goal is to safeguard globally significant biodiversity of the Dominican Republic. The project objective is consolidation of the financial sustainability of the National Protected Areas System (NPAS). The project’s outcomes and outputs are described below. The three main outcomes of the project are: (i) PA financing increased and diversified; (ii) improved PA management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with highest revenue generation potential; and (iii) Co-management arrangement to underwrite PA costs.

The project will address one of the most critical barriers for the consolidation and re-engineering of the national PA System, namely insufficient financing. Actions under Outcome 1 will concern different strategies to enable SEMARENA and the NPAS’ ability to generate, allocate and executive financial resources related to PA management. The focus will be on improving the ability of the PA system to secure sufficient, stable and long-term financial resources and manage and allocate them in a timely manner, so that not only the central units of SEMARENA, but also the individual PA units are managed in an effective and cost efficient manner.

To address Barrier 2, which highlighted the PA management challenges that SEMARENA needs to tackle, outcome 2 will help ensure that the funds available to the NPAS are used more efficiently and cost effectively to enhance PA management. To enhance the revenue generation of the NPAS as a whole, it is imperative to strengthen the revenue generation of the individual PA units, not only to cover their own financial needs, but also for them to contribute to the financial sustainability of the PA System as a whole. The project will therefore focus on a group of 18 priority PAs deemed to have the highest revenue generation potential. The rationale is that by enhancing the management effectiveness and vital infrastructure of these PAs, they will be enabled to generate additional revenue not only to cover their own needs, but also contribute to the financial needs of the NPAS as a whole. Finally, through Outcome 3, the project will take advantage of the potential of local communities and the private sector to

Total resources required 11,822,000

Total allocated resources: 8,839,000 UNDP 45,000 GEF 3,200,000 Government 594,000 TNC 2,000,000 TNC - KFW 3,000,000

In-kind contributions 2,983,000 SEMARENA 483,000 TNC 2,500,000

Programme Period: 2007 - 2011

Atlas Award ID: 00050707Project ID: 0062755PIMS # 3424

Start date: ______________End Date ______________

Management Arrangements NGO ExecutionPAC Meeting Date ______________

SIGNATURE PAGE –

Country: Dominican Republic

UNDAF Outcome(s):By 2011, have in place national and local policies and capacities for the protection and sustainable management of the environment, including the management of environmental risks and response to emergencies and disasters

UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome:

Strengthened national capacities to mainstream environment and energy concerns into national development plans and implementation systems

UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome: Countries develop and use market mechanisms to support environmental management.

Expected CP Outcome(s): National capacity for environmental management strengthened and coordinated with sustainable rural development strategies

Expected CPAP Output (s) National Protected Areas System strengthened and integrated to national and local development.

Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMAREN).

Implementing Entity/Responsible Partners: UNDP

Agreed by: Date:

Agreed by: Date:

Resident Representative

2

Table of Contents

SECTION Pages

SIGNATURE PAGE –..................................................................................................................................2LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................5

SECTION 1: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE..............................................................................6PART I: Situation Analysis....................................................................................................................6

I - 1. Context and global significance...................................................................................................6I - 2. Socio-economic context...............................................................................................................9I - 3. Policy and legislative context.....................................................................................................10I - 4. Institutional context....................................................................................................................14I - 5. Threats to biodiversity, their root causes and impacts...............................................................16I - 6. Long-term solution for strengthening PA management.............................................................18I - 7. Barriers to the envisioned National Protected Areas System consolidation..............................20I - 8. Stakeholder analysis...................................................................................................................27I - 9. Business-as-usual “Baseline” scenario.......................................................................................29

PART II: Strategy.................................................................................................................................30II - 1. Project Rationale and Policy Conformity.................................................................................30II - 2. Project Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/activities................................................................30II - 3. Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions..............................................................................47II - 4. Expected global, national and local benefits............................................................................50II - 5. Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness..........................................51II - 6. Sustainability............................................................................................................................54II - 7. Replicability.............................................................................................................................55II - 8. Financial Modality and Cost-Effectiveness.............................................................................56

PART III: Management Arrangements..............................................................................................60PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget..................................................................61PART V: Legal Context........................................................................................................................67

SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT.................................68PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis....................................................................................................68PART II: Logical Framework Analysis / Strategic Results Framework.........................................75

SECTION III: TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN..............................................................................86

SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................95PART I: Other Agreements.................................................................................................................95PART II: TORs for Key Project Staff................................................................................................97PART III: Stakeholder Involvement Plan.......................................................................................103PART IV: GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Strategic Objective 1, Strategic Program 2.......................107PART V: UNDP PA Financial Sustainability Scorecard.....................................................................113

ANNEXES (See separate file)

Annex 1:....Globally Significant Biodiversity in Dominican Republic.............................................125Annex 2:....Dominican Republic’s National Protected Area System

and its Ecosystem Representativity.................................................................................129Annex 3:....Overview of Environmental Funds for the NPAS in the Dominican Republic .............135Annex 4:....Analysis of Protected Area Financial Sustainability.......................................................144

3

Annex 5:....Priority Protected Areas with High Revenue Earning Potential.....................................156Annex 6:....Analysis from Implementation of Protected Areas Management

Effectiveness Methodology (METT) (WWF/WB, 2007) .............................................167Annex 7:....Pilot Demonstrations concerning Co-management of PAs.............................................175

4

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACA RD-CA-USA

Environmental Cooperation Agreement

ALIDES Central American Alliance for Sustainable DevelopmentAWP Annual Work PlanBD BiodiversityCBD Convention of Biological DiversityCC Climate ChangeCCAD Central American Commission on Environment and DevelopmentCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered SpeciesFONAMARENA Fund for the Environment and Natural ResourcesFUNDEMAR Dominican Institute of Marine ResearchGEF Global Environment FacilityGIS Geographic Information SystemGTZ German Cooperation AgencyIDB Inter American Development Bank (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo) IPCC Intergovernmental Agency for Climate Change IUCN International Union of Conservancy Nature KfW Entwicklungsbank, German Development BankM&E Monitoring & EvaluationMETT Management Effectiveness Tracking ToolsMTE Mid-term EvaluationNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy Action PlanNBSAP National Conservation and Sustainable Use Strategy for BiodiversityNGO Non-government OrganizationNPAS National Protected Area SystemPA Protected AreaPARCA Central American Region Environmental PlanPDF Project Development FundsPES Payment for Environmental ServicesPIRs Annual Project Implementation ReviewsPPA Private Protected AreaPPG Project Preparation Grant PRONATURA Pro Nature FundRCU Regional Coordinating UnitRD-CAFTA The US-Central American Free Trade AgreementRENAEPA National Network of Empresarial Support to the Environmental Protection SEPA Swedish Environmental Protection Agency SICA Central American Integration SystemSODIN North-east Integral Development SocietySOECI Cibao Ecologic Society TA Technical AssistanceTNC The Nature ConservancyUNCCD The United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNEP United Nations Environment ProgramUNFCCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeVER Verified Emission ReductionWWF World Wildlife Fund

5

SECTION 1: ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE

PART I: Situation Analysis

I - 1. Context and global significance

1. Located in the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic occupies the approximately eastern two-thirds (48,442 km2) of Hispaniola Island, with the western third of the island being Haiti. The country is very diverse, both physio-graphically and biologically. It exhibits diverse bioclimatic zones and topography, ranging from dry (450 mm/year) to humid (>2500 mm/year), in accordance with an altitudinal gradient that varies from 40 meters below sea level to more than 3,000 meters above sea level. Its geomorphologic diversity and its peculiar paleogeography have formed 9 different soil orders and more than 16 distinct bioclimatic regions, ranging from “thorny low hills” to “pluvious forests”. This great diversity has given rise to a wide array of ecosystems and habitats. These include arid and semi-arid zones, coastal, marine and freshwater habitats, forest ecosystems, and mountain ecosystems. Within the coastal-marine zones, the tropical characteristics and the submarine geomorphology generate an equally diverse pattern of marine environments that include very deep trenches, coral reefs, barrier islands, deep and shallow estuaries, and a great variety of keys and mangroves.

2. The country’s complex and diverse array of habitats supports a high degree of unique and globally significant biodiversity, in recognition of which it has been identified as a “Caribbean Hotspot”1. Over 30 endemic birds, including the threatened Ridgeways Hawk (Buteo ridgwayi) and the extremely rare La Selle’s Thrush (Turdus swalesi) and the Bay Breasted Cuckoo (Hyetornis rufigularis), in addition to 11 other endemics, are considered threatened. The Dominican Republic also hosts an additional 270 migratory bird species that rely on its natural areas as important components of the eastern flyway. Among these are the threatened Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli), and Cape May warbler (Dendroica tigrina). The country’s terrestrial biodiversity shares an additional 30% co-endemism rate with the island of Cuba, making the Dominican flora and fauna of critical importance to the Antillean biodiversity profile. Three of the nation’s terrestrial ecosystems -- the Hispaniola pine forest, the Hispaniola humid forests, and the wetlands of the Enriquillo basin -- are listed2

among the top conservation priorities in the Latin America and the Caribbean Ecoregions.

3. Dominican marine biodiversity is also of global importance. Dominican marine environments comprise part of the central Caribbean ecoregion, which has received the highest biological value ranking from both Conservation International and the WWF, who have listed the region as among the top 5 conservation priority ecoregions in the world. The country hosts 4 of the world’s 7 sea turtle species (quelonios). The Samana Bay and offshore banks (Banco La Plata) also support the largest Atlantic calving population of humpback whales. Species such as the queen conch (strombus gigas), spiny lobsters (P. argus and guttatus), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and manatee (Trichechus manatus) deserve particular conservation effort because they are of commercial interest and thus subject to increased pressure.

1 IUCN, Insular Caribbean WCPA Report to the World Parks Congress, Durban 2003.2 Dinerstein, et.al., Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean, World Bank, 1995

6

Overview of protected areas in the Dominican Republic

4. Dominican Republic’s National Protected Areas System (NPAS) was established in 1974 through Law 67, which created the former National Park Office (Dirección Nacional de Parques). While some PAs were established earlier, their declarations were based mainly on forest protection laws.

5. Today, the NPAS includes 86 public PAs, which together encompass over 46,200 km2 or almost 22% of Dominican Republic’s terrestrial territory. The PAs are classified into 8 national management categories, which correspond to the 6 IUCN management categories as outlined in Table 1. National Parks and Forest Reserves are the management categories that cover the most national terrestrial territory with 14.29% and 5% respectively. Notably, Marine-life Sanctuaries cover more than 34,000 km2, which is more than three-fold the covered land area.

Table 1. The National Protected Areas System by management category (national and corresponding IUCN) and their territorial coverage

PA DominicanRepublic Protected Area Management

Categories

No. of Protected

Areas

Area (km2)* Total % of National

Terrestrial Territory

IUCN Management

CategoriesTerrestrial Marine Total

Scientific Reserves (Ia)

6 180.19 0,00 180.19 0.37 Strictly Protected Areas (IUCN Ia)

Marine-life Sanctuaries (Ib)

2 23.37 34,027.25 34,050.61 0.05 Wildlife Preserve (Ib)

National Parks 19 6,886.22 1,494.82 8,381.04 14.29 National Parks (IUCN II)

Natural Monuments 17 505.33 7.14 512.47 1.05 Natural Monument (IUCN III)

Wildlife Refuges 15 230.68 159.30 389.98 0.48 Wildlife Refuge (IUCN IV)

Scenic Roads 9 185.59 13.56 199.15 0.39 Protected Landscapes (IUCN V)National Recreation

Areas3 105.83 33.31 139.14 0.22

Forest Reserves 15 2,412.18 0.00 2,412.18 5.0 Natural Reserves (IUCN VI)

Total 86 10,529.38 35,576.38 46,264.76 21.85* The area figures are not entirely accurate due to the confused legal definitions of the categories, the definition of actual PA boundaries, and the differentiation between terrestrial and marine components in areas which consist of both. Note: In the Sectoral Law of Protected Areas of the Dominican Republic (202-04), the two (2) last categories (V and VI) are in inverted order compared to those established by UICN. In this table the Management Categories appear in the internationally accepted order, not their order of appearance in Law 202-04.Source : SEMARENA. 2009. Data from the Map Unit of the Protected Areas and Biodiversity Sub-secretariat. Unedited Report.

6. The NPAS also includes important cultural-historical sites. The Jose Maria Cave in the East National Park (Parque National del Este), with more than 1,200 pictographs, is considered unique in the Americas, and this was one key element for the proposed declaration of this national park as a cultural World Heritage Site by UNESCO (designation in process). In this same park are found two of the oldest shipwrecks in the North American continent, but they are still without appropriate protection. Within the system is also found the Cave of Wonders (“Cuevas de las Maravillas”) and “el Pomier” (Borbon). The

7

latter site possesses one of the highest concentrations of cave art in the Antilles. Other important examples of pictographs illustrating various aspects of the original cultures are found in other protected areas, such as in Los Haitises and Jaragua National Parks.

7. Private protected areas : The Dominican Republic has private tracts of land with conservation status that makes them suitable for becoming part of the NPAS. SEMARENA recognizes that it needs to take advantage of the willingness of private landowners to have their lands declared and managed as part of the NPAS. The incorporation of Private Protected Areas (PPAs) into the NPAS could improve connectivity among its current 86 PAs. In turn, better connectivity among PAs will improve the long-term viability of Hispaniola Island’s biodiversity, including its migratory and endemic species. However, although the General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (Law 64-00) and the Sectoral Law of Protected Areas (Law 202-04) allow PPAs to be part of the NPAS, there is still no official Private Protected Area (PPA) in the NPAS. Hence, to date PPAs that do exist in Dominican Republic are not integrated into the NPAS, but function as stand-alone PAs outside the PA System. The recently created Private Wildlife Refuge, “Los Quemados”, situated in Azua Province (see output 3.8), as well as the Official Declaration of Municipal Protected Wildlife Areas by the Municipality of Pedernales, are concrete examples of the interest of NGOs and local governments to conserve biodiversity through the creation and management of such protected areas. Notably, the establishment of private protected areas does not entail the privatization of existing public protected areas, but rather the inclusion of private property in habitat and species conservation efforts

8. Biological representativeness : At least 18 of the 86 PA units contain important ecosystems that are recognized in international declarations, such as: i) Biosphere Reserves, ii) Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR Site), and iii) Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF. The country’s ecoregions are also considered part of the Greater Antilles ecoregion. As such, the NPAS contains samples of the four following ecoregions: i) Moist Forest, ii) Coniferous Forest, iii) Freshwater –Small River, iv) Marine Environment. Moreover, the areas of the country with the highest endemic rates are included in the PA System. For more details, Annex 2 on the PA System includes: ((i) A table with the PAs under International Declarations; (ii) a table that provides an overview of principal ecosystems along with endemic floral and faunal species in select Pas; and iii) a table that presents an indicative summary of the rate of endemism for some of the country’s main PAs.

9. The NPAS contains most of the Dominican Republic’s terrestrial biodiversity and some of its marine ecosystems. Pine forests and moist forests of the Hispaniola, for example, are almost exclusively within the NPAS. However, as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work for Protected Areas, the Dominican Republic received support from the Nature Conservancy (TNC) to conduct a study to analyze biological gaps in the PA System (see also baseline section). The analysis completed in 2009 indicates that the NPAS meets the conservation target for large terrestrial ecosystems – dry forest, moist forest and pine forest - assumed by the DR under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB). However, the analysis determined that, using a coarse-filter approach, 33 of the 44 objects of conservation (75%) are absent or minimally present (less than 10% of the total area of NPAS). Similarly, of the 37 singular plant species included in the analysis, 10 (27%) are not reported within NPAS; while of the 211 species of fauna, 34 (17%) do not appear as a biological component of IUCN categories I–IV. On the other hand, the representativeness of aquatic objects of conservation is above the CBD’s 10% conservation target, though some geographic regions deserve to be more represented in the NPAS or merit special conservation measures. For coastal and marine biodiversity, the analysis showed that 7 (70%) of the 10 ecosystems included surpassed the conservation target established for the Dominican Republic within the NPAS. Wetlands and estuaries are two ecosystems that are underrepresented, however. Furthermore, 4 (66.6%) of the coastal and marine objects of conservation (fine filtered) are underrepresented in the NPAS.

8

10. Hence, although the NPAS is composed of 86 sites, includes all IUCN categories, and covers close to 22% of the national territory, the PA System fails to protect critical biodiversity. A key explanation is that the historic development of the existing NPAS was principally driven by a concern to conserve specific species and unique features, as opposed to having been planned to protect landscapes and ecosystems and ecological processes, in addition to species. As a result, individual PAs face specific threats both to habitat and to species, and the system’s effectiveness and sustainability are limited by a number of key barriers. These factors are elaborated in sections I-5. Threats to Biodiversity, their root causes and impacts and I-7. Barriers to the envisioned NPAS consolidations, respectively.

11. In addition, as in many Latin American countries, the Dominican Republic’s NPAS is the product of a process that has not always followed rigorous scientific protocol, as illustrated by the mechanisms that are relied upon most to establish the PAs in NPAS (SEMARENA, 2007):

i. PA declarations, with a focus on forestry and water production, promoted by scientists and public figures.

ii. Using studies of limited scope that point out the ecological value and importance of biological diversity in a certain place, a declaration of PA status was obtained through sponsorship of a sector or individual able to influence the Executive Branch.

iii. At the request of a decision making body, quick preparation of paperwork regarding a collection of territories of environmental importance and value.

iv. On the basis of basic but somewhat rigorous studies, technical entities submitted request for PA status to the former Wildlife Department of the Secretariat of Agriculture. These requests were sponsored by public figures with close ties to decision makers, especially sitting office holders.

I - 2. Socio-economic context

12. Both by area and population, the Dominican Republic is the second largest Caribbean nation (after Cuba), with 48,442 km2 and an estimated 10 million people (2009 estimate). According to the World Bank, the country is also the largest economy in Central America and the Caribbean. After an economic downturn in 2004/2005, the Dominican Republic’s annual growth rate of GDP reached an impressive 10% in 2006 and 2007, amounting to a GDP per capita of $8,400 in 2007, which is relatively high in Latin America. Growth was led by imports ($12.9 billion in 2007), followed by exports ($6.8 billion in 2007), with finance and foreign investment the largest factors.

13. The Dominican Republic is primarily dependent on natural resources and government services. Although the service sector has recently overtaken agriculture as the leading employer of Dominicans (due principally to growth in tourism and Free Trade Zones), agriculture remains the most important sector in terms of domestic consumption and is in second place, behind mining, in terms of export earnings. The main export products of the country are natural resources (ferronickel, gold and silver), agricultural products (coffee, cocoa, sugar and tobacco) and increasingly also consumer goods. The strong dependency of the country’s economy on export of raw materials and agricultural products has a negative impact on the environment, especially through mining and pollution. The need for environmental protection is therefore evident. A consolidation of the national PA System would not only safeguard national biological assets, but also the ecological services that these provide to productive sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry and in particular tourism.

14. Indeed, tourism is fueling the Dominican Republic's economic growth. For example, the contribution of travel and tourism to employment is expected to rise from 550,000 jobs in 2008—14.4% of total employment or 1 in every 7 jobs—to 743,000 jobs—14.2% of total employment or 1 in every 7.1 jobs by 2018 (World Travel and Tourism Council estimate). Ecotourism has been a topic increasingly important in the nation, with towns like Jarabacoa and neighboring Constanza, and locations like the Pico Duarte, Bahia de Las Aguilas and others becoming more significant in attempts to increase direct benefits from

9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_Duarte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarabacoa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism

tourism. Hence, many main tourist attractions are places of natural beauty, many of which are located within PAs.

15. According to the Human Development Report, the Dominican Republic can be classified as a lower-middle income country (91th rank) in the 2008 ranking. Notably, compared to its 2005 ranking of 79 th, the D.R. fell down 12 ranks. In addition, despite the impressive economic recovery above, the country continues to face fundamental development challenges ranging from endemic poverty to poor health and education outcomes and weaknesses in government and societal institutions. According to World Development Indicators figures from 2005, 28.6% of the population lives under the poverty line at the national level. The figures also show that rural poverty (42.1% of total population) is much more significant compared to urban poverty (20.5%). Moreover, despite some improvements in education, health and other indicators related to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), these indicators remain below the expected levels given the country’s economic development.

16. Migration, which tends to be a coping mechanism in response to unemployment, poverty, and lack of opportunities, is another issue that affects the Dominican Republic significantly. Notably, rural-urban migration is a widespread phenomenon and the country both receives and sends large flows of migrants. Major issues are Haitian immigration (both legal and illegal) and the integration of Dominicans of Haitian descent. For instance, the total population of Haitian origin is estimated to be about 800,000. In addition, a large Dominican diaspora exists, most of it in the United States, where it comprises about 1.1 million people. They make a significant contribution to the development of the Dominican Republic through their remittances, which amounts to about 10% of its GDP. A major environmental problem related to migration on the Hispanola Island is deforestation, which is followed by soil erosion, which in turn increases the vulnerability of tropical storms. An especially vulnerable region on the Dominican side of the island is the southwestern border region, a semi-arid region with forests in the mountain ranges. This project will assist the GoDR in addressing this threat to its biodiversity, especially by establishing the financial means to improve the human capacity within SEMARENA to better deal with conflict resolution related to unsustainable logging and slash-and-burn activities.

I - 3. Policy and legislative context

17. The system-wide approach to protected areas management in the Dominican Republic began and evolved with the following 3 laws, which together establish the legal and institutional framework that governs the NPAS: In 1974, Law 67-74 created the PA system and placed it under the purview of the former National Parks Office.

18. Then in 2000, the Dominican Republic adopted a new and comprehensive organic natural resources law (General Environmental and Natural Resources Law, No.64-00, of August 18, 2000) that currently provides the main legal framework for biodiversity conservation and management in the country. It consolidated all legal dispositions which had been dispersed previously. It also raised environmental and natural resource management to the level of a Secretariat of State (Ministry level) by establishing the Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARENA). Finally, it placed protected area management under the Under-Secretariat of State for Protected Areas and Biodiversity (formerly the National Parks Office into the Office). New sector-specific3 legislation for protected areas was promulgated, and an additional 16 areas were added to the existing protected area system that raised the total PA unit amount to 86 and the NPAS coverage to 21.85% of the national territory. This Law also clearly defines and recognizes the NPAS’s conservation objectives.

3 Ley Sectorial de Áreas Protegidas (Sectoral Law of Protected Areas) No. 202-04, June 30, 2004.

10

19. Finally, in 2004, the Sectoral Law on Protected Areas, No. 202-04, reaffirmed and broadened the already established NPAS. It also specified the responsibilities of SEMARENA, which include defining policies, administrating, regulating, guiding and programming the management and development of NPAS, including the promotion of scientific, educational, recreational, tourism and other activities.

20. In terms of policies, SEMARENA has a defined and approved NPAS Policies document (Documento final de Políticas para la Gestión Efectiva del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas , approved by Resolution No. 15-06 of SEMARENA). This policy document serves as an instrument of support for protected area planning. As such, NPAS is endowed with a policy that clearly establishes its role, place and function in environmental management in the Dominican Republic, and its integration into a national strategy to foster development and fight poverty. This policy defines the lines of action and basic guidelines for the effective management of NPAS, as an instrument of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems and as part of the natural heritage of the Dominican nation. This instrument also allows entities associated with NPAS—including non-governmental organizations, centralized and decentralized public bodies, local governments and bilateral and multilateral cooperation agencies—to plan and implement their actions within agreed upon master lines, in order to prevent the dispersion and duplication of efforts and resources. The policy document further defines the specific principles of the NPAS policy, general and specific objectives, general NPAS policy, policies by focal area, and strategic solutions for each focal area. The policies and strategic solutions are centered on the following 7 focal areas: i) natural and cultural heritage, ii) management categories, iii) economic sustainability, iv) public participation (co-management), v) legal and institutional framework, vi) protection and monitoring, vii) land ownership and occupancy status. A Plan of Action for 2009-2012 has been drafted to, among others, implement these NPAS policies. This is a 4-year Plan of Action, the implementation of which has depended on the availability of resources in the national budget, though it is partly funded by international cooperation.

21. Nevertheless, at the system-wide level the DR’s protected areas are managed without the benefit of a National Plan, Master Plan or Guiding Plan that covers the entire NPAS areas. Notably, TNC expects to address this gap by assisting the GoDR in preparing such a Master Plan as a follow up right after the biodiversity monitoring plan is formulated. The country also lacks an up to date National Conservation and Sustainable Use Strategy for Biodiversity (NBSAP). As a result, protected area planning is carried out on an individual basis, through a few (18) individual management plans but mainly through operative plans, which are currently in force in just 39.53% of NPAS PAs. It should be noted, though, that an instrument that supports planning in SEMARENA’s protected areas is the Methodological Guide to Designing and/or Updating Management Plans for Protected Areas, published in 2005. This methodology promotes plans that are formulated through broad-based participation of key stakeholders and the preparation of simple, concise strategic documents whose contents are applicable at low cost.

22. Another weakness in the current NPAS planning process is a lack of landscape and connectivity focus among PAs in the NPAS planning process. Despite the fact that the above Law 64-00 affirms that environmental matters should be incorporated into the National Planning System , limited progress has been made to date on this end. This is reflected in public spending on environmental management, which shows that this issue has not been a priority in public policy planning and implementation4. For example, there is still no Territorial Planning Instrument that can be used as the basis for allocating and establishing priorities on land use. Indeed, the only identified land use plan currently in force in the Dominican Republic is the National Protected Areas System.5

4 Office of Human Development. 2008. Informe sobre desarrollo humano República Dominicana: Desarrollo humano, una cuestión de poder (Human Development Report for the Dominican Republic. Human Development, A Question of Power). UNDP. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.5 Ibid.

11

23. It is also understood that mechanisms for education, empowerment and local participation are lacking in regard to establishing protected areas as part of a Conservation Strategy6. Despite the existence of provinces in the DR with more than 50% of their territory officially protected, local environmental management initiatives have generally not taken a process-based approach and therefore have not involved the transfer of powers to local authorities such as municipalities. One successful example of decentralization and local participation in protected area matters, however, is the management of Salto El Limón Natural Monument (see section I – 9. Business-as usual “Baseline” scenario).7

24. Trust Funds : The above NPAS Policies document has made the NPAS’s financial stability –including the development of innovative financing mechanisms—a strategic priority. In response, a number of provisions in environmental laws make it possible to establish financial mechanisms, such as trust funds, for the conservation of natural resources and the environment. The Dominican Republic’s Finance and Monetary Code make no reference to trusts, but a number of specialized legal instruments on banking, such as the Agricultural Banking Law and Building Mortgage Banking Law do authorize certain entities to receive and administrate third party funds as trust funds.

25. At present there are three funds in the Dominican Republic that are established for the purpose of contributing to the financial sustainability of the environmental sector in general and protected areas in particular. In 2000, the National Fund for the Environment and Natural Resources (El Fondo Nacional de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) – from now on referred to as MARENA Fund--was created through the General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (No. 64-00), with the aim of “…developing and financing protection, research, education, recovery and sustainable use programs and projects, having the appropriate legal status, its own capital and independent administration, and with jurisdiction over the entire national territory” (Article 71). Notably, its features give the MARENA Fund broad freedoms to capture and administrate funds from a variety of sources and provide an institutional framework that enables participation of stakeholders from different social sectors. Law 64-00 also sets out that the MARENA Fund will be governed by a Governing Board that includes representatives from the public and private sectors, NGOs and universities. The funding for this Fund comes from various sources and it contributes to the financing of the entire environmental sector. That is, it supports the financing of policies, programs, projects and environmental activities in general, not only the National Protected Areas System (NPAS).

26. The Maintenance Fund of Protected Areas (El Fondo de Mantenimiento de las Areas Protegidas) –from now on referred to as the PA Maintenance Fund--, is a specialized account for maintenance of the NPAS. It is administered by the SEMARENA and fund contributions are generated by visitation fees, concessions and other services of these protected areas. The Presidential Decree number 222-06 of 2 June 2006 created this fund and authorizes the use of service revenue generation in protected areas for these purposes.

27. The third fund, Patrimonial Fund for Protected Areas for Protected Areas (el Fondo Patrimonial de las Areas Protegidas) – herewith referred to as the PA Patrimonial Fund, is the most recently established fund. On May 8 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between SEMARENA, The Nature Conservancy, and the UNDP, which expressed the intention of the signatories to join forces to establish a trust fund especially earmarked to support the financial sustainability of the NPAS.

6 Ibid.7 This has no doubt been successful because the communities participate directly in decisions related to the PA. Community members have organized themselves to offer visitors guided excursions, transportation (mules and horses) and food. This provides economic benefits for local populations and ensures the sustainability of PA management.

12

28. During the PPG phase, agreements formalized the commitment of the parties involved to set up the PA Patrimonial Fund as an endowment fund. During the implementation of the full size project, it is proposed to expand this agreement to include a revolving fund window within the PA Patrimonial fund to allow for the pass through of any new conservation finance mechanisms. This will ensure that these new conservation finance mechanism funding streams are fully directed towards the national PA system. Within the endowment fund, invested capital will be invested per the terms of an investment management strategy – to be developed by the Fund’s Governing Board in conjunction with the Patrimonial Funds Advisory Committee – with only a portion of the investment income generated used to finance activities related strictly to the NPAS of the Dominican Republic. Furthermore, during the implementation of the full size project, it will be necessary to identify and prioritize how the proceeds from the PA Patrimonial Fund are used (e.g. capital vs. recurrent needs, etc). Any new funds generated by the PA Patrimonial Fund are to be considered additional to existing funds going into the NPAS of the Dominican Republic and not to replace these existing funds. Therefore, during implementation of the full size project, it will be necessary to develop a mechanism to ensure this (e.g. if the government cuts the NPAS budget, then the PA Patrimonial Fund payouts would be cut by an equal amount for example). In the MoU establishing the Trust, the parties agree that the PA Patrimonial Fund would be part of the MARENA Fund. During the PPG phase, the PA Patrimonial Fund was therefore formally established by being legally integrated into the regulation of the MARENA Fund as one of its Sub-funds or satellite funds. Consequently, the PA Patrimonial Fund will be under the direction of the Board of the MARENA Fund, which will also be responsible for the administrative and operational management of the PA Patrimonial Fund. However, this Board will be complemented by a new Advisory Committee consisting of Fund Donor Agencies, such as TNC and KfW. Per the legislation that created the MARENA Fund, the Board consists of a majority of non-government members. During the implementation of the full size project, it will be important to review the mechanism for appointing the non-government members to the Governing Board, as the GEF, TNC nor KfW are able to place capital into PA Trust Funds that are controlled by governments (e.g. if the government appoints the non-government Board members, this is still viewed as a Board controlled by government). These characteristics enable this Project-supported PA Patrimonial Fund to act with enough autonomy within the present legal and institutional framework to capture funds, make investments and finance revenue-generating projects. They also allow the trust to receive funding from GEF. For more information on these various funds and their interconnections, please see Annex 3 with an Overview of environmental funds for PAs in the Dominican Republic.

29. PA co-management : There are clear legal provisions that provide for the signing of PA co-management agreements, including the General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (Law 64-00) and the Sectoral Law of Protected Areas (Law 202-04). Additional legislative mechanisms supporting co-management include Presidential Decrees and Formal Agreements among stakeholders and the PA highest authority. Key stakeholders involved in this process include Non-profit Organizations (Law 122-05) and Governmental Organizations. Non-profit organizations include the following: a) Natural Resource Conservation Organizations, b) Historical/Cultural Heritage Organizations, c) Investigative/Dissemination Organizations, d) Business Organizations constituted as membership associations. Furthermore, in regard to specific policies for co-management, the “Promotion of agreements for the co-management of protected areas” has been established for sites in which technical studies have shown a need for such a model. In no case does co-management mean that the conservation unit in question is handed over to the participating parties. These agreements can be bilateral or multilateral, and should involve agents from the public sector, private sector, local communities, non-governmental organizations, town councils and academia and identify their role and responsibilities.”8

8 SEMARENA. 2006. Documento final de políticas para la gestión efectiva del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.

13

30. The most recent development is a proposal for Rules and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected Areas9, which resulted from a SEMARENA-led and GTZ-sponsored co-management analysis carried out in 2008. This proposal is currently pending official review and approval. These rules and procedures contain: a) A definition of co-management objectives, b) definition of co-management arrangements for the country, c) criteria and requirements for selecting PAs for co-management in regard to co-managers and the continuity of agreements, e) technical and administrative procedures for the operation of co-managed PAs, f) the establishment and functions of Co-management Councils, g) structure and content of co-management agreements, h) follow up and monitoring of these.

Tourism: Another initiative directly associated with the PA System is the National Strategic Plan for Ecotourism Development in the Dominican Republic (2009), which seeks to develop ecotourism around the country with the integration and participation of public, private and NGO sectors. The objectives of this plan are: i) to diversify tourism in the DR ii) to protect natural resources, and iii) to improve the quality of life in local communities. The above mentioned plan has been a joint effort of the SEMAREMA and the Secretariat of Tourism and has enjoyed the support of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency. An additional initiative is that of the Dominican Sustainable Tourism Alliance (DSTA), sponsored by USAID for the purpose of strengthening nine tourist clusters strategically located in the most important tourist poles. AED, TNC, the George Washington University and Solimar are implementing partners (see Incremental Cost Analysis for more details).

I - 4. Institutional context

31. The Secretary of State for the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARENA) is responsible for the application of the Sectoral Law of Protected Areas. This is a ministerial office that relies on the Finance Secretariat for PA budgetary allocations. The mission of the Office of the Under-Secretary of Protected Areas and Biodiversity is to “contribute to the conservation of biodiversity as the foundation of sustainable development and quality of life, through the application of standards and regulations and the administration of the national protected area system”.10 The Wildlife and Biodiversity Office (Dirección de Vida Silvestre y Biodiversidad) is responsible for managing wildlife across the country and for its conservation and sustainable use. It does so by conducting studies and enforcing regulations both inside the country and internationally. The Department of Wildlife coordinates and promotes scientific investigations for the preservation and management of species and habitats. The main function of the Under-Secretary of Environmental Information and Education is to establish, maintain and keep up to date the geographic information system, as well as to coordinate and guide the development of education and awareness raising projects. The Office of the Under Secretary of Coastal and Marine Resources maintains close ties with NPAS through its efforts for the conservation and management of species under its purview.

