FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):
Medium-sized Project proposal
Request for GEF Funding
|Financing Plan (US$) |
|GEF Project/Component |
|Project |973,734 |
|PDF A* |25,000 |
|Sub-Total GEF |998,734 |
|Co-financing** |
|IBRD/IDA/IFC | |
|Government |1,124,521 |
|Bilateral | |
|NGOs | |
|Others |229,542 |
|Sub-Total Co-financing: |1,354,063 |
|Total Project Financing: |2,352,797 |
|Financing for Associated Activity If Any: |
* PDFA approved on 11/01/1999
** Details provided in the Financing Section
35985
Agency’s Project ID: P066537
GEFSEC Project ID:
Country: Brazil
Project Title: Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation
GEF Agency: World Bank
Other Executing Agency(ies):
Duration: 4 years
GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity
GEF Operational Program: OP3, OP2
GEF Strategic Priority: BD-1
Estimated Starting Date: July 2005
Implementing Agency Fee: $146,000
Contribution to Key Indicators of the Business Plan: Contribute to: (i) improved PA management effectiveness, (ii) area (90,000 ha) protected of global importance.
Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government:
|(Enter Name, Position, Ministry) |Date: (Month, day, year) |
|Dante Coelho de Lima, Secretary of International Affairs, Ministry of |November 6, 2002 |
|Planning, Budget and Management | |
| This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for |
|a Medium-sized Project. |
|[pic] | |
|Steve Gorman |Jocelyne Albert |
|GEF Executive Coordinator, World Bank |Project Contact Person, Sr. Regional Coordinator |
|Date: May 13, 2005 |Tel. and email: 202-473-3458, JAlbert@ |
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ARPA Amazon Region Protected Areas Project
CAS Country Assistance Strategy
CPPA State Environmental Police (Companhia de Policia de Proteção Ambiental)
DEAM FATMA's Director of Studies and Protected Areas
EPAGRI State’s Agricultural Research and Rural Extension Enterprise
FATMA State Environmental Management Foundation - Fundação de Meio Ambiente de SC
FAO-CP FAO-World Bank Cooperation Programme
FDR Rural Investment Fund
FNMA National Environment Fund
FUNBIO National Biodiversity Fund
GECON FATMA's Divisions of Protected Areas
GESP FATMA's Divisions of Projects and Studies
GoSC State Government of Santa Catarina
IA Implementing Agency
IBAMA Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IPIC Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council
MDG Millennium Development Goals
Microbacias 1 Land Management II Project
Microbacias 2 Natural Resources Management and Poverty Alleviation Project
MSP Medium Size Project
PA Protected Area
PNMA II National Environment Program
PROBIO National Program for Biodiversity
PRONABIO National Program for Biological Diversity
PSC Project Steering Committee
PMC Park Management Committee
PMP Park Management Plan
PY Project Year
PZP Park Zoning Plan
SAR State Secretariat for Agriculture and Rural Policy
SATO State Attorney’s Thematic Office
SDS State Secretariat for Social and Urban Development and Environment
SEBRAE Small Business National Support Service
SEBRAE-SC Small Business Support Service of Santa Catarina
SISMA Integrated Information System of Environmental Licenses and Fines
SNUC Santa Catarina State System of Protected Areas
TACs Terms of Adjustment of Conduct
TCs Terms of Agreement
TSP Tabuleiro State Park
UFSC Federal University of Santa Catarina
PART I - Project Concept
A - Summary
Rationale: Brazil is home to two of the world's largest remaining tropical rain forest biomes, the Amazon and Atlantic forests. In a recent study, the latter was designated one of the five "hottest hotspots"[1] among the world’s 25 top priority conservation areas, due to its exceptional level of species endemism (20,000 vascular plant species of which 40% are endemic) and high level of risk to threats. In 1993, it was also designated the UNESCO Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve, which covers about 295,000 km2 of Atlantic forest throughout the country and is recognized as a major center of globally important plant biodiversity. Although the Atlantic Forest originally covered an area estimated to be as large as 1.4 million km2, less than 8 % of the original area is thought to remain (approximately 110 thousand km2). Major threats that have contributed to the biome’s decline include clear cutting for timber, crops and livestock and conversion in response to rapid urbanization. Of the approximately 110 thousand km2 remaining, some 33,000 km2 are under some form of legal protection, 2.7% (approximately 90,000 ha) of which is found in the Tabuleiro State Park (TSP). However, legal protection alone cannot guarantee the conservation of the Atlantic Forest. In the TSP critical threats include the introduction of exotic species, forest conversion associated with expansion of agricultural and livestock production, and increased pressure stemming from the growth in tourism and recreational activities. Addressing these issues will require an integrated approach based on appropriate management principles, including incentives that promote the incorporation of global concerns into the actions of local public and private stakeholders, as well as interventions to strengthen the linkages between the Park and its buffer zone, and to address land-use conflicts affecting Park integrity.
The goal of the Project is to contribute to the conservation of the globally significant biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest biome. To contribute to this goal, the specific objective of the Project is to strengthen the conservation and management of the Tabuleiro State Park through the: (i) implementation of emergency actions designed to increase vigilance and control capabilities, and especially control of invasive exotic plant species that threaten the Park's ecological integrity; (ii) development and initial implementation of a Park Management Plan (PMP) in close collaboration and with strong participation of local stakeholders to more sustainably manage the Park’s natural resources; (iii) building of a community-based conservation constituency; and (iv) increased local capacity to implement and monitor conservation activities and disseminate project results, experiences and “lessons learned” at the local, national and international levels.
These objectives would be achieved through the following four components:
1. Implementation of Emergency Actions
2. Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan
3. Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects
4. Project Management, Monitoring & Evaluation and Information Dissemination
Expected project outcomes would be:
1. Increased vigilance and control of the park’s core area;
2. Area (at least 9,000 ha) of Tabuleiro State Park core and buffer areas covered by conservation agreements;
3. Creation of Park Management Committee (PMC) with local stakeholder representation;
4. Number of communities (10 by PY 2 and 40 by PY 4) that participate in Park management decisions through the PMC[2];
5. Number of households that adopt sustainable land use practices in Tabuleiro State Park buffer zone that lead to improved livelihoods (300 households within 5 pilot microwatersheds by PY4) ; and
6. Six cross-site visits between PAs and four technical workshops between two or more PAs held by PY4
B - Country ownership
Country Eligibility
Brazil ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on February 28, 1994, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna on August 6, 1975.
Country Drivenness
Brazil’s commitment to the integrated management of ecosystems and the preservation and control of natural heritage and conservation of biodiversity of global importance is demonstrated by its approval of a number of environmental laws and implementation of various environmental projects. Recent laws include:
• the National Protected Areas System (passed in 2000) – establishes criteria, duties and management instruments in areas of permanent preservation of aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna;
• the National Environmental Education Policy (passed in 1999) – established the National Environmental Education Program (and a National Directorate) which seeks to expand environmental education to all sectors of the country; and
• the Environmental Crimes Law (passed in 1998) – establishes rules of conduct, infractions and penalties that constitute instruments for natural resource conservation.
Relevant national environmental projects and programs currently under implementation include: (i) the National Biodiversity Program (PROBIO) and the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) financed by the GEF to support the implementation of the National Program of Biological Diversity (PRONABIO); (ii) the National Environment Fund (FNMA, financed by the IDB); (iii) the National Environment Program (PNMA II, financed by the World Bank); and (iv) the Pilot Program for the Conservation of the Brazilian Rainforest (PPG7), and particularly its following two sub-programs:
• the recently established Atlantic Rainforest sub-program which will support projects and activities on a demand-driven basis and will act in four areas: (i) protection of biodiversity, (ii) sustainable use of natural resources; (iii) recovery of degraded areas, and (iv) monitoring and research; and
• the Ecological Corridors Project which proposes a new approach to biodiversity protection in seven large rain forest "corridors" or "bioregions" located in the Amazon and Atlantic rain forest regions.
To date, neither of these national PPG7sub-programs has extended its support to the Tabuleiro State Park.
At the state level, the Government of Santa Catarina (GoSC) is committed to the conservation of the TSP’s biological resources and promotion of sustainable use practices in its buffer zone. It has successfully implemented the Land Management II Project ("Microbacias 1" - World Bank-financed, Loan 3160-BR), which supported a number of participatory planning, institutional strengthening and educational activities in the TSP including the completion of the Park Zoning Plan (PZP). Currently, the GoSC is implementing the following programs which are strongly linked to the Project and its specific activities: (i) the state-wide Natural Resources Management and Poverty Alleviation Project (“Microbacias 2”- World Bank-financed, Loan 4660-BR), which provides support to strengthen Park visitor infrastructure, capacity building, extension assistance and incentives to farmers living in the TSP buffer zone, as well to adaptive research, all aimed at securing rural people's livelihoods while improving the management of natural resources; (ii) the TSP Vigilance and Control Program; (iii) the State Environmental Licensing Program; (iv) the Program of Environmental Studies and Projects, which carries out planning, research and management activities focused on the protection of the five existing State Parks (including the TSP); and (v) the Integrated Information System of Environmental Licenses and Fines (SISMA).
C – Program and Policy Conformity
Program Designation and Conformity
The Project fits within GEF’s Operational Programs (OP) #3 (Forest Ecosystems) and #2 (Coastal Ecosystems), which support the conservation and sustainable use of globally important biodiversity in Forest and Coastal ecosystems, respectively, through its promotion of conservation and sustainable use practices in the Park, which encompasses five out of the six habitat types of the State, including Coastal and Forest ecosystems with potentially high levels of endemism.
The Project is also in conformity with GEF Strategic Priority BD-1 (Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas). The Santa Catarina State PA system (SNUC) consists of 8 protected areas (5 State Parks and 3 Biological Reserves), of which the TSP is the largest, covering 1% of the state’s total surface area. Through the Project, the GEF will provide a significant contribution to catalyzing the sustainability of the largest PA in the State, as well as other PAs in the state system through experiences and “lessons learned” from the TSP experience, including lessons relating to: (i) both the negotiation and enforcement of Conservation Agreements (TCs or Terms of Agreement and TACs or Terms of Adjustment of Conduct) in the Park area; (ii) the first experience in the state in preparing a PA management
plan with community involvement, hence meeting the demands of resident populations that utilize resources within and adjacent to the Park, while achieving Park conservation objectives; (iii) the development and application of public awareness and political support tools, which are vital to the realization of the Park conservation goals (these would include communication, marketing and environmental education methods for people to learn about values associated with both the Park and the state-level PA system); and (iv) potential for economic and recreational development (through concessions, improved visitor management, etc).
The Project also supports BD-2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation in Production Systems) through its promotion of production systems that support biodiversity conservation objectives and improved beneficiary livelihoods attributable to sustainable land use practices (e.g. rural- and eco-tourism, organic production of indigenous medicinal plants). In addition, the recently approved KfW-supported Pro-Mata Atlantica Project will support institutional strengthening, management plans and infrastructure to the other seven PAs of the State. The KfW-supported project will also support TSP infrastructure works, thereby complementing the activities of both the proposed Project and Microbacias 2.
Project Design
(For detailed outcome and output indicators see Project Logical Framework in Annex 1).
Background
Located in the State of Santa Catarina and overlapping with the boundaries of nine municipalities[3], the Tabuleiro State Park is characterized by an altitude range varying between sea level and 1,270 masl. The TSP represents one of the major southern biogeographical limits of the Atlantic forest which is a factor contributing to the large number of natural habitats and rich biological diversity. Of the eleven major habitat types identified in a World Bank/WWF study for Latin America and the Caribbean, five occur in the Park: tropical moist broadleaf forests (Brazilian Coastal Atlantic forests), tropical coniferous forests (Araucaria forests), restingas (coastal forest and scrub on sandy soils), montane grasslands (campos de altitude) and mangroves. These characteristics have also contributed to two significant biological features: (i) a unique biotic community of plants and animals living in the Park's restinga and tropical moist broadleaf forests; and (ii) the occurrence of the Park's Araucaria forests and natural grasslands (campos de altitude or campos sulinos) as biogeographical "islands" within the Park's larger tropical broadleaf forest area; both Araucaria forests and natural grasslands form isolated ecosystems with potentially high levels of endemism
In addition to these terrestrial ecosystems, the Park also consists of an extensive complex of coastal wetlands which includes small bays, lagoons and estuaries, in addition to the white sand beaches, coastal dunes and sand banks - all of which contribute to the provision of critical, yet scarce, habitat for migratory birds. The coastal area of the Park comprises an archipelago composed of 7 islands and several islets (located 12 km from the coast line, most of which are in good conservation status), which provide breeding areas for marine birds (see Annex 5).[4] Surrounding Park waters also support a particularly rich marine wildlife, including, turtles, dolphins, penguins, sea lions and whales (the latter includes the highly endangered Right Whale)[5].
The TSP is rich in biological diversity and is believed to have high levels of endemism. Of the 182 bird species endemic to Brazil, 15% are found in the Park. Although very few studies have been undertaken in the last 40 years, 30 endemic and endangered plants have been identified. Recent botanical and zoological studies have identified 10 new plant species, 6 amphibians, and one mammal.[6] The Park also provides a habitat for numerous other endangered and threatened animals and plants.[7] In addition, it hosts the Equisetum giganteum, a representative of one of the most ancient plant groups on the planet (350 million years old).
A national workshop held in 1999 for the Biome-level Assessment for the Atlantic Forest and Campos Sulinos supported by the National Program for Biodiversity (PROBIO) classified a total of 182 conservation priority areas of Atlantic Forest and Campos Sulinos. In this assessment, the Park was classified as: (i) of extreme biological importance for the conservation of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and flora; (ii) of high importance for the conservation of birds; (iii) in need of extreme protection associated with its ecosystem’s abiotic components; (iv) a priority area for regularization of the land tenure situation[8]; and (v) under high pressure from human activities.
Under Brazilian law, the TSP, which is part of the core area of the UNESCO Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve, has been designated a restrictive protected area (IUCN Category II) whose management objectives are to conserve biological resources and scenic features. The TSP’s Park Zoning Plan (PZP) recognizes 6 management zones. These are: (i) Preservation Zone, (ii) Conservation Zone, (iii) Historical-Cultural Zone, (iv) Extensive Use Zone, (v) Rehabilitation Zone, and (vi) Special Rehabilitation Zone[9] (see Annex 5). Of the approximately 90,000 ha comprising the TSP, some 55,000 ha comprise a contiguous forested “core” area (60% of the total Park area), designated as the Conservation Zone. Of these 55,000 ha, the State of Santa Catarina has title to some 10,000 and an additional estimated 11,500 ha are classified as “unoccupied” public lands.[10] Of the 65,000 ha of private lands in the Park, some 7% of private properties (about 120 properties) cover 100 ha or more in area each and together represent approximately 67% of the Park’s total area. More than 90% of these properties are found in the core area, are unoccupied and are not in productive use.
Extensive land fragmentation studies supported under the WB Land Management II Project during the preparation of the Park Zoning Plan (PZP) demonstrated that the core area is not occupied and is either intact (primary vegetation) or in intermediate to advanced stages of natural regeneration (as it has been conserved at least since the Park’s creation in 1976). Most of the remaining 1,621 privately held lands are in the “Rehabilitation” (7,800 ha out of a total 8,681 ha) and “Special Rehabilitation” (23,718 ha) Zones. However, in the “Rehabilitation” and “Special Rehabilitation” Zones where most of the 1,741 titles are located (and most land use conflicts take place), land use varies from livestock to small agriculture, recreational use and tourism (see Annexes 3 & 5 for more detail).
Threats
Principal threats to the Park’s ecological integrity include:
• change and loss of restinga coastal habitats associated with spread of invasive exotic plants and drainage of shrubs and forests for further settlement;
• increasing pressure to convert natural habitats into settled areas and agricultural lands due to the growing number of people and cattle inside and along the boundaries of the Park; and
• change or loss of natural habitats due to the growth of tourism and sportive activities[11], and to the increasing transformation of wild beaches into bathing resorts.
Invasive species – Pine was introduced to the area in or around 1972 for decorative purposes. It is estimated that the area planted with pine is about 1,000 ha in the Park’s core area. FATMA and the State Attorney’s Thematic Office initiated a “pilot” activity, beginning in 2003 with the removal of 300 ha of pine from a private property located within the Park. This was done through a formal agreement between the land owner, FATMA and the State Attorney’s Thematic Office. Preliminary results suggest that this removal of pine was successful and potentially could be replicated thereby contributing to the eventual eradication of pine in the area with support from the project.
