Argentine Repu,blic.,,-:, Biodiversit CosevaknPrjc * Project -Document. THE WORL.-DAINK GEF Documentation The Global Environment Facility (GEF) assists developing countries to protect the global environment in four areas: global warming, pollution of international waters-, destruction of biodiversity, and depletion of the ozone layer. The GEF is jointly implemented bythe United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Bank: GEF Project Documents - identified by a green band - prpvide extended project- specific information. The implementing agency responsible for each.project is identified by its logo on the cover of the document. Gjobal Environment-Division Environment Department . World-Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: (202) 473-1816 Fax: (202) 522-3256 Report No. 17023-AR Argentine Republic Biodiversity Conservation Project Project Document September 1997 Country Management Unit Argentina, Chile and Uruguay Latin America and the Caribbean Region CURRENCY EOUIVALENTS Currency Unit - Peso (Arg$) EXCHANGE RATE (September 16, 1997) US$1.00 Arg$1.00 Arg$1.00 = US$1.00 FISCAL YEAR January 1 to December 31 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES The metric system has been used throughout the memorandum. Vice President: Mr. Shahid Javed Burki Director: Ms. Myma Alexander Acting Sector Leader: Mr. Luis Coirolo Team Leader: Mr. Robert Kirmse This report is based on an Appraisal Mission carried out in July 1997. The World Bank core team included Robert Kirmse (team leader), Random DuBois (protected areas, FAO/CP preparation), Douglas J. Graham (biodiversity and information systems), Estanislao Gacitua-Mario (social and participation issues), and Rudy Van Puymbroeck (legal). The following specialists contributed substantively to project preparation: Richard Smith (protected area management), Guillermo Wood (Costab), Patricia Parera (social assessment and public participation), Alejandra Moreyra (buffer-zone activities), Gary Costello (social mitigation plan), Vicente Abreu (biodiversity information systems), and Jim Tolisano (institutional). The local preparation team was coordinated by Roberto Ronchietto and Hugo Iza. Document formatting was done by Greicy Amjadi. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABCP Argentina Biodiversity Conservation Project APC Area Protegido Copo APLV Area Protegido Los Venados APML Area Protegido Monte Le6n APN National Parks Administration APQC Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito APSG Area Protegido San Guillermo Bank/FAO-CP World Bank/Food and Agriculture Organization Cooperative Program BCP Biodiversity Conservation Project BIS Biodiversity Information System CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CC Consultative Commission COP Conference of the Parties (to the Convention on Biological Diversity) CZMP Coastal Zone Management Project DGCA Direcci6n General de Coordinaci6n Administrativa DNCAP Direcci6n Nacional de Conservacion de Areas Protegidas DNI Direcci6n Nacional de Interior DRFN Directorate for Native Forests (within SRNyDS) DTR Regional Technical Delegation (within APN) DTRP Patagonia Regional Technical Delegation EIA Estudio de Impacto Ambiental FAO/CP FAO Cooperative Program FUCEMA Fundaci6n para la Conservaci6n de Especies y del Medio Ambiente FVSA Fundaci6n de Vida Silvestre GEF Global Environment Facility GEF Project Biodiversity Conservation Project GIS Geographic Information System GOA Government of Argentina GTZ German Technical Assistance Agency IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICB International Competitive Bidding ICyT Instituto Nacional de Capacitaci6n y Tecnologia IDB Inter-American Development Bank IIA Informe de Impacto Ambiental IMA Informe Medioambiental INTA National Institute for Agricultural Research LATEN Environmental Division of LAC (World Bank) LIB Limited International Bidding MB Mega Byte MP Mitigation Plan NCB National Competitive Bidding NFPA Native Forests and Protected Areas Project NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPAS National Protected Areas System OED Operations Evaluation Department OP Bank's Operational Policy PA Protected Area PAP Project-Affected Population PAR Project Audit Report PCR Project Completion Report PlU Project Implementation Unit (of the NFPA project) POA Annual Operating Plans PP Participation Plan PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PU Project Unit RDBMS Relational Database Management System SA Social Assessment SAS Social Assessment Specialist SAP Social Assessment Program SGN Sindicatura General de la Nacion SIDIF Sistema Integrado de Informacion Financiera SINAIA Sistema Nacional de Informaci6n Ambiental SINAPA Sistema Nacional de la Profesi6n Administrativa SOE Statement of Expenditures SRNyDS Secretariat of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (for the GEF) TOR Terms of Reference UAI Unidad Auditoria Internal UNDP United Nations Development Program WWF World Wildlife Fund WWW World Wide Web ARGENTINE REPUBLIC BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: PROJECT SUMMARY GRANT AND PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................... i COUNTRY/SECTOR BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................... 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 4 PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING .................................................... 7 PROCUREMENT .................................................... 7 DISBURSEMENT .................................................... 10 ACCOUNTS AND AUDITING1 1.................................................... MONITORING AND EVALUATION .....................................................11 RATIONALE FOR BANK AND GEF INVOLVEMENT ..................................................... 12 SOCIAL ASSESSM EN T AND BENEFICIARY PARTICIPATION .................................................... 14 THE MITIGATION PLAN ..................................................... 14 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY .................................................... 15 LESSONS FROM BANK-WIDE OPERATIONS .................................................... 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ..................................................... 17 PROJECT BENEFITS .................................................... 17 PROJECT RISKS .................................................... 18 AGREEMENTS (TO BE) REACHED ..................................................... 19 SCHEDULE A: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ..................................................... 22 SCHEDULE B: PROCUREMENT AND DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS .................................................... 24 SCHEDULE C: TIMETABLE OF KEY PROCESSING EVENTS ..................................................... 27 SCHEDULE D: STATUS OF BANK GROUP OPERATIONS ..................................................... 28 SCHEDULE E: ARGENTINA AT A GLANCE .................................................... 30 PART II: TECHNICAL ANNEXES ANNEx A: BIODiVERSiTY ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 32 ANNEX B: PROTECTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT COMPONENT ................................................... 43 ANNEX C: BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMPONENT .................................................... 68 ANNEX D: MANAGEMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMPONENT .................................................. 78 ANNEX E: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN .................................................... 85 ANNEX F: INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS .................................................... 100 ANNEX G: INCREMENTAL COSTS AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS .................................... ........ 109 ANNEx H: PROJECT COSTS ..................................................... 112 ANNEx I: SUPERVISION PLAN .................................................... 122 ANNEX J: SELECTED DOCUMENTS AND DATA IN PROJECT FILES .................................................... 124 MAP: IBRD No. 28753 PART I: PROJECT SUMMARY i ARGENTINE REPUBLIC--GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT GRANT AND PROJECT SUMMARY Source of Grant: Global Environment Facility Trust Fund (GEF Trust Fund) Recipient/ Implementing Argentine Republic/ National Parks Administration (APN) Agency: Beneficiary: Local communities, visitors to the national park system and national and international conservationists commnitted to protecting biodiversity of global importance. Amount: SDR 7.3 million (US$10.1 million equivalent) Total Project Costs: US$21.9 million equivalent (US$10.1 million GEF grant, US$11.5 million from GOA and beneficiaries, and US$289,000 PDF) Terms: Grant Financing Plan: Source Total (US$ million) GEF Trust Fund 10.1 Government Counterpart 11.1 Beneficiaries 0.4 GEF-PDF 0.3 Total: 21.9 Economic Rate of Return: N/A; see Annex G Map: IBRD No. 28753 Project Identification No.: AR-GE-39787 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT 1. BACKGROUND COUNTRY/SECTOR BACKGROUND 1. Because of Argentina's extensive latitudinal and altitudinal ranges, and the resulting climatic variability, the country is characterized by a broad mix of ecological regions and rich biological diversity. Of the 178 terrestrial ecoregions in Latin America and the Caribbean identified in a recent World Bank/World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) study, 18 are found in Argentina. They range from the tropical rain forests of Misiones Province to the cold and arid Patagonian steppes of southern Argentina. While most are shared with adjacent countries, several are exclusive to Argentina, including most notably the Espinal, the Monte, the Pampas, and the C6rdoba Montane Savannas (Chaco Serrano). Predictably, this diversity in ecoregions supports a large number of species of flora and fauna. For example, with a total land area of 2.7 million km2 (two percent of the world's land surface), Argentina accounts for 12.2 percent of the world's gymnosperm species, 12.3 percent of the world's mushroom species, 10.9 percent of birds, and 8.7 percent of mammals. The country is particularly rich in endemic species, with more than 2,500 vascular plant species, 32 amphibian species, 53 reptile species, and 46 mammal species found nowhere else. 2. Argentina has long recognized the importance of these biological resources. Its national park system, the first in Latin America, dates back to 1903 with the donation of some 7,500 ha of private land to the State. This initial holding was subsequently enlarged and became the Nahuel Huapi National Park, the nation's first national park created along with the National Parks Commission in 1934. Other important milestones leading to the present national park system include the establishment of the country's other major southern parks-Lanin, Los Alerces, Perito Moreno, and Los Glaciares in 1937; the creation of the national school for park rangers in 1967; and the development of a national protected areas system (NPAS) in 1986. Today, the country's protected area system has grown to cover some 4.9 percent of the national territory (about 13 million hectares). Of this total, some 22 percent is in the federal park system, which currently consists of 31 national protected areas, while the remaining area is under provincial or other forms of local control. 3. In addition to their importance for biodiversity conservation, Argentina's national park system also represents an important economic resource. Several of the country's national parks and reserves are major tourist attractions which provide significant sources of revenue. Similarly, the area of native forests with commercial potential is estimated to cover some 15 million hectares; it produces about 7.3 million rn3 of wood per annum, equal to about half of the country's production. 2 4. Notwithstanding the global significance of the country's biological resources, their irrational use and over-exploitation continues at an alarming rate. Over the last century, it has been estimated that Argentina lost more than two thirds of its original forest cover. Deforestation continues unabated; the current loss rate is estimated to be 160,000 hectares per year. The Chaco is the forest ecoregion most at risk and, together with the Yungas, accounts for about half of the current deforestation in Argentina. The loss of non- forested habitat is also significant. This is particularly true in the Pampas ecoregion, where conversion of grasslands to extensive livestock production has reduced this natural ecosystem to only one percent of its original size. Similarly, it is estimated that more than one third of the Patagonian Steppe is severely eroded due to overgrazing by sheep and cattle, an issue of increasing concern in many of the country's other open habitats. At the species level, available information appears to support a similar pattern of irreversible loss. For example, in a recent study on the country's biodiversity species, 22 percent of Argentina's 2,355 vertebrate species were considered threatened or endangered. 5. While the existing system of protected areas is extensive in comparison to other countries in the Latin America region, a recent National Parks Administration (APN) analysis estimated that less than 21 percent of the total area under protection is adequately managed, 30 percent is under some form of management, and almost 50 percent (mostly under the jurisdiction of provincial or municipal authorities) receives very little or no management support. Moreover, the existing National Protected Areas System (NPAS) does not equitably represent many of the country's ecoregions considered to be of intemational significance in terms of their biodiversity. Examples of poorly represented ecoregions are the Pampas (0.2 percent of the original extent of the ecoregion is currently protected within the NPAS) and the Dry Chaco (0.5 percent protected). Legal Framework and National Initiatives 6. The National Park Law (Regimen Legal de los Parques Nacionales, Monumentos Naturalesy Reservas Nacionales - Mensaje y Ley Organica) No. 22.351 of 1981, provides the legal basis for establishing and managing protected areas (PAs) in Argentina. This law defines the management objectives and characteristics to be used to classify PAs into one of several conservation classes as described in Annex B. Land, water and biological resources designated as national protected areas can be declared on the basis of scientific importance, education, and the enjoyment of present and future generations. Each protected area must be officially designated with its own individual national law. 7. The Government of Argentina (GOA) has long demonstrated a commitment to protecting biodiversity. For example, the country is a signatory to a host of international conventions, including the Agreement on Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR, 1971); the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES, 1973); the Convention for Conservation of Migratory Species (1979); and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). More recently, the Government hosted the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 3 November 1996. In 1994 GOA began initial consultations with technical specialists within and outside government agencies to determine priorities for a national biodiversity strategy and a national protected area network. In September 1996 GOA received a UNDP-administered GEF grant to finalize the national biodiversity strategy, including support for a process of full consultation and participation of all stakeholders. Key elements of the strategy have already been identified and have been incorporated into the design of the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Project (BCP). These elements include:(i) strengthening and extending the protected area system; (ii) increasing national and local capacity in natural resource management, both in forested and non-forested areas; and (iii) promoting greater public participation in natural resource management. Project Origin 8. Argentina faces a number of constraints in addressing environmental conservation issues. In particular, constraints on public spending have severely restricted government resources available for new investments in protected areas. Efficient management of the country's natural resources is also hampered by poor coordination between different levels of government, deficiencies in the policy and legal framework, and lack of technical expertise and established mechanisms for public participation and consultation. Recognizing these opportunities and weaknesses, the Government has proposed an integrated program which is composed of an IBRD-financed Native Forests and Protected Areas Project and a Global Environmental Facility (GEF)-financed Biodiversity Conservation Project (BCP). Specifically, the IBRD-financed Native Forests and Protected Areas Project (Loan 4085-AR) would pursue these issues by enhancing the policy, legal and regulatory framework governing native forests, by addressing information constraints to the sustainable use of native forests and conservation of biodiversity, and by supporting the modernization of APN as a national parks management entity. GEF support of the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Project would complement these objectives by making possible the formulation of an integrated and balanced approach to improved conservation of natural habitats containing biodiversity of global significance. 9. In brief, the associated Native Forest and Protected Areas Project (NFPA) comprises three components: (a) Protected Areas of National Importance, (b) Generation and Dissemination of Research and Information, and (c) Project Implementation. Under the Protected Areas of National Importance component, the GOA would assume the costs associated with the preparation of a plan to modernize APN as well as finance specific infrastructure developments and strengthening of management in four selected parks in Patagonia, including the strengthening of APN's regional technical office. Under the Generation and Dissemination of Research and Information component, the project would: (a) reform the policy, legal and regulatory framework affecting native forests; (b) implement a national inventory of native forests, and establish and operate a related database; and (c) conduct applied research and studies to facilitate the improved management and conservation of native forests and protected areas. Furthermore, the project would strengthen the capacity of the Forestry Directorate of SRNyDS (DRFN) and APN to manage and coordinate project implementation by establishing a Project 4 Implementation Unit which would assist the managers of DRFN and APN in implementing the project. The total cost of the NFPA project-including the loan amount of US$19.5 million as well as the GOA counterpart funding of about US$10.5 million-is US$30.0 million. Through the BCP, the GOA is requesting additional assistance from the GEF to cover the incremental costs associated with the creation and management of several priority protected areas which will bring long-term protection to parts of threatened and poorly represented ecoregions of global importance. 10. The initial project concept was justified in the Forestry Sector Review (Report No. 11833-AR, 1993). The GEF-funded activities were initially identified as part of the preparation process for the associated Native Forests and Protected Areas Project. A GEF-PDF Block B Grant for US$289,000 was approved by the GEF Secretariat in February 1996 and detailed preparation work was initiated later that year. The Biodiversity Conservation Project was approved by the GEF Council in March 1997 during the January 1997 Intersession, and entered the GEF work program. The key processing events are outlined in Schedule C. 2. THE PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVES 11. The general goal of the project is to conserve biodiversity of global importance; the specific objectives are to: (a) expand and diversify the existing NPAS to include several of the country's most globally significant but inadequately protected ecoregions, and (b) create the conditions for their sustainable management through investments in institutional strengthening, refined mechanisms of consultation and participation, and improved biodiversity information management. As such, the project would comprise three components: (a) Protected Areas; (b) Biodiversity Information Management; and (c) Management, Monitoring and Evaluation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12. Protected Areas Component ( US$20.3 million). As noted previously, although Argentina's network of protected areas is extensive, it does not equitably represent many of the country's ecological systems. Some of the poorly represented ecoregions in the NPAS are considered to be of global significance in terms of biological diversity. The selection of candidate areas proposed for inclusion under the project was based on the following criteria: (a) their global importance for biodiversity conservation; (b) the degree of threat to the ecoregion; and (c) a complex of factors related to investment feasibility (e.g., provincial interest, cost of land purchase, support of local communities, and other institutional considerations; see Annex A for more detail on the selection methodology). This component would consist of three sub-components: (a) the establishment and consolidation of new protected areas in sites of global biodiversity importance, (b) sustainable development activities in PA buffer zones, and (c) activities to enhance public 5 participation in park planning and management (see Annex B for a detailed description and costing of this Component). 13. Under the Establishment and Consolidation of Protected Areas sub-component, five new national protected areas in poorly represented ecosystems of recognized global importance would receive support under the project. These proposed areas are: (a) Area Protegido Los Venados (this area in San Luis Province is the largest remaining remnant of relatively intact Pampas); (b) Area Protegido San Guillermo (in San Juan Province, the southernmost extension of the Andean Puna); (c) Area Protegido Copo (in Santiago del Estero Province, one of the last pristine areas of Semiarid Chaco in Argentina); (d) Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito (in C6rdoba Province, an area including a part of the C6rdoba Montane Savannas, an ecoregion endemic to Argentina); and (e) Area Protegido Monte Le6n (in Santa Cruz Province, an area of Patagonian Steppe and littoral and wetland habitat). A team of local and international biodiversity experts have confirmed the significance of these sites in terms of their global biodiversity importance. The special characteristics of these proposed areas are summarized in Annex B. 14. The project would support the establishment of a National Park at each of these selected site, for which the management strategy will be based on a policy of strict protection, but with provisions for the possibility of low-impact visits. Following the completion of legal establishment and land acquisition, livestock would be gradually eliminated from the parks and park rangers would be hired to manage visitor use and to control access, poaching and other types of illegal activity. These rangers would also conduct basic inventory and monitoring activities, paying special attention to key indicator species. Moreover, the project would develop partnerships with the local scientific community to monitor the effects of park management on flora and fauna. As such, the project would finance: (a) technical assistance for boundary demarcation, drafting of legal documents, preparation and implementation of operational plans, implementation of environmental assessments and other specialized studies and activities associated with the establishment and management of these areas; (b) limited equipment; and (c) small works. Works to be financed under the project would include the construction of observation points, interpretive trails, fencing, administrative offices and park ranger residences, and road repair. In most cases, provincial and/or national reserves associated with the "core" national parks will also be created. GEF support of US$7.0 million is proposed to finance incremental costs of this sub-component. GOA would provide counterpart funding of about US$9.9 million, most of which would be for the purchase of land. 15. Under the Sustainable Development Activities in Buffer Zones sub-component, the project would support improved community land use practices through pilot projects, studies, and support to extension activities. Pilot activities would consist of financing a variety of small activities (e.g., the testing of improved land management models, recovery of degraded natural grasslands, fire management, and the implementation of complementary biodiversity studies) that would contribute directly to the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in PA buffer zones. This component would also support awareness-building activities aimed at local communities living in and around the parks, thereby helping to increase local knowledge of, and support for, the parks themselves. In 6 most cases, funding for this sub-component would be made available on a competitive, cost-sharing basis to NGOs, universities, and government agencies working in collaboration with local landowners or rural communities. GEF funding of US$1.0 million is proposed to cover the incremental costs of this sub-component. The GOA, beneficiaries and partner institutions through matching grants would provide an additional estimated US$0.5 million in counterpart funding. 16. Public Participation Subcomponent. As an essential part of project preparation, an extensive stakeholder participation and consultation process was implemented with representatives of federal and provincial institutions, NGOs, rural families, local farmers, community organizations, and universities. This sub-component would play a central role to ensure the broadest possible public participation in the creation, protection and management of each protected area. This would be done through the implementation of a Participation Plan (PP--Annex B) and a Mitigation Plan (NW--Annex E) for the people who could otherwise be adversely affected by park establishment. Social mitigation costs will include training for alternative employment, employment in park management activities, and improved housing and living conditions for the people who would continue to live in the parks. GEF funding of about US$0.8 million is proposed to cover the incremental costs of this sub-component. The GOA would provide US$1.1 million, including US$0.9 million for the Mitigation Plan. Details on the MN can be found in Annex E. 17. Biodiversitv Information Management Comnonent (US$654,000). The ability to access and exchange information on Argentina's globally important biodiversity is an essential tool for their effective management and protection. The objective of this component is to provide decision makers, national as well as international, with ready access to relevant information for making informed decisions relating to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This would be achieved by putting into place an internet- based biodiversity network to ensure national and global accessibility to Argentine biodiversity information. An IDB-supported Environmental Institutional Development Program is currently supporting the creation in Argentina of an internet-based national environmental information network (SINAIA). Within the context of this national environmental network, it is proposed that this component support the development of a biodiversity information system. This component would finance the development of prototype nodes within APN and provide the training and standards needed to extend the network nationally and internationally. The project would finance system development, limited hardware acquisition, and reconfiguration of existing databases (APN and other major databases). A major thrust of the component is a training sub-component to ensure the sustainability of the first -node within this emerging network and thus the sustainability of a freer flow of biodiversity information both nationally and internationally. This sub- component would consist of: (a) promotion of the Biodiversity Information System (BIS) at the national level; (b) development of the BIS software; (c) adaptation of existing data bases to the BIS; and (d) capacity building and training. The development of this biodiversity network will be closely coordinated with the data bases being structured and created under the IBRD-supported project (i.e., database on native forests). GEF support of US$0.5 million is proposed to finance the incremental costs of this sub-component. 7 18. Management. Monitoring, and Evaluation ComDonent (US$650,000). This component would finance technical assistance, equipment and incremental operational costs needed to strengthen the capacity of the implementing agencies to manage the overall program. It would also support scientifically sound monitoring of biodiversity at globally significant PA sites. GEF support of US$0.5 million is proposed to finance the incremental costs of activities under this component. 3. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING 19. Total project costs are estimated at US$21.9 million, of which 94 percent would support establishment and management of protected areas (including their buffer areas), 3 percent for biodiversity information, and 3 percent for management, monitoring and evaluation. The proposed financing plan for the GEF project would comprise: a GEF grant of US$10.1 million to finance the incremental costs of activities that contribute to the achievement of global biodiversity objectives, US$11.5 million in counterpart funds or in-kind contribution provided by GOA and/or beneficiaries, and US$0.3 million PDF for project preparation. The estimated costs and financing plan of the proposed project are shown in Schedule A, Tables 1 and 2. Retroactive financing of eligible expenditures made after negotiations would be permitted for an aggregate value up to 10 percent of the grant amount. The amounts and methods of procurement and disbursement and the proposed disbursement schedule are shown in Schedule B. The incremental costs analysis and justification for the GEF grant are provided in Annex F. PROCUREMENT 20. During negotiations, agreement was reached that: (a) the procurement plan would be included in the Project Implementation Manual (para. 58 (c)); and (b) the procurement of goods, works and services financed under the project would be undertaken in accordance with Bank Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits (January 1995, revised January and August 1996) and Bank Guidelines for the Use of Consultants (January 1997), using standard documents, satisfactory to the Bank, for procurement of goods and works under National Competitive Bidding (NCB); and Standard Letters of Invitation (SLOI) and standard forms of contract for consultant services (para. 58 (e)). Details on procurement arrangement are presented in Table B. 1 of Schedule B and are summarized below: 21. Works: The procurement of works would consist of the rehabilitation of about 157.5 km of existing roads, the construction of about 4,785 m2 of small buildings (park guard houses, visitor centers, control points, volunteer housing, mountain refuges), the construction of 46 km of fence, and the construction of about 40 trails/observation points. Construction and road works would be dispersed in remote locations and are difficult to package for International Competitive Bidding (ICB). Contracts for road work estimated 8 to cost a total of US$0.8 million would, to the extent possible, be bulked into packages valued at not less than US$350,000 and awarded on the basis of National Competitive Bidding (NCB). All other construction and rehabilitation works above US$350,000 would be awarded on the basis of NCB and all other construction and rehabilitation contracts below US$350,000 would be procured using lump-sum, fixed-price contracts, awarded on the basis of three price quotations. During negotiations, agreement was reached that all bidding documents and contracts for road works under the Protected Areas Component would incorporate environmental procedures acceptable to the Bank, to include, inter alia: (i) the applicable environmental and natural resource legislation and regulations; (ii) explicit prohibitions and environmental behavior guidelines for work crews, especially for work in sensitive areas; (iii) procedures for proper selection and management of quarries, borrow pits, gravel extraction along rivers, and other sources of construction material, and eventual rehabilitation of affected areas through soil replacement and revegetation; (iv) procedures for selection of camp sites, management of camp wastes, and guidelines for camp dismantling and abandonment; (v) procedures for proper disposal of excavated earth and spoil material to avoid contaminating streams or causing other unnecessary damage; and (vi) procedures for proper disposal of waste from construction machinery and equipment (para.57 (f)). During negotiations, agreement was also reached that the environmental procedures would be included in the draft Project Implementation Manual, which would be agreed at negotiations (para. 58 (c)). Also during negotiations, agreement was reached that prior to the commencement of civil works to be financed in any of the selected protected areas, APN would: (i) secure legal title to all lands for such new protected area; (ii) management plan for that PA, which would be in accordance with the Bank's guidelines on Natural Habitats; and (iii) obtain Bank's approval of the relevant environmental studies for civil works (para. 58 (d)). 22. Goods: The size of the contracts involved in the procurement of goods would be such that they could not be grouped into packages large enough to justify ICB. Therefore, the following procurement procedures would be used. To the extent possible, contracts for goods (mainly vehicles) would be bulked into packages valued at not less than US$100,000 and awarded on the basis of NCB, up to an aggregate amount of US$700,000. Contracts for equipment (e.g., computers and software, communications equipment, vehicles, and office, audio visual, and training equipment) valued at less than US$100,000, would be awarded on the basis of shopping procedures acceptable to the Bank. The use of shopping procedures for these goods is justified because of their standard specifications and availability from more than one source. All procurement using these shopping procedures would not exceed an aggregate amount of US$0.8 million. Contracts for the procurement of vehicles, technical equipment, and computer hardware and software would be awarded to agents or vendors with appropriate after-sales services, maintenance facilities and spare-parts supplies. All vehicles and motorcycles procured would include a four-year service contract. 