32. In 2008, SAMARENA Resolution 011-08 brought into being the Provincial Offices of Environment and Natural Resources, the main objective of which are to share the workload of the Secretary’s Office. As of March 2009, there were 31 Provincial Offices of Environment and Natural Resources and Environmental Directors in 6 key municipalities. The abovementioned Resolution also calls for the creation of Provincial Councils for the Environment and Natural Resources, as well as local SEMARENA advisory boards to provide assistance in defining policies, plans, programs, projects and activities. The Co-management Boards formally proposed in the Co-management Rules and Procedures appear here operating at the local level with a direct impact on PA management. Another way of

9 SEMARENA. 2008. Reglamento y procedimientos para la gestión compartida de áreas protegidas en la República Dominicana (Rules and Procedures for shared management of protected areas in the Dominican Republic). Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. 10 SEMARENA. 2007. Informe nacional sobre el sistema nacional de áreas protegidas en la República Dominicana: II Congreso latinoamericano de parques nacionales y otra áreas protegidas. Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.

14

organizing decentralized management of PAs is through Co-management agreements. Another new development is the introduction of the figure of Protected Area General Director, as well as private sector actors identified as supporters of certain PAs. The provincial offices and boards, as well as the Co-management councils and General PA Directors are relatively recent introductions and not yet well developed, and therefore contain aspects that are not completely clear or that need to be fine tuned.

33. Currently, SEMARENA has a matricial structure, which aims to achieve comprehensive, not thematic, territorial management. As such the institution is divided into five areas or offices, each of which manages a certain type of process: i) protection and monitoring, ii) permits and licenses, iii) education and information, iv) community participation and development, v) administration and finance.

34. The administrative decentralization recently begun in SEMARENA seeks to endow local offices with the following:

Greater management capacity. Introduction of a results-based work and management culture by implementing management

commitments. Stronger administrative transparency. More efficient models for allocating financial resources. Accountability and social responsibility of staff, who are now accountable for their performance

both to administrative bodies and to the community of users.

35. At the national level, NPAS’s ties and coordination with other government secretariats and offices will be through the National Council of the Environment and Natural Resources, created through Law 64-00. However, the Council, though created in 2000, still has not become operative. The Ayuntamientos (Local Governments) can coordinate actions through provincial offices and co-management councils. Similarly, NPAS maintains ties and coordinates actions with different regions and provinces of the country through the Provincial Development Councils, on which Local Governments are also represented. Despite the great effort that has been made, however, these councils continue to be weak and even inactive11.

36. At the organizational level, stakeholders involved in PA management and biodiversity include: a) Governmental Organizations (GOs), Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), Grassroots and Community Organizations (COs), Private Companies, Universities, Research Centers, and International Cooperation Agencies.

37. The NGOs associated with PAs are diverse and their activities range from simple biological research to comprehensive administration of PAs. In this important group, the most active organizations are: Grupo Jaragua, Fundación Loma Quita Espuela, Fundación PROGRESSIO, Sociedad para el Desarrollo Integral del Nordeste (SODIN), Sociedad Ecológica del Cibao (SOECI), Centro para la Conservación y el Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno (CEBSE), Fundación MAMMA, FUNDEMAR and Ecoparque. Also among the NGOs present are the large collectives PRONATURA and the Consorcio Ambiental Dominicano. Among the large international NGOs, only TNC has an office and on-site staff in the Dominican Republic supporting conservation efforts in close collaboration with SEMARENA and local NGOs.

Part 1B: Baseline Course of Action

11 Oficina de Desarrollo Humano. 2008. Informe sobre desarrollo humano República Dominicana: Desarrollo humano, una cuestión de poder (Human Development Report for the Dominican Republic. Human Development, A Question of Power). UNDP. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

15

I - 5. Threats to biodiversity, their root causes and impacts

38. At present ecosystems and species in Dominican Republic are subject to various forms of direct pressure and degradation, both within protected areas and in their surrounding landscapes. Section I-1 (PA System) above provided an overview of how these threats are affecting the status of Dominican Republic’s species in terms of their levels of vulnerability and endangered status. These trends result mainly from the following clusters of threats, which bear directly or indirectly on the long-term viability of the National Protected Areas System. In addition, table 2 in Annex 5 on Priority PAs provides an overview of how these pressures on biodiversity are impacting 18 selective priority PAs.

39. Conversion and/or destruction of habitats for biodiversity due to: (i) The growing incursion of agriculture and livestock grazing into PAs, (ii) the expansion of tourism in and around PAs; and (iii) mining. The surface area dedicated to agriculture and animal husbandry is increasingly being expanded into natural forest in protected areas. ‘Slash and burn’ agricultural practice, or shifting cultivation, which is still very common among small, resource-poor farmers, presents a very important threat to biodiversity and protected areas, given the magnitude of the areas dedicated to this activity. Between 1993-1997, the agricultural sector grew to an average rate of 5% per year, while tourism grew 15% and the rate is still increasing. Indeed, table 2 in Annex 5 highlights how pressure from tourism is considered a high present threat in 10 of the 18 priority PAs. By 2004, agricultural and grazing lands activities occupied 53.4% of the total surface of the country. In addition, mining activities for sand and other resources are being expanded as well. The subsequent expansion and conversion of land for these activities has led to the loss of important habitats and ecosystems and their floral and faunal components are being disturbed, destroyed or replaced. For example, some PAs with high visitation levels report that visitor impacts (trash, damage to fragile habitats, and accidental fires) are their single largest management challenge. The areas under most threat tend to be small habitats for many endemic and threatened species with low populations or very restricted geographical distribution. The impact from tourism is particularly high in the coastal forests, on beaches, in estuaries, mangroves, coastal reefs, and marine pastures, where ecosystems are seriously threatened.

40. Degradation of habitats and ecosystem functions due to: (i) forest fires; and (ii) terrestrial and aquatic pollution. Increasing frequency and magnitude of forest fires represent a growing threat to biodiversity through a drastic reduction of populations and changes in species compositions. Between 1962-2004, there were 5,629 fires, which affected a total area of 2,828 km2. The areas most affected by forest fires are found particularly in pine forests and dry habitats in PAs within the Central Mountain Range and in the Bahoruco Sierra. The most damaging fires in known history happened in March 2005 affected an area of 200 km2 within the Jose del Carmen Ramirez and Armando Bermudez National Parks. Contamination, especially of water bodies in the country, is another increasing threat to biodiversity. Pollution from mining activities, sediment and chemical overloads from agricultural activities and increasing production and accumulation of solid wastes are increasing the contamination of fresh water bodies and coastal and marine ecosystems. Low levels of environmental awareness and ineffective municipal environmental management and control contribute to this situation. Consequently, ecosystems are degraded and populations of affected species are reduced due to the reduction of dissolved oxygen and the toxicity of the dissolved elements and compounds.

41. Overexploitation of native flora and fauna due to: (i) overfishing and illegal hunting; and (ii) illegal collection of flora and fauna. Use of inappropriate fishing gear combined with a steady increase in the number of fishermen, boats and docks for the past 14 years is making a collapse of some fish resources a very likely possibility in the not too distant future. The number of hunters in PAs is also rising. These factors, along with disrespect for regulations (compliance with established size and limit) and a disregard for restricted periods have resulted in an overexploitation of fish stock, interruptions of food chains, declines in ecosystem functioning, and excessive extraction of specific species through hunting. The

16

illegal extraction or collection also concerns flora and fauna, especially cacti and palm trees. Many of these processes are increasing and occurring within PAs, such as in Jaragua, Del Este, and Los Haitises National Parks.

42. Introduction of alien/invasive species, such as the presence of feral animals (dogs, cats, pigs, goats, Herpestes aeropuntatus). Being on an island, the terrestrial biodiversity of the Dominican Republic is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of invasive alien species. The introduction of alien plants and animals onto this island started with the arrival of Europeans at the end of the 15 th century. The process has continued over time and is increasing with the growing commercialization of exotic species. Cultivated varieties of Leucaena leucocephala and Calliandra calothyrsus were introduced starting in the 1980s, and today they invade several ecosystems, transforming them and threatening native endemic flora and fauna species. Several introduced bird species, among them Ploceus cuculatus, Lonchura punctulata, and Lonchura malaca, compete and replace native species, as was the case with Rana catesbeiana. Several protected areas in the system are particularly affected by the propagation of exotic species. The presence of feral animals (dogs, cats, pigs, goats) in PAs also presents a threat both to habitats and species. The impact of feral animals is particularly accentuated in an island environment due to the presence of many endemic species and species with very limited distributions due to specific habitat requirements. Feral animals may be considered a distinct threat from alien species, as the threats and impacts presented to native biodiversity from an exotic plant in one location are not the same as those arising from the presence of a growing number of feral animals in many PAs.

43. Climate instability: Climate change and climatic variability is placing increasing pressure on the resiliency and sustainability of the Dominican Republic’s biodiversity and the overall balance of its ecosystems. One of the country’s greatest vulnerabilities is the availability of water for human use and consumption and for productive activities, where it is essential. Close to 70% of all water extracted, for example, is for agricultural use. In times of scarcity, this activity, along with offshore fishing and aquaculture, will all be strongly affected by any changes that occur. Drought is already a common occurrence in some part of the island and climate change is expected to have a major effect on the availability, variability and annual distribution of freshwater resources. Indeed, expected impacts include a great decrease in spatial distribution of rainfall, and total runoff for the year 2100, demonstrating a structural change that intensifies the transition from the most humid zones to the driest and an expansion of the areas of the country that are historically the driest.12 Potential shifts in hydrological processes due to projected climatic variations may also affect the ecosystems of lakes and lagoons (IPCC, 2002). Air temperature is expected to rise and precipitation to decrease, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events may increase, all of which will have a negative effect on the lake water levels. These potential changes in water levels will have major impacts on biological groups located along the shore (IPCC, 2002). Moreover, Dominican Republic also lies in the Caribbean hurricane belt and already experiences seasonal tropical storms and occasional hurricanes. While precipitation is expected to decrease, the potential increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes may affect historic water level cycles on Lake Enriquillo, the country’s only natural habitat for the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) and a Site of International Importance recognized by the RAMSAR Convention.13

44. Direct and underlying causes: While the causes of these threats to biodiversity in Dominican Republic stem from many sources, they are largely derived from the fact that the country’s economy is heavily reliant on the exploitation of natural resources, with agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry and 12 Secretaria de Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (2004). "Primera Comunicacion Nacional" (PDF). UNDP. p. 44. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/domrepnc1.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-08-08.13 Secretaria de Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2008). Evaluación de Impacto, Vulnerabilidad y Adaptación de la Biodiversidad al Cambio Climático en la República Dominicana. Trabajo de preparación Segunda Comunicación Nacional ante Cambio Climático. SEMARENA/UNDP.

17

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/domrepnc1.pdf

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/domrepnc1.pdf

fisheries being the most important productive sectors. Lack of clarity concerning land tenure is another direct cause, given that boundaries of many PAs are subsequently not being defined or known. Underlying these direct causes are macro-economic factors, such as population growth and increasing land values, higher economic returns for productive activities, such as livestock raising, and national policies that promote tourism and mining. Rural poverty is another crucial underlying root cause leading to the undertaking of illegal activities to obtain resources and generate income for subsistence or commercial gain.

I - 6. Long-term solution for strengthening PA management

45. The long-term solution to the above threats depends on the existence of an effectively managed protected area system that provides a refuge for a representative sample of the country’s globally important biodiversity. This, in turn, depends on the existence of adequate capacities within SEMARENA and other institutional actors in the NPAS to generate income and to use it effectively and cost-efficiently for PA management, in collaboration with local stakeholders.

46. The National Protected Area System (NPAS), which is under the responsibility of the Sub-Secretariat of Protected Areas and Biodiversity of the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARENA) has a vital role to play in countering these threats. While this existing PA estate provides a strong basis on which to build there are also a number of weaknesses.

47. As mentioned earlier, different evaluations, notably the Financial Sustainability Scorecard and Management Effectiveness Tracking Tools (METT), were therefore undertaken to identify the most cost-effective approach to enhancing the national, system-wide approach to protected areas management.

48. The Financial Sustainability Scorecard (SECTION IV: Part II) was completed in February, 2009. Based on analysis of the overall financial capacity of 86 existing public protected areas in Dominican Republic, the application of the Scorecard resulted in an overall score of 34% with respect to the maximum possible score. Notably, the attained score is slightly above the average score obtained in protected area systems of the Mesoamerica and Caribbean Region (33%)14. The overall score indicates that while the NPAS already has some elements in place needed to attain financial sustainability, it lacks several other essential conditions needed to achieve this goal, as shown in the next paragraph.

49. The Scorecard measure 3 components: 1) legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks; 2) business planning and tools for cost-effective management; and 3) tools for revenue generation by PAs. Component 2 received the weakest score. However, the most problematic specific elements were spread across all three components (elements which obtained 13% or less of the maximum possible score), and included: 1) Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds; 2) well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level; 3) PA site-level business planning; 4) methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites; and 5) training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively. Other relatively weak elements (less than 33% of maximum possible score) included: 1) economic valuation of protected area systems; 2) improved government budgeting for PA systems; 3) systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance; 4) effective fee-collection systems; 5) marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms; 6) operational PES schemes for PAs, and 7) PA training programs on revenue-generating mechanisms.

14 According to the preliminary results of a study commissioned by UNDP Panama Regional Office, the scorecard was applied to the protected area systems of the following countries: Belize, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá and Dominican Republic.

18

50. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)15 was carried out as part of the PPG phase, covering the 34 PA Units within the NPAS that have on-site staff present (see SECTION IV: Part I for individual PA scorecards). The PAs included 5 Strict Natural Reserves/Wildlife Areas (IUCN Cat. I); 15 National Parks (IUCN Cat. II); 9 Natural Monuments (IUCN Cat. III); and 5 Wildlife Refuges (IUCN Cat. IV Habitat/Species Management Area)16. These were selected to cover the range of categories in the existing NPAS to determine the key weaknesses in management and to provide a sample set for monitoring project impact. The score for each of these PAs is listed in Table 2 below. The average score obtained by the 34 PA sample set was 65.1% (Medium level). The overall scoring show that 4 PAs (11.76%) are High level (score between 75% and 100%), 25 PAs (73.53%) are Medium level (score between 55% and 74%), and 5 PAs (14.70%) are Low level (score under 55%). The scores highlight a wide range of management capacities on a scale of 1-99, from the Humedales del Ozama National Park (score of 13.5), which is solely a “paper park” without any personnel or active management, to the Ebano Verde Scientific Reserve (score of 84), which is a very well-established and managed PA. Overall, the scoring for two elements -- context (importance, threats and policy environment) and planning (protected area design and planning) -- scored better than the other three elements -- inputs (resources needed to carry out management), process (the way in which management is conducted), and outcomes/outputs (implementation of management programmes and actions; delivery of products and services and assessment of the outcomes and the extent to which they achieved objectives). The specific elements on which the selected PAs scored lowest are elaborated below in the barrier analysis.

Table 2. Summary of METT Scores for 34 PA Units in NPAS with on-site staff presence (February-March 2009)

# MGT CATEGORY/NAME OF PA SCORE # MGT CATEGORY/NAME OF PA SCORECAT. I / Strict Nature Reserve1 Loma Quita Espuela Scientific Reserve 78.1 19 Submarino La Caleta 65.62 Guaconejo Scientific Reserve 63.4 20 Humedales del Ozama* 13.333 Villa Elisa Scientific Reserve 65.1 21 Sierra Martín García 40.54 Ébano Verde Scientific Reserve 84.0 CAT. III / Natural Monument5 Estero Hondo Marine-life Sanctuary 57.8 22 Cuevas del Pomier 61.8CAT. II / National Park 23 Salto de la Damajagua 81.16 Lago Enriquillo e Isla Cabritos 65.3 24 Isla Catalina 61.07 Cabo Francés Viejo 46.1 25 Dunas de las Calderas 62.18 Sierra de Neiba 59.1 26 Salto El Limón 72.29 Sierra de Bahoruco 70.1 27 Pico Diego de Ocampo 71.310 Valle Nuevo 65.6 28 Lagunas Cabarete y Goleta 64.511 Armando Bermúdez 74.7 29 Cabo Samaná 66.612 Del Este 69.1 30 Isabel de Torres 62.713 Cabo Cabrón 53.8 CAT. IV / Habitat/Species Management Area14 Nalga de Maco 65.9 31 Laguna de Cabral Wildlife Refuge 65.015 Jaragua 72.3 32 Ría Maimón Wildlife Refuge 54.416 José del Carmen Ramírez 78.3 33 Lagunas Redonda y Limón Wildlife

Refuge53.3

17 Submarino Monte Cristi 61.3 34 Cueva Los Tres Ojos 67.818 Los Haitises 68.4 35 Lagunas de Bávaro y Caletón

Wildlife Refuge65.2

*This PA does not have any personnel or active management activities

15 WWF/World Bank. 2007. Management effectiveness tracking tool: Reporting progress at protected area.16 METTs will be completed for the other 52 existing public protected areas in Dominican Republic during the first year of the project implementation process

19

51. These analyses indicate that before the existing NPAS can be consolidated and ecosystem gaps can be addressed, Dominican Republic must first eliminate financial and operational barriers critical to PA management effectiveness in the existing PA estate. Further the most critical of these barriers are described in more detail below. These are:

i. The inability of SEMARENA to generate and channel adequate financial flows in support of their management;

ii. PA managers do not use the budget available to them in a cost-effective manner;iii. SEMARENA and other agencies within the NPAS fail to take advantage of the opportunities that

exist for local communities and the private sector to participate in the management of the NPAS and its constituent PAs.

I - 7. Barriers to the envisioned National Protected Areas System consolidation

52. BARRIER 1 - The inability of SEMARENA to generate and channel adequate financial flows in support of their management. If the NPAS is to be sustainable, it is crucial that the system’s financial needs be balanced with its revenue in the most efficient manner possible. This must occur at both the level of individual PAs and that of the system as a whole. In general, however, income received by protected areas from different sources has been insufficient to cover even their basic operating expenses. At present, financial resources for the NPAS is not adequate to support the planning, management and monitoring functions necessary to provide optimal conservation of biodiversity. According to estimates by SEMARENA the basic cost of managing the National PA System is US$ 22.57 million. However, in 2007, only about US$ 10.38 million was budgeted for the management of the 86 protected areas within the NPAS, which cover an area of approximately 1.23 million hectares, or about 22% of the national territory. Hence, the available budget is insufficient for covering the NPAS’s basic operating needs, especially considering that only 32 PAs have administrative staff, while the rest are commonly called “parks on paper.” In addition, the disbursed budget was only US$ 6.93 million– i.e. only 67% of the available budget. Consequently, if the provisional figure for the NPAS‘s financial needs is compared against the funds actually spent to manage PAs in 2007, there is a US$ 15.5 million -- or 69% -- gap between the funds disbursed and the financial needs of the system in a basic operating scenario. According to a PPG study, however, this funding gap could be reduced to 53% by end of project through enhanced or new mechanisms applicable in the short term (entrance fees, new fees for other services and water-related PES schemes) and through other mechanisms over the mid to long term (through increased government budget allocation, and sale of carbon offsets from avoided deforestation). This analysis is summarized in Annex 4 on PA Financial Sustainability.

53. The predicted budgetary shortfall, and the consequent operative deficiencies of its constituent PAs, are due to the existence of limited capacities to generate increased levels of income, either from tourism or alternative sources; and an inadequate appreciation on the part of decision makers in Government of the economic benefits generated by PAs, above and beyond the income which they generate directly from visitor fees. In 2006, Decree 222-06 put in place an administrative measure stipulating that the resources generated by PAs through visitor fees and other services would be held in a special fund to be used by SEMARENA to maintain the country’s protected areas. Furthermore, SEMARENA, UNDP and TNC agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding to create a Protected Areas Trust Fund (i.e., PA Patrimonial Fund mentioned above) to guarantee funding for the NPAS in perpetuity. The vision was to create a permanent endowment in this Fund with funds by the signatory institutions of the Memorandum. The Fund would also receive resources from the PA Maintenance Fund mentioned earlier and from other sources which would pass through the revolving fund window of the PA Patrimonial Fund as described previously. This Fund was destined to become a permanent source of financing to cover the recurring costs of PA-related national action programs beyond the startup costs. At present, however, this Fund – which is now called the PA Patrimonial Fund - is not yet fully operational. As mentioned above, the PA Patrimonial Fund was only recently formally established during the PPG phase by being legally

20

integrated into the regulation of the MARENA Fund as one of its Sub-funds or satellite funds. The Fund has therefore not yet been capitalized by the signatories of the initial MoU. Also, while PA legislation provides for the establishment of additional sources of PA revenue, there are only very limited models for doing so. At present, the support for public-private partnerships is minimal. In addition, financial mechanism pilots (such as water and carbon-related PES and conservation easement schemes) are required to test their potential, determine standards and to build capacities for application.

54. Despite the potential for closing the funding gap, SEMARENA also faces several constraints in channeling financial flows to where funds are most needed. At present crucial financial management tools do not exist, notably an overall system-wide PA Financial Strategy and related automated planning and accounting system. SEMARENA’s expenditure management and reporting is therefore weak and not based on long-term goals. In addition, funds are also not necessarily allocated to priority PAs based on conservation goals or income flows.

55. BARRIER 2 - SEMARENA does not use its available budget for PA management in a cost-effective manner. The problem that SEMARENA and the NPAS are faced with is not only that the funds have been insufficient to cover even their basic operating expenses. SEMARENA is currently also unable to use the entire budget that is available to it efficiently and effectively, due to a combination of limited financial and technical capacities. In addition, a significant portion of SEMARENA’s budget is allocated to finance INDRHI and other government autonomous agencies.

56. In 2008, SEMARENA only executed 50% of the $9.4 million budget that was available from government allocations and PA revenues. Table 3 shows information on budgetary allocations made under the Law of Public Expenditures in 2006, 2007 and 2008, illustrating the above mentioned situation. While budgetary execution stood at 97% in 2006, it dropped dramatically in 2007 and 2008, to 64% and 54%, respectively. However, disbursement also varied from year to year for each budget item defined in the Dominican Government’s Manual of Budgetary Classifications for the Public Sector. For example, more was spent than allocated on item Staffing Services (which includes salaries, workshops, fees per diems etc.), i.e. this item demonstrated a level of disbursement greater than 100% for the three years analyzed. Other budget items, however, such as Non-Staff Services (incl. communication services), saw only a fraction of the allocated amount spent. Overall, during the 2006-2008 period, close to US$ 5.5 million has been left unspent (Table 4), US$ 2.8 million of this from 2008. These figures reflect the magnitude of the problem of low budgetary disbursement. Added to this is the low budgetary disbursement of resources generated by protected areas from visitor fees.

57. A PPG study analyzed the gap between programmed and disbursed spending for a number of protected areas, and a number of causes for this discrepancy were identified. The most significant of these arose from the discrepancy between the allocation of funds by the National Budget Office (based on estimations of fiscal revenue) and priorities established under the Government’s Fiscal Policy. Every year the Central Government approves a given amount of resources for the management of the country’s protected areas. However, the amount actually received by the NPAS (disbursements and expenditures) is usually less than the amount approved, as expenditures are subject to the Government’s current fiscal policies and cash flow. In other words, if the Government’s revenue goals are not met (from tax collection) then many sectors may see their allocations reduced. Nevertheless, even in years of surplus revenue, the NPAS has received less than its approved budget amount, which means there is another factor that is influencing how much is actually allocated to protected areas. This factor is likely related to the low priority of protected areas on the Government agenda, which prioritizes other issues that are seen as more urgent. As mentioned above, funding of protected areas is perceived of more as an expenditure than an investment that will ensure an ongoing flow of revenue for local and national economies from the sale of goods and services.

21

58. In the second place, there are also internal causes, which are related to the administrative procedures used for disbursing funds received. The Project Department of SEMARENA’s Office of Planning and Development has launched a study to identify inefficiencies in the disbursement of funds received from the Central Government. A preliminary finding of the study is that there are problems with funding requests received from individual protected areas, which are likely due to the fact that PA staff having little training in planning and costing expenditures.

22

Table 3. Approved budget for the National System of Protected Areas and disbursed amounts

DENOMINATION 2006 2007 2008

BUDGET US$ DISBURSED FUNDS US$ % BUDGET US$ DISBURSED

FUNDS US$ % BUDGET US$ DISBURSED FUNDS US$ %

Conservation of PAs and Biodiversity

2,629,489.21

2,548,416.96 97 7,103,120.18 4,557,797.72 64 6,169,989.05 3,340,198.96 54

Staffing Services 1,882,22

7.99 1,978,1

55.35 105 2,114,791.21 2,129,172.21 101 2,461,910.48 2,619,676.41 106

Non-staffing Services 390,38

5.51 348,0

77.81 89 2,759,791.33 312,209.75 11 2,683,622.48 282,541.67 11

Materials and Supplies 250,87

6.87 122,2

98.50 49 231,487.49 154,332.30 67 188,650.40 147,443.09 78

Non-Financial Assets 105,99

8.85 99,8

85.30 94 1,997,050.15 1,962,083.45 98 835,805.69 290,537.79 35

Source: PPG Study on PA Financial Sustainability

Table 4. Difference between approved and disbursed budget, by year. National System of Protected Areas

DENOMINATION Deficit/Surplus of Disbursed Funds (US$)Accumulated

Deficit/Surplus (US$)2006 2007 2008 2006-2008

Conservation of PAs and Biodiversity 80,956.06 2,545,322.46 2,829,790.09 5,456,068.62

Staffing Services (95,789.

90) (14,381.

00 ) (157,765.94) (267,936.83) Non-staffing Services 42,247.07 2,447,581.57 2,401,080.82 4,890,909.46 Materials and Supplies 128,394.10 77,155.19 41,207.31 246,756.60 Non-Financial Assets 6,104.79 34,966.70 545,267.91 586,339.39

23

59. As of September 2007, people working within the NPAS amounted to a total of 462 employees. Of these, 260 were employed as Park Rangers and 32 worked as PA Administrators or Directors. Table 5 below displays the breakdown of NPAS staff as of September 2007.

Table 5. Distribution of personnel within the NPAS (as per September 2007)

Staff category NumberManagement Office 14Planning Department 6Administrators 32Secretaries 11Drivers 5Gatekeepers 19Ticketing staff 35Assistants 6Administrator in charge 1Coordinators 3Librarian 1Tourism guides 2Cashiers 4Radio operators 4Park rangers 260Supervisors 51Guardhouse staff 1Sector supervisors 2Ecotourism Project Leader 1Mechanic 1Ship’s captains 3TOTAL 462

Source: SEMARENA. 2007. National Report on the National Protected Areas System of the Dominican Republic: II Latin American Conference of National Parks and other Protected Areas. Bariloche, Argentina

60. In addition, SEMARENA staff has limited capacity for developing technically sound proposals for investments of monetary resources from public/private sources and the Fund in support of PAs. Subsequently, NPAS-related staff members have little experience with long-term strategic financial planning, with the result that most PAs survive on a ‘hand to mouth’ basis with little provision for investments which might contribute to sustainability, and little buffering against unforeseen events. Currently, only 1 PA out of 86 PA units has a business plan, with the result that spending seldom relates accurately to needs or threats. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness is reduced by the dispersion of the PA estate: the average size of PAs decreased by more than 50% between 1980 and 2001, leading to reduced economies of scale. Each PA unit also performs their functions in an isolated manner, creating inefficiencies and lost opportunities for developing synergies between PA units and their stakeholders.

61. The weak central-level budgetary planning and implementation has translated into weak PA units, which generally have a low capacity to plan, implement, enforce and monitor their conservation management responsibilities. Effective PA Management is especially constrained by the limited staff presence in the PA units and their technical capacity levels.

62. According to the METT assessment carried out during the PPG phase, the quantity and quality of NPAS staff is inadequate in most of the 34 assessed PA units and completely lacking in the remaining 52 units within the NPAS estate. Hence, at present 94.11% of the assessed 34 PA units have insufficient staff to carry out critical management tasks and the remaining 60.47% of the PAs within the System have no personnel on location at all. Table 6 highlights the existing deficit of Park Rangers, Administrators and

24

supervisors in the NPAS. Notably, even though Forest Reserves constitute the management category with the second largest coverage of national terrestrial territory, it is one of the PA categories with the lowest levels of management within the NPAS.

Table 6. Comparison of number of Park Rangers and PA Administrators between 1997 and 2007

PersonnelYear 1997 (50 PAs in NPAS) Year 2007 (86 PAs in NPAS)

Existing Required Existing Required Estimated deficit

Park Rangers 125 263 260 565 305Administrators 20 30 32 86 54Supervisors 14 16 51 137 86

63. The METT scores revealed that the major weaknesses among the existing staff skills concerned: 1) financial budget management, 2) monitoring and evaluation, 3) land use planning, 4) research, and 5) education and public awareness raising. The operational staff also lacks the necessary management tools and infrastructure for effective PA management. Only 15 of the 86 PA units within the NPAS have management plans. Moreover, although there is a Methodological Guide to Designing and Updating Management Plans for Protected Areas, the model employed for those plans is not completely in line with the overall objective of the guide. The content of the plans, for example, continues to approach PA management through broad analyses instead of a more concrete approach to solving the main problems present in protected areas. Other considerations regarding the management plans include the following:

Their design continues to be very costly and time consuming, and also depends on external funding sources.

The resulting documents are voluminous and overloaded with information, making them unappealing to read and apply.

The lack of guaranteed funding limits their implementation.

64. The lowest METT scores for the selected 34 PAs concerned: 1) existence and implementation of operational plans, 2) availability and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure, and 3) facilities for visitors. Moreover, many PA staff members have limited access to accurate information of priority BD and threats. PA-level staff also has limited capacity and experience regarding how to interact with local communities. This especially concerns how to engage them in partnerships to improve the PA management effectiveness, while also reducing conflicts over resource use and providing local income opportunities. There is limited experience within SEMARENA with how to administer co-management arrangements (see also barrier 3).

65. Biological indicators : The status of biodiversity is not clearly defined in the Dominican Republic. Several key species, such as humpback whales, have a suite of research and international agreement on status, but this is rare in the general context of species-level biodiversity. Some of the factors that contribute to this status quo are: (i) Disagreement over the concept of “indicator species” to measure and over which species are truly indicators; (b) uncertainty over methodologies, roles and responsibilities for capturing and managing information, coupled with technical constraints, among relevant institutions - especially SEMARENA; (iii) funding constraints for regular, systematic biological data collection; and (iv) uncertainty concerning how to utilize the information in the decision-making process. Consequently, at present, an effective monitoring framework for biodiversity (especially at the species level) is still on the horizon for the Dominican Republic. This said, the Dominican system is capable of measuring their terrestrial ecosystems through their GIS system. The digital inputs to complete this analysis are, however, outdated and need to be adapted based on the newest TNC-executed biological gap analysis (2009) that establishes a new ecosystem-level biodiversity for D.R.

25

66. BARRIER 3 – underexplored opportunities for PA co-management. Co-management offers a promising potential for decentralized, streamlined PA management. It also provides an opportunity to contribute to the financial sustainability of and threat reduction within the involved PA unites, by generating resources for and involving local communities and private sector in management activities. At present, however, SEMARENA fail to take advantage of promising opportunities that exist within the NPAS. The resulting alienation of these potential local stakeholders increases the level of threats to PAs from their productive activities, especially unsustainable tourism and encroachment (see threats section). Without this proposed project, the resolution of increasing threats to biodiversity will require additional financial investment from the NPAS, which further undermines its financial sustainability.

67. To date, most existing collaborative arrangements between PAs and local stakeholders are conducted on a voluntary basis and ad-hoc initiatives. There are clear legal provisions in both the General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (Law 64-00) and the Sectoral Law of Protected Areas (Law 202-04) that provide for the signing of PA co-management agreements (see legal section). In addition, Resolution No. 15-06 of SEMARENA states that “the promotion of agreements for co-management of protected areas has been established for sites in which technical studies have shown a need for such a model.” However, legislative and operational instruments for alternative forms of PA management, including co-management, are still at the incipient stage. Supported by GTZ, SEMARENA has prepared a proposal for Rules and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected Areas. In addition, a proposal has been put forward to create a Shared Management Unit within SEMARENA, to be directly response for co-management issues. Moreover, a proposed Shared PA Management Board would establish a platform for all organizations participating in co-management. The suggested aim of this entity is to inform, communicate, coordinate, manage disputes, build capacities, exchange experiences, follow up on impacts, disseminate lessons learned and establish common strategies for the NPAS. These three proposed initiatives, however, are all pending official review and approval (see baseline section for more details). Finally, only few existing PA Management Plans include provisions for co-management. As a result, the few co-management agreements in-progress are currently constrained by weaknesses in communication, planning and the definition of roles and responsibilities among parties involved in co-management.

68. Since the above Rules are still only in draft form the existing 13 PA co-management arrangements in the Dominican Republic are not prepared according to this set of national guidelines. Notably, to date the full funding burden is only covered by the co-manager in 1 of the existing 13 co-management experiences. In addition, this co-manager is only able to cover the full costs, as he possesses substantial personal funds. Despite these 13 incipient initiatives, the funding burden on the GoDR has barely been reduced. In addition, this fact has become a source of antagonism and disappointment with the GoDR, who focuses on financial contributions as the most significant rationale for co-management. Co-managers, on the other hand, have expressed numerous other benefits achieved through these preliminary co-management experiences, such as better local integration and local-level management. The project will seek to respond to this gap by enabling not only new, but also existing co-managers with better business planning and financial management skills.

69. Existing co-management agreements do also not provide a full suite of authority to the co-managers. In the case of the most successful relationship, which concerns the Ebano Verde Scientific Reserve, the involved co-manager has been granted a relatively full set of decision-making power. The project will therefore also update the existing co-management agreements as per the new Co-Mgt Guidelines, which accommodate and respond to this need of authority.

70. The project will therefore adopt a multi-pronged, progressive approach consisting of three key components which will address the barriers set out above.