Human Settlement – A privately held enclave in the core area representing collectively some 2,500 ha (Vargem do Braço) which is occupied mostly by weekend vacation houses/retreats and a few farms. Beyond the core area, the main threat is from non-compatible land use practices particularly along the TSP’s Northeastern boundary. Restinga coastal habitats have been modified and even lost due to drainage associated with human settlement. The State intends to proceed quickly with the voluntary purchase of these lands.
Agriculture and Livestock – Growing areas of natural habitats have been converted into agricultural and pastoral lands within and along the Park boundaries. Within the Park (though outside the “core” area), threats associated with agriculture and livestock are found in the “Rehabilitation” (8,681 ha) and “Special Rehabilitation” (23,718 ha) Zones where most of the 1,741 private land titles are located. Livestock in particular is a major cause of habitat change or loss in two of the Park's campos de altitude and restingas, due to cattle encroachment, consequent overgrazing, soil compaction and bush/grass fires. The major threat from agriculture in the buffer zone is related to livestock, where, e.g., lack of fencing leads to cattle encroachment into the Park area converting natural areas into pastoral lands. Another threat (though less significant) is related to the use of agrochemicals (affecting birds) and upstream ploughing (causing erosion and downstream sedimentation) through non-sustainable production systems.
Tourism – In the last few years, there has been a significant increase in the number and flux of uncontrolled Park visitors, particularly in fragile and restricted areas such as coastal islands, restingas and campos de altitude. Recreational use and weekend vacationers are also significant sources of threat to the TSP, particularly in the wild beach areas where there is increasing development of beach resorts. In addition, there is a small coastal area occupied by a few houses.
Poaching – In the Park area, a number of animals (including small and medium sized rodents such as the paca and agouti, different types of parrots and even pumas and leopards) are hunted illegally for sport, food, commerce or to take as pets. However, increased efficiency of monitoring and enforcement by the State of Santa Catarina (through CPPA) appears to be resulting in the elimination of poaching as a significant threat to the TSP.
A very detailed threat analysis was undertaken as part of the PZP development process supported under a previous Bank lending operation (Land Management II). The results of this analysis were subsequently confirmed through a rapid appraisal and consultations supported under the proposed Project’s Block A which included field visits and meetings with the 57 communities/localities located in the Park and its buffer zone.
A detailed threats matrix and proposed interventions are found at the end of the Project Activities and Outcomes Section.
Baseline Activities
There are a number of institutions, recent developments and on-going activities relevant to determining the Project’s baseline. Institutionally, the Park is “managed” through a number of agencies. In Santa Catarina, the Secretariat for Social and Urban Development and Environment (SDS) is the state body responsible for coordinating environmental policy matters, which are then executed by the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA), created in 1975. FATMA is the responsible agency for the creation and management of PAs in the State of Santa Catarina including the TSP. The TSP is currently being managed by FATMA's Directorate of Studies and Protected Areas (DEAM) which, in addition to its Chief, includes 8 multi-disciplinary professional environmental officers. At the level of the Park, there are a Park Manager, 2 Park Officers, and 40 CPPA environmental police who are responsible for monitoring and enforcement. In addition to FATMA, there are a number of other institutions that play a role in the management and conservation of the TSP either directly or through cooperative agreements. These are:
• State Environmental Police (CPPA): enforcement of environmental legislation;
• State Secretariat for Agriculture and Rural Policy (SAR) and the State's Agricultural Research and Extension Enterprise (EPAGRI, affiliated with SAR): promotion of sustainable development in the Park buffer zone;
• State Attorney’s Thematic Office: deals exclusively with Tabuleiro Park-related lawsuits;
• Small Business Support Service of Santa Catarina (SEBRAE-SC): private sector institution carrying out training, technical assistance and credit activities in support of sustainable development of small entrepreneurs in the Park buffer zone; and
• The National Institute for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA): responsible for the protection of the endangered Right Whale (Eubalaena australis) in the Park’s vicinity.
In addition, the Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council (IPIC) is a highly-influential advisory body to FATMA and meets regularly with FATMA, the State Attorney’s Thematic Office and the Environmental Police and participates in all important discussions and decisions that affect the TSP.
Much of the foundation of the project is built on the findings and recommendations presented in the TSP’s Park Zoning Plan (PZP) which was completed in 2000; a key Park management tool which will provide much of the basis for the development of Park Management Plan (PMP) under the Project. In addition to the previously described management zones, the PZP recommended that conflicts over land use be resolved through a process of gradual transition to uses more compatible with biodiversity conservation objectives. The means to achieve this objective would be primarily through the negotiation and adoption of Conservation Agreements (TACs and TCs[12]) in which squatters or landowners gain or retain user rights over time while agreeing to conservation measures[13]. In the PZP, the aforementioned 1,741 private properties have been assigned as a part of a Special Rehabilitation Zone, defined as “areas under land use conflict, where conservation agreements (TACs and TCs) need to be negotiated and implemented.”
In addition to the aforementioned TAC process, selected past and on-going activities and programs implemented in the next 3-5 years, which are or will be executed by the above-mentioned institutions and are relevant to the Baseline, are listed below:
- Regular Program for Vigilance and Monitoring (CPPA & FATMA)
- Regular Program of Environmental Licensing (FATMA)
- Regular Program for Forestry Licensing (FATMA)
- Regular Program for Environmental Education (FATMA)
- Microbacias 2 (EPAGRI and FATMA)
- Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program (SEBRAE)
- Technical assistance to the indigenous communities (UFSC)
Some of these activities will be implemented throughout the State of Santa Catarina, including in the nine municipalities located in the Park area, while others will take place either in the municipalities of the Park buffer zone, or specifically within the Park’s boundaries. These programs form the baseline course of environmental actions during the four years in which the project would be carried out (see Annex 13 for more detail).
GEF Alternative and Incremental Costs
The GEF Alternative would undertake strategic actions to address the key barriers and threats to the long-term conservation of the globally important biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest. Activities under the baseline scenario are producing predominantly national benefits in the form of sustainable development and sustainable use of natural resources. Global benefits are generated in the form of increased protection of the Park’s globally important biodiversity through legal reforms, financial and economic incentives, policing, and awareness-raising for the reduction of negative impacts from buffer zone developments. Under the GEF Alternative, sustainable agricultural practices, microwatershed management, and reduced encroachment would reduce pressure on biodiversity in the TSP and result in increased carbon sequestration in soils and above-ground biomass.
Despite these positive baseline initiatives, the Park’s globally important biodiversity are likely to come under increased threat in the absence of the GEF Alternative. Insufficient human and technical resources for policing allow poaching, encroachment and deforestation threats to grow as population pressure builds in the area. Existing colonies of exotic species are not being controlled under the baseline scenario and pose immediate and growing threats to the natural habitat. In the absence of concerted efforts and investments to allow the local population to be more fully involved in Park management and without strategic and comprehensive support for sustainable economic alternatives to existing non-sustainable land use practices, population pressure and poverty will likely lead to increased encroachment and unsustainable activities in the Park and buffer zone, thereby continuing to endanger biodiversity of global importance.
The GEF Alternative would concentrate on activities which directly impact the Park. It would secure increased protection of biodiversity through improved vigilance and control, strategic management of the Park and by building support for conservation among the local population with a view to increasing sustainability beyond the life of the project. A number of national benefits would be generated by the Project, most importantly support for sustainable economic activities of poor households in the project area. The predominant impacts of the project are benefits of a global nature in the form of increased and sustained protection for biodiversity of global importance.
In the following section, baseline activities, which are the foundation for the Project’s components, and GEF Alternative activities, for which incremental funding is requested, are outlined (baseline activities are described in more detail in Annex 13). The analysis is broken down by Project component. Project activities are designed to be complementary to ongoing baseline initiatives and would not substitute existing activities or policies.
Implementation of Emergency Actions (Component 1)
As part of baseline activities the State Environmental Police (CPPA) and FATMA inspect and control the Park against abuse by poaching and encroachment. However, lack of equipment and very limited training resources constrain the potential of personnel to counteract threats such as poaching and deforestation in a systematic manner. The GEF Alternative would strengthen ongoing efforts through investments in additional equipment, capacity building and strategic planning and thereby significantly improve the coordination and effectiveness of the vigilance and control efforts (sub-component 1.1).
FATMA’s Environmental Licensing Program has been working to prevent negative impacts on the Park from new developments in the municipalities located in and around the Park. The Forestry Licensing Program (FLP), also executed by FATMA, regulates new forestry activities in the buffer zone thereby preventing additional introduction of exotic species into the Park. However, introduction and subsequent spread of the exotic genus Pinus sp. inside the Park is posing an immediate threat to the native habitat, particularly in the coastal zone (restingas). The GEF Alternative would complement the control of buffer zone forest developments through the licensing system with specific actions to control existing exotic colonies in the Park, thereby significantly reducing the rate of diffusion (sub-component 1.2).
The GEF Alternative for the Implementation of Emergency Measures amounts to a total of US$ 1,832,114 including baseline costs of US$ 1,413,600 and incremental costs of US$ 418,514 (GEF contribution US$ 126,798 and co-financing US$ 291,716)
Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan (Component 2)
While the Tabuleiro Park itself is designated a “restrictive protected area”, dwellers are still actively developing economic activities in the Park’s buffer zone. Unsustainable land use practices continue to threaten the natural habitats inside the Park. Previous baseline work, in particular the development of the Park Zoning Plan (PZP) completed in 2001, has paved the way for concrete actions to protect the TSP and to more closely integrate the management of the Park and the buffer zone. Priority strategic actions have been identified and geo-referenced maps at the scale of 1:50,000 have been produced which can serve to identify “hotspots” inside the Park. Activity 2.1.1 (detailed classification of land use in critical areas) would produce more detailed land use mapping in areas designated as critical by the PZP.
Through Microbacias 2 technical assistance and grants would be provided for investments in sustainable development alternatives such as eco-tourism, organic agriculture and handicraft production. Furthermore, under the proposed project, Activity 2.2.1would identify and validate sustainable development alternatives for the Park buffer zone.
Specific strategic actions will depend on the PZP zone where the property is located, and whether the property or land was acquired or occupied before or after the TSP’s creation in 1976. Specific strategies will be defined as a result of studies (Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2), consultations and negotiations to be carried out under the proposed Project. Conservation easements of various sorts will be considered for titled properties. The general options that are likely to be considered based on PZP guidelines for TSP zoning categories are:
“Conservation Zone.” To the extent possible, the State would promote: (i) acquisition of lands, including provisions for payment of compensation to landowners, and (ii) the negotiation of Terms of Commitment (TCs) which are relevant to individuals who purchased or occupied the Park area before its creation in 1976 and could include the adoption of conservation easements;
“Special Rehabilitation” and “Rehabilitation” Zones. In these zones, the State would support the negotiation of Terms of Adjustment of Conduct (TACs) which would provide farmers compensation for the adoption of more biodiversity-friendly practices through a process of gradual transition over the medium and long term. These practices have already been adopted in other areas of the State, including in the park buffer zone. The potential practices include ecotourism, handcrafts, job creation in the park, and some biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices, such as organic farming, value-added schemes, or aquaculture with native species, depending on the results of the detailed classification of land use proposed under project Activity 2.1.1.
The PZP recommends that land use conflicts be resolved through a process of gradual transition leading to the adoption of land use practices that are more compatible with biodiversity conservation. This process is being supported through TACs and TCs in which squatters or landowners gain or retain user rights over time while agreeing to the adoption of conservation measures. In principle, TAC and TC agreements are signed on a voluntary basis between the State Attorney’s Thematic Office (SATO) and the landowner or the squatter. However, in the case of TACs, if agreement cannot be reached through voluntary means, the SATO reserves the right to initiate a lawsuit against the party (to date, no lawsuits have been necessary). To date, only TACs limited to the TSP’s buffer zone have been signed (22 and 40 in 2003 and 2004, respectively). The GoSC is waiting for the results of studies proposed for support under the MSP (particularly Activity 2.1.1) before initiating the process of negotiation of TCs and TACs inside the Park. The SATO is the State agency responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of TACs and TCs which it does through collaborative agreements with the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA) and the State Environmental Police (CPPA), responsible for technical tasks and enforcement, respectively. The Park Management Plan (project activity 2.3.2) will be prepared before the formulation and signature of TACs/TCs inside the Park (project activities 2.1.3 and 2.1.4). (See Table 3 in Section 4 for implementation schedule.)
Based on the PZP, Park management would be consolidated through the formulation of the PMP and would include a Financial Sustainability plan (sub-components 2.1 – 2.3).
Sustainable management and development of the buffer zone is vital to the protection of the Park. As part of the baseline, EPAGRI and SEBRAE support farmers in switching to on- and off-farm sustainable livelihood activities. These efforts have been greatly beneficial in reducing negative impacts of economic activities in the Park buffer zone, but so far activities have not been closely coordinated. The GEF Alternative would build on these activities and increase their beneficial impact by defining a strategic approach to buffer zone management and sustainable development into which individual efforts would then be integrated (sub-component 2.2).
FATMA’s draft law on the State Protected Areas System should come into effect during the life of the project and would strengthen the legal basis for the protection of the Park. It would also provide a solid foundation for participatory park management. In the context of the PZP work, FATMA has been strengthening community involvement in Park affairs. The GEF Alternative would capitalize on these developments and establish and strengthen a Park Management Committee (PMC) for co-management as well as developing stronger coordination of local policy-makers by increasing exchanges and cooperation between officials in the various municipalities bordering the Park (sub-components 2.3 – 2.4).
The GEF Alternative for the Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan amounts to a total of US$ 966,570, including baseline costs of US$ 250,542 and incremental costs of US$ 716,028 (GEF contribution 345,929 and co-financing US$ 370,099)
Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects (Component 3)
Environmental education is a key input to the sustained transformation of disruptive economic activities. As part of the baseline scenario, EPAGRI, FATMA and SEBRAE have been providing environmental education services in the buffer zone aimed at increased protection through creating greater awareness and fostering sustainable use of natural resources. The GEF Alternative would complement these efforts by coordinating ongoing training activities as well as providing additional resources for training of elementary teachers, farmers, entrepreneurs and local leadership in order to increase awareness of the importance of biodiversity protection of most local stakeholders (sub-component 3.1).
Building on EPAGRI’s and SEBRAE’s baseline activities to foster sustainable livelihood activities in the buffer zone and on the detailed studies prepared for the PMP under Component 2, the GEF Alternative would develop pilot projects in all 5 socio-economic regions[14] in the buffer zone. These pilot projects would be co-financed by GoSC (Microbacias 2 project), through its Rural Investment Fund (FDR), that would finance the incremental costs of technical assistance, goods, equipment and small works. A special agro-forestry pilot project would be developed in the indigenous area building on baseline work of UFSC on anthropological studies and assistance in political issues. All pilot sites and activities would be identified and selected in a participatory manner which, coupled with the requirement for an environmental counterpart from participants, would enhance the sustainability of the projects (sub-components 3.2 and 3.3).
The GEF Alternative for the Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects amounts to a total of US$ 750,310 including baseline costs of US$ 180,000 and incremental costs of US$ 570,310 (GEF contribution US$ 126,604 and co-financing US$ 443,706).
4) Management, Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination of Project Information (Component 4)
The GEF Alternative would provide technical assistance for the administration, monitoring and participatory management of the project. The project would set up a system to monitor the performance of project implementation and project impacts. In this it would build on baseline activities of water quality monitoring in coastal areas carried out by FATMA, as well as FATMA’s and CPPA’s monitoring activities related to the Integrated System of Fines and Licenses. The GEF Alternative would foster dissemination and diffusion of project initiatives, results and impacts through printed and electronic media. Seminars would be held for protected area managers in other parts of the country as well as for representatives of civil society.
The GEF Alternative for Project Management, M&E and Dissemination of Project Information amounts to a total of US$ 652,545, including baseline costs of US$ 29,600 and incremental costs of US$ 622,945 (GEF contribution US$ 374,403 and co-financing US$ 248,542).
Table 1 outlines the costs of the Baseline, the GEF Alternative and the Incremental costs associated with moving from the baseline to the GEF Alternative.