23. Consulting Services. Consulting services, which would cost about US$3.2 million in total, would include environmental analyses and other specialized studies associated with the establishment and management of the PAs. Technical assistance, which would 9 cost about US$2.1 million in consultant fees, would include: (a) development of a biodiversity database; (b) implementation of the participation plan, including the costs of the consultative commissions; (c) preparation of legal documents for the establishment of PAs; (d) boundary demarcation and mapping; (e) monitoring and evaluation studies; (f) environmental/biodiversity studies; and (g) preparation and implementation of operational plans. Training, which would cost about US$0.6 million in consultant fees, would include the provision of on-the-job training as well as local short courses and seminars in database management, participatory park management, and conflict resolution. Project management, which would cost about US$0.5 million in consultant fees, would include the consultant services required for the PU to assist with project implementation. During negotiations, agreement was reached that the TORs of all consultants would include the obligation that they carry out their work on the basis, inter alia, of the Bank's Operational Policy (OP 4.04) on Natural Habitats and Operational Directive (O.D. 4.01) on Environmental Assessment, which would be incorporated into the Project Implementation Manual (para. 58 (a)); 24. Buffer-Zone Grants. During negotiations, agreement was reached that Buffer Zone biodiversity subprojects contracts, estimated to cost up to an aggregate amount of US$1.3 million (includes US$0.4 million of beneficiary counterpart funding), would be procured following the selection and approval process described in the Attachment to Annex B (para. 58 (b)). 25. Land. Some 244,000 ha of land will be purchased by APN, from counterpart fimds, for the establishment of the new protected areas. The total cost of this land purchase is estimated at about US$6.5 million; the appropriate GOA land procurement procedures will be followed. 26. Bank Review. During negotiations, agreement was reached that, regarding procurement, the process of Bank review outlined here would be followed (para. 58 (g)). All procedures, documents, Terms of Reference (TORs), bid evaluations, and contract awards would be subject to prior review by the Bank for: (a) procurement of works under NCB; (b) contracts under small works (i.e., three quotations) procedures where contracts are over US$150,000; (c) procurement of goods under NCB; and (d) procurement of consulting services costing US$50,000 equivalent or more for firms and US$30,000 equivalent or more for individuals. In addition, the first five Buffer zone subproject contracts, and thereafter all such contracts greater than US$100,000 equivalent, would be subject to prior review by the Bank. These prior review arrangements will result in prior review by the Bank of approximately 50 percent of all Bank-financed contracts by value. This low level of prior review is acceptable in light of the procurement audit arrangements outlined in para. 31. The Bank would review on an ex-post sample basis all other contracts awarded under shopping procedures; the sample size would aim to ensure that at least one contract in 20 would be examined. For research and study contracts costing less than US$100,000 equivalent, a copy of all signed contracts and related financial and technical audits and evaluations would be sent to the Bank, and at least 20 percent would be subjected to ex-post review. For consulting services costing less than US$50,000 10 equivalent for firms and less than US$30,000 equivalent for individuals, contracts would be signed based on a model contract and terms of reference previously agreed with the Bank. During negotiations, agreement was reached that the draft TORs for consultants, and a SLOI and standard form of contract, would be included in the draft Project Implementation Manual, which would be agreed at negotiations (para. 58 (c)) and finalized, with draft TORs, before effectiveness (para. 59). DISBURSEMENT 27. Grant proceeds would be disbursed over eight years, in line with the standard disbursement profile for Bank-supported projects in Argentina. Therefore the project is expected to be completed by December 31, 2005; the closing date would be June 30, 2006. The allocation of the proposed loan and the disbursement percentages are presented in Table 2 of Schedule B. A Special Account for GEF grant disbursements would be established in the Banco de la Naci6n Argentina with an authorized allocation of US$1,000,000 equivalent. The initial deposit in the Special Account would be US$500,000 equivalent; the full authorized allocation would be deposited once the amount of grant disbursements reaches US$2.5 million equivalent. The Special Account should be used for all payments of less than 20 percent of the Authorized Allocation. Applications for replenishment of the Special Account should be submitted on a monthly basis or more frequently if the amount withdrawn from the Special Account exceeds one- third of its value. Disbursements for all contracts below the prior review limit would be made on the basis of Statements of Expenditure (SOE). The relevant documentation in support of SOE would be retained by APN, and would be made available to the appropriate auditors and Bank review missions. All other expenditures would be fully documented. 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 28. Overall responsibility for project implementation would rest with APN, and in particular with the National Coordinator appointed by APN. At the national level, the project would be implemented by APN with administrative and technical assistance from a Project Unit (PU), which would be coordinated with the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) of the associated Native Forests and Protected Areas Project. The establishment of the PU and the appointment of a technical manager and an accountant on terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank, would be a condition of effectiveness of the proposed grant (para. 59). 29. At the level of individual protected areas, the project will promote innovative management strategies to ensure cooperation between different stakeholders and institutions. The management structure would place a strong emphasis on institutional collaboration at both the national and provincial levels and would, in particular, encourage strong representation and participation from NGOs, private interests, and other stakeholders often unrecognized in the management of Argentina's protected areas. The generic 11 structure of the park-level management units required to achieve the aforementioned collaboration will consist of the creation of Consultative Commissions (CCs) in each park. The CCs would provide a formal mechanism for stakeholders to participate in the planning and decision-making process of park management, thus reducing the potential for conflict. AccouNTS AND AUDITING 30. Under the overall direction of the manager of APN, the PU would maintain separate project accounts and records for each project component and sub-component and prepare Statements of Expenditures (SOEs). Supporting documents provided by the various entities concerned would be maintained by the PU and made available to visiting Bank missions and independent auditors, who could make field visits to entities concerned for the purpose of the overall audit. A standard chart of accounts would be prepared for the project. 31. Project accounts, including the Special Account and SOEs, would be audited annually in accordance with appropriate auditing principles and practices. Agreement was also reached during negotiations that the Borrower would hire independent auditors acceptable to the Bank, and that certified copies of their audits would be submitted to the Bank no later than six months after the end of each fiscal year (para. 58 (i)). The audit TORs will be included in the draft Project Implementation Manual (para. 58 (c)). TORs for procurement reviews will also be provided for in the Implementation Manual, which will ask the consultant to: (i) certify that procurement had been carried out using bidding documents agreed with the Bank; (ii) certify that procurement documents presented to the Bank for prior review were representative; and (iii) carry out a physical review of procurement actions taken under the project. 32. During negotiations, agreement was reached that APN would present to the Bank for review and comment, no later than June 30 each year, the draft POA for the project for the following calendar year (para. 58 (j)). During negotiations, agreement was also reached that at the end of each year APN would produce a Progress Report for the project, and in the middle of each year an Interim Progress Report, for submission to the Bank; these would be provided to the Bank not later than January 31 and July 31, respectively (para. 58 (k)). The Progress Reports would provide the basic information and data required for supervision missions and the Mid-Term Review. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 33. The responsibility for project monitoring and evaluation, a task inseparable from effective project management, would rest with the APN national coordinator, who would be assisted in completing this task by the Technical Manager. Specific responsibilities will be detailed in the draft Project Implementation Manual (para. 58 (c)). During negotiations agreement was also reached on the project's monitoring indicators and plan (para. 58) as outlined in Annex D. 12 34. Periodic field assessments have been scheduled and budgeted under the Project's Management, Monitoring, and Evaluation Component for each of the protected areas. Reporting requirements would be designed to assist with the submission to the Bank of annual and semi-annual progress reports, the Mid-Term Review, and the ex-post evaluation of the project, namely, the Implementation Completion Report (ICR). Project performance indicators and measures of project impact would guide possible mid-course adjustments. During negotiations, agreement was reached that a Mid-Term Review would be carried out by November 2000 (Para. 58 (1)), focusing in particular on progress being made in the implementation of the participation plan (PP) and MP and in the legal transfer of land to APN for the establishment of the protected areas. During the Mid-Term Review, a sustainability plan would be designed to ensure GOA's continued support to the MP after project completion. The project's supervision plan is outlined in Annex'I. 5. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION RATIONALE FOR BANK AND GEF INVOLVEMENT 35. Dialogue on the Bank's country assistance objectives and strategy for dealing with native forests, other wildlands, and the protected areas system, began in 1992, leading to a Forestry Sector Review (Report No. 1 1 833-AR, dated April 26, 1993) and to the identification of the proposed project. This sector work concluded that the Bank can be of great assistance to the government in helping it to develop and to implement an appropriate state role in the conservation and management of natural habitats. The proposed solutions to the issues that confront Argentine biodiversity and protected areas are fully supportive of the Bank's natural habitat, environmental, and sector policies. 36. The proposed project is also fully consistent with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), which was discussed by the Board of Executive Directors on May 4, 1995. The CAS highlights three broad objectives: (a) consolidating structural reform; (b) reducing poverty and strengthening social services; and (c) rebuilding infrastructure (including addressing environment issues). The proposed project would be the Bank's first GEF- funded project aimed at improving the conservation of biodiversity of global importance in Argentina. It would provide a vehicle for the Bank to pursue CAS objective (c) above by improving environmental management and protection. 37. In particular, the Project supports the in situ conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, a key objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy for Biodiversity and with all four GEF Biodiversity Operational Programs. The proposed national parks for GEF assistance would protect arid and semi-arid ecosystems (the Pampas, the Puna, and the Patagonian Steppes); forest ecosystems (C6rdoba montane savannas and the Chaco); mountain ecosystems (the Puna), and coastal, marine, and freshwater ecosystems (littoral and wetland Patagonian habitats). The project areas have been identified as national (and regional) priorities in previous conservation planning exercises, and strengthening and extending the nation's 13 protected areas system has been identified as a key element for the Biodiversity Strategy under preparation. The project is consistent with the Conferences of the Parties (COP) guidance on conservation and sustainable use of vulnerable ecosystems and species; capacity building, including human resource development and institutional strengthening; and innovative measures to conserve biodiversity, including government-private partnerships for land management. Furthermore, the Biodiversity Information Management component will contribute to the Argentine National Information Management responsibilities as defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity. 38. Links to other GEF Projects. The Government of Argentina (represented by SRNyDS) has received a UNDP-administered GEF enabling activities grant for the completion of a National Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Strategy. The Strategy will detail recommendations on policy formulation, application of appropriate economic instruments, environmental education, and the importance of public participation and consensus building in developing approaches to the sustainable use of biodiversity. The objectives and approach of the proposed project are compatible with these measures, and focus on priority sites identified during the first years of strategy preparation (1994-95). Because APN would assist SRNyDS in the drafting of the Strategy, close coordination between the World Bank-implemented and UNDP- implemented projects will be facilitated. Moreover, efforts will be monitored to ensure full consistency between strategy and actions. 39. GEF has also supported the Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Plan Project, which was executed by the Fundacion Patagonia Natural (FPN) and administered by UNDP. The primary objective of this US$2.8 million technical assistance project was to develop a Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Province of Patagonia. The plan prepared under the project specifically recommends that priority be given to better protection of the Monte Leon Reserve in Santa Cruz Province, as is proposed under this Biodiversity Conservation Project. Since the completion of the Patagonia CZM project, the Bank and UNDP have been coordinating efforts to prepare a Phase II program that would continue the participatory process initiated by FPN and take corrective action to address some of the problems identified in the CZM plan. The program under preparation would comprise: (i) a UNDP/GEF Patagonia CZM for Biodiversity Conservation Project (US$5.2 million), including the development and consolidation of legal and institutional frameworks, establishment of a network of terrestrial and marine protected areas with their corresponding management plans, incorporation of biodiversity conservation principles into coastal and marine sectoral development planning, the design of a Patagonia Conservation Trust Fund with corresponding economic instruments for capitalization, and an information dissemination network; and (ii) a World Bank-financed Pollution Management Project (about US$18 million), and its associated World Bank/GEF Coastal Contamination Prevention and Control Project (estimated at US$5 million), which would address land-based sources of contamination, threats from petroleum and shipping, and unsustainable exploitation of fishing stocks. The UNDP/ Bank collaboration has helped to avoid overlap and to maximize complementarity between the BCP, the Phase II Patagonia CZM, and the proposed Coastal Contamination Prevention and Control Project. 14 SOCiAL ASSESSMENT AND BENEFICIARY PARTICIPATION 40. All families and communities in the core areas and a cross section of communities in the buffer zone areas were consulted during project preparation. In all but one of the proposed protected areas (Monte Le6n'), interviews and surveys were implemented along with workshops to assess the interest and conditions for establishing new protected areas. These workshops, led by APN staff and specialist consultants, included participation from local NGOs, provincial authorities, federal agencies such as the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INTA), universities, and local community groups. Also during preparation, key stakeholders, the nature and magnitude of potential conflicts, possible mitigation measures, and likely mechanisms to facilitate future stakeholder participation were identified for each of the proposed protected areas. Additional details on the process and results of the methodology used during preparation can be found in the Social Assessment and Mitigation Plan Annex (Annex E). The information gathered by the Social Assessment was used to designing the Mitigation Plan. The Social Assessment also determined that none of the proposed new protected areas is on lands occupied or claimed by indigenous peoples. 41. These initial findings provided valuable input into the preparation of the project's Participation Plan (PP, see Annex B). The project will finance the incremental costs of implementing elements of the PP, which includes: (i) creation of Consultative Commissions (CCs) in each protected area; (ii) contracting a full-time social assessment and participation specialist; (iii) development of site-specific participation plans; (iv) training in a variety of areas related to protected area management, sustainable resource use, ecotourism development, participatory planning with key stakeholders; (v) studies and surveys in support of the implementation of the PP, (vi) monitoring the implementation of the Mitigation Plan to be carried out in core areas of Condorito, Copo and Los Venados Protected Areas, and (vii) monitoring and evaluation of the social and economic impacts of park management, investments, and sustainable development activities over time. Specific activities proposed under this Plan are detailed in Annex B. THE MITIGATION PLAN 42. During the project preparation phase, a team of local specialists undertook a detailed socio-economic analysis of families and communities living in the proposed protected area sites and the buffer zones around those sites. While five studies were undertaken, APN and the local consultants focused their efforts on the core protected areas where people live and economic activities take place: Condorito, Copo and Los Venados. Among the principal objectives of the studies were to determine: (i) the number of people living on land to be declared a protected area, (ii) how they earn their livelihood, and (iii) the social-economic impacts of protected area creation and management. The team was also charged with evaluating whether resettlement of families currently living on I During preparation it was determined that no individuals were living in either the Park or the buffer zone areas. 15 the sites of future national parks was a viable or desirable option or whether other management options existed that would permit them to remain in the same area. Based on that analysis, the team, in consultation with those families living within the confines of the new national parks, have worked on the basis that the people now living in the park could be incorporated into the management structure of the new protected areas and that resettlement would not, in principle, be needed. This decision is consistent with prevailing Bank policy as described in OD 4.30, and is the preferred policy option for APN. In order to prevent the negative social and economic impacts of park establishment, APN has prepared a detailed Mitigation Plan (Mi) which will be agreed at negotiations (para. 58 (m) ) for each of the above mentioned areas. 43. The major goal of the MP is to reduce the impact of park creation on those families and individuals who will be allowed to remain in the park. This impact includes loss of employment and other amenities provided by the employer. The categories which make up the MP are: (a) Infrastructure Improvements; (b) Employee Compensation; and (c) Extension Activities. Employee Compensation refers to APN's plan to hire workers as park guards and firefighters and to provide training for other park management related jobs. In addition, in the new parks where people are currently cutting timber for firewood or where some of their firewood needs are provided by the landlord, APN will provide wood or cover the costs for families to purchase gas or kerosene. APN would also provide technical assistance to help families and individuals maintain or improve their standard of living. Additional details on the specific activities and costs for the families living in each park can be found in Annex E. This Plan will be fillly described in the Project Implementation Manual. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 44. Sustainability of project benefits over the long term will be insured through: (a) the institutional modernization of APN, which will serve to increase that institution's financial sustainability, and hence its ability to provide continued institutional and financial support to the newly created protected areas; (b) the reform of the policy, legal and regulatory framework that affects native forests, along with the research-generated information supported by the NFPA project; (c) the strengthening of project management capabilities of both SRNyDS and APN; and (d) the initiatives to ensure local participation in all aspects of project design and implementation, which will help to ensure local benefits and hence interest in the success of the proposed activities. Moreover, the annual recurrent costs after project completion would be manageable (i.e., about 3 percent of APN's budget) and is consistent with the expressed commitment of APN. LESSONS FROM BANK-WIDE OPERATIONS 45. The design of the proposed GEF project has been based on GEF-related experience from Argentina and on the larger information base derived from other relevant projects supported under the GEF Pilot Phase and other related environmental protection 16 projects in Latin America. The only completed GEF-financed project in Argentina is the previously mentioned Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Plan Project (CZMP). The main lessons derived from the CZMP project include: (a) the need to build on a strong, established organizational base; (b) project preparation and implementation should be carried out to the maximum degree possible through the use of local experts; and (c) the education of decision makers and the population generally on the role of and need to conserve natural habitats is vital to develop support for managing protected areas sustainably. 46. The key lessons derived from ongoing GEF-funded biodiversity projects elsewhere in Latin America support the need to: (a) expand the protected areas system to ensure the conservation of representative samples of global biodiversity; (b) facilitate direct biodiversity conservation activities by communities or groups of people who have a vital interest in conservation because their livelihoods depend on biological resources andlor their quality of life depends significantly on use and existence values of biodiversity; (c) establish realistic goals based on the existing capacity of counterpart agencies, avoiding overly complex projects; (d) involve local NGOs from the beginning of project design; (e) develop management capacity and establish a project implementation unit as soon as possible to facilitate disbursement; (f) plan for sufficient supervision time, taking into consideration the complexity of these types of projects; and (g) focus on field-level park personnel to improve morale and management effectiveness. 47. These lessons are also generally corroborated in the November 1995 World Bank report, Mainstrearning Biodiversity in Development: a World Bank Assistance Strategy for Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity, and by the 1996 Bank report "GEF Pilot Phase Portfolio Project Implementation Review" which support the need for: (a) independent professional management of financial accounts; (b) more creative cooperation among implementing agencies and other global organizations working in the field of biodiversity; (c) provision for long preparation time required to achieve regional collaboration and build local ownership; (d) addressing land tenure issues and strengthening the legal framework which could constrain the effectiveness of management plans; (e) ensuring effective mechanisms for flow of funds to reserves; (f) participation by local communities in pilot productive activities in buffer zones; and (g) ensuring early on that the host implementing agency understands Bank procedures and guidelines. The design of the BCP has fully taken into account the recommendations detailed in these reports. 48. External STAP Review. An expert from the STAP roster reviewed the Initial Executive Project Summary (IEPS) in February 1995 and the revised project brief in October 1996 . In the review of the IEPS, the expert generally supported the project, concluding that the concepts of the sub-components were appropriate and technically feasible, and that the project provided an excellent opportunity for GEF investments on behalf of globally significant biodiversity. The expert agreed that the proposed project comprised the necessary elements for a cohesive program for biodiversity conservation. The expert suggested, however, that the social and political challenges faced by the project were not adequately identified and assessed in the initial project document, particularly 17 with regard to indigenous peoples' territorial rights and interactions with pre-existing small farmer settlements and private ranches. These concerns were addressed during project preparation. As recommended by the expert: (a) a social scientist played an important role on the project design team, focusing on the non-biological aspects of the project; (b) the preparation team assisted the GOA in assessing options for integrating buffer zone residents into park management; (c) the project design includes training for park guards in "people skills" such as conflict resolution, facilitation skills, and public relations; and (d) environmental education on park issues would extend to urban areas as well as to areas in the immediate vicinity of the protected areas. In addition, the network structure for the Biodiversity Information Management System has been designed to facilitate policy decisions related to land use planning, and project funding will allow for possible linkages with major databases outside Argentina in order to expedite identification and exchange of information on a global scale. 49. In the October 1996 review of the revised project brief, the STAP reviewer was satisfied that the earlier comments had been taken into account, that the relationship between the components had been clearly integrated, and that that new document promised a more realistic and feasible project. The reviewer pointed out that the project could in fact be innovative in Argentina by obtaining stakeholders involvement in the sustainable conservation of biodiversity. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 50. Under the mandate established in Law No 22.35 1 and resolution No. 16/94, APN is responsible for environmental review and assessment of interventions in any protected area under its jurisdiction, including the construction and maintenance of public services and tourist infrastructure. Accordingly, agreement was reached at negotiations that, prior to APN commencing the implementation of any construction under this project, the relevant environmental impact analysis would be approved by the Bank (para. 58 (d)). The project is classified by the World Bank in Environmental Assessment Category "B" because infrastructure developments in protected areas are small and because of the small number (i.e., about 70) of individuals that will be directly affected by park creation. PROJECT BENEFITS 51. The most direct and quantifiable benefit of the project will be the creation and sustained management of five new protected areas conserving biodiversity resources of global importance. Similarly, the project will provide the support required to establish the country's first biodiversity information network, creating a fundamental tool required to assess the existing situation and monitor change in both project and other protected areas and resources over time. The project is also expected to have significant positive impacts in supporting innovative approaches to biodiversity conservation through emphasizing collaborative approaches to protected area management between the public and private and NGO sectors, increased public participation, support for future protected 18 area creation, and the promotion of new sustainable land uses in buffer zones, thus reducing threats to protected areas. 52. The GEF will be funding only those activities that are considered not to generate direct national economic benefits; therefore an economic analysis is not required. There will be some local benefits generated by the buffer-zone sustainable development activities, such as improved pasture management, but these cannot be quantified at this time because the competitive selection process is yet to be implemented. Under the selection criteria, beneficiaries of the sustainable development activities would be required to cover the costs of direct benefits. Those families and individuals who will participate in the activities under the MP will also be direct beneficiaries of the project. PROJECT RISKS 53. The major issue faced during project design was the need to move quickly to mobilize resources to protect key areas of biodiversity importance which are under imminent threat from agricultural, mining, and commercial forestry interests. However, unlike some countries in Latin America in which similar GEF investments are being made, country-wide agricultural or settlement policies are not a significant factor in contributing to habitat conversion. Rather, in a country with a relatively long tradition of creating national parks, the issues that need to be addressed are related to financial and institutional constraints to efficient management of the country's protected areas. Thus, the main activities to be undertaken under the project involve the provision of funds and technical assistance for the establishment and consolidation of new national parks and associated provincial reserves. The attitudes and actions of local stakeholders would determine the long-term sustainability of the protected areas supported under the project, and failure to fully consider stakeholders' interests is a risk. The project's emphasis on consultation and participation with local communities and other stakeholders, an innovative approach for APN, is expected to significantly reduce this risk. 54. A second major risk relates to the involvement and support of provincial governments. All the areas included in this project were selected in part because of strong provincial support. However, conservation has not been a high priority for provincial governments due to severe financial constraints. This risk is partially mitigated by the proposed establishment of a federally-managed national park at the core of each protected area and the proposed training and buffer zone activities which over time should help to establish substantial local support for these new parks. In some cases, the project would also provide support through shared resources administered and managed by APN (e.g., patrol vehicles which would cover both the national park and provincial reserve of a project-supported PA). 55. During preparation, significant attention was devoted to ensuring that the people currently living in the parks will be dealt with fairly and that they not lose their capacity to support themselves. In terms of the World Bank's Operational Directive 4.30 on Involuntary Resettlement, no one will need to be resettled because of the establishment 19 of the parks. Those who will be affected include a small number of landowners (all of whom are absentee landowners mostly living in Buenos Aires) and 10 of their workers (including family members) in the Area Protegido Los Venados, 36 individuals (seven families) in the Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito, and 24 inhabitants (five families) in the Area Protegido Copo. During preparation, it was determined that APN's standard land purchase procedures are fair and equitable under Argentine law. In compliance with Bank policy, APN has prepared a Mitigation Plan to ensure that the workers living on lands to be purchased are able to maintain an equivalent or better lifestyle, mainly through employment training and opportunities in park management and protection activities. APN's considerable experience with land purchasing carried out over the last 60 years in other parks has been non-controversial and successful. These land purchase and mitigation arrangements are in compliance with OD 4.30 (Para. 58 (m)). Details on the UP can be found in Annex E. 56. A park-specific risk associated with the Area Protegido San Guillermo involves existing exploratory mineral rights (cateos) in the buffer zone areas contiguous to the national park. A recent revision of the mining code (Ley Nacional No. 24.585/95) requires the preparation of an environmental impact study before any mining activity is approved. Along with the required environmental study, the law also provides for the preparation of any necessary mitigation measures. Moreover, the protected areas conditionality in the ongoing Mining Development Technical Assistance Project (Loan 3927-AR), could be used as leverage if needed to protect the GEF's proposed investments in the PA under the Biodiversity project. Specifically, the Loan Agreement for the mining TA project requires the Borrower to: (i) ensure that no permits are issued for mining activities at any location that may affect materially and adversely, in the opinion of the Bank, the national protected areas (Section 3.10 (b); and (ii) prohibit any mining permits within Provincial Protected Areas (including the San Guillermo Provincial Reserve/Buffer Zone) with narrowly-defined exceptions subject to the Bank's approval (Section 5.01 (e)). 57. It is of concern that local people, including provincial officials, have a voice and play an active role in the planning and management of these new protected areas. This concern has been addressed by the provisions of the participation activities (which includes the creation of the Consultative Commissions and provides environmental and conflict resolution training) and the establishment of a funding mechanism to allow local people and scientists to participate in the development of sustainable development activities in the areas adjacent to the newly created parks. AGREEMENTS REACHED 58. The following agreements were reached at negotiations: (a) the TORs of all consultants would include the obligation that they carry out their work on the basis, inter alia, of the Bank's Operational Policy (OP 4.04) on Natural Habitats and Operational Directive (O.D. 4.01) on Environmental Assessment, which would be incorporated into the Project Implementation Manual (para. 23); 20 (b) in awarding sustainable development activity contracts, APN would follow the selection criteria, approval process and form of contract outlined in the Attachment to Annex B (para 24); (c) selection criteria, approval process and a model form of contract for awarding sustainable development activity contracts, the mechanism for selecting members of the consultative commissions, the consultative process to be followed prior to approval of a management plan for protected areas, the draft TORs for consultants, a standard letter of invitation and forms of contract, the TORs and the allocation of responsibility for project monitoring and evaluation, environmental manual, Bank Operational Policy (O.P. 4.04) on Natural Habitats, Bank Operational Directive (O.D. 4.01) on Environmental Assessment, the audit TORs, and the draft procurement plan would be included in the draft Project Implementation Manual (paras. 