26

I - 8. Stakeholder analysis

71. The following is a brief introduction of the main project stakeholders. Section IV Part III provides more details, along with a description of their main roles both in PA management and in the proposed project. The success of the project is understood to depend mainly on the reduction and/or elimination of the three barriers identified as critical for the long term strengthening of PA management for the PAs within the NPAS (section I-6). Nevertheless, the reduction and/or elimination of those barriers will depend in turn on adequate communication among stakeholders and on the level of participation in the work to be shared by those involved in implementing the project. To address the inability of SEMARENA to generate and channel adequate financial flows in support of NPAS management (Barrier 1), it is necessary to involve the following key stakeholders: (i) SEMARENA itself, as the main entity in this process; (ii) the Ministry of Finance; (iii) The Nature Conservancy; (iv) the German Development Bank (KfW); (v) the National Tourism Secretariat; (vi) the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic; (vii) SEMARENA’s PSA Office; (viii) Tour Operators; (ix) FONDOMARENA; and (x) the Protected Areas Trust Fund.

72. Additionally, to meet the challenges that could arise if SEMARENA does not use its available budget for PA management in a cost-effective manner (barrier 2), the additional main actors involved include: (i) National Congress; (ii) PA staff at the central, provincial and local levels; (iii) NGOs and other civil society organizations; (iv) Community organizations; and (v) local communities and producers. Actions aimed at reducing and/or eliminating barrier 3 in which SEMARENA and other agencies within the NPAS fail to take advantage of the opportunities that exist for local communities and the private sector to participate in the management of the NPAS and its constituent PAs , include the involvement of the following stakeholders: (i) PA co-managers; (ii) SEMARENA’s Shared Management Unit to be established by the project; (iii) Board for Shared PA Management; (iv) those interested in PA co-management and/or concessions; (v) landowners and those with land usage rights within PA boundaries; (vi) business sector; (vii) compatible projects; and (viii) National Inventory.

Table 7. Summary of Main StakeholdersStakeholder Description

SEMARENA By legal mandate (Law 64-00), this institution is responsible for safeguarding the environment and natural resources at the national level.

Ministry of Economy and Finance

Entity responsible for economic planning and follow up, authorized in budgetary appropriation authority vis a vis the Central Government.

The Nature Conservancy International NGO with an office in the Dominican Republic that has supported conservation efforts in close collaboration with SEMARENA and other national entities.

UNDP Dominican Republic United Nations agency that, among other things, acts as the GEF Implementing Agency.

German Development Bank (KfW)

German banking institution that has made substantial financial contributions in support of conservation in the Dominican Republic.

National Tourism Secretariat Government office responsible for the promotion, development and regulation of tourism as one of the country’s main economic activities.

Central Bank of the Dominican Republic

Regulatory entity whose main functions include registering and monitoring the contribution of different sectors to the national economy.

PSA Office, SEMARENA SEMARENA office charged with promoting, developing and regulating Payment for Environmental Services in the DR.

Tour Operators Group of businesses that promote, organize and operate tourist visits to different points of natural and/or cultural interest.

FONDOMARENA National fund established by Law 64-00 to provide financial support for environmental conservation and the conservation and development of the country’s natural resources.

Protected Areas Fund Special SEMARENA fund created through Decree 222-06 to provide

27

financial support for the country’s PAs. National Congress Double body of representatives charged with reading, reviewing, adjusting

and enacting national laws.Central, Provincial and Local staff associated with PAs

All technical, administrative and operative SEMARENA staff whose duties are directly related to PAs.

Civil Society Organizations (NGOs)

Legally recognized non-governmental entities that carry out a variety of activities related to the conservation of the environment and natural resources. For example, the Sociedad Ecológica de Barahona (SOEBA), Sociedad Ecológica del Cibao (SOECI), and the Grupo Jaragua.

Community Organizations Different social and community development entities interested in the advantages and/or disadvantages of establishing and managing PAs.

Communities and Local Producers.

Local communities and agricultural and livestock producers that are affected positively or negatively by the establishment and management of PAs.

Co-managers of PAs

Individual organizations that have entered into or will enter into formal PA co-management agreements. For example: (a) Sociedad para el Desarrollo Integral del Nordeste (SODIN); (b) Funación Loma Quita Espuela (FLQE); (c) Asociación Clemento Melo (ASOCLEM).SODIN is an NGO with technical expertise, founded and legally incorporated in 1985 by Decree 3317-85. This organization has its own bylaws and has been associated with the management of Loma Guaconejo Scientific Reserve since 1996. FLQE is another NGO founded in 1990 and legally incorporated by Decree 82-92. The Foundation focuses on the following: i) management of the reserve through protection and surveillance activities, research, ecotourism and environmental education, ii) community development by improving the quality of life of local inhabitants based on sustainable farming and forestry and community health. ASOCLEM, owner of the Wildlife Refuge lands, is a grassroots community association with its own bylaws and legal status. This organization is focused on developing and managing the refuge, and improving living conditions, natural resource use and the environment in 10 neighboring communities. The Association has worked since 1992.

Large variety of stakeholders involved in the pilot demonstration projects

Pilot Demonstration - Loma Guaconejo – Loma Quita Espuela Scientific Reserves: In addition to SODIN and FLQE other actors to be involved include: i) Provincial Office of the Environment and Natural Resources for Nagua and San Francisco de Macorís, ii) Vermont Center for Ecostudies, iii) local governments, iv) land owners, v) Office for Environmental Service Payments, SEMARENA, vi) the National Potable Water Institute (INAPA), vii) the business sector and viii) local irrigation associationsPilot Demonstration – Salto de Damajagua Natural Monument: Stakeholders currently involved are: (i) SEMARENA, (ii) PA Administrator, (iii) Association of Ecotourism Guides of Río Damajagua, (iv) Tourism Secretariat, (v) Provincial Governor’s Office, (vi) local government, (vii) Association of Hotels and Restaurants of Playa Dorada, and (viii) Landowners. Other stakeholders involved in PA management include the Provincial Office of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Secretariat of Education Pilot Demonstration – Los Quemados Private Protected Area/Wildlife Refuge: In addition to ASOCLEM other actors to be involved include five communities: Las Charcas, Cañada Cimarrona, La China, Arroyo Colorado and el Memiso.

Shared PA Management Unit SEMARENA office directly responsible for the promotion, establishment, follow up and evaluation of PA Co-management Agreements.

Shared PA Management Board (Mesa de Gestión Compartida de APs)

Cooperation mechanisms between SEMARENA and other entities, includes all organizations with formal PA co-management functions.

28

Parties interested in PA co-management and concessions

Organizations and micro enterprises that may be interested in entering into shared management agreements and/or in implementing activities through already established PA concessions.

Landowners and others with land usage rights within PA boundaries.

Large number of individuals with land titles or land usage rights that will be affected by the establishment and management of PAs.

Business sector Companies or individuals interested in different forms of investment to promote conservation of natural resources and biodiversity, especially within or in proximity to PAs.

I - 9. Business-as-usual “Baseline” scenario

73. Under the “business-as-usual” scenario, the Dominican Republic’s Sectoral Law on Protected Areas will remain the theoretical basis for PA management within the National PA System, but insufficient finance and operational capacities will hinder its implementation. The gaps in PA financing and management will limit the effectiveness of the new PA Patrimonial Fund. Without the project support (both GEF and co-financing sources), this Fund may not become fully operational; or at best function at a very sub-optimal level due to insufficient funds. Also, without the GEF increment, it is likely that 5 of the 18 PAs will continue to generate revenues, but these will not increase to offset inflation. In addition, the revenues from the top 3 PAs will not be sufficient to contribute to the development of PAs with little or no revenue generating potential, or those with delicate ecosystems where visitation on a large scale as a revenue stream would be in detriment to the ecosystem in question.

74. Without the sustainable financing mechanisms and related increased PA revenue that the GEF project would enable, existing PAs will continue to operate. With the existing budgetary constraints, however, 94.11% of the assessed 34 PA units will continue to have insufficient staff – both in terms of number and skills - to carry out critical management tasks and the remaining 60.47% of the PAs within the System will have no personnel on location at all. Administrative structures and processes will continue to present barriers to effective and efficient management of the NPAS and its individual PA units. Deficiencies in the legal framework for PA management will also continue to present a poorly defined environment for the planning and management of the System. In addition, the 18 priority PAs within the PA system that would be targeted by the GEF increment, will not benefit from new or upgraded Management Plans, Business Plans or crucial basic infrastructure. Finally, the NPAS staff, both at the central and local levels, would also miss out of the focused capacity development. Without these enabling and catalytic activities, the re-engineering of the NPAS into a financially and operationally sustainable PA System in the long run would not occur.

75. Finally, without the GEF increment, the existing co-management regime would remain the same. Local stakeholders will therefore continue to be excluded as partners in conservation. This will have two major repercussions. First, threats to biodiversity will continue, or may even grow, as local stakeholders will continue to see and realize no benefits to be derived from conservation. They may subsequently continue to exploit resources of PAs. Due to the absence of partnerships and the lack of engagement of communities, limited existing PA staff will be further stretched in performing conservation-related tasks. They will also be left without helpful coordination mechanisms for conflict resolution. Moreover, without the catalytic effect of the pilot projects, critical issues such as Private Reserves, easements, and innovative PES will remain unattempted with little opportunity for learning, innovation, or adaptive management. Moreover, important habitats will remain outside the NPAS, since there will be no nationally endorsed and supported mechanisms for how to officially establish private reserves and integrate them into the NPAS in the long run.

29

PART II: Strategy

II - 1. Project Rationale and Policy Conformity

76. Strategic Objective and Programme Conformity: This project is consistent with the focus of GEF’s Strategic Objective 1: Catalyzing the Sustainability of PA systems (SO-1) and the Strategic Program #1 (SP-1): Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems and the National Level. The project will focus specifically on Strategic Priority 1, given that inadequate access to reliable funding is currently the major obstacle to the lasting improvement of the sustainability and effectiveness of the NPAS. In accordance with GEF 4 guidance, it will increase the overall level of funding available to the NPAS by enabling it to take advantage of opportunities for funds from the private sector, commercial enterprises and external sources to complement Government budgets; and by developing capacities and procedures for sound long-term business planning within the NPAS, matching projections of expenditure and income and developing innovative strategies to fill the gap between the two (GEF guidance on SP1 refers to “agencies responsible for managing protected areas with sufficient capacity to manage protected areas based on sound principles of business planning as well as conservation biology principles”). Through its activities under Component 3, it will also (again in line with GEF guidance) promote the incorporation of local communities in protected area conservation and management in order to increase management effectiveness and reduce operational and financial burdens on the Government. The Project will thereby contribute to the financial sustainability of the NPAS, as well as contributing to social sustainability.

77. CBD Conformity. The Project also represents a significant advancement towards fulfilling the agreements made at the 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD. The COP-7 approved a Work Program on Protected Areas that encourages countries to undertake concrete actions to promote real civil society participation in protected area management, as well as distributing the benefits of these areas more equitably. The Project will further contribute to the achievement of each of the four elements of this Work Programme by:

ProgrammeElement 1

- Strengthening a national system of protected areas.- Substantially improving site-based PA planning and management.- Preventing and mitigating the negative impacts of key threats to PAs.

ProgrammeElement 2

- Establishing mechanisms for the equitable sharing of both costs and benefits arising from the establishment and management of PAs.

- Enhancing and securing the involvement of local communities and relevant stakeholders.ProgrammeElement 3

- Providing an enabling legal, policy and institutional environment for PAs.- Building capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs.- Contributing to long-term financial sustainability of Pas and the national PA System.

ProgrammeElement 4

- Developing and adopting minimum standards and best practices for the national PA system.- Developing and adopting frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting PA

management effectiveness at the site and system level.- Promoting the dissemination of, and facilitation access to, scientific and technical information

from and on PAs.

II - 2. Project Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/activities

78. The project goal is to safeguard globally significant biodiversity of the Dominican Republic. The project objective is consolidation of the financial sustainability of the National Protected Areas System (NPAS). The project’s outcomes and outputs are described below.

OUTCOME 1: Increased and diversified NPAS funding. (Total cost: US$6,332,320: GEF $1,038,320; Co-financing: $5,294,000

30

79. The project will address one of the most critical barriers for the consolidation and re-engineering of the national PA System. If it is to be sustainable, it is crucial that the system’s financial needs be balanced with its revenue in the most efficient manner possible. This must occur at both the level of individual PAs and that of the system as a whole. In general, however, as outlined in barrier 1 earlier, revenue received by PAs from different sources has been insufficient to cover even their basic operating expenses. As already mentioned, in 2007, there was a US$ 15.5 million - or 69% - gap between the funds executed and the financial needs of the system in a basic operating scenario. Furthermore, the problem is not only that the funds allocated are insufficient, but that they are used inefficiently and ineffectively as well. However, PPG phase findings show that the PA System has a high potential for generating its own financial benefits in various ways. Actions under Outcome 1 will therefore concern different strategies to enable SEMARENA and the NPAS’ ability to generate, allocate and executive financial resources related to PA management. The focus will be on improving the ability of the PA system to secure sufficient, stable and long-term financial resources and manage and allocate them in a timely manner, so that not only the central units of SEMARENA, but also the individual PA units are managed in an effective and cost efficient manner.

80. Through output 1.1, the Project will develop a system-wide Sustainable Financing Strategy and a related Finance Business Plan. Moreover, measures will be supported to increase the revenue capture of the NPAS to address the PA System’s existing funding gap. Output 1.2 will support the operationalization of the PA Patrimonial Fund, which will become a permanent source of funding to cover recurrent costs of the NPAS. To complement the capitalization the PA Patrimonial Fund beyond the cash contributions from various sources, the PA System’s existing visitors fee structure and collection will be optimized (output 1.3). The project will also support the establishment of a permanent system for valuation of Ecosystem Benefits and Services, mainly from water resources (output 1.4). The goal is to develop a steady, reliable, sufficient flow of annual resources from a diverse base of local recurrent income, trust fund yields, national budget contributions, and other sources.

81. At present, SEMARENA’s limited institutional capacities for financial management results in chronic under-spending of its annual budget, which further weakens its negotiating position with the Ministry of Finance (Secretaria de Estado de Hacienda) for increased Government budget allocation for PA management. Specific training on financial management to SEMARENA staff will therefore be provided through Output 1.6 and a Procedures Manual on the revised financial management system will be compiled. Effective financial planning requires accurate knowledge of the amounts of revenue, expenditure levels, patterns and requirements. This requires new accounting practices and adapted technology for online controls. Financial management information and tracking systems will therefore be strengthened and budget reporting procedures revised and implemented to measure performance against indicators (Output 1.5).

Output 1.1: NPAS Sustainable Financing Strategy and Business Plan approved

82. Current financing gaps place serious limitations on management and operations standards of existing PAs. In response, this output will support ongoing efforts in preparing a NPAS Sustainable Financing Strategy and Business Action Plan for sustainable funding of the NPAS. SEMARENA has already initiated the formulation process with the technical support of TNC, which seeks to maximize the NPAS’s revenue capture and optimize its spending. To date, the Financial Needs Assessment and Financial Gap Analysis have not been completed. Based on this financial baseline and the preliminary findings from the PPG phase, the future Strategy and Management Plan will address income generation from the NPAS’s PA units and contributions of related stakeholders (i.e. resource “supply”). It will also encompass the minimum funding needs for adequate operations of PAs and the system (i.e. resource “demand”), and the financial planning that is required to balance both sides of the financial equation.

31

83. The first part will be a strategy that will contain short, medium and long term strategies on how to implement funding mechanisms (outputs 1.3; 1.4) that will make more resources available (based on an analysis of the System’s funding needs and gaps). It will also address how to efficiently manage available funds through: (i) an appropriate budgetary planning system; (ii) suitable accounting administration; (iii) an income distribution system; and (iv) the application of cost-effectiveness principles.

84. The second part will be a system-wide 5-year Financing Business Management Plan, which will operationalize both the Financing Strategy part and the new system for collection and control of incomes pertaining to PAs. It will not only an extension of the NPAS Financing Strategy part; it will also built on an assessment of PA System costs and financial gaps, and the business planning experiences within Pilot Sites with a potential for generating financial resources (output 2.3). This Business Plan will allow for greater revenue capture and re-distribution of financial resources to PAs in greatest need through the new Financial and Accounting Information System (output 1.5). It will also include clear criteria for establishing investment and capacity development priorities. The Plan will also provide an operational framework for PA System planners to identify when greater government lobbying is required for increased budgets. Moreover, the Plan will respond to priority areas for tourism development. This System-level Business Plan will further act as a guide for the planned PA site-level Business Plans (output 2.3), for instance, as the source of financial reporting from PA sites feeding into system-level reporting. Reporting on expenditure and results of investments in PAs will be important to show the cost-effectiveness of PA management and the value in budget allocations to improve PA management. Finally, the Plan will provide the foundation for the financing mechanisms to be developed and implemented through Outputs 1.3 and 1.4. The project will complement TNC’s work on this process, with technical and logistical support, as of Year 1.

85. This Plan will be prepared by TNC in close collaboration with SEMARENA and will be based on the analysis of funding needs and gaps. While the preparation of the Financing Strategy will be funded by SEMARENA and TNC, complementary GEF funds will support the operationalization of this Strategy. This will ensure that it is adequately adopted by the different PA units.

Output 1.2: PA Patrimonial Fund operationalized, capitalized and regulated

86. To legally establish and operationalize the PA Patrimonial Fund, during Year 1, project funds will supplement TNC resources to support SEMARENA, UNDP and the initial Trust Fund partners (TNC and KfW) in the preparation of a Dominican Republic Protected Areas Trust Fund Act. Based on the preliminary proposal prepared during the PPG phase (see Annex 3 on Environmental Funds), this Act will define the final design of the Fund’s institutional structure and governance arrangements, including the functioning of the Board of Directors (Consejo Executivo) and relationship with the MARENA Fund. More specifically, this Act will define aspects, such as the establishment, powers and functions of the Fund itself; and the constitution, powers and functions of the Board of Directors. This Act will also formalize the Trust Fund fiduciary arrangements, how the fund will be capitalized; and how the funds and revenues will be handled (i.e. the financial provisions, accounts and audits). When the Trust Fund become operational, the initial financial contributions would be US$ 294,000 (RD $ 10 million) from SEMARENA through the Maintenance Fund for Protected Areas (Fondo de Mantenimiento de las Áreas Protegidas); US$ 2 million as initial contribution from the TNC; US$ 2.5 million as initial contribution from KfW and US$ 250,000 as the GEF contribution through project funds. All these contributions amount to a total of US$ 5.04 million, which would constitute the initial endowment. In addition, the MARENA Fund (Fondo MARENA) will make annual contributions to the trust fund. These contributions will consist of a given percentage of income generated by the NPAS for SEMARENA. 17 The contributions will be made progressively, i.e. the first year the contribution will be 10% of revenue

17 The MARENA Fund is replenished with 33% of all revenues generated by SEMARENA, a percentage of which comes from fees charged in protected areas.

32

generated by the NPAS, the second it will be 20%, the third it will be 30 % and the fourth it will equal 33 percent, which will be the percentage applied in perpetuity from thereon after.

87. Table 8 below provides a proposed simulation of the Trust Fund performance based on a horizon of 10 years. An alternative financing proposal is provided in Prodoc Annex 3. Assuming that the Fund is reported in US dollars, with a 9% rate of return annually, and with 5% of the past three years average value of the fund paid out to support the national PA system, the generated interest income would be distributed as follows: 85% would be allocated towards management of the NPAS; 15% to administration of the Fund. All remaining interest revenue would be for reinvestment into the Fund’s base capital. In addition to the funds generated from the reinvestment to the capital of the fund, the table includes the annual contribution from the MARENA Fund in specified proportions as explained above. These inputs will also generate interest. For the 4 years of project duration, according to the model, the planned investments will therefore accumulate an additional total amount of US$ 1.2 million to contribute to the management of the NPAS, which is equivalent to an average of $300,000 per year. At the end of 10 years, the endowment will have paid out US$5 million towards the management of the NPAS and the endowment will have a total value of US$20 million. Together with TNC, the project will also finance the activities, studies and consultations required for the development and approval of a Trust Fund Operations Manual. This Manual will define the operational agreements, rules and protocols necessary for the operationalization and management of the PA Patrimonial Fund.

88. To guide future investments by the PA Patrimonial Fund, project funds will support the preparation and approval of Strategic Investment Plan for the Trust Fund, which will provide the strategic foundation for any capital investments carried out with Fund money. This activity will necessitate the assistance of a financial expert with international expertise, who will supervise a national consultant. It is envisioned, that the first Fund-supported investments in PAs will not be carried out until during the last project year, given that the initial capitalization of the Fund will need to generate the necessary interest first.

33

Table 8. Proposed funding flow of the PA Patrimonial Trust Fund (Fondo Patrimonial). Amounts in US$.

1/1/11 1/1/12 1/1/13 1/1/14 1/1/15 1/1/16 1/1/17 1/1/18 1/1/19 1/1/20 1/1/21Revenue

Initial Funding 5,044,000 5,044,000

Expenses

Fund Management 751,551 39,367

42,479

45,760

53,657

63,695

74,805

86,927

100,134

114,522

130,206

Stewardship Grants 4,258,791 223,080

240,713

259,308

304,058

360,941

423,892

492,586

567,423

648,958

737,831

Total 5,010,343 262,447

283,191

305,069

357,716

424,636

498,697

579,513

667,557

763,480

868,037

Long Term Endowment

Additional Investment 5,963,631 204,936

409,872

614,807

676,288

676,288

676,288

676,288

676,288

676,288

676,288

Investment Total (End of Period Balance + New Investment)

5,248,936

5,868,765

6,730,017

8,012,006

9,409,375

10,932,506

12,595,416

14,405,291

16,378,055

18,528,368

Investment Income 9,738,498 472,404

529,636

605,701

721,081

846,844

986,621

1,133,587

1,296,476

1,474,025

1,672,122

End of Period Balance 20,200,490 5,458,893

6,115,210

7,335,718

8,733,087

10,256,218

11,919,128

13,729,003

15,701,767

17,852,080

20,200,490

Totals through 2020 Funding Management 15.0%Revenue Endowment Payout Rate 5.0%Initial investment 5,044,000 Investment Return 9.0%Additional investments 5,963,631Total 5,044,000

ExpensesFund Management 1/ 751,551Stewardship Grants 4,258,791 Total 5,010,343

Endowment Ending Value 2/ 20,200,490

1/ Capped at 15% of annual endowment payout2/ Estimated value of the endowment, assumes a 9% annualized return.

34

Output 1.3: Revenue generation in PAs increased due to updated fees for visitation and services and improved fee collection systems

89. To increase revenue generated by PAs, this output will focus on updating fees, improving fee collection systems and promoting tourism in more PAs. A key focus will be the definition of fee policy and rules. An existing proposal will be updated to establish a new fee structure, and adopting this new structure in the NPAS. The proposal to be updated includes adjustments to existing fees charged and the introduction of fees for additional services. This will increase revenue generated by PAs by defining new visitor fees as well as fees for other services—parking, watercraft docking, scientific investigation, photography and filming, among others. Defining a new visitor fee structure will take into account the real cost of sustainable tourism management and the visitors’ willingness to pay for services. The adjusted fees will be applied at first to a few of the 18 priority PAs in which the project will make direct interventions (see Outcome 2). A preliminary list of those initial focus areas includes Parque Nacional del Este, Estero Hondo and Los Haitises. A trial in-situ application will make it possible to evaluate the impact of the new fees on visitor volume and adjust the new fee proposal if necessary. The new fees will then be applied to all 18 protected areas in the project (beginning in Year 2 or 3). This activity includes technical support for conducting studies to determine the demand for adjusted fees and to determine the sustainability threshold of the areas in question.

90. Another focus will concern improvement of the PA fee collection system. This activity aims to increase the administrative and technical efficiency of fee collection in protected areas. Improving the efficiency with which fees are collected will include improving visitor entry control to prevent loss of revenue, automating ticketing and fee collection, and establishing a management structure to streamline the administrative fee collection chain. Procedures for collecting fees will be standardized for all PAs in the System and will include regular audits to ensure the system is operating effectively. The activity involves providing technical support for aut omating the fee collection system, for designing a system to control visitor entry and handle fees collected in the 18 priority PAs in the project. Design of this activity will occur in Year 1 and implementation in Year 2.

91. A third emphasis will involve implementation of a marketing program to promote less-visited PAs. This activity involves the implementation of marketing campaigns to promote PAs that receive few or even no visitors but have a significant potential for attracting visitors (see Annex 5 on Priority PAs). These campaigns will be executed both locally and internationally by promoting those PAs of the most potential interest to tourists. Five areas will be promoted from among the 18 priority PAs (see below) included in the project’s direct interventions. The activities include implementing a marketing campaign and supporting SEMARENA to execute agreements already in place with the Office of Tourism and with private tourism companies. Where necessary, support will be provided to update existing agreements and draft new ones. The activity will complement the specific project activities that seek to improve management of all 18 priority PAs, and therefore they will be implemented as of Year 2.

92. Finally, this output will support coordination efforts among SEMARENA, the Office of Tourism and other sectors related to ecotourism. This activity is closely tied to the previous one, and consists specifically of supporting the creation of a unit to coordinate the efforts of SEMARENA and the Office of Tourism, to enable these entities to jointly promote protected areas with the greatest potential for ecotourism. This joint promotional effort will be applied to the 5 areas mentioned in the above activity.

93. The possibility of incorporating the Office of Culture in this process is also being studied. The coordination unit will be part of SEMARENA’s Sub-Department of Protected Areas and Biodiversity. The activity involves providing logistic and material support for the new unit and short term consultant support to assist with strategic planning and operational arrangements. It also includes permanent project

35

staff time to help SEMARENA enter into and implement specific agreements with other government Offices. This activity will commence in Year 2.

Output 1.4: Permanent system for valuation of Ecosystem Benefits and Services that channels information to decision makers

94. Through 5 sets of activities, this output will establish a permanent system to value Ecosystem Benefits and Services, which will enable decision makers to make informed decisions concerning PA management and conservation. The first emphasis will be to conduct an economic valuation of the contribution of PAs to national and local economies. Two studies are proposed with different scopes: (i) one economic valuation study for the NPAS and (ii) another more detailed one at the level of individual PA units. The objective in the former case will be to estimate the contribution of all PAs in the NPAS to the national economy. Due to the broad scope and complexity of this study, a limited set of goods and services will be examined. As a preliminary approach, the aim is to estimate the economic value of PAs, concentrating on aspects of water supply, tourism, fishing, free range animal husbandry and sustainable subsistence modes, which are aspects for which the most aggregate information is available. The second study (on individual PAs), will involve an economic valuation for specific goods and services supplied by each PA that can be valued for either use or non-use. The PAs in which this study will be conducted will be chosen from among the 18 priority PAs to receive direct interventions in the project. In addition to providing detailed information at the individual site level, this study will help to define standards for economic valuation that may be used by SEMARENA for other protected areas. Both the NPAS-wide study and the individual PA study will be conducted by multidisciplinary teams. Each study will also involve at least 3 stakeholder workshops. The studies will be implemented during Year 1 and 2 of the project.

95. The second output emphasis will concern strategic communication of the results of the economic valuation. This activity will involve disseminating the findings of the studies described above. Different strategies will be used to publicize the results among the general public and decision makers. The former case will involve the use of mass media outlets, such as radio, television, print press and events (fairs, conferences and other venues). The activity includes hiring a company or NGO specializing in media campaigns to define and execute the most effective strategy to inform the public. The firm will also measure the impact of the campaign on public perception of the contribution of PAs to the local and national economy. Another strategy will be used to disseminate the study’s findings among decision makers. As in the first case, a firm or NGO with expertise in this area will be hired and will target decision makers, including politicians and executive and legislative branch officials. The strategy used for legislators will include lobbying aimed at increasing budget allocations for PAs. Other activities will include events such as conferences, congresses and workshops. This activity also envisions publishing informative material, including the economic valuation studies themselves. The publicity and lobbying campaigns will commence at the end of Year 2 and will continue into Year 3 of the project.

96. Thirdly, the results of the economic valuation studies will also be helpful for integrating the value of PAs into the GoDR’s National Accounting System, which will allow the real contribution of the country’s PAs to be taken into account in official figures used to calculate the GDP of the Dominican Republic. This integration, coupled with the dissemination strategies mentioned above, is expected to raise the profile of protected areas in order to encourage public investment in these entities. Once a proposal for integrating the economic valuation is formulated through consultation with experts, funding will be required for meetings and workshops with officials of the National Accounting System. This activity will commence in Year 3.

97. Fourthly, SEMARENA will receive support to formulate policy guidelines and a related strategy for the application of PES in its PAs. The strategy will include prioritization of PAs in which PES schemes

36

will be developed, according to their potential, and a program for implementing these payments in the short, medium and long terms. The activity will require hiring a consultant to assist the NPAS in preparing the policy guidelines and strategy, as well as workshops with key stakeholders and on-site visits to PAs. This activity is proposed for Year 1.

98. Finally, the project will provide technical, logistical, and material support to SEMARENA’s PES Support Unit to further develop PES schemes.

Output 1.5: Online Financial Management System and fee collection mechanisms for NPAS

99. SEMARENA also requires urgent investments in up-to-date Information and Communications Technology (ICT), since its current communications and computing capacities are well below those needed for an institution managing 462 employees, 86 PAs across the country and an annual budget of USD 7-10 million. This Output therefore includes technical support for the design and implementation of a computerized, online budgetary planning and financial management system for SEMARENA that also includes a financial monitoring program. To operate effectively, this computerized system will need to have an accounting control system that covers individual protected areas and be integrated into the State Financial Management System (SIGEF). The project will support complementary technical studies to define the equipment needs of SEMARENA’s Central Offices. This accounting system will be piloted in 18 selected priority PAs to correct deficiencies ensure an alignment with the central-level Accounting System. The select priority PAs will be equipped with a computer terminal, equipped with the adequate software for online financial information management. This would allow for a future system-wide expansion to remaining PA units beyond the duration of this project. This online financial information system will also enable SEMARENA to access information on PA incomes and expenditures in a timely and reliable fashion. This activity should be slated to begin in year 2.

100. Moreover, fee collection mechanisms will be developed and integrated into this new Financial Management System. Guidelines on how to both utilize the financial information system and apply the fee collection mechanisms will be prepared, along with training through Output 1.6. The integration of the fee collection into the financial information system will allow for monitoring of the progress made in terms of revenue captured. This will be increasingly important as the NPAS is allowed to retain more of the revenue it captures.

Output 1.6: SEMARENA’s financial planning and budget execution improved

101. This output will address existing inefficiency in the allocation and use of funds for PA management. To improve SEMARENA’s budgetary programming, one effort will provide technical support for designing a proposal for legal and institutional reforms needed to better retain and distribute income generated by PAs. The proposal will provide a framework for establishing Rules for the application of Decree 222-06, which stipulates that income generated by PAs shall be used for managing those areas. It is recommended that these rules be incorporated into the framework of the MARENA Fund. This new scheme will also include definition and application of criteria for allocating funds to PAs, for which the new PA-site level Business Plans (output 2.3) will serve as an important foundation.

102. Findings during the PPG phase highlighted that there is a significant gap within SEMARENA in terms of the skills needed to enhance planning and management of the finances of the NPAS and in the innovation and vision needed to transform PA values into revenues (see Barrier 1). To help overcome this barrier, this Output will also deliver training activities to improve human capital skills and capacity for the PA System financial sustainability. Through joint GEF funding and TNC technical guidance, international expertise will train a team of local trainers in key PA financing and cost-effectiveness techniques. These trainers will then pass on their knowledge to financial managers, i.e. SEMARENA

37

staff (both at the central and PA level), PA co-administrators, NGOs managing areas and PA co-management council members. At the PA-level, the training will target the 18 priority PA Pilot Sites, which will provide a foundation for future expansion to the remaining PA units beyond the scope and funding of the Project. The targeted SEMARENA personnel will be trained in use and management of the computerized budgetary/accounting system information and in financial decision-making. This activity seeks to ensure that both protected area staff and NPAS Head Office staff can correctly use the computerized accounting systems that are installed. Support will also be given to create an administrators’ forum as a place to exchange best practices and lessons learned. A Manual on Cost-Effectiveness in this context will also be produced.

103. In the Pilot Sites (outcome 3), PA practitioners will also receive guidance and support in how to supplement the PA Management Plans (output 2.2) with long-term financial and business planning (output 2.3) and the ability to implement these plans in a participatory manner. On the revenue side, PA practitioners in Pilot Sites will be trained in how to develop some of the funding strategies and innovative revenue generation mechanisms identified in their new Business Plans.

OUTCOME 2: Improved PA management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with highest revenue generation potential (Total cost: US$2,858,380; GEF $1,137,380; Co-financing: $1,721,000

104. To address Barrier 2, which highlighted the PA management challenges that SEMARENA needs to tackle, the second component of the project will help ensure that the funds available to the NPAS are used more efficiently and cost effectively to enhance PA management. This component will also facilitate the targeting of resources on the areas not only with the greatest biodiversity values and threats, but also the ones with the highest revenue generation potential. It is beyond the scope and available budget of this project to address the large-scale systemic, institutional and area-specific deficiencies of all the 86 PA units within the NPAS. During the PPG phase it was therefore decided that the main objective of this project component should be to facilitate the targeting of resources on the areas not only with the greatest biodiversity values and threats, but also the ones with the highest revenue generation potential. An increase in the revenue stream to the NPAS as a whole is necessary. To achieve that end, it is imperative to strengthen the revenue generation of the potentially productive PA units to cover their own financial needs, but also for them to contribute to the financial sustainability of the PA System as a whole. Hence, the project will target 18 priority PAs deemed to have the highest revenue generation potential (see PRODOC, Annex 5 on Priority PAs). Their revenue generation potential will accompany an increase in their management effectiveness, which will be maximized with new or updated Management and Business Planning (outputs 2.2 and 2.3) accompanied by improvements to their facilities and infrastructure (output 2.4), and improved services provided to an increasing number of tourists within the PAs.