Table 1. Incremental Cost Table
| |Baseline |GEF |Increment |
| | |Alternative | |
| |GoSC |Other |Total | |GEF |SEBRAE |GoSC |GoSC |Total |
| | |donors/ | | |contributi|co-financing|(Microba-c|co-financi| |
| | |NGOs | | |on | |ias 2) |ng | |
| | | | | | | |co-financi| | |
| | | | | | | |ng | | |
|1. Implementation of Emergency |1,413,600 |0 |1,413,600 |1,832,114 |126,798 |0 |0 |291,716 |418,514 |
|Measures | | | | | | | | | |
|1.1. Strengthening Vigilance and |1,340,000 |0 |1,340,000 |1,656,268 |86,276 |0 |0 |229,992 |316,268 |
|Control | | | | | | | | | |
|1.2. Control of Aggressive Exotic |73,600 |0 |73,600 |175,847 |40,522 |0 |0 |61,724 |102,247 |
|Species | | | | | | | | | |
|2. Development and Initial |218,464 |32,078 |250,542 |966,570 |345,929 |125,269 |11,684 |233,146 |716,028 |
|Implementation of the Park Management | | | | | | | | | |
|Plan | | | | | | | | | |
|2.1. Preparatory Studies and |92,468 |0 |92,468 |364,673 |90,838 |65,658 |0 |115,709 |272,205 |
|Regulatory Tools for the Occupied | | | | | | | | | |
|Areas of the Park | | | | | | | | | |
|2.2. Sustainable Development |25,900 |32,078 |57,978 |216,830 |63,704 |59,611 |0 |35,537 |158,852 |
|Strategies for the Park Buffer Zone | | | | | | | | | |
|2.3. Consolidation of the Park |4,096 |0 |4,096 |184,518 |150,346 |0 |0 |30,077 |180,422 |
|management Plan | | | | | | | | | |
|2.4. Support for Participatory |96,000 |0 |96,000 |200,548 |41,041 |0 |11,684 |51,823 |104,548 |
|Management | | | | | | | | | |
|3. Development of the Training |95,200 |84,800 |180,000 |750,310 |126,604 |104,273 |259,633 |79,800 |570,310 |
|Programs and Pilot Projects | | | | | | | | | |
|3.1. Training of Local Stakeholders |95,200 |46,000 |141,200 |413,299 |126,604 |78,633 |0 |66,862 |272,099 |
|3.2. Development of Pilot Activities |0 |13,600 |13,600 |276,440 |0 |25,640 |225,902 |11,298 |262,840 |
|in the Park Buffer Zone | | | | | | | | | |
|3.3. Development of pilot activities |0 |25,200 |25,200 |60,572 |0 |0 |33,731 |1,641 |35,372 |
|in the Indigenous Areas | | | | | | | | | |
|4. Project Management, Monitoring and |29,600 |0 |29,600 |652,545 |374,403 |0 |0 |248,542 |622,945 |
|Evaluation and Information | | | | | | | | | |
|Dissemination | | | | | | | | | |
|4.1. Project Management |0 |0 |0 |437,826 |293,718 |0 |0 |144,109 |437,826 |
|4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation |29,600 |0 |29,600 |81,065 |48,695 |0 |0 |2,770 |51,465 |
|4.3. Project Information Dissemination|0 |0 |0 |133,654 |31,991 |0 |0 |101,663 |133,654 |
|Total Implementation (I) |1,756,864 |116,878 | 1,873,742|4,201,539 |973,734 |229,542 |271,317 |853,204 |2,327,797 |
|Total (PDF+I) | | | | | | | | |2,367,797 |
Project Activities and Outcomes
To address the previously described threats in the TSP and achieve the stated objectives, the four year Project would support activities through the following four components: (i) Implementation of Emergency Actions; (ii) Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan; (iii) Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects; and (iv) Management, Monitoring & Evaluation and Information Dissemination.
The activities to be conducted in each of the project components are described below.
Component 1: Implementation of Emergency Actions
Activities supported under this component will directly address immediate threats that could lead to undermining the TSP's ecological integrity. These are: (i) conversion of natural habitats into agricultural and grazing lands and human settlements; (ii) loss of habitat associated with a growing tourism industry and recreational activities; and (iii) the spread of invasive exotic plants in the Park's coastal sand formations (restingas). Specific activities can be divided into two subcomponents: (i) strengthening the current system of Park vigilance and control, and (ii) controlling exotic plant species that severely impact the aforementioned restinga habitats.
Sub-component 1.1. Strengthening Park Vigilance and Control (V&C)
Under this sub-component, the Project would strengthen the operative capacity of the State Environmental Police office (CPPA) located in the Park and responsible for Park vigilance and control. It would also strengthen the capacity of FATMA's staff, which is involved in Park inspection. Project support would be targeted at the most vulnerable areas of the Park which have little equipment and are logistically difficult to patrol (e.g., the coastal islands). GEF resources would be used to purchase needed equipment and the financing of planning inspection workshops and consultations, complementing the ongoing and future baseline activities of Park V & C supported under CPPA's Environmental Vigilance and Control Program and FATMA’s Environmental Licensing and Monitoring Program. This sub-component would be complemented by the training activities supported under sub-component 3.1 (Training of Local Stakeholders).
ACTIVITY 1.1.1 FORMULATION OF THE PARK VIGILANCE AND CONTROL PLAN: IN ORDER TO MAKE MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND MATERIALS INVOLVED IN THE ON-GOING PARK INSPECTION PROGRAM, A V & C PLAN WOULD BE PREPARED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROJECT AND FURTHER REVISED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THIS WOULD BE DONE THROUGH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (CONSULTANCY) AND THREE PLANNING WORKSHOPS WHICH WOULD UNDERTAKE ANNUAL DISCUSSIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF THE PLAN.
Activity 1.1.2 Implementation of the Park Vigilance and Control Plan: under this activity, GEF funds will finance support services for fire control (opening of firebreaks) and the purchasing of equipment to implement the V & C Plan.[15] Counterpart funds would support the implementation of the Plan by providing human resources (staff from CPPA and FATMA) and equipment.[16] Complementary fire control equipment would be provided under the baseline Microbacias 2 project (WB loan).
Outcome 1.1 Implementation of emergency actions designed to strengthen Park vigilance and control in four critical municipalities and in the TSP’s coastal islands.
Sub-component 1.2. Control of Exotic Plant Species
The spreading of exotic plants, particularly Pinus, is increasingly threatening the TSP’s relatively intact sand formations (restinga). This sub-component would include the identification of priority areas for emergency actions and the execution of control activities. GEF funds would finance technical assistance for planning and supervising the execution of field activities and the contracting of local labor for conducting field work. This would complement the baseline activity carried out under FATMA’s Forestry Licensing Program, which would finance the prevention and control of invasive plant species in the Park Buffer Zone.
Activity 1.2.1 – Identification of priority areas for control of exotic plant species: based on detailed land use mapping generated under Activity 2.1.1, the critical areas for the control of exotic species would be selected and analyzed, with the support of specialized technical assistance.
Activity1.2.2 – Adoption of measures for the control of exotic plant species: once the priority areas and actions for combating the exotic invasive species are identified, technical assistance and local workers would be recruited to support the undertaking of this activity.
Outcome 1.2. Removal of exotic plant species threatening the TSP’s coastal sand formations (restingas).
Component 2: Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan
The objective of the component is to develop and support the initial implementation of the TSP’s Park Management Plan (PMP). Specifically, the component would support: (i) a series of preparatory studies and regulatory tools for the occupied areas within the Park; (ii) sustainable development strategies for the buffer zone; (iii) formulation and adoption of the Park Management Plan; and (iv) support for participatory management.
Sub-component 2.1. Preparatory Studies and Regulatory Tools for the Occupied Areas of the Park
Under this sub-component, two major recommendations stemming from the Park Zoning Plan (PZP) would be put into effect: (i) the realization of preparatory studies aimed at resolving land use conflicts in the occupied areas within the Park, including the formulation of conservation agreements (TACs and TCs)[17]; and (ii) the adoption of TACs to be signed between the Government and landowners or squatters, designed to reduce pressure on the TSP’s biodiversity and protect the rights of local communities. SEBRAE would provide co-financing and administrative support, the latter through the regional office, for workshops. GEF resources would finance workshops, focus groups, technical assistance and the purchasing of satellite images. These activities would come as an increment to the baseline activity supported under FATMA's Geo-processing Laboratory which will prepare over the next four years a series of environmental and land suitability maps for critical municipalities and watersheds of the State, including some of the municipalities located in the Park buffer zone.
Activity 2.1.1- Detailed classification of land use in critical areas: under the PZP process, a series of 1:50,000 scale maps was prepared, indicating critical areas where more detailed land use mapping (1:5,000) should be produced. These detailed maps would comprise a basis for the application of solutions proposed for the identified conflicts.[18]
Activity 2.1.2- Technical study and workshops to support the adoption of conservation agreements (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct and Terms of Agreement): this study, in coordination with Activity 2.2.1, would: (i) review the experience of the recently signed and agreed TACs and TCs; (ii) identify and determine the feasibility of alternative land uses compatible with the protection and conversation of the Park; and (iii) support public workshops to discuss proposed land use options.
Activity 2.1.3- Preparation and discussion of conservation agreements (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct and Terms of Agreement): after the definition and discussion of alternative land uses, there would be a public discussion of the commitments to be assumed by the parties (the Government and landowners or squatters) for the implementation of the solutions that address major land use conflicts. For the participatory formulation of conservation agreements, workshops and meetings would be held to discuss proposals and agree on respective commitments.
Activity 2.1.4- Signing of the conservation agreements: this activity would support the undertaking of public events for signing the TACs in the TSP buffer zone, and TCs and TACs in the Park core area.
Outcome 2.1 Negotiation and signing of conservation agreements.
Sub-component 2.2. Sustainable Development Strategies for the Park Buffer Zone
This sub-component would support the formulation of sustainable development strategies aimed at integrating the socio-economic objectives and interests of the TSP’s five socio-economic regions. The strategies would be complemented by on-the-ground pilot activities supported under Component 3. SEBRAE would provide co-financing and technical support, the latter through the regional office, for the preparation of sustainable development strategies. GEF resources would fund the formulation of five strategies (one per region), workshops and public discussion seminars. These activities would build on the baseline represented by SEBRAE's Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program, and by EPAGRI's activities supported under the Microbacias 2 project, which would finance part of the diagnostic studies foreseen under the strategies and part of the mobilization and involvement of the local farmers and entrepreneurs.
Activity 2.2.1- Identification and validation of sustainable development alternatives for the Park buffer zone: this activity would include: (i) technical assistance to conduct a needs assessment followed by the identification of the potential of each socio-economic region of the buffer zone; (ii) a participatory study on the identification of environmentally-friendly alternative livelihoods and associated markets for new products and services; and (iii) meetings with the communities and other important local stakeholders to discuss alternatives identified.
Activity 2.2.2- Formulation of sustainable development strategies: this activity would include an assessment of key potential partners and investors, and the formulation of the five integrated strategies (one for each socio-economic region of the Park buffer zone) and of their corresponding action plans. This would also include conducting workshops for discussion and validation of the strategies.
Outcome 2.2 - Among the Park’s buffer zone’s population, improved knowledge of and commitment to environmentally-friendly alternative livelihood opportunities as well as guidelines to pursue them.
Sub-component 2.3. Consolidation of the Park Management Plan
Under this sub-component, the PMP would be prepared with inputs from the diagnostic studies and recommendations of the PZP and activities supported under Components 1 and sub-components 2.1 and 2.2. GEF resources would finance consulting services and workshops, complementing the baseline supported under FATMA’s regular program of Studies and Projects in Protected Areas.
Activity 2.3.1- Formulation of the Park’s Financial Management Plan: this Plan, integrated into the Final PMP, would include: (i) feasibility studies of various alternatives that would contribute to the financial sustainability of the Park; (ii) formulation of a proposal for legal procedures that could possibly be adopted to implement alternatives for the financial sustainability of the Park, followed by submission of a proposal for analysis and approval by FATMA's legal office; (iii) technical meetings (focus groups) with representatives of various sectors of the State Government; and (iv) a workshop for public discussion of the Plan.
Activity 2.3.2- Formulation of the Park Management Plan: this activity would consist of the formulation of the PMP, consolidating the information and planning the specific management programs called for in the Methodological Guidelines of IBAMA and by the national and state laws on the National Protected Areas System (SNUC). It would be carried out in two phases: (i) the formulation of a Draft General Management Plan (to be concluded at the end of project year 1 (PY 1); and (ii) a Final General Management Plan and subsequent Implementation Plans (concluded and endorsed during PY 4).
Activity 2.3.3- Discussion and endorsement of the Park Management Plan: this activity would be aimed at conducting seminars and workshops for discussion and approval of the Plan, involving FATMA (the Park administrator) and other local and community level stakeholders.
Outcome 2.3 Development and endorsement of a Park Management Plan.
Sub-component 2.4. Support for Participatory Management
This sub-component would support the initial implementation of a co-management strategy for the Park by promoting the involvement of local populations in the management of the TSP. This would be achieved through the creation and strengthening of a Park Management Committee (PMC) and through the establishment of a formal partnership for sharing the responsibility of Park administration (co-gestão). This partnership would be composed of FATMA and a national NGO (to be selected) with relevant experience in biodiversity conservation, conflict resolution and participation of local communities in the management of natural resources. GEF would support consulting services, workshops, focus groups and small environmental education projects to be proposed and conducted by the local communities. Activities supported under this sub-component would complement relevant community involvement initiatives managed by the State Attorney’s Thematic Office and under the Environmental Education programs and the projects and studies carried out by FATMA.
Activity 2.4.1- Establishment of the Park Management Committee: this activity would support workshops and focus groups leading to the creation of the PMC and the preparation of official by-laws to guide Committee activities.
Activity 2.4.2- Incentives to Promote Community-based Conservation Activities: this activity would provide demand-driven community-based grants to support sub-projects on environmental education and biodiversity conservation activities (US$ 250 per sub-project), such as organic agriculture, greenhouses for native seedlings, etc. GEF resources would finance incremental costs of technical assistance to communities in preparing sub-projects. Small grants for sub-project implementation would be financed by the Microbacias 2 Project.
Activity 2.4.3- Support to Increase Participation of Municipal Governments in Park Implementation: regular meetings and workshops with local decision-makers (mayors, city council members, and municipal secretaries) would be held to increase coordination among the nine municipal governments and enhance their participation in the Park implementation process.
Outcome 2.4 - Increased community participation in and commitment to the conservation and management of the TSP.
Component 3: Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects
Through this component, the project would support a series of training activities for key local stakeholders aimed at increasing their understanding and commitment to biodiversity conservation principles and Park protection and the promotion of a shift to sustainable land use practices. This component would also support the implementation of demonstrative pilot projects designed to promote land use practices more compatible with the protection of the Park.
Sub-component 3.1. Training of Local Stakeholders
GEF resources and counterpart funds would finance various modalities of training (courses, seminars, workshops, visits to pilot projects, excursions). The training program would include about 750 people from various key sectors of society, including schoolteachers, small farmers, local community leaders, local entrepreneurs, local decision-makers and project technicians. Sub-component activities would complement capacity building and environmental education activities financed through the following baseline programs: (i) EPAGRI's Sustainable Rural Development Program, and (ii) SEBRAE's Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program.
Activity 3.1.1- Planning and Coordination of the Training Activities: preparation of a detailed training plan, selection of participants according to criteria developed and approved in a participatory manner, and coordination of the activities.
Activity 3.1.2 - Training of schoolteachers: this activity would target schoolteachers of the existing Municipal School System, reaching localities within the Park boundaries and in the buffer zone. The focus of attention would be the importance of and threats to biodiversity, the Park in the context of global and local biodiversity, and alternatives and opportunities for sustainable development.
Activity 3.1.3 - Training of local farmers: this activity would be aimed at training farmers in alternative conservation management practices and related technological innovations, to reduce the negative impacts of their activities on biodiversity while at the same time improving their economic performance. It would also be aimed at preparing them to compete in the labor market outside of the Park and at the same time reducing future dependence on areas within the Park. The principal target beneficiaries are the producers living inside the Park who would need to identify substitutes for their current economic activities, as it is anticipated that they will sign the Terms of Adjustment of Conduct. To a lesser extent, this training activity would also be targeted at producers living in the Park buffer zone.
Activity 3.1.4 - Training of the local entrepreneurs: this activity would encourage the interest of local entrepreneurs in the identification of “eco-businesses” as positive opportunities, since this is the segment that seeks out and establishes new businesses, thus modeling in some way the development trends in the region.
Activity 3.1.5 - Training of community leaders: training under this activity would be aimed at boosting community leaders’ awareness of conservation principles and Park protection, and at broadening their opportunities for organizing and engaging the community in Park-related conservation activities.
Activity 3.1.6 - Training of decision-makers from local governments: this activity would include training mayors, municipal secretaries, and city council members in the nine municipalities located in the Park region to boost public awareness of conservation principles among these politicians and local managers.