20, 21, 26, 31, 33); (d) prior to the commencement of civil works to be financed in any of the new protected areas, APN would have: (i) legal title to all lands for such new protected area; (ii) an approved management plan for that PA, which would be in accordance with the Bank's guidelines on Natural Habitats; (iii) Bank's approval of the relevant environmental studies for civil works; and (iv) Bank's approval of the park-specific Mitigation Plan (para 21, 50); (e) the procurement of goods, works and services financed under the project would be undertaken in accordance with Bank Guidelines for Procurement under 1BRD Loans and IDA Credits (January 1995, revised January 1996 and August 1996) and Bank Guidelines for the Use of Consultants (January 1997), using standard documents, satisfactory to the Bank, for procurement of goods and works under National Competitive Bidding (NCB); and standard letters of invitation and forms of contract for consultant services (para. 20); (f) all bidding documents and contracts for road works would incorporate an environmental manual acceptable to the Bank, said manual to include, inter alia: (i) the applicable environmental and natural resource legislation and regulations; (ii) explicit prohibitions and environmental behavior guidelines for work crews, especially for work in sensitive areas; (iii) procedures for proper selection and management of quarries, borrow pits, gravel extraction along rivers, and other sources of construction material, and eventual rehabilitation of affected areas through soil replacement and revegetation; (iv) procedures for selection of camp sites, management of camp wastes, and guidelines for camp dismantling and abandonment; (v) procedures for proper disposal of excavated earth and spoil material to avoid contaminating streams or causing other unnecessary damage; and (vi) procedures for proper disposal of waste from construction machinery and equipment (para. 21); 21 (g) regarding procurement, the process of Bank review outlined in para. 26 would be followed; (h) agreement on the Key Performance Indicators (Table D-7, Annex D) and the Supervision Plan (Annex I), which includes a Mid-Term Review (para. 33); (i) the Borrower would hire independent auditors acceptable to the Bank, and certified copies of their audits would be submitted to the Bank no later than six months after the end of each fiscal year (para. 31); (j) APN would present to the Bank for review and comment, no later than June 30 of each year, its draft POA for the project for the following calendar year (para. 32); (k) at the end of each fiscal year, APN would produce a Progress Report for the project, and in the middle of each year an Interim Progress Report, for submission to the Bank; these would be provided to the Bank no later than January 31 and July 31, respectively (para. 32); (1) a Mid-Term Review would be carried out by November 2000, focusing in particular on progress being made in the implementation of the Participation and Mitigation Plans (including the design of a sustainability plan), and in obtaining the legal transfer of land for the establishment of the new protected areas (para. 34), and (m) the Mitigation Plan (paras. 42, 55). 59. The establishment of the PU and the appointment of a Technical Manager on terms and conditions acceptable to the Bank, and the completion of the Project Implementation Manual, with draft TORs, would be conditions of effectiveness of the proposed grant (paras. 26 and 28). 22 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT SCHEDULE A: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING Table A. 1. Project Costs by Component and Financing (US$ Million) Components GEF Govt. Benefi- Total ciaries Protected Areas 8.3 10.4 0.4 19.1 (a) Establishment and Consolidation (6.7) (9.2) 15.9 (b) Sustainable Development Activities (0.9) (0.1) (0.4) 1.4 (c) Participation and Training (0.7) (1.1) 1.8 Biodiversity Information Management 0.5 0.1 0.6 Management, Monitoring & Evaluation 0.5 0.1 0.6 Base Costs 9.3 10.6 0.4 20.3 Contingencies (a) Physical 0.3 0.1 0.4 (b) Price 0.5 0.4 0.9 Subtotal 10.1 11.1 0.4 21.6 GEF--PDF 0.3 0.3 Total Project Cost 10.4 11.1 0.4 21.9 23 Schedule A Table A.2. Local and Foreign Project Costs by Component and Financing Local Foreign Total ---------- US$ million --------------- Protected Areas 16.7 2.4 19.1 Establishment and Consolidation (13.9) (2.0) (15.9) Buffer-Zone. Activities (1.2) (0.2) (1.4) Public Participation Activities (1.6) (0.2) (1.8) Biodiversity Information Management 0.36 0.27 0.63 Management, Monitoring & Evaluation 0.58 0.03 0.61 Total Base Costs 17.64 2.70 20.34 Contingencies: Physical 0.30 0.10 0.40 Price 0.75 0.10 0.85 Subtotal Project Costs 18.69 2.90 21.59 GEF--PDF 0.29 0.29 Total Project Costs 18.69 3.19 21.88 Financiny Plan GEF 10.1 Government 11.1 Beneficiaries 0.4 PDF 0.3 Total 21.9 24 SCHEDULE B: PROCUREMENT AND DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS Table B. 1: Summary Of Proposed Procurement Arrangements (US$ Million) a' Project Element Procurement TOTAL ICBUb/ NCR- Other N.G.F _ I.Civil Works 1. I Civil Works 0.5 2.5-!c 3.0 (0.4) (2.3) (2.7) 1.2 Roads and Trails 0.4 0.4 0.8 (0.3) (0.3) (0.6) 2.Goods 2.1 Vehicles 0.7 0.7 (0.6) (0.6) 2.2 Equipment 0.8-d' 0.8 (0.7) (0.7) 3 .Consulting Servicesl 3.1 Technical Assistance 1.4 1.4 (1.4) (1.4) 3.2 Environmental Studies 0.2 0.2 (0.2) (0.2) 3.3 Monitoring and Evaluationl' 0.5 0.5 (0.5) (0.5) 3.4 Training 0.6 0.6 (0.5) (0.5) 3.5 Project Management 0.5 0.1 0.6 (0.5) (0.5) 4.Other Expenditures 4.1 Operating Costs hI 2.0 2.0 (1.6) (1.6) 4.2 Buffer-Zone Grants'1 0.9 0.4 1.3 (0.8) (0.8) 4.3 Land Purchase 6.5 6.5 4.4 Salaries and Related Expenses"/ I 3.2 3.2 Total 1.6 9.8 10.2 21.6 (1.3) (8.8) (10.1) Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the Grant. a/ Totals include taxes and contingencies; _/ ICB-Intemational Competitive Bidding; NCB-National Competitive Bidding; cg/ Lump sum, fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of 3 quotations; d/ Shopping procedures;_e/ Not GEF-financed; f/ According to Consultants Guidelines: Consultant Qual. (approx. US$0.2 m), Individuals (approx. US$2.8 m), and Fixed Budget (approx. US$0.2 m); g/ Includes fees, travel, and other task related costs. hi Operating costs= vehicle operating costs, building maintenance, utilities, translation and printing services, and office materials and supplies. it Mostly lump-sum consultant contracts, including fees and associated travel, materials and services. j/ APN Park Guards and support staff and their direct operating costs. 25 Schedule B ARGENTINE REPUBLIC BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT Table B.2: Allocation of Grant Proceeds Allocation Percent of (Expressed Expenditures Category in US$ to be Equivalent) Financed by GEF (1) Establishment of New Protected Areas (a) Works 3,158,013 88 (b) Goods 1,115,012 82 (c) Consultant Services 1,329,500 100 (d) Operating Costs 1,371,122 82 (2) Sustainable Development Activities (a) Consultant Services 105,000 100 (b) Buffer Zone Grants 742,590 88 (d) Operating Costs 84,870 82 (3) Participation (a) Consultant Services 262,500 100 (b) Training Programs 441,000 88 (c) Operating Costs 23,370 82 (4) Biodiversity Information Management (a) Goods 101,926 82 (b) Consultant Services 261,150 100 (c) Training Programs 73,480 88 (d) Operating Costs 36,203 82 (5) Project Implementation Unit (a) Goods 13,530 82 (b) Consultant Services 460,000 100 (c) Operating Costs 28,823 82 (6) Unallocated 507,840 Total [ 10,115,929 T 26 Schedule B Summary of Disbursement Arrangements Estimated Schedule of GEF Grant Disbursements: I3BRD FY 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 --------------------------US$ millions-------------------------- Annual 0.2 0.5 1.7 1.7 2.8 2.4 0.5 0.3 Cumulative 0.2 0.7 2.4 4.1 6.9 9.3 9.8 10.1 27 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT SCHEDULE C: TIMETABLE OF KEY PROCESSING EVENTS 1. Time Taken to Prepare: 12 months 2. Prepared By: APN, Bank, FAO/CP 3. PDF Approved February 1996 4. First Bank Mssion: June 1996 5. GEF Council Approval March 1997 6. Pre-Appraisal Mission: April 1997 7. Appraisal Mission: June/July 1997 8. Date of Negotiations: July 1997 9. CEO Endorsement of Final Project August 1997 Document 10. Planned Board Date: October 1997 11. List of Relevant PCRs and PARs No PCRs or PARs exist for Biodiversity Conservation projects in the LAC region. Lessons learned are derived from Bank studies on sectoral experience and peer reviews with the ESSD network. 28 Schedule D: Status of Bank Group Operations Status of Bank Group Operations in Argentina IBRD Loans and IDA Credits in the Operations Portfolio Difference Original Amount in US$ Millions Between expected Loan or Fiscal and actual Project ID Credit No. Year Borrower Purpose IBRD IDA Cancellations Undisbursed Disbursements a/ Numbe of Closed Loncredits: 53 Activ Loons AR-PE-5s968 L28540 1987 SEGBA SEGBA V 276.00 0.00 0.00 67.07 67.07 AR-PE-400 L32970 1991 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA AG SERVCEShlNST DEV 33.50 0.00 0.00 3.31 2.11 AR-PE-5977 L32810 1991 ARGENTINEREPUBLIC WR SUPPLY II 100.00 0.00 0.00 64.84 60.18 AR-PE4005 L32800 1991 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA PROVINC DEV PROJ 200.00 000 o.00 43.71 43.71 AR-PE.4034 L34600 1992 GOVERNMENT TAX ADMIN 11 20.00 0.00 0.00 2.13 2.13 AR-PE-6003 L36110 1993 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA RDMAINT&REHAB SCT 340.00 0.00 0.00 143.04 113.80 AR-PE-6051 L35210 1993 ARGENTINA FLOOD REHABILITATION 170.00 000 0.00 4.28 4.28 AR-PE-6036 L35200 1993 GOVERNMENT YACYRETA II 300.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.28 AR-PE-602 L37100 1994 MIN OF ECONOMY CAPITALMKTTA 8.50 0.00 0.00 5.10 4.36 AR-PE-025 L36430 1994 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA MTNAL CHILD HLTH & N 100.00 0.00 0.00 44.07 23.57 AR-PE-6O0S L38770 1995 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC PROV DEVT 11 225.00 0.00 0.00 220.03 23.03 AR-PE46060 L38600 1995 GOVT OFARGENTINA MUNICDEVTII 210.00 0.00 0.00 197.30 -3.04 AR-PE-5992 L37940 1995 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA SECONDARY EDT 190.00 0.00 0.00 167.60 110.70 AR-PE-456s7 L40040 1996 REP. OF ARGRNTINA HINSURANCE TA 25.00 000 0.00 15,04 -.16 AR-PE40909 140030 1996 REP. OF ARGENTINA I INSURANCE REFORM 100.00 0.00 0.00 10000 0.00 AR-PE-6057 L39710 1996 GOVT OF ARGENTINA SECNDARY ED 2 115.50 0.00 0.00 112.50 27.90 AR-PE-38883 L39600 1996 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA ENTEXPORT DV. 38.50 0.00 0.00 33.04 22.88 AR-PE-37049 L39580 1996 GOVTOFARGENTINA PUB.INV.STRENGTHG 16.00 0.00 0.00 15.50 5.90 AR-PE-35495 L39570 1996 SEC.OF SOC.DEVIT (OFFICE SOCIAL PROTECTION 152.00 0.00 0.00 20.83 10.59 AR-PE4040 L39480 1996 GOVERNMENT FORESTRY/DV 16.00 0.00 0.00 15.11 .71 AR-PE46030 L39310 1996 REPUB OF ARGENTINA PROVCL HLTH SCTRDEV 101.40 0.00 0o.0 95.36 24.36 AR-PE-6055 L39270 1996 GOVT. OF ARGENTINA MNING SCTR DEVT 30.00 0.00 000 17.00 -1.30 AR-PE40904 L39260 1996 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA BANKREFORM 500.00 0.00 0.00 166.00 166.00 AR-PE-34091 L39210 1996 REP OF ARGENTINA HIGHER ED REFORM 165.00 0.00 0.00 153.05 66.05 AR-PE4A926 I41950 1997 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC SOC.PROTECT.2 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 16.67 AR-PE-43418 L41680 1997 REPUBLIC OFARG AIDS PREV.&STD CTRL 15.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 1.25 AR-PE-6059 L41640 1997 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC MIL.CHD.HTEL2 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 AR-PE-39584 141630 1997 GOVT OF ARGENTINA B.AURB.TSP 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0°00 ARPE.6010 I41500 1997 GOA PROVAGDEVTI 125.00 0.00 0.00 125.00 130 AR-PE46s21 L41310 1997 GOVT.OFARG PENSION TA 20.00 0.00 0.00 17.50 -15 AR-PE-6052 L41170 1997 GOVTOFARGENTINA FLOODPROTECTION 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 134 AR-PE-44445 L41160 1997 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA PROV.PENSIONI 300.00 0.00 0.00 7500 0.00 AR4E-5980 140930 1997 GOVTOFARGENTINA PROV ROADS 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 16.00 AR-PE-40S0o L40850 1997 GOA NFORESTIPROTC 19.50 0.00 0.00 19.13 -.31 ARPE-51694 L42220 1998 GOVERNMENT P.RFMSJUAN) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Generated by the Operations Information System (OIS) on September 9, 1997 Schedule D 29 AR-PE4006 L42210 1998 MIN. OF ECONOMY P.RFM(TUCUMAN) 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 AR-PE-51693 L42190 1998 GOVERNMENT P.RFM(SALTA) 75.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 AR-PE-51695 L42180 1998 GOVERNMENT P.RFM(R.NEGRO) 75.00 0,00 0.00 75.00 0.00 AR-PE-6041 L42120 1998 GOVERNMENT SMALL FARMER DV. 75.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 Total 5,236.90 0.00 0.00 3,285.84 Active Loans Closed Loans 1018 Total Disbursed (DBRD and IDA): 1,951.06 6,721.58 8,672.64 of which has been repaid: 166.55 2,915.76 3,082.31 Total now held by IBRD and IDA: 5,070.35 3,807.46 8,877.81 Amount sold 0.00 12.79 12.79 Ofwhich repaid 0.00 12.79 12.79 Total Undisbursed : 3,285.84 1.64 3,287.48 a Intended disbisements to date mins actual disbursements to date as projected at appraisal. b. Rating of 1-4: seeOD 13.05. AnnexD2. PreparationoflImplementation Sumnay (Form 590). Followingthe FY94 Armual Review of Portfolio perfonrance (ARPP),aletterbasedsystemwillbe used (HS = highly Satisfactory, S = satisfactory, U = satisfactory, HU = highly unsatisfactory): see proposed Inprovements in Project and Portfolio Performn3ce Rating Methodology (SecM94-901), August 23, 1994. o. Folowig heFY94ARPP, 'mplementationProgress' wil berepotdhere. Gen_rat by the Operations Information System (OIS) on September 9, 1997 -30 SCHEDULE E: ARGENTINA A AT GLANCE Latin Upper- POVERTY and SOCIAL America middle. rgentina & Carib. Income Developmentdlamond- Population mid-1996 (milons) 35.1 485 479 GNP per capita 1996 (USS) 8.410 3,710 4,540 Life expectancy GNP 1996 (biflions USS) 295.0 1,799 2,173 Average annual growth, 1990-96 Population (%) 1.3 1.7 1.5 Laborforce (%) 2.0 2.3 1.8 Grplun 2.0 2.3 1.6 per pnmary Most rcent estiat (latest year avaiabs since 1989) capita ,enroUment Poverty: headcount hdex (% of populaon) 26 Urban population (% of totalpopulaton) 88 74 73 Life expectancy at birth (years) 73 69 69 Infant mortality (per 1,000 i. births) 22 37 35 Access to safe water ChDd malnutrition (% of childken under 5) 22 37 .. Access to safe water (% of population) 64 80 86 lliteracy(%ofpopulWatonage s+) 4 13 13 Gross primary enrollment (% ofschoolage population) 111 110 107 Aroentina Male U Upper-niddle4ncome group Female .. .. .. j KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1976 1985 1996 1996 Economic ratnkl GDP (bilions USS) 52.4 88.4 280.8 300.5 Gross domestic investment/GDP 294 17.6 18.3 18.5 Exports of goods and sernessGDP 5.8 11.7 8.5 9.0 Openness of economy Gross domestic savingslGDP 29.3 23.1 18.4 18.1 Gross national savings/GDP 28.4 16.6 17.5 17.2 Current account balancedGDP -2.5 -1.1 -0.9 -1.3 Interest paymentsWGDP 0.9 5.0 2.1 2.3 Savings Investment Total debtWGOP 14.7 57.6 32.0 33.2 Total debt service/exports 44.7 60.1 47.4 46.7 Present value of debtlGDP .. .. 29.5 V Present value of debtSexports .. .. 332.1 Indebtedness 1976-6 19s6-96 1996 1996 1997406 (average annusl groAnh)fins GDP 0.6 2.9 -4.6 4.4 5.0 GNP per capita -1.8 2.0 -6.4 2.8 3.9 Upper-middeincome group Exports of goods and sefvibes 5.1 7.6 26.4 7.4 8.0 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1976 1985 1995 1999 (% ofGDP) 1 Growth mtes of output and Investmnent(%) Agriculture 6.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 40 Industry 50.1 39.3 36.0 36.2 30 Manufacturing 38.2 29.7 .20 Services 43.3 53.1 56.6 56.7 1 °0, _ 5 t04" 91 92 93 94 ' 9 Private consumption 58.1 .. 72.3 73.3 *20 General government consumption 12.6 .. 9.4 8.5 Imports of goods and services 6.0 6.3 8.5 9.3 [ GOI GDP 1976-86 1986-96 1995 1996 (avwage annual growth) Growth nrtes of exports and Imports (%) Agriculture 1.6 1.5 2.3 0.3 sao Industry -1.5 2.7 -8.5 4.9 r o Manufacutuing -1.6 0.9 Servics 2.2 3.3 -3.0 4.6 40 Private consumption .. .. -8.6 5.7 Genral govemnt consumption .. .. -6.6 -5.4 Gross domestic investment -3.5 5.7 -11.9 5.4 ,2 0 Q Imports of goods and services 2.4 14.5 -14.0 10.0 Gross national product -0.3 3.4 -5.1 4.0 Exports -0-Imports Note: 1996 data are prelimiry estimates. Figures in italis are for years other than thoe spectred. The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. In date are missing, the diamond will be incomplete. Schedule E 31 Argentina PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE Don,eatlc prices 1975 1985 1995 1996 1nflan (X change) . 2 x ConmeIr prices 182.6 672.3 3.4 0.1 i 2,000 Impliit GDOP deflator 198.2 618.2 4.5 2.5 I. 1.0 Goveme nt financs N Of GDP) o_ Curent revenue .. .. 16.7 16.5 9n 92 93 94 9e s Cunwnt budget balance . ,, -0.2 -1-1 IGpo. C Overdl surplus/dWci.. . -1.1 -2.4 ! TRADE 197S 1rSs 1"S 1996 (mdWons USS) Export and anport levels (mill. USS) Totd exporls (fob) 2,961 8,396 20,964 23,774 26s00 Food .. .. 1,969 2,203 Meat 1582 1,955 ,o.. Manufack.es 10,836 12,004 Total inports (co) 3,947 3,814 20,120 23,733 Food .. .. 80 8o Fuel and enrwgy0 s Capita goods . * 4,746 5,647 Exportpe idex (1987=100) . 124 importprimceldex(1987=100) .. .. 115 120 oExpos .Impwt Termsoftrede(1987=100) .. .. 102 103 BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1975 1955 1995 19" (moons USs| Curnnt account balance to GDP tio (%) Expot of goods and serves 3,498 10,039 23,889 27,076 2 Imports of goods and services 4,324 5,285 23,826 27,900 Resourc blance -26 4,754 63 -824 1 Not hcome -466 -5,706 -2,941 -3,523 0 I]. Notcurrentransfhn 6 0 432 334 o r 92 t3 | | Current account balance, before officia cpita tranfers -1,286 -952 -2,446 -4,013 -2 Fhiandng Itms (net) 208 Z200 2,515 231 43 Cheno in net reserves 1,078 -1,248 409 3,782 .4H Resev incudng gold (mill. USS) 848 4,703 15,992 19,774 Conveaon rate (JocbUSS) 3.7E-10 6.oE-05 1.0 1.0 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1975 1986 1"S 11"6 (mons USS) Compositon of total debt, 1995 (mill, US$) Totl debt outstanding and disbursed 7,723 50,946 89,719 99,701 IBRI 341 700 4,913 5,372 G A IDA 0 0 0 0 10170 4913 C 6131 Totaldebtservice 1,603 6,209 9,732 14,529 D IBRt) 43 114 565 608 IDA 0 0 0 0 Compoetn of e 1sc f Offitlgrants 0 6 36 Ofihiaedoms 59 217 1,411 *\ / Pfivataredlrs -111 2.350 5,674 .. ' Forein diect hwesten 0 919 1,319 ..F PorWiof equlty 0 0 211 *Q Wbdd Bank pogmrm CommmenXt 0 0 2,272 946 A - IBRD . -as DIsbursements 19 144 941 1,077 B-mDA 0- Otd'ermithatrnA F-PFlvat Principalrepsynmet 17 68 259 282 C-IMF G-ShtWtrm Netfbws. 1 75 682 795 1 Intes payment 26 46 306 326 Net h¢trn -25 30 376 469 Development Economi 8/28A7 I I PART H: TECHNICAL ANNEXES 32 ANNEx A: BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT Prioritization of Sites from a Global Biodiversity Perspective A. Background 1. The Global Environment Facility's (GEF) mandate is to finance the incremental costs of protecting biodiversity of global importance. This implied the need to prioritize and rank different types of ecoregions or sites, and perhaps different types of biodiversity, as to their global importance. Establishing these priorities required a ranking of the relative importance of biological criteria such as richness, rarity, threat, distinctiveness, representativeness, and function. This biological criteria was then balanced against social and economic criteria, taking into account the range of conservation actions realistically available to the user of the rankings as well as a number of investment feasibility criteria. 2. The project preparation team took Annex 1 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as its starting point in the prioritization exercise. However, in practice, it was found that the biodiversity criteria listed in Annex 1 were not sufficiently detailed to provide definitive guidance on the setting of priorities for biodiversity. Consequently, a methodology was developed, based on the CBD framework, to reach a final decision on site selection. B. AvDroach Used in this Proiect 3. Several Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales (APN) studies have addressed the question of national biodiversity priorities and, to varying degrees, these have also addressed global priorities (Burkhart et. al., 1994; APN, 1994; Burkhart, 1995; G6mez et. al., 1996). A recent report published by the World Bank and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) analyzed the question of global biodiversity priorities in all of Latin America (Dinerstein et al., 1995). Moreover, carried out in close collaboration with APN and with other Argentine biodiversity experts, a study on prioritizing sites for this project, from a global and national viewpoint, was carried out as part of preparation activities (Bucher, 1996). 4. Taking into account the general guidance of the GEF, the studies cited above, and the fact that the Argentina Biodiversity Conservation Project (ABCP) is essentially a protected areas initiative, an approach was developed emphasizing degrees of protection and of threat for prioritizing ecoregions at a global level. Once the high-priority ecoregions were identified, national biodiversity priorities and investment feasibility criteria provided much of the basis for the identification of specific sites (Figure A-1). This approach is believed to be consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy, and reflects 33 Annex A national opinion on the relative importance of different criteria. Specifically, it consisted of three phases: (a) Phase I: The 18 ecoregions of Argentina were prioritized as to their global importance; (b) Phase II: After selecting a more manageable subset of nine ecoregions, a list of sites that could benefit from potential protection under the project were identified from each ecoregion. Biological criteria, at both a global and national level, were used to select sites of outstanding site-specific biological characteristics; and (c) Phase III: Finally, the list of candidate sites was passed through a set of filters designed to take into account investment and implementation feasibility and potential for sustainability. C. Phase I MethodoloLv and Results Choice of Ecoregion Classification 5. While various ecoregion level maps are available for Argentina, the classification of a recent World Bank/WWF report (Dinerstein et al., 1995) was used in this selection process because of its complete set of data from a regional perspective. This classification of ecoregions is roughly consistent with most other Argentine classification systems. For the purposes of this exercise, a distinction was made between the southern half of the Chaco Savannas (essentially the Argentine Semi-arid Chaco) and the Chaco Savannas of Paraguay and Bolivia. This division better represents the conservation status of the Argentine Semi-arid Chaco as the northern Chaco Savannas are much better protected (in Bolivia at least) and under relatively less threat. 6. A few ecoregions, as defined for Argentina in Dinerstein et al. (1995), were not considered in this exercise. These were: * the Brazilian Auracaria Forests because it is almost entirely restricted to Brazil and barely occurs in Argentina (the extent in Argentina is actually much less than shown in Dinerstein et al. (1995)). * the Uruguayan Savannas because it is almost entirely restricted to Uruguay and Brazil. * the Patagonian Grasslands because, in deference to the views of most Argentine biogeographers (e.g., Bucher, 1996; APN maps), this ecoregion is not separable from the Patagonian Steppe. 34 Annex A Figure A-1. Methodological Approach for Prioritizing Sites PHASE 1: Identify High Priority Ecoregions Criteria for ecoregions: *Degree of Protection *Degree of Threat Criteria for site selection: *Protected status would reduce threats PSE 1: Identify -Ecologically viable ndIdentes *Natural habitat relatively pristine r Candidate Sites Outstanding biological characteristics Feasibility criteria for site sdection: Cost -Provincial support PHASE III: Identify -Landowner support Project Sites *Degree of preparedness Project Sites 7. Finally, an additional ecoregion, not included in Dinerstein et al. (1995) because it is a non-terrestrial unit, was also included in this analysis. Although divided and named in various ways by Argentine biogeographers, this additional region is referred to here as the Littoral/Marine ecoregion. It consists of the littoral (shoreline) habitats of the entire coast of Argentina, including associated coastal wetlands and offshore marine habitats. The 16 ecoregions (see Map 1) used as a starting point in this exercise were (names in parentheses are the most commonly used equivalents in Argentina): * Andean Yungas (Yungas) * Brazilian Interior Atlantic Forests (Selva Paranaense) * Valdivian Forests (Subantdrtica) * Subpolar Nothofagus Forests (Subantartica) * Semi-arid Chaco (Chaco OccidentaI) * Humid Chaco (Chaco Oriental) * C6rdoba Montane Savannas (Chaco Serrano) * Argentine Monte (Monte) * Argentina Espinal (Espinal) * Pampas (Pampa) 35 Annex A * Parana Flooded Savannas (Delta y Islas del Parand) * Central Andean Puna (Puna y Altoandino) * Central Andean Dry Puna (Puna y Altoandino) * Southern Andean Steppe (Estepa Patagonica) * Patagonian Steppe (Estepa Patag6nica) * Litoral/Marine (Oceanica Uruguayo-Bonaerense/Ocetnica Patag6nica) Methodology for Prioritizing Ecoregions and Results 8. In the context of the ABCP, it was considered appropriate to accord considerable importance to the degree of protection as well as to the degree of threat associated with each ecoregion (in both cases, the ecoregions were evaluated over their entire area and not just in their Argentine portion). This approach is less complex than that of Dinerstein et al. (1995), yet the final results are similar.1 Figure A-2 presents the protection and threat values of these two parameters for the 16 Argentine ecoregions. 9. The degree of protection values were taken directly from Dinerstein, et al. (1995); see that source for full details of how the values were determined. The "degree of threat" values are the sum of all the values used in that book to determine the Snapshot Conservation Status, minus the Degree of Protection Value (i.e., threat is measured by taking into consideration habitat loss, presence of habitat blocks, fragmentation and degradation, and degree of conversion). All values were taken unchanged from Dinerstein et al. (1995), as they were in substantive agreement with the opinion of Argentine experts. The values for the Parana Flooded Savannas and the Littoral/Marine ecoregion were estimated by APN experts, since no data for this ecoregion were included in Dinerstein et al. (1995). Similarly, the values for the Semi-arid Chaco of Argentina were estimated by APN experts and by Bucher (1996) since, as defined here, this ecoregion is substantially different from the original Chaco Savannas. lRegional Conservation Priority values, from Class I (highest priority) to Class IV (lowest priority), were calculated in the report of Dinerstein et al. (1995) for all of the ecoregions in Argentina. Nine of the 18 ecoregions were classed as Priority I; four of the proposed sites under this project fall in a Class I ecoregion. Quebrada del Condorito is an area that falls within the Class IV C6rdoba Montane Savannas ecoregion, but it should be noted that the Condorito site also harbors a biologically unique mix of ecotones with higher priority ecoregion types such as the Yungas, the Pampas, and the Semi-arid Chaco. 36 Annex A Figure A.2. Prioritization of Argentine Ecoregions from a Global Perspective Darker shading indicates High 60 po~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~orer protection and pro n an ahiieher threats. Selected squares arecoregions (in black) are .he ninconsidered highest priority for consideration under At Brzla neirAlni oet ~~~ ~~GEF project That Paaona0Sep 30- Cordoba Montane Savannas *~~tanw~v Central Andean Dry Puna LOW 20 -.".. .. 10 -niatlin 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High -4- Degree of Protection Low 10. The darker shading on Figure A-2 indicates a relatively poorer degree of protection and a higher level of threat. The selected higher priority ecoregions (the black squares) are those that fall in the darker areas of the graph. From a global point of view, the nine ecoregions selected using these criteria represent the most important candidates for consideration under this project. These were: * Pampas * Brazilian Interior Atlantic Forests * Semi-arid Chaco * Patagonian Steppe * Argentine Espinal * Humnid Chaco * C6rdoba Montane Savannas * Littoral/Marine Habitats * Central Andean Dry Puna 37 Annex A D. Phase H Methodology and Results 11. The objective of Phase II of this analysis was to identify biologically interesting candidate sites from each of the high priority ecoregions identified in Phase I. Additionally, several freshwater wetland sites were included in the list of candidate sites since the ecoregion approach excluded such areas. Criteria used to identify the list of candidate sites were the following: (a) area of relatively pristine natural habitat, representative of the ecoregion in which it is located; J (b) area of sufficient size to be considered ecologically viable and large enough to ensure conservation of ecological processes over the long term; (c) in the event that many potential sites were identified in an ecoregion, higher consideration was given to those that were biologically most interesting (relatively high species diversity, local center of endemism, or some other outstanding biological characteristics); and (d) area under such inmuinent threat that protection would help ensure the long-term ecological viability of the site. 12. The list of sites was identified by APN experts, through a series of workshops and meetings in Buenos Aires and elsewhere (Bucher, 1996). The potential wetland sites were those identified by the Argentine office of the NGO Wetlands for the Americas using criteria developed for the Ramsar Convention (Frazier, 1996). Thirty-two sites were identified as a result of this exercise. Only cursory information is provided here on most sites (Table A-1); complete descriptions for these sites can be found in Bucher (1996), a copy of which is available in Project Files (Annex J). E. Phase Im Methodologv and Results 13. During the final phase of the prioritization exercise, the 32 candidate sites were subjected to a series of filters to determine the interest of including them in the proposed GEF project. It should be noted that at this point in the exercise, all sites were considered to be of global biodiversity interest because they are located in the Argentine ecoregions of the highest global interest (Phase I) and they are among the biologically most interesting sites in their respective ecoregions (Phase II). 14. During the Phase III prioritization of sites, criteria related to feasibility of the investment were used in selecting a short list of project sites. Rather than a prioritization ranking, the final selection was obtained by eliminating sites that did not meet minimal feasibility criteria. Failure to satisfy any one of these thresholds meant that, at least within the context of this particular GEF project, preparing a major protected area investment in the area was not realistic. Table A-I shows rejected sites and the corresponding minimal criteria they failed to meet (indicated by an X in that column). The criteria used were the following: 38 Annex A (a) Cost: The GEF investment cannot include land purchase costs. Since only limited funds are available to APN for land purchase, this criterion led to the rejection of sites with unreasonably high land purchase costs; (b) State of negotiations with the province: The protected area system in Argentina is a complex mix of federal and provincial protected areas of varying status. Generally, the creation of a new protected area in Argentina is dependent on the support of the provincial government concerned. This may involve legislative support for passing a law to cede the land in question to the federal government or support for effective management in areas under its own management. APN ranked the state of negotiations with the concerned provinces in order to judge whether provincial support was likely to be sufficient, through the life of the project and thereafter, to attain key conservation objectives. Wetland sites in Tierra del Fuego (Costa Atlantica de Tierra del Fuego) and C6rdoba (Mar Chiquita), proposed for support in an early 1995 proposal to the GEF, were eliminated for lack of provincial interest; (c) Local support: Some measure of support from local landowners and communities was deemed essential. In the absence of such support, expropriation procedures, where needed, could result in additional costs and involuntary resettlement disputes. In some cases, the lack of local community support could compromise the long-term sustainability of a proposed protected area; and (d) Degree of preparedness: This five-year GEF project is expected to begin disbursements in early 1998, hence there is a relatively small window of time available for preparing and implementing investments. With this time constraint in mind, a minimal preparedness criterion was established whereby some sites were eliminated because they faced lengthy administrative and legal steps for preparing an investment. 15. After applying these selection criteria (Table A-1), five sites were selected for investments under the GEF Project. Those five selected sites are: (a) Area Protegido Los Venados (San Luis), (b) Area Protegido San Guillermo (San Juan), (c) Area Protegido Copo (Santiago del Estero), (d) Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito (Cordoba), and (e) Area Protegido Monte Le6n (Santa Cruz). These selected areas are described in greater detail in Annex B and in Bucher (1996). 16. A few highly-rated sites were narrowly excluded only because of an insufficient degree of preparedness. Two sites that were just barely excluded from inclusion in the project were: (a) Puerto Peninsula, Missiones, in the Brazilian Interior Atlantic Forests ecoregion (Selva Paranaense); and (b) Los Cardones, Salta, in the Central Andean Dry Puna (Prepuna). These sites could be considered for a Phase II project, based of course on a positive implementation experience with the project and satisfactory evaluation by the independent experts. 39 Annex A References Bucher, E. 1996. Proyecto GEF de Conservaci6n de la Biodiversidad en Argentina: Identificaci6n y Priorizaci6n de Ecoregiones y Sitios de Importancia Global. Report submitted to FAO, December, 1996. C6rdoba, Argentina. Burkhart, R. et al. 1994. El Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas de la Argentina. Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Burkhart, R. 1995. Degree of Threats and Protection, from a Global Perspective, of Argentine Ecoregions. Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales (unpublished notes). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Dinerstein, E., D. M. Olson, D. J. Graham, A. L. Webster, S. A. Primm, M. P. Bookbinder, and G. Ledec. 1995. An Evaluation of the Conservation Status of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank (in collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund). Washington, D.C. Frazier, S. 1996. Visi6n General de los Sitios Ramsar en el Mundo. Wetlands International, Publ. No. 39. Global Environment Facility (GEF). 1996. Operational Strategy of the Global Environment Facility. Global Environmental Facility. Washington, D.C. G6mez, D. A., M. Babarskas, and A. Flores. 1996. Prioridades para el Establecimiento de Nuevas Areas Nacionales Protegidas a Ser Incluidas en el Proyecto GEF. Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Johnson, Nels C. 1995. Biodiversity in the Balance: Approaches to Setting Georgraphic Conservation Priorities. Biodiversity Support Program. Washington, D.C. Krapovickas, S., D. G6mez, M. Babarskas, and E. Haene. 