105. Output 2.1 will assist SEMARENA in cementing its vision of a re-engineered NPAS by assisting in the ratification of a revised Sector Law on PAs. Targeting of PA resources will be optimized through the development of human and institutional capacities and systems (outputs 2.5 and 2.6) for gathering and managing information on biodiversity in the NPAS and for feeding this into the decision-making, both at the central, provincial and PA site-levels. By the end of the project, the enhanced management of the central and site-level institutional entities involved in PA management will result in cost efficiencies; increased funding of PA management and business plans; and a greater number of staff with adequate skills and competencies required for operation within the NPAS.

Output 2.1: Revised Sector Law on Protected Areas supports consolidation, decentralization, and rationalization of PAs

38

106. To support the envisioned consolidation, decentralization and rationalization process of the NPAS, an important project focus during Year 1 will be to assist SEMARENA in completing the ongoing revision of the Sector Law on Protected Areas. Support will be provided for technical workshops to respond to comments and to complete the draft legislation. The Project will also contribute to the dissemination process by funding 3 sub-regional public hearing events to solicit comments on the revised draft Law from civil society. Additional funds will cover presentations, lobbying, circulation of the White Paper on the revised Law and field trips for key legislators to enable submission of the revised Law to the National Congress for its approval. Upon approval of the new Law, the project will support the disclosure of the Law to ensure that key stakeholders are made aware of the important PA-related changes promoted and enabled by this revised Law. TNC’s recent Biological Gap Analysis of protected areas will provide an important foundation for the review of the Sectoral Law.

Output 2.2: Management Plans either updated or completed in 14 of 18 priority PAs

107. GEF funds will support either development or upgrading of Management plans in the 18 priority PAs within the NPAS during Years 1-3, utilizing broad-based participation of key stakeholders and a single format that complies with the NPAS Methodological Guide to Designing and/or Updating Management Plans for Protected Areas. By harmonizing these PA management plans, PA management effectiveness and cost efficiencies will be increased, and the ability to measure and compare individual PA performance will be greatly enhanced. Each management plan will detail objectives and activities and establish clear objectives, indicators ad mechanisms for measuring and monitoring progress. Whenever possible, the management plans will include detailed zoning (output 3.4), visitor plans and business plans (output 2.3) to guide their implementation. Given the high income potential of these 18 priority PAs, the plans will also include strategies and mechanisms for improved financial management, including standardized control systems, audit procedures, use of financial software, and annual financial reports by PA administrators.

108. Updating and upgrading of existing management plans will take place in 4 PAs (PNE, Haitises, Jaragua, LQE/Guaconejo). New Management Plans will be developed in the remaining 10 PAs (namely in E. Hondo, Monte Cristi Complex, Isla Catalina, C. del Pomier, L. Redonda and Limon, Los Tres Ojos, Humedales del Ozama, Cabo Samana, L. Cabarete, and Los Quemados). Notably, 4 of the 18 priority PAs already have updated management plans or are in the final stages of elaboration. These areas are: Armando Bermudez, Lago Enriquillo, Sierra de Bahoruco and Salto de la Damajagua.

Output 2.3: Business Plans developed for 18 priority PAs

109. To complement the Management Plans, technical support will be provided to develop PA-level Business Plans in all 18 priority PAs, in which the project will directly intervene. These plans will act as models for PA managers across the system and, later on, will feed into the system-wide Business Plan to be developed in Output 1.1. The plans will include the following: (i) analyzing the financial needs for basic and optimal operation of PAs; (ii) determining the funding gap; (iii) selecting financing options to address that gap through a feasibility analysis and prioritization; and (iv) deciding how best to implement the strategies developed. Hence, PA managers will be enabled to determine management costs and potential revenues and identify any shortfall, as well as assess the conservation costs of such shortfalls. As a result, PA managers will be able to develop a strategy to ensure that the highest priority management activities can be funded. Such a clear analysis would also provide a solid foundation for the individual PAs to negotiate the need for additional resources vis-a-vis the central NPAS administration. This activity will take place during Years 2-4, or when the above PA Management Plans are available.

110. As the point of departure, an international consultancy will prepare a manual of standard procedures for the design of the PA Business Plans, based on international Best Practices of PA

39

Financing and Business Plans. Technical support will be provided to produce an official guide containing the minimum requirements of a PA Financial Sustainability Plan. This guide will also contain tools for financial analysis of PAs, including estimating needs and funding gaps. It will further offer a methodology that can be used to select the best funding alternatives, and will identify elements required for the implementation of the alternative(s) selected. This activity will be implemented in Year 1. Then national-level consultancies will lead the development of the Business Plans within each individual PA. GEF funds will also support training on the development of these plans not only for the local consultants, but also for SEMARENA and PA administrators to help establish the necessary capacity for future development of additional business plans in the remaining PAs within the NPAS beyond the scope of this project.

111. Finally, the project will support PAs in the implementation of their financial plans. In this activity, technical support will be provided to PAs for implementing the funding strategies developed as part of the PA financial plans. This support will be crucial to ensure that the financial plans make a real contribution to improving the management of PAs and do not just end up on the back burner. The implementation process for the financial sustainability plans will commence in Year 3.

Output 2.4: Enhanced PA-level physical Capital to improve PA management in the 18 priority PAs.

112. Most of the NPAS’ PA units, including the 18 priority PAs, are not only under-staffed, but also severely under-equipped. In addition to strengthening the human capital, there is therefore a strong need to enhance especially the communications facilities and infrastructure to improve the services provided to an increasing number of tourists within the PAs. The project will support a minimum of communications equipment to enhance communications (such as radios and a computer in locations with in situ park ranger facilities) between SEMARENA and the PA units. It will also strengthen the accessibility of the priority PAs through an improvement of access roads, park paths, visitors’ centres/information boards and entry booths, which will facilitate payment of park entry fees. A third emphasis will concern enhancement of public services and facilities provided to park visitors. As a result, this sample group of PAs will be sufficiently staffed and equipped to better service tourists, while also addressing the established conservation goals for the PAs.

Output 2.5: Enhanced System and PA-level Human Capital to improve PA management in the PAs.

113. To enable different entities to better fulfill their mandates and responsibilities in PA planning and management, the project will fund technical assistance to prepare or update existing administrative and operational regulations, staff profiles and occupational standards related to PA management. These efforts will target not only SEMARENA, but also provincial authorities involved in PA management and the PA unit level. A comprehensive Institutional Staff Assessment will be carried out with GEF funding based on lessons learned from other GEF-funded BD-1 projects in the region (such as Chile or Costa Rica). This Assessment will include the definition of minimum staffing requirements, and recommendations for re-deployment of existing staff or hiring of new future personnel to enhance team composition and expertise. It will also identify the skills and knowledge required for essential tasks.

114. The project will provide targeted training for human resources at multiple levels: (i) the central level; (ii) the provincial level; and (iii) the individual PA site level. At the central level, a key effort will target SEMARENA’s training department, which will be strengthened to better address the need to improve the overall NPAS human capital. Activities will include the establishment of a Training-of Trainers Programme, where especially on-site PA managers initially trained will be used to further train colleagues in other PAs. The project will also fund several international and national consultancies to develop curricula material concerning PA planning and administration. The training courses will be

40

organized as modules. Whenever feasible, they will also use the pilot PAs as on-site location training grounds to maximize hands-on training and practical experiences.

115. Training activities will complement the financial management training outlined in output 1.6. At the central level, they will target existing personnel (95 staff members) including SEMARENA, Provincial Directors and PA Administrators, who will receive training mainly in PA administration and management. In support of output 3.1 below, they will also receive training in PA co-management concepts and instruments. At the PA site-level, the existing 265 Park Rangers will be trained in PA conservation, management, enforcement and M&E. In addition, in response to existing weaknesses highlighted by the METT scores, new capacities will be developed in areas such as: negotiation techniques and conflict resolution; management of multiple-use zones and buffer zones and related sustainable development activities; ecosystem classification and prioritization based on the cost effectiveness of biodiversity conservation at different sites; and resource mobilization. At the provincial level, the project will provide technical assistance to provincial authorities, NGOs and local communities involved in the management of priority PAs regarding institutional development ad information exchange. Finally, to help capture new sources of local and international funding, NPAS technical staff needs to be trained in the formulation and assessment of investment projects. With this in mind, the project will deliver a 15-day training program to all protected area managers and key staff members in the Sub-department of Protected Areas and Biodiversity. The program will focus on designing and formulating conservation projects, including cost-benefit analysis of projects. Information and guidance will also be provided on local and international funding sources and their eligibility requirements.

Output 2.6: NPAS Knowledge Management, Monitoring and Evaluation System Developed

116. A knowledge management system with related monitoring and evaluation mechanisms will be established for the project, to ensure strong coordination and an adaptive management approach to project implementation. This system will include the establishment of a centralized website with information on best practices and lessons learned from the pilot demonstrations. These will be fed directly into the management of the project and the institutional reforms and capacity building of SEMARENA. These practices and lessons will also be disseminated widely, especially with other projects involved in the TNC-spearheaded Caribbean Challenge (notably Bahamas and Jamaica) in exchange for information on their experiences. Of particular relevance will be lessons learned concerning national PA sustainable financing plans and public-private PA co-management partnerships.

117. At present, there is no integrated NPAS Monitoring and Evaluation mechanism. The project will therefore support the establishment of an integral mechanism and the necessary institutional capacity that will operate within the NPAS for the collection, analysis and dissemination of data necessary for enhanced PA management effectiveness. This system will be an initiative jointly funded by the TNC, SEMARENA and GEF, each supporting different information needs and management aspects of this system. During Year 1, an international consultant will be hired to develop a proposal for an integral system-level M&E System that combines financial, operational and ecological data. This proposal will also elaborate how the future system would allow for interpretation of data to support decision-making regarding PA planning and management. Based on the recommendations from this consultancy, sectoral workshop will be conducted to develop and define M&E protocols, roles and responsibilities.

118. The financial component of the system will involve the establishment of a financial baseline (carried out by TNC and SEMARENA). In addition, the PA Financial Scorecard will be systematized and institutionalized from being measured 3 times during project duration (initiation, mid, and end). Based on this baseline, TNC and SEMARENA will carry out a detailed financial gap analysis for the NPAS and establish a basic M&E process based on SEMARENA’s Annual Operational Plans, budget formulation and management. The operational component of the future M&E system will be constituted by the

41

METT scores, which will also be systematized and institutionalized from being measured at mid and end term of the project.

119. To secure a biological component, and to resolve the biological indicator challenges elaborated in Barrier 2 (Section I-7), an International M&E Specialist will be funded by the project to work with SEMARENA’s Division of Natural Resources Information to adequately assess the project indicators for terrestrial ecosystems for the GEF project (see logframe matrix). The M&E Specialist will review the existing information and quantify the baseline for measuring change in biological species and terrestrial ecosystems. Even though these are project-level indicators dedicated to the project M&E plan, the information produced will inform additional international consultants and SEMARENA personnel contracted to work on the development of the broader M&E system.

120. While the project will track changes in the amount of area with conflicting land cover change in critical terrestrial ecosystems, the project will not track specific biological indicator for key species/ecosystems (see indicators for the project objective in the logical framework below). This will not be possible until those species and/or ecosystems are chosen through a scientific process – one that is not yet carried out in the Dominican Republic. The project will define a set of agreed-upon biodiversity indicators for future national biological monitoring efforts. The adoption and approval of long-term biodiversity indicators and an action plan for measuring them will assure that the process of developing an M&E system has taken a positive course and the project has achieved the first critical stage of planning for regular, long-term biodiversity monitoring that will lead to subsequent science and tracking at the species level. Yet, the project will not go beyond this point to produce the science needed. That next set of actions is too extensive and expensive for the scope of this project. Still, the project activities will set the stage for future and more sophisticated biological M&E actions and collaboration on developing the inputs to the M&E system.

121. In addition, the initial measurements of land use cover change (LUCC) instigated by the PPG phase will be institutionalized and made a regular event through SEMARENA’s GIS Unit. Land use cover within the protected areas will be estimated by SEMARENA at the inception of the project. The change will be measured by the project again at the end of its duration with updated satellite imagery provided by the project, providing a trend-line for measuring the expansion or depletion of land cover types for the PA system. Output 2.6 will also provide SEMARENA with guidance on these measurements. This will feed into the management decision-making training process, thereby allowing PA managers to visualize and qualify continued threats to biodiversity. Outside international consultants will be provided to guide SEMARENA in this process and to establish the monitoring regime in this regard. The GEF project will also contribute to these efforts by creating a tentative foundation for future, more extensive boundary demarcation and land tenure information within the NPAS through output 3.4. The development of management plans in Output 2.2 will also contribute information that will identify the species and ecosystems that will feed into the system. Finally, the GEF project also will contribute to these efforts by supporting the boundary demarcation and land tenure information within the NPAS through output 3.4.

122. Details on Project Monitoring and the management arrangements that would allow for effective project implementation and adaptive management can be found in Section I Part III and Part IV.

OUTCOME 3: Co-management arrangement to underwrite PA management costs (Total cost: US$1,449,300; GEF: $704,300; Co-financing: $745,000

123. Through this Outcome, the project will take advantage of the potential of local communities and the private sector to contribute to the management and/or financing of individual PAs, thereby reducing the funding burden on the GoDR and increasing the effectiveness and social sustainability of threat

42

reduction measures. The M&E effort in Output 2.6 will provide SEMARENA with an objective analytical framework to monitor the overall effects of co-management within the concerned PAs. In addition, the METT scores will also enable SEMARENA to compare the performances of PAs under different management regimes in terms of management effectiveness. Likewise, the broad-scale application of the PA Financial Scorecard will enable similar benefits with respect to the financial issues.

124. At present all PAs within the NPAS are public. However, the Dominican Republic has private tracts of land with conservation status that makes them suitable for becoming part of the NPAS. SEMARENA recognizes that it needs to take advantage of the willingness of private landowners to have their lands declared and managed as part of the NPAS. The incorporation of Private Protected Areas (PPAs) into the NPAS could improve connectivity among its current 86 PAs. In turn, better connectivity among PAs will improve the long-term viability of Hispaniola Island’s biodiversity, including its migratory and endemic species. The project will therefore help develop the legal and institutional framework needed to establish public-private partnerships and related co-management arrangements. The environmental legal framework does allow PPAs to be part of the NPAS. At present, however, SEMARENA is prevented from officially establishing a PPA due to a lack of regulation or procedures that outline the necessary steps for such a process. Output 3.1 will therefore support SEMARENA in developing a regulatory framework for the establishment of private reserves in alignment with the promotion of public-private PA partnerships. These efforts will be complemented by support for operational regulations and procedures in support of co-management and private reserves (output 3.2) and proposed co-management coordination mechanisms and outreach to the private sector (Output 3.3).

125. Awareness of the rich potential of co-management will further be enhanced by the provision of support to innovative co-management pilot demonstrations. At present, there are no officially established public-private conservation easements in Dominican Republic. Through 3 different pilot demonstrations, this project will establish some Best Practices for how to set up such easements that can be used as replicable models elsewhere within the NPAS in the future (output 3.5). Finally, output 3.6 will apply and further strengthen the different innovative financing mechanisms developed (outputs 1.3 and 1.4) through ground proofing via another set of pilot demonstrations.

Output 3.1: Regulatory and strategic framework for private PAs and concessions

126. Through this output, the project will help create the necessary regulatory and institutional capacity for the establishment of public-private alliances to enhance financing for the NPAS. The project will support the drafting of a proposed set of regulations and protocols for the definition, establishment and management of private reserves and another one for ecological easements. Technical and logistical support will be provided for key stakeholder participation in designing these proposals. Technical and logistical support will also be provided during the process of seeking formal approval for those rules. These activities will commence in Year 1. In Year 2, assistance will focus on identification of candidates for Private Reserves and promotion of Private Reserves and ecological easements for incorporation within the NPAS. Finally, support will involve the establishment of an incentives/compensation scheme for conservation within private and municipal reserves. The regulatory activities will commence in Year 1, while the others will begin in Year 2.

127. A fourth set of activities will promote the establishment of concessions in key protected areas. SEMARENA will be supported in preparing a NPAS Concession Strategy that will include identification of PAs with the highest potential for developing service concessions and a program to implement concessions in the short, medium and long term. SEMARENA will also receive support in how to monitor and evaluate concessions. This set of activities will require a consultancy to design the strategy, organize workshops with key stakeholders and conduct on-site visits. This activity is slated to commence in Year 2.

43

Output 3.2: Approved national Regulations and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected18 provides foundation for planned co-management agreements in 18 priority PAs

128. At present, the draft Rules and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected Areas19 are pending official approval. The project will help facilitate the final process of ensuring that these Rules are officially approved. Subsequently, these Rules will be the foundation for all project-related co-management efforts. These Rules contain: (i) a definition of co-management objectives; (ii) definition of co-management arrangements for the country; (iii) criteria and requirements for selecting PAs for co-management in regard to co-managers and the continuity of agreements; (iv) technical and administrative procedures for the operation of co-managed PAs; (v) the establishment and functions of Co-management Councils; (vi) structure and content of co-management agreements; and (vii) monitoring and evaluation. During Year 1 of implementation, the project will support SEMARENA in funding the publication and dissemination of this new protocol for PA co-management. The objective is to provide a solid foundation and consistent format for the future PA co-management agreements, which the project will help establish in the 18 targeted priority PAs during the project life span. The project will also support promotion of co-management through 3 sub-regional workshops in close collaboration with potential co-managers for PAs that would qualify for a new co-management setup and agreement. It is envisioned that the project-supported enabling activities will indeed increase a flow of new non-Government funding to co-managed PAs, while also improve management effectiveness in existing arrangements, which would lead to an increase in cost-effectiveness in use of existing Government budget allocations to the concerned PAs.

Output 3.3: Effective co-management coordination mechanisms between SEMARENA and local stakeholders established

129. The project will provide logistical and technical support for inter-institutional coordination and for the implementation of agreements. The aim is to promote private investment in support of protected area management. Private sector participation could include the promotion of tourism in new PAs and investment in infrastructure to improve the capacity of protected areas to receive visitors. The above proposed Rules and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected Areas include a proposal to create a Shared Management Unit within SEMARENA, to be directly responsible for co-management issues. Another proposal concerns the creation of a Shared PA Management Board, which would encompass representatives from all organizations participating in co-management. This Board would serve as a permanent mechanism for cooperation between SEMARENA and business organizations, such as the National Business Support Network for Environmental Protection (Red Nacional de Apoyo Empresarial a la Protección Ambiental, RENAEPA), and other initiatives currently in force, such as the USAID- funded Sustainable Tourism Alliance (Alianza de Turismo Sostenible). The aim of this entity is to inform, communicate, coordinate, manage disputes, build capacities, exchange experiences, follow up on impacts, disseminate lessons learned and establish common strategies for the NPAS. The project will assist SEMARENA in the establishment of these two new institutional bodies to address the need for effective co-management coordination mechanisms between SEMARENA and local co-management stakeholders. The support will be provided in coordination with TNC's private sector initiative, and will commence in Year 1. The support will also include technical and logistical assistance to SEMARENA’s Co-management Unit to reinforce the capacity of current and future co-managers.

130. Contributions from the private sector would be increased through the development and institutionalization of a private sector outreach program spearheaded by the new Shared Management 18 The Reglamento y Procedimientos de Gestión Compartida de Áreas Protegidas. 19 SEMARENA. 2008. Reglamento y procedimientos para la gestión compartida de áreas protegidas en la República Dominicana (Rules and Procedures for shared management of protected areas in the Dominican Republic). Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

44

Unit. This program will increase the awareness in the private sector of opportunities for directing their corporate environmental program towards the country’s PAs. This program would also provide the private sector with simplified procedures for entering into the required institutional public-private co-management partnerships and ensure the accountability of their donations.

131. This also creates some opportunities for generating synergies with the TNC-spearheaded regional Caribbean Biological Corridor Project, which has received US$2 million in funding from the European Union (and may receive up to 8M) for Dominican Republic to promote ecotourism corridors using PAs, with the participation of private tourism companies. In addition, to ensure effective coordination and exchange of knowledge with other countries included in the regional Caribbean Challenge project, a coordination plan will be established between this project and the other two Caribbean Challenge projects (in Bahamas and Jamaica) at project inception (see section II-5. Linkages with other projects). Specifically, coordination activities will include: (1) communication mechanisms between the projects' Steering Committees that will provide periodic updates on the projects' development until implementation is complete; (2) creation of an inter-project working committee for the project coordinators, and key project staff to guarantee the flow of information (e.g., annual plans, APR/PIR, and independent evaluation reports) between projects and the sharing of benefits; and (3) yearly monitoring and evaluation workshops to jointly assess progress, identify areas for further cooperation, and to avoid duplication of efforts.

Output 3.4: Land tenancy in selected PAs clarified

132. Best information by SEMARENA from 2006 demonstrates that one of the biggest challenges for the management of the PA system is the confusing and chaotic land tenure situation characterized by (i) lands declared as “public domain” and expropriated without compensation; (ii) the existence of land without title; (iii) multiple land claims for a given property; (iv) illegal occupation of un-registered land; (v) land claims to land with confusing land tenancy; (vi) undefined boundaries unknown or recognized by locals. To date there has been no systematic response to the plethora of issues underlying this land tenure situation. During the PPG phase, it was decided to be unfeasible to address numerous PAs through a mechanical response to land tenure, which could ultimately result in a drawn-out elicitation process lasting years. The cost would also be beyond the scope of this project. Instead, the project will focus on developing a range of options that could be combined or taken singularly to respond to different drivers behind the land use situation. The project will take the initial steps in defining how the land tenure question can be addressed on a large scale through the Pilot Projects promoted in output 3.6 within the three PAs Loma Quita Espuela/Loma Guaconejo, Saltos Damajagua and Los Quemados. The project will focus on a process that will create a foundation for future land tenure activities, by enabling an understanding of the pathway and associated costs required to address the land tenure issue. Along that line, the project will create two types of actions: (1) a testing of potential solutions to land tenure problems in the form of easements and the establishment of private reserves in Outputs 3.5, results of pilot projects in 3.6, and also through analysis and estimation of the time, effort, and costs needed as undertaken in output 3.4. The suite of activities applied in the pilot areas will provide sufficient inputs to determine the correct solutions for a range of situations and later, provide initial results that will enable an interagency working group to guide the process and define the next steps for the NPAS.

Output 3.5: Three model Conservation Easements established

133. Activities toward this output will focus on the establishment of three different model Conservation Easements, which are described in greater detail in Annex 7, Pilot Activities). Overall, while the foci for each of the three pilot demonstrations differ, they will all involve a common set of activities. In each pilot PA site, the project will assist in the establishment of formal agreements for conservation easements. This will involve definition of the terms, benefits, and rights under conservation

45

easements, which will be carried out in close collaboration with the landowners in the areas. In addition, Land Surveys will be carried out to delimit the new easements. Finally, social and legal impacts, along with results in the mentioned easements, will be assessed.

134. The first conservation easement pilot demonstration will be in the Loma Guaconejo-Loma Quita Espuela Corridor mentioned earlier (see output 1.8). Beyond the important potential for water-based PES, this joint area also provide natural habitat for the migratory thrush (Catharus bicknelli), a species that is threatened by reduced habitat quality and area. As a result, Interest in conservation of this bird has led to the creation of the US-based Special Migratory Thrush Habitat Protection Fund (BITH) with the objective to increase and improve the connectivity of the natural landscape between the two reserves, which would be favorable for the conservation of the migratory thrush and the associated biodiversity. The purpose of a pilot demonstration will be to support the acquisition of additional funds to expand, recover and more effectively manage the moist forest as a critical habitat for the migratory thrush. Funding for such initiatives is to come from the innovating use of pro-conservation real estate strategies: (a) Land negotiation (donation, sale, lease); and (b) Incentives for Non-Use of Land (Payment for Environmental Services– water- incentives for leasing the resource).

135. The second pilot demonstration will be implemented in the Salto de la Damajagua Natural Monument, which is 1 of the only 3 PAs in the Dominican Republic that employs the participatory mechanism of multi-stakeholder Co-management Boards. In the 3 years that the collaborating actors have managed to secure active participation of different actors in the technical and administrative decisions related to PA management. This collaboration has been formalized in a written agreement for shared administration and distribution of revenues collected from visitors to the PA. They have also established a Landowner Compensation Fund to compensate landowners for the use of land for ecotourism and secured income for 37 members of the Association of Guides for guiding and interpretation services rendered. Despite the positive results, however, this pilot demonstration will address some important barriers for achieving sustainable PA management through enforcement of: (i) the local generation and distribution of revenue through ecotourism, and (ii) the active interest and participation of key stakeholders. The pilot activities will also address important limitations linked to: (i) some local authorities’ desire to set policy, (ii) lack of an operative mechanism that facilitates the distribution of funds from the Landowner Compensation Fund, and (iii) staff that are poorly trained in both administrative tasks and environmental interpretation for visitors.

136. The third pilot will be implemented in the Los Quemados Wildlife Refuge that currently functions as a management initiative for the purpose of biodiversity conservation on private lands. Since 2003 the Fundación Clemente Melo, the land owner, has been lobbying SEMARENA to officially declare this PA part of the NPAS. An important impediment, however, is the lack of regulation or procedure that outlines the steps that need to be taken for SEMARENA to officially establish a PPA. The draft Shared Management Regulations and Procedures does establish requirements and procedures for Shared Management Agreements for PPAs. The understanding here is that SEMARENA would have to officially declare a PPA prior to the negotiation and signing of a PPA Shared Management Agreement. The purpose of this pilot demonstration is to support and reinforce the application of the Private Protected Area concept for the NPAS, as a mechanism for participation and partnership in support of biodiversity conservation. Although limited in size, this area has the potential to generate revenue from ecotourism, park entry fees, nature tourism and lodging, and as a site for environmental education of local school children.

Output 3.6: Innovative financing mechanisms demonstrated in model projects

137. Through this output, several pilot projects will be established to demonstrate innovative financial sustainability mechanisms. More specific details are provided in Annex 7 on Pilot Activities. A couple of

46

pilots will concern implementation of ecological easements in Los Quemados, Loma Guaconejo-Quita Espuela Corridor and Saltos Damajagua. These pilots seek to demonstrate the application of ecological easement models to expand protected areas and, in some cases, create conservation corridors. The activity includes consulting work with SEMARENA and private landowners on legal aspects, surveying, negotiations among parties, signing of agreements and other aspects.

138. A different pilot will demonstrate how to generate revenues from Payment for Environmental Services (PES) from water resources in the Loma Quita Espuela – Loma Guaconejo Corridor. Notably, these PAs are very important in terms of water production. For example, Loma Quita Espuela Scientific Reserve alone is the source of 46 water courses (rivers and streams) including the Nagua, El Valle, Los Morones, Cuaba, Brazo Grande and Los Bracitos rivers. Some 20 rivers and streams flow out of Loma Guaconejo. The waters that come from these reserves are important for both agricultural production and human consumption in the region, and a number of water intakes are present in the PAs, collecting water for canals that supply water to the provinces of Nagua and San Francisco de Macorís. This pilot demonstration will include the following tasks: analysis of water services, building a geographic framework; conducting a study and survey on certain stakeholder groups’ willingness to pay; re-negotiation of water rate agreements and sector-specific agreements; and implementation of the Payment for Water Services Program with different sectors.

139. The Loma Guaconejo-Loma Quita Espuela pilot area will also be used to demonstrate another innovative financing mechanism, namely how to generate revenues from carbon sales via REDD. The aim of this activity is to demonstrate the application of a deforestation prevention project used to fund the creation of a biological corridor among different protected areas. The project will provide support in project design and in obtaining certification. The idea is to trade Verified Emission Reduction (VER) certificates on the voluntary market, although it is possible that these could be traded in regulated markets also, depending on how they develop.

II - 3. Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions

140. The project indicators, risks and assumptions are detailed in the Logical Framework (Section II).

Table 9. Indicators at the level of Objective

Objective/outcomes IndicatorsProject Objective: Consolidation of the financial sustainability of the National Protected Areas System (NPAS)

Increase in financial capacity of National Protected Areas’ System (NPAS) in Dominican Republic as measured through improvement in the Total Average Score for all PA sub-systems in the UNDP Financial Scorecard (SECTION IV: Annex 2) that includes 3 components as follows:

Governance frameworks that enable sustainable PA financing; Business planning and other tools for cost-effective management; Tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization.

Reduction in gap between available funding and levels needed for management to meet established basic standards for NPAS and its PAsIncrease in PA management effectiveness as measured by METT scores for all PAs with on-site staff (34 PAs units): 5 Strict Natural Reserves, 15 National Parks, 9 Natural Monuments and 5 Wildlife Refuges) (SECTION IV: Annex 1), based on the following definitions: High (75-100), Medium (55-74), Low ( <55). Ecosystem-level indicator: The amount of area with conflicting land cover change in critical terrestrial ecosystems (711,489 ha) in 18 PAs reduced and no additional land-use anomalies during the life of the project due to enhanced PA managementDuring year 1 specific ecosystem and species-level indicators for long-term biological monitoring are selected (Please see Output 2.6 for explanation).

Outcome 1: Increased and diversified NPAS funding

Strengthened Governance frameworks for sustainable PA financing, measured as increased scores in the following elements of Component 1 of UNDP Financial scorecard : Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue generation by PAs (Element 1)

47

Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue sharing within the PA system (Element 2) Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing endowment or trust funds (Element 3) National PA financing strategies (Element 5) Economic valuation of PA systems (Element 6) Improved government budgeting for PA systems (Element 7)

Strengthened business planning and other tools for cost-effective management as measured by an increased score in the following element of Component 2 of UNDP Financial scorecard: Operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems (Element 2) Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance (Element 3) Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites (Element 4)

Strengthened tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization measured as an increased score in the following elements of Component 3 of UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard Rating:

Increase in number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA system (Element 1) Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA system (Element 2) Effective fee collection systems (Element 3) Marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms (Element 4) Operational PES schemes for PAs (Element 5) Operational concessions within PAs (Element 6)

Increase in Government funds annually expended in NPASAnnual funds received by NPAS from innovative financing mechanisms (local fund, carbon, PES, increased fees etc.) Increase in annual NPAS revenues from visitor fees.Increase in resources generated by the PA Patrimonial Fund available for investment in PA management above the level of capitalizationIncrease in PA Patrimonial Fund equity over the inflation rate

Outcome 2: Improved effectiveness and efficiency of PA Management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with highest revenue generation potential

Strengthened Governance frameworks for sustainable PA financing, measured as increased scores in the following elements of Component 1 of UNDP Financial scorecard : Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative institutional arrangements for PA

management (Element 4) Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for PA management and financing (Element 8) Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level (Element

9)Strengthened business planning and other tools for cost-effective management as measured by an increased score in the following element of Component 2 of UNDP Financial scorecard: PA Site-level business planning (Element 1) Training and support networks to enable park managers to operate more cost-effectively

(Element 5) Strengthened tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization measured as an increased score in the following elements of Component 3 of UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard Rating:

PA training programmes on revenue generation mechanisms (Element 7)Increase in PA management effectiveness in 18 Priority PAs as measured by and increment in the METT scores

NOTE – The METT will be applied to a total of 34 PA units within the NPAS. The 18 priority PA for this indicator is a sub-set of the 34 PAs selected for their high potential in increased revenue generation and high BD value (see SECTION IV: Annex 1). The needed scores for this indicator will be calculated in addition to the total broad average for each PA unit needed for Indicator 3 in Outcome 1 above.Increase in number of PAs with the necessary conditions for boosting revenue from visits and other services

NOTE – 18 priority PA have been selected for their high potential for increased revenue generation for the NPAS. Annex 7 (Pilot Activities) elaborates on selection criteria and defines which conditions are considered necessary for boosting revenue.18 prioritized PAs with Management Plans % staffing of technical-administrative NPAS staff (system-wide and PA site level) with sufficient competence and skills required for their role in the PA SystemA Monitoring and Evaluation System with integrated financial, operational and ecological data

Outcome 3: Regulatory framework provisions on PA Co-management

48

Co-management arrangements to underwrite PA management costs

Effective institutional coordination entities between SEMARENA and local stakeholders (communities and private sector) to foster cooperation and resolve conflicts with regard to co-management arrangementsNo. of PAs with Co-management Agreement in line with the new regulatory framework provisions on co-management No. of PAs with legal land ownership status defined No. of PAs with clarified boundaries registered in the National Cadastral Survey RegistryNo. of conservation easements established

Risks

141. The risks confronting the project have been carefully evaluated during project preparation, and risk mitigation measures have been internalized into the design of the project. A careful analysis of barriers has been conducted and measured designed to lower or overcome these barriers. Six main risks have been identified, and are summarized below. Other assumptions behind project design are elaborated in the Logical Framework.

Table 10. Risks and risk mitigation strategy

Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Strategy

Failure of decision-makers to reflect contribution of PAs to national development in budget allocation

L The PA Patrimonial Fund, capitalized by an initial donation and by ongoing injections from sources such as visitor fees, will buffer fluctuations in political will. Visitor fee mechanisms and the PA Patrimonial Fund will be subject to regulations to ensure that the funds are used specifically for the NPAS.

Failure of decision-makers to reflect contribution of PAs to national development in budget allocation

L The PA Patrimonial Fund, capitalized by an initial donation and by ongoing injections from additional sources, such as visitor fees, will buffer fluctuations in political will. Visitor fee mechanisms and the PA Patrimonial Fund will be subject to regulations to ensure that the funds are used specifically for the NPAS (see Annex 3 on Trust Fund).

Limited interest of private sector in investing in protected areas

L Private sector outreach supported by the project will help to maintain awareness of the dependency of the highly lucrative ecotourism sector on the condition of protected areas. As above, fluctuations in inputs will be buffered by the existence of the PA Patrimonial Fund.

Change in political administration and the potential risk of inflation

M-L The initially envisioned structure of the now PA Patrimonial fund was modified to take these risks into account. The PA Patrimonial Fund has been set up in a very conservative modality as an endowment fund only, instead of a combined endowment and revolving fund as per the PIF. The objective was to mitigate risks by minimizing speculation and conserving capital. Invested capital will therefore be deposited in a bank and remain there in perpetuity, while only the interest generated can be used to finance activities related to the NPAS of the Dominican Republic.