Activity 3.1.7- Training of project staff: the technicians involved in project execution would undergo refresher courses on the concepts and strategies associated with the project. The Park vigilance staff (CPPA and FATMA) would also undergo specific training to maximize the efficiency of the investments made under project Activity 1.1.2 on Park Vigilance and Control.
Outcome 3.1 Increased awareness and capacity within key local stakeholder groups in biodiversity conservation and related themes.
Sub-component 3.2. Development of Pilot Activities in the Park’s Buffer Zone
This sub-component would support the transition to livelihood activities which would improve sustainable use of natural resources in the Park buffer zone, complementing the initiatives taken under Subcomponent 2.2 on the participatory formulation of sustainable development strategies. On a demonstration basis, five pilot projects would be supported, one in each of the socio-economic regions of the buffer zone, and would target groups of farmers and local entrepreneurs (or individuals in special cases). More resources would be allocated to the northeastern socio-economic region of the Park (more specifically, the municipalities of Palhoça and Paulo Lopes), in response to the increasing pressure in this region to convert natural habitats into settled areas, as well as the growth of tourism and sportive activities there. GEF resources would not finance this sub-component. Rather the sub-component would be co-financed by the Microbacias 2 project, through its Rural Investment Fund (FDR), which would finance the incremental costs of technical assistance, goods, equipment and small works. Rural communities living in microcatchments of the Park buffer zone would receive support from FDR for investments identified in the microcatchment development plans supported under the baseline. The FDR would be the instrument used to promote the adoption of the project strategy in the Park buffer zone, where conservation-related activities would be considered major priorities. Part of the technical assistance would also be co-financed by SEBRAE. These activities would complement the following on-going baseline activities: (i) rural extension, participatory microwatershed planning being carried out by EPAGRI under Microbacias 2, and (ii) technical assistance financed by SEBRAE through the Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program.
Activity 3.2.1 - Identification of pilot activities, establishment of criteria for site selection, and definition of priority sites: respective sites would be selected under these pilot activities involving community discussions to be held through participatory seminars (one for each socio-economic region).
Activity 3.2.2 - Design and implementation of pilot projects: demonstrative models for sustainable use of natural resources in the buffer zone would be validated under five pilot projects. The pilot projects would be reviewed by the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and the technical assistance for preparation of the proposals would be provided by extensionists supported under the Project.
Outcome 3.2 - Validation through pilot projects of demonstrative models for the sustainable use of natural resources in the TSP’s buffer zone.
Sub-component 3.3. Development of a Pilot Activity in the TSP’s Indigenous Areas
To improve the sustainability of ongoing agro-forestry activities undertaken by the indigenous communities who live in the Park area and its buffer zone, with support from the Microbacias 2 project funds (co-financing) the Project would support the implementation of a pilot agro-forestry activity in one of the three existing indigenous lands.[19] As in sub-component 3.2 above, GEF resources would not finance this pilot activity. This sub-component would complement the activities of the technical assistance program financed by the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), through its regular program carried out by the Ethnology Unit under the University Museum.[20] The project would support effective participation of these indigenous groups in project management at the decision-making level, through their representation in the Project Steering Committee (PSC) to be established upon project approval. The PSC would be assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee (including a representative from the UFSC's Ethnology Unit under the University Museum), which together would seek appropriate solutions to concerns related to the Park area's indigenous populations in order to strengthen the linkages between the Park and the indigenous lands, and to increase partnerships and collaborative arrangements that would enable the indigenous peoples to continue their traditional use of Park resources in a manner that is both sustainable and consistent with their traditional ways of life.
Activity 3.3.1 - Discussion and selection of a pilot activity to be implemented in one of the Indigenous Peoples’ lands located in the Park region: discussion with the indigenous communities to present and discuss the proposals would be followed by the selection of a pilot activity and definition of a priority site.
Activity 3.3.2 - Implementation of a pilot project: a demonstrative model for sustainable agro-forestry would be implemented by providing technical assistance and small investments on soil conservation and reforestation.
Outcome 3.3 - Selection and implementation of a pilot activity in one of the Indigenous Peoples' lands located in the Park area.
Component 4: Project Management, Monitoring & Evaluation and Information Dissemination
Under this component, the project would support technical assistance, studies, field work, workshops and acquisition of the equipment required to conduct participatory project management, monitoring and dissemination (for additional information on project coordination, management, and implementation see the section on Implementation Arrangements).
Sub-component 4.1. Project Management
Project management would be under the overall responsibility of FATMA. To ensure effective participation of stakeholders in project management at the decision-making level, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) would be created. Day-to-day coordination would be done through a Project Management Unit (PMU) with support from a project co-manager (SEBRAE-SC) which would undertake the project’s financial management. GEF and counterpart funds would finance the incremental costs of technical assistance, workshops, materials and equipment to support project management. GEF funds would complement the personnel resources and the equipment financed by the baseline to strengthen the management of the protected areas, through the regular program of FATMA aimed at Park protection, which is conducted by FATMA's Directorate of Studies and Protected Areas (DEAM), through its Divisions of Protected Areas (GECON) and Projects and Studies (GESP).
Activity 4.1.1 - Project Coordination: this activity would be executed by FATMA with 100% of the resources coming from the counterpart provided by FATMA, who would appoint a senior officer from its Environmental Studies Directorate as the overall coordinator of the project.
Activity 4.1.2 - Project Management: of FATMA would appoint/contract a co-manager to be under the direct responsibility of GESP/FATMA.
Outcome 4.1 - Establishment of a PMU for effective implementation and oversight of project activities and coordination with relevant agencies and ongoing programs.
Sub-component 4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
This sub-component would be implemented over the life of the project to monitor project inputs, results and impacts, based on key input/output and impact indicators presented in the LogFrame in Annex 1. The benchmark against which management-induced changes would be identified and measured will be determined at the early stages of project implementation. GEF resources would finance technical assistance, field work, minimal equipment and workshops. These activities would complement the microwatershed monitoring executed by EPAGRI under the Microbacias 2 project and water quality monitoring conducted by FATMA at the Park’s beaches, as well as the Integrated System of Fines and Environmental Licensing operated by FATMA and by CPPA.
Activity 4.2.1 - Monitoring of implementation performance indicators: this activity would focus on physical-financial monitoring, where the advancement and performance of the project would be measured through the input and output indicators designated in the LogFrame. Under this activity, an information system for physical-financial management (MIS) would be developed to support the implementation of the project. It would build on the existing MIS which was recently developed for the Microbacias 2 project. The resulting information would be made public through periodic newsletters and the project website foreseen under Activity 4.3.1.
Activity 4.2.2 - Monitoring of project impact indicators and preparation of impact evaluation reports: project impact indicators would be monitored, with project evaluations and impact assessments being undertaken twice during the project. Monitoring would include both environmental and socio-economic factors, as well as monitoring community involvement in project implementation. This activity would also build on the existing evaluation methodology which was recently developed for the Microbacias 2 project.
In view of the limited resources provided under an MSP project, and the importance of setting up a longer-term monitoring system that would continue beyond the life of the project, FATMA has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal University of Santa Catarina to support a number of monitoring studies to measure biodiversity and strengthen the existing TSP scientific data bank system. It is expected that this will include an assessment of the impact of the proposed project on the Park's biodiversity, including indicators i) at the landscape and community/ecosystem levels (vegetation structure and invasive species), and ii) at the species/population level (abundance of key animal species, particularly those living on the coastal islands). FATMA will finance 20% of the costs of these studies and the University will support 80%. In principle, no GEF resources will be used for these activities.
Outcome 4.2 - Establishment of a Monitoring and Evaluation Program.
Sub-component 4.3. Project Information Dissemination
Dissemination of project initiatives, results and impacts would be implemented under this sub-component to: (i) stimulate participation of the local population in the Park conservation and management activities; (ii) promote the Park at the State, national and international levels; and (iii) share “lessons learned” among project beneficiaries and with people involved in the management of other protected areas in Brazil. At the local level, the target audience for dissemination of information would include about 5,000 people from different social segments (citizens from the nine municipalities of the Park region, with emphasis on farmers, entrepreneurs, community leaders, artisans, local politicians and state and municipal environmental and agricultural officers working in the Park region). GEF would finance incremental costs of technical assistance, workshops, promotional material and equipment required to promote the Project at the local, national and international levels. The promotional activities of the Park conducted through FATMA’s regular Environmental Education Program would comprise the baseline for this subcomponent.
Activity 4.3.1 - Development of a website for the Project: the project homepage would be developed in the first six months of the project and promoted locally, particularly through radio and the first informative Project Newsletter.
Activity 4.3.2 - Creation and Dissemination of the Project's Newsletter: the project’s quarterly newsletters would emphasize the importance of the Park and would play an essential role in the exchange and promotion of project experiences shared among its beneficiaries.
Activity 4.3.3 - Production of Promotional Material: folders, posters, a promotional video about the Park (and of the project) and other multimedia resources would be produced and promoted through this activity.
Activity 4.3.4 - Seminars aimed at Disseminating Project Results: two promotional seminars would be organized during the project life, with the participation of the general public and of the administrators of other protected areas in the country.
Outcome 4.3- Increased awareness of the project and project replication.
Table 2 outlines how and where the Project's activities address the previously mentioned threats to the TSP.
Table 2. Threats to the Park and Related Project Interventions
|Threat to the Park |Geographical focus |Proposed Interventions |
| |(see Annex 4) | |
|- Change and loss of |Park coastal sand formations (northeastern |Implementation of emergency actions to directly reduce threat by|
|restinga coastal habitats |socio-economic region) |controlling the proliferation of Pinus Sp. (sub-component 1.2) |
|associated with spread of | | |
|one exotic plant species | | |
|(Pinus) | | |
|- Change and loss of |Park coastal area (northeastern socio-economic |Implementation of emergency actions to directly address the |
|restinga coastal habitats |region) |underlying sources by strengthening Park Vigilance and Control |
|associated with drainage of | |in critical and vulnerable areas (sub-component 1.1) |
|shrubs and forests for |Park coastal area (northeastern socio-economic |Build a conservation constituency through the implementation of |
|further settlement; |region) |sustainable development and conservation training program |
| | |(Component 3) |
|- Increasing pressure to |Critical in the municipalities of Palhoça, Paulo |Implementation of emergency actions to strengthen Park Vigilance|
|convert natural habitats |Lopes (northeastern socio-economic region), Santo |and Control capacity (sub-component 1.1) |
|into settled areas and |Amaro (northern region), and São Bonifácio (western | |
|agricultural lands, within |region) |Support to conflict resolution and development (and initial |
|the Park and the buffer zone|Threat associated with land use conflicts: Special |implementation) of the Park Management Plan (Component 2) |
| |Recovery Zone (Northeastern and Western regions) | |
| | |Build a conservation constituency (Component 3) |
| |All 5 socio-economic regions |Foster sustainable livelihood activities by implementing |
| |All 5 socio-economic regions |demonstrative models (on a pilot basis) for sustainable use of |
| | |natural resources in the buffer zone (more resources allocated |
| | |to critical areas: Palhoça and Paulo Lopes; sub-component 3.2) |
| | | |
| | |Dissemination of results and experiences (sub-component 4.3) |
| | | |
| |All 5 socio-economic regions | |
|- Change or loss of natural |Critical in the coastal islands and municipalities |Implementation of emergency measures of Park Vigilance |
|habitats due to the growth |of Palhoça, Paulo Lopes and Santo Amaro (northeast) |(Component 1) |
|of the tourism and sportive |Northeastern socio-economic region | |
|activities |Threat associated with land use conflicts: |Build a conservation constituency (Component 3) |
| |Northeastern region |Support to conflict resolution and development and initial |
| | |implementation of the Park Management Plan (Component 2) |
| | | |
| |All 5 socio-economic regions |Foster sustainable livelihood activities on a pilot basis |
| | |(sub-component 3.2) |
| |All 5 socio-economic regions |Dissemination of results and experiences (sub-component 4.3) |
Implementation Arrangements (more details in Annex 7)
Project coordination, management and implementation would be the overall responsibility of FATMA. Co-management and financial administration would be undertaken by the Small Business Support Service of Santa Catarina (SEBRAE-SC), which was selected based on (i) its strength in financial administration which would ensure greater efficiency of all adminstrative activities, and (ii) its long-standing involvement in the Park. The decentralized execution of the project would be supported by government and non-government institutions (project co-executors), including local offices of the participating State agencies (FATMA, CPPA, EPAGRI and the State Attorney’s Thematic Office), as well as SEBRAE-SC and muncipalities. Local NGOs would participate through the Park Management Committee or would be contracted to execute specific project activities such as organizing environmental education events. The project would be implemented under a SEBRAE-SC arrangement for procurement, administrative, and financial management functions. Under this arrangement, SEBRAE would follow Bank guidelines for the procurement of goods and services. A small Project Management Unit (PMU) would be established within FATMA. FATMA would be responsible for executing project activities and for overseeing the procurement of goods and services, according to the Procurement Plan approved by the Bank. Direct disbursements to SEBRAE are expected to be requested by the PMU on the basis of the semi-annual disbursement projections included in the PMR (more detail on FATMA and SABRAE can be found in Annex 14).
Under the authority of FATMA, and with full administrative support from SEBRAE, the Project Management Unit (PMU) would: (i) oversee, coordinate, administer and monitor the project; (ii) consolidate the beneficiaries' demands, and discuss/agree these with the Project Steering Committee (PSC); (iii) prepare and submit the Annual Operational Plan (POA) to the PSC for analysis/comments, and to FATMA Director of Studies and Protected Areas (DEAM) for final and approval; (iv) estimate the project’s financial requirements; (v) execute all project contracts and acquisitions (technical assistance/consultants, training/workshops, procurement of goods, etc), according to the approved POAs; (vi) promote institutional coordination among the other implementing agencies; (vii) prepare statements of account for the World Bank and execute procurement procedures; (vii) prepare management reports for submission to the World Bank and to the State (FATMA and SDS) and Federal Government (SEAIN) institutions; (ix) perform project related tasks, as designated by FATMA Director (DEAM) and PSC. The PMU would also contract all services for external project evaluation and financial audit.
The PSC would include representatives from: FATMA (DEAM Director/Chair of PSC), EPAGRI (rural extension and agricultural research agency), State Secretariat of Environment (SDS), State Secretariat of Agriculture (SAR), State Environmental Police (CPPA), SEBRAE, State Committee of the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve (CERBMA/SC), Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council, one representative from each of the nine municipalities of the Park area, one representative of farmers associations, one representative from local environmental NGOs; one representative of indigenous groups; one representative from farmers; and one representative from the Federation of Environmental NGOs in Santa Catarina (FEEC). The PSC would: (i) review POAs and suggest changes accordingly; (ii) assist the Project Coordinator and PMU to ensure inter-institutional coordination and effective implementation by project executors; and (iii) assist with recommendations in the establishment of the future Park Management Committee. The State Attorney’s Thematic Office would participate in the PSC as an observer. The proposal for the Technical Consultation Committee has been dropped, as it is viewed that existing capacity in FATMA and participating universities is sufficient to support the Project.
There would be two advisory bodies, one responsible for the overall management of the TSP, the Park Management Committee (PMC) which will evolve from the existing Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council (IPIC), and a Project Steering Committee (PSC) responsible for advising the Project Management Unit.
Following the initiation of project implementation, the PMC will contract a legally-registered OSCIP NGO (i.e. a civil society organization of public interest) to co-manage the TSP. The NGO should have demonstrated national experience for co-management of parks particularly in working with the local communities. Once an NGO is selected, FATMA will negotiate a co-management agreement which will require the endorsement of the PMC. Local communities will be integrated into the actual management planning process through a process similar to the way they were involved in the preparation of the PZP, which included a number of consultative meetings and participatory seminars. FATMA will continue to support consultative meetings with the PMC with representation by community leaders and municipal governments, and with other community leaders to get their views on Park management and strengthen their involvement in Park affairs.