1994. Analisis de Prioridades Biogeograficas para la Ampliaci6n del Sistema de Areas Protegidas Nacionales en Argentina. Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales, Informe de Avance. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 40 Annex A Table A.1. Principal Characteristics and Feasibility Analysis of Candidate Sites Identified During Phase II Feasibility Criteriaa Site Name Size Biological Characteristics Cost Negot. Local Prepar- (ha) with Prov. Support edness PAMPAS (PA MPA) 1. Los Venados (Pastizal Pampeano), San 130,000 Large area of relatively pristine dry Pampas; populations of the Luis endangered Pampas Deer sub-species (Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer) 2. Rio Salado area, Buenos Aires N/A One of most pristine remaining areas of humnid pampa habitat; X X seasonally flooded 3. Sierra de la Ventana, Buenos Aires NIA Small area relatively protected in Prav. Reserve Ernesto Torniquis; X area of upland pampa habitat; relict populations of guanaco BRAZILIAN INTERIOR ATLANTIC FORESTS (SEL VA PARANAENSE) 4. Puerto Peninsula, Misiones (expansion 17,600 Property of the Army; protection would extend and constitute a buffer X of Iguazui National Park) to the adjacent Iguazui National Park 5. Yaboti, Misiones 240,000 Largest relatively contiguous area of this ecoregion type in Argentina; X X privately owned and currently a biosphere reserve but not adequately protected SEMI-ARID CHACO (CHACO OCCIDENTAL) 6. Copo, Santiago del Estero 115,000 One of the largest areas of pristine Chaco in Argentina; complete range of representative communities; good populations of vulnerable large mammnals such as jaguars, giant armadillo, etc. 7. Reserva Natural Formosa (expansion), 38,000 Extension to existing reserve of 10,000 ha (only existing national X Formosa park in Semi-arid Chaco) would guarantee viability of original reserve 8. El Rey (expansion), Salta/Jujuy 240,000 Extension to existmg park would incorporate many Yungas/Chaco X ecotones and establish a corridor with the now isolated Calilegua National Park 9. La Piramide, Chaco N/A Excellent state of conservation of Chaco-type quebrachal forests; rich X fauna and flora 10. Salto Forestal property near Joaquin 380,000 Previously sustainably managed for wood production; area largely X x Gonz4lez, Salta still well conserved; typical Chaco habitats 41 Annex A Feasibility Criteria' Site Name Sizea Biological Characteristics Cost Negot. Local Prepar- (ha) with Prov. Support edness PATAGONIAN STEPPE (ESTEPA PATAGWNICA) 11. Bosques Petrificados (expansion), 50,000 Extension to a Natural Monument; good sample of Patagonian Steppe X X Santa Cruz habitat; outstanding fossil beds ARGENTINE ESPINAL (ESPINAL) 12. Luro, La Pampa N/A Relatively protected as provincial park; good representative of X X Caldenes sub-ecoregion type; mosaic with Monte habitats 13. Montiel region, Entre-Rios N/A Good state of conservation despite extensive caftle raising; X representative Espinal habitats and communities 14. Loma (and Laguna) del Cristal, Santa N/A Combination of wetlands, woodlands and grasslands; relatively little X Fe affected by present cattle raising activities 15. Lihue Calel (expansion), La Pampa 12,500 Good representative of espinal habitat; distinctive brackish wetlands X X (salitrales) HUMID CHACO (CHACO ORIENTAL) 16. Laguna El Palmar 5,500 Mix of upland chaco habitat with seasonally flooded wetlands; only X X marginally affected by cattle raising; very rich in fauna 17. Rio Vermejo area (Mesopotamia 200,000 Mix of Humid Chaco, Semi-Arid Chaco, wetlands, and gallery forest X X Chaquena), Chaco habitats; borders a well protected indigenous reserve 18. Parque Nacional Chaco (expansion), Privately owned mix of well preserved forests, wetlands, and natural X X Chaco grasslands CORDOBA MONTANE SAVANNAS (CHACO SERRANO) 19. Quebrada del Condorito, Cordoba 181,000 Only serious candidate to become the first protected area in the C6rdoba Montane Savannas; unique extra-Andean population of Andean Condor, some endemics in this isolated massif 20. Talampaya Prov. Reserve, La Rioja 215,000 Part of this area is biogeographically linked to this ecoregion; also X X mcludes monte and pre-puna habitats 42 Annex A Feasibility Criteria' Site Name Sizea Biological Characteristics Cost Negot. Local Prepar- (ha) with Prov. Support edness CENTRAL ANDEAN DRY PUNA (PUNA/ALTOANDINO) 21. Laguna de los Pozuelos, Jujuy 100,000 Biosphere Reserve and Ramsar site; puna habitat surrounding X X wetland very important for migratory birds (such as three species of flamingos) 22. San Guillermo, San Juan 860,000 Most southerly extension of Puna in Argentuua; large populations of camelids (vicufias and guanacos) 23. Laguna Vilama, Jujuy 8,000 Similar to nearby Pozuelos site in biological characteristics; good X X populations of vicufla, rheas, etc.; in addition to puna habitats, includes an important wetland that seasonally is used by tens of thousands of flamingos 24. Los Cardones, Salta 65,000 Good mixture of puna habitats, including stands of giant cacti X x (cardones), Trichocereus pasacana FRESHWATER WETLANDS (HUMEDALES) 25. Mar Chiquita, C6rdoba 200,000 Brackish wetland internationally important for migratory birds; X X X surrounding espinal and dry chaco habitats; threatened by contamination and canal construction 26. Laguna Llancanelo, Mendoza 40,000 Ramsar site; good representation of monte and steppe habitats X 27. Ibera (provincial reserve), Corientes 1,200,000 Wetland complex of wetland and chaco habitats; very rich in fauna: X X alligators, Pantanal deer, various felines, etc. LITORAJAI HABITATS (OCEANICA URUGUAYO-BONAERENSE & OCEAAICA PATAG)NICA) 28. Bahia Policarpo, Tierra del Fuego 25,000 Well preserved littoral and steppe habitats, areas of subantarctic X x Nothofagus forests, and important wetlands 29. Monte Leon, Santa Cruz 11,000 Well conserved Patagonian Steppe habitat and also outstanding littoral and marine habitats would be protected at this site; regionally unportant colonies of penguins and sea lions 30. Albufera Mar Chiquita, Buenos Aires 30,000 Ecologically interesting coastal lagoon; important for migratory birds X x 31. Costa Atlantica de Tierra del Fuego, About 200 kn Hemispheric site of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve X Tierra del Fuego of coastline Network; coastal wetlands of outstanding imnportance 32. Punta Rasa, Buenos Aires 615 Inportant for migratory shorebirds x x a. An "X' in a feasibility column indicates that the site was judged to not satisfy the minimal feasibility criterion (see text for more details). Under Size, "N/A" is indicated for the site when a general area or region or interest has been identified rather than a clearly definable site. 43 ANNEX B: PROTECTED AREAS AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT COMPONENT (US$ 19.1 million Base Costs2) A. Rationale and Obiective 1. Argentina's early management of its PAs could be characterized as "traditional" in that emphasis was placed on direct protection by APN staff, with little if any public participation. As evidence grew that this approach was no longer effective in addressing threats undermining the integrity of PAs, APN initiated a new approach beginning in 1985 with the creation of Local Assessment Commissions (comisiones asesoras locales) with the objective of increasing local public and private participation in the PA management process. More recently, public participation and transparency in the management process has been increasingly integrated into the development of management and visitor plans and environmental impact assessments. The Argentina Biodiversity Conservation Project (ABCP) provides an opportunity to reinforce these earlier efforts and contribute to the development of new participatory approaches to help ensure long-term conservation of protected areas. As such, the project will support: (i) the creation of five national parks to protect unique ecosystems, and the biodiversity they contain; (ii) the promotion of sustainable development activities in the provincial reserves and areas of influence around the PA core zones; and (iii) the incorporation of stakeholders from the private and non- governmental sectors in planning and decision-making activities, especially at the local level. B. Component Description 2. The Protected Areas Component consists of three sub-components, namely: (i) creation and consolidation of new protected areas, (ii) sustainable development activities in the PAs' buffer zones, and (iii) public participation. Sub-component 1: Creation and Consolidation of Protected Areas 3. The ABCP will create five national protected areas in Argentina (See Map 1 for their location). These are: (a) Area Protegido Los Venados (APLV); (b) the Area Protegido San Guillermo (APSG); (c) the Area Protegido Copo (APC); (d) Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito (APQC); and (e) Area Protegido Monte Le6n (APML). Each of these sites represents an area of high biological and ecological value of global significance. All are threatened by one or more potential resource-use conflicts, and all represent high priority conservation sites at both the national (APN) and provincial levels (see Annex A for more detail on site selection). In the following discussion, the use 2 Base Costs are costs without price or physical contingencies. 44 Annex B of the term protected area (PA) as applied to these five sites implies an integrated conservation unit consisting of a national park (core zone) and its associated buffer area consisting of a national and/or provincial reserve. 4. Area Protegido Los Venados (APLV). According to APN's own studies, the pampas grasslands are the nation's most threatened biome because of conversion for agricultural and grazing uses. The APN estimates that of the country's original 500,000 square kilometers of pampas, less than 0.2 percent remains in pristine condition, mostly in isolated patches. Because this area is virtually absent from the current national system of protected areas, APN has made it the agency's highest priority for project support. 5. The pampas grasslands ecosystem is also important as habitat for one of Argentina's most endangered species, the pampas deer (Ozotocerus bezoarticus), the protection of which is a global priority. The proposed protected area is home to the most important of the three remnant populations of the pampas sub-species of the deer, the others being in the provinces of Buenos Aires and Corrientes. Until recently, the San Luis Province population exists only because of the efforts of private, local land managers to restrict access to their property and to control poaching. However, there is now a new provincial law in place which provides additional protection to the deer. The major threats to the remaining examples of this once vast ecoregion are: (a) Changing land use patterns. Economic pressures are contributing to changes in ownership and land use patterns in the parnpas grasslands. Areas that were formerly characterized by large land holdings that sustained traditional grazing pressures are rapidly being transformed into smaller ownership units characterized by increasing grazing pressure and conversion to agricultural uses; both contributing to the contraction of the ecoregion and loss of critical habitat of the pampas deer population; (b) Introduction of exotic grasses. To support more intensive grazing, many owners have introduced exotic grasses, some species of which provide. good forage for cattle but out-compete the native species. These exotic grasses do not favor the continued existence of the pampas deer nor the thousands of other distinctive and endemic species of plant and animals characteristic of these habitats; and (c) Poaching of the pampas deer. While hunting is outlawed in San Luis Province, the lack of enforcement has permitted considerable pressure on this endangered species. 6. This proposed PA is located in San Luis Province and represents one of the few areas of natural grasslands remaining in the country. The APLV will consist of a core national park area of approximately 30,000 ha, one of the only remaining pristine grassland areas in the pampas. The park will be surrounded by national and provincial reserves measuring approximately 30,000 and 70,000 ha respectively, plus an additional 45,000 ha in the form of an existing private reserve managed iLy a national NGO 45 Annex B (Fundaci6n de Vida Silvestre- FVSA). At present, this area is entirely privately owned. Existing control measures consist of infrequent visits from the provincial flora and fauna inspectors, while INTA technicians provide technical advice to the local agricultural community. However, a recent agreement has been signed between the President of the Nation and the Governor of San Luis Province which outlines the necessary steps leading to the creation of new protected area. 7. The proposed management activities to be supported in the APLV will differ according to category of protection. These are: (a) National park. The management strategy will be based on a policy of strict protection, but will make provision for the possibility of low-impact visits. Following the completion of land acquisition, cattle would be gradually eliminated from the park. Park rangers would be hired and would patrol the area to control access, poaching and other types of illegal activity, and manage visitor use. These rangers would conduct basic inventory and monitoring activities, paying special attention to the condition of the pristine grasslands and the number and distribution of the pampas deer. The project would develop partnerships with the local scientific community to monitor the effects of park management on the pampas deer and to monitor the incidence of grassland fire in the core area; and a (b) National and provincial reserve. The reserve would be managed as a buffer zone for the core area, with management objectives emphasizing the control of productive activities through implementation of restrictions on use established through mutual agreement between APN and provincial authorities. Permitted activities would include visitor use such as picnicking and camping. Grazing would continue in the reserve, but would be managed under APN guidelines, which would be developed in cooperation with INTA and others in the scientific community. Other likely activities to be supported in the reserve would include: (i) the provision of technical assistance aimed at reducing fertilizer and pesticide use, (ii) the promotion of micro-enterprises to serve visitor needs, and (iii) efforts to enhance environmental consciousness. APN and the province will establish cooperative mechanisms to ensure that local residents understand the importance of eliminating activities detrimental to conservation objectives. 8. Of the total 175,000 ha representing the proposed PA, only the approximately 30,000 ha designated as the national park would be purchased by APN. Currently, there are two families living within the park's boundaries. Under the project, APN will allow these families to remain and will begin to assist them at the time the land changes hands. This assistance is detailed in the Mitigation Plan (MP) in Annex E. The remaining land outside the core area would remain under private ownership, subject to restrictions established by APN and relevant provincial institutions. 46 Annex B 9. Area Protegido San Guillermo (APSG). The proposed Area Protegido San Guillermo (APSG), located in San Juan Province, was originally established as a provincial reserve in 1972. Because of its large population of vicufia (Vicugna vicugna), an endangered species, and guanacos (Lama guanicoe), a threatened species, UNESCO declared this a biosphere reserve in 1984. The most important ecosystem of the APSG is the Andean puna, which reaches its southernmost extension in the proposed PA. The Argentine section of the puna is characterized by sparse rainfall, relatively low temperatures, extreme daily temperature change (more than 30 degrees Celsius in some cases), and high winds. The reserve contains high mountain valleys and deep canyons, with permanent snow fields in its northernmost extension of the interior mountain ranges. Recently, important archaeological sites, including traces of pre-Spanish Inca, were discovered in the proposed area. 10. The APN considers the Andean puna to be under-represented in the national park system, and a recent study characterized the APSG as both nationally and regionally significant due to the high degree of biodiversity and endemic species associated with the southernmost extension of the puna. The San Guillermo site is thought to contain up to 50 percent of the remaining Argentine population of vicufias, and it is only one of two places in Argentina where vicufia and guanaco inhabit the same range. A recent study concluded that San Guillermo, because of the difficulty of access and the protection that it has been afforded due to its status as a provincial and biosphere reserve, is perhaps the least altered example of the puna in the Andean region. The most significant threats to the proposed PA are: (a) Poaching of vicufia and guanaco. Illegal hunting is widespread in the proposed area. Poachers enter on horseback and easily escape detection because of the vast distances and the lack of effective protection; and (b) Potential mining conflicts. There is some gold mining exploration in the area; an activity allowed under claims filed by these entities with the provincial Sub-Secretaria de Mineria. While the proposed national park appears to have little mining potential and is encumbered with only a few claims and prospecting activity, rights which will shortly expire, the buffer and multiple use zones do have claims. Among other institutional safeguards, the recently approved national mining law (Ley Nacional No. 24.585/95) requires the preparation of an environmental impact study, which must be accompanied by appropriate mitigation measures. 11. The proposed PA of some 834,000 ha will consist of a national park of approximately 170,000 ha, a provincial reserve of 294,000 ha, and a multiple use zone of 370,000 ha on the northern, western, and southern sides of the park. The proposed area which has been proposed as a national park has already been ceded to the Nation (Ley Provincial No. 6.788/97). The degree of protection of the existing reserve has varied over time, depending on the availability of provincial resources to support patrol and control activities. At present, protection appears to be almost non-existent. 47 Annex B 12. Management activities supported under the project will be compatible with the following designated zone management categories. These are: (a) National park. Emphasis will be placed on the protection of the natural and cultural resources within the 170,000-ha core area. These would include strict control of major access points, roving patrols within the core area, prohibition of agricultural, grazing, and mining activities, control of poaching, basic inventory and monitoring activities, management of visitor use, and launching of necessary planning activities with the participation of appropriate interest groups. Mining activities would also be strictly prohibited in this area. The core zone could serve as a baseline to monitor impacts of human activities in the two designated reserves; (b) Buffer zone. The province will manage the 294,000-ha provincial reserve primarily as a buffer to provide additional protection to the proposed national park. The current agreement between the Governor and the President of the Nation commits the province to limit development activities in this zone to those which would represent no threat to the core zone. The law ceding the jurisdiction of the land for the national park also stipulates that mining processing would not be allowed. In this area, characterized by a limited human presence, the project would support sustainable land use practices; and (c) Multiple use zone. Activities in the 370,000-ha multiple use zone will be managed by the Province. While due to the local phyisography no rivers flow from the zone into the core area, any potential mining operations would nevertheless require the development of an environmental mitigation plan as stipulated in the mining code (see below). 13. Its is also important to note the protected areas conditionality in the ongoing Mining Development Technical Assistance Project (Loan 3927-AR), which the Bank could use as leverage if needed to protect the GEF's proposed investments in the Biosphere Reserve under the Biodiversity project. Specifically, the Loan Agreement for the mining TA project requires the Borrower to: (i) ensure that no permits are issued for mining activities at any location that may affect materially and adversely, in the opinion of the Bank, the national Protected areas (Section 3.10 (b); and (ii) prohibit any mining permits within Provincial Protected Areas (including the San Guillermo Provincial Reserve/Buffer Zone) with narrowly-defined exceptions subject to the Bank's approval (Section 5.01 (e)). 14. Area Protegido Copo (APC). The proposed PA, protecting a portion of the semiarid Chaco and located in the Province of Santiago de Estero, corresponds to the Copo Provincial Reserve created in 1968. Since very little of this ecosystem exists in its pristine state, a 1995 study concluded that its protection was one of the highest regional 48 Annex B priorities for the conservation of the biodiversity of the continent3. Rare and endangered species characteristic of this ecosystem include: the jaguar (Panthera onca), a species of peccary (Parachoerus wagneri), the giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), and the giant armadillo (Priodontes giganteus). The semiarid Chaco also contains some 200-3 00 species of birds and numerous reptiles. Past efforts to protect this highly vulnerable ecosystem (e.g., the Reserva Natural Formosa) have been insufficient to guarantee conservation of large tracts of this habitat. 15. For the last several decades, this ecoregion has been degraded by human pressure on its forest resources, which were initially used in the production of tannin and railroad ties and more recently, for fence posts and charcoal. At the same time, forest resources were undergoing additional pressure due to the conversion of forested area to agricultural and grazing lands. The most significant threats to the proposed APC are: (a) Poaching. Wildlife poaching has been on the increase since petroleum exploration roads were constructed in the late 1 980s; (b) Poor forest management. The access roads have also facilitated the uncontrolled cutting and extraction of forest products, in particular firewood and charcoal; (c) Grazing and agricultural activities: The magnitude and significance of these activities, which are beginning to affect the peripheral areas of the proposed PA, have not been well studied and are not fully understood. However, if these activities continue unabated in the reserve area, there is a risk that the ecological value of the buffer zone will be undermined and hence may pose a threat to the core area itself, and (d) Unattended fires. APN reports an increased incidence of uncontrolled fires in the region, which are primarily started by local people to maintain and clear new lands for agricultural production. 16. The project will support the establishment of a PA consisting of a total area of approximately 180,000 ha. The core area would measure 114,250 ha and will consist of a national park and reserve. Under the project, APN will allow five families currently occupying these lands in the core area to remain, and will provide them with assistance to improve their standard of living through the provision of technical assistance for agro- forestry and improved housing. APN will also hire family members to work as park guards and firefighters. This assistance is detailed in the Mitigation Plan in Annex E. In addition, the province would create a provincial reserve of approximately 65,000 ha around the southern and western edges of this core area, which would serve as a buffer zone. The following management activities would be supported by the project: 3See Dinerstein et al., 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean (World Bank/World Wildlife Fund, 1995). 49 Annex B (a) National park. APN would manage the core area as a national park, with traditional objectives of protection and control, emphasizing the prevention of wood extraction, illegal hunting, and cattle grazing. These management activities would include extended daily patrols to control human access and prevent illegal activities within the core zone. APN would also be responsible for monitoring activities to determine the health of the ecosystem and the number and distribution of the endangered species in the project area. APN would be further responsible for the preparation of management plans and annual operation plans that would consider such topics as project zoning, visitor use, community participation, institutional coordination, and public information and environmental education. Through its work in the core zone, APN would develop technical cooperation with provincial governments and private sector organizations. The core area would be internally zoned to include a small national reserve which would be managed by APN under its national policies; and (b) Provincial reserve. In the provincial reserve, the project would focus on sustainable use, such as restoration and recovery of native forests, remnant species management, improved forest and grazing management, bee keeping, and ecotourism. To convince local people of the importance of these conservation activities, APN would initiate public information and environmental education programs oriented to people who live in or around the provincial reserve. 17. Under the current proposal, the eastern and northern borders of the core area may not be adequately buffered, suggesting that a larger protected area would likely be a necessity in the future. In recognition of this concern, APN has recently initiated a series of field activities in the relevant areas to better understand the existing situation. APN intends to hold discussions with provincial authorities in the neighboring Chaco Province as the next step to this eventual expansion. 18. Area Profegido Quebrada del Condorito (APOC). The proposed PA would protect important features of the landscape known as the Pampa de Achala, and would consist of a national park and provincial reserve situated in the Sierras of C6rdoba. This section of the Sierras is geographically complex, featuring major watersheds feeding agricultural areas. These watersheds have formed major canyons which include the quebradas of El Condorito, Batan, del Sur, Corralejo, and Yatdn. The PA is in the middle of the distinctive C6rdoba Montane Savannas ecoregion and is bounded by the Andean highlands (northwest), the Chaco (northeast), the Pampas (southeast), and by the Cuyo and Patagonia (southwest), which makes it a unique transition zone for flora and fauna from all these regions. Despite the PA's relatively small size, one can find within its stark landscape a unique mix of plant and animal life that are typical of other regions of Argentina but that thrive here due to its central location. 19. The major threat to the proposed PA is poor land management practices. Specifically, years of overgrazing, deforestation and indiscriminate burning have caused 50 Annex B major environmental problems in the project area. There is evidence of serious erosion, destruction of riparian habitat, and degradation of vegetation cover. 20. The total area of the APQC is an estimated 183,000 ha, consisting of a core national park measuring approximately 37,000 ha and a provincial reserve measuring 146,000 ha. The management activities that will be supported under the component are: (a) National park. Meeting the objective of conserving globally important biodiversity requires that the vast majority of the land within the proposed boundaries passes into public ownership, thus removing the possibility of poor land management by private owners. Once under public ownership, the park could be used for public purposes, such as camping and hiking. It could also be used as an outdoor laboratory for environmental education, and use as a research site to study vegetation succession and species reintroduction. Moreover, the proposed park would be used to help forge a new community consensus on the importance of preserving and protecting the area's biodiversity; and (b) Provincial reserve. While the objective of preserving biodiversity would be central to the management of the provincial reserve, the priority management goal would be to integrate protection and production objectives into traditional land use activities. Land would remain under private ownership and property owners would receive training, technical and financial support for the introduction of sustainable agriculture and grazing. These landowners and other local community members with direct interest in the reserve would be invited to play substantive roles in the planning and decision-making processes related to resource management. 21. The core area was declared a national park in 1996 (Ley Provincial 8486; Ley de la Naci6n 24749/96). As a result, the land comprising the national park is now under national jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the land is still held in private hands and APN will need to begin the required legal process to formally acquire the 37,000 ha core area. Access to the protected area is controlled by private owners who currently permit some recreational use. Although grazing use has diminished due to reduced carrying capacity, most of the area is still grazed. Currently, there are eight families living within the park's boundaries. Under the project, APN will allow these families to remain and will assist them when their current work for landowners ceases. This assistance is detailed in the MP. 22. Area Protegido Monte Le6n (APML). The proposed APML PA is designed to protect Patagonian coastal wildlife and avian populations--which are some of the least protected in Argentina-- in the province of Santa Cruz. The project area is typical of the zone, with the steppes of the Patagonian plains sweeping down to the steep cliffs of the shoreline, ending in the rocky beaches typical of the southern Argentine coast. The coastline cliffs have been sculpted over the centuries by the action of the sea and by the runoff from the steppes, leaving a series of canyons, grottos, and caves. The importance 51 Annex B given locally to the ecosystem has been underscored by the recent creation of a provincial reserve. 23. Central to the proposal to create the new PA is the preservation and protection of several important species that inhabit the protected area. The proposed area contains important penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus), cormorant and tern nesting areas, and a breeding ground for a species of sea lion (Otariaflavescens). Because of the relative isolation of the project area, the distribution and stability of the populations of these species are not well understood. Substantial inventory and species monitoring work remains to be done. 24. The major threats to the PA are: (a) Illegal guano mining. The protected area is home to at least two large populations of nesting birds. The guano produced is collected for fertilizer, and these incursions into the PA disturb the birds during their nesting period, thus potentially causing seasonal reproductive failures; and (b) Uncontrolled visitor use. Currently visitor use is permitted in the southern end of the proposed PA but, because of resource constraints, there is inadequate control of visitor movement, which leads to the disturbance of the wildlife. 25. The proposed PA will consist of a combined national park and reserve of approximately 7,000 ha. The seaward boundary has yet to be defined, but could extend out about three miles from shore. The national park designation would include the areas at the extreme ends of the proposed reserve, closest to the major wildlife population areas. These two sites would be connected by a national reserve. To avoid conflicts with traditional grazing uses, an agreement has been reached whereby, over a period limited to 30 years, APN would allow the existing two landowners to use winter pastures near the ocean, which are free from snow during the cold weather months. 26. The project would support the following management activities: (a) National park. The principal management objective of the proposed national park would be to protect and preserve globally significant biodiversity contained within the project boundaries. An important step to achieve this objective would be to establish the national park as a conservation model for the provinces that contain Patagonian coastal wildlife. Provincial conservation officials could use the park as a source of technical and management information to build their own conservation and visitor management programs. The park would also serve to stimulate scientific research on ecosystems that are not well understood, especially for wildlife populations that have fluctuated considerably over time; and 52 Annex B (b) National reserve. The purpose of the national reserve would be to control visitor activities while still allowing local landowners access to winter pastures. 27. Unlike the other four PAs to be supported under this program, the APML core area will not be buffered by a provincial reserve; rather it will be protected by private lands through which access is limited. These lands are currently grazed by livestock, and this use presents little threat to the most important biological resources of the proposed park. Management and Implementation of the Sub-component. 28. Implementation of New Parks. The proposed phasing for the implementation of the sub-component reflects a compromise between APN's capacity to manage the creation and development of multiple parks and meeting expectations in provincial capitals and in local communities. The schedule takes into account that two parks have already been legally created (San Guillermo and Condorito) and are therefore most appropriate for the first investments under the project. APN proposes to implement the protected area projects in the following sequence: (a) Areas Protegido San Guillermo and Quebrada del Condorito would be developed in project year 1; (b) Areas Protegido Los Venados and Monte Le6n would be developed in project year 2; and (c) Area Protegido Copo would be developed starting in project year 3. For the three areas scheduled for project support in years 2 and 3, provision has nevertheless been made to establish a minimal institutional presence in year 1, together with the necessary basic support (e.g., park guard residences, vehicles, and communication system), to facilitate essential management and control functions. 29. Following the legal creation of each park, APN will follow a logical sequence of steps in the implementation of activities leading to the establishment of an effective management regime. These steps are outlined in the following table. 