Sudden changes in institutional structures and responsibilities for PAs (such as GoDR change or staff changes) hampering the Project’s ability to achieve improved conservation management.

M-L The project is designed to further the goals and objectives of SEMARENA’s PA program and larger national goals and objectives and as such, should be able to withstand such changes. The project emphasizes the creation of partnerships that goes beyond just individual staff, which should ensure continuous stakeholder support and understanding of the project.

49

Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Strategy

Reductions in interest rates L Even with a 25% reduction in interest rates the PA Patrimonial Fund would still stabilize during the project’s lifetime, albeit at a lower level. Interest rate fluctuations will be buffered by the fact that the Fund will also receive inputs from other sources, such as the visitor fees.

Climate change (CC) undermines conservation of biodiversity within Chile’s PAs

L Climate change may eventually affect natural ecosystems over time, but this project will actually strengthen the resilience of PAs within the NPAS to respond to CC impacts by establishing the operational and financial capacities to manage PA buffer zones & conservation corridors, to link public and private reserves in the future, and eventually to establish new PAs. This will increase the coverage of PAs across natural landscapes and thus facilitate eventual latitudinal and altitudinal shifting of flora and fauna in response to CC.Natural disasters related to climate change may place additional pressure on the Government funding for which the NPAS has to compete. Through its advocacy strategy, however, the project will raise awareness among decision-makers of the potential of well-managed PAs to buffer such events.

Risk Rating: L - Low; M – Medium; S – Substantial

II - 4. Expected global, national and local benefits

142. Global benefits: In the Dominican Republic, while there is general knowledge of the global environmental benefits (see Annex 1 and description below), there is a limited technical understanding of the species/ecosystem level baseline for this project. It is therefore incumbent upon the project to enable the NPAS to develop a clear understanding of its global environmental assets, their benefits, developing a framework for measuring them and for monitoring trends. These actions will provide the first steps in a process that will enable the science necessary to adequately assess the quantity and quality of these benefits (see outputs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6 in the narrative logframe for more details).

143. It is expected that by enhancing the financial and operational management of Dominican Republic’s existing PA estate within the NPAS, there should be no additional net loss of terrestrial cover in ecosystems within the areas receiving project support. More specifically, management of over 10,529.38 km2 - or 21.85% of national terrestrial territory - will be substantially improved as compared to baseline efforts. The project will pay particular attention to Grasslands and Broadleaf forest (cloud, lower montane, and upper montane) in the 18 priority PAs – or a total of 711,489 ha - where previous negative cover loss trends have been noted. These forests host a range of endemic species and globally important migratory species that use these ecosystems as feeding stocks during migration, such as the endemic Rodgways Hawk (Buteo ridwayi )in danger of extinction. These areas also host the Antilles manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus), the endemic and threatened iguana (Cyclura ricordii), and the country’s only population of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). In addition, of these areas, a total of 11 (61.1%) contain environments that are internationally recognized as, for example, (i) RAMSAR site; (ii) Biosphere Reserve; (iii) part of the Greater Antilles Marine Ecoregion (WWF Global 200 Ecoregions); or (iv) part of the Moist Forest Ecoregion, recognized as a Maximum Conservation Priority for Ecoregions

50

of Latin America and the Caribbean (Dinerstein, et al. 1995). For more details, see Prodoc Annexes 1 and 5.

144. Over the long-term further global environmental benefits will be incurred through the expansion of the PA estate with the integration of private PAs into the NPAS once the legal framework, along with the needed financial and operational efficiencies, are in place.

145. National benefits: The project will enhance and better distribute protected area management capabilities, both within SEMARENA and other participating stakeholders. The conservation function of the PAs integrated into the PA System will be better serviced, through improved management effectiveness and enhanced bio-geographical representation. In addition, demonstration of the economic benefits and ecosystem services provided by PA lands (e.g. through nature-based tourism and PES), will increase national awareness of the diverse social and economic benefits produced by protected landscapes and seascapes. Other benefits include: (i) The establishment of a sound financial footing for the PA System – which, in turn, will strengthen the financial sustainability of individual PA units – (ii) improved collaboration between public and private PAs; and (iii) the creation of transferable knowledge and skills to other contexts. Regional and local institutions and organizations, along with individual PA administrations and staff, will benefit from exposure to new management approaches, improvements in the information base, upgraded skill sets through training opportunities, and improved relations with local communities and users. This is expected, in time, to improve the efficiency of PA management and allow budgetary appropriations to be used more effectively. Current and potential users of PAs will also benefit through the improvement and expansion of recreational, tourist, educational, and research opportunities that will be generated. Finally, improved PA management will provide increased protection over the long-term for ecosystem services (e.g. water provision) important to Dominican Republic’s productive sectors.

146. Local benefits: Through the identification and provision of alternative livelihood activities (e.g. nature-based tourism and PES) for local populations – both private landowners and local/indigenous communities - the project will enhance local support for conservation, and will stimulate the development of self-reliance and sustainable economic use of biodiversity resources. Improved relations with regional government agencies will also facilitate the flow of other social and economic benefits to previously disenfranchised areas. Furthermore, the project will work directly with local populations to access increased funding from various development funds to support sustainable economic alternatives within and surrounding PA lands. The project will provide these stakeholders with the knowledge and mechanisms to adapt their use of the PAs and their buffer zones, in ways that optimize their economic and social welfare, while sustainably conserving their biodiversity values. By establishing the legal and policy framework to allow for the operation of private PAs, and to enable new financial incentives to support such operations, the project will also directly benefit private landowners. In addition, secondary beneficiaries, including NGOs and other government agencies and partners in project delivery, will benefit from capacity building.

147. For more information, please see the Incremental Cost Matrix in the Executive Summary and SECTION IV, Part III: Stakeholder Participation Plan.

II - 5. Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness

Country Eligibility

148. The Dominican Republic ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on November 25, 1996, and is eligible for UNDP assistance. The long-term commitment of the GoDR to biodiversity conservation is further demonstrated by its ratification of other major multilateral environmental

51

conventions and agreements. The principal ones are summarized below. The GEF National Operational Focal Point endorsement is provided in Section IV, Part I.

Table 11. Main Multi-lateral Environmental Conventions to which the Dominican Republic is a party

Convention/Agreement Date signed Date ratifiedCITES 3 March 1973 30 June 1982CBD 13 June 1992 25 November 1996Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 18 August 1998 18 August 1998The SPAW Protocol 18 August 1998 18 August 1998The RAMSAR Convention 2 February 1971 16 October 2001The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 17 June 1994 11 March 1997The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 12 June 1992 7 October 1998

Link to National Strategies

149. The proposed project is consistent with the new organic environmental law (Law 64-00) that defines protected areas for both bio-diversity and anthropocentric concerns in a holistic context. It would also make operational the recommendations generated by SEMARENA during a strategic planning process in 2007 that addressed the continuity of effective biodiversity management in the country. The GEF project process will accompany and facilitate the development of the National Protected Areas Policy, which is in the initial phase of development. It will also make operational a proposal for the conservation of biodiversity by the government within the context of the Millennium Development Goals. The project will coordinate with and be a counterpart to the Man and the Biosphere program. Tourism development is a national priority and it is expected that this project will contribute to the establishment of feasible mechanisms to allow tourism and conservation of PAs to contribute to the sustainability of the whole system.

150. The Dominican Republic does not yet have an up to date document that meets the standard requirements for a National Biodiversity Strategy and its corresponding Plan of Action (NBSAP). However, the country has drafted some important documents containing guidelines for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The most notable of these include: i) Estrategia de Conservación de la Biodiversidad en la Repúblicana Dominicana: 1994-2003 (Strategy of Biodiversity Conservation in the Dominican Republic 1994-2003), ii) La Biodiversidad en República Dominicana: Visión para el año 2025 (Biodiversity in the Dominican Republic: Looking ahead to 2025), iii) Objetivo 7 del Milenio: Garantizar la Sostenibilidad Ambiental: Evaluación de las Necesidades de la República Dominicana (Millennium Development Goal 7: Guaranteeing Environmental Sustainability: Needs Assessment for the Dominican Republic) (2006). The need to update and formally recognize the mentioned Strategy has been acknowledged and supported at the institutional level. For example, the Strategic Capacity Building Plan for Environmental Management (SEMARENA/GEF/UNDP, 2008) identifies the updating and formal recognition of such a plan as a key action that needs to be undertaken. Furthermore, SEMARENA itself has made some progress in formulating the Terms of Reference and work plan for updating the strategy.

151. The emphasis of this project on enhancing PAs for biodiversity conservation in the Dominican Republic, the strengthening of the National PA System and its environmental, social and economic sustainability reflects the priorities of SEMARENA. These priorities will therefore be among the main components or lines of action of the future National Biodiversity Strategy. The project will advance and/or promote the necessary arrangements that will culminate in the updating of the aforementioned

52

strategy and its plan of action. Indeed, the data and information generated will serve as a basis for efforts that follow.

Linkages with UNDP Programme

152. UNDP Country Programme : The proposed project is in line with the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for 2007-2011 in the Dominican Republic. It will fall within the cooperation area of Sustainable Environmental Management, the aim of which is that “by 2011, the country will have national and local policies and training for protection and sustainable management of the environment, including risk management and responses to emergencies and disasters”. It will contribute to Outcome 2 of the UNDAF, “national capacity for environmental management strengthened and coordinated with strategies for sustainable rural development”, and will strengthen capacities for the management of the National System of Protected Areas, contributing to the achievement of Product 2.3, “A National System of Protected Areas is strengthened and integrated into local and national development”. The indicator for P2.3 is “at least 25% of protected areas have adequate plans and management.”

153. UNDP Comparative Advantage : This project is one of several comprehensive PA finance projects that UNDP is supporting across the world (in Thailand, Philippines, Namibia, Haiti, Venezuela, Rwanda and Botswana) and will build on UNDP’s experience and expertise in this arena. UNDP also has specific institutional capacities in the assessment and monitoring of financial sustainability in national protected area systems through the use of the ‘financial scorecard’ which it has developed. This project would in addition take full advantage of UNDP’s comparative advantage in the areas of human resource development and institutional strengthening. UNDP has a long-established Country Office in the Dominican Republic, which has allowed it to develop strong relationships with diverse institutional actors at all levels in both public and private sectors. It is thereby ideally placed as an agency to facilitate the kind of multi-stakeholder discussions which will be necessary in this project, in relation to the raising of awareness in Government of the importance of adequate budget allocation for protected areas, and the negotiation of public/private partnerships for the funding of protected areas. UNDP is the leading UN agency in the Dominican Republic supporting natural resources and biodiversity projects, and has hosted the GEF SGP for 10 years.

Linkages with other projects, including UNDP GEF Portfolio

154. Nationally, this project will build on the successful experience of public/private sector associations, as demonstrated in the GTZ PROCARYN initiative, the UNDP-GEF “Demonstrating Sustainable Land Management in the Upper Sabana Yegua Watershed System” project, and the UNDP-GEF Management of the Artibonito Bi-National Watershed Project currently under implementation in the Dominican Republic. Notably, close coordination will be established with the latter GEF project, as the BD values generated in Artibonito will greatly support an important aspect of management planning in a very diverse and geo-politically important watershed with significant global BD of high importance to the NPAS as a whole. The financing structures that will be developed under that project will also provide useful lessons learned for the NPAS as they support the sustainable financing of three PAs that occupy large areas of territory within that watershed. This territory is also located within the proposed Tri-national (Cuba-Haiti-Dominican Republic) biological corridor.

155. Regionally, this project is aligned with other GEF projects being prepared associated with the “Caribbean Challenge” initiative, including potential national projects in the Bahamas and Jamaica, and a sub-regional project in the Eastern Caribbean. The “Caribbean Challenge” was developed from the concept of the Micronesia Challenge, in which 5 Pacific island nations pledged to protect 20% of their marine resources by 2020 and leverage $100 million for conservation. The project is also aligned with the

53

Global Island Partnership (GLISPA). Launched in March 2006, GLISPA aims to build leadership and partnerships committed to actively address critical island issues and support the implementation of the Island Biodiversity Programme of Work under the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other related global policies.

156. These projects are all proposed to focus on actions particularly in the areas of sustainable finance of PA systems and MPAs. For effective coordination, a coordination plan will be established between the DR project and the other two Caribbean Challenge projects at project inception. Specifically, coordination activities will include: (1) communication mechanisms between the projects' Steering Committees that will provide periodic updates on the projects' development until implementation is complete; (2) creation of an inter-project working committee for the project coordinators, and key project staff to guarantee the flow of information (e.g., annual plans, APR/PIR, and independent evaluation reports) between projects and the sharing of benefits; and (3) yearly monitoring and evaluation workshops to jointly assess progress, identify areas for further cooperation, and to avoid duplication of efforts.

157. In addition, during the FSP Inception Phase, mechanisms will be defined for the interchange of experiences between this project and the UNDP-GEF PA financing project in Haiti, which is currently under design. There are a number of common elements between the two projects, including the diversification of income sources, the strengthening of operational and administrative capacities and co-management; however there are also major differences between the two countries in terms of governance conditions, levels of dependence on external cooperation and management conditions in protected areas. Still, a close collaboration between the two projects will benefit the globally significant biodiversity of the Hispanola Island as a whole.

II - 6. Sustainability

158. Environmental Sustainability: The project will support long-term viability of globally significant biodiversity in the Dominican Republic by enhancing the financial and operational framework for the NPAS. It will also prevent/mitigate the negative impacts of key threats to PAs through the design and implementation of monitoring, warning, response and evaluation mechanisms. As a result, management effectiveness of existing PAs and the long-term viability of ecosystems under protection will be improved in the short term. Additional increases in ecosystem representativity are projected for the medium to long term (post project), with the addition of Private Protected Areas to the NPAS and system-wide re-marcation of existing PAs piloted by the project through output 3.4. Finally, complementing the more sustainable protection of existing ecosystems, the project will also contribute to overall environmental sustainability in Dominican Republic by improving the environmental management of areas surrounding PAs to act as buffer zones and corridors connecting PAs.

159. Institutional sustainability: For PA practitioners to best apply their skills and knowledge, the Project will address the need to improve the enabling environment for effective in situ conservation in Dominican Republic. Through Outcomes 1 and 2, the Project will support capacity building activities and other initiatives aimed at creating the appropriate institutional environment and human capacities for effectively managing PAs at the System and site levels. Systematic strengthening of the skills and knowledge base will aim at both the national-level bureaucrats and the staff/people involved in PA management at the local operational levels. Institutional sustainability elements include developing occupational standards for PA positions; re-aligning and training SEMARENA’s staff for new/revised functions and mandates; setting up inter-institutional coordination and cooperation mechanisms (such as the Shared PA Management Unit); promoting agency training strategies; and piloting of public-private collaborative management models as part of the PA System institutional framework.

54

160. Financial Sustainability: Ensuring environmental and institutional sustainability is insufficient if the NPAS as a system cannot achieve long-term financial sustainability. Protected areas in the Dominican Republic are currently under-funded and without this project have little prospect of sufficient long-term funding. Financial barriers therefore constrain efforts to ensure biodiversity conservation in the existing PA estate as well as the long-term goal of expanding the PA estate to cover ecosystem gaps. The project will design and implement legal and policy changes so that PA management institutions and individual PA Units are better able to generate, manage, and allocate financial resources. In addition Pilot activities will test the potential, determine standards and build capacities for revenue generating activities. By the end of the project, the gap between funding levels for PA units within the NPAS and the budget required for effective management of these PAs will have decreased from the current estimated level of 69% to 53%. In the short term the gap reduction will happen through mechanisms, such as increased revenues from visitor fees, tourism concessions, payment of water provision and funds for nature-based tourism. In the longer term, the gap will be further reduced through more efficient PA management savings.

161. Social sustainability: Efforts to ensure sustainable support from diverse stakeholders are a key component of the Project. It was developed in a highly participatory fashion, including staff from key public institutions, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders from the civil society. Participation and social acceptance would be enhanced through the execution of a comprehensive Stakeholder Involvement Plan (Section IV, Annex 3), which identifies stakeholder interests and possible conflicts and responsive mitigation measures to assure strong and effective stakeholder participation. Other elements of project design to address social sustainability include: Testing collaborative PA management arrangements; supporting operations of a new Shared PA Management Board and other participation mechanisms; promoting direct benefits for local communities and PA residents through appropriate revenue generating mechanisms that will be put in place and continue after the project; developing incentives to promote private sector participation in PA establishment and management; awareness raising to increase societal appreciation of the benefits of PAs and the value of services they provide.

II - 7. Replicability

162. While many project activities target a group of 18 priority PAs deemed to have the highest revenue generation potential, the overall ‘enhancement package’ provided to these areas can be replicated to the remaining PA units beyond the scope and funding of the Project. This package include the PA financing training (output 1.6), new or updated Management and Business Plans (outputs 2.2 and 2.3), installment of PA facilities and infrastructure (output 2.4) and enhancement of human and institutional capacities (outputs 2.5 and 2.6) – all interventions needed to improve human capital skills and capacity needed to secure the financial and environmental sustainability of the individual PA units within the NPAS. Replication will further be supported through the creation of an administrators’ forum as a place to exchange best practices and lessons learned. The planned Manual on Cost-Effectiveness will also be utilized for this purpose.

163. In addition, pilot demonstrations (Outcome 2 and 3) will provide laboratories for testing different PA financing mechanisms, governance approaches and management types, suitable to different scenarios (in terms of different land tenure, threats to biodiversity, socio-economic and institutional contexts, opportunity costs of consolidating/de-marcating PAs, and different management categories), and innovative funding mechanisms. These pilots will allow for the identification of best practices, and in turn will inform future adjustments of policy frameworks to further facilitate replication of these lessons throughout the system. Notably, the pilot sites were carefully selected based on their replication potential.

164. The Project-supported NPAS Knowledge Management, Monitoring and Information System (Output 2.6) is another key tool for replication activities. This system will be used to compile lessons

55

learnt mainly from the demonstration sites to facilitate adaptation of relevant PA financing mechanisms and management approaches to other PAs of similar characteristics throughout the PA System. To achieve this, the project will support the design of standard formats and procedures, while ensuring that such data gathering is systematically incorporated into work schedules of field staff. Project experiences and case studies will then be analyzed and relevant lessons drawn will be communicated widely to stakeholders at national, regional and global level using a variety of media and through the established network with other GEF-funded PA Financing projects regionally and globally. Horizontal exchange mechanisms will be developed for enabling the sharing of knowledge and experience from field staff in one PA to another. This knowledge sharing will also involve a wide variety of stakeholders in and around PAs, through electronic media, periodic bulletins, personal exchange within and outside the country (among rangers, technicians, researchers, local stakeholders, etc.).

165. Finally, the planned long-term sustainable enabling framework for the NPAS in Dominican Republic will increasingly support the inclusion of additional PA units into the NPAS, which would replicate the project goals to these new PAs. In the long run, the planned financial management and revenue generating mechanisms will benefit all PAs within the NPAS, as will the definition of clear operational standards for different PA categories within the NPAS, along with the Knowledge Management System.

II - 8. Financial Modality and Cost-Effectiveness

166. The total cost of the project is US$ 11,822,000.

Table 12. Total project budget/outcomeProject Components/Outcomes Co-

financing ($)

GEF ($) Total ($)

Outcome 1: Increased and diversified NPAS funding 5,294,000 1,038,320 6,332,320Outcome 2: Improved PA management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with highest revenue generation potential

1,721,000 1,137,380 2,858,380

Outcome 3: Co-management arrangements to underwrite PA management costs 745,000 704,300 1,449,300

Project management budget/cost* 862,000 320,000 1,182,000Total project costs 8,622,000 3,200,000 11,822,000

* This item is an aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of this aggregate amount is presented in table 13 below.

Table 13. Project management Budget/cost20

Cost itemsTotal

Estimated person weeks

GEF ($) Other sources ($)

Project Total ($)

Locally recruited consultants*Project Coordinator (project management inputs)**

82 (30 GEF) 36,000 62,400 98,400

Project Administrator (full-time) 212 (156 GEF) 27,300 9,100 36,400Administrative Assistant (full-time) 212 (156 GEF) 19,500 6,500 26,000Driver (full-time) 212 (156 GEF) 17,160 5,800 22,960

20 It should be noted that the GEF-Cofinancing ratio for the Project Management budget is different than for the overall project budget. This is due to the fact that a majority of the co-financing is earmarked for the PA Patrimonial Fund. These funds can therefore not be expended towards actual project management.

56

Cost itemsTotal

Estimated person weeks

GEF ($) Other sources ($)

Project Total ($)

Internationally recruited consultants**Int’l M&E Specialist – Development and validation of indicators***

10 20,000 0 20,000

Contractual Services - individuals: Part-time National M+E Specialist, Mid term and final evaluation, Audits, and inception workshop

103,000 20,000 123,000

Contractual Services – companies: Utilities, phone, data provision and audit services.

32,200 0 32,200

Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications** **

27,100 693,300 720,400

Travel to project sites**** 17,100 54,900 72,000Miscellaneous (petty cash, stationery, etc)***

20,640 10,000 30,640

Total 320,000 862,000 1,182,000*: Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the

management of project. Consultants who are hired to do a special task are referred to as consultants providing technical assistance (see details of these services in iii) below).

**: The funding for this position is covered as follows: This is a full-time position, but with responsibilities divided up between project management and technical inputs: 82 person weeks (or 39% effort) concerns the administration part of project management, where 30 weeks is GEF funded, while an additional 52 weeks are co-financed. In addition, 126 pers-weeks (i.e. 61% effort) are dedicated to the technical aspects of the project, all of which are GEF-funded. This latter amount is reflected equally under each of the three outcomes (i.e. 42 weeks/ outcome).

***: For details on this position, please see budget notes in section III Total Budget and Workplan.****: Detailed information for these line items are provided in Annex C, part 2

Table 14. Consultants working for technical assistance components

Component

Estimated person weeks 1

(Only GEF)GEF ($)

Other sources ($)

Project total ($)

Personnel 0 0 0 0Local consultants*

Project Coordinator (Technical inputs to project outcomes)**

126 151,200 0 151,200

National PA Financing Specialist 78 58,500 0 58,500Economist 16 16,000 0 16,000Strategic Planner 12 4,800 0 4,800Organizational Development Specialist 12 14,400 0 14,400Contract Trainer 12 14,400 0 14,400Land Tenancy Analyst 16 19,200 0 19,200Legal Advisor 12 14,400 0 14,400Evaluation Specialist 11 9,900 0 9,900

Sub-total local consultants 295 302,800 0 302,800International consultants*

PA Financing Specialist #1 24 48,000 0 48,000PA Financing Specialist #2 8 16,000 0 16,000

57

Environmental Economist 16 40,000 0 40,000Int’l Training of Trainers (TOT) and PA Planning

12 24,000 0 24,000

Intl M&E System Needs Specialist 12 24,000 0 24,000Int’l Expert on Easements and Land Trusts

2 5,000 0 5,000

Evaluation experts 22 44,000 0 44,000Sub-total int’l consultants 96 201,000 0 201,000

Total 391 503,800 0 503,800*: Consultants who are hired to do a specific task are referred to consultants providing technical assistance.

Detailed information regarding the consultants is provided in Annex C. **: The funding for this position is covered as follows: This is a full-time position, but with responsibilities

divided up between project management and technical inputs: 126 pers-weeks (i.e. 61% effort) are dedicated to the technical aspects of the project, all of which are GEF-funded. This latter amount is reflected equally under each of the three outcomes (i.e. 42 weeks/ outcome). In addition, 82 person weeks (or 39% effort) concerns the administration part of project management, where 30 weeks is GEF funded, while an additional 52 weeks are co-financed.

Table 15. Co-financing Sources

Name of co-financier (for FSP)

Classification Type Amount ($) % StatusConfirmed Un-

confirmedSEMARENA Government Cash 300,000 3 XSEMARENA - T.Fund. Cap.*

Government Cash 294,000 3 X

SEMARENA Government In-Kind 483,000 6 XGEF Agency - UNDP International Cash 45,000 1 XTNC - T.Fund Cap.* NGO Cash 2,000,000 23 XTNC - PA Investments NGO In-kind 2,500,000 29 XTNC - KfW T.Fund. Cap*

NGO Cash 2,500,000 29 X

TNC - KfW – cash for PA support

NGO Cash 500,000 6 X

Total 8,622,000 100* These co-financing amounts are specifically earmarked for the new PA Patrimonial Fund. These funds can therefore not be expended towards project management. The GEF-co-financing ratio for project management is therefore based on the remaining co-financing amounts (see table 13).

Cost-effectiveness

167. In line with the GEF Council’s guidance on assessing cost-effectiveness of projects (Cost Effectiveness Analysis in GEF Projects, GEF/C.25/11, April 29, 2005), the project development team has taken a qualitative approach to identifying the alternative of best value and feasibility for achieving the project objective.

168. The project was originally slated to cover investments in 34 protected areas over a 5 year period (see PIF). During the PPG process, though, the ambitiousness of this scope was acknowledged. The number was subsequently reduced to 18 PAs and will specifically target those areas with high income generating potential (see PRODOC Annex 5). This enabled the envisioned interventions to better fit the two-fold main purpose of the project, namely sustainable PA financing and enhanced management effectiveness. The actions to be implemented by the project can be adequately demonstrated within the

58

18 chosen areas. If the new innovative financing mechanisms (such as PES) are successful and the management actions successfully demonstrated, then the NPAS will be able to upscale the innovations to the remaining areas with internal or new external funding, over time. This amounts to a reduction in duplication of project actions, better responds to the catalytic and also enabling aspects of the project, and allows the implementation over a shorter project chronology and, as a result, reducing the management cost significantly. In addition, the project design sought collaboration with PAs with baseline actions and investments oriented towards the project objective. As a result, 4 PAs demonstrate a significant baseline in the development of management plans that will enable the GEF increment to focus mainly on 14 PAs for the management planning aspects rather than on 18. This strategy enabled greater synergy between the co-financiers in the project. The strategy to focus on 18 PAs with financial potential places more responsibility at the system level of SEMARENA to complete the needed investments in the core group of 18 and create a functioning revenue distribution system that will respond to the needs of areas where income generating activities, such as fees from visitors, are not so desirable in fragile ecosystems. Finally, the rationale to concentrate a larger suite of project activities on a fewer number of PAs will allow for better response to the barriers to effective management and is expected to yield a larger increase in METT scores per dollar invested than if the project actions had been spread out among 34 PAs. This increase in effectiveness should translate into an increase in revenues and an increase in financial flows to other PAs in the long term.

169. The project has designed mechanisms to increase the effectiveness of the project actions that will also lead to better value for the funds invested in barrier removal. Through joint GEF and TNC funding, for instance, international expertise will train a team of local trainers in key PA financing and cost-effectiveness techniques. These trainers will multiply their knowledge to both financial managers and PA practitioners, such as PA co-administrators, NGOs managing areas and PA co-management council members. Barrier removal will lead to positive environmental impacts on key ecosystems throughout the Dominican Republic.

170. The project will further create additional financial mechanisms, such as PES schemes, that will contribute leveraged funding to the PA system, increasing the benefit per dollar invested. The yield of these mechanisms and potential financial contribution to the system will be analyzed as part of the final evaluation process.

171. The systemic (policy/regulatory) and institutional mechanisms - along with the human resources – will be enhanced to work more effectively, which will significantly leverage resources and reduce duplication. This, in turn, will reduce cost and waste of financial resources. Support for new strategic action plans and instruments will help re-align and enhance the PA System based on a NPAS Sustainable Financing Strategy and Business Plan. Hence, the project will improve the ability of the PA System to secure sufficient, stable and long-term financial resources and allocate them in a timely manner. PAs can subsequently be managed more efficiently and cost-effectively through: (i) Adequate legal and policy frameworks created; (ii) a strengthened financial management information and tracking system; (iii) new revenue options; and (iv) new budget reporting procedures.

172. The project pilots are also cost-effective in several ways. The pilot sites were selected using several criteria related to cost-effectiveness, such as co-financing opportunities21. Moreover, the sites were selected for their high revenue generation potential, along with their biodiversity significance in the

21 Criteria for selection were: a) high on-site revenue generation potential; b) Biodiversity significance of the site; c) Value for replication; d) Possibility of successfully implementing the demonstration within the time frame of the project (support of organized local communities and institutions, existence of previous field studies and information); e) Potential to generate tangible and intangible benefits for a range of stakeholders (magnitude and profile of potential beneficiaries); f) Threat levels that would allow cost-effective interventions; and g) Co-financing opportunities (in cash and in kind) for developing the demonstrations.

59

existing PA system. The pilot demonstrations will therefore effectively build capacity, while capturing PA revenue and tangible benefits to biodiversity and thus further increasing the project contribution to capturing global benefits. In addition, collaborative and decentralized co-management among various stakeholders will be tested as a cost-effective strategy to share responsibilities and costs of PA management, while removing barriers to effective PA management. The pilots are cost-effective means of determining the financial feasibility of project results before considering them for up-scaling. The cost information from the pilots will add important information to support the decision to replicate best practices from the project across larger geographic and thematic areas. The Project will also use cost-effective measures, such as the use of the existing Protected Areas Forum, for promotion and sharing of Lessons Learned beyond the Dominican Republic to other countries. Hence, GEF will achieve significant national and international impact with limited funds.

173. Cost effectiveness will also be monitored as an integral part of the monitoring and evaluation process. The project budget provides for independent financial auditing on a yearly basis.

174. Finally, cost effectiveness is ensured through a prescribed project management process that will seek the best-value-for-money. UNDP rules and also SEMARENA rules employ a transparent process of bidding for goods and for services based on open and fair competition and selection of best value and best price alternatives. Procurement will be managed by UNDP in coordination with SEMARENA ensuring the application of all effective regulations. An independent committee is utilized for all procurement of personnel and selection of contractors.

PART III: Management Arrangements

175. The project will be executed under National Execution (NEX), according to the standards and regulation for UNDP cooperation in Dominican Republic. The Project Executing Agency will be the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARENA). SEMARENA will sign the grant agreement with UNDP and will be accountable to UNDP for an efficient and effective use of project resources and the achievement of the project goals, according to the approved work plan.

176. The duration of the project will be 4 years.22 The Project will comprise the following management, oversight and coordination structures: (i) A Project Steering Committee with strategic decision-making, non-executive powers would tentatively be composed by: (i) representatives from SEMARENA’s Senior Management (including Under Secretaries of Planning and Development, Protected Areas and Biodiversity, Coastal and Marine Resources and International Cooperation; (ii) representatives from UNDP and (iii) the Project Coordinator. The GEF Project coordinators from other GEF-funded partner projects will be invited to participate in sessions to ensure proper project coordination and cross-fertilization if necessary. (ii) A SEMARENA Technical Supervision Committee, which will discuss all key project technical decisions, including the review of TORs proposed by the PMU, the hiring of specialists, the adjudication of contracts and the revision of Annual Work Plans and Annual Budgets. This Committee will be a critical link between the PMU and the rest of SEMARENA staff, both in central offices and in the field. It will have the responsibility to solve in the first instance coordination problems encountered by the project. (iii) A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be responsible for directing, supervising and coordinating the project implementation. The PMU will be located in SEMARENA.

22 The PIF proposed a project duration of 5 years. However, assessments carried out during the PPG phase indicated that the targets of the project could be achieved within 4 years. The change also has the benefit of reducing the proportion of total project funds that it is necessary to assign to project management, given the existence of various fixed annual costs.

60

177. In terms of key Project staff, a nominated senior SEMARENA staff will become the National Project Director, while a National Project Coordinator (PC) will be contracted by UNDP based on a recruitment process and request from SEMARENA and will be responsible for the day-to-day Project implementation, leading and managing the PMU. In addition to the Project Coordinator, the PMU will be composed of the following staff: A Project Administrator, an Administrative Assistant, a Driver and a part-time Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist. Administrative and professional personnel collaborating as advisors will interact on an ongoing basis with the NPC and the PMU technical and professional teams, according to needs arising during project implementation. An important and common part of the staff ToRs will be to identify measures on how to sustain the capacity development activities and results beyond the Project duration. The initial part of these measures will be integrated into the project work plans. Notably, the intent is that the planned Specialist positions will become fixed Government-funded positions after the end of project. A Strategic Action Plan Task Force will be established to elaborate the Plan. A 3-month Inception Phase will be used to carefully plan the whole project implementation process, culminating in the Inception Workshop. In addition, the necessary communication structures will be established between the main project components and partners to ensure optimal coordination and that key stakeholders are in full agreement with project objectives and hence committed towards the outcomes to be achieved.

178. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo should 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 from the GEF logo if possible, as UN visibility is important in its capacity as GEF Implementing Agency.

PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

179. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit in Panama. The Logical Framework Matrix (in Section II, Part II) provides impact and outcome indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The METT tool is going to be used as one of the main instruments to monitor progress in PA management effectiveness. The M&E plan includes: inception report, project implementation reviews, quarterly operational reports, a mid-term and final evaluation, etc. The following sections outline the principal components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities (table 16 below). The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Meeting following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

Project Inception Phase

180. A 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. 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 logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. 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

61

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

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

Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, 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. 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.

Monitoring responsibilities and events

181. 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 Steering Committee Meetings, or other relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.

182. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Team 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. The Project Coordinator 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. 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.

183. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project local implementation group, 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. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the PSC. 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 PSC members, and UNDP-GEF.

184. Annual Monitoring will be ensured by means of the project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings23 being the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. PSC meetings will be held 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 implementation team will prepare a

23 A SCM mechanism as such is similar to the Tripartite Review (TPR) formally required for the UNDP/GEF projects, and differs from the latter only in the composition of the review panel, which, in case of the SC, is broader that that of the TPR.

62

harmonized Annual Project Report and Project Implementation Review (APR/PIR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the PSC for review and comments. The APR/PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the PSC meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the SC, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the PSC members. The project proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR/PIR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.

Project Monitoring Reporting

185. 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.

186. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year 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. 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. 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. 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, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.

187. The APR/PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF24. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for Project Coordinators and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. It also forms a part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management, as well as represents a key issue for the discussion at the Steering Committee meetings. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, the CO must complete an APR/PIR together with the project implementation team. The APR/PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-June) and ideally prior to the SCM. The APR/PIR should then be discussed at the SCM so that the result would be an APR/PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing agency, UNDP CO and the key stakeholders. The individual APR/PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters.