Project Implementation Plan
A summary of project implementation plan by semester is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Project Implementation Plan
|Project Activity |Semester (6 months) |
| |1º |2º |3º |
| | | |
|Technical Reports |Periodic - |FATMA |
| |Produced according to the length of | |
| |each activity, prepared by the | |
| |contracted/executing entities, sent | |
| |to the PU (Coordinator and | |
| |Co-Administrator) | |
|Financial Reports |Quarterly |Produced by FATMA, sent to PU/FATMA, and from there to |
| | |PSC |
|Semi-Annual Progress Reports |Bi-annual |SEBRAE-SC/FATMA |
|Annual Progress Reports |Annual |SEBRAE-SC/FATMA |
|Annual Operating Manual (AOP) |End of Fiscal Year |SEBRAE-SC/FATMA/PSC |
|Mid-Term Review |07/2007 |World Bank |
|Consolidated Project Implementation Completion |07/2009 |World Bank and FATMA |
|Report | | |
Sustainability (including financial sustainability)
Factors contributing to Sustainability
The proposed project strategy is intended to maximize the environmental and financial sustainability of GEF-supported activities beyond the GEF funding period by: (i) building capacity among local stakeholders (i.e., schoolteachers, students, local farmers, local entrepreneurs, decision makers from local governments and community leaders); (ii) recognizing and capitalizing on the crucial role of local governments and producer and community organizations to organize, promote, monitor and assess implementation; and (iii) utilizing existing institutional structures to organize project activities and deliver outputs.
More specifically, the Project would build on the Park Zoning Plan (PZP) initiative supported under Microbacias 2 by following up efforts with local communities supported under the Plan. In particular, it would solidify and consolidate the commitments of government agencies, park dwellers, indigenous groups and NGOs, while ensuring sustainability beyond the life of the Project in the following ways:
• Educating community leaders, local policy makers, schoolteachers, park dwellers, local entrepreneurs and other key stakeholders about Park-related issues and sustainability (sub-component 3.1);
• Providing a forum for open discussion and supporting participatory management of the Park, with emphasis on shared decision-making (sub-component 2.4);
• Creating awareness of environmentally and financially sustainable options, alternatives and tools (sub-component 3.1 and 4.3), and promoting model sustainability pilot projects and practices (sub-components 3.2 and 3.3);
• Addressing land use conflicts in a participatory and equitable manner, by adopting conflict management approaches that (i) recognize the multiple perspectives, values and interests of different stakeholders, (ii) help determine potential effects of conflict, and (iii) assist in identifying effective strategies and responses (sub-component 2.1);
• Advocating development of legal frameworks to address land use conflicts, particularly the conservation agreements to be signed between landowners and the Government (see sub-component 2.1 and description of baseline scenario under Section B.2.1.); and
• Implementing a decentralized project management approach and utilizing existing institutional structures (within FATMA, EPAGRI, CPPA and the State Attorney’s Office) to organize project activities and deliver outputs.
The project has a sub-component dedicated to the formulation of the Park’s financial management plan. The Financial Plan to be integrated into the final Park Management Plan, would include: (i) feasibility studies of various alternatives that would contribute to the financial sustainability of the Park; (ii) formulation of a proposal for legal procedures that could possibly be adopted to implement alternatives for the financial sustainability of the Park, followed by submission of a proposal for analysis and approval by FATMA's legal office; (iii) technical meetings (focus groups) with representatives of various sectors of the State Government; (iv) a workshop for public discussion of the Plan; and (v) Plan finalization.
Institutional sustainability is most often threatened by weakening government commitment to projects, leading to irregular counterpart funding, mistargeting of resources, political interference and removal of key staff. Evidence from the Land Management II Project, the ongoing Microbacias 2 Project, and the State Government's strong participation during project preparation indicate that this is not a significant Project risk. Participatory procedures are already being quite widely piloted, local stakeholders are involved and are awaiting expansion of efforts in the Tabuleiro Park area and political will remains strong. Therefore, risks that the project will be affected by the lack of sustainability of Government or other stakeholder institutions are considered low.
Risk Assessment and Mitigation
The main social risk is whether key community, NGO and government entities are sufficiently convinced of the importance and feasibility of the Project’s objective and will participate in the process, since the interest and commitment of local stakeholders to sustainable resource use and conservation will be essential to long-term sustainability of the Park. In addition, given the numerous conflicts of interest related to land use, there is some risk of manipulation of outcomes by a small but politically strong number of local leaders with motivations other than the protection of the Park and its buffer zone. These risks would be mitigated by the Project's emphasis on consultation with and participation of local communities and other stakeholders, as well as by: (i) focusing capacity building on resource users and managers; (ii) adopting conflict management approaches that recognize the multiple perspectives, values and interests of different stakeholders; (iii) creating awareness of sustainable livelihood options, alternatives and tools; (iv) supporting the establishment of conservation agreements between landowners and the Government; (v) supporting the implementation of a co-management strategy for the Park; and (vi) disseminating project-related activities to build public opinion in support of Park-related issues and achievements.
There would be no involuntary resettlement of populations in the implementation of this Project. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that some project activities might materially affect the current livelihoods of certain communities living within or adjacent to the Park. However, during project preparation, significant attention was devoted to ensuring that these communities and people living in the Park would be dealt with fairly and that they do not lose their capacity to support themselves. In compliance with Bank and GEF policies, a Process Framework was designed during preparation and outlines the criteria and procedures the project will follow in such cases (see Annex 3).
Replicability
The Project would be implemented on a demonstrative basis, permitting the replication of results, “lessons learned” and the exchange of experiences with other PAs in Brazil that share similar features and problems. The demonstrative nature of the project would foster the development of models for sustainable use of natural resources in the TSP’s buffer zone designed to enable farmer groups and other resource users to adapt these models to their own needs. It would also support the development and implementation of a model in one of the Indigenous Peoples' lands located in the Park buffer zone to help increase the efficiency of resource use while reducing dependence of indigenous peoples on extractive activities from the Park. To increase awareness, the Project would foster dissemination and diffusion of project initiatives, results and impacts through printed and electronic media, and seminars would be held for representatives of civil society as well as protected area managers in other parts of the country to demonstrate to them the possibility of replicating activities undertaken in the Park in their own regions.
Support for study tours to the TSP is part of the following project training activities: Activities 3.1.5 (training of community leaders), 3.1.6 (training of decision-makers from local governments) and 3.1.7 (training of project staff). Informal communications have already taken place among staff from interested parks elsewhere in Brazil (e.g., State of Rio de Janeiro). In addition, there have been some initial contacts between the project team and staff in the Abruzzo National Park (Italy), to promote the visit of the latter’s park manager and the mayor of one of successful communities in the Abruzzo region which has successfully integrated community activities into Park objectives. This would be mostly financed through an existing cooperative agreement between Italy and the municipalities of Santa Catarina State where the Park is located.
Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholder Identification
The project proposal is the result of an intense effort to mobilize local stakeholders and enhance their active participation. The direct beneficiaries of the project include: Mbya Guaraní indigenous communities, landowners and communities living within the Park boundaries and its buffer zone, as well as municipal governments. Other relevant collaborators and beneficiaries include state and federal institutions (e.g. IBAMA, the State Secretariat of Environment and Urban Development, the State Agricultural Secretariat); private sector entities (e.g, hotels and resorts); environmental NGOs (e.g. CEPAGRO-Study Center for the Promotion of Agriculture, and AGRECO-Association of Ecological Farmers of the Serra Geral); research and education/extension institutions (e.g. Federal University of Santa Catarina, University of Southern Santa Catarina); and other civil society organizations (e.g. neighborhood, religious and professional associations). The project would stimulate partnerships among these and other stakeholders throughout all phases of execution and evaluation of the project.
Project Formulation Process
Stakeholder involvement in designing this MSP built on previous public meetings, workshops, seminars and other participation by numerous governmental (federal, state and municipal), community, environmental, private sector and academic organizations during earlier endeavors (Land Management II Project and the participatory Park Zoning Plan) which included the establishment in 1997 of the Inter-Municipal Park Implementation Council (comprised of community leaders and municipal governmental representatives) and the Inter-Institutional Environmental Education Commission (comprised of governmental and non-governmental entities).
Stakeholder participation in project preparation included: (i) three initial multi-stakeholder meetings in 2000 including the implementing agencies (FATMA, SAR, EPAGRI), the Inter-Municipal Park Implementation Council, and local communities; (ii) a socio-environmental assessment of the Park; and (iii) two participatory project preparation workshops (2000 and 2001) and multiple meetings (since 2001) with representatives of state and federal institutions, municipal governments, environmental groups, indigenous communities, researchers and other civil society organizations in order to identify stakeholder needs, agree how best to address them as well as to design the project including the LogFrame. The aforementioned multiple meetings held since 2001 also had the objective of integrating and discussing the previous draft proposal (2001) with the new WB loan (Microbacias 2 project; US$ 107 million total; US$ 62.8 million WB loan), prepared between September 2001 and March 2002 and approved in April 2002. Hence, the final version of the project is a result of a process of mobilization and involvement of local stakeholders and since the project objectives, priorities and strategy have been broadly endorsed by a wide selection of stakeholders, this should contribute both to project implementation and longer-term sustainability.
Participation during the Project
The direct beneficiaries of the project include indigenous people, landowners and communities living within the Park and its buffer zones, as well as municipal governments. The strategy and mechanisms for stakeholder participation during implementation includes, among others: (i) representation by key social groups on the Project Steering Committee; (ii) participation of scientists as advisors; (iii) a co-management strategy for the park promoting the active involvement of local populations through the establishment and strengthening of a Park Management Committee (Activity 2.4.1) and by establishing formal partnerships for park administration; (iv) supporting community-based conservation activities (Activity 2.4.2); (v) supporting the participation of municipal governments (Activity 2.4.3); (vi) training key social segments of local communities (component 3); and (vii) public discussions via workshops, seminars and other events planned for project activities.
Information Dissemination
The Project anticipates continuous dissemination of information to multiple stakeholders throughout its implementation, including, inter alia: (i) various seminars, workshops and meetings planned under the project; (ii) two seminars for publicizing the project results (Activity 4.3.4); (iii) periodic circulation of bulletins and the project home-page (Activities 4.3.1 and 4.3.2); (iv) distribution of promotional material (folders, posters, video) about the Park and the Project (Activity 4.3.3); and (v) participatory monitoring and evaluation, which has been included as part of the project monitoring and evaluation process.
Social Assessment (See Annex 9 for more details)
The following major stakeholders were identified in five socio-economic “regions” inside and in the buffer zone of the Park: landowners (small, medium and large), small farmers, agricultural workers, indigenous people, public institutions, NGOs, universities, and urban and semi-urban citizens from the nine municipalities of the Park region.
With the exception of the State capital, Florianópolis, population in the other eight municipalities of the Park region grew from 76,756 residents to 138,117 between 1970 and 1996. Most population growth occurred in the dormitory communities and beach areas closest to the metropolitan center. From a socio-economic perspective, the Park is relevant for the state of Santa Catarina due to its importance in the context of socio-economic activities of the entire larger metropolitan region of Florianópolis..
The economy of the Park area revolves around a set of activities developed in nearby Florianópolis (20 Km away), with the tertiary sector – commerce and services – being the principal activities that generate employment and economic wealth[22]. In this part of the State, 57 localities/communities were identified which were classified into the aforementioned five socio-economic "regions", based on their differing economic development and physical-environmental characteristics (see Map in Annex 6). Major findings for each region are summarized in Annex 9.
Process Framework for Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts
The State of Santa Catarina has pledged that no involuntary resettlement of people would take place in the implementation of this project. Nonetheless, the possibility remains that some project activities might materially affect the current livelihoods of certain communities living within or adjacent to the Park. Based on the information gathered during the PZP and the social assessment, a Process Framework was designed outlining the criteria and procedures that the project would follow in such cases to ensure that eligible and affected persons are assisted in their efforts to restore or improve their livelihoods in a manner which maintains the environmental sustainability and territorial integrity of Park (see Annex 3). In all cases, the Project would seek to address the livelihood issues of these persons in a manner which is fair, just, and in accordance with Brazilian law, as well as consistent with the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies on Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20), and Natural Habitats (OP 4.04).
Indigenous People’s Strategy
There are approximately 265 Mbya Guaraní indigenous people in three indigenous lands totalling approximately 200 ha, either regularized or under regularization, in the TSP area. FATMA fully recognizes the significance of the customary use of forest resources by the Mbya Guaraní groups and the need for long-term sustainable management of their land, as well as the need to support their transition to sustainable livelihoods suitable for their relatively small areas. In this context, representatives from the Mbya Guaraní communities participated actively in the discussions held during the project preparation workshops, and provided substantive inputs for project design. As a result, the project would support technical assistance and small investments to implement a demonstrative and pilot land management model for sustainable agro-forestry in one of the Indigenous Lands in the Park buffer zone. Activities (Subcomponent 3.3) to be carried out with indigenous people under the proposed Project would be done via the complementary Bank operation Brazil-Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Project (Microbacias 2) using the highly participatory Indigenous People’s Strategy developed and consulted for that project and described in detail in Annex 13 of its PAD dated March 27, 2002.
D – Financing
Financing Plan
The Incremental Costs Table (Table 1) outlines the incremental costs for the Project. The GEF Alternative presented below builds upon the US$ 1.9 million baseline costs (US$ 1.4 million for Implementation of Emergency Actions, US$ 250,000 for Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan, US$ 180,000 for Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects, and US$ 30,000 for Project Management, M&E, and Information Dissemination) summarized above.
A summary of project expenditures by type of expenditure and the consolidated budget are presented below.
Table 6. Project Expenditures (including contingencies)
|Expenditure Category |GEF |Other sources |Project Total |
|I. Investment Costs | | | |
|Civil Works/Infrastructure |9,045 |- |9,045 |
|Technical Assistance |722,121 |269,195 |991,316 |
|Training/Meetings |83,075 |52,550 |135,625 |
|Equipment & Goods |110,873 |18,925 |129,798 |
|Subprojects & Small Grants |13,632 |216,480 |230,112 |
|Total Investment |938,746 |557,150 |1,495,896 |
|II. Recurrent Costs | | | |
|Personnel/Salaries |- |790,422 |790,422 |
|O & M |34,989 |- |34,989 |
|Other Operating Costs |- |6,491 |6,491 |
|Total Recurrent Costs |34,989 |796,913 |831,902 |
|Total MSP |973,734 |1,354,063 |2,327,797 |
|PDF Grant |25,000 |15,000 |40,000 |
|Project Total (w/ PDF Grant) |998,734 |1,369,063 |2,367,797 |
Table 7. Consolidated Project Budget
|Consolidated Project Budget |
|COST CATEGORY |Comp-1 |Comp-2 |Comp-3 |Comp-4 |Total (US$) |
|I. Investment Costs | | | | | |
|Civil Works/Infrastructure |8,360 |- |- |- |8,360 |
|Technical Assistance |48,320 |381,148 |152,397 |336,030 |917,895 |
|Training/Meetings |4,355 |16,491 |102,833 |2,182 |125,862 |
|Equipment & Goods |40,850 |33,275 |4,200 |43,010 |121,335 |
|Subprojects & Small Grants |- |18,000 |195,000 |- |213,000 |
|Total Investment (without contingencies) |101,885 |448,914 |454,430 |381,222 |1,386,452 |
|II. Recurrent Costs | | | | | |
|Personnel/Salaries |270,410 |214,083 |73,941 |173,132 |731,566 |
|O & M |16,340 |- |- |16,000 |32,340 |
|Other Operating Costs |- |- |- |6.000 |6,000 |
|Total Recurrent Costs |286,750 |214,083 |73,941 |195,132 |769,906 |
|Total Expenditure |388,635 |662,997 |528,371 |576,354 |2,156,358 |
|Contingency + Inflation |29,879 |53,031 |41,939 |46,591 |171,440 |
|TOTAL COSTS |418,514 |716,028 |570,310 |622,945 |2,327,797 |
|TOTAL GEF Contribution |126,798 |345,929 |126,604 |374,403 |973,734 |
|TOTAL SEBRAE Contribution |- |125,269 |104,273 |- |229,542 |
|TOTAL GoSC (Microbacias 2) Contribution |- |11,684 |259,633 |- |271,317 |
|TOTAL GoSC Contribution |291,716 |233,146 |79,800 |248,542 |853,204 |
|TOTAL Co-financing |291,716 |370,099 |443,706 |248,542 |1354,063 |
Co-financing
A total of US$1.35 million would be provided as co-financing to the Project.