53 Annex B Table B-1. Proposed Sequence of Steps leading to the Establishment of an Effective PA Management Regime Steps Priority Actions Establish an institutional structure for basic protection 1. Assign personnel and minimum equipment of the PA 2. Organize a vigilance and control program 3. Provide basic infrastructure and equipment to implement l___________________________________________ _program Develop community relations 1. Resolve problems of displaced people 2. Begin to identify interest groups 3. Identify potential members of the comisi6n consultiva 4. Begin environmental education program Implement the planning process to be used for 1. Review available information and design studies to collect preparation of the initial management plans and additional information annual operating plans (POAs) 2. Involve the groups and institutions which will participate in the process Analyze the most serious resource threats and the 1. Quantify the threats in terms of seriousness and immediacy most critical social problems 2. Conduct the necessary social inventories and interviews to understand the relationship between the park and the local communities Identify and develop public visitation opportunities 1. Develop means of access and trails 2. Provide basic interpretation infrastructure Design social and environmental mitigation plans 1. Design MPs (tMPs) 2. Assign the necessary specialists to effectively monitor the MPs 3. Publicize results 4. Evaluate and periodically modify MPs Support the project-financed sustainable use activities 1. Stimulate community interest in proposing sustainable development projects and programs 2. Fine tune the procedures to be followed by the comisi6n consultiva 3. Schedule the necessary meetings for the approval process Establish the long-range PA planning process 1. Establish the working groups 2. Identify and access any necessary assistance (e.g., from the Delegaci6n Tecnica Regional) 3. Involve appropriate interest groups 4. Design the communication channels 5. Consult with the comisiones consultivas Execute long-range biodiversity monitoring programs 1. Select indicator species 2. Design the programs to be used 3. Enter into collaborative agreements with scientific community. 4. Budget for the activity Prepare the public information program 1. Determine the information to be disseminated 2. Determine audience 3. Design the appropriate media and implement program 30. Environmental Reviews. Under the mandate established in Law No 22.351 and resolution No. 16/94, APN requires that an environmental assessment be carried out for 54 Annex B every investment in protected areas under its jurisdiction, including the construction and maintenance of public services and tourist infrastructure. The requirements and administrative procedures are outlined in APN's Reglamento para la Evaluaci6n del Impacto Ambiental en Areas de la Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales, a copy of which is available in the Project Files. 31. Each investment is screened and a decision is made on whether it requires: (i) a full Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), required for investments that are approximately equivalent to what the Bank would classify as an "A" category investment; (ii) a less detailed Informe de Impacto Ambiental (IIA), approximately equivalent to what the Bank would classify as a "B" category project with potentially significant impacts; and (iii) an Informe Medioambiental (IMA) for investments with very minor environmental impacts. The Reglamento outlines the required content for each of these reports; that content is consistent with World Bank requirements as outlined in the Operational Directive 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. 32. Under current administrative arrangements, the EIA, IIA or IMA will be prepared by APN staff or by consultants. The products of each of the analyses are submitted to the APN central directorate prior to taking a decision on the investments. In the case of an EIA, the Directorate appoints an evaluation commission composed of recognized experts to assist with the review. Following this external review, public consultation is solicited through notices in national and local newspapers prior to final authorization. 33. Under the project, most of the investments involve small works and repair to existing roads only and therefore would require either an HA or an JIMA. The total estimated costs for environmental reviews is US$150,000 and have been itemized in Table B-2 and included in project costs in Table B-4. Table B-2. Estimated Level of Effort and Costs for Environment Review US$'0oo) Protected Area Number of Studies Estimated Level Estimated Costs per Environmental of Effort (p/m) (USS,OOO)' Category Type of Development Activities EIA IIA IMA Area Protegido Los Rehabilitation of roads and houses; construction 4 - 5 25 Venados of offices, houses, trails, and lookouts and other small works A rea Protegido San Rehabilitation of roads, offices, and houses; 3 - 8 40 Guillermo construction of offices, houses, trails, and other small works Area Protegido Copo Rehabilitation of roads and construction of - 5 - 6 30 houses, research center, trails and provision of 4Estimated person-month costs consists of salary @US$3,500 per month, local travel@US$350 per trip, and per diem @ US$90. 55 Annex B basic services Area Protegido Rehabilitation of roads and construction of - 3 1 4 20 Quebrada del houses, garages, reception center, trails and Condorito provision of basic services Area Protegido Monte Rehabilitation of roads and construction of - 6 - 7 35 Le6n houses, offices, research certer and trails Totals 30 150 Cost Estimates of Sub-Component 1 34. Investments for the five PAs have been estimated on a basis that provides the minimum support required to protect and manage each park, as itemized in Table B-3. The estimated costs for the sub-component are provided in Table B-4. 56 Annex B Table B-3. Major Investments to be Supported under the ABCP. Protected Area Investment Los San Copo Quebrada Monte Venados Guillermo (APC) del Le6n (APLV) (APSG) Condori to (APML) _______ ______ ~(APQC) Civil Works Offices (new and 360 rn2 470 in2 420 rn 460 mi2 250m2 renovations)5 Housing (new and 400 M2 380 m2 360 M2 500 M2 renovations)6 ' Refuiges/Patrol Cabins - 80 rn2 - 120 in2 190 Visitor Rest Houses - 80 m2 180 in2 - Equipment Sheds - - 100 M2 Control Posts 45 i2 40 m2 Camping Sites - 30 m2 Road and Trails Interpretative Trails 1 (15 km) 1 (7 km) 1 (10 kin) 1 (9.1 km) 1 (1 km) Road Repairs 1 (25 km) 1 (100 km) 1 (10 km) 1 (2.5 km) 1 (20 Other Small Infrastructure _ _ _X Fencing 1 (16 kIn) - 1 (30 km) - _ Observation Points 1 - - - 3 Corrals - 2 - _ Garages 2 1 - 1 Installation Services 1- - Vehicles _ Trucks 1_ - - - I Pick-ups 3 2 3 3 3 Jeeps 3 - - Motorcycles 1 1 2 1 1 Horses 8 16 8 10 3 Boats 1_- - I Equipment : l Tractors 1 1 1 l Mobile Homes 2 1 1 _ Computers 2 2 1 2 1 Communications 1 2 - 1 1 1 In some cases these structures include combined interpretation and/or reception centers. 6 Housing for superintendents and parkguards. 57 Annex B Fire Protection Equipment 1 - 1 1 | Interpretative Equipment 1 2 2 2 1 Audio-visual Equipment 1 - 2 2 1 Garage/Workshop Equipment - 1 58 Annex B Table B-4. Base Costs for the Creation PA Sub-component (US$'000) Input Description GEF GOA Total Land Purchase, consisting of a total of 244,000 ha at an - 6,454 6,454 average cost of US$26.45/ ha. Civil Works, consisting of a total of 4,785 m2 at an 2,362 287 2,649 average cost of US$490/m2 and 13 small park infrastructure works (worksheds, fencing, etc.) at an average cost of US$22,470/structure) Road Rehabilitation of 157.5 km at an average cost of US$ 562 118 680 3,952./km and 42.1 km of park trails at and average cost of US$ 1,368/km. Vehicles (14 pick-ups at US$ 33,000/pu; 6 motorcycles at 573 121 694 average cost of US$ 6,080; 45 horses at average cost of S$400/horse; 1 truck at US$45,000; 3 jeeps at US$40,000/jeep; and I inflatable boat at US$ 12,000)., Other machinery and equipment 500 106 606 Locally contracted consultants: 103 p/m at US$3,500 for 361 - 361 preparation of legal documents to establish PAs, boundary demarcation and mapping, and the preparation and implementation of PA operational plans and other activities to support PA creation and management. Locally recruited consultants for EIA Studies: 30 p/m at 150 150 US$5,000 (including fees and expenses). Locally recruited consultants for engineering design of 322 322 small construction works: 92 p/m at US$3,500 Locally recruited consultants (including task costs) for 497 497 special projects and studies, incorporating local scientific and community groups in park management and monitoring activities (this would include biodiversity baseline studies and threat analyses): 142 p/m at US$3,500. . Contracted Personnel, consisting of intendentes (204 p/m - 1,784 1,784 at US$2,500/month), parkguards (492 p/m at US$1,800/month), baqueanos (204 p/m at US$600/month) and administrative personnel (222 p/m at US$1,200/month). Operation and Maintenance, including materials and 1,381 290 1,671 supplies and related services (e.g., office cleaning and printing costs); vehicle operational costs for 1,246 million km at .40/km (US$498,400); maintenance of vehicles, buildings, and roads (US$244,000); APN per diem for 3,450 days at US$90 per day and 2,580 days at US$45 per day (US$426,000); public services (US$220,400) and other expenses (US$282,000). 59 Annex B Total Base Costs 6,708 9,160 15,868 Sub-Component 2: Buffer Zone Biodiversity Activities 35. The creation of new protected areas is necessary but alone is not a sufficient condition to ensure the long-term conservation of the country's biodiversity. Past experiences in Argentina and elsewhere have demonstrated that the failure to elicit community interest and support for the PA can undermine the achievement of conservation objectives. To achieve the project's objectives, APN must strengthen the linkages between the protected areas and local social and economic development. One way to promote this is to work with communities to establish stable and compatible production systems on lands immediately outside the core areas of the PAs (i.e., buffer zones). While the threats to core areas from buffer zone activities in Argentina are generally considered to be less serious than those in other countries, small scale investments with communities living in buffer zones should help enlist community support for and participation in protected area management. At the same time, through increased community involvement, APN will receive valuable input into the design of strategies that address both biodiversity conservation and local development. 36. Under this sub-component, APN and its counterpart institutions will undertake activities designed to identify and test sustainable land use practices in areas adjacent to the project's core national parks. Specifically, resources would be made available to support activities intended to identify and promote changes in land use in reserve areas leading to stable, sustained economic development compatible with conservation objectives. Activities supported under this sub-component can be broadly divided into three categories: studies, pilot natural resources activities, and extension activities emphasizing environmental education and information dissemination (examples of the type of activities that could be supported under the project are presented in the Implementation Manual). While sub-component support would be made available to communities in buffer zones of all project PAs, in light of the greater degree of threat to biodiversity resources of Los Venados, Copo, and Quebrada del Condorito PAs, most activities will likely be concentrated in these three buffer zones. 37. Following the implementation of a PA-specific public awareness campaign presenting the overall project context and basic principles of conservation and sustainable development, APN will be responsible for disseminating the relevant information to the public, specifying the objectives and procedures of the sub-component. Proposals would be submitted on a competitive basis and evaluated and approved using the foliowing general criteria: (i) degree to which the proposed activity contributes to biodiversity conservation objectives, (ii) technical soundness and quality, (iii) economic/financial viability, (iv) arguments of sustainability, (v) community support for the proposal, (vi) level of co-financing; and (vii) capacity to successfully implement the proposal. The buffer zone activities are designed to have positive environmental impacts and any potential adverse impacts would be screened out during the selection process. 60 Annex B 38. Proposal submission would be open to all interested parties including NGOs, research institutions, and farmers, the latter probably in associative arrangements. The PA's respective comision consultiva (see below) will have the responsibility to initially evaluate the proposals following the established evaluation and selection criteria (see Attachment to this annex). Recommended proposals will be forwarded to APN for further evaluation; final approval would require the written agreement of the APN, the APN national project director and project technical manager. Following approval, a contract would be signed between APN and the successful bidder. The APN, through the Project Unit (PU), would monitor each contract and make payments as warranted (see Annex D for more details). Compliance would be audited by a consultant acceptable to the Bank. The provinces will play an important role in project selection through their participation in the comisi6n consultivas (CCs), and also participate in the supervision of sub-component activities under the responsibility of APN. 39. The Social Assessment Specialist (SAS), which will be cost-shared with the public participation sub-component (see below), will assist the PU in implementing this sub- component. The estimated costs for the sub-component are provided in Table B-5. Table B-5. Base Costs for the Buffer Zone Activities Sub-component (US$'000) Input Description GEF GOA Beneficiaries Total I .................................... ....................... .................... ...........I.......... ...... .... . ............................... ................. One half-time, national 105 105 consultant specialist in social assessment and public participation for 5 years at US$42,000/year. I............... ...... ..... ........ .............. ...... ...................... ....................... ............. ......... .................... ......... | Buffer zone activities 743 82 400 1,225 consisting of an estimated 42 pilot activities at US$17,000/each and extension activities in four PA at a cost estimated at US$103,420 per year. l........I............................ ..................... ...................... ............................................ .............................l lOperation and Maintenance 85 19 104 consisting of an estimated 50 trips at US$300/trip and 150 days of per diem at US$90.00 per day and other expenses of US$75,000. l ..................... ....................... ...... ..................................... ............................. Total Base Costs 933 .... ... . 101........... 4,00 1,434 61 Annex B Sub-Comnonent 3: Public Particination (Public Particination Plan) 40. Promoting active public participation in the planning and management of protected areas is increasingly recognized as a critical factor in building a successful conservation strategy. During the project preparation phase, APN undertook a Social Assessment (SA), which involved the collection of primary data through interviews and surveys of key stakeholders in both core areas and buffer zones (Annex E). These data served as an input into the preparation of a Public Participation Plan (PP). The PP, which is summarized here and detailed in the Project Implementation Manual, identifies the participatory methodology and process and activities to be supported under this sub-component. Activities which will be implemented under this sub-component in core areas will also be complementary to and in support of the activities specified in the Mitigation Plan (MP) which can be found in Annex E. 41. The project will support the development of an initial participatory approach and set of activities, which will be finalized during the consultation and public participation process. This process will be demand-driven and will be based on the concept of interactive participation, by which people participate in joint analyses, development of action plans and formation or strengthening of local institutions. The process would seek to take account of multiple points of view, and would employ systematic and structured learning experiences for the participants. Local people may thus have input in local decisions concerning the PA and how best to use available resources, thus building ownership of the established structures and practices. The participation process would consist of five elements: (a) contracting of a Social Assessment Specialist (cost shared with the previous sub-component); (b) creation of consultative commissions; (c) development of PA-specific participation plans (SPP); (d) training; and (e) implementation and supervision of the MP. 42. Social Assessment Specialist (SAS). A social assessment specialist would be hired to manage this sub-component and to facilitate the transfer of experiences gained from the public participation process beyond project boundaries, thus contributing to the strengthening of APN and other institutions responsible for protected areas management. The SAS would operate from the PU and would report directly to the project technical manager. Since the SAS would also be responsible for activities in buffer zone areas and neighboring communities, as well as act as the resource person within APN regarding participation issues, the costs would be shared with that sub-component. The TORs for the SAS are in the Implementation Manual. 43. Comision Consultiva (Consultative Commissions). A comision consultiva (CC) will be established during the creation of each new park to represent the interests of local stakeholders in park operations. As such, the primary objectives of the CCs will be two- fold: (a) to facilitate the development and implementation of a common, integrated management strategy for their respective protected area; and (b) to provide an institutional mechanism to ensure that active public consultation and participation occurs in the management of each PA. 62 Annex B 44. Each CC will encourage public participation in the planning of field activities and in providing feedback on the execution of these activities. This will occur primarily through public involvement in: (a) identification of common, long-term management objectives; (b) providing inputs into the preparation of draft annual operating plans (POAs) for each of the project's respective protected areas (completed POAs will be made available to the CC for information); (c) provision of relevant technical information to the respective park and reserve managers; (d) identification of priorities and promotion of trans-boundary collaborative activities in each PA; (e) selection and evaluation of field activities which support innovative sustainable land use practices in the PA buffer zones; and (f) resolution of conflicts. The specific mechanisms to facilitate public input would occur through: (a) individual members of the commission serving in a liaison role between relevant public agencies and other stakeholders with jurisdiction or resource use interests in the buffer zone, and (b) general public meetings to be held throughout the life of the project. The TORs for the CC are included in the project Implementation Manual. 45. The composition of the CCs will represent a cross-section of the principal stakeholders in each PA. In addition to the three representatives from APN and the provincial and municipal government, each CC will have up to four and no less than two additional members representing universities, NGOs, local group associations, and relevant public institutions. The CCs will meet on a regular basis to review accomplishments, identify and respond to issues, and ensure that overall project objectives are achieved. The CC members will initially meet bi-monthly in the PA's first year and on a quarterly basis thereafter. The chairperson of each comisi6n will be selected by all the CC members on an annual basis. The operating costs for the CCs have been costed under the project's Protected Area's component. 46. Following the creation of a new park, APN, with the participation of the SAS, will organize a 2-3 day orientation workshop. These orientation workshops are intended to introduce CC members and park personnel to the process of interactive participation, adaptive planning, and tools for identifying and resolving potential conflicts. The workshop would also serve to define the procedures that would be used for collaborative action in the elaboration of POAs, evaluation of proposals submitted for support under the buffer zone activities sub-component, and other activities which will be specified in the implementation manual. At the end of the first year, technical personnel from APN and the PU would organize an evaluation workshop to monitor and evaluate the capacity of CCs for park management and to reorient the approach if needed. 47. PA-Specific Participation Plan. The objectives of the PA-Specific Participation Plan (SPP) are to: (i) collect, analyze, and apply relevant social information to project- supported activities; (ii) monitor and evaluate the social and economic impacts of park management plans, investments and associated sustainable development activities over time; and (iii) monitor the effectiveness of the MP for project-affected populations (PAPs). 48. To accomplish these objectives, the SAS would design a SPP for each PA through a consultative process between APN represented by the intendente, the respective CC, and 63 Annex B other stakeholders. Specifically, the SPP would establish the framework and procedures that would: (i) involve stakeholders in advising APN on the design of the park operational plans (POAs); (ii) help ensure that the provisional management plan is acceptable to stakeholders; (iii) identify areas of interaction between people and the proposed PAs and map out potential conflicts; (iv) develop the means to mitigate negative impacts to ensure commitment to sustainable development; (v) gather, analyze, and use operationally relevant social information, such as data on gender and high-risk groups (elderly people, women heads of households, landless, etc.); (vi) define a framework for ongoing participation during implementation, monitoring and evaluation; and (vii) assess the social impact of park management plans and associated eco-development projects over time. 49. A variety of social assessment methods would be used to achieve these objectives, including stakeholder workshops, consultations, and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques. The development and implementation of the SPPs would initially be the responsibility of the SAS, but this would eventually pass to the PA stateholders through the respective CCs. 50. Training. This cooperative approach to protected area management will require that APN managers and their local counterparts develop new participatory management skills and abilities. Training to be supported under the project would address: (a) the need for independence and self-sufficiency at the level of rangers and administrators at the DTR and park level; (b) community participation in the planning and decision-making process; (c) conflict resolution and mechanisms for integrating the results of public meetings into park plans and activities; (d) training of APN staff, NGOs, community leaders and other stakeholders in the development of innovative conservation agreements for areas containing both public and private land; and (e) training of school teachers to transfer the message of conservation to school groups in the vicinity of the PAs. Mitigation Plan 51. The major goal of the MP is to minimize the negative impacts of park creation on those families and individuals who will be allowed to remain in the park. This includes loss of employment and loss of other amenities provided by the employer. The categories which make up the MP are: (a) improved housing/sanitation; (b) employee compensation; and (c) extension activities. Improved housing/sanitation include: housing improvement including renovations, and solar panels for electricity and materials to assist families in cattle raising during a transition period of five years. Employee Compensation refers to APN's plan to hire workers as park guards and firefighters and to provide training for other park management related jobs. In addition, in the new parks, where inhabitants are currently cutting timber for firewood or where some of their firewood needs are provided by the landlord, APN will provide wood or cover the costs for farnilies to purchase gas or kerosene. Extension activities refers to a variety of support provided by APN to assist families and individuals in changing their production practices to meet household food and energy requirements. The costs for implementing this plan are estimated at about US$823,000, and are detailed in Annex E and costed in Table B-6. Additional details on 64 Annex B the specific activities and costs for the families residing in each park can be found in the Project Implementation Manual. 52. The estimated costs for the sub-component are provided in Table B-6. Table B-6. Base Costs for the Public Participation Sub-component (US$'000) Input Description GEF GOA Total One, half-time, national consultant 105 105 specialist in social assessment and public participation for 5 years at US$42,000/year) Social evaluation activities consisting of 113 12 125 workshops, consultations, and SPPs estimated to total 100 events at an average cost of US$1,250. Public participation activities, consisting of 45 5 50 a total of 40 workshops at US$1,250. Training activities, consisting of a total of 441 49 490 76 short courses at an average cost of US$6,447. Travel costs, consisting of an estimated 50 24 5 29 trips at US$300/trip and 150 days of per diem at US$90. per day. Trips and visits and other costs for the 135 135 Consultative Commissions ($135,000). Salaries for the baquenos and fire brigades 823 823 and other costs associated with support under the Project's Mitigation Plan (see Annex E for detailed costs). Total Costs 728 |O1,029 1,757 65 Annex B Attachment Implementation of the Sub-Component: Buffer Zone Biodiversity Activities Selection Criteria and Approval Process 1. The objective of the sub-component is to support sustainable development activities in the vicinity of the protected areas (PAs) created under the ABCP.7 These activities would be specifically designed to reduce threats to the globally-important biodiversity. The process which APN would follow in selecting, approving and financing biodiversity protection sub-project activities is outlined in this Attachment. 2. The implementation of this sub-component would be planned, managed and supervised by APN through the PU, with the advice of the comisi6n consultiva for the respective protected area. While APN would have the freedom to take the initiative and to suggest a short list of possible activities regarded as high priority, the choice of specific activities to be supported under this sub-component will be based on a competitive system to access the latest thinking in Argentina and elsewhere on how best to respond to the challenges of the conservation of biodiversity. This competitive system would provide all interested parties with an equal opportunity to submit proposals and compete for funding, while leaving APN the responsibility to allocate and monitor the distribution of funds. 3. Each PA comisi6n consultiva will have the responsibility to complete an initial evaluation of the proposals according to the following criteria: (a) the proposed activity is a priority within the overall list of priority biodiversity conservation activities; (b) compliance with institutional selection criteria (see Implementation Manual); (c) expected outputs; (d) technical and economic feasibility; (e) degree of local community involvement in all phases of the project (i.e., planning, implementation and evaluation); (f) degree to which the proposal provides for local public access to information and technology; (g) degree to which it can be replicated and developed to include a larger area of impact; (h) degree to which it will promote local economic development and discourage emigration; (i) effectiveness in targeting intended direct/indirect beneficiaries; (j) level and duration of matching funds (minimum of 30% of the total); and (k) likely sustainability after completion. 4. The approval process for proposals would follow the following steps in each of the protected areas: 7 Due to the greater degree of threat to biodiversity resources in the buffer zones of the Los Venados, Copo, and Condorito PAs, most activities supported under this sub-component will likely be concentrated in these three protected areas. 66 Annex B (a) APN will place advertisements in the local and national press. Specific guidelines regarding project objectives, proposal requirements and submission procedures will be printed and made available on request; (b) interested parties, including researchers, educational institutions, NGOs, farmers, etc., will, if needed, consult with the members of the relevant comisi6n consultiva for clarification of the rules, and to obtain a positive or negative response to their preliminary proposals, following the aforementioned advertisements; (c) assuming a positive response to the inquiry and/or preliminary proposal, a detailed proposal would be prepared and submitted to the relevant comision consultiva. Each proposal will need to consist of the following sections: (i) proposal objectives; (ii) description of task; (iii) methodology; (iv) a plan for completing the proposed program; (v) a chronogram of implementation; (vi) names of participants and/or researchers as appropriate, including their qualification and experience; and (vii) budget, and, in cases where farmer participation is involved, proof of land ownership (or other land occupancy rights); (d) the CC would complete an initial evaluation of each proposal applying the previously listed criteria. On the basis of the evaluation, the committee would prepare and forward their written recommendation together with the proposal (including those recommended for rejection) to APN for fiirther consideration; (e) proposals received and approved by APN would require the written agreement of APN, the national project coordinator, and technical manager. A contract would then be prepared and signed between the APN and the parties involved with the project proposal attached as part of the contract. The contract would explicitly include: (i) the project objectives; (ii) expected outputs; (iii) description of task; (iv) methodology; (v) names of principal participants; (vi) chronogram of implementation; (vii) total costs, including matching funds; and (viii) schedule of payments by all parties, including APN. The contract's specifics would be prepared by the PU; (f) APN, through the PU and the office of the intendente, would be responsible for the monitoring of project activities, and make periodic payments according to the schedule stipulated in the contract; (g) principal participants (i.e., researchers, NGO consultants) would submit final written reports, listing achievements and failures and any departures from the contract; 67 Annex B (h) APN would recruit independent financial and technical auditors to audit compliance and evaluate results under each contract in order to ensure the integrity of the process; and (i) APN would make final payment under the contract, or take other appropriate action, depending on the outcome of the financial and technical audit and evaluation /of the results. 5. Proposal submissions will be received during the second and fourth quarters of each year for a period of two months, respectively. 68 ANNEx C: BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT COMPONENT (US$621,600 Base Costs) A. Background 1. With the support of a loan from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Govermnent of Argentina is developing a national environmental network called the Sistema Nacional de Informaci6n Ambiental (SINAIA). The network is to be Internet- based and will promote common data standards and sharing of environmental data between diverse users and organizations. Development of software and data standards was just beginning in late 1996, and it can be expected that the network will become functional within one or two years. Equipment acquisition and investments in connectivity are focused on the provinces which are expected to each have functional provincial nodes by the completion of the IDB project. 2. The backbone of the SINAIA will be very useful, in the sense that it will generally facilitate data exchange, but additional investments are necessary to ensure a functional biodiversity network. For example, special data standards and protocols need to be developed for species-level databases, ecoregion level data must be accessible from currently widely distributed databases, and there are special monitoring and reporting requirements associated with Argentina's adherence to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 3 . A wealth of information is available on Argentine biodiversity, but it is widely distributed among many national and international organizations. The challenge is to organize a network of biodiversity data providers and users who could make data and information available on the Internet through an integrated information system. Such a network needs to become functional quickly to capture the tremendous value of currently underused data, but great care must also be taken to ensure compatibility with existing and planned international networks and developing internal networks, such as the SINAIA. 4. As part of preparatory activities for the SINAIA, the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development (SRNyDS) has conducted extensive surveys on existing environmental databases in Argentina. Information collected by them specifically on biodiversity databases will be used under this project to help develop a truly national network. Some examples of major data holdings are those of APN (discussed below); a database with about 2000 records or data sets on rare or vulnerable species held by the Fundacion para la Conservaci6n de Especiesy del Medio Ambiente (FUCEMA); extensive data on the Patagonian Region held by Fundaci6n Patagonica; extensive holdings of various museums such as the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales and the Museo de la Plata; ornithological data of the Fundaci6n Miguel Lillo in Tucuman and the Sociedad Ornitol6gica del Plata; and many databases held by universities. Of special note are the databases on native forests and biodiversity to be created within the SRNyDS and 69 Annex C financed under the associated Bank-financed Native Forests and Protected Areas Project. Internationally, to provide just a few examples, holdings of the World Conservation Monitoring Center, the World Bank, and Bird Life International all include significant data on Argentine biodiversity. 5. Because APN has been in existence for many decades and has a central role in the management and coordination of the country's protected area networks, the data holdings of APN are likely the single most important source of biodiversity data in Argentina. Presently, APN data holdings on the Patagonia Region (based in Bariloche) are the most developed and include extensive tabular and Geographic Information System (GIS) data, which covers the entire country. A fairly extensive database, managed by APN in Buenos Aires, also exists on the protected area network. Most APN biodiversity holdings, however, are still on paper or in need of considerable work to become generally accessible and usable. A biodiversity network in Argentina must first be built around these important holdings. Moreover, from the point of view of decision-making affecting the conservation of globally important biodiversity, APN is also probably the most important potential user of such a network. 