188. Quarterly Progress reports: 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.

189. UNDP ATLAS Monitoring Reports: A Combined Delivery Report (CDR) summarizing all project expenditures, is mandatory and should be issued quarterly. The Project Coordinator should send it to the Project Board for review and the Implementing Partner should certify it. The following logs should be prepared: (i) The Issues Log is used to capture and track the status of all project issues throughout the

24 The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both APR (standard UNDP requirement) and PIR (GEF format), UNDP/GEF has prepared a harmonized format - an APR/PIR

63

implementation of the project. It will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to track, capture and assign issues, and to ensure that all project issues are appropriately addressed; (ii) the Risk Log is maintained throughout the project to capture potential risks to the project and associated measures to manage risks. It will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to maintain and update the Risk Log, using Atlas; and (iii) the Lessons Learned Log is maintained throughout the project to capture insights and lessons based on good and bad experiences and behaviours. It is the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to maintain and update the Lessons Learned Log.

190. 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 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.

191. 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 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.

192. 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 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.

193. 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.

Independent Evaluation

194. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows: An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the mid of the third 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

64

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.

195. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Steering Committee 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

196. 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 UNDP-GEF sponsored networks, organized for senior project personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. The project will identify and participate as appropriate, in scientific, policy-based networks that may benefit from the project’s lessons learned and/or be of benefit to the project.

197. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identifying and analyzing lessons learned is an on-going process. The need to communicate such lessons is one of the project's central contributions and this will be done at least on an annual basis by producing Biodiversity Experience Notes (BEN). UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a sufficient amount of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

Audit Clause

198. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

Table 16. Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

Type of M&E activity

Responsible Parties Budget US$Excluding project staff time

Time frame

Inception Workshop & associated arrangements

PM UNDP CO UNDP GEF

Indicative cost: 5,000Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report

Project Team UNDP CO Service contract to arrange/run

workshop and produce report

Indicative cost 5,000 (stakeholder consultations, service contract, translation)

Immediately following IW

Measurement of Means of

PM will oversee the hiring for specific studies and institutions,

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop.

Start, mid and end of project

65



Time frame

Verification for Project Purpose Indicators

delegate responsibilities to relevant team members, and

Support from International consultant- sets up long term M+E Plan

Indicative cost 26,900

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

Oversight by Project GEF Regional Advisor and PM

Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs

Local consultant to support M+E

To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation.Indicative cost 18,000

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

APR/PIR; GEF-4 Biodiversity Tracking Tool; METT

Project Team UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF

Indicative cost: 0 Annually

Steering Committee Meetings and relevant meeting proceedings (minutes)

PM UNDP CO

Indicative cost: 1,500(travel costs for relevant project stakeholders)

Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year

Quarterly status reports Project team Indicative cost: 0

To be determined by Project team and UNDP CO

Technical reports Project team Hired consultants as needed Indicative cost: 5,000

To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Project Publications (e.g. technical manuals, field guides)

Project team Hired consultants as needed Indicative cost: 5,000

To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term External Review

Project team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

Indicative cost: 25,000At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation

Project team, UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

Indicative cost: 50,000 At the end of project implementation

Terminal Report Project team UNDP-CO External Consultant

Indicative cost: 5,000At least one month before the end of the project

Lessons learned

Project team UNDP-GEF RCU (suggested

formats for documenting best practices, etc)

End of Project Event

Indicative cost: 5,000 Yearly

Audit UNDP-CO Project team

Indicative cost: 25,000 (average $5000 per year + 10,000 for final)

Yearly

Visits to field sites UNDP Country Office Indicative cost: 15,000 (3-4 Yearly

66



Time frame

(UNDP staff travel to be charged to IA fees)

UNDP-GEF RCU (as appropriate) Government representatives visits per year)

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses US$ 191,400

PART V: Legal Context

199. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of the Dominican Republic and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on June 11, 1974. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement. The UNDP Resident Representative in Santo Domingo is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the agreement thereto by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes: (i) Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document; (ii) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;(iii) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and (iv) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project Document.

67

SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT

PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis

200. The GEF Alternative will build upon a suite of baseline actions that form the underpinnings for the development of the GEF incremental actions. The following section presents the assessment of baseline actions followed by a description of the GEF alternative and increment that are designed to respond to the barriers presented in section I-7. The argument concludes with a summarized Incremental Cost Assessment for the chosen alternatives.

Baseline Assessment

201. Baseline programs and activities that provide the foundation for the GEF alternative mainly consist of (a) economic development actions that will provide baseline skills for improved local economies and business planning; (b) policy actions that will contribute to improved PA management; and (c) Policy and frameworks established that will enhance public-private support of PAs through co-management. These activities may be divided into three main areas, corresponding with the three project outcomes. These are described below.

202. Funding for the National Protected Areas System (NPAS): Outcome 1 will be supported by system-level baseline analysis facilitated and made possible by the GEF/UNDP/Nature Conservancy (TNC) through the Early Action Grant Process that supports national efforts to achieve COP 7 objectives. Specifically, a PA Biological Diversity Assessment and Gap Analysis (biological diversity representativity within the national PA system) for the Dominican Republic was completed in early 2009 with a related system-level Financing Gap Analysis due for completion either late 2009 or early 2010. The estimated baseline investment in outcome 1 is US$ 50,000 for the BD and Financial analysis related to the PA system-level funding.

203. The revenue generation focus of the Outcome 1 will greatly benefit from an initiative by the Dominican Sustainable Tourism Alliance (DSTA). DSTA is part of a Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance (GSTA) managed with the funding support of USAID with the Academy for Educational Development, the George Washington University, SOLIMAR International, and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) through multiple executing partners.25 The project draws upon the natural, historical and cultural resources and of the country for a more sustainable tourism sector that distributes benefits and contributes to poverty alleviation, economic expansion and the preservation of biological diversity. The purpose is to move beyond "beach tourism" to a model that strengthens small, medium-sized and community-based tourism enterprises and regional tourism clusters. DSTA emphasizes public-private collaboration and outreach to new partners nationally and internationally.

204. The project will also build on tentative proposals for the implementation of payment schemes for water ecosystem services in the country. Specific cases are studies to establish payment schemes for ecosystem services in river water of the Yaque del Norte and Nizao. Another case is the preparation of a medium-GEF project on payment for ecosystem services provided by Scientific Reserve Las Neblinas. An experience with some progress of implementation is the agreement between the National Institute of Water Supply and Sewerage (INAP) and the Loma Quita Espuela Scientific Reserve to pay for water service from the latter. There are also national initiatives such as the definition of Environmental

25 Conservation International, Citizen Development Corps, Counterpart International, EplerWood International, Nathan Associates, National Geographic Society, Rainforest Alliance, RARE, University of Hawaii School of Travel Industry Management, UNESCO World Heritage Center, U.S.D.A. Forest Service-Heritage Design.

68

Sustainability Indicators Water Resources under the National System of Indicators for Environmental. The estimated baseline investment directly related to this project are $100,000 from GTZ sources in direct investment and technical cooperation and also an $25,000 from World Bank funding in support of Environmental Policy and indicators.

205. The Dominican Sustainable Tourism Alliance builds upon several tourism “clusters” previously established as a tool for localized economic development. These clusters are found in areas that have high tourism potential. Not surprising, given the overall Hispanola Island’s biological diversity, many of these areas are also areas of high biological diversity and, generally, are areas with PAs selected for the project as potentially high income generating areas. Clusters were formed under a former USAID “Competitiveness and Policy Program” and are located in La Romana-Bayahibe, La Vega, Barahona, Puerto Plata, Altagracia, and Samana. These clusters are oriented to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability by better equipping and strengthening local small, medium-sized and community-based tourism enterprises, and relevant tourism entities (most notably the existing tourism clusters) to independently sustain efforts once external funding from USAID/DR is removed. This will be achieved through continued public-private collaboration and outreach to new development partners at the national, regional, and global levels that is subsequently led by stronger, more capable Dominican tourism institutions. In addition, the clusters project will strengthen municipal environment management capabilities and stimulate small, medium, and community-based tourism efforts. Finally, this project will improve protected area management initiatives in selected locations originally begin under the Parks-in-Peril Program26. While the DSTA baseline is arguably relevant for all three outcomes of the GEF initiative, the majority of it is vested in Outcome 2 (see below). Yet, roughly a total of US$30,000 directly responds to Outcome 1, in support of overall planning and economic development skills.

206. PA Management effectiveness and efficiency: Since 2004, the German Technical Cooperation through the GTZ has invested in PA management planning in several PAs (2006) through the Natural Resources Administration Project (PROGEREN) initiative. At the system-level, the Guide and Methodology for the Formulation of Management Plans was developed. In addition, the Political and Conceptual Framework for the Management of Buffer Zone areas was completed (2004). Finally, the Policy for Effective PA Management (Resolution 15-06) was a product of a Sector Round Table with co-financing of AECI, UNDP, USAID, and TNC. These are important baseline actions that will guide the development of PA management plans in Outcome 2. All management products must conform to these instruments. The baseline cost for these actions is US$ 40,000.

207. Outcome 2 will also greatly benefit from the round-tables and local consultation events that have informed the reformulation of the Protected Areas Law (202-04). This law will provide the Protected Areas Regulations in response to the General Environmental Law 64-00. The efforts to draft the PA law form the baseline for Outcome 2, output 2.1. The GEF project will work to facilitate and complete public comment, redrafting based on the results, and lobby to support the passage of the legislation. The baseline is estimated at US$ 20,000.

208. With regards to PA management, at the present time, support from the above DSTA initiative to the del Este and Los Haitises National Parks include the development of conservation management plans. These actions, which will be completed prior to the start of the GEF initiative, will all feed into the updated management plans for the project. The project will indirectly benefit from the development of local and municipal skills and will directly benefit from PA investments. The management planning aspects of Outcome 2 will take into consideration all investments and gains as part of the management

26 The Parks in Peril Program, the largest site-based conservation program in Latin America, is a partnership among USAID, The Nature Conservancy, foreign governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations in 17 countries. The program supported Parque Nacional Jaragua, Parque Nacional del Este, and the Madre de las Aguas Conservation Area. For more information see http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/pip.html.

69

planning process. At the present time, actions in the del Este, and the Los Haitises National Parks will form part of the management plan for those areas. The baseline investment for those areas is estimated at US$ 100,000. The project will work in close cooperation with the groups and initiatives where they overlap in the 18 PAs and the baseline will be updated as the two projects develop. This will be accomplished on an annual basis as part of the progressive evaluation process that will inform the development of annual workplans. This will specifically allow for the development of the management plans and business plans for 18 PAs and enable a periodic re-assessment of the Incremental Cost Scenario.

209. Aspects of the DSTA that will enhance the business planning process within PAs are: (a) development of a common vision of sustainable development for the Dominican Republic; (b) Improvement of local production capacities while enhancing the quality of local tourism offerings, products, services, and handicrafts in selected areas –accomplished through a small grants program; and (c) connecting small, medium, and community-based entrepreneurs with the global market place by establishing linkages between the traditional tourism sector, international buyers, and local service providers, and developing marketing strategies that achieve long-term financial sustainability. This investment is estimated at $50,000. The total DSTA baseline in support of Outcome 2 amounts to US$150,000 in support of management in Parque Nacional del Este and small grants to groups around qualifying protected areas in skill development.

210. The development and/or updating of PA Management Plans (output 2.2) and PA Business Plans (output 2.3), will also be supported by the above system-level baseline analysis by the Early Grant Process through the GEF/UNDP/Nature Conservancy (TNC) Related support will come from the GTZ through their Management Initiative of the Cordillera Central has invested in the Management Plan for the Nalga de Maco National Park, putting into practice many of the above mentioned guidelines. This investment, estimated at US$ 40,000 will contribute directly to the number of PAs with management plans by the end of the project. It is considered as a baseline as the investment will be completed prior to the start of the GEF initiative. Approval of the management plan by SEMARENA is pending.

211. In addition, the baseline investments in SEMARENA’s training staff and curriculum development will provide the baseline for the training products to be developed under all Outcomes. To avoid double counting, the GEF investment in the early action grant process is not calculated. However, a quarter of the in-country and NGO portion of the match (roughly 4 times the GEF investment) is estimated in the baseline calculation to give due credit to the early action grant process. Not only is this initiative very important for its catalytic effect. It also adds to the cost effectiveness of the needed training process. Moreover, the baseline financial analysis and BD gap analysis are both essential for the success of the proposed GEF alternative. This Early Action Grant match investment of relevance to Outcome 2 is US$50,000.

212. The Protected Areas Forum is currently being managed by the Consorcia Ambiental Dominicano with technical support and maintenance by the GTZ. The Forum is an electronic community actively utilized by Dominican organizations with interest in protected areas27. The forum will also be a mechanism for the dissemination of GEF project information, thereby forming an important part of the project management baseline, which, in turn, will inform all outcomes. Notably, the total invested cost and ongoing technical support is estimated at US$ 24,000 evenly across all 3 outcomes.

213. Finally, SEMARENA has made significant investments in physical and human capital in both the local infrastructure, training, and in the GIS system that supports the project in 18 PAs. Although many of these are now sunken costs and at least 50% depreciated following Dominican accounting standards.

27 www.foroap.com

70

The baseline value of the resources is roundly extimated at $285,000 U.S. or roughly $10,000,000 RD. These resources require an annual investment of roughly 250,000 U.S./year. Using the previous 3 years of upkeep as realistic investment contributing to the status quo, $750,000 U.S is the total baseline plus the initial investment for a total baseline of 1,035,000. This is assigned to outcome 3 as it enhances co-management aspects.

214. PA co-management arrangements: Since 2004, the GTZ, through the PROGEREN initiative, has also invested in the development of a PA co-management model. As part of this process, the GTZ invested in consultancies and public comment leading to the publication of the Procedures and Regulations for the Co-management of Protected Areas. The baseline document and policy has yet to be fully implemented, but it draws on co-management experiences to date and also is recognized by all relevant stakeholders, including the GoDR, as the guide for co-management in the Dominican Republic. This forms the baseline for all co-management promotion in Outcome 3 estimated at US$ 30,000.

Global Environmental Objective

215. The global environmental objective of GEF is safeguarding the globally significant biodiversity values of the Dominican Republic.

The GEF Alternative

216. The proposed Results Framework is summarized in the Logical Framework Matrix in section II Part II. Through the three project Outcomes, under the alternative scenario the Dominican Republic’s National PA System will be strengthened in a number of ways as compared with the baseline. Individual, institutional and systemic financial and operational barriers will be overcome, allowing increased financial security of PAs to be translated into higher management effectiveness in addressing threats to globally significant biodiversity. Consequently, conservation efforts will improve. Indirectly, the capture of global environmental benefits will increase over Dominican Republic’s entire PA estate of 46,265 km2.217. First, through outcome 1, the enabling actions to increase and diversify PA funding include (i) the development of PA valuation and channeling of information; (ii) the development of service fee structures; (iii) the development of a permanent private sector outreach approach and program within SEMARENA. The catalytic action is the creation of a PA trust fund that will provide one of the principal financial tools. The GEF increment will provide (i) the external consultants (both local and international) and knowledge needed to (i) establish the much-needed financing mechanisms, system level plans and fee structures; (ii) funding for a marketing campaign to increase visitation to PAs, especially by Dominican Families; (iii) and the development and dissemination of information on PES for lawmakers and other decision-makers. In addition, infrastructure in the form of solar installations and equipment to increase the communication potential of the PA offices with central-level SEMARENA will be completed. Co-financing will provide the administrative structures, personnel, and additional electric infrastructure. The catalytic PA Patrimonial Fund will be almost fully co-financed with US$4.5 million, which will complement the initial GoDR contribution. GEF will make an investment of US$ 250,000.

218. Second, through Outcome 2, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of PA management the catalytic actions are (i) developing organizational and development plans and training in management and financing within the PA system; and (ii) the development of strategic financing plans. Enabling actions are the development of administrative and operational regulations, a revised and passed PA law in support of consolidation and decentralization of the system. The GEF increment will provide international expertise in PA planning and in setting up the NPAS Knowledge Management, Monitoring and Evaluation System. GEF-financed contractors will be provided for the development of PA management plans and PA business plans, who will develop these together with PA staff, Co-managers, and local

71

authorizes. The increment will cover the costs of dissemination and provide public comment on draft legislation, along with materials in the form of satellite images and basic equipment for the Monitoring & Evaluation Program. In addition, GEF will support a limited amount of infrastructure in PAs, such as visitors centres, observation towers, and boat docks. The majority of this aspect of the alternative will be co-financed by SEMARENA.

219. Finally, through Outcome 3, the development of co-management arrangements to underwrite PA management costs will involve catalytic actions in the form of pilot projects to work out the concept of conservation easements, innovative financing in the form of PES, private reserve development, and the promotion of co-management models. Enabling actions include the final legal steps in adoption of the operational regulations and procedures in support of co-management and a framework for the development of private reserves. The enabling actions will involve actions to test methods for addressing the complicated land tenure situation that affects PAs, which can provide a foundation for a future focus on land tenure all the PA units within the NPAS. Such a system-wide exercise is beyond the scope and budget allocation of this project. Legal counsel and assessment on land tenancy issues, combined with technical assistance, will be provided by GEF on the issues of land tenancy. Additional support by GEF will cover contracts that will cover surveyors and develop the framework for how to establish private reserves and concessions. Catalytic actions in the form of pilot projects will be supported by both GEF and co-financing at approximately equal levels in their contribution to the GEF alternative.

Incremental Reasoning

220. Without GEF incremental support, the Dominican Republic’s Sectoral Law on Protected Areas will remain the theoretical basis for PA management within the National PA System, but insufficient finance and operational capacities will hinder its implementation. The gaps in PA financing and management will limit the effectiveness of the new PA Patrimonial Fund. Without the project support (both GEF and co-financing sources), this Fund may not become fully operational; or at most function at a very sub-optimal level due to insufficient funds. Without responding to the gaps with enabling policies, regulations, and development of human capital, the status quo is likely to continue. Without the GEF increment, it is likely that 5 of the 18 PAs will continue to generate revenues, but these will not increase to offset inflation. In addition, the revenues from the top 3 PAs will not be sufficient to contribute to the development of PAs with little or no revenue generating potential, or those with delicate ecosystems where visitation on a large scale as a revenue stream would be in detriment to the ecosystem in question.

221. Without the sustainable financing mechanisms and related increased PA revenue that the GEF project would support, existing PAs will continue to operate. With budgetary constraints, however, 94.11% of the assessed 34 PA units will have insufficient staff – both in terms of number and skills - to carry out critical management tasks and the remaining 60.47% of the PAs within the System will have no personnel on location at all. Administrative structures and processes will continue to present barriers to effective and efficient management of the NPAS and its individual PA units. Deficiencies in the legal framework for PA management will also continue to present a poorly defined environment for the planning and management of the System.

222. In addition, the 18 priority PAs within the PA system will not benefit from new or upgraded Management Plans. They would also not be provided with Business Plans or crucial basic infrastructure. Finally, the NPAS staff, both at the central and local levels, would also miss out of the focused capacity development. These enabling and catalytic activities would therefore prevent a re-engineering of the NPAS into a financially and operationally sustainable PA System in the long run.

223. Finally, without the GEF increment, the existing co-management regime would remain the same. Local stakeholders will therefore continue to be excluded as partners in conservation. This will have two

72

major repercussions. First, threats to biodiversity will continue, or may even grow, as local stakeholders will continue to see and realize no benefits to be derived from conservation. They may subsequently continue to exploit resources of PAs. Due to the absence of partnerships and the lack of engagement of communities, limited existing PA staff will be further stretched in performing conservation-related tasks. They will also be left without helpful coordination mechanisms and for a for conflict resolution. Moreover, without the catalytic effect of the pilot projects, critical issues such as Private Reserves, easements, and innovative PES will remain unattempted with little opportunity for learning, innovation, or adaptive management. Moreover, important habitats will remain outside the NPAS, since there will be no nationally endorsed and supported mechanisms for how to officially establish private reserves and integrate them into the NPAS in the long run.

System Boundary

224. In biological and geographical terms, the project is concerned with those ecosystems that support biological diversity within the boundaries of the Dominican Republic’s National Protected Areas System. Today, the NPAS includes 86 public PAs, which together encompass over 46,200 km2 or almost 22% of Dominican Republic’s terrestrial territory. For more details on the extension of the NPAS, please see PRODOC, Annex X. The Dominican Republic also has private tracts of land with conservation status. However, although the General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (Law 64-00) and the Sectoral Law of Protected Areas (Law 202-04) allow PPAs to be part of the NPAS, there is still no official Private Protected Area (PPA) in the NPAS. Hence, to date PPAs that do exist in Dominican Republic are not integrated into the NPAS, but function as stand-alone PAs outside the PA System. These PPAs therefore fall outside of the system boundary for this project. In terms of time, baseline and incremental costs have been assessed over the planned 3-year life-span of the project.

Summary of Costs

225. The incremental cost matrix that follows summarizes baseline costs and incremental activity costs for each outcome of the project. The total baseline amounts to $1,650,000. The costs of the incremental activities required to contribute to global benefits are $11,822,000, $3,200,000 of which will be financed by GEF and $8,622,000 provided by co-financers. The latter have stated their commitment to the project through written letters signed by their legal representatives.

Table1. Incremental Cost Assessment

Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 TotalsBaselineDSTA 30,000 150,000 180,000POGEREN 108,000 84,000 8,000 200,000GEF/TNC/et.al 50,000 50,000 30,000 130,000SEMARENA 50,000 1,035,000 1,085,000World Bank 25,000USAID/TNC 30,000Totals 243,000 334,000 1,073,000 1,650,000

The GEF Alternative has a total cost of $13,472,000, of which GEF resources represent 24% (excluding PPG resources)

73

Table 2. Incremental Cost MatrixBenefits and Costs Baseline Increment/AlternativeDomestic Benefits(national and local)

The PA System does not have sufficient financial and human resources, and those that do exist are not distributed efficiently and in a timely manner among PAs, in accordance with their requirements and realities. Consequently, effective cooperation is hindered and measurements of effectiveness among PAs are prevented.

SEMARENA’s old institutional, structural and administrative structures remain, which makes the NPAS inefficient and limit the introduction of effective administrative models for PAs.

There are few mechanisms/models for participation of the private sector or local communities in PA management and biodiversity conservation. As a result, collaborative management and the equitable distribution of the benefits derived from conservation are limited.

Tourism is only an option for few PAs, since most PAs within the NPAS are missing vital staff and infrastructure to accommodate visitation.

With the consolidation of the NPAS Sustainable Financing Strategy and Business Plan, SEMARENA will advance the efficiency of its administration and will incorporate successful models of PA administration.

The PA Patrimonial Fund and instruments that ensure the NPAS’s financial sustainability, such as PES, are being established/developed, and will enable the generation of financial resources for the PA system in the long term.

The development of a system for managing knowledge, evaluation and adaptation to build capacities for financial and ecological management of the PA system will contribute to better PA management, which in turn will capture greater resources and provide more attraction for sustainable tourism.

The development of successful models in the pilot PAs for the establishment of strategic PA co-management alliances with other actors will enable the coordination of different stakeholders in conservation and sustainable development.

Global benefits On paper the NPAS adequately encompass a significant part of the D.R.’s full range of ecosystems/vegetation zones. However, given that 60.47% of the PA units have no personnel on location at all, the System as a whole fail to provide a framework for effective long-term conservation of globally significant biodiversity.

Insufficient financing and inadequate management and operational frameworks and capacities result in poorly managed PA units that frequently fail to conserve globally significant biodiversity even within established PA borders.

Communities and private sector players, both within PAs and in their surrounding areas, continue to use natural resources in ways that pressure natural ecosystems. They also continue to have little participation in PA management or knowledge of the role PAs play as providers of economic opportunities an ecosystem services and as contributors to overall quality of life.

A sufficiently financed NPAS will enable more effective conservation and management of over 10,529.38 km2 - or 21.85% of national terrestrial territory - as compared to baseline efforts. The project will pay particular attention to Grasslands and Broadleaf forest (cloud, lower montane, and upper montane) in the 18 priority PAs – or a total of 711,489 ha - where previous negative cover loss trends have been noted.

The enhancement of the NPAS will also set the stage for future incorporation of additional PAs, notably new Private PAs/Reserves over the long term. Combined, these improvements will significantly increase the conservation of globally significant biodiversity in the Dominican Republic.

A strengthened legal, policy and institutional framework for PAs in D.R. will improve the capacity of PAs to conserve globally significant biodiversity. It will also allow SEMARENA to make strategic decisions regarding the allocation of financial, human and technical resources to PA units with the highest biodiversity values and potential for successful conservation.

Development and testing of successful PA management models and sustainable economic uses of PA resources (e.g. nature-based tourism and PES) will facilitate the establishment of strategic alliances for PA management and conservation of globally significant biodiversity resources. It will also allow for the configuration of new areas as buffer zones and conservation corridors, thus guaranteeing greater representativeness of ecosystems and globally significant biodiversity.

74

PART II: Logical Framework Analysis / Strategic Results Framework

Objectively verifiable indicators

Goal Safeguard the globally significant biodiversity values of the Dominican Republic

Objectives/Outcomes

Indicator Baseline Target Sources of verification

Assumptions

Project Objective: Consolidation of the financial sustainability of the National Protected Areas System (NPAS)

1. Increase in financial capacity of National Protected Areas’ System (NPAS) in Dominican Republic as measured through improvement in the Total Average Score for all PA sub-systems in the UNDP Financial Scorecard (SECTION IV: Annex 2) that includes 3 components as follows:

Governance frameworks that enable sustainable PA financing;

Business planning and other tools for cost-effective management;

Tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization.

Total score 67 (or 34% of the maximum possible score) Scorecard Baseline

Component 1 29 (37%)Component 2 14 (23%)Component 3 24 (42%)

Total score 125 (or 63% of the maximum possible score) by end of projectScorecard Target

Component 1 51 (65%)Component 2 36 (59%)Component 3 38 (67%)

1. UNDP Financial Scorecard applied at project start, MTE and TE28

- No unforeseen changes in the commitment of the GoDR in the implementation of planned project activities.

- The range of revenue mechanisms proposed by the project continue to be viable and are supported by the GoDR and co-funders

2. Reduction in gap between available funding and levels needed for management to meet established basic standards for NPAS and its PAs

The funding gap is almost US$15.7 million – or 69% - per year. (To be reconfirmed and adjusted by year 2).

Funding gap is reduced to 53% by end of project

2. Project reports, NPAS financial reports.

28 The Financial Scorecard will be applied again by Project Initiation, as the official format will be changed by then. Also, the Scorecard applied during the PPG phase was used in a slightly different version from the current official one, which could create some confusion in the future, unless it is re-done.

75

- No severe climate-induced shock undermine conservation of biodiversity within DR’s PAs

- Macroeconomic factors or GoDR incentives do not increase pressures for conversion to other land uses.

3. Increase in PA management effectiveness as measured by METT scores for all PAs with on-site staff (34 PAs units): 5 Strict Natural Reserves, 15 National Parks, 9 Natural Monuments and 5 Wildlife Refuges) (SECTION IV: Annex 1), based on the following definitions: High (75-100), Medium (55-74), Low ( <55).

By project start:- High 4 PA- Medium 25 PA- Low 5 PA

By end of project:- High 10 PA- Medium 24 PA- Low 0 PA

3. METT application to 34 sample PA at MTE and TE

4. Ecosystem-level indicator: The amount of area with conflicting land cover change in critical terrestrial ecosystems (711,489 ha) in 18 PAs reduced and no additional land-use anomalies during the life of the project due to enhanced PA management

Within the 18 priority PAs, the PPG-prepared land cover analysis demonstrates the following: (i) a loss of wet and moist broad-leaf forests; (ii) a loss of grasslands; (iii) an increase in coffee/cacao and sugar cane production; (iv) a shift from short cycle agriculture to grazing; (v) and an increase in population or human settlement within PAs.

The baseline information comparing 1996 to 2003 needs to be revised to revisit the trends and validate the targets during the inception phase.

Also, criteria were not uniform for the mentioned time periods data set, with new categories added and contributing to mis-interpretation.

The data set also does not define key ecosystems based on the recent TNC Biodiversity Gap Analysis.

The baseline for the project will therefore be re-evaluated with international expert

No net negative change in cover in terrestrial ecosystems in 18 PAs registered by end of project.

Change in baseline cover in key terrestrial ecosystems re-evaluated by the end of project.1. No broadleaf forest loss from baseline.2. No additional loss of grasslands3. No additions of subsistence agriculture. 4. Increases in permanent cover in in-holdings or maintenance of permanent pasture may be desirable

GIS information

Approval of baseline by SEMARENA, TNC, UNDP, and RCU, UNDP-GEF

Multi-temporal study satellite images

GIS information revised at end-of-project. Report of trend analysis

76

support during the inception phase or the project. The final baseline will be determined based on this re-evaluation.

5. Specific ecosystem and species-level indicators for long-term biological monitoring are selected

Note: Assisted by an international consultant, indicators will be selected as the PPG phase was unable to resolve disagreements over the concept of “indicator species” to measure and over which species are truly indicators. This issue was compounded by uncertainty over methodologies, roles and responsibilities for capturing and managing information. Output 2.6 described above will address these issues.

Agreement on biological indicators or M&E system design that identifies and validates biological indicators for long-term monitoring does not exist in the Dominican Republic

Biological indicators of representative species/ecosystems will be selected during Year 1.

An agreed upon Biological Monitoring and Evaluation Framework with officially endorsedecosystem and species-level indicators for long-term monitoring

Outcome 1: Increased and diversified NPAS funding

1. Strengthened Governance frameworks for sustainable PA financing, measured as increased scores in the following elements of Component 1 of UNDP Financial scorecard : Legal, policy and regulatory

support for revenue generation by PAs (Element 1)

Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue sharing within the PA system (Element 2)

Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing endowment or trust funds (Element 3)

National PA financing strategies (Element 5)

Economic valuation of PA

By project start:

Element BaselineElement 1 5 (83%)Element 2 4 (44%)Element 3 0 (0%)Element 5 5 (38%)Element 6 2 (33%)Element 7 2 (33%)

By end of project:

Element TargetElement 1 5 (83%)Element 2 6 (67%)Element 3 4 (44%)Element 5 12 (92%)Element 6 4 (67%)Element 7 4 (67%)

1. UNDP Financial Scorecard applied at project start, MTE and TE

77

systems (Element 6) Improved government budgeting

for PA systems (Element 7)2. Strengthened business planning and other tools for cost-effective management as measured by an increased score in the following element of Component 2 of UNDP Financial scorecard: Operational, transparent and

useful accounting and auditing systems (Element 2)

Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance (Element 3)

Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites (Element 4)

By project start:

Element BaselineElement 2 8 (67%)Element 3 3 (25%)Element 4 0 (0%)

By end of project:

Element Target Element 2 9 (75%)Element 3 6 (50%)Element 4 2 (50%)


- No unforeseen reductions in PA funding

- The exchange and inflation rates remain within predictable ranges

- Tourism projections for DR are achieved3. Strengthened tools and

systems for revenue generation and mobilization measured as an increased score in the following elements of Component 3 of UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard Rating:

Increase in number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA system (Element 1)

Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA system (Element 2)

Effective fee collection systems (Element 3)

Marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms (Element 4)

Operational PES schemes for PAs (Element 5)

Operational concessions within PAs (Element 6)

By project start:

Element BaselineElement 1 4 (44%)Element 2 7 (47%)Element 3 1 (33%)Element 4 1 (33%)Element 5 4 (33%)Element 6 6 (50%)

By end of project:

Element TargetElement 1 6 (67%)Element 2 11 (73%)Element 3 2 (67%)Element 4 2 (67%)Element 5 6 (50%)Element 6 9 (75%)


4. Increase in Government funds annually expended in NPAS

$4.6 m expended in NPAS in 2007

US$7.1 m/year by end of project (based on approved

3. GoDR public budget

78

2007 government budget for NPAs)

document; Financial reports of SEMARENA

5. Annual funds received by NPAS from innovative financing mechanisms (local fund, carbon, PES, increased fees etc.)

$0 US$ 100,000 by end of project 4.Financial reports of SEMARENA

6. Increase in annual NPAS revenues from visitor fees.

US$1.61 m in 2008 At least US$2.3 m/year by end of project (resulting from increased income generation on 18 priority PAs)

5. Financial reports of SEMARENA

7. Increase in resources generated by the PA Patrimonial Fund available for investment in PA management above the level of capitalization

$ 0 At least US$1.16 million by end of project (US$ 290,000 per year)

6. Financial reports of Trust Fund

8. Increase in PA Patrimonial Fund equity over the inflation rate

$ 0 At least 3% over the inflation rate by end of project

7. Financial reports of Trust Fund

Output 1.1: NPAS Financing Strategy and Business Plan approved

Output 1.2: PA Patrimonial Fund operationalized, capitalized and regulated

Output 1.3: Revenue generation in PAs increased due to updated fees for visitation and services and improved fee collection systemsOutput 1.4: Permanent system for valuation of Ecosystem Benefits and Services that channels information to decision makers

Output 1.5: Online Financial Management System and fee collection mechanisms for NPAS

Output 1.6: SEMARENA’s financial planning and budget execution improved

79

Outcome 2: Improved PA management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with highest revenue generation potential

1. Strengthened Governance frameworks for sustainable PA financing, measured as increased scores in the following elements of Component 1 of UNDP Financial scorecard : Legal, policy and regulatory

support for alternative institutional arrangements for PA management (Element 4)

Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for PA management and financing (Element 8)

Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level (Element 9)

By project start:

Element BaselineElement 4 8 (67%)Element 8 2 (67%)Element 9 1 (7%)

By end of project:

Element TargetElement 4 10 (83%)Element 8 2 (67%)Element 9 4 (27%)


- Institutions and individuals successfully apply new skills

- New revenue mechanisms and on-site investments in priority PAs are successful, thus increasing the impact of the application of new skills

2. Strengthened business planning and other tools for cost-effective management as measured by an increased score in the following element of Component 2 of UNDP Financial scorecard: PA Site-level business

planning (Element 1) Training and support

networks to enable park managers to operate more cost-effectively (Element 5)

By project start:

Element BaselineElement 1 1 (6%)Element 5 2 (13%)

By end of project:

Element Target Element 1 8 (44%)Element 5 9 (60%)


3. Strengthened tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization measured as an increased score in the following elements of Component 3 of UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard Rating:

PA training programmes on revenue generation

By project start:

Element BaselineElement 7 1 (33%)

By end of project:

Element TargetElement 7 2 (67%)


80

mechanisms (Element 7)

4. Increase in PA management effectiveness in 18 Priority PAs as measured by and increment in the METT scores

NOTE – The METT will be applied to a total of 34 PA units within the NPAS. The 18 priority PA for this indicator is a sub-set of the 34 PAs selected for their high potential in increased revenue generation and high BD value (see SECTION IV: Annex 1). The needed scores for this indicator will be calculated in addition to the total broad average for each PA unit needed for Indicator 3 in Outcome 1 above.