Table 8. Co-financing
|Co-financing Sources |
|Name of Co-financier |Classification |Type |Amount (US$) | |
|(source) | | | |Status* |
|GoSC (Microbacias II) |WB loan |Cash |271.317 |Confirmed |
|GoSC |State gov |Cash |853.204 |Confirmed |
|SEBRAE |private non-profit |Cash |229.542 |Confirmed |
|Sub-Total Co-financing | | |1.354.063 | |
| |
*See letters of commitments in Annex 12
E – Institutional Coordination and Support
Core Commitments and Linkages
The World Bank Country Assistance Strategy for 2003-2007 (CAS Report No. 27043-BR) identifies the need to implement solutions that combine the protection of priority ecosystems with balanced measures to reduce poverty and develop sustainable alternatives for increasing the income of the local population. The CAS presents a three-dimensional development vision for the country, i.e., a more Equitable, Competitive and Sustainable Brazil, the latter directed at improving the quality of life through support for careful management of Brazil’s rich natural assets (including the Atlantic forest biome) and for local services in urban and rural areas. Within the context of contributing to a more sustainable Brazil, the CAS includes a long-term country goal of “more sustainable land management, forests and biodiversity”. To support this goal (and its related outcomes), the strategy identified “GEF grants” as one out of three selected Bank Group activities, and establishes key indicators/targets related to the creation and implementation of Protected Areas. In addition, the CAS also refers to biodiversity conservation as a key element in the Bank’s strategy for more than a decade, and proposes continuing Bank support for conservation and rehabilitation of the Atlantic forest biome. Finally, the CAS’s goals and priorities are linked to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), particularly the MDG7 (sustainable development policies enhanced, environmental resource loss reversed).
The Project is consistent with the CAS in that it supports: (i) the conservation of a large Protected Area, (ii) the conservation and rehabilitation of a significant remnant of the Atlantic Forest biome, and (iii) sustainable livelihood alternatives for local communities living in the TSP’s buffer zone. The project would benefit from and complement institutional strengthening activities supported by the Santa Catarina State Government under the Natural Resources Management and Poverty Alleviation Project (Microbacias 2) and the PNMA II. The project would also coordinate with the conservation efforts undertaken under the GEF-supported Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA, WB as IA). Exchange of experiences and collaboration has already started (by electronic mail and participation in Bank-promoted events in 2003), and would continue between the Project and three other GEF-funded projects (WB as IA) located in other Brazilian States, which support biodiversity conservation of the Atlantic Forest and Pantanal biomes. These are: (i) in Paraná, the full-sized Paraná Biodiversity project; (ii) in Mato Grosso do Sul, the MSP Formoso River Integrated Watershed Management and Protection Project; and (iii) in Rio de Janeiro, the full-sized Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense Project.
Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between and among Implementing Agencies, Executing Agencies, and the GEF Secretariat, if appropriate.
The Project is in conformity with the objectives of the National Strategy for Biological Diversity under formulation (UNDP as IA), and analyzes currently available information, identifies objectives and targets for conservation, as well as gaps, opportunities and impacts, and proposes the necessary actions and investments to achieve those objectives. Exchange of experiences and collaboration would be developed between the Project and two other GEF-funded projects under preparation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, the UNDP/GEF Pilot Program for Reforestation of the Atlantic Forest in Eastern Minas Gerais, and the Conservation of the Interior Atlantic Forest in São Paulo State.
The project team will keep a record of future consultations with stakeholders, including those associated with the aforementioned WB IA and the UNDP IA projects. This record will be presented to the WB during supervision missions.
Part II – Response to Reviews
A – GEF Secretariat
N/A
B – Convention Secretariat
N/A
C - Other IAs and relevant ExAs
N/A
D - STAP
N/A
Part III – Project Category Annex
Appropriate “keywords” that would describe the various elements of the project proposal.
|Biodiversity |Sectoral Scope |
|Conservation |Income generation |Technical Assistance |
|Sustainable Use |Incentive measures |Training/Info/Awareness |
|Both PA/Outside |Public awareness |Community Based Management |
|Control alien species |Migratory species | |
|Minimize adverse impact |International Conventions | |
|Capacity building | | |
Annex 1. Project Logical Framework
|Hierarchy of Objectives |Key Performance Indicators |Means of Verification |Critical Assumptions |
|Project Goal: | | | |
|To contribute to the conservation of the globally |A community-based model that effectively addresses land |Project’s ex-post evaluation | |
|significant biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest. |use conflicts in and around state and national PAs | | |
|Project Specific Objectives: | | | |
|(i) implementing emergency actions in support of |Core area (55,000 ha) of TSP placed under effective V&C.|Project Management Reports (PMR) |Economic situation avoids deep recession |
|increased TSP vigilance and enforcement capacity and | | | |
|control of exotic plant species that threaten the Park’s| | |Continued national interest in conserving Brazil’s rich |
|integrity; | | |biodiversity endowment. |
| | | | |
| |Area (at least 9,000 ha) of TSP core and buffer areas |Structured interviews with communities | |
| |covered by conservation agreements (TCs and TACs); | | |
|(ii) developing and supporting the initial |Number of communities (10 by PY2 and 40 by PY4) that | | |
|implementation of the Park Management Plan, in close |participate in management decisions through the and | | |
|collaboration and with strong participation of local |accepts the PMC | | |
|stakeholders; | | | |
| |Number of households that adopt sustainable use |Structured Interviews | |
|(iii) building a conservation constituency through: (a) |practices in TSP buffer zone (300 households within 5 | | |
|the development and implementation of a sustainable |pilot microwatersheds) | | |
|development and conservation training program, and (b) | | | |
|the development of demonstrative models for sustainable | | | |
|use of natural resources in the Park buffer zone; and | | | |
| | | | |
|iv) increasing local capacity to implement and monitor | | | |
|conservation projects, and to disseminate project |Six cross-site visits between PAs and joint four | | |
|results and experiences at the local, national and |technical workshops between two or more PAs held by PY4 | | |
|international levels. | | | |
| | | | |
|Outputs from each Component |Output Indicators: |Project Reports |(from Outputs to Objectives) |
|Component 1. | | | |
|1.1 Emergency actions to strengthen Park vigilance |Increase in cited infractions reported by Park staff |PMR, FATMA and CPPA inspection records |Increase in V&C citations will provide sufficient |
|implemented in 4 critical municipalities (Palhoça, Paulo|(30%) by PY1 in target municipalities (Palhoça, Paulo | |disincentive to reduce infraction adversely affecting |
|Lopes, São Bonifácio and Santo Amaro), and in the Park |Lopes, São Bonifácio and Santo Amaro, and the Park’s | |TSP biodiversity. |
|coastal islands |coastal islands). | | |
|1.2. Emergency measures to control exotic plant species |Percentage (70%) of the total 3,700 ha of the Park |PMR, implementation report |Control of invasive species will arrest and reverse |
|implemented in critical areas of the Park coastal sand |coastal sand formations (restingas) free from exotic | |habitat degradation. |
|formations (restingas) |plant species (PY 3). | | |
| | | |Technical and socio-economic alternatives exist to |
|Component 2. |Two studies conducted (PY 2) and 120 TACs negotiated |PMR, implementation reports |existing non-sustainable land use practices. |
|2.1. Preparatory studies completed and conservation |between landowners and the State Environmental Agency | | |
|agreements negotiated to reduce pressure on TSP |(PY4). | | |
|biodiversity. |Sustainable development strategies formulated for all | | |
|2.2. Improved knowledge of existence of sustainable NR |five socio-economic regions of the Park buffer zone (PY | | |
|management practices among the local population located |2). | | |
|in the Park buffer zone as realistic economic | | | |
|alternatives to existing livelihood practices. | | | |
|2.3. A well-articulated Park Management Plan (PMP) |Draft General Management Plan formulated (PY 1) and |PMR, implementation reports | |
|developed with support from local and other relevant |Final General Management Plan and subsequent | | |
|stakeholders represented by key community leaders, state|Implementation Plans formulated and endorsed (PY4). | | |
|and municipal governments. | | | |
|2.4. Improved Park management as a result of increased |Park Management Committee (PMC) created comprised of |Structured interviews with communities | |
|community participation and commitment |representatives from key social sectors (PY 4); number | | |
| |of municipal authorities (mayors, councilors, | | |
| |secretaries) participating in Park conservation | | |
| |activities (18) | | |
| | | | |
|Outputs from each Component |Output Indicators: |Project Reports |(from Outputs to Objectives) |
|Component 3. | | | |
|3.1. Local stakeholders trained in biodiversity |750 people from six social groups trained in relevant |PMR, implementation reports, and interviews (demand | |
|conservation and related themes. |conservation information and conservation management |assessment) | |
| |practices, and in natural resources management | | |
| |techniques, by the fourth year of the project . | | |
|3.2. Demonstrative models for sustainable NR use in | | | |
|Park buffer zone validated through pilot projects |5 community – based pilot activities implemented (PY 3) |Field surveys and interviews | |
|3.3. The implementation of a NRM model in one of the | | | |
|Indigenous Peoples' lands located in the Park buffer |Pilot activity implemented in one of Indigenous Peoples'|PMR and implementation report | |
|zone. |lands located in the Park buffer zone (PY 4) | | |
| | | | |
|Component 4. |Project Steering Committee (PSC) established (PY 1); | | |
|4.1. Project implementation capacity established |Project co-manager recruited, project unit (PU) created |PMR and implementation reports | |
| |(PY 1); PU equipment procured (PY 1) | | |
| | | | |
|4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation Program in place |Project impacts measured and two evaluation reports (PY | | |
| |2 and PY 4) prepared at the end of second and fourth | | |
| |years of the project; monitoring results published in |PMR and implementation reports | |
| |the project's newsletter, and made available to the | | |
| |public | | |
| |Project website is up and operational (PY 1) | | |
|4.3. Project outreach and dissemination strategies |Quarterly newsletter distributed to the target | | |
|prepared and implemented |population throughout the project period (5,000 copies | | |
| |per edition) |PMR and implementation reports | |
| |Promotional materials produced/distributed (beginning | | |
| |2nd semester) | | |
| |Seminars (3) organized with the participation of general| | |
| |public and administrators of other PAs by PY4 (1 in PY2,| | |
| |1 in PY3) | | |
|Project Components/sub-components |Inputs: (budget for each component) |Project Reports |(from Components to Outputs) |
|Component 1. |US$ 0.42 million |Disbursement and audit reports |GoSC remains committed to supporting TSP. |
|Strengthening Park vigilance and control | | | |
|Control of exotic plant species | | |Committed co-financing provided in a timely |
| | |Same as above |fashion. |
|Component 2. |US$ 0.72 million | | |
| | | | |
|Preparatory studies and regulatory tools for the | | | |
|occupied areas of the Park | | | |
|Sustainable development strategies for the Park | | | |
|buffer zone | | | |
|Consolidation of the Park management plan | | | |
|Support for participatory management | | | |
| | |Same as above | |
|Component 3. |US$ 0.57 million | | |
| | | | |
|Training of local stakeholders | | | |
|Development of pilot activities in Park buffer zone | | | |
|Development of pilot activities in Park indigenous | | | |
|areas | | | |
| | |Same as above | |
|Component 4. |US$ 0.62 million | | |
| | | | |
|Project management | | | |
|Monitoring and evaluation | | | |
|Project information dissemination | | | |
Annex 2: Procurement Arrangements
Procurement Responsibilities
The Project Management Unit (PMU) within FATMA will be responsible for overseeing the procurement of goods and services, according to the Procurement Plan shown in Table 1 below. The project will be implemented under a SEBRAE arrangement for procurement, administrative, and financial management functions. Under the arrangement, SEBRAE, which has more than a decade of experience managing and financing numerous projects in support of small-sized business development throughout the country, will follow Bank guidelines for the procurement of goods and services.
Procurement Procedures
Procurement of goods, services and small works, as well as contracting of consultants with GEF Grant funds, would be carried out in accordance with Guidelines under IBRD loan and IDA credits (Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits, Washington, DC, January 1995 and revised in January and August 1996, September 1997 and May 2004, and Guidelines for Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers, Washington, DC, January 1997 and revised in September 1997, January 1999 and May 2004).
Procurement Methods
Goods: The Grant will finance $129,800 to cover the purchase of goods and equipment. Equipment will include signboards, tools for fires break construction, office equipment, computers, software, two vehicles and one small boat. Contracts for the purchase of goods, including two anticipated vehicles are expected to total less than US$ 50,000 and will be procured under shopping arrangements which will require comparison from at least three qualified suppliers, according to Bank guidelines. The Grant will not finance imported goods. The Recipient of these goods and works will be FATMA (mostly) and, to a lesser extent (one vehicle, one boat and tools for fires break), the State Environmental Police - CPPA. The procurement methods to be used are described in Table 1.
Works: The Grant will finance small works, estimated to cost no more than an aggregate total of US$10,000 equivalent. These works will be procured under lump-sum, fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of proposals obtained from a minimum of three qualified local contractors in response to the written invitation. The invitation will include a detailed description of the works (construction of fire breaks in the Park), including basic specifications, the required completion date, a basic form of agreement acceptable to the Bank, and relevant blueprints, where applicable. Contracts will be awarded to the contractor who offers the lowest price quotation for the required work, and who has the experience and resources to complete the contract successfully.
Consultant Services: Consultants and Workshops: All contracts for firms will cost less than US$ 100,000 equivalent per contract of training, technical assistance services, or specialized studies. The project will select consulting firms on the basis of their experience and competence relevant to the assignment. In the case of assignments for which teams of personnel are not required, individual consultants may be employed and the experience and qualifications of the individual will be the criteria on which the decision to contract is made. All contracts for individual consultants will cost less than US$ 50,000 equivalent per contract of training, technical assistance services, and specialized studies. Fees and salaries shall be consistent with local market conditions.
Non-Consultant Services: Include (i) the provision of satellite images; and (2) “Workshops”, which means the non-consultant expenditures incurred by the Recipient in connection with the carrying out of workshops including travel costs and per diem of trainers and trainees’ training materials needed for the carrying out of the workshops. These services will be contracted following shopping procedures. All assignments will require the Bank’s review of the Terms of Reference, following provisions of the Bank Guidelines.
Other:
Recurrent Costs: The Grant will finance travel expenditures, which include costs of local traveling and the costs of visiting other parks of the country to gain managerial and technical knowledge, at an estimated cost of US$35,000.
Procurement Planning and Monitoring
The PMU will be responsible for establishing procedures for monitoring project execution and impact as well as for procurement implementation, including monitoring of contracts for goods, works and services modifications, variations, and extension of completion periods. The PMU will maintain detailed records of procurement activities financed under the Grant.
The Procurement Plan presented below was prepared by FATMA and SEBRAE in conjunction with other executing agencies (CPPA, Epagri and the State Attorney Thematic Office).
Table 1. Procurement Plan
|Category |Amount (US$) |Method |PY1 |PY2 |PY3 |PY4 |
|1. Goods | | | | | | |
| (a) equipment and goods |$96,760 |S |X |X |X |X |
| (b) vehicles |$33,040 |S |X | | | |
|2. Works | | | | | | |
| (a) construction of fire breaks |$9,045 |S |X |X |X |X |
|3. Services | | | | | | |
| (a) Technical assistance / Consultants |$991,300 |CQ |X |X |X |X |
| |($722,100 financed by | | | | | |
| |GEF) | | | | | |
| (b) Studies, Technical assistance financed by |$229,500 |NBF (*) |X |X |X |X |
|SEBRAE | | | | | | |
| (c) Training and Workshops/Meetings |$135,600 | |X |X |X |X |
| |($83,100 financed by GEF)| | | | | |
|(d) Newsletter Edition |$21,638 |CQ |X |X |X |X |
|(e) Other services costs |$5,357 |S |X |X | |X |
|4. Other | | | | | | |
| 4.1 Grants | | | | | | |
| (a) Subprojects | | | | | | |
| (b) Small grants (Goods and Services) |$198,600 |NGF (**) | |X |X | |
|financed by GoSC and Microbacias II | | | | | | |
| (c) Small grants (Goods and Services) |$17,900 |NBF (*) | | | | |
|financed by SEBRAE | | | | | | |
| 4.2 Recurrent Costs |$18,000 ($13,632 financed|CQ or S |X |X |X |X |
| |by GEF) | | | | | |
|(a) salaries (of staff engaged for the project) | | | | | | |
|(b) O&M Vehicles and other equipment |$790,400 |NBF (*) |X |X |X |X |
| (c) Other operating costs |$35,000 |S |X |X |X |X |
| |$6,500 |S |X |X |X |X |
(*) NBF = Not-Bank Financed (**) NGF = Not-GEF Financed (funded by GoSC and an ongoing Bank project)
S = Shopping CQ = Selection Based on Consultants
The Bank’s prior review is required for the following types of contracts:
1) Goods – contracts for vehicles
2) Consultant Services
- with firms: contracts larger than US$100,000
- with individuals: contracts larger than US$50,000
3) Workshops – contracts larger than US$50,000
All other types of contracts will be subject to ex-post review during project supervision missions.