6. It is therefore proposed that the GEF project develop a national biodiversity information network with pilot nodes8 within APN. Through the Biodiversity Information Management Component, described in this annex, APN will become the first important host of a network that would provide universal access to internationally important APN holdings. The project will also provide training for non-APN data providers and users, while it also promotes the establishment of other nodes and the bringing on line of other major databases in the country. The ultimate objective of the component is to create a functioning biodiversity network that will eventually merge seamlessly into the SINAIA, and will include all major biodiversity providers and users in the country. B. Overview of Component Component Objectives 7. The main objective of this component is to develop a Biodiversity Information System (BIS) to facilitate the flow of biodiversity data and information, both within Argentina and internationally. The BIS will enable the creation, analysis, and application of biodiversity data and information to meet the needs of decision-makers and a wide variety of potential users. Under this project, prototype nodes of the BIS will be developed at APN, while the creation of other Argentine nodes will also be promoted. Potential users at APN include staff at the central office, park headquarters (intendencias) and regional technical offices (delegaciones tecnicas), as well as the general public. The BIS is s In a distributed internet-based information network there are a potentially unlimited number of access points-essentially any computer with access to the Internet data is physically stored in only a very few particularly powerful computers called servers. A "node" is a server, or group of servers, with large amounts of stored and organized data and that typically provides network-wide access to software for retrieving and manipulating data. 70 Annex C intended to eventually fuse with the SINAIA as already described. To accomplish these objectives, the project will support the following activities: (a) promote the BIS at the national level; (b) develop the BIS; (c) adapt major existing data bases to the BIS; and (d) ensure sustainability through capacity building and training of interested users. Overview of Biodiversity Information System (BIS) 8. Traditionally, in Argentina, information systems have been centralized, with access limited to only a few individuals and institutions. The emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) has enabled individuals and institutions greater access to information around the world, while it has also initiated a process of information decentralization. However, when information dissemination and decentralization occurs in an ad hoc fashion, users encounter major difficulties in locating specific data. The BIS will provide capabilities for overcoming this problem while maintaining the benefits of distributed information dissemination. While the BIS will appear to the user as a unified, integrated system, it will be geographically distributed among various nodes. 9. The BIS will allow for data search through a catalog system and for browsing of selected databases. It will include textual, tabular, and cartographic information, as well as abstracts, bibliographical data, and other types of data and information, including GIS data. Any computer in the world with Internet access (even if only e-mail) will be able to use the BIS and retrieve information. The information system will be designed using available software packages and international standards, to the extent that these are available, and it will be open-ended to facilitate incorporation of additional data and information from other institutions. 10. The BIS initially will include fully developed nodes at the central office of APN in Buenos Aires, at the Patagonia Regional Technical Delegation in Bariloche, at the Northeast Regional Technical Delegation in Salta, and at the Northeast Technical Delegation in Iguazu. The network of BIS nodes that would be created under this project will be the forerunner of a more extensive network that will be fully developed in the near future. These four nodes will be Internet providers of data and information. On-site personnel will identify data sources and develop collaborative agreements with other data sources as needed, while bearing the responsibility to maintain their own metadata9. Data handling, in the form of acquisition, conditioning, archiving, and data product development, will mainly be the responsibility of local experts. 9Metadata is structured information that describes a dataset. 71 Annex C 11. Each node will consist of one or more Internet servers, the number depending on the amount of information being dissemninated and the service offered. Nodes generally have additional workstations for data development and other node administration tasks, as well as peripheral devices for scanning, storage, and back-ups. The Internet provides the connectivity between individual nodes and users. Thus, active nodes need a minimum of a 64-kb Internet link. The means of providing connectivity of these nodes to the Internet will be determined in the future. Options include using existing providers at APN or relying on external Internet service providers. 12. The software required at each node will depend on the specialized service to be offered by that node. The concept that each node will have specialized functions is a critical feature of the BIS because it will allow the nodes to provide the most appropriate function given their content and mission. As such, modules will be available for a variety of computer system configurations to ensure a match with existing systems. The modular approach of the BIS encourages diversity and customization, and at the same time provides mechanisms for seamless integration and ease of implementation. C. Detailed Description and Costs Promotion of the BIS 13. Design Confirmation. Changes in information technology and its use in Argentina are occurring constantly. Consequently, it is important that an evaluation of this component be carried out by a consultant at the very beginning of the project. The consultant will advise on the restructuring of the component, taking into account changes in the status of information system technology within the country. This will be done in conjunction with a coordination workshop (see below) which will provide recommendations concerning system function and the status of connectivity, hardware, and software at the nodes. The cost for this task is US$15,000, which includes honoraria, travel and per diem for an internationally recruited consultant (Draft Terms of Reference are in the Implementation Manual). 14. Coordination Workshop. An organizational workshop will be held at the very beginning of the project to promote and coordinate participation of major information holders and users, with particular attention to non-APN stakeholders. During this workshop, a technical ad hoc working group will review the system design and implementation plan. The consultant hired to carry out the design confirmation should participate in this workshop and take into account recommendations that emerge from it. The cost for this task is US$10,000 for about three months of a locally recruited consultant. 15. Evaluation Workshop. After the BIS prototype has been developed and is operational (third year), a workshop will take place to evaluate the BIS and its contents, and to provide further recommendations on how to proceed with the development of the system. At this point, it must be ensured that the system is ready to be integrated with the SINAIA and integrated with other initiatives, such as those of provincial protected areas, 72 Annex C universities, NGOs, and research institutions. The estimated cost for this task is US$5,000 for a locally recruited consultant. Creation of the BIS 16. System Design. The entry point of the BIS, which will be designed early in the first year of the project, will be a home page in the World Wide Web. The home page, to be created under this project at an APN node, will be user friendly and will allow the user to search for and access biodiversity data, both within as well as outside APN. The home page would provide links to a catalog and to biodiversity datasets that will reside in servers at APN and elsewhere. This task will be carried out with support from a consultant, consulting firm or NGO recruited internationally at a cost of US$20,000, and by locally recruited experts at a cost of US$24,500. 17. Development of Software for Internet Access to BIS. Many options will be provided for data access through the Internet. These will include WWW access as well as e-mail access to data. The system will allow for on-line interactive access to APN data and documentation about data'0. Data query and display functions will allow a user to construct a query of a database. The database could be a simple tabular file, a relational database, or a text file. The query terrns would be appropriate to the database content and structure. Based on the user's query, a report would be generated and displayed to the user. In some instances, in addition to or instead of tabular reports, a graphic report or visualization would be available. Spatial data will be displayed in maps, allowing the user to interactively build maps with features and GIS data layers of interest. A metadata management tool--including guidelines for metadata and guide preparation--will be developed which will allow the data provider to structure and automatically enter metadata into a searchable metadata database. 18. The: BIS will support several methods for accessing information. This will include capabilities to: (i) query tabular and textual data sets and retrieve tabular reports and graphs interactively; (ii) query and map georeferenced data interactively; (iii) search bibliographical datasets by author and topic; (iv) search (freetext and indexed) metadata databases in selected nodes through a World Wide Web user interface; and (v) spatially search metadata databases. The map search system will allow the user to find information on any given area in Argentina by interactively selecting the area of interest in a World Wide Web user interface. This service requires the metadata to be georeferenced. 19. Information that cannot be accessed interactively on-line will be available through ordering systems, and in some instances, customized extractions will be available. The information system will be implemented in a fashion that takes into account the telecommunications infrastructure of Argentina. For example, e-mail interfaces to on-line systems will be provided, enabling users to access some resources via e-mail. Some datasets can be of restricted access, available for example only within APN. 73 Annex C 20. This system software development will be implemented during the first 18 months of the project by an internationally recruited consultant in coordination with trained APN personnel, at an estimated cost of US$70,000. Adaptation of Major Databases to the BIS 21. Modernization of APN datasets for on-line access. Under this activity, data will be restructured to make them available over the Internet and through the BIS. This process may involve: (i) developing electronic data; (ii) developing a data model and relational tables for a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS); (iii) georeferencing data in a Geographical Information System; (iv) integrating datasets; and (v) other activities needed to make datasets available through the system. It is estimated that, after the first year, the prototype will access 5-10 tabular and textual datasets and 5-10 GIS layers, depending on the degree of complexity of the datasets involved. 22. This activity will be carried out by a locally recruited consultant at an estimated cost of US$120,000, in coordination with an internationally recruited consultant at an estimated cost of US$55,500. APN staff will work with these consultants as a way to ensure capacity building and sustainability. A cost of US$20,000 has also been budgeted for purchasing images and other data development costs. 23. Documentation of datasets. There are two kinds of documentation: one, called metadata, is part of a catalog system that should be structured in a way that it enables a user to determine whether or not the data may be of relevance to the application of interest. The second kind, referred to as guides, enables the proper use of data by providing more extensive descriptions on how data were collected and derived. 24. There are numerous metadata standards that specify how datasets are structured and the type of information they will contain. In general, metadata is textual information that provides the basis upon which a data catalog can be constructed. The level of detail provided by the metadata should be sufficient to enable a user to determine whether or not the data may contain information of relevance to the specific need. The information resource must be readily and easily accessible from some source and all metadata records must be georeferenced. 25. The metadata standards chosen for the BIS would be consistent with the nature of the data and with the system that will manage and query the metadata. Use of existing systems for metadata management and access will be a major consideration when choosing the standard. The metadata contents will be developed from existing data documentation and structured and entered into the catalog by the holders of the data, when possible. 26. Guides are hypertext" documents that provide users with important information related to a dataset. Each accessible dataset will have a guide associated with it. The information in the guide will help the user to determine whether the data have the required Text coded to link to other sources of information/data. 74 Annex C resolution or accuracy. It will also describe how data were collected or derived, as well as describe any peculiarities associated with a given dataset or any information that could be of interest to the user of the data. The development of the data guide is estimated to cost US$65,100 for a locally recruited consultant over a period of three years. 27. Information Management for the GEF Biodiversity Strategy Project. The SRNyDS-implemented GEF Biodiversity Strategy Project, to be carried out in 1997, will be generating vast amounts of biodiversity information. Under this component, the most important information generated from that strategy will be made available through the BIS. This activity will be carried out during the first year by a locally recruited consultant, at an estimated cost of US$11,500. Capacity Building 28. The objective of this activity is to help establish an effective and sustainable information system through the provision of the following training: (a) Data provider training. Data provider training will be conducted in three stages: (i) to insure the sustainability of the BIS, APN staff will obtain approximately three months of on-the-job, on site training by the consultants contracted to develop the system. It is expected that these APN staff will each spend three months receiving on-the-job training; (ii) during the third year of the project, an internationally recruited consultant will provide two 1-week data provider training sessions to non-APN information management stakeholders on subjects such as participation in the BIS, interactive WWW applications, and metadata development; and (iii) Bariloche staff will train others on methods for map production. The respective budget for these training activities would be: (i) five round trips (US$2,000 each) from Buenos Aires to the internationally recruited consultant site (US$10,000) plus US$25,000 for subsistence; (ii) approximately 5.8 months of internationally recruited consultants (US$58,000); and (iii) three trips to Bariloche (US$1,050) and three months of subsistence (US$8,100). (b) User training. During the third year of the project, a national consultant will be contracted to provide ten one-day training sessions on the use of the BIS and other internet resources for APN and non-APN users of the system. Those trained in (a) above, could help with this training. About US$10,500 has been budgeted for about 3 months of a locally recruited consultant. Hardware and Software Needs 29. This prototype BIS activity will support the acquisition of the hardware and software necessary to implement the network at APN. As mentioned in the background section, four nodes, with a main function of providing data over the Internet, will be 75 Annex C developed. These nodes are referred to here as Data Provider Nodes and the software at each node depends on the service to be offered by that node. In general, a node will consist of four categories of equipment: (a) Servers. A node will consist of at least one server, depending on the variety and scale of node activities. Likewise, the hard disk capacity of the server will depend on the node activity. A data back-up system will be provided with each server. Database software and specialty software such as GIS are optional and depend on the function of the node; (b) Workstations. The node administration staff will need workstations and personal productivity software to develop metadata and other data and information resources and for related tasks. The quantity and configuration of these workstations will vary depending on the expected function; (c) Peripherals. Printers will be required for developing hard copy output and scanners are required for digitizing text and graphics. A black and white scanner with a page feeder is best for scanning text, but a color scanner is required for capturing images; and (d) Networking. All the computers in the node will be on a local area network and have Internet connectivity at a minimum of 64-kb. Nodes that provide remote access to either users or staff will need a modem pool with a remote access server. 30. Sample Kit For Data Provider Nodes. The equipment and software suggested here may not be needed at all nodes, and will depend on the equipment already available at each individual node. The kit consists of: (i) a Pentium Pro 200 Mhz (64 MB Memory, 4.3 GB drive, 17 in. monitor); (ii) a printer; (iii) a scanner; (iv) a network adapter card; (v) software (Windows NT Operating System, Oracle, Microsoft Word, IDRISI, ArcView, etc.); (vi) a backup tape unit; (vii) 2 workstations; and (viii) a digitizer. The estimated cost per kit is US $18,000 per node; the total cost is US$72,000, plus US$21,000 for system upgrades and maintenance. Equipment acquisitions will take place during the first year. D. Implementation ArranLfements 31. A prototype system, including the BIS home page, will be developed early in the first year of the project. At the end of 18 months, one of the nodes will host a catalog system and provide access to selected tabular biodiversity datasets, while another node will be set up with a map server and will provide access to GIS layers. During the second and third years of the project, emphasis will be placed on making biodiversity data sets available, including non-APN holdings. By the end of the third year, a fully functional operating system will be in place with a core set of biodiversity data. Throughout the life of the project, new biodiversity data and information will be made available to the system. 76 Annex C 32. The system development will be carried out by an internationally recruited consultant with participation from APN staff. This participation is important since APN will be expected to maintain the system after initial development. ,4 77 Annex C Table C-1. Base Costs for the Biodiversity Information Management Component (US$'000) Input Description GEF GOA TOTAL Equipment 113.0 - 113.0 Internationally recruited consultants for a total of 20.3 p/m at US$10,000 per month, which includes all expenses except domestic travel and subsistence outside Buenos 160.0 - 160.0 Aires. Locally recruited consultants for 68.9 p/m at US$3,500 per month, which includes all expenses except domestic travel and subsistence outside place of residence.. 101.1 - 101.1 Training 83.5 - 83.5 APN Personnel (System Analyst) - 120.0 120.0 Domestic travel and subsistence outside Buenos Aires for internationally recruited consultants and outside place of residence for locally recruited consultants calculated at the rate of about US$300 per trip and US$90 per diem. 44.0 - 44.0 Total Base Costs 510.6 120 621.6 78 ANNEX D: MANAGEMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMPONENT (US$609,650 Base Costs) A. Proiect Management Project Unit 1. To ensure the efficient implementation of the project, a Project Unit (PU) will be established within APN. The PU's primary responsibilities will be to: (a) coordinate the activities identified in the project implementation manual; (b) cooperate with APN's Direccion de Administraci6n in the monitoring, control, and accounting of the project funds; (c) supervise the management of the project's special account to be administered by the Direcci6n de Administraci6n; (d) prepare the disbursement requests in compliance with Bank policies; (e) ensure that the project's purchase of goods and services comply with norms and procedures acceptable to the Bank; (f) prepare the necessary documentation required for Bank auditing purposes; (g) maintain routine communications with the intendentes of the new protected areas and through them the comisiones consultivas; (h) verify the work of the comisiones consultivas; (i) monitor and regularly inform the comisiones consultivas on the status of disbursements for their respective protected areas; (j) monitor the project as per the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan described below; (k) monitor the implementation of the MP; (1) prepare annual project work plans and give guidance to intendentes in the preparation of PA-specific POAs; and (m) prepare other technical reports including the mid-term and final project evaluations. 2. The PU will consist of a full-time technical manager and a full-time accountant and administrative assistant. The technical manager will be the project's contact point for international organizations as well as with the national government and the participating provincial governments. This core group will be reinforced by the contracting of consultants on an "as-needed" basis to assist with procurement, monitoring and evaluation, and the completion of a mid-term project review. In addition, a full-time Social Assessment Specialist supported under the project will be based out of this office (this has been costed under the project's Protected Area's Component; see Annex B). 3. It is proposed that the PU be established directly within the APN under the Board of Directors and report to the President, who would designate the appropriate APN directorate to coordinate the PU activities with other APN offices. Adequate office space will be provided by APN as a counterpart contribution. Project Management at the Field Level 4. To ensure that the project achieves its proposed objectives, there will be a need to develop an innovative management structure for each PA. In recognition that the biological and ecological boundaries of each PA cross multiple administrative jurisdictions, the proposed management structure places a strong emphasis on institutional collaboration at both the national and provincial levels. Moreover, in light of the diversity of interests 79 Annex D among stakeholders which could be affected by the conservation efforts, the proposed management structure would also encourage strong representation and participation from non-governmental organizations, private interests and other local groups (see Annexes B and E for more detail). 5. In recent years, APN has increasingly involved the public in the planning and management of protected areas (e.g., through the development of visitor plans, public participation in the development of EIAs, and solicitation of the views of NGOs in the preparation of management plans). Nevertheless, APN recognizes that a great deal remains to be done to encourage public participation in the planning and management of protected areas. 6. At the field level, the generic PA management structure for the new parks will be based on the creation of a multi-institutional consultative commission (comision consultiva). The structure and role of the CCs are discussed in detail in Annex B. Costs for the Component 7. The estimated cost for the Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation component is US$ 610,000 (Table D-1). Table D-1. Base Costs for the PU (US$'000) Input Description GEF GOA TOTAL PU personnel consisting of a FT technical manager (US$ 390 72 462 54,000 x 5 years), a FT accountant (US$ 20,000/year x 5 years), and a FT administrative assistant (US$ 18,000 x 5 years). Domestic travel (30 trips) and subsistence outside place of 35 35 residence for project staff (270 days), calculated at the rate of US$ 90/day for per diem and US$ 350/trip. l Technical Assistance (20 p/m) allocated for procurement 70 70 (4 p/m), monitoring and evaluation (8 p/m), and mid-term project evaluation (8 p/m) calculated at the rate of US $ 3,500/p/m. l Equipment 15 15 Operating costs for the PU 28 28 Total Base Costs 510 100 610 B. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators 8. The Project's Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan is based on the establishment and monitoring of key input/output and impact indicators. Table D-2 presents a summary of the M&E plan presented by project component including the projected timing of outputs. This is followed by Table D-3, which identifies key 80 Annex D input/output indicators also presented by project component/sub-component. Table D-4 identifies key impact indicators presented by project objective and timing of impact assessment. Finally, Table D-5 identifies the main reporting documents, timing, and institutional responsibility with regard to M&E reporting. 9. A distinction needs to be made between: (a) the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E) for the overall project, including specific monitoring and reporting activities funded here under this component; and (b) monitoring activities to be carried out within each of the PAs of the project. The latter are funded as part of park management activities and include collection of baseline information and biological monitoring. Similarly, PA- specific social assessment and monitoring will be addressed through the development of participation plans, as called for under the project's Participation Plan (PP--see Annex B for more detail on PA-specific activities). Some of the data which will be collected as part of PA-specific activities will be used as input to the M&E plan. 10. Institutional responsibilities for the implementation of the M&E plan are: (a) APN will have overall responsibility for M&E Plan implementation, supervision of specific studies, assisting intendentes with PA-specific monitoring activities, the mid-term and final project reviews, and the final preparation of PA-specific POAs and project progress reports; (b) the project's PU will assist APN in M&E Plan implementation, in contracting studies, incorporation of data from the specific PAs, and in the preparation of all project reports. M&E institutional responsibilities are specified in greater detail in the project's Implementation Manual. 81 Annex D Table D-2. Summary of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Develop- Inputs Outputs Timing of Outcomes and Impacts ment Resources providedfor Goods and services Outputs Results achieved through provision ofgoods Objectives project activities produced by the project and services Start Finish Protected Areas Component D.O. 1. Increase * Support for legal steps for Five newly created national 12/97 12/02 Five effectively managed and protected protection of park creation parks and reserves national parks and reserves non-represented * Land purchase in four of the Demarcation of PAs 12/97 12/02 Protection of globally important biodiversity biodiversity in five PAs Management plans 12/98 12/02 Expansion and diversification of Argentina's ecological Park personnel contracted implemented national protected area system regions of global - Preparation of management significance plans Construction of new and rehabilitation of existing park infrastructure D.O. 2. Promote Contracting of SA specialist - Demonstrable examples of 12/98 12/02 More sustainable use of biodiversity in buffer sustainable land Conduction of public sustainable land use zones use practices in awareness campaigns practices Increased community support for protected areas adjacent to Pilot projects areas and biodiversity conservation protected areas D.O. 3. Increase Contracting of SA specialist Increased institutional 3/98 03/03 * Broaden and diversify public support for public (same person as above) capacity in APN to promote protected areas participation in Creation of CCs public participation in Reduced social conflicts associated with the creation and Establishment of specific protected areas activities protected area management decisions protection of participation plans Establishment of PA- 6/98 6/02 Increased national/provincial coordination each protected Stakeholder workshops specific socio-economic and cooperation area baseline and monitoring Reduced extemal threats to proteted areas programs - Public participation 6/98 6/01 consultative mechanism * Household improvements, Mitigate the The mitigation plan and employee compensation and 3/98 12/02 Negative social impacts mitigated and negative social associated resources sustainable activities quality of life of affected families improved impacts associated with park establishment BIS Component D.O. 4. Increase BIS system design (including Development of BIS 1/98 3/00 Increase national and intemational exchange access to workshops) Establishment of prototype 3/98 3/99 of biodiversity information biodiversity data Purchase of computer nodes in APN headquarters Provide foundation for the development of a hardware and 4 DTRs more extensive BIS network Software development Increased BIS management 3/98 3(01 Provide increased capability to monitor status * Database re-configuration capacity of APN and non- of globally important biodiversity resources Technical assistance and APN information Facilitate informed decision-making training managemnent stakeholders Support the implementation ofthe Argentina biodiversity strategy Project Management Establish a project unit Increased efficiency in 12/97 12/02 Project objectives are achieved in a timely and M&E Key staff hired project implementation and cost-efficient manner Component funding disbursement and control 82 Annex D Table D-3. Key Input/Output Indicators KEY YEAR SOURCE INPUT I1 2 | 3 4 5 OF INDICATORS (Percent or Number Comolete-)DATA A. Protcted Areas Comnponent 1. Establishment/Consolidation of PAs Approval and signing of national park laws1 (no.) 2 2 Legal Oistuments Land purchase comnpleted 2 1 1 Admtinistrative records and legal instruments Identification and placement of Intendentes (no.) 1 2 2 Adnistrative records, interviews Demarcation (kIn) TBD Management plans completed (no.) 1 2 2 Administrative records installed building infrastuscture (in) 654 1,160 1,606 902 304 Administrative records PA-specific Monitoring Plans (no.) 1 3 1 Administrative records 2. Buffer Zone Activities Person/years social assessment specialist2 (no.) I I I I I Administrative records; interview Public awareness campaigns completed (no.) 1 2 2 APN annual and semi-anmual repotts; field interviews Pilot activity proposals approved (no.) 2 5 5 5 5 Administrative records Pilot activities completed (no.) 2 5 5 5 APN anmual and semi-annual reports; field verification 3. Public Partidnation Meetings of comisrones consukivas (no.) 24 32 28 20 20 APN annual and semi-annual reports; field interviews PA-specific participation plans (no.) 1 2 2 APN annual and semi-amnual reports; field verification Stakeholder workshops held (no.) 5 5 5 5 5 APN annual and semi-annual reorts; field interviews Training programs presented (no.) 4 18 18 18 18 APN annual and semi-annual repotts; interviews Mitigation Plan Home improvements (no.) 2 5 4 4 2 Administrative records; APN annual and semi-annual reports; field verification Person months contracted (no.) 265 265 265 265 265 Administrative records; APN annual and semi-annual reports; field verification Firewood delivered (tons) 168 168 168 168 168 Administrative records; APN anual and snemi-anmual reports; field verification Sub-projects approved in core areas (%) 10 30 60 100 Administrative records; APN annual and ____________________________I__ _semi-annual reports; field verification B. BIS Coenponent Information system design completed (o) 50 100 APN annual and semi-annual reports; product reviewed Workshops completed (no.) I I APN annual and semi-annual reports; field interviews Home Page completed (OA) 50 100 APN annual and semi-annual reports; system tested Major databases reconfigured (no.) 2 3 3 Trained APN personnel (no.) 8 40 APN annual and semi-annual reports; interviews Trained APN and non-APN users (no.) 200 APN annual and semi-annual reports; interviews Hardware/software procured (¾) 50 100 I I Administrative records; field verification C. Project Managment M&E Component Project unit staffed (%) 100 Administrative records; interviews PU equipment procured (O) 25 100 Administrative records Monitoring programs in place (°) 25 50 100 APN annual and Semi-anmual reports Mid-term review completed (%) 25 100 Product received and reviewed tmNational legislation creating PN Condorito has aleady been signed and so is not included inthe indicator targets. 2To be cost-shared between sub-components 2 and 3 of Protected Areas Comnponent. 83 Annex D Table D-4. Key Impact Indicators KEY TIMING OF SOURCE OF DATA AND MEANS IMPACT IMPACTS OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDICATORS Start Finih D.O. 1. Increased protection of biodiversity In ecological regions of global significance Effective manaunent ofnew PAs * Increased provincial preence in provincial rserves around NA 02 * Consultant contcted at begmning of Year 5 to revew APN and project federal PAs provincal records and conduct interviews to asuerta significant delopment. Fewer dishurbances and incursions into PAs (illegal resource 98 02 Review of Intendenca-generaed paol lo, incident repot, mondly harvesting such as poaching deforestation, etc.) and annual reporb and intrviemw with pak rang and local inhabitants. Increased protection of key indicator species * Stable populations of key indicator species, to be chosen in 9S 02 Baseline established prior to end of first year foliowing creation of each year 1 of project (e.g., sea lions, giant anteaters, native pampas PA and re-sesed in PY 5 by coHlaborstive resach agremt with grasses, etc.) universities and other scentific orpnization. D.O. 2. Promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity in area adjacent to protected areas * Adoption of suinable land use practices by non-project 00 02 - Consultant contracted at beginning of PY 5 to conduct field mvey of participants measured through changes in existng land use adoption of new land use practices basd on technologi genated andtor patterns disseminated during LOP. D.O. 3. Increase of public participation in the creation and protection of each protected area Development of local public groups and activities which NA 02 Intendente records and local intrw support PA objectives * Majority of members of CCs satisfied with degree of 98 02 . Review of APN records and survey utionnaire of member participation in the CCs organizations. Creation of CCs in other national and provincial PAs. NA 02 * Review of APN records and surey questionie cfrdevant provincal PA institutions. MitIgation Plan * Income levels of affected families restored/improved. 98 02 Household surveys and beneficiary a n * Social organization of affected families maintained/improved. 98 02 -Household surveys and beneficiay as Affected populations satisfied with effectiveness of mitigation measures. 