Baseline METT scores: 64.05% (18 AP)

Capacity level

Baseline (Average

%)Monitoring and Evaluation

29.67

Quantity of personnel 64.66

Budget 62.04Research 40.66Land use planning 48.15

Management Plans 42.66

Maintenance of equipment and infrastructure

40.74

Education and awareness raising

41.67

Capacity of staff 54.66

Linkages with local communities

54.0

Facilities for visitors 54.70

Target METT scores: 85.00% (18AP) by end of project

Capacity level

Target(Average /

%)Monitoring and Evaluation

70.0

Quantity of personnel 95.0

Budget 95.0Research 70.0Land use planning 65.0

Management Plans 85.0

Maintenance of equipment and infrastructure

85.0

Education and awareness raising

85.0

Capacity of staff 90.0

Linkages with local communities

85.0

Facilities for visitors

85.0

2. METT application to 18 priority PAs at MTE and TE

(NOTE – METT will applied to a total of 34 PAs during project implementation. The 18 priority PAs is a sub-set of the larger group from Indicator 1 in Project Objective).

5. Increase in number of PAs with the necessary conditions for boosting revenue from visits and other services

NOTE – 18 priority PA have been selected for their high potential for increased revenue generation for the

0 PA 18 PA by end of project 3. Project Mid-term and Final Evaluation

81

NPAS. Annex 5 (Priority PAs) elaborates on selection criteria and defines which conditions are considered necessary for boosting revenue.6. 18 prioritized PAs with Management Plans

8 Prioritized PAs have outdated and incomplete management plans per official guidelines

One PA has a completed Management plan

(NOTE – see details in Narrative Logframe)

By end of project: 9 updated management

plans 9 management plans

4. PA Management Plans

7. % staffing of technical-administrative NPAS staff (system-wide and PA site level) with sufficient competence and skills required for their role in the PA System

TBD by Year 1 of project.

NOTE – Based on ongoing SEMARENA-TNC collaboration, the project will define the standards and required competencies and skills needed for key roles/positions within NPAS. So the baseline will be defined by the first year of project.

By end of project; 50% (133) park rangers, 100% (35) administrators

and 100% (32) provincial

directors and at the municipal level

6. PA Business Plans; SEMARENA Training reports; Project Progress Reports

8. A Monitoring and Evaluation System with integrated financial, operational and ecological data

There is no integrated NPAS Monitoring and Evaluation System.Yet, some disparate components for a future system are in place. The status is as follows:Financial: No financial baseline No financial M&E Preliminary Financial Score

CardOperational: Preliminary METT scoresEcological: No consolidated biological

By end of project, all M&E components are established and the following will be operational:Financial: Financial baseline

established (TNC study finalized)

Basic financial M&E operational based on Annual Operational Plans, budget formulation and management

Financial Score Card systematized and

7. SEMARENA Financial Reports; Project Mid-term and Final Evaluation

82

M&E Established GIS system

that is capable of measuring land use cover change (LUCC).

Overall: There is no institutional

interpretation of data to support decision making

institutionalized from being measured 3 times during project implementation (beginning, mid and end)

Operational: METT scores systematized

and institutionalized through two measurements during project duration (mid and end)

Ecological:Based on recommendations from project consultancies: Biological indicators of

representative species/ecosystems selected during Year 1

Incipient biological M&E initiatedInstitutionalized regular measurement of land use cover change (LUCC) through GIS Unit.

Overall: Integral system and

institutional capacity that allows for interpretation of data to support decision making

NOTE – These activities will be carefully harmonized with SEMARENA and TNC’s ongoing plans and activities to establish all necessary baselines for a future M&E System.

Output 2.1: Revised Sector Law on PAs supports consolidation, decentralization, and rationalization of PAs.

Output 2.2: Management Plans either updated or completed in 14 of 18 priority PAs

Output 2.3: Business Plans developed for 18 priority PAs

Output 2.4: Enhanced PA-level physical Capital to improve PA management in the 18 priority PAs.

Output 2.5: Enhanced System and PA-level human capital to improve PA management in the PA

83

Output 2.6: NPAS Knowledge Management, Monitoring and Evaluation System Developed

Outcome 3:Co-management arrangements to underwrite PA management costs

1. Regulatory framework provisions on PA Co-management

Draft Regulations and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected Areas pending official approval.

By Year 1, approved Rules and Procedures.

1. Final approved Rules and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected Areas document

-Support of political authorities for collaborative PA management relationship

-Willingness of local actors (communities and private sector) to participate in and share PA management responsibilities.

2. Effective institutional coordination entities between SEMARENA and local stakeholders (communities and private sector) to foster cooperation and resolve conflicts with regard to co-management arrangements

Proposal for Shared Management Unit within SEMARENA pending approval

Proposal for Shared PA Management Board pending approval

By Year 1, Shared Management Unit within SEMARENA established and operational

By Year 1, Shared PA Management Board established and operational

2. Shared Mgt Unit and Shared PA Mgt Board in operation

Project Mid-term and Final Evaluation

3. No. of PAs with Co-management Agreement in line with the new regulatory framework provisions on co-management

0 Co-management Agreements

At least 18 co-management agreements by the end of project

3. Co-management agreements formally signed.

4. No. of PAs with legal land ownership status defined

0 PAs 9 PAs by the end of project 4. Report on land ownership status for each PA

5. No. of PAs with clarified boundaries registered in the National Cadastral Survey Registry

0 PAs 3 pilots PAs (Loma Quita Espuela/Loma Guaconejo, Saltos Damajagua and Los Quemados ) will be officially registered with clarified boundaries in the National Cadastral Survey Registry by the end of project

5. Registration in the Registry

6. No. of conservation easements established

0 PAs 3 easements negotiated by the end of project

6. PA progress reports

Output 3.1: Regulatory and strategic framework for private PAs and concessions

Output 3.2: Approved national Regulations and Procedures for Shared Management of Protected29 provides foundation for planned co-management agreements

84

in 18 priority PAs

Output 3.3: Effective co-management coordination mechanisms between SEMARENA and local stakeholders established

Output 3.4: Land tenancy in selected PAs clarified

Output 3.5: Three model Conservation Easements established

Output 3.6: Innovative financing mechanisms demonstrated in model projects

29 The Reglamento y Procedimientos de Gestión Compartida de Áreas Protegidas.

85

SECTION III: TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

Award ID 00058360Award Title National Protected AreaBusiness Unit DOM10Project Title Re-engineering the National Protected Area System in Order to Achieve Financial SustainabilityProject ID 00072467PIMS No 3424Implementing Partner SEMARENA

The following is an indicative Workplan and Budget based on the project Total Workplan and Budget (TWPB). The TWPB will be revisited during the inception workshop with updates and notes taken to guide the development of the annual workplans and budgets. The annual workplan and budget for CY1 will also be ratified during the inception workshop.

GEF Outcome/Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/ Implementing Agent

Fund ID Donor Name

Atlas Budgetary Account

Code

ATLAS Budget Description

Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

AmountYear 4(USD)

Total (USD)See

Budget Note:

OUTCOME 1: Increased and diversified NPAS funding.

UNDP 62000 GEF

71200 International Consultants 36,000 52,000 16,000 0 104,000 1

71300 Local Consultants 46,050 46,050 16,800 0 108,900 2

71400 Contractual services – Individuals 24,600 16,000 0 0 40,600 3

71600 Travel 12,150 15,170 13,400 4,000 44,720 4

72100 Contractual Services- companies 0 161,000 65,000 30,000 256,000 5

72220 Equip. & Furniture 47,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 182,000 672300 Materials & goods 1,200 1,200 2,000 1,200 5,600 773400 Rental & Maint. 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 874100 Professional Services 0 3,000 0 3,000 6,000 974200 Audio Vis/Print prod. 1,000 1,100 1,000 1,000 4,100 1074500 Misc. 3,800 6,800 6,800 4,000 21,400 1100000 Trust Fund Capital 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 12

SUB-TOTAL GEF OUTCOME 1 427,800 355,320 169,000 86,200 1,038,320

OUTCOME 2:UNDP 62000 GEF

71200 Int’l Consultants 0 48,000 0 0 48,000 1371300 Local Consultants 16,800 35,600 16,800 10,000 79,200 14

71400 Contractual services – individuals 100,000 214,000 214,000 127,000 655,000 15

86

Improved PA management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with

71600 Travel 1,200 12,100 8,450 6,000 27,750 16

72100 Contract. Serv.-Companies. 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 17

72220 Equip & Furniture 0 0 9,200 0 9,200 1872300 Materials & goods 40,000 40,000 193,438 3,492 276,930 1974200 Audio vis & print 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 4,800 20

74500 Miscellaneous-training 3,000 10,000 7,000 6,500 26,500 21

SUB-TOTAL GEF OUTCOME 2 172,200 360,900 450,088 154,192 1,137,380

OUTCOME 3: Co-management arrangements to underwrite PA management costs

UNDP 62000 GEF

71200 Int’l Consultants 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 2271300 Local Consultants 36,000 31,200 16,800 0 84,000 2371400 Contact serv. Ind. 40,000 50,000 50,000 18,000 158,000 2471600 Travel 9,900 1,800 1,600 2,000 15,300 25

72100 Contractual services – companies 212,500 212,500 0 0 425,000 26

74200 AV & Print Prod. 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 27

74500 Miscellaneous-workshops 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 15,000 28

SUB-TOTAL GEF OUTCOME 3 304,400 304,500 72,400 23,000 704,300

Project Management UNDP 62000 GEF

71200 Int’l Consultants 10,000 0 10,000 0 20,000 2971300 Local Consultants 25,000 25,000 25,000 24,900 99,000 30

71400 Contractual services – individuals 16,000 31,000 56,000 0 103,000 31

71600 Travel 5,100 5,400 4,100 2,500 17,100 32

72100 Contractual services-companies 7,400 7,400 7,400 10,000 32,200 33

72220 Equipment & Furn. 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 3472300 Materials & Goods 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 4,800 3572400 Comm & AV Equip. 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 3673200 Premises Alterations 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 3774100 Prof. Services. 2,500 2,500 3,000 2,000 10,000 3874200 Audio Vis/Print prod. 500 500 500 500 2,000 3974500 Miscellaneous 5,500 5,500 4,000 4,000 19,000 40

SUB-TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT 85,200 78,500 111,200 45,100 320,000

PROJECT TOTAL 989,600 1,099,220 802,688 308,492 3,200,000

87

TOTAL BUDGET SUMMARY30

AmountYear 1(USD)

AmountYear 2(USD)

AmountYear 3(USD)

Amount Year 4(USD) Total (USD)

GEF 989,600 1,099,220 802,688 308,492 3,200,000

Government of DR (SEMARENA): Cash – for project investments 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000Government of DR (SEMARENA): Cash - PA Patrimonial Fund Capitalization 294,000 0 0 0 294,000Government of DR (SEMARENA): In-kind 120,000 120,000 120,000 123,000 483,000

UNDP: Cash – for project 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 45,000TNC (NGO): Cash - PA Patrimonial Fund Capitalization 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000TNC (NGO): In-kind - for PA Investments 750,000 750,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000

KfW via TNC: Cash - PA Patrimonial Fund Capitalization 2,500,000 0 0 0 2,500,000

KfW via TNC: Cash - for PA support 250,000 250,000 0 0 500,000

TOTAL 6,918,600 2,334,220 1,537,688 1,031,492 11,822,000

Part II: Budget Notes

No Budget Items CommentsOUTCOME 1: Increased and diversified NPAS funding.

1 71200 - International Consultants

International consultants 48 pers-weeks distributed as follows:(a) PA Financing specialist #1: 24 person weeks @2,000.00 = 48,000 to support output 1.1- development of PA financing

strategy and backstop national PA financing expert.(b) PA Financing specialist #2: 8 pers-weeks @2,000 = 16,000 to support output 1.6 technical assistance in financial

decision-making

30 Summary table should include all financing of all kinds: GEF financing, cofinancing, cash, in-kind, etc..

88

(c) Environmental economist 16 pers-weeks @2,500= 40,000. Economic valuation of NPAS at the system-level and work with national multi-disciplinary teams providing methodology and technical backstopping.

2 71300 - Local Consultants

Local consultant inputs include 121 pers-weeks:(a) Project Coordinator. 42 pers-weeks to support outcome 1. Provides oversight of international and national consultants

and support to the execution of their activities and guidance on the overall process of coordinating numerous consultants for the execution of the financial management system and co-financier support.

(b) National PA Financing Specialist– 79 pers-weeks@ 750 = 58,000 to support the development of PA business plans and individual business plans for 18 at the rate of one/month plus 6 additional months to work with international consultant. Development of the Trust Fund Strategic Investment Plan and Manual.

NOTE - The funding for the Project Coordinator position is covered as follows:This is a full-time position, but with responsibilities divided up between project management and technical inputs: 126 pers-weeks (i.e. 61% effort) are dedicated to the technical aspects of the project, all of which are GEF-funded. This latter amount is reflected equally under each of the three outcomes (i.e. 42 weeks/ outcome). In addition, 82 person weeks (or 39% effort) concerns the administration part of project management, where 30 weeks is GEF funded, while an additional 52 weeks are co-financed.

3 71400 - Contractual services – Individuals

Contractual Services-Individuals include:(a) Economist: 16 Pers-weeks@ 1000/wk. = 16,000 to support the analysis of the PA price points for services, monitor

effects of changes in pricing, and recommendations for upscaling.(b) Strategic Planner: 12 Pers-week@ 400 to support strategic planning between SEMARENA and SECTUR in support of

output 1.3. (c) National PES Facilitator: 1 contract @ 19,800 to provide guidance on a PES strategy and implement 6 stakeholder

meetings and on-site visits to 18 PAs.

4 71600 - Travel

Travel: includes international travel for international consultants and national-level travel for Staff and support persons to PAs:(a) International travel totals 50 days @ $150/day. = 7,500.(b) International airfares: 5 trips @ $800.00. (c) National consultants in Pricing, PES, and Project Coordinator visits to PAs= 174 pers-days @50.00= $8,700. (d) SEMARENA logistical support to PAs, PES, and Training in PA Financing = 204 pers-days @50.00= 10,200. (e) Fuel costs:2 tanks per week x 104 weeks @ 40.00 = 8,320.

5 72100 - Contractual Services- companies

Service Contracts to companies:(a) PA Marketing campaign and PES: 80,000(b) Dissemination of PES: $20,000(c) PES Information Campaign & Results: $60,000(d) Dissemination of PES to decision-makers: 30,000

89

(e) Fee Management & Training: $66,000

6 72220 - Equip. & Furniture

Equipment & Furniture: Computers for PES unit:$2,000; Electrical installations (solar panels and equipment) 18 PAs x $5,000= $90,000. Computer and cellular communications for financial management system in 18 PAsx$5,000 = $90,000.

7 72300 - Materials & goods

Materials and goods: Office supplies to support business planning process $1,200; Office supplies to support Outcome 1 general activities: $2,400; Materials for training workshops in financial management: 20 workshops @ $100= 2,000.

8 73400 - Rental & Maint.Rental and Maintenance: Vehicle rental for SEMARENA logistical support and for visits to PAs to develop PES strategy 150 days x $100= 15,000

9 74100 - Professional Services

Professional services: Translation: Business Strategy and PA Economic Valuation Report 2 documentsx100 pagesx30.00= 6,000.

10 74200 - Audio Vis/Print prod.

Audio-Visual and Print Production Costs: System and PA business plans, Trust Fund Annual Statements, and PA promotional materials.

11 74500 - Misc.Miscellaneous expenses cover sundry expenses $6,000 plus costs of trust fund board and inter-agency meetings: $5,400 and events to disseminate business plans $10,000.

12 00000 - Trust Fund Capital

Deposit to capitalize PA Patrimonial Fund

OUTCOME 2: Improved PA management effectiveness and efficiency in 18 priority PAs with highest revenue generation potential


International Consultants includes:

(a) Int’l TOT and PA Administration and Planning: 12 pers weeks @ 2,000 to develop curriculum and TOT activities with a national specialist and SEMARENA training staff. Execute the Institutional Staff Assessment in coordination with the national OD expert.

(b) Int’l M+E System Needs Assessment and consulting: 12 pers-weeks @2,000 to analyze the information needs and assist in the structure of a Monitoring and Evaluation System.


Local Consultants

(a) Project Coordinator: 42 pers-weeks to support the development of Outcome 2: Develop TDRs, facilitate consultants, and evaluate progress of the consultancies and activities. Coordinate between contractors and government agencies.

(b) Organizational Development Specialist: 12 pers-weeks to complete the Institutional Assessment and training in PA organization.

(c) Contract Trainer: 12 pers-weeks to assist in organizing and implementing the TOT activities. Backstopped by the International Trainer in PA Administration.


Contractual Services-Individuals:

(a) Completion of Management Plans: 5 Contracts for the completion and updating of existing management plans. $12,000 each.

90

(b) Development of Management Plans: 13 contracts to develop Management Plans where complete plans do not exist. Work in coordination with SEMARENA and Project Coordinator to expedite studies. Each contract has a maximum of $20,000.00 available through a bidding process.

(c) Development of Business Plans: 18 contracts worth approximately $12,000 each. Work to be performed under the guidance of the Project Coordinator and the National and international PA Financing Experts, all of whom will coordinate the flow of information.

16 71600 - Travel

Travel: Travel includes: costs of 1 visit per PA for the project Coordinator. $2700.00; Lobby visits to take legislators to visit PAs and Lobby activities in Santo Domingo $$3,000; 1 Airfare for the International Organizational Development Specialist $800; and DSA valued at $2,500. Finally, DSA for trainee costs of PA administration modular courses $15 modules x 25 persons x $50.00 = 18,750.


Contractual Services-Companies: Company or NGO to manage the dissemination of the updated PA Law; $10,000. Involves 3 stakeholder public awareness meetings and makes recommendations for the improvement of the legislation based on public comment.


Equipment and Furniture: 3 computers for SEMARENA’s GIS unit to manage the updating of special information at a cost of 4,200 and a Tremble-GEO System worth $5,000.


Materials and Goods: Mostly related to updating the GIS information needed for analysis of the PAs, including: images worth 183,520, Paper, toner, and batteries worth $7368 and workshop materials and office supplies worth $6150. The project will support basic infrastructure in PAs to match SEMARENA investments. The improvements will be detailed and approved by UNDP through the annual planning process. Initial estimates are: 2 Observation towers for whalewatching: 30,000; small boat launches 9,000; and improvements to rest rooms and visitor centers 40,892.

20 74200 – Audio visual & print

Audio Visual and Print Production Costs: copies of the new PA Law for dissemination, Printing of PA management plans and business plans for comment, and training materials for TOT events on PA Administration.

21 74500 – Miscellaneous - training

Miscellaneous: (a) training expenses $15,000, M+E planning event $2,500, and miscellaneous expenses $9,000.

OUTCOME 3: Co-management arrangements to underwrite PA management costs


International Consultants: Int’l expert on easements & land trusts: 2 pers-weeks @ 2500.


Local consultant inputs include:

(a) Project Coordinator: 42 pers-weeks to support the development of Outcome 3: Develop TORs, facilitate pilot projects and manage the land tenancy process with partners. Coordinate between contractors and government agencies.

(b) Land Tenancy Analyst: 16 pers-weeks @ 1200 = 19,200 to develop a proposal and approach to the land tenancy situation and problem analysis and TOR for a service contract to pilot a land tenancy experience with stakeholder and inter-agency input.

(c) (c) Legal advisor/ consultant: 12 pers-weeks @ 1200. National counterpart to Int’l advisor on easements. Role is to add

91

the legal context to the international consultancy and facilitate workshops that will determine the types of easements and legal instruments to be applied and uncover any legal obstacles that might be encountered.

(d) Provides a final legal analysis and follow-up once those products are developed and works in liaison capacity with SEMARENA’s legal council.


Service Contracts- Individuals:(a) Policy Analysis #1: Private Reserves: 1 contract @ 10,000 to review the legal aspects of private reserves, viewpoints, and

issues. Develop recommendations for the first Private reserves and clear recommendations in4 multi-stakeholder meetings.

(b) Policy Analysis #2: Concessions: 1 contract @ 18,000. Review of potential concessions and provide recommendations for Policy regarding concessions. Validate recommendations in 2 stakeholder meetings.

(c) PA boundary Registration: 1 contract at (est.) $100,000. In response to TOR developed by the land tenancy analyst, a firm will be sought to develop a solution for one or several of the PA’s land tenure situation. The work will be evaluated for its effectiveness in finding a solution for the complicated land tenure issues. The target sites will be determined by authorities from a multi-agency task force.

(d) Surveyors: 3 Surveying contracts to set the stage for negotiating easements on Pilot Project sites.

25 71600 - Travel

Travel: Travel expenses in Outcome 3 include travel for the international expert on easements, and food costs for key meetings and workshops:(a) Airfare: Int’l Easement expert: 1 trip @ 800; DSA calculated at 10 days @ 250/day.(b) 3 workshop events to disseminate Rules and Standards @ 2,000 ea. 3 rural events to present results of easement analysis

@ 1,20; and meeting costs for a co-management board (8 meetings) and also for an inter-agency task force to address land tenancy issues (8 meetings) totaling 4,800.


Contractual Services-Companies:(a) (a)Pilot Project: Saltos Damajagua: $147,000(b) Pilot Project: Loma Guaconejo-Quita Espuela: $196,000(c) Pilot Project: Los Quemados: $82,000.


Audiovisual and Print costs: Dissemination of Rules and Standards for Co-management.


Miscellaneous- est. Misc. expenses are 5,000/year for 3 years. = 15,000

PROJECT MANAGEMENT


International consultants: Monitoring and Evaluation Expert to qualify indicators: 10 pers-weeks $20,000 The purpose of this consultancy is to enhance management decision-making of the GEF project. This person will take the lead to establish the baseline indicator baseline for this project, especially concerning the biological indicators. The

92

accumulated information will inform and feed into the technical M+E process, especially the biological one, to be carried out by other consultancies listed under each Outcome. The M+E consultant for the system is a Service Contract, not an individual consultant. Hence, this person will be responsible for travel, per diem, workshop costs, etc. and will work with a national level consultant.


Local consultant inputs include 498 GEF-funded pers-weeks, of a total of US$99,960 of GEF funds:(a) 1 Project Coordinator–30 pers-weeks @ 1200/wk. The Project Coordinator will be the key responsible party for

maintaining the overall project management and for establishing a close partnership relationship with the SEMARENA leadership and other project partners to push through the necessary changes for the financial sustainability of the NPAS. NOTE - The funding for the Project Coordinator position is covered as follows: This is a full-time position, but with responsibilities divided up between project management and technical inputs: 82 person weeks (or 39% effort) concern the administration part of project management, where 30 weeks is GEF funded, while an additional 52 weeks are co-financed. In addition, 126 pers-weeks (i.e. 61% effort) are dedicated to the technical aspects of the project, all of which are GEF-funded. This latter amount is reflected equally under each of the three outcomes (i.e. 42 weeks/ outcome).1 Project Administrator - This is a full-time position for a total effort of 212 pers-weeks @175.oo/wk. US$156 weeks are GEF funded with an additional 52 weeks co-financed.

(b) 1 Project Administrator - To free up the Project Coordinator to focus on the execution of the project outcomes, it was deemed necessary to complement the Project Coordinator with a full-time Project Administrator. This person will be responsible for the overall articulation of the administrative and logistical aspects for the successful implementation of project activities and the achievement of the objectives. As such, key tasks will include leading the day to day management of the PMU in the absence of the Project Coordinator and otherwise focus on project aspects, such as oversight of all work plans, project budgets, procurement and recruitment/staffing issues.

(c) Administrative Assistant: This is a full-time position for a total effort of 212 pers-weeks @US$125.00/week. 156 weeks are GEF funded with an additional 52 weeks co-financed. The Administrative Assistant will provide general secretarial support to the project and operates as an administrative assistant.

(d) Driver: This is a full-time position for a total effort of 212 pers-weeks @ US$110/week. 156 weeks are GEF funded with an additional 52 weeks co-financed. The Driver will provide messenger services and logistical support to Project staff and consultants.


Contractual Services-Individuals concern a total of US$ 103,000 GEF funds:

(a) National M+E Specialist: 18 pers-weeks @ US$725.00/wk works with international consultant, provides M+E before the development of annual workplans = US$13,000

(b) Mid-term evaluation: 1 service contract @ US$30,000

(c) Final evaluation: 1 Service contract @ US$50,000

(d) Inception Workshop Facilitator: 1 service contract @US$10,000

32 71600 - Travel Travel: Travel support to management concern a total of US$17,100 GEF funds and includes:

93

(a) Project Coordinator Airfare: 4 regional trips, of which at least 2 trips will be to Caribbean Challenge events and the remaining trips will be to represent project at regional biodiversity events. 4 X US$800 = US$3,200

(b) DSA and TE Project Coordinator: 4 trips x 5 pers-days x 200.00= US$4,000

(c) International consultant airfares: 3 fares @US$800 = US$2,400.

(d) DSA and TE International Consultants: 3 trips x 10 pers-days x 150= US$4,500

(e) (e) National M+E specialist 6 weeks x 5 days x 100 = US$3,000


Contractual Services – Companies concerns a total of US$ 32,200 of GEF funds, which include:

Utilities, phone and internet service over the 4-year life time of the project = US$7,200

Audit Services: 1 contract @; 5 audits x 5,000= US$25,000


Equipment and Furniture concerns a total of US$3,000 of GEF funds, which include:

office equipment 1 office x 3 pers x 1,000 = US$3,000


Materials and goods concerns a total of US$3,600 of GEF funds, which include: Office supplies $3,600

36 72400 – Comm & AV Equip.

Comm. And AV Equipment: A total of US$5,000 GEF funds for acquisition of 2 sets of basic presentation and visualization equipment.

37 73200 – Premises Alterations

Premises Alterations: Light repairs and improvements to establish office space for the 4-person Project Management Unit @ US$4,000 of GEF funds.

38 74100 – Prof. Services Professional Services: Translation fees: estimated @ 500 pages @ 20.00 = A total of US$10,000 GEF funds.


Audio Visual and Print Production: estimated at 4 years x 375.00 = Total of US$1,500 GEF funds


Miscellaneous concerns a total of US$20,640 GEF funds, which include: (a) Steering Committee meeting costs $1,500 over 4 years; (b) End of Project Event: $5,000; (c) Miscellaneous project management expenses $14,140 over 4 years.

94

SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PART I: Other Agreements

Letter of Endorsement

95

Letters of co-financing: See separate attachments

96

PART II: TORs for Key Project Staff

Following are the terms of reference for project management staff. The Project Management Unit (PMU) will be staffed by the following, nationally-recruited positions:

Project Coordinator (full-time) Project Administrator (full-time) Administrative Assistant (full-time) Driver (full-time)

These will be further discussed and fine tuned during the inception workshop so that roles and responsibilities and UNDP GEF reporting procedures are defined. During this workshop the Terms of Reference for specific consultants and subcontracts will be fully discussed and, for those consultancies to be undertaken in the first 6 months of the project, full Terms of Reference will be drafted along with the detailing of processes for selection and hiring.

I. Project Coordinator

General Responsibilities:The Project Coordinator (PC) is a full-time position for the duration of the project. He/she shall liaise directly with the UNDP Dominican Republic Country Office (CO), National Project Director and project partners in order to develop the annual work plan for the project. He/she will report to the UNDP-CO Environment Unit and the Project Director located in Santo Domingo. He/she shall be responsible for the overall management and coordination of all aspects of the UNDP-GEF Project, in general and in particular. He/she will provide overall supervision for all GEF-funded staff in the Program Management Unit (PMU). He/she will focus primarily on the policy and technical aspects of the project, as well as guiding and supervising all external policy relations. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the Project. Yet, while signing off on all financial and logistical matters, the day-to-day management of such project aspects will be delegated to his/her deputy, the Project Administrator.

The PC shall liaise directly with designated Government officials, Members of the Project Steering Committee, the Implementing Agency (SEMARENA), the UNDP CO in Santo Domingo and UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Unit, Panama, existing and potential additional project donors, the GEF National Focal Point, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the Project Steering Committee or by the Project Coordinator him/herself. The budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation of the approved Project Document and on the integration of the various donor-funded parallel initiatives.

Specific Duties:The PC will have the following specific duties: Manage the GEF-funded Components of the PMU, its staff, including consultants, and sign off on

project budget and fund matters; Prepare an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document, under the general

supervision of the Project Steering Committee and in close consultation and coordination with staff, GEF, partner Projects, and relevant donors;

Undersign all project requests and progress/financial reports; Ensure that all technical reports (progress, annual Project Implementation Review (PIR), evaluations)

as specified in the approved Project Document are prepared and submitted in a timely fashion to the GEF;

Submit quarterly progress reports to the PSC;

97

Coordinate and monitor the activities in line with milestones and as described in the work and M&E Plan;

Design and establish the (i) monitoring and evaluation framework based on the Project Logical Framework to track project progress on national and site (PA Unit) levels;

Direct the design of mechanism for exchange of experiences and lessons learned, along with the replication strategy to be developed from the demonstration projects;

Supervise the maintenance of the project web-site information on project application guidance, monitoring and evaluation criteria, best practices and lessons learnt, as well as a database of ongoing activities;

Oversee the development of information management tools to ensure evaluation, monitoring and replication activities;

Ensure consistency between the various program elements and related activities provided or funded by other donor organizations;

Sign off on Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors; Maintain an ongoing campaign to promote better inclusion of SEMARENA’s PA directors and their

key staff in the project; Foster and establish close linkages with the other partner projects, with other related national GEF

projects, and, where appropriate, other relevant regional GEF PA Management/Sustainable PA Financing projects within and outside of the region;

Represent the Project at meetings and other project related fora within the region and globally, as required.

Qualifications Academic : MSc degree in environment, business administration, natural resources, or a

development-related field. At least 10 years of relevant professional experience, including strong track record in

management of protected areas projects, preferably from the Latin American region or from the Dominican Republic;

Demonstrated understanding of in-situ conservation for a market-oriented economy, including new forms of in-situ conservation;

Proven familiarity with UNDP and GEF modalities, rules and regulations; Proven experience in developing projects with Governments; Strong experience in project monitoring and evaluation. Skills : Project/program development, management and evaluation; excellent communication

skills; negotiations; competent in word processing, spread sheets and data base management computer programmes; excellent management and facilitation skills; and supervisory skills.

Language(s): Excellent networking and communication skills (written, verbal, interpersonal), fluency in Spanish and excellent command of English and asset.

Other : Excellent interpersonal, networking and team leading skills Highly motivated; able to work with little supervision; and a willingness to travel outside Santo

Domingo to project sites and for regional and international meetings.

This is a full time position and requires availability for extensive traveling throughout the country.

II. Project Administrator

General Responsibilities:The Project Administrator (PA) is a full-time position for the duration of the project. The PA shall report directly to the Project Coordinator (PC) and will act as the Deputy Project Coordinator in the absence of

98

the PC. While the PC will sign off on all financial and logistical matters, the day-to-day management of such project aspects will be delegated to the Project Administrator.

Specific Duties:The Project Administrator will have the following specific duties:

Logistical and administrative support In the absence of the PC, as Project Deputy represent the Project at meetings and other project

related fora within the region and globally, as required; Organize the Inception Workshop and other project-related meetings and event in collaboration with

SEMARENA; Based on Inception Workshop discussions, finalize the ToRs for the different Project Committees

and Task Forces (such as the Project Steering Committee and SEMARENA Technical Supervision Committee). Invite members of these Committees, and agree with them on modus operandi;

Work as Secretary and logistically support the Project Steering Committee and the SEMARENA Technical Supervision Committee;

Prepare minutes of meetings and ensure that copies of relevant documents are circulated to SEMARENA, UNDP, the GEF, and key project partners;

Prepare reports and presentation concerning the project to be presented to internal and external fora; Maintain records of project files and other support documents in hard and soft copies.

Human resources management Manage all project-related human resources and consultant aspects (payments, TOR preparation and

recruitment process, consultant and contractor contracts, subcontracts and other project-related transactions, ensuring updated records and information).

Financial management Manage the GEF-funded budget and imprest fund; In close cooperation with PC, ensure conformity of project disbursement requests with procedures,

workplans and availability of resources for expenditure; Advise PC of budget development, and project progress; Alert PC on shortfalls and over-expenditures. Synthesize and generate information on overall project

resources (financial and staff needs); Together with UNDP and SEMARENA, prepare and undertake budget revisions if and when

required and in consultation with the PC and project partners; Prepare and maintain monthly financial reports through knowledge and use of UNDP financial

reporting tools (ATLAS) indicating the approved budget, monthly disbursements and commitments to identify unspent balance of project budget;

Ensure that all financial reports as specified in the approved Project Document are prepared and submitted in a timely fashion to the GEF.

Review quarterly financial reports vis-a-vis expected outputs based on the agreed work plan and correlate financial report with programme report. Advise and propose corrective actions, as necessary, including the re-phasing of activities and budgets;

Monitoring and evaluation

Ensure that hiring of project personnel, procurement of goods and services, and disbursement of funds are undertaken according to UNDP Project Policies and Procedures;

Ensure project compliance with all UNDP and GEF policies, regulations and procedures; Organize project mid-term and final evaluation.