Annex 3: Process Framework for Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts
Project Summary
The Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation in the Tabuleiro State Park Project seeks to strengthen conservation management of the Tabuleiro Park, located in Brazilian Atlantic Forest, by providing support to: (a) the implementation of emergency measures to directly reduce threats, or directly address the underlying sources associated with other threats that could lead to substantive alteration in the Park's ecological integrity if not addressed in the near term; (b) the formulation and initial implementation of the Park management plan, with the involvement of local stakeholders in the management and protection of the Park; (c) the strengthening of linkages between the Park and its buffer zone; (d) the establishment and initial implementation of procedures for conflict resolution; and (e) conservation awareness and education. To address the key threats to the Park, and subsequently achieve its objectives and results, the project would be implemented over a four-year period, through four components: 1) Implementation of Emergency Actions; 2) Development and Initial Implementation of the Park Management Plan; 3) Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects; and 4) Management, Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination of Project Information.
No Physical Displacement
The state of Santa Catarina has pledged that there will be no involuntary resettlement in the implementation of this project.
Potential Impacts on Livelihoods
Nonetheless, there is a possibility that some project activities might materially affect the current livelihoods of certain communities living within or adjacent to the Park. In that light, and based on the information gathered during the Park Zonning Plan (PZP) and by the Social Diagnostic Study (see Annex 9), this Process Framework was designed. It outlines the criteria and procedures that the project would follow in such cases to ensure that eligible and affected persons are assisted in their efforts to restore or improve their livelihoods in a manner that maintains the environmental sustainability and territorial integrity of the Park. In all cases, the project would seek to address the livelihood issues of these persons in a manner which is fair, just, and in accordance with Brazilian law, as well as consistent with the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies on Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12), Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20), and Natural Habitats (OP 4.04).
Non-Indigenous People within the Park
Current Situation
The Park, created in 1975, comprises a total area of 87,405 hectares. While the state of Santa Catarina has title to some 10,000 hectares, and an estimated 12,000 hectares are unoccupied, another 65,000 (1,741 titles) are privately held. Some 7% of the private properties cover 100 ha or more in area, and occupy 67% of the Park’s total area. Of these, 13 properties consist of 1,000 hectares or more in area, and account for more than 25% of the Park’s total area.
The Park is a restrictive protected area intended to conserve biological resources and scenic features. Most human uses are not permitted, except for scientific research, environmental monitoring, education, and controlled tourism (low impact visiting) to the extent the latter are compatible with Park objectives. However, there are 1,741 private properties inside the Park, with inhabitants utilizing the Park natural resources, thus generating serious conflicts between the Park objectives and the needs and interests of local communities.
To address this issue, the Government of Santa Catarina has taken the following major actions in the last years:
• The creation and implementation of an Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council, with representation by community leaders and municipal governments;
• Development of a participatory Park Zoning Plan - PZP (completed in 2000), which recommended that conflicts over land use be resolved through a process of gradual transition to more compatible uses. This process would be legally regulated through the adoption of Conservation Agreements (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct -TACs) in which squatters or landowners gain or retain user rights over time while agreeing to conservation measures. In addition, there is the possibility that the Park boundaries may be adjusted or modified to accommodate the resolution of certain conflicts on a case by case basis. In the PZP, the aforementioned 65,000 ha of private land has been assigned as a part of a Special Rehabilitation Zone, defined as “areas under land use conflict, where conservation agreements (TACs) need to be negotiated and implemented”;
• Creation of the State Attorney’s Thematic Office (Ministério Público)[23], which deals exclusively with Tabuleiro Park-related lawsuits and significantly contributes to the Park's implementation. This Office has initiated its work with active participation in the process of conflict resolution, and is playing a key role in proposing and enforcing TACs envisioned for the next ten years. This has recently been confirmed by the issuing of the first 22 TACs in 2003 (copies are available in the project files); they were signed and agreed between the Government (through the State Attorney’s Thematic Office and the State Environmental Management Foundation) and land-owners (mostly) or other resource users who are conducting illegal activities in the Park area and its buffer zone (e.g. municipalities who dispose of domestic garbage in inappropriate ways; the State Energy Company, which was providing electricity to new illegal buildings in the Park area; and entrepreneurs).
In brief, the Government has pledged that there would be no involuntary resettlement on the aforementioned 65,000 ha of privately held lands. Instead, it followed the recommendations stemming from the Park Zoning Plan, and a successful process of conflict resolution through the implementation of TACs began in 2003. Specific follow-up measures supported under the Project are presented below.
Actions Relevant to the Livelihood Concerns of Non-indigenous People
During the consolidation of the Park, the following procedures and actions (relevant to the livelihood concerns of non-indigenous residents or neighbors) will be carried out during project implementation:
1) Support to the establishment of formal and alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, primarily through the adoption of Conservation Agreements (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct - TACs). To achieve this aim, the project will support:
(a) Technical studies to support the adoption of Conservation Agreements to be signed between landowners and the State Government (see project Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2). Based on the experience of the recently-agreed TACs in the Park area, these studies will: (i) review the experience of the recently signed and agreed TACs; (ii) identify and determine the feasibility of alternative uses compatible with the protection and conservation of the Park. This will be followed by workshops for public discussion of the proposed land use alternatives.
(b) Participatory meetings with landowners to prepare and discuss Conservation Agreements (TACs): after the definition and discussion of alternative uses, there will be a public discussion of the commitments to be assumed by the parties (the Government and landowners and other resources users) for the implementation of the solutions that address major land use conflicts. For the participatory formulation of Conservation Agreements, workshops and meetings will be held to discuss proposals and agree on respective commitments (see Activity 2.1.3); and
(c) Signing of the Conservation Agreements (TACs): this activity will support the holding of public events for signing the Terms of Adjustment of Conduct (see Activity 2.1.4)
2) Support the transition to sustainable livelihoods through:
(a) Identification of sustainable development alternatives for the Park buffer zone: This activity will include: (i) a needs assessment followed by the identification of potentialities of each socio-economic region of the buffer zone; (ii) participatory study for the identification of alternative activities that will lead to lower environmental impacts, and identification of markets for new products and services; and (iii) meetings with the communities and other important local stakeholders to discuss alternatives identified (see project Activity 2.2.1)
(b) Implementation of on-the-ground pilot activities in the Park buffer zone: Five pilot projects will be undertaken throughout the five socio-economic regions of the buffer zone and will target groups of farmers and local entrepreneurs (see activities foreseen under project subcomponent 3.2)
3) Capacity building of key stakeholders: the project would support a series of training activities for key local stakeholders aimed at increasing their understanding and commitment to biodiversity conservation principles and Park protection, fostering a sustained transformation of disruptive economic activities. The target public of the training program would include about 750 people from various key public sectors, including small farmers, local community leaders, local entrepreneurs and local decision-makers (see activities foreseen under project subcomponent 3.1).
4) Formulation of the Park Management Plan in a participatory manner to take into account the views of different stakeholders. The Plan would include: (i) the conservation and management objectives of the protected area; (ii) co-management agreements negotiated with Park occupants, neighbors, indigenous communities, NGOs, or other interested parties; (iii) procedures for negotiating any future co-management agreements; (iv) rules concerning prohibited or restricted activities and different use zones, according to the PZP; (v) a variety of other information relevant to Park management; (vi) a financial sustainability plan; and (vi) thematic Park implementation plans (see activities foreseen under subcomponent 2.3)
5) Support to Participatory Management of the Park: as part of the implementation of the Management Plan, the project will support the initial implementation of a co-management strategy for the Park by promoting the effective involvement of local populations in the management of the protected area. This will be achieved through the establishment and strengthening of a Park Management Committee, and through the establishment of a formal partnership for sharing the responsibility of Park administration (see activities foreseen under subcomponent 2.3).
Indigenous People and the Park
Current Situation
There are three Mbya Guaraní indigenous lands in the Tabuleiro Park area. Two are located in the buffer zone: Indigenous Land Cachoeira dos Inacios with 68 hectares and about 90 people (municipality of Imaruí/southern region) and Indigenous Land Massiambu with about 5 hectares and approximately 70 people (municipality of Palhoça/northeastern region). The first land is fully regularized and the second is already formally identified. The third area is Indigenous Land Morro dos Cavalos with about 120 hectares and approximately 105 people (municipality of Palhoça/northeastern region); this area, currently within the boundaries of the Park, has also been formally identified and hence is in the process of being de-annexed from the Park.
Anthropological studies date the presence of Guaraní peoples in the Atlantic Forest at least back to the 16th century, prior to the colonization of Brazil. Historically, the Mbya Guaraní adaptation depended on the Atlantic forest’s natural resources, and their economic systems are primarily oriented to subsistence production. However, after colonization, with the major reduction of the Atlantic forest and the relatively small indigenous lands provided to the Guaraní, the aboriginal adaptation was largely unsustainable and most southern Guaraní today are impoverished. Further details on the history and current situation of the Guaraní in Santa Catarina are provided in Annex 13 of the Microbacias 2 PAD.
Actions Relevant to the Livelihood Concerns of Indigenous People
FATMA fully recognises the significance of the customary use of forest resources by the Mbya Guaraní groups and the need for long-term sustainable management of their land, as well as the need to support their transition to sustainable livelihoods suitable for their relatively small areas. In this context, representatives from the Mbya Guaraní communities participated actively in the discussions held during the project preparation workshops, and provided substantive inputs for project design. As a result, the project would support technical assistance and small investments to implement a demonstrative and pilot land management model for sustainable agro-forestry in one of the Indigenous Lands in the Park buffer zone. It is expected that this activity would contribute to increased efficiency of resource use, thus reducing dependence of indigenous peoples on extractive activities from the Park. Investments would consist of small works and equipment for soil conservation and reforestation (see activities foreseen under subcomponent 3.3). The activity would be implemented in a participatory manner, with pilot and site selection discussed and endorsed by the indigenous communities, in accordance with the Indigenous People’s Strategy designed and consulted for Microbacias 2 and detailed in Annex 13 of that project’s PAD and summarized in Annex 11 of the project proposal.
In addition, the project would support effective participation of these indigenous groups in project management at the decision-making level, through their representation in the Project Steering Committee (PSC) to be established upon project approval. The PSC would be assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee (including a representative from the UFSC's Ethnology Unit under the University Museum), which together would seek appropriate solutions to concerns related to the Park area's indigenous populations in order to strengthen the linkages between the Park and the indigenous lands, and to increase partnerships and collaborative arrangements that would enable the indigenous peoples to continue their traditional use of Park resources in a manner that is both sustainable and consistent with their traditional ways of life."
Implementation Responsibilities
Depending on the specific task, the activities outlined above would be carried out either by FATMA staff or consultants (including NGOs), or by EPAGRI, SEBRAE, CPPA and UFSC staff, the latter being responsible for the coordination of the activities benefiting the indigenous Mbya Guaraní groups (see detailed list of responsibilities in Annex 7). Technical assistance for pilot project preparation and implementation would be provided by public or private extensionists supported under the project (with their work supervised by EPAGRI and SEBRAE), and pilots would be reviewed by the PSC. Non-indigenous people eligible for alternative livelihoods, i.e., direct beneficiaries of pilot-projects, would have to assume an environmental counterpart to be defined by direct negotiation, based on compliance with the environmental legislation (e.g. recovery of the riparian forests within their farms, reforestation of hillsides, etc.).
Monitoring and Evaluation
Through the Project Unit (PU), FATMA would monitor the progress of the specific steps noted above for addressing sustainable livelihood issues (see M&E activities in Chapter VI). Together with the World Bank, they would carefully review the progress achieved in each of these steps during supervision visits, particularly during the Mid-term Evaluation, and make any appropriate adjustments. It is anticipated that both an environmental specialist and a social scientist representing the World Bank would make at least one supervision visit per year.
Annex 4: Map of Tabuleiro State Park
Map 1. Tabuleiro State Park
Annex 5: Map of Zoning Scheme
Map 2. Tabuleiro Park Zoning Scheme
Errata/change in title of zones: Conservation Zone (instead of Primitive); Preservation Zone (instead of Intangible); Historical-Cultural Zone remains as before; Extensive (and eventually Intensive) Use Zone (instead of Extensive) Rehabilitation Zone (instead of Recovery); and Special Rehabilitation Zone (instead of Special Recovery).
[pic]
Annex 6: Map of Socio-economic Regions
Map 3. Socio-economic Regions around the Park
Annex 7: Project Management Structure
Project coordination, management and implementation would be the overall responsibility of the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA). Co-management and financial administration would be undertaken by the Small Business Support Service of Santa Catarina (SEBRAE). The decentralized execution of the project would be supported by government and non-government institutions (project co-executors), including local offices of the participating State agencies (FATMA, CPPA, EPAGRI and the State Attorney’s Thematic Office), as well as SEBRAE and muncipalities. Local NGOs would participate through the Park Management Committee or be contracted to execute specific project activities such as organizing environmental education events. The project would be implemented under a SEBRAE arrangement for procurement, administrative, and financial management functions. Under the arrangement, SEBRAE would follow Bank guidelines for the procurement of goods and services. A small Project Management Unit (PMU) would be established within FATMA (see detailed PMU responsiblity below). FATMA would be responsible for executing project activities and for overseeing the procurement of goods and services, according to the Procurement Plan approved by the World Bank. Direct Disbursements to SEBRAE are expected to be requested by the PMU on the basis of the semi-annual disbursement projections included in the PMR.
| |
|PMU (FATMA/SEBRAE) |
Co-executors with
FATMA:
Under the authority of FATMA, and with full support form SEBRAE (who would be responsible for procurement, administrative, and financial management functions), the PMU would: (i) oversee, coordinate, administer and monitor the project; (ii) consolidate the beneficiaries' demands, and discuss/agree these with the Project Steering Committee (PSC); (iii) prepare and submit the Annual Operational Plan (POA) to the PSC for analysis/comments, and to FATMA Director of Studies and Protected Areas (DEAM) for final and approval; (iv) estimate the project’s financial requirements; (v) execute all project contracts and acquisitions (technical assistance/consultants, training/workshops, procurement of goods, etc), according to the approved POAs; (vi) promote institutional coordination among the other implementing agencies; (vii) prepare statements of account for the World Bank and execute procurement procedures; (vii) prepare management reports for submission to the World Bank and to the State (FATMA and SDS) and Federal Government (SEAIN) institutions; (ix) perform project related tasks, as designated by FATMA Director (DEAM) and PSC. The PMU would also contract all services for external project evaluation and financial audit.
The Project Steering Committee (PSC) would include representatives from: FATMA (DEAM Director/Chair of PSC), EPAGRI (rural extension and agricultural research agency), State Secretariat of Environment (SDS), State Secretariat of Agriculture (SAR), Sate Environmental Police (CPPA), SEBRAE, State Committee of the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve (CERBMA/SC), Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council, one representative from each of the nine municipalities of the park area, one representative of farmers associations, one representative from local environmental NGOs; one representative of indigenous groups; one representative from farmers; and one representative from the Federation of Environmental NGOs in Santa Catarina (FEEC). The PSC would: (i) review POAs and suggest changes accordingly; (ii) assist the Project Coordinator and PMU to ensure inter-institutional coordination and effective implementation by project executors; and (iii) assist with recommendations in the establishment of the future Park Management Committee. The State Attorney’s Thematic Office would participate in the PSC as an observer.