98 02 Household surveys and benefiiry a e D.O. 4. Increase acces to biodiveraity data * Number of non-APN log-ons to system (to provide or access 98 02 * Assessment of BIS activity records. data) increasing throughout life of project - Development of a more extensive BIS determined through the NA 02 * Assessment of BIS activity records and survey of node creatorm creation and integration of additional information nodes 84 Annex D Table D-5. Monitoring and Evaluation Reports Report Timing Responsibility Technical Reports Periodic Consultants/contractors to submit to PU/APN Semi-annual Progress 1/3 1/yy APN Reports Annual Progress Reports 7/3 l/yy APN PA-specific POAs 6/98-6/21 APN Project POA (draft) EOFY' APN (previous) PA-specific Management 2002/03 APN Plans Financial Audits EOFY + 6 Independent Auditors months Mid-term Review 6/2000 WB Implementation Completion 6/2003 WB Report lEOFY = End of Fiscal Year 85 ANNEX E: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN A. Back2round Introduction 1. The goal of the proposed GEF project is to conserve biodiversity of global importance. To achieve this goal, one of the principal outputs will be the creation of five new protected areas (PAs): (a) Area Protegido Los Venados (APLV), located in the Province of San Luis; (b) Area Protegido San Guillermo (APSG), located in the Province of San Juan; (c) Area Protegido Copo (APC) found in the Province of Santiago del Estero; (d) Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito (APQC) in C6rdoba Province; and (e) Area Protegido Monte Le6n (APML) located on the Patagonian coastline of Santa Cruz Province. Because three of these protected areas--Los Venados, El Copo, and El Quebrada del Condorito-- have people living within the boundaries of the proposed PAs and in their respective buffer zones, a full social assessment (SA) was completed during project preparation. The information contained in this annex presents, in summary form, the results of the SA. The original study documents can be found in the Project Files. 2. Objectives of the Social Assessment. The principal objectives of the SA were to: (a) evaluate the social and economic conditions and attitudes of people living within the areas of the proposed three PAs; (b) identify the potential social and economic impacts associated with park creation; (c) identify priority needs for affected families and communities; (d) identify and analyze alternative mitigation measures in conformity with GOA and Bank requirements; (e) evaluate options that may exist to increase public participation in the park management and decision making process; and (f) prepare Public Participation (PP) and Mitigation Plans (NP). 3. Social Assessment Methodology. Between January 1997 and April 1997, an interdisciplinary team carried out the SA which involved: (a) a review of relevant studies and documents; (b) an initial identification and subsequent analysis of potential stakeholders and social issues in the three proposed PAs; (c) consultations, in-depth interviews and household surveys of families and communities living in the proposed PAsM2; (d) informal workshops between APN staff, the local social assessment consultant and potential stakeholders; and (e) meetings with officials from the provincial ministries and technical staff from the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INTA). Household surveys were conducted in both the core areas and adjacent buffer zones in all of the proposed PAs with the exception of APSG and APML. In the latter two PAs, survey activities were limited to the buffer zone because of the absence of inhabitants in 12 Since the precise park limits are not yet known, the social assessment focused on the population living in the proposed core areas and corresponding buffer zones (see maps of the proposed core areas with the inhabitants identified). If and when modifications to the proposed park boundaries occur, it would be necessary to update the social assessment as well as the resulting mitigation plan to include the population living in the new park areas. 86 Annex E the core area. Similarly, because of the absence of inhabitants in the APML PA, no formal survey was required (see below for more detail). 4. All heads of households were interviewed in the three populated core areas. During the course of the interviews the SA team collected data on the households' survival strategies, including employment and income levels, as well as socio- demographic, organizational and cultural characteristics of these families. This information, in turn, was used to evaluate the proposed project's impact on these households and determine whether resettlement was a necessary and viable option. This information also provided valuable input into the design of the Buffer Zone Activities and Public Participation and Training sub-components (see Annex B) and the NIitigation Plan (Annex E-Attachment 1). In the case of the Buffer Zone subcomponent, because of the spatial distribution of the population and the number of individuals involved, only a sample of the total population was surveyed. Copies of the survey can be found in the project file. B. Social Structure. Employment and Income in Core Areas and Buffer Zones 5. The major stakeholders identified in the three PAs were large landowners, agricultural workers, poor small farmers, public institutions (both at the national and provincial levels), NGOs, and universities. No indigenous people live in these areas. Findings for each of these core areas and for the buffer zones are detailed below. Area Protegido Los Venados 6. Core Area. In the APLV the landowner is an absentee entrepreneur who lives in Buenos Aires. He employs a full-time agricultural engineer and contracts outside technical assistance to run his extensive farm operation. Living in the core area are 10 people comprised of two families and three individuals, all of whom work for this absentee landowner. The basic source of livelihood is wage labor. The farm workers' average monthly wage income is US$ 270. Non-monetary income of these families, including subsistence agricultural production consumed by the family and other amenities provided by the landowner (e.g., social security, cooking gas and food) is estimated to be worth approximately US$ 105 per month per family. Social relations between these families and the landowner are primarily contractual and ties among these families are mainly through their work. 7. Based on the responses obtained during the SA, the owner appears willing to sell the land to the APN and remove any cattle from the core area. Similarly, information derived from household interviews indicated that farm laborers are willing to change their occupation provided they receive the required training, are offered alternative employment, and receive wages commensurate with the duties of the new employment. Additional details on activities to be supported can be found in the MP (see Attachment 1). 8. Buffer Zone. The buffer zone is occupied by 25 people comprising four families and nine individuals. A total of 16 people were interviewed. Similar to the core area, most 87 Annex E of the wage earners work as employees of large cattle ranches. The average monthly wage is about $270. Most families have electricity, use gas or kerosene for cooking, and use firewood to heat their homes in the winter. Family units tend to be quite isolated from each other and horseback is the major means of transportation. There are no farmer cooperatives or associations in the area. Those interviewed believe that the creation of the park will have little effect on their daily lives. 9. A number of governmental agencies, universities, and NGOs have a presence in the area. In addition to APN and the provincial government, the most important are the: Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INTA), Ministerio de Industria, Turismo, Mineriay Produccin, Direcci6n de Medio Ambiente, and the University of San Luis. The area also has a fairly strong environmental NGO presence, including the Fundaci6n Vida Silvestre Argentina, the Asociaci6n Conservacionista Equilibrio Vital and the Asociacion Mercedina Ecol6gica. INTA staff were instrumental in the design and creation of the proposed PA and would likely continue to play an important role during project implementation. Area Protegido San Guillermo 10. Core and Buffer Zone. There is no population in the core or buffer zones of San Guillermo. To assess the potential social impacts in the area of influence of the park (nearby human settlements), interviews of key individuals in the Iglesia Department and analysis of secondary data generated by the Social Research Institute of the National University of San Juan, INDEC and APN were undertaken. Additional information was provided by the Provincial government of San Juan and the Fundaci6n Ambientalista Sanjuanina, a local NGO. 11. Approximately 2,000 people live in 14 communities in the Iglesia Department, and most are located at a distance of 50 km or more from the San Guillermo core area (only one family lives as close as 10 km). The Department's population density is less than one person per square kilometer. The major economic activities include: small-scale farming and animal raising, handicrafts, small scale mining and, more recently, tourism. In the towns, some individuals are employed in a variety of public sector jobs and in small businesses. Because of the isolated location and arid conditions, agriculture has a low level of productivity and profitability. Textile production is the major activity of the handicraft sector, and is an important cultural and economic activity for women. The exploitation of minerals-- primarily calcium sulfate, copper sulfate, sodium sulfate and lead--also provides sporadic employment. The Cura Valley is a site for exploration of gold, copper and iron, however, most mine workers are brought in from other regions of Argentina. 12. The SA team interviewed a broad cross section of stakeholders including large and small farmers, the handicraft association, small-scale agro-industry, local tourism businesses, municipal government and journalists. Of the people interviewed during the SA, most were generally pleased to know that the existing Reserve will become a national park and expressed a desire to be kept informed. Moreover, most people felt that the new 88 Annex E park would have a positive impact on their families and hoped that the expected increase in tourism and its related employment opportunities would serve to keep young people from migrating outside of the area. Area Protegido Copo 13. Core Area. While there are no landowners in Copo, there are currently 24 people, comprising five families, living on land in the core area. Unlike the other PAs, this land belongs to the Province of Santiago del Estero ( i.e., tierra fiscal) and the government considers these people to be occupants. Most of these individuals colonized the area more than 60 years ago and survive by raising livestock and cutting timber. Although the families have no legal land titles, the provincial government has granted them certain rights. The SA substantiated previous accounts that there are no large landowners in the core area and the inhabitants of Copo are very poor. 14. Information collected during the interview process suggests that these individuals are willing to change their occupations provided they receive the required training, are offered alternative employment, and receive wages commensurate with the duties of their new employment. Additional details on activities to be supported can be found in the MP. 15. Buffer Zone. Forty persons comprising 12 families reside in the buffer zone. Two of these families have title to land which they acquired under the 1980 Colonization Plan. The rest are intrusos (squatters) who occupy land without title but expect to receive title under a Provincial land titling plan. Employment and income is based on relatively small- scale livestock production. In some areas cotton production has become important. Throughout the buffer zone, timber cutting is important as a source of income and as a source of domestic energy. There are no formal producer cooperatives or associations in the area. 16. A number of governmental agencies, universities, and non-governmental institutions have a presence in the area. In addition to APN and the provincial government, other institutions include the University of Salta and the University of Santiago del Estero. The communities which fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the Municipality of Guanacos have both social and economic relations with those individuals residing in the core area. The two key NGOs working in the area--ECOGEO and FUNDAPAZ --have extensive experience working with small farmers in the design and implementation of natural resource management programs. Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito 17. Core Area. There are eight absentee landowners in the Condorito core area who manage their lands through foremen. On the existing land holdings, there are eight families comprising 36 people. Of these, 10 are wage workers who live with their families and have contractual arrangements with their respective landowners. Estimated average monthly income is US$ 270 per worker/month. In addition these families participate in some subsistence agricultural production and receive fringe benefits and other amenities 89 Annex E (e.g., social security, grazing rights, firewood and food) which in total are estimated to be worth about US$ 100 per month. The results of the SA indicate most of these families have lived in the area all their lives and are closely linked to local communities. Families place great value on education and are keen that their children achieve a high level of education. All children attend rural schools in or near the PAs, where they are provided with lunch and in some cases health care. 18. During the SA process, the aforementioned land owners expressed their willingness to sell their land to the APN and remove all cattle. Similarly, while the families and individuals living in the core area said they would prefer to stay in the area rather than to be resettled, they were willing to change their occupations provided they receive the required training, are offered alternative employment, and receive wages commensurate with the duties of the new employment. Additional details on activities to be supported can be found in the MP. 19. Buffer Zone. There are currently 144 families living in the Condorito buffer zone. Of these, 17 family heads of household were interviewed during the SA. Based on the results, it appears most of the families live on their own private, titled lands. Formal employment is limited primarily to public sector positions such as teachers and general school workers, provincial television station workers, and road maintenance crews. Other sources of subsistence/income include: the raising of livestock for their own consumption and/or for sale in nearby small towns, growing vegetables, and the use of forest resources for firewood and home construction. During January and February some tourism-related work is also possible. The average monthly salary is estimated to be US$ 250 (teachers' salaries are considerably higher). 20. The families interviewed expressed concern over the impact of park creation on their production activities. Many of these families have close relations with the families living in the park and are worried about how those people will be affected. They also expressed concern over the restrictions on future grazing and cutting of trees in the park. 21. A number of provincial governmental agencies, universities, and non-governmental institutions have a presence in the area. The most important are: Ministerio de Producci6n y Trabajo, Ministerio de Saludy Medio Ambiente, INTA, the Nacional University of C6rdoba, and Fundaci6n Condor. The data seem to suggest that relative to the families in the core area, families in the buffer zone have more experience dealing with formal institutions. Area Proftegido Monte Le6n 22. Core and Buffer Zone. Due primarily to the fact that in the proposed core and buffer zones there are only two large estancias that have only two permanent workers, the approach used by the SA team was abbreviated and consisted of interviews with the landowners and/or estancia foremen and with specialists from the Fundaci6n Patagonia Natural, a local NGO. This information was complemented by an analysis of secondary 90 Annex E information from government agencies and from the Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. 23. The area around the site of the proposed park is sparsely populated--largely limited to individuals working on neighboring estancias outside of the proposed PA. Economic activity in the nearest town Puerto Santa Cruz, which is about 40 km from the core area, is dominated by the fisheries sector. The natural beauty of the area has also begun to attract tourists. Increased tourism however, could pose a threat to the environment of the area if not managed properly. With this in mind, project activities will be focused on environmental education and the controlled promotion of ecotourism. C. Social and Economic Impacts of Park Creation 24. Most of the social impacts brought about by the creation of the national parks will be associated with the purchase of the land and concomitant termination of existing employment agreements between landowners and workers. Specifically these impacts will consist of loss of: (a) wage income; (b) other benefits provided by the landlord; and (c) income and subsistence benefits associated with changes in livelihood systems brought about by restrictions to the use of these lands (e.g., prohibitions on animal grazing and timber cutting). Table E-1 provides a summary description of the socio-economic impacts of park creation on populations living in core areas and buffer zones. 25. Total monthly incomes (including benefits) have been estimated on an individual or family basis in the three core areas (Tables E-2 to E-4). These figures were used as a basis to assess two options: (a) resettlement, and (b) provision of alternative employment and income which would allow project-affected families to remain in the core areas. Based on the resulting analysis it was concluded that losses and associated mitigation costs would be substantially greater if the families were to be resettled since this would require the provision of housing and land for cattle raising. As the data indicate, under the second option the proposed mitigation measures would, in most cases, result in a substantial increase over existing income levels (in approximately 30% of the cases these increases would exceed 100%). Details of these measures are provided in the MP. 91 Table E-1: Potential Socio-Economic Impacts on People in Proposed Core Areas and Buffer Zones Protected Area Threats to Population Threats to Population in Sustainable Pilot Activities Support through Extension l________________________ in Core Area Buffer Zones Activities Los Venados (APLV) Elimination of wages Gradual elimination of *Recovery of degraded natural *Sustainable rangeland management and other benefits such traditional systems of grasslands and Wildlife. *Wildlife conservation as social security extensive livestock raising *Sustainable soil and water *Fire management. payment, cooking gas, management practices. *Agrotourism/Ecotounsm. and food. *Wildlife management and *Formation of environmental breeding to produce meat, leather production Co-ops. Gradual elimination of and feathers. *Environmental education programs traditional systems of *Small-scale plantings of natives for primary schools, agriculture extensive livestock tree and shrub species (Prosopis) schools and university students of the raising. region. San Guillemo (APSG) No people reside in core No people reside in buffer *Womens' traditional handicraft *Informal education program. area zone programs *Environmental education program *Restoration of degraded areas, targeted at the local community *programs to increase *Revegetation with native species, *Ecotourismn ecotourism opportunities medicinal herbs and shrubs. will be implemented in *Camelids breeding program communities located in the *Non conventional energy Iglesias Department I 92 Annex E Table E-1: Socio-Economic Affects of Park Creation on Populations in Core Akeas and Buffer Zones (continued) Protected Area Threats to Population in Core Area Threats to Sustainable Pilot Activities Support through Extension Population in Activities Buffer Zones Copo (APC) Gradual elimination of traditional Gradual elirnination * Native forest restoration and *Forest management training systems of extensive livestock of traditional sustainable management program. *Environmental education raising. systems of extensive *Agroforestry management program programs targeted at neighboring livestock raising. *Development of alternative forest conunurities. Gradual implementation of products programn. restrictions on cutting timber Gradual implementation of restrictions on cutting timber _ __l Quebrada del Condorio Elimination of wages and other Gradual elimination *Recovery and management of *Sustainable natural resource (APQC) benefits such as social security of use of park land degraded grasslands programs. management training program. payment, cooking gas, and food. for cattle grazing *Fire management *Community Center and the elimination *Reintroduction of camelids for strengthening plan. Loss of access to firewood of use of other park leather, meat and wool production. *Ecotourism resources such as *Fuelwood plantations with native *Environmental education Gradual elimination of traditional firewood and timber species (maiten, prosopis, tabaquillo) program targeted at the local systems of extensive livestock for housing and exotic (sauce rnimbre, acacias, community and local schools. raising. construction other species). *Aquaculture to supply restaurants Over time the and other tourism services. elimination of *Local crafts traditional livestock *Ecotourism development raising systems Reduced income from changes in livestock production system 93 Annex E Table E-1: Socio-Economic Affects of Park Creation on Populations in Core Areas and Buffer Zones (continued) Protected Area Threats to Population in Core Area Threats to Sustainable Pilot Activities Support through Extension Population in Activities Buffer Zones l Monte Leon (APML) No negative impacts are expected as No negative impacts Programs to increase ecotourism Programs to increase ecotourism there are no people living in the core are expected over opportunities will be implemented opportunities will be area. the people residing in the buffer zone implemented in the buffer zone in the buffer zone . 94 Table E-2: With and Without Project Comparative Analysis of Incomes for People Living in the Parks' Core Areas Average Annual Family Income With and Without Project (US$) Park Core Area Income without Income with Percentage project project increase Los Venados 7,542 8,300 10 Copo 4,435 8,160 84 Condorito 6,423 8,550 33 D. The Legal Framework for Mitigation of Impacts in National Parks 26. The 1981 National Park's Law No. 22.351 and the subsequent Decrees No. 2148/90, 2149/90 and 453/94 prohibit the presence of human settlements in national parks and monuments with the exception of those cases which are necessary for the management and control of the PA (e.g., park guards and firefighters). Customarily, APN has allowed the people living in the PAs to remain there and has integrated them in the rehabilitation programs (e.g., LosAlerces and Lanin National Parks). Therefore, within the legal framework, exceptional circumstances, such as those presented in the proposed new protected areas, may be accommodated in a manner that would abide by the legal norms. 27. The development of the Project's MP was guided primarily by APN's resettlement-rehabilitation policies (and the World Bank's Operation Directive 4.30). In the design of the MP, the plan allows for a flexible, demand-driven approach based primarily on the improvement of existing physical infrastructure and provision for income- generating activities and welfare restitution for project-affected populations. Involuntary resettlement will therefore, in principle, be avoided, taking advantage of all viable alternative project designs. 95 Annex E ATTACHMENT 1 THE MITIGATION PLAN Background/Rationale 1. During the project preparation phase, a team of local specialists undertook a detailed socio-economic analysis (SA) of families and communities living in the five proposed protected area sites. A summary of the methodology and principal findings can be found in the Social Assessment Summary (Annex E). 2. The main objectives of the SA were to determine: (i) the number of people living on lands which will be reclassified as protected areas (PAs) under the project, (ii) sources of livelihood, and (iii) the social-economic impacts of PA creation and management. The team was also charged with evaluating and recommending whether resettlement would be required or if other management options are viable to permit existing inhabitants to remain where they are. Based on the results of the SA, the team, in consultation with those families living within the core areas of the proposed PAs, local authorities, and APN staff, prepared a Mitigation Plan (MP) which addresses the socio-economic impacts associated with park creation. While the SA covered all five proposed PAs and their respective buffer zones, populations which may be adversely affected by the project were found in only three parks (Area Protegido Los Venados, Area Protegido Copo, Area Protegido Quebrada del Condorito ). This affected group subsequently became the focus for the development of the MP's proposed mitigation measures. 3. Based on the results and recommendations of the SA and taking into consideration existing APN policies, it appears that no families or individuals will need to be resettled and a Mitigation Plan has been designed on this basis. This is consistent with prevailing Bank guidelines (O.D. 4.30, described in the project implementation manual), which provides that resettlement should be avoided or minimized where possible. In order to prevent the negative social and economic impacts of park establishment and to support the integration of human populations into park management, APN has prepared a framework for mitigation and specific mitigation measures for each of the three parks.. The MP is summarized below and is detailed in the Project Implementation Manual. In the unlikely event that families or individuals would need to be resettled in the future, Bank policy guidelines on resettlement, as set forth in OD 4.30, will be followed. Mitigation Plan 4. The SA provided the data required for the preparation of a general framework for: (a) mitigating the negative social and economic consequences associated with the creation of the Pas; and (b) integrating local inhabitants into the park management and decision- making process. The specific mitigation measures proposed in the MP will apply only to 96 Annex E those families and individuals who lived and worked on the land in the new national parks as of March 31, 1997. 5. The major mitigation measure categories comprising the mitigation framework are: (a) Infrastructure Improvements, (b) Employee Compensation'3, and (c) Extension Activifies and Production Support. Specific mitigation measures were designed for each of the three parks. However, as the park boundaries are still under revision, the MP may require some adjustments in the future. To ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place, APN will obtain the Bank's approval of the specific MP for each of the parks before the execution of works. A description of the MP and budget presented by park can be found in Tables 1-5. Area Protegido Los Venados 6. Infrastructure Improvements. The mitigation measures proposed include the provision of materials for the improvement of six houses, including the installation of bathroom accessories such as toilets and sinks as well as the improvement or construction of a new house for the family currently living in the "casco " of the hacienda. 7. Employee Com ensation. People living in the core area will be hired as either assistant park guards (baqueanos), firefighters, or other categories of park personnel for a total employee compensation of US$249,000. The hiring of the baqueanos will begin in Year 1. 8. Over the life of the project (LOP), the total cost of these mitigation measures is estimated at US$ 274,000. Area Protegido Copo 9. Infastructure ImDrovements. The proposed mitigation measures consist of the installation of five solar panels for electricity generation and the construction of five water tanks. 10. Emplovee Compensation. People living in the core area will be hired as either assistant park guards (baqueanos), firefighters, or other categories of park personnel for a total employee compensation of US$204,000.(see Table 3). 11. Extension Activities and Production Support. Families and individuals will receive support and the required inputs for the improvement of native forests and sustainable agro-forestry production. 13 Employee compensation measures include three different types of contractual arrangements: (i) Full time park guards hired by APN; (ii) Part time firefighters hired by APN and (iii) Part time workers hired by private contractors. All employees hired by APN will receive social security benefits. In the case of type (iii), private contractors will be required by APN through the bidding documents to hire individuals living in the core park areas for a total of 260 person/month over five years, at a monthly salary of US$ 600. 97 Annex E 12. Over the LOP, the total cost of these mitigation measures is estimated at US$ 285,250. Area Protegido del Quebrada Condorito 13. Infrastructure Improvements. The proposed mitigation measures consist of materials for the renovation of six houses. In the case of one family which will leave the park area voluntarily and relocate nearby in the buffer zone, APN will cover the costs of completing construction of the house and provide materials for raising of animals. 14. Employee Compensation. People living in the core area will be hired as either assistant park guards (baqueanos), firefighters, or other categories of park personnel for a total employee compensation of US$342,000. In addition, APN will provide all families with firewood as compensation for the wood that was previously provided by the landowner. 15. Extension Activities and Production Support. Extension activities and production support materials (e.g., fencing) will be provided to all individuals and families to assist them in maintaining a limited number of cattle for a transition period, not to exceed five years. 16. The total cost of these mitigation measures is estimated at US$ 322,770. 17. The total costs of the MP, estimated at some US$ 994,020 are detailed in Tables 1-5 and in the Project Cost Tables (Annex H). Implementation of the MP will be the direct responsibility of APN. When required, convenios will be prepared with other organizations, including national government agencies, provincial government agencies, NGOs and the private sector. In cases in which APN will hire people living in the PAs to serve as baqueanos or other park-related employment, standard employee contracts will be prepared. Of the total cost associated with the mitigation plan, US$ 823,000 will be financed by the GOA. Incremental costs (US$ 171,000) of the MP, derived from the works required for the establishment of the park areas, will be financed by GEF. 18. In addition to these mitigation measures, it should be noted that project-affected populations can also participate fully in the complementary activities developed under the Project's Buffer Zone Biodiversity Activities and Public Participation sub-components. Specifically, through training and targeted education programs in participatory planning, sustainable resource management, and ecotourism development and management, PA inhabitants will have an opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the park's management and at the same time be involved in decisions that directly affect their daily lives. Participation in these activities will also be available to families and communities living in the buffer zones of the three parks (see Annex B for more detail). 98 Annex E Table 1 Summary of Employee Compensation by Park and Type of Contract (Ful/Part Time) Los Venados El Copo Condorito Total Full time Months (pm) 180 240 360 780 Salaries (US$) 108,000 144,000 216,000 468,000 Part time _ Months (pm) 235 100 210 545 Salaries (US$) 141,000 60,000 126,000 327,000 Total I Months (pm) 415 340 570 1,325 Salaries (US$) 249,000 204,000 342,000 795,000 Table 2: Mitigation Activities. Timetable and Costs for Area Protegido Los Venados. MITIGATION PROGRAM TYPE OF ACTIVITY TIMETABLE COSTS g _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 |2 13 14 5| House (6) improvements (install x 125,000 latrines) IWages lxlx Ix lrx 1 $2495,000 2 Table 3: Mitigation Activities Timetable and Costs for Area Protegido Copo MITIGATION PROGRAM TYPE OF ACTIVITY 1TIMETABLE COSTS * infrastructure House improvements (5), water tanks I I $22,500 t _ and solar panels I * Income Sources [Baqueanos and Firefighters. l x ]x lix rx x$204,000 'si' E K Improvement of native forests Extension and production support x x x $10,000 In i sod u $20,000. Sustainable agro-forestry Extension and production support x x x x x $180,5000 S x E a x x $18,750 - sai I1, 99 Annex E Table 4: Mitigation Activities. Timetable and Costs for Area Protegido del Quebrada Condorito MITIGATION PROGRAM | TYPE OF ACTIVITY | TIMETABLE | COSTS Improvement of housing and other $19,000.rvemrit1) infrastructure. J . , t~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ... .:. -. .:. . .:--l__- Subtotal $19,000 E E E iQI2 Wages x x x x x $342,000 Provision of firewood x x x x x $ 43,600 $345,600 ; uEU. ...... Support to sustainable livestock Technical assistance extension and x x x x x $ 30,170 production during a five year production inputs. x x x transition Period. Table 5. Estimated Costs for the Mitigation Plan (US$'00) Input Description GEF GOA Total Infrastructure for 18 houses (i.e. housing improvement, installation of 51.50 51.50 water tanks and solar panels). Employee Compensation (13 baqueanos at $ 7200 per year and 545 639.00 639.00 person/month at US$ 600 per month) Transportation of Firewood (6200 km @.05 cts/km) 43.6 43.6 Sustainable Use Activities 88.9 88.9 Extension and Production Support House improvement in Los Venados (i.e. construction of one house) 15 15 Funds for hiring people living in core areas as part time workers (through private contractors) 14 156 156 Total Base Costs 171 823 994.5 14 260 person/month at a monthly salary of US$ 600 (US$ 156,000) that will be hired by private contractors to carry out required park works. 100 ANNEx F: INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Protected Areas in Argentina 1 Argentina has a long history of conservation, dating back to 1903. In that year, the pioneering conservationist, Francisco P. Moreno, donated 7,500 hectares (ha) in an area near Bariloche to the government, with the promise that the land would be used for the enjoyment of all the Argentine people. This donation was the basis for what eventually became the country's flagship national park, Nahuel Huapi. In 1934, the agency that manages the system, Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales (APN) was created (at the time it was called La Comision de Parques Nacionales). The APN has since become a semni-autonomous agency under the Secretaria de Estado de Recursos Naturalesy Desarrollo Sustentable (SRNyDS). 