99

Monitor project financial situation and analyse transactions to ensure conformity to agreed project results, outputs, objectives, budget and work plan.

Qualifications Academic : MSc degree in environment, business administration, natural resources, or a

development-related field. At least 7 years of relevant professional experience, including extensive experience and

knowledge of procurement, human resources management and financial/budget preparation, management and monitoring.

Extensive experience in working with the Government of the Dominican Republic from previous involvement in project management in Dominican Republic;

Proven, strong track record with UNDP and GEF modalities, rules and regulations; Previous experience in project reporting, monitoring and evaluation. Skills : Excellent communication skills; very competent in word processing, spread sheets and

data base management computer programmes; excellent management and facilitation skills. Language(s): Native Spanish, and strong command of English, proven ability to prepare reports

in English. Other : Excellent interpersonal and team leading skills Highly motivated; able to work with little supervision; and a willingness to occasionally travel

outside Santo Domingo to project sites and for regional and international meetings.

III. Administrative Assistant

General Responsibilities:The Administrative Assistant is a full-time position for the duration of the project. The Administrative Assistant will provide administrative, logistical and financial support to project implementation in line with UNDP rules and procedures. He/she will report to the Project Administrator or, in his/her absence, the Project Coordinator/Chief Technical Advisor.

Specific Duties:The incumbent will assist the Project Administrator with the administration and monitoring of the aspects of project implementation under his/her responsibility, especially procurement, financial, budgetary and administration. Moreover, duties will include:

I. Administrative/ human resources/ financial management Prepare budget revisions using the ATLAS system and retrieve other financial information as

needed; Maintain appropriate records and processes cancellation of unliquidated obligations at year end; Prepare correspondence, financial reports, charts, graphics, tables, etc.; Arrange appointments and meetings and travel for the Project Administrator with consultants,

project staff and UN colleagues; receive visitors and help to answer inquiries; Arrange for travel for Project Administrator; Draft routine correspondence in Spanish and English; During the absence of the Project Administrator, perform backstopping functions of the portfolio; Perform other related duties within the purview of the project and as assigned by the Project

Administrator or Project Coordinator.

II. Human resources Assist in the drafting of contracts for services/works and associated amendments are required;

100

Review subcontractors invoices and check supporting documentation to ensure that services provided and claimed are in conformity with the terms of the contract;

Check availability of funds, verify and forward Certification for Payments/invoices from consultants/firms to UNDP and follow up on pending matters to ensure that prompt action is taken;

Initiate IMIS and /or ATLAS actions where appropriate, and forward directly to the Approving or Certifying Officer.

II. Procurement Assist in preparing all necessary documentation for Procurement of goods and services through

requests for quotations (RFQ), invitations to bid (ITB), requests for proposals (RFP) or any other appropriate means in accordance with the rules and regulations;

Open and evaluate offers; Prepare submissions for a Contract Review Committee (UNDP/SEMARENA) as necessary; Assist in the preparation of Purchase Orders, Contracts, Long Term Agreements or their

Amendments; Follow up to completion and inform clients. Monitor expenditures against allocations; Maintain records on the procurement process to ensure full transparency and accountability; Draft all correspondence related to procurement matters.

II. Knowledge management Design and update charts and tables utilizing graphic software; initiate, update and track

computer-assisted processing of financial, personnel or other categories of action; Prepare reports and monitor expenditures as appropriate; Establish and maintain working files on all procurement and financial activities; Maintain database on procurement suppliers.

III. Client Services and organisational work ethics and culture Actively work with clients to exchange information on a variety of procurement process and transaction issues to deliver correct and timely services; Respond to incoming calls and to the extent possible, answer questions directly from UNDP,

SEMARENA, consultants, companies etc. regarding various project matters.

Required Competencies & KnowledgeThe following competencies are required:

The ability to work with figures. The ability to draft written communications in Spanish. In English is preferable. Demonstrated excellent organization skills and sound judgment. Conscientious and efficient in meeting deadlines. Results focused. The ability to organize and use time efficiently and effectively. The ability to work in a team environment and to use tact and discretion when dealing with both

internal and external partners

Qualifications/Experience/Language Education : Secondary education with experience and training in accounting/business practices.

Experience: 3 –5 years work experience in administration and operations, preferably with experience in the procurement and financial management field.

Language : Fluency in Spanish. Working knowledge of English is an asset. Other essential Skills: Knowledge of word processing, spreadsheet software, MS Windows and

use of internet.

101

Other desirable Skills: Familiarity with UNDP and SEMARENA systems used for procurement and payment activity (such as ATLAS)

Previous experience within the UN system or with GEF projects will be an asset

In addition to the above three positions, a full-time Project Driver will be hired for the project. This person will provide messenger services and logistical support to Project staff and consultants.

III. Other consultancies and subcontracts

Additional national and international experts will be hired to lead key project components and/or provide technical assistance and expertise on specific issues at critical moments during the project’s life. This will be developed by the Project Coordinator, assisted by the National Project Director and UNDP Dominican Republic, with criteria and details as outlined in the Inception Workshop. The ToRs and hiring of key consultants will be undertaken in liaison with UNDP Dominican Republic and the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) office in Panama. The details of this will be determined in the Inception Workshop and will form part of the Inception Report. Administrative and logistical support staff will be hired to oversee day-to-day implementation.

For the delivery of specific outcomes/activities other subcontracts will be required; for this purpose the project might seek the services of local organizations (e.g., NGOs, universities, research institutions, consulting groups). These contracts will be issued according to UNDP guidelines. Following the procedures and approaches determined in the Inception Workshop the detailed ToRs will be prepared by the Project Coordinator, assisted by the National Project Director and UNDP Dominican Republic, according to the schedule of activities; where appropriate these will be discussed with the RCU.

102

PART III: Stakeholder Involvement Plan

PART I. Stakeholder Participation during Project Preparation

During the project preparation grant (PPG) phase of the Project, the stakeholder participation involved workshops and thematic working groups. These participation fora were:

Introduction workshop. Thematic working groups. Project design workshop. Individual meetings and consultations

1) Introduction WorkshopObjectives: i) to know and validate the project goals, objectives and strategies with the Project staff and other key stakeholders ii) to determine the roles, functions and responsibilities within the project decision-making structures, including the lines of communication and the outputs of the PPG, iii) to validate the PPG Work Plan.

Participants: i) SEMARENA, ii) UNDP Dominican Republic, iii) UNDP Regional Coordination Unit (RCU-Panama), iv) TNC, v) Project staff.

2) Thematic Working Groups Objectives: i) based on the contents of the PIF, revise and develop proposals for the expansion and adaptation of the Project design, iii) address the actions and outputs associated with the following components: (i) Financial sustainability of the NPAS, (ii) Management Effectiveness of the NPAS, and (iii) Shared PA Management.

Participants Working Group on Financial Sustainability: i) Planning and Programming Office of the SEMARENA, ii) TNC, iii) UNDP, and iv) Financial consultants.

Participants Working Group on Management Effectiveness of the NPAS: i) Office for Environmental Information and Natural Resources (Dirección de Información Ambiental y Recursos Naturales (DIARENA), iii) Sub secretariat of Protected Areas and Biodiversity, iii) Ecoparque, iv) The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and v) Consultants and other Project staff.

Participants Working Group on Shared PA Management: i) Consorcio Ambiental Dominicano (CAD)Dominican Environmental Consortium, ii) Foundation Loma Quita Espuela (FLQE), iii) Sociedad para el Desarrollo Integral del Nordeste (SODIN)Society for the Integral Development of the Northeast, iv) Jaragua Group, v) Asociación de Guías Ecoturísticos del Salto de la Damajagua,Association of Ecotourism Guides of Salto de la Damajuana vi) Association Clemente Melo (ASOCLEM), v) PROGRESSIO Foundation, vi) Sub secretariat of Protected Areas and Biodiversity, and vii) consultant and other Project staff.

3) Project Design Workshop (29-30 April 2009)Objectives: to revise, adapt and socialize the proposals of the working groups to consolidate Project design.

Participants: 1) OSPP, 2) DIARENA, 3) Sub secretariat of Protected Areas and Biodiversity, 4) Sub secretariat of Coastal and Marine Resources, 5) PES Office in SEMARENA, 6) Office of the Operational Focal Point GEF in SEMARENA, 7) UNDP, 8) TNC, 9) CAD, 10) FLOE, 11) SODIN, 12) ASOCLEM, 13) Association of Ecotourism Guides of Salto de la Damajuana, 14) PROGRESSIO Foundation, 15) Centro para el Desarrollo Agrícola y Forestal (CEDAF)Center for Agricultural and Forestry

103

Development, 16) GTZ, 17) Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID)Spanish Cooperation Agency, 18) Consultants and other Project staff.

4) Individual Meetings and ConsultationsThe final Project design also required a series of meetings and consultations with individuals and organizations to address various aspects, namely: i) specific capacity strengthening needs, ii) monitoring and evaluation system, iii) budget, among others.

PART II. Stakeholder Participation Plan for the Project Implementation Phase

1) Summary of Stakeholder Roles in Project Implementation

Stakeholder Form of participation in Project Implementation (roles and responsibilities)

SEMARENA

Institution with the highest responsibility in programming, implementation and monitoring the project activities. Responsible for all technical decisions and the effective and efficient use of resources to achieve the goals established in the work plans.

Ministry of Economy and Treasury

Contribute to search alternatives to generate and adapt the necessary changes to favor an increased and stable financial flow for the NPAS.

The Nature ConservancyActive participation in the design and operation of a Financial Sustainability Strategy and a Business Plan for the NPAS. Provide financial resources for the creation of a Fund Trust for the NPAS.

UNDP Dominican Republic Comply with all the commitments and duties in its capacity as the GEF Implementation Agency.

German KfW Bank Active participation in the design and operation of the Fund Trust for the NPAS. Provide financial resources for the establishment of the referenced fund.

State Ministry of Tourism (SECTUR)

Coordination of work together with SEMARENA to make the necessary arrangements for income generation through ecotourism activities in selected PAs.

Central Bank of the Dominican Republic

Design and implement alternatives to incorporate in the National Accounts the value and financial contribution of the NPAS to the national economy. Dissemination of related information.

Office of the PES

Participation in activities that may contribute to strengthen their technical, administrative, regulatory and operational capacities for improved performance in the Payment for Environmental Services (PES) as a contribution to the financial sustainability of the NPAS.

Tour Operators Coordination of work with SEMARENA and SECTUR for the promotion and implementation of ecotourism activities in selected PAs.

FONDOMARENA Adaptation, reinforcement and consolidation of its tasks as a fund, to make a greater contribution to the financial sustainability of the NPAS.

Protected Areas Fund Adaptation, reinforcement and consolidation of its tasks as a fund, to make a greater contribution to the financial sustainability of the NPAS.

National Congress Introduction and enactment of a new PA Sectoral Law, with sufficient guarantees of coherence, stability and development of an adequate NPAS in the country.

Staff at the Central, Provincial and Local levels associated with the PAs

Participation of the SEMARENA staff associated with the PAs in training sessions to improve their performance in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the activities. This includes technical as well as administrative and operational aspects.

Civil Society Organizations (NGOs)

Intervention in various Project activities, for example: i) organization and implementation of activities on knowledge and discussion at regional level of the law proposal for a Sectoral PAs, ii) formulation and/or updating of the PA

104

Management Plans, iii) joining formal agreements for Shared PA Management.

Local Organizations

Active participation in the formulation and/or updating of the PA Management Plans. Advocate for defined approaches based on their own interests regarding their involvement in both the costs and the profits derived from management of the PA that affects them in particular.

Communities and Local Producers

Active participation in the formulation and/or updating of the PA Management Plans. Advocate for defined approaches based on their own interests regarding their involvement in both the costs and the profits derived from management of the PA that affects them in particular.

Co-managers of the PAs

Be a member of the Table of Shared PA Management as the collaboration mechanism established between them and SEMARENA. To carry out joint work in the PA, based on the new procedures and regulations to that effect. Example of these co-managers: i) Society for Integral Development of the Northeast (SODIN), ii) The Loma Quita Espuela Foundation (FLQE), iii) Association Clemente Melo (ASOCLEM).

Multiple participants in pilot demonstrations

In addition to SODIN, FLOE, the Association of Ecotourism Guides of Río Damajagua and ASOCLEM, the participation of multiple key actors in the pilot demonstrations is being contemplated. Some of these are: i) Provincial Offices for the Environment and Natural Resources: intervention and active collaboration in all the activities to be implemented in their area of action.ii) Local Governments: Knowledge and support to activities en general, i.e. PES linked to water resources. iii) National Potable Water Institute (INAPA): Integration and support to the activities and decision-making on the PES linked to water resources. iv) Provincial Governor’s Office: Knowledge and support to activities en general. Be part of the cited Shared PA Management Councils.v) Ministry of Education: Be part of the cited Shared PA Management Councils.vi) Association of Hotels and Restaurants: Support the promotion of ecotourism in the PAs. Participation in shared management.vii) Vermont Center for Ecostudies: Support and counseling for the creation of a “Brother Fund for the Preservation of the Migratory Thrush”.

Shared PA Management Unit Participation in training sessions to improve its role performance as a SEMARENA specialized Unit. Assume the responsibilities set up for the establishment and follow up of the Shared Management Agreements.

Shared PA Management Board Serve as the communication and collaboration mechanism between the co-managers, as well as between them and the SEMARENA.

Those interested in shared management and concessions within the PAs

Based on the existing procedures and regulations, integrate their own interests in activities of shared management or Contracts for Special Concessions in the PAs.

Landowners or land users in the PAs

Advocate for defined approaches based on their own interests regarding their involvement in both the costs and the profits derived from management of the PA that affects them in particular. Possible involvement in Ecological Servitude.

Business Sector Make financial contributions to set in motion various modalities of Ecological Servitude to benefit the PA and their biodiversity.

National Land RegistryCollaborate with SEMARENA to define the land owning system in determined PAs. Registry of legal boundaries of the Protected Areas in its internal work system.

2) Objectives and Aims of the Stakeholder Participation PlanThe formulation of the stakeholder plan has the following objectives:

105

i. Clearly identify the basic roles and responsibilities of the main participants in this Project. ii. Through the participation mechanisms previously defined: (i) ensure full knowledge of those

involved concerning the progress and barriers in Project development, (ii) take advantage of the experience and skills of the participants to enhance project activities.

The ultimate purpose of the Stakeholder Plan will be the long-term sustainability of the project achievements, based on transparency and the empowerment of the key stakeholders.

3) Participation MechanismsThe Project Document (PRODOC) outlines a management arrangement between the following structures: i) Project Steering Committee, ii) SEMARENA Technical Supervision Committee, iii) Project Management Unit, iv) National Project Director, and v) National Project Coordinator. These structures will also represent the mechanisms for stakeholder participation, particularly the first three.

Since the referenced Project management arrangements are not real institutions or participation spaces and, in addition, they exclude numerous actors, the establishment of three committees has been considered to function as participation mechanisms. These participation committees are relevant with the three main Project components and they are also derived from the positive experiences and concrete achievements of similar mechanisms used in the preparation phase (PPG). These committees are:

Financial Sustainability Committee Management Effectiveness Committee Shared Management Committee

The thematic committee approach generates greater enthusiasm in the participation of related actors, thereby favoring better team work results.

The membership of these committees will be as follows:

Financial Sustainability Committee: i) SEMARENA, ii) Ministry of Economics and Treasury, ii) The Nature Conservancy, iv) UNDP Dominican Republic v) German KfW Bank, vi) Ministry of Tourism, vii) Central Bank of the Dominican Republic, vii) PES Office, viii) Tour Operators, ix) FONDOMARENA, x) Protected Areas Fund.

Management Effectiveness Committee: i) SEMARENA, ii) National Congress, iii) Staff at Central, Provincial and Local Levels associated with the PAs, iv) Civil Society Organizations (NGOs), v) Local Organizations, vi) Communities and Local Producers, vii) PA co-managers .

Shared Management Committee: i) SEMARENA, ii), AP co-managers (SODIN, FLOE, Association of Ecotourism Guides of Río Damajagua, ASOCLEM), ii) Multiple participants involved in pilot demonstrations (Provincial Offices Environment and Natural Resources, Local Governments, INAPA, ) Provincial Governor’s Office, Ministry of Education, Association of Hotels and Restaurants, Vermont Center for Ecostudies), iii) Shared PA Management Unit, iv) Shared PA Management Board, iv) Those interested in Shared PA Management and Concessions, v) Land owners or Land Users in the PA, vi) Business Sector, and vii) National Land Registry.

The frequency of work meetings of the referenced committees will be determined based on the needs and the decision of their members. Also, their membership will vary based on necessary adjustments.

106

PART IV: GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Strategic Objective 1, Strategic Program 2

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name: Reengineering the National Protected Area System in order to achieve financial sustainability2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): FSP3. Project ID (GEF): 2907 4. Project ID (IA): 34245. Implementing Agency: UNDP6. Country(ies): Dominican Republic

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:Name Title Agency

Work Program Inclusion Ramon Ovidio Sanchez Peña

Biodiversity Specialist

PPG Consultant

Project Mid-term

Final Evaluation/project completion

7. Project duration: Planned 4 years Actual _______ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): SEMARENA

9. GEF Strategic Program: x Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level (SP 1) Increasing Representation of Effectively Managed Marine PAs in PA Systems (SP 2) Strengthening Terrestrial PA Networks (SP 3)

10. Project Coverage in hectares:Targets and Timeframe

Total Extent in hectares (ha) of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type

Foreseen at project start Achievement at Project Mid-term Evaluation

Achievement at Final Evaluation of Project

Marine and Coastal Total ha covered by NPAS: 46,231.24 km2 = 4,623,124 Ha

Land surface: 10,529.35 Km2 = 1,052,938 Ha (equivalent to 21.85% of the terrestrial surface of Dominican Republic)

Marine surface: 35,576.09 Km2 = 3,557,609 Ha

However, the METT was only applied to a sub-set of 34 PAs out of the total of 86 PA units within the NPAS. These 34 PAs cover a total of 942,286 Ha

--- hectares -- hectares

107

Protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention.

Name of Protected Area

Is this a new protected area? yes or no.

Area in Hectares

Global designation orpriority lists(E.g., Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage, Ramsar, WWF Global 200)

Local Designation of Protected Area (E.g, indigenous reserve, private reserve, etc.)

IUCN Category for each Protected AreaI

1.1. Reserva Científica Loma Quita Espuela No 7,198 Parte de Eco-región de Bosque

Húmedo de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).

Parte de Eco-región de Agua Dulce –Pequeños Ríos de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).

Scientific Reserve

x

2.2. Reserva Científica Loma Guaconejo No

2,337

x

3.3. Reserva Científica Villa Elisa No 43 x

4.4. Reserva Científica Ébano Verde No

2,992 Parte de Eco-región de Bosque Húmedo de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).

Parte de Eco-región de Agua Dulce –Pequeños Ríos de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).

x

5.5. Santuario de Mamíferos Marinos Estero Hondo No 113,609 Parte de Eco-región Marina del Gran

Caribe (Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF)Marine Life Sanctuary x

6.6. Parque Nacional Lago Enriquillo e Isla Cabritos

No

40,516 Reserva de la Biosfera Jaragua -Bahoruco-Enriquillo.

Sitio RAMSAR (Humedal de Importancia Internacional)

National Park

7.7. Parque Nacional Cabo Francés Viejo No 25

8.8. Parque Nacional Sierra de Neiba No


Parte de Eco-región de Bosque de Conífera de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF)

9.9. Parque Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco No



10.10. Parque Nacional Valle Nuevo No 90,630 National Park

31 I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protectionII. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreationIII. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural featuresIV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management interventionV. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreationVI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

108

Name of Protected AreaIs this a new protected area?

Area in Hectares

Global designation orpriority lists(E.g., Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage, Ramsar, WWF Global



Parte de Eco-región de Bosque Húmedo de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).


11.11. Parque Nacional Armando Bermúdez No

80,274

12.12. Parque Nacional del Este No 79,625 Parte de Eco-región Marina del Gran

Caribe (Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF)

13.13. Parque Nacional Cabo Cabrón No 3,558

14.14. Parque Nacional Nalga de Maco No



15.15. Parque Nacional Jaragua No


Parte de Eco-región Marina del Gran Caribe (Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF)

16.16. Parque Nacional José del Carmen Ramírez No



17.17. Parque Nacional Submarino Monte Cristi

No24,625 Parte de Eco-región Marina del Gran

Caribe (Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF)National Submarine Park

18.18. Parque Nacional Los Haitises No


National Park

19.19. Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta No 1,115 Parte de Eco-región Marina del Gran

Caribe (Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF)National Submarine Park

20.20. Parque Nacional Humedales del Ozama* No

4,620 Parte de Eco-región de Agua Dulce –Pequeños Ríos de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF). National Park

21.21. Parque Nacional Sierra Martín García No 24,099

22.22. Monumento Natural Reserva Antropológica Cuevas del Pomier

No501 Sitio con Rasgos Prehistóricos

Singulares a nivel del Caribe

Natural Monument23.23. Monumento Natural

Salto de la Damajagua No553 Parte de Eco-región de Agua Dulce –

Pequeños Ríos de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).

24.24. Monumento Natural Isla Catalina

No 1,624 Parte de Eco-región Marina del Gran Caribe (Global 200 Ecoregions-WWF)

Natural Monument

109

Name of Protected AreaIs this a new protected area?

Area in Hectares

Global designation orpriority lists(E.g., Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage, Ramsar, WWF Global



25.25. Monumento Natural Dunas de las Calderas No 1,751

26.26. Monumento Natural Salto El Limón No

1,647 Parte de Eco-región de Agua Dulce –Pequeños Ríos de las Grandes Antillas (Global 200 Ecoregions –WWF).

27.27. Monumento Natural Pico Diego de Ocampo No


Natural Monument

28.28. Monumento Natural Lagunas Cabarete y Goleta

No7,091

29.29. Monumento Natural Cabo Samaná No 926

30.30. Monumento Natural Isabel de Torres No


31.31. Refugio de Vida Silvestre Laguna de Cabral

No5,603

Wildlife Refuge

32.32. Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ría Maimón No 480

33.33. Refugio de Vida Silvestre Lagunas Redonda y Limón

No3,225

34.34. Refugio de Vida Silvestre Cueva Los Tres Ojos

No000

35.35. Refugio de Vida Silvestre Lagunas de Bávaro y Caletón

No641

36.36. Refugio de Vida Silvestre Los Quemados32

Yes120 Private Protected

Area

Total hectares 942,286

32 Private Protected Area, which at present do not form part of the NPAS

110

Section Two (2): Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

2a) Summary PA METT Scores Obtained in February – March 200933

No PA SCORE No PA SCORE1 Reserva Científica Loma

Quita Espuela78.1 19 Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta 65.6

2 Reserva Científica Loma Guaconejo 63.4 20 Parque Nacional Humedales del

Ozama34 13.33

3 Reserva Científica Villa Elisa

65.1 21 Parque Nacional Sierra Martín García 40.5

4 Reserva Científica Ébano Verde 84.0 22 Monumento Natural Reserva

Antropológica Cuevas del Pomier 61.8

5 Santuario de Mamíferos Marinos Estero Hondo

57.8 23 Monumento Natural Salto de la Damajagua

81.1

6 Parque Nacional Lago Enriquillo e Isla Cabritos 65.3 24 Monumento Natural Isla Catalina 61.0

7 Parque Nacional Cabo Francés Viejo

46.1 25 Monumento Natural Dunas de las Calderas

62.1

8 Parque Nacional Sierra de Neiba 59.1 26 Monumento Natural Salto El Limón 72.2

9 Parque Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco

70.1 27 Monumento Natural Pico Diego de Ocampo

71.3

10 Parque Nacional Valle Nuevo 65.6 28 Monumento Natural Lagunas Cabarete

y Goleta 64.5

11 Parque Nacional Armando Bermúdez

74.7 29 Monumento Natural Cabo Samaná 66.6

12 Parque Nacional del Este 69.1 30 Monumento Natural Isabel de Torres 62.7

13 Parque Nacional Cabo Cabrón

53.8 31 Refugio de Vida Silvestre Laguna de Cabral

65.0

14 Parque Nacional Nalga de Maco 65.9 32 Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ría Maimón 54.4

15 Parque Nacional Jaragua 72.3 33 Refugio de Vida Silvestre Lagunas Redonda y Limón

53.3

16 Parque Nacional José del Carmen Ramírez 78.3 34 Refugio de Vida Silvestre Cueva Los

Tres Ojos 67.8

17 Parque Nacional Submarino Monte Cristi

61.3 35 Refugio de Vida Silvestre Lagunas de Bávaro y Caletón

65.2

18 Parque Nacional Los Haitises 68.4 36 Refugio de Vida Silvestre Los

Quemados35 59.8

33 For more details, please see individual METT scores for each of the 34 measured PAs in a separate file.34 PA without personnel and active management35 Private Protected Area, which at present do not form part of the NPAS

111

PART V: UNDP PA Financial Sustainability Scorecard

Overview of Process The Financial Sustainability Scorecard was completed for the first time on February 2009, based on analysis of the overall financial capacity of the 86 public protected areas included in the National Protected Areas System in Dominican Republic. The financial data for Part I (which concerns the overall financial status of the protected area system, including its costs, revenues and financing gaps) of the scorecard was collected and systematized by the officer in charge of Special Projects in the Under Secretariat of Planning and Development. Part II of the Financial Scorecard – which concerns the structural foundations of the National Protected Areas System’s (NPAS) financial system - was filled during a workshop facilitated by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The workshop was attended by 32 participants, mostly staff of SEMARENA, including protected areas directors and staff from the legal, accounting and administration offices. Other participants included consultants in sustainable finance, as well as UNDP and TNC representatives. The scores are consolidated in the tables below.

Part I – Overall Financial Situation of the National Protected Areas System (NPAS)

Table 1: Description of the National Protected Area System of the Dominican Republic

Type of protected area Number Coverage (ha) Comments

Public terrestrial and marine protected areas managed by the Government within the National Protected Areas

System (NPAS).

86 1,231,329

The protected areas cover around 22% of the Dominican Republic’s national surface. Out of the 86 protected areas,

only 34 have in situ management in place. Of these, 13 protected areas are

under co-management (covering 367,292 ha).

Kindly see Annex 2 on the National Protected Areas System for more details on the NPAS.

Table 2: Overall Financial Situation (Summarized) (US$)Overall Sustainability of NPAS Baseline

Year(2007)

Year36

2008

Project Year 4

(2014)37

(A) Total Annual Government Budget provided for PA management (including trust funds, donor funds, PA dedicated taxes and other external income)

8,486,912 N.A.

(B) Total Annual Revenue Generation from PAs 1,893,159 2,049,358

- Visitors Fees, concessions & merchandising 1,643, 612 1,611,909

- Payments for ecosystem services (water

36 SEMARENA has not finished systematizing the financial reports for this year, so only partial information is available. Therefore, year 2007 is provisionally considered as the baseline year, since information is complete. 37 2010 will constitute Project Year 1, while 2014 will then constitute Project Year 4. At present this information does not exist, since a long-term financial analysis has not been done for the PA system of Dominican Republic yet. This analysis will be the focus for project implementation during the first year, and will be undertaken in close collaboration with TNC, as detailed in the Strategy section of the Prodoc. The next planned scorecard measurement will be carried out at the end of year 1, and will include long-term projections. A third measurement will be carried out mid-term, while a final measurement will be made at the end of project implementation.

112

provision??)

- Other 249,547 437,449

(C) Total available finances (A) + (B)10,380,071 N.A.

(D) Estimated Financing Needs for Basic Management Cost and Investments to be covered

22,574,294 22,574,294

(E) Annual Financing Gap (D) – (C) -12,194,223 N.A.

Financing Gap as percentage of Overall Financing Needs 54%

113

Table 3: Overall Financial Situation (US$)Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System

Baseline year2007(US$)

Year 2008 (US$)

Year X + 438

(forecasting)2014(US$)

Comments

I. AVAILABLE FINANCES(1) Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated (4) and retained within the PA system)

7,103,393 6,169,261In 2007 represented 20% of the total budget for the Environment and Natural Resources Secretariat (SEMARENA), while in 2008 it was 18%.

(2) Total annual government budget provided for PA management (including PA dedicated taxes, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans, debt-for nature swaps and other financial mechanisms)

8,486,912 N.A. Includes annual central government budget plus annual government transfers to NGOs and international donor funds. Government budget represents 87% of the total budget presented. NOTE - This information was only available for the year 2007, due to the lack of an adequate accounting system. Strengthening the NPAS’s financial data management system will be a key focus of project implementation.

(3) Annual site based revenue generation across all PAs broken down by source (TOTAL)

1,893,159 2,049,358

a. Entrance fees to tourism sites 1,643, 612 1,611,909 Number of visitors in 2007: International: 644,857 National: 91,983

Fee levels: from US$1.47 to US$3.00

b. Concessions N.A. N.A. There are concessions in NPAS, but information on revenue currently

38 At present this information does not exist, since a long-term financial analysis has not been done for the PA system of Dominican Republic. See footnote 1.

114

generated by these to the State is not available. This weakness will be addressed by the planned project.

c. Payments for ecosystem services (PES)39 0 0

d. Other (specify each type of revenue generation mechanism)

249,547 437,449 These refer to income collected at the system level, such as research, photography and filming permits

(4) Total annual revenues by PA system 1,893,159 2,049,358

(5) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re-investment

100 % 100% All funds generated by the PAs go to a special account earmarked for PAs called the Protected Areas Management Fund.40 As its name implies, funds from this account are allocated to the PAs to support management activities. The law dictates that all funds generated by the protected areas, should be used for their management.

(6) Total finances available to the PA system[line item 2 ]+ [line item 4 * line item 5] 10,380,071 N.A.

For year 2008 only central Government budget allocation plus total annual revenues by PA system amount to US$ 8,218,619. Given that this figure is missing donor funds and government transfers to NGOs, it is therefore not included in the table.

II. COSTS AND FINANCING NEEDS(7) Total annual expenditure for PAs (all PA operating and investment costs and system level expenses)

6,926,408 N.A.

This refers to actual expenditure of government funds and PA generated revenues. The percentage of annual expenditure of these two sources in 2007 was 58%. Total annual

39 While there are some planned PES schemes in DR, some more advanced than other, at present they are not yet generating income yet – or at least they are not reported to SEMARENA.40 Fondo de Mantenimiento de Áreas Protegidas (not to confuse with the PA Patrimonial Fund that the Project will support).

115

expenditure also includes donor funds and transfers to NGOs. Since no information was available on expenditure rates of the latter two sources, in these cases it was assumed that available funds were equal to expenditure. Figures were not available for year 2008.

(8) Estimation of financing needs A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs and investments to be covered

22,574,294 22,574,294 Preliminary estimation made by SEMARENA. Estimation assumes that the areas under management increases from 34 to 36 PAs over a period of 4 years.

B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs and investments to be covered

27,974,294 27,974,294 Preliminary estimation made by SEMARENA. Estimation assumes that the areas under management increases from 34 to 42 PAs over a period of 4 years.

(9) Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)A. Net actual annual surplus/deficit 3,453,664 N.A. This is the amount that is not spent,

due to low expenditure rate.B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios

15,647,886 N.A. This gap refers to the estimated needs for the basic scenario minus funds actually expended

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios

21,047,886 N.A This gap refers to the estimated needs for the optimal scenario minus funds actually expended

Note: 1 US$ = 33.90 RD$

116

Part II – Assessing Elements of the Financing System

Analysis of ScoresBased on analysis of the overall financial capacity of the 86 public protected areas within the NPAS, the application of the Scorecard resulted in an overall score of 34% with respect to the maximum possible score. The attained score is slightly above the average score obtained in protected area systems of the Mesoamerica and Caribbean Region (33%)41. Of the 3 components of the scorecard that assess the elements of the financial system, Component 2 (business planning and tools for cost-effective management) was the weakest of the three measured overall components (the other two being ”legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks” and “tools for revenue generation by PAs”) (see table 4 below).

However, the most problematic specific elements were spread across all three components (elements which obtained 13% or less of the maximum possible score), and included (marked as grey in table 4):

1) legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds; 2) well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level; 3) PA site-level business planning; 4) methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites, and 5) training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively.

Other relatively weak elements (less than 33% of maximum possible score) included:

1) Economic valuation of protected area systems; 2) improved government budgeting for PA systems; 3) systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance; 4) effective fee-collection systems; 5) marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms; 6) operational PES schemes for PAs, and 7) PA training programs on revenue-generating mechanisms.

Table 4: Summary Financial Scorecard Results

ComponentsActual Score

for PA System

Total Possible

Score

Actual Score as % of TPS

COMPONENT 1: Governance frameworks that enable sustainable PA financing

29 79 37

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue generation by PAs

5 6 83

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue sharing within the PA system

4 9 44

Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing endowment or trust funds

0 9 0

Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative institutional arrangements for PA management

8 12 67

Element 5 - National PA financing strategies 5 13 38Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems 2 6 33Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems 2 6 33Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for PA management and financing

2 3 67

41 According to the preliminary results of a study commissioned by UNDP Panama Regional Office, where the scorecard was applied to the protected area systems of the following countries: Belize, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá and Dominican Republic.

117

ComponentsActual Score

for PA System

Total Possible

Score

Actual Score as % of TPS

Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level

1 15 7

COMPONENT 2: Business planning and other tools for cost-effective management

14 61 23

Element 1 - Site-level business planning 1 18 6Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems

8 12 67

Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance

3 12 25

Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites

0 4 0

Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable park managers to operate more cost-effectively

2 15 13

COMPONENT 3: Tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization

24 57 42

Element 1 - Increase in number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA system

4 8 44

Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA system

7 15 47

Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems 1 3 33Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms

1 3 33

Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs 4 12 33Element 6 - Operational concessions within PAs 6 12 50Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation mechanisms

1 3 33

Total 67 197 34%

118

PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS

Total Score for PA System 67Total Possible Score 197Percentage of actual score of total possible score 34%Percentage scored previous year* --

* This score does not exist, as 2009 was the first year the Financial Scorecard was implemented and measured

121

undp-gef dr npas re-engineering project€¦ · web viewalong that line, the project will create...

Documents