2. The existing system of national protected areas consists of 31 parks and reserves of various classifications (Table F-1) covering 3.02 million hectares. In addition, there are 197 provincial parks and reserves, covering approximately 11 million ha, or 4.5 percent of the surface area of the country. Provincial parks and reserves include those under the jurisdiction of provincial governments, municipal governments, national universities, under private ownership, or a mixture of two or more of these entities. Only 123 of the 197 provincial parks and reserves are actually administered exclusively by provincial government bodies. Of the remainder, 28 are in private ownership, 19 are administered by municipal governments, 9 are administered by the ICyT (Instituto Nacional de Capacitaci6n y Tecnologia), 3 by provincial universities, and 15 are under a mix of two or more of these groups. While the creation of these non-federal parks has served to publicize the importance of protection of the nation's biological diversity, most all are in need of effective management. National Protected Area Administration 3. Structure. The lead agency responsible for managing the country's national protected areas is the Administraci6n de Parques Nacionales (APN), a semi-autonomous agency within the Secretaria de Estado de Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo Sustentable (SRNyDS). Under the recent reorganization of the Nation's public sector, associated with the Second Reform of the State, APN is headed by a Board of Directors (Directorio) which consists of a president, a vice president, and four representatives from SRNyDS, the Secretariat of Tourism, and the Ministries of Defense and Interior, respectively. In the recent 1997 reorganization of APN, under this Board there are two national directorates and one coordination directorate: the Direccion Nacional de Conservaci6n de Areas Protegidas, the Direcci6n Nacional del Interior, and the Direcci6n General de Coordinaci6n Administrativa: 101 Annex F Table F- 1. Protected Area Classification and Management Objectives in Argentina Protected Area Categories Management Objectives National or Provincial Parks Conservation of natural habitat, prohibiting virtually all economic activities with the exception of tourism. Strict Nature Reserves Conservation of significant habitat and/or species. No economic activity is allowed. Natural Monuments Conservation of unique natural areas - public use is permitted, although severe restrictions are in place to protect biological systems. Natural Reserves Conservation of critical habitat for one or more species of recognized national importance - public use is permitted, although restrictions are placed on most uses. Protected Landscapes Conservation of areas of natural or cultural significance, including landscapes modified by past human land uses - management actions are designed to sustain the existing landscape conditions. Resource Reserves Conservation of natural areas which have been subject to limited previous scientific investigation - only traditional low- impact land uses by local populations are permitted. Natural/Cultural Reserves Conservation of areas with important natural or cultural significance, particularly areas inhabited by indigenous or aboriginal communities - management plans are based on agreements drawn between the traditional communities and APN Multiple Use Reserves Conservation of areas which have experienced some degradation through human land use - management plans are based on sustainable land use practices aimed at restoring ecosystem functions. Biosphere Reserves These reserves are designed to include a strict protected core zone surrounded by a multiple use reserve. Biosphere reserves are designated by the Man and the Biosphere Program of UNESCO. World Heritage Sites Conservation of areas of exceptional world values, including geological, biological or cultural principles. These sites are also designated by UNESCO 102 Annex F (a) Direcci6n Nacional del Interior (DNI) whose principal function is to supervise APN operations and ensure they are in compliance with the institution's mandate and policies. Under the DNI there is one directorate (Direcci6n de Coordinaci6n Operativa) responsible for the planning of monitoring and control systems and combating fires in the Nation's parks and reserves. Administratively, APN's 13 intendencias also report directly to the DNI; (b) Direcci6n Nacional de Conservaci6n de Areas Protegidas (DNCAP) responsible for planning, programming, and formulation of conservation policies and strategies, including public use of the nation's PAs. This national directorate is also responsible for protection, management, sustainable use, research, interpretation, recreation and monitoring activities. Under the DNCAP there are two directorates: (i) Conservaci6n y Manejo, responsible for the management and conservation of the country's protected ecosystems; and (ii) Interpretaci6n y Extension Ambiental, responsible for interpretation, extension activities, and public relations; and (c) Direcci6n General de Coordinaci6n Administrativa (DGCA), responsible for coordination of APN's budgetary process including the preparation of the annual budget and supervising and controlling its implementation, personnel administration and training, and public works and concession policies. Under the DGCA there are four directorates: (i) Administraci6n, Recursos Humanos y Capacitaci6n, Obras e Inversiones Ptiblicas, and Aprovechamiento de Recursos. 4. At the field level and under DNI's Direcci6n de Intendencias de los Parques, there are 13 intendencias responsible for the operational management of one or more of the national protected areas, including relations with provincial and municipal governments. Typically, the administrative structure of an intendencia consists of three functional units responsible for administration, works and infrastructure maintenance, and conservation management and control. In addition, under DNCAP, there are four delegaciones tecnicas regionales (DTRs) whose primary responsibilities are to provide technical support to intendencias in their region in the preparation of conservation plans, programs, and projects; resource management issues; research; and information exchange. The DTRs are located in Iguazu (Northeastern), Salta (Northwestern), Buenos Aires (Central) and San Carlos de Bariloche (Patagonia). 5. Personnel. Argentina's national public personnel system makes a distinction between two types of permanent APN personnel: administrative (Sistema Nacional de la Profesi6n Administrativa) and park guards (Cuerpo Nacional de Guardaparques). Park guards, responsible for the day-to-day management of the parks, provide the full range of management and protection functions such as nature interpretation, visitor safety, and park security, including armed anti-poaching patrols. In addition, there are a number of 103 Annex F non-permanent categories of employees, namely: contractors (contractados), volunteers, and interns (becarios). 6. APN staff currently totals about 684, of which 216 are park guards. As a result of the previously mentioned reorganization of APN, there will be a significant increase in both park guards and administrative staff to support a larger presence in both existing and newly created parks (Table F-2). Compensation and career development opportunities will be important issues for retaining park guards and creating a more professional park management staff. Table F-2. Projected Increase in APN Personnel Category 1997 1998 (est) 1999 (est) Executive Appointment 7 7 7 Park Guards 216 320 358 Technical Staff (SINAPA) 60 70 70 Intendencias (SINAPA) 205 326 340 Administration (SINAPA) 75 74 74 Becarios 121 121 121 Total 684 918 970 7. Park Revenues. Table F-3 shows APN's self-generated revenues and treasury transfers over the last six years in 1995 dollars. The self-generated revenues have grown significantly over the past five years (about 19 percent per year). In 1994, the most recent year for which accurate information is available, APN's self-generated revenue, excluding exceptional one-time only sources of income such as sales of assets, was estimated to be US$3.9 million. In that year, one park alone, Iguazu, accounted for approximately 45 percent of total income. The four Patagonian parks proposed for inclusion in the GEF associated Natural Forests and Protected Areas (NFPA) Project loan accounted for an additional 44 percent of the revenue generated in that year. Table F-3. APN's Total Income (in 1995 US$) Year Own Revenue From Treasury Total 1990 336,000 4,922,000 5,258,000 1991 1,906,000 6,738,000 8,644,000 1992 2,998,000 7,446,000 10,444,000 1993 5,253,000 14,430,000 19,683,000 1994 5,196,000 16,771,000 21,967,000 1995 8,671,000 15,238,000 23,909,000 1996 (est) 13,500,000 14,500,000 28,000,000 1997 (est) 15,000,000 15,000,000 30,000,000 104 Annex F 8. Entrance fees, which are charged in only 11 national parks, make up about 42 percent of APN's self-generated revenue. Depending on the park, other important sources of park revenue include: rental of park properties (9 percent); permits for fishing, hunting and boating (2 percent); pasture fees; royalties associated with forest exploitation in reserves; and licensing of tourist guides and other concessionaires. 9. Operating Budget. Budget cuts suffered by APN during the 1980s and early 1990s combined to limit the Agency's ability to maintain the equipment and infrastructure needed to carry out its mandate to manage existing protected areas. The initially promised 1995 budget of US$27.8 million was a significant increase over the 1994 budget of US$22 million. However, because of new austerity measures demanded of all public institutions, the 1995 budget was later reduced to about US$24 million. Of the total 1994 budget allocation, 56 percent covered salaries of permanent staff, a relatively low proportion in comparison with.other Latin American park systems. 10. APN's 1996 projected budget is US$28 million, which has been allocated to the budgetary categories presented in Table F-4. It is noteworthy that the US$6.5 million allocated for land purchase is not fungible because it comes from a special fund earmarked exclusively for this purpose and funded by sales of assets. Table F-4. APN's 1996 Estimated Budget Category Budget Amount (US$) Salaries 14,500,000 Works 3,000,000 Equipment 2,400,000 Land Purchase 4,500,000 Operations 3,600,000 Total 28,000,000 11. Currently, it is estimated that about 52 percent of the budget is financed by the national treasury, with the remaining 48 percent coming from internally generated funds. This compares with 94 percent financing from the treasury in 1990. The current policy is that treasury funds are used exclusively to cover salaries and benefits of park staff, and that self-generated revenues are used to cover everything else, including investments (and in the case of a Bank loan, the counterpart funding). These park-generated revenues are deposited in an APN account with the Banco de la Naci6n in Buenos Aires. Park operating expenses are then managed through this account by a system of rotating funds and petty cash. 12. Budgeting and Accounting Systems. With the promulgation of the State Reform Law (Ley Reforma del Estado Nacional) No. 23,696 of 1989, and the Law of Ministries (Ley Nacional de Ministerios) No. 24,190 of 1993, the Agency moved from the Secretariat of Agriculture to the SRNyAH. As part of this transition process, APN has 105 Annex F carried out, and continues to make, major changes in its financial and administrative management systems. As mandated by the Public Sector Financial Administration and Systems Control Reform Law (Ley Reforma de la Administraci6n Financiera y de los Sistemas de Control del Sector Publico Nacional) No. 24,156 of 1992, APN is responsible for administering a financial system in compliance with national standards. 13. The national financial administration system for public sector institutions, which has now been adopted by APN, is comprised of standardized budgetary, accounting, auditing, public credit, and treasury systems. The Ministerio de Economia y Obras y Servicios Puiblicos is responsible for the control of these systems, and has prepared procedural manuals and computer programs to standardize the operations across institutions. The new system, controlled by the Oficina Nacional de Presupuesto and detailed in a series of standardized operational manuals, now requires the preparation of Annual Operating Plans (POAs), which in the case of APN, is based on the POAs prepared at the level of the intendencia. While this budgeting system is now in place in APN's central office, the intendencias are still in the process of obtaining necessary software, manuals, and training. In the interim, the current manual system seems to be working satisfactorily. 14. In 1994, the Constitutional Reform Law (Ley Reforma del Constituci6n) mandated that all national public sector institutions adopt a double system of accounting. This consisted of the establishment of an: (a) internal auditing unit UnidadAuditorio Internal (UAI) in each agency under the control of the Sindicatura General de la Naci6n (SGN), which is directly responsible to the Office of the President; and (b) external auditing authority under the control of the Auditoria General de la Naci6n, which depends on the National Congress. 15. This system (Sistema Integrado de Informaci6n Financiera; SIDIF)15, s now operational at the APN headquarters, but has yet to be installed in the field offices due to the lack of the required equipment, software, modems and operational manuals. As required by law, APN set up a UAI in 1993 for internal auditing of all accounts as well as for technical and legal operations. The UAI, which is composed of three lawyers, three accountants and an engineer, operates on the basis of an Operational Manual, which was issued by the SGN, to which the UAI must send periodic reports. 16. The UAI's 1995 audit of APN identified the following problems that need to be resolved: (i) lack of an inventory of concession obligations; (ii) lack of information on the payments and other obligations of concessionaires (and, hence, the failure to collect all fees); (iii) lack of interaction across APN on methods of concession contracting; (iv) lack of clarity regarding responsibility for concession and permit management; and (v) a general lack of planning. 17. The national treasury system, which is coordinated by the Tesoreria General de la Naci6n, is moving towards the required centralization of all public sector revenues and 15 This system was developed under the World Bank Public Sector Reform Loan (Ln. 3362-AR). 106 Annex F expenses through the establishment of a single account (caja unica). This centralization is expected to be completed by the end of 1997, and will result in the elimination of all individual agency accounts including those of APN. This wili significantly reduce the level of autonomy of decentralized agencies like APN in that they will no longer have the freedom to manage their own self-generated revenues. 18. APN Policy Priorities in New Protected Areas. The APN has identified three key priority areas for both existing and any new PAs created under its jurisdiction: (i) improved management measures, (ii) training and institutional strengthening for APN staff, and (iii) increasing the number of PAs in order to strengthen the conservation value of the overall system. Priorities within individual protected areas include the following: (a) provide adequate infrastructure to enable park staff to fulfill their tasks, with particular emphasis on improved physical facilities, and the maintenance and repair of vehicles; (b) increase the number of vehicles available to support park patrol and enforcement operations; (c) increase training opportunities in environmental education for park staff, (d) increase the number of interpretive centers for visitors; and (e) delimit park boundaries. 19. The APN has also identified the need to improve the management capability of participating institutions, particularly provincial agencies and NGOs, in order to help facilitate coordination and cooperation and promote a more integrated approach to the management of protected areas. Provincial Protected Area Administration 20. Many of Argentina's provinces can claim a long history in the designation of PAs. The first protected area under provincial jurisdiction was established in Tucuman in 1930. In 1986 the APN began negotiations with all the country's provinces to form a national protected areas system (NPAS). The purpose of this effort was to identify and where appropriate, consolidate the protected areas throughout the country. Additionally, negotiations were designed to promote partnerships between APN and provincial governments in the administration and management of protected areas, particularly where joint management could enhance the biological and ecological objectives of the conservation designation. The APN currently is in various stages of formalizing these agreements with 15 provinces, including San Luis, San Juan, and Santiago del Estero. 21. Many of the provincial governments appear to be committed to identifying important areas for conservation and completing the legal and institutional steps necessary to establish provincial protected areas. Environmental and ecological concerns have been highlighted in both San Luis and San Juan Provinces, and restructuring efforts in both 107 Annex F provinces demonstrate a strong commitment to providing the administrative framework at the ministerial level to establish clear environmental management and conservation programs. 22. The achievement of these objectives is likely to be constrained by scarce human resources. For example, there appear to be few provincial governments in Argentina with the technical capabilities or infrastructure to carry out effective biodiversity conservation initiatives on the ground. Moreover, the agencies responsible for protected area administration and management in virtually all of the provinces are severely under-funded. Many provinces do not have even a single employee with professional training in park management or biological conservation. In those few cases with employees responsible for provincial protected area control and enforcement, there is often little basic logistical support, such as transportation and communication facilities, to carry out assigned tasks. It will be essential under this project to provide resources to the provinces to cover at least the incremental costs associated with the GEF project before any effective activity will be supported. Legal Process Leading to the Establishment of New Protected Areas 23. The 1981 National Park's Law No. 22.351 (Regimen Legal de los Parques Nacionales, Monumentos Naturales y Reservas Nacionales - Mensaje y Ley Organica) established the current legal basis for the creation and management of Argentina's protected areas (PAs) and provided the basic framework for their classification into one of several management categories (Table F-1). To create a new federal PA in provincial territory, the previously cited legislation requires that a priori, the dominion and jurisdiction over the land in question be ceded to the Nation. The key steps are: (a) a formal agreement is signed between the provincial govermment and APN representing the President of the Republic (Poder Ejecutivo Nacional). This agreement recognizes the importance of creating a national protected area in territory under provincial jurisdiction and defines the obligations of both signatories; (b) the provincial govermment passes a law which cedes jurisdiction over the concemed lands to the Nation; and (c) the national govermment, in tum, passes a law that accepts jurisdiction over the proposed protected area. This law also defines the management category of the area, the national institution responsible for managing the PA including its specific obligations, and provides for the additional operation and maintenance costs associated with the management of the PA. The law has to be approved by the President of the Republic (Poder Ejecutivo Nacional). 24. This legal process concludes with the transfer of the property from the province to APN as specified in the registration of the relevant cadastral survey. 108 Annex F 25. Where the lands are in private hands, APN provides financial compensation to the landowner at a value determined through an independent appraisal. This process requires an official evaluation, which goes to the National Tax Court (Tribunal de Tasaciones de la Naci6n) and to the land owners. Using this evaluation as a basis, APN, in most cases, negotiates a price directly with the landowner, which is generally the same price stipulated by the official evaluation. On average, this process requires approximately one year to complete but can take longer depending on the number and nature of conflicts involved in the transfer. In the case of national reserves, the lands remain in private ownership but are subject to restrictions based on an approved management plan. 26. While the administrative procedures for PA designation differ among provinces, generally, protected areas are established by the provincial legislature following the drafting and passage of a law that defines the legal boundaries and describes the proposed uses and jurisdiction for the area. Many provinces are now using the same classification system as APN for designating specific protected areas, and some provinces, such as San Luis, are conducting systematic reviews of all existing and proposed protected areas in order to reevaluate the classifications. 27. The APN maintains a small legal staff in Buenos Aires to facilitate and monitor these legal processes. In addition, some intendencias of individual parks also have legal experts on their staffs. 109 ANNEx G: INCREMENTAL COSTS AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS A. Context and Broad Development Goals 1. Over-exploitation of Argentina's biological resources is proceeding at an alarming rate. In the last century, it is estimated that Argentina has lost more than two thirds of its original forest cover; the existing loss rate is estimated at 160,000 hectares per year. The loss of non- forested habitat is also significant, due to land conversion for agricultural purposes; in addition, erosion in some areas is increasing, attributable primarily to overgrazing by sheep and cattle. While the existing system of protected areas is extensive in comparison to other countries in Latin America, a recent National Parks Administration (APN) analysis estimated that less than 21 percent of the total area under protection is acceptably managed. Moreover, the existing National Protected Areas System (NPAS) does not equitably represent many of the country's ecoregions considered to be of international significance in terms of their biodiversity. 2. The GOA recognizes the importance of the country's biological endowment and the need to conserve and use these natural resources in a sustainable manner. To assist GOA evaluate development options and priorities, APN, in collaboration with other public sector agencies, the academic community, NGOs, and the private sector, is in the process of formulating a national biodiversity strategy with UNDP/GEF support. Although the details of the strategy remain to be elaborated, key elements already emerging include the need to: strengthen and extend the protected area system; increase national and local capacity in natural resource management (in both forested and non-forested areas); and promote greater public participation in sustainable natural resource management. The Baseline Scenario and GEF Alternative have been developed within this evolving policy context. B. Baseline Scenario 3. Under the Baseline Scenario, it is expected that the GOA would begin to implement the priorities identified in the National Biodiversity Strategy. Within that framework, priority would be given to activities that generate national economic benefits deriving from sustainable use of the country's native forest resources and modem management of its protected areas system. Efforts to expand the NPAS to include under-represented, globally significant areas would also be initiated. This Baseline Scenario would translate into two primary operational programs/emphases: Native Forests, including (a) development of an incentive and regulatory framework to encourage sustainable use of native forest resources (US$ 1.0 million); (b) development of the information tools (inventories, database, etc.) to facilitate sustainable management of the native forest resource over the long term (US$ 8.5 million); and (c) applied research on improved management and conservation of native forests (US$ 5.6 million); and Protected Areas, including (d) modernization and strengthening of APN's system for man- aging the NPAS (US$ 3.4 million); (e) investments in selected national parks capable of attracting national and international tourism (US$ 11.6 million); and (f) initial expansion of the 110 Annex G NPAS to include sites of global significance (US$ 11.1 million). The combined cost of this Native Forests/Protected Areas Baseline Scenario is estimatedat US$ 41.2 million. 4. Implementation of the Baseline Scenario would permit GOA to address native forest management issues in a comprehensive and coherent manner, building partnerships with the private sector and in the provinces. Improvement in the management of the protected areas system, development of visitor infrastructure at selected sites, and formulation of tourism strategies would increase opportunities for cost-recovery and revenue-earning activities in local communities without threatening ecosystem stability. The expansion of the NPAS to five under-represented ecosystems (Andean Puna, Pampas grasslands, semi-arid Chaco, Cordoba montane savannas, Patagonian Steppe) would lay the basis for conservation and protection of globally significant biodiversity in Argentina. However, implementation of the Baseline Scenario would only cover basic establishment costs at these new parks (land acquisition, compensation arrangements, and a minimal staff presence), and would not be sufficient to assure the institutional/management capacity and full public participation which is necessary for effective, long-term conservation. C. Global Environmental Obiective 5. The global environmental objective of the GEF Alternative would be to ensure the effective, long-term conservation of biodiversity of global importance in four categories of ecosystems in Argentina: arid and semi-arid ecosystems (the Pampas, the Puna, and the Patagonian Steppes); forest ecosystems (C6rdoba montane savannas and the Chaco); mountain ecosystems (the Puna), and coastal, marine, and freshwater ecosystems (Patagonian Steppe and littoral and wetland Patagonian habitats). The sites selected for protection are characterized by high endemism, pristine habitats, and in some cases, existence of threats from alternative economic development. Populations of threatened mammals (Pampas Deer, Jaguar, Giant Anteater, Giant Armadillo, pinnipeds, camelids) and birds (condors, seabirds) are considered outstanding and of global significance (see Annex 2). D. GEF Alternative 6. Under the GEF Alternative, the GOA would be able to undertake an ambitious program encompassing both national and global benefits. The GEF alternative would comprise the already described Baseline Scenario (i.e., native forest management, modernization of the NPAS, establishment of new sites), as well as an expanded conservation and sustainable use program to promote the integrity and long-term conservation of the selected ecoregions of global interest. Activities included under the two primary operational programs would be modified as follows to achieve the global objective of protecting these unique biological resources: Native Forest (activities same as Baseline, cost: US$15.1 million); Protected Areas: (a) modernization and strengthening of APN's system for managing the NPAS (US$ 3.4 million); i";) In ents in selected national parks capable of attracting national and international tourism (activities same as Baseline, cost: US$11.6 million); (c) investments in selected parks of global significance (US$ 21.6 million); this would include establishment costs (as per the Baseline Scenario) as well as sustainable management arrangements, buffer zone activities, public participation, training, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E); and (d) creation 111 Annex G of a national biodiversity network (US$0.7 million). The cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated at US$51.7 million. 7. Implementation of the GEF Altemative would make possible activities and programs that would not have been possible under the Baseline Scenario, thus covering important gaps that would otherwise threaten the integrity of the proposed protected areas. While both the Baseline Scenario and the GEF Altemative would expand and diversify the country's existing NPAS by including intemationally-significant ecoregions, only the latter option would ensure their long-term conservation and protection through strengthened on-site management, outreach to and involvement of local communities and local governments, and development of viable approaches to natural resource use in park buffer zones. The creation of a national biodiversity network would facilitate informed decision-making and permit improved monitoring of impacts and trends over the long-term. E. Incremental Costs 8. The difference between the cost of the Baseline Scenario (US$ 41.2 million) and the GEF Alternative (US$ 51.7 million) is estimated at US$10.5 million. Of this amount, it is estimated that about US$400,000 would generate national benefits, mainly from investments in sustainable productive activities in the buffer zones of the protected areas, which would not have taken place under the Baseline Scenario. Because the beneficiaries would cover the cost associated with achieving these additional national benefits, the incremental cost of achieving global environmental benefits (protecting unique biodiversity in five selected parks) under the GEF Altemative is estimated at US$10.1 million. 112 ANNEX H: PROJECT COSTS Argentina SXODOVERS1TY C7NS6RVATrom PR0J5c- xpeditures Accounts by Coats - Totals lIeludirg Coutiagamets (USS) Manaqerent. Proceee.1d Alre Monitoring astabil isment Information and Ok WeN Sustainable MPGSflee -- ZXA3ALS.g... Protected Dev.leptnc tnt0mNaon Proj ect Ar.'s AetivGLi*J PSXi±GAZ±GG ISvU 'Ud sal S. 2Dv-Wtt Costs A. Land /a 1. Land Purchase 6,534,473 - - 6,S34,473 S. Wotks 1. CiVil WorXs 2,685.9s - - i,6ss,95l 2. 6Omd *nd Trai1. 783,636.S * 783.636.S 3. Otner Works _____m____ - . .. -71l 4 Subtotal Works 3.805.321 - - 3.605,321 C. aood. 1. Maclinery and Equipmeent 69S.S4.S 129,121.3 l6,706.3 841.392.0 2. Venicie --2------ ---- . . * 7 -12 - Subtotal Goods 1.417.888 129,121.3 16,706.3 ;,563.716 D. Ser.tcem /b 1. !nvirovencal Studies 158,362.2 - - 15.362.2 2. Training - * S1S.0S2.7 36,970.9 605,023.C 3. otner Technical Assistant 1. 2sd.. 2 0 . 22..OdL.62 1:067.. SB o 489Z970 8 LI-UA2L subtotal Sr_ ces.2.LA8 * 1.11 .I Lj.1. 9 35,SSA9 4 89-9 .70 .2L 1.98L a Total invessst Costs 13.184.130 111,931.1 81S.113.9 483.67s.2 506,677.1 :5.101.527 rs. sacurs-ac Costs A. Butter Zone ActIvities 867,899.3 - -67.S99.3 C. Beneftciary Cou-trpare - 415.945.5 - 415.545.5 0. Social lmpact Mitlgation Plan APN /c 874,591.9 874 591.9 E. APN Contracted Personnel 1,124,291 . * 25.719.2 76,695.0 :.126,705 F. Operating i.SoX0452 110.289.5 30,369.6 44.701.9 37.435.1 1.724.248 G. Materials and Supplies 137,356.1 * 137.356.1 H. Ottice Operations - APN - 29,304.0 29,304.0 ;. Consultative Coumisaxons Operating Costs - 144.13.5 - - 144,813.5 X. Services Contracting .. 166..------------- ----7-. 1.5j ? 7 Total Recurrent Coats ,,L29L.I 1-3,3-7t 1-.±L0477S 17 0421. 1 4LJ14 0 J 8fi 902 Total PROJICT COSTS 16.913.667 1,505,66S 1,8649809 654.096.3 6501111- :.1586 ,429 rTxas 2.432.240 115.393.1 619.468.0 124.109.1 64.315.0 3 255.5SS Foreign achange 2.214.450 19S.464.9 17S.493.6 279.137.1 37.013.6 2,901,559 \a Land cot,. including measurent and titling, \b Includinig Fees, perdlem, travel and ocher Ca&S related expenses. \c Including: Fire Brigat- (ex pooladoresl and faqueanos Salaries and ether expensss. Thu Jun 26 15:23:24 1997 Argentina sZOZVCRSZTV CONSPRVAtrON PROJECT Project Cent su- try I C Total logo7 roreoan -st.l Foreign Br.aseAA 1. astaolasnment ot New Protected Areas 13.861,052 2.006.64d ll..;i.a$U A4.; ii.i i ' -;430 3 3. Sustainable Oevelpmsttt Activities 1247.860 15,1130.0 1.413.600 1,247,680 185,720.0 1.433.600 13 7 Subtot1 ProtCton Ara 119.057.810 16.699.752 2.35SOSa 19.057.810 12 94 1. Information Sysvamte _.L,_,1UL 26,l 6..LLLAgLA IS9 770 L.f _.2ALaiLAJ ..2LLZ A.....,... ....,..0.. Subtctal Itot aastem55,70. 256,030.0 621,0oo.0 355,770.0 266,030.0 621,800.0 43 3 C. Uaas wwt. xootoring &ad 4a z 2s8 3l__a _ o; 20 1. ProJ eCt Unit 1S Z231.a 199'1.. Subtotal x"adagmat. UOBkitOtiUq and Evaluation "I:0240 441 ....0±... 409-650.a 72 22.. .LU 13 ....LO Total 5A5ZL1381 COSTS ~~~~~~~~17, 'I.74 3,558.518 20.Z89.260 17.610.742 2.6S8.518 09 920 1 0 PhysI CSZl ContinenTiea02,380.2 103,258.8 406,239.0 312,980.2 103,258.6 4 06,23 9 .0 25 3 Price Contxnqencieo ,1iZ,7.. JLI2.2 Z.2.Z.. 2...LI.±29 -.--.- LO Total pRLo.fCT COSTS L166SO391.65 21.388.429 16.686.870 1.901.119218.49 3 10 Thu Jun 36 15:33w20 1997 113 Annex H Arqenclna 30173VlRS fTY CONSERVATION P20.ECIr Tadle 1L05. PROTRC=T AREA £STAaL5SH04ST & MASAGEMENT Los Venados Detallad Costs (USS) 3. InvestmeAt Costs A. Cora de Tierrzs ComYpra d- TL rra 3.402.000 - 3.402.000 D. Obtas Civllas Construccion I Puesto de control 22.SS3.4 - * 22.553.4 Construccion I V%vIonda la 40,095.0 - 40,09S.0 Refacez0n Vxviendas /b - - 13..208.0 .1 19.208.0 Construccion Centro de invosltqaczdn/vivienda tC - 94.10".5 94688.5 Conscruccion Oficlo&lVivlenda y Centro de Recepcl6n /d *4_ - ------ .-- t4-a4 Subtotal Obras C1vllS 62.648.4 - 108.95.0 * 371.633.4 C. Cam9.ao y S.aderos Roparacxon de Caoos - 322.138.5 322.138.5 Senderos Interprcativos .-------- - - * 7 A Subtotal Camsaos y SXoBs * 17.130.2 332.133.5 339 26C.7 n. last*lactoa* Alanorado * - 20.tl6.S * 20.616. Torres do vigil.ancxa ... ----------a Subtotal Znatalac1lo * 2,855.0 23.6i6.9 * 23,471.9 S. aqulmras y Zqutpoa Tractor * - 2.633.9 91''5 3.8 Kit de Compucacion 3.896..1 4.097.6 * 7.995.S Kit de MueobIs 3,341.3 7.024.5 7.202.6 3-7.568.4 KIt de CorUn%CsCXOn /- 5. '5' - 5 * . 6,682.5 Potocoptadora * * 404 .9 * 1,404.9 Teltones/Pax 891.0 936.6 - - 1.827.6 KIlt Audiovisual /t . - 7,024. S * 7.024.S Pansles InterprOtaci6n . . 7.024.5 * 7.024.5 Ipaplewntos Agricolas /9 ' " ° 9.3"'0° EquIpos para Inendieos C n 1.42S.4 * * 1.425.4 HstaClones Noter or 091dctas * 1.756.1* . 1.75C.31 Squipos de Ca-pana /I 1.559.3 * 1,639.1 640.3 * 4.038.6 Crupas Solares 4 c .4 *.. .429.- 4 *.*.*s..4.4 Subtotal Xaquaa.ag1 y iqIal1o 20.361.6 7,535.5 301.287.0 8.04.0 * 337.347.5 r. V"ableos Camlonscas 33,412.5 * 70.245.1 - 103,6S7.6 Maots Todo Terrno* 4.789.4 4,789.4 Subtotal V.hluloa 3 5032.5 1.660.8 7S.034.5 * i 11.727.S 0. Astsoeoa,a TACslCa Programs co AsZstencxa Trcnica Local& 3,634.1 14.914.S I5.302.3 IS.692.4 49.543,3 Programs de Asisctncia TcnLca Haclonal* 3.634.1 3.728.6 l.82S.6 3.923.1 3S.111.4 Program& de Coopersci6n Inscjtucloznj Local 14.175.0 14.536.6 14.914.5 35.302.3 lS.692.4 74.620.7 Programs de Cooperscatn Inscituctonal Nclonial 9,0S5.3 9.321.6 9,563.9 9.807.7 37,778.8 smtudoo/xnCorr. de IPacto AmLbs ntal / 3 *.10.C53.2 S.465.1 S.604.4 21.722.7 Astfconci OokslaciOn Tfcnica Regional APN /k t...1±L ..4.L..1. . LJ2±.J. k1S S.±L 41c 4. 6.L9JA e Subtotal ksistan%ea TIises , 7"D t .c 4h. 7 ia . 449 644 7614 66-4iL3. - 62-L76h2 Total ZAwspe_at costs 3.537.781 74,608.6 896.604.8 72.,04.4 66.412.4 4,648.215 U_. RaeNrsxot Costs A. P-rge=Al Coatertce A Intencenceot 15.571.0 3:.936.2 32.750.6 33.577.4 113.835.2 Guardapacrqu 21.870.0 22.422.3 4S. 986.I 47.160.8 48.35l.S 385.792.7 Addnistracivo *' ^_ v4* ' 5 -4 1 Subtcotal Porsoao4 Cootratade Ard 21.870.0 52.941.5 93.253.7 3S5631.7 38.046.1 361,742.9 5. MOrYllda NOvylidad venlaulos 8.100.0 16.611.1 2S.558.1 26.216.1 26,881.l :0J.366.3 Viaucoa APN 1.622.5 2,242.5 1.450.3 3,539.2 31628.9 14,683.5 V1lAtcoZ APN 2.278.1 4,671.9 4.792.1 4.9135.5 9040.2 21.697.9 Otros ViaticOw - . 7.1.2 . *2 2.L1 ,-25A1 467 ,5 4O-74-9 Subtotal e os.lda 12.200.6 35.298.6 49.876.6 42.928.8 44,017.8 180.322.6 C. Oporsolds Mantsaela to S*mvLtros Msfian m ,ent0 de Vej%iculos - 5.461.7 5.600.2 11.061.9 Manc. Edit. 3Inta1. Casunoc y qIsOpoI 8,S19.4 8.736.7 9.960.4 26.21S.4 Tel6fono 2,430.0 4 ,93.3 2 3.1. 6 2 243.2 5 37S.2 23 144,4 Lux. Gas y AVua 2.025,0 6,22 9.2 13..649.2 3.0.923.4 31.:200.5 41,0272 Papoloria y UtLies 4,SSC.3 6,229.2 6.389.5 6S554.0 6,720.3 10.449.2 Material T6Cftco 1 .. ..3..J 1 ,.. .7 . * 4 *..38i5 ...58. ..2. Subtotal Operacda. SaeatMLa to Y suIlastros 3.0.530.0 18.996.9 32.267.1 38.s59.4 39.537.6 139.8931. w