Responsibilitites for Project Execution
|Project Activity |Responsibility for execution |Project Activity |Responsibility for execution |
| |FATMA – overall responsibility |Activity 3.1.6 & Activity 3.1.7|FATMA |
| |SEBRAE – Project financial |Activity 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 |EPAGRI, in technical coordination with |
| |administration | |FATMA |
|Activity 1.1.1 & |CPPA |Activity 3.3.1 |FATMA and EPAGRI, with technical advise from|
|Activity 1.1.2 | | |the UFSC’s Ethnology Unit |
|Activity 1.2.1 & Activity 1.2.2 |FATMA |Activity 3.3.2 |EPAGRI in coordination with FATMA and with |
| | | |technical advise from the UFSC’s Ethnology |
| | | |Unit |
|Activity 2.1.1 & |FATMA, with technical support from |Activity 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.1, |FATMA |
|Activity 2.1.2 |EPAGRI for land use mapping |4.2.2 e 4.3.1 |4.1: FATMA with administrative support from |
| | | |SEBRAE |
|Activity 2.1.3 & |FATMA and State Attorney’s Office |Activity 4.3.2 |FATMA |
|Activity 2.1.4 |(Inspector General’s Office) | | |
|Activity 2.2.1 & Activity 2.2.2 |SEBRAE and FATMA in close |Activity 4.3.3 |FATMA |
| |coordination with EPAGRI | | |
|Activitys 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.1, |FATMA |Activity 4.3.4 |FATMA |
|2.4.2, 2.4.3, 3.1.1, & 3.1.2 | | | |
|Activity 3.1.3, & |EPAGRI, with technical support from| | |
|Activity 3.1.4 |FATMA and SEBRAE | | |
|Activity 3.1.5 |FATMA, with technical support from | | |
| |EPAGRI | | |
Annex 8: List of Stakeholders and Institutions
The following list includes all government and non-government institutions which, through public meetings, workshops and seminars, participated in the process of public consultation and participation in support of the Park, initiated in 1997.
|INSTITUTION (Gov and NGO) |Field |
|Fundação do Meio Ambiente do Estado de SC- FATMA (Gov) |Technical/Governmental |
|Secretaria de Estado do Desenvolvimento Social, Urbano e Meio Ambiente – SDS |Political/Governmental |
|Companhia de Polícia de Proteção Ambiental - CPPA (Gov) |Police/Governmental |
|Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária e Extensão Rural -EPAGRI |Technical/Governmental |
|Secretaria de Estado da Agricultura e Política Agricola – SAR |Technical/Governmental |
|Promotoria Temática do Parque do Tabuleiro (Ministério Público) (Gov) |Juridical (State Attorney) |
|Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária - INCRA |Technical/Governmental |
|Associação In’digena Guarani Mbya |Indigenous Association |
|National Indigenous Peoples Foundation - FUNAI |Governmental IP institution |
|Instituto Synthesis (NGO) |Technical/Environmental |
|Jornal Espinheira (local newspaper) |Publication/Community |
|KLIMATA Centro de Estudos Ambientais (NGO) |Environmental |
|Lagoa Clube de Vôo Livre (NGO) |Environmental |
|Madereira Brasil Pinho (private sector) |Private Enterprise |
|Ministério Público Federal (Gov) |Juridical |
|Monitores de Educação Ambiental do PEST - municípios de Florianópolis, Palhoça, Paulo |Technical/Community |
|Lopes, Garopaba, Imaruí, São Martinho, São Bonifácio, Águas Mornas e Santo Amaro da | |
|Imperatriz. | |
|Mormaii (NGO) |Private Enterprise |
|Movimento Grito das Águas (NGO) |Environmental |
|Municipalidad de Alto Verde - Paraguay |Visiting/Guest |
|Paróquia da Vargem do Cedro (Church) |Community |
|Paz na Terra (NGO) |Private Enterprise |
|Pisicultura Panamá (private sector) |Private Enterprise |
|Pousada Boliche Guarda do Embaú (hotel) |Private Enterprise |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Águas Mornas – PMA (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Florianópolis – PMF (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Garopaba – PMG (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Imaruí – PMI (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Palhoça – PMP (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Paulo Lopes – PMPL (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Santo Amaro da Imperatriz - PMSto |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de São Bonifácio – PMSB (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de São Martinho – PMSM (local Gov) |Political/Community |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Águas de Lindóia – SP (local Gov) |Visiting/Guest |
|Prefeitura Municipal de Sto André – SP (local Gov) |Visiting/Guest |
|Pro Cosara Asociacion pro Cordillera San Rafael - Paraguay |Visiting/Guest |
|Procuradoria Estadual de Justiça (Gov) |Juridical |
|Procuradoria Geral do Estado (Gov) |Juridical |
|Procuradoria Temática do Parque Estadual da Serra do Tabuleiro (Ministério Público |Juridical |
|Estadual) (Gov) | |
|Recreart (NGO) |Private Enterprise |
|Resort Ilha do Papagaio (Private Sector) |Private Enterprise |
|Santa Catarina Turismo S/A – SANTUR (Tourism agent) |Technical/Governmental |
|Secretaria da Justiça e Cidadania de Florianópolis |Juridical/Community |
|Secretaria de Agricultura Abastecimento e Pesca do Município de Palhoça (Gov) |Technical/Community |
|Secretaria de Estado do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Integração ao Mercosul – SDE (Gov)|Technical/Governmental |
|Secretaria de Estado do Desenvolvimento Social, Urbano e Meio Ambiente – SDS (Gov) |Technical/Governmental |
|Secretaria de Turismo – PMF (Gov) |Technical/Community |
|Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Município de Palhoça (local Gov) |Technical/Community |
|Secretaria do Patrimônio da União (federal Gov) |Technical/Governmental |
|Secretaria Municipal de Agricultura de Imaruí (local Gov) |Technical/Community |
|Secretaria Municipal de Educação Cultura e Turismo de Paulo Lopes (local Gov) |Technical/Community |
|Secretaria Municipal de Educação e do Desporto de Florianópolis (local Gov) |Technical/Governmental |
|Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas – SEBRAE (NGO/Private Sector)|Technical/Private |
|Sindicato dos Trabalhadores Rurais de Águas Mornas |Community |
|Somar Parque do Tabuleiro (trade union) |Environmental |
|Trekking das Águas (NGO) |Private Enterprise |
|Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina - UDESC |Technical/Scientific |
|Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina - UNISUL |Technical/Scientific |
|Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI |Technical/Scientific |
|Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina – UFSC’s Ethnology Unit (under the University |Technical/Scientific |
|Museum) | |
|Usina de Triagem de Lixo PM de Palhoça (local Gov) |Enterprise/Environmental/ |
| |Community |
Annex 9: Social Diagnostic Executive Summary
Stakeholders. The following major stakeholders were identified within the Park and its buffer zone: landowners (small, medium and large), small farmers, agricultural workers, indigenous people, public institutions, NGOs, universities, and urban and semi-urban citizens from the nine municipalities.
Population growth. With the exception of the State capital - Florianópolis (the high numbers for which are exceptional for the park region overall) - population in the other eight municipalities of the Park region grew from 76,756 residents to 138,117 between 1970 and 1996. Most population growth occurred in the dormitory communities and beach areas closest to the metropolitan center (see North and Northeast Regions below).
Social Structure and Employment. The economy of the Park area revolves around a set of activities developed in the nearby State capital, Florianópolis (20 Km away), with the tertiary sector – commerce and services – being the principal activities that generate employment and economic wealth[24]. In this part of the State, 57 localities/communities were identified which were classified into five socio-economic "regions", considering their differing economic development and physical-environmental characteristics (see Map in Annex 6). Major findings for each region are summarized below.
Socio-economic regions of the Park area:
North Region: This region is part of and directly influenced by the greater metropolitan area of Florianópolis. It is marked by rapid population growth and relatively unregulated residential land uses. This region also includes the urban green belt that supplies produce to the metropolitan area. There is also growth in the service sector due to the concentration of hotels associated with the thermal springs, as well as the expansion of vacation homes for the urban population. There are 15 communities in this region, all of which are outside the Park, although six are near the border.
Northeast Region: The scenic qualities of the coast relatively close to the metropolitan area and good roads (BR-101 highway) are contributing to this region becoming primarily beach communities. There is still one remaining fishing community but fishing activities are being circumscribed by tourism. Socially and culturally this region is very diverse because it is undergoing rapid transformation. There are 20 communities here, with seven completely or partially within the Park, while another 12 are near the park border. In terms of conflicts with the protected area, this is the region with the greatest diversity of interests, many of which are at odds with conservation goals.
This region is also characterized by the presence of two Mbya Guaraní Indigenous Lands that are in the process of being regularized in the municipality of Palhoça: Massiambu is outside the park,and Morro dos Calvalos is inside the park but will eventually be de-annexed. Home to some 195 indigenous people, these villages are linked politically and religiously to a third Mbya Guaraní area named Cachoeira dos Inacios in the southern region. See Annex 11 for further information.
Central-South Region: Due to the BR-101 highway, this region is also being impacted by the metropolitan center to which it supplies labor. It is a region in economic transition, attempting to develop alternatives other than primary sector ones. It includes six communities, none of which are within the park and only one near the boundary. In recent years there has been a trend toward expansion of extensive rice cultivation involving intensive use of pesticides and herbicides that drain into the Park through the Rio da Madre.
Southern Region: This is the poorest region and is characterized by primary sector activities, primarily subsistence agriculture. This marginalized area is experiencing considerable rural exodus. There are five communities here, two of them close to the park border, as well as the Indigenous Land Cachoeira dos Inacios (located just outside the buffer zone) that has already been fully regularized (population near 90, and consisting of 68 hectares).
Western Region: This area was settled primarily by German immigrants; its economy is based mainly on cottage industries that produce a variety of products for subsistence and the market. In the past, the timbering sector was active and there are still several lumber mills working with timber from northern Brazil or from reforested areas. Animal husbandry is very important and expanding, with a trend towards establishing the region as a milk-producing center, with industries for producing dairy products. Plans to soon pave access to the BR-282 highway should increase the fruit and vegetable production that is already present for supplying the metropolitan region. There is also a potential to develop agro-eco-tourism, which is already under discussion. There are 11 communities here, of which only one is located completely within the Park. This village has a mixture of family farms that produce fruits and vegetables, some organically and others conventionally with an intensive use of herbicides and pesticides. In addition, there are other producers who live outside their productive unit, as well as areas destined for vacation homes and lodging.
Social organization. The social assessment identified the important role that religious institutions, primarily Catholic churches, play in the social life of the region. Nearly 85% of festivals and events are of a religious nature. In practically all the locations there is some type of community organization, even if not always in the form of a formal association. There are various types of community organizations in the different regions. For example, neighborhood associations have a strong presence in the Northeastern and Northern region, due to the population growth, but are less present in the other regions. Farmer associations are the principal form of organization in the Western region, reflecting the lifestyle of the agricultural families and local communities; this type of organization is practically absent in the other regions of the Park. And fishing associations are restricted to the coastal regions in the North and Northeast.
The presence of environmental organizations is relatively recent, with four in the Northeastern region of the Park. There are apparently two principal reasons for their growth: the existence of complex and diversified environmental tensions in the region related to the Protected Area; and the presence of new residents and even summer residents who come from the large urban centers and often have environmental concerns. Local leadership patterns tend to be related to specific interests, usually mobilized by local issues that unite allies to the work or causes involved. Although the dominance of this type of leadership is present in all regions of the Park, it tends to be more intense in the Northeast due to the previously mentioned characteristics. In contrast, the presence of political leaders or those from specific parties is discrete in all of the locations, as is that of religious leaders, who were only identified in the North and Western regions.
Land Tenure Issues. Finally, it is important to highlight the situation of land occupation and ownership in the Park. The Park has a total area of 87,405 hectares. While the state of Santa Catarina has title to some 10,000 hectares, and an estimated 12,000 hectares are unoccupied, another 65,000 (1,741 titles) are privately held. Only 68 hectares within the park pertain to indigenous lands as the other two areas being regularized are in the Park buffer zone (indigenous lands rights supercede previous designations). Nearly 50% of the private properties are found in the Northeastern and North region. Nevertheless, most of these are no larger than ten hectares. On the other hand, some 7% of the properties are in properties of more than 100 ha, and occupy 67% of the Park’s total area. Of these, it should be highlighted that 13 properties of more than 1,000 hectares account for more than 25% of the Park’s total area.
The Government has pledged that there would be no involuntary resettlement on the aforementioned 65,000 ha of privately held lands. Instead, it followed the recommendations stemming from the Park Zoning Plan, i.e., that conflicts over land use be resolved through a process of gradual transition to more compatible uses. This process would be legally regulated through the conservation agreements (instead of resettlements) between FATMA and land owners, through Terms of Adjustment of Conduct (TACs) and Terms of Agreement (TCs) – for distinction between TACs and TCs, see footnote on page 8. The recently created State Attorney’s Thematic Office for Tabuleiro Park-related lawsuits has initiated its work with active participation in the process of conflict resolution, and is playing a key role in proposing and enforcing TACs/TCs envisioned for the next ten years. This has recently been confirmed by the issuing of 22 and 40 TACs in 2003 and 2004, respectively, in the TSP buffer zone; they were signed and agreed between the Government (through the State Attorney’s Thematic Office and the State Environmental Management Foundation) and land-owners.
Annex 10: Microbacias 2 Project Description Summary
(Natural Resources Management and Poverty Alleviation Project - WB Project ID: PO43869)
Project Objectives
The project objective is to reduce rural poverty in the State of Santa Catarina, while improving the management of natural resources. Poor farmers' families incomes and livelihoods would be improved by (i) supporting Government efforts to integrate environmental and social sustainability into development and poverty reduction strategies, (ii) enhancing local governance and community participation in decision-making, (iii) reversing land degradation and better protection of the State’s natural resources and (iv) making improvements to income-generating opportunities and living conditions for the rural poor.
Project Description
The project would is being implemented over six years at a base cost of US$ 106.1 million. Its goal is to relieve poverty and improve living conditions among small and marginal farmers, rural laborers and indigenous people in the State of Santa Catarina. Compared to the previous Land Management II Project (LM II, Loan 3160-BR), this successor project will address more directly the constraints that are the current causes of poverty among this target group. Poverty would be reduced by: (i) supporting State Government efforts to integrate environmental and social sustainability into strategies to alleviate poverty and improve rural livelihoods; (ii) promoting enhanced decentralization and community participation in decision-making; (iii) reducing degradation and improving protection of the State’s natural resources; and (iv) improving incomes and living conditions for the rural poor. The project is being implemented in about half of the 1,683 microcatchments into which the State is divided, covering an area of approximately 4 million hectares. Although the target groups are the poorest segments of the population living in those areas (about 80,000 families including indigenous families), the project encourages the participation of all members of the microcatchments, especially in regard to environmental activities. The project’s direct beneficiaries are estimated to number approximately 105,000 families. The project has four components:
(i) Institutional Development and Organization (US$ 25.4 million; 23.9% of base cost): An extensive training sub-component is financing preparation of both implementers and beneficiaries for behavioral changes and new modes of operation that are implicit in the new technical strategy. Training of 75,000 farmers and 14,650 municipal leaders in the principles and practice of rural diagnosis, group formation and operation, participatory planning and stakeholder monitoring is being complemented by appropriate practical or technical courses, such as techniques for sustainable land management, product diversification and agro-processing. A sub-component for environmental education boosts public awareness of, and commitment to, solving environmental problems in general, reaching the above farmers and leaders plus some 3,000 other stakeholders. To allow schools within the benefiting microcatchment areas to more easily comply with Federal laws on environmental teaching, 1,000 environmental teaching projects are also included. A rural extension sub-component has as its main objective the promotion of the project among the rural poor by providing information, motivating decision-making bodies about the project, assisting group formation, assisting beneficiaries in preparing microcatchment and farm plans and assembling the community demands for social as well as technical and financial support. This sub-component supports rural extension and technical assistance to individuals and communities. An adaptive and social research sub-component responds to specific technology adaptation and information needs arising from demand-led participatory development programs. A technical assistance for structural adjustment sub-component finances special studies and consultancies to assist the State in its structural reform efforts.
(ii) Rural Investment (US$ 68.9 million; 64.9 % of base cost): A Rural Development Fund (FDR) is the instrument employed to induce the adoption of the project strategy within the benefited microcatchment. The fund contemplates three categories of grants: (i) those for home improvements such as piped water, sanitation or waste disposal as well as minor structural improvements to housing (available only to poorer farmers and landless laborers) residing in the microcatchment); (ii) those used for conservation and environmental purposes such as reforestation, protection of water sources or schemes to increase biodiversity; and (iii) those for income generation, whether through improvements to production systems, value-added schemes or job creation. Use of grants are demand-led, and a consequence of the microcatchment development plans and individual plans.
(iii) Environmental Management (US$ 4.1 million; 3.8% of base cost): A sub-component for watershed management is expanding the incipient State efforts of integrating environmental and river basin management policies and laws. It pilots the preparation and implementation of three river basin sub-catchment plans, using project microcatchment plans as the building blocks. Selection criteria for the watersheds/sub-catchments include the importance of the habitats they contain, threats to biodiversity, their current under-representation among existing State PA System, poor water quality due to poorly managed pig waste or pesticide use, a high concentration of the target group and the prior existence of local commitment to or implementation capacity for environmental activities. A sub-component to create ecological corridors and protected areas is overseeing preparation of the regulations and its dissemination and the application of the newly enacted State PA System law and the recently enacted "Lei do ICMS Ecológico" to which Santa Catarina is committed. This isfostering the creation of public and private PAs to be able to promote and develop the ecological corridors. One existing State Park (Tabuleiro) is being consolidated. Promotion of new public and private PAs, as well as consolidation of two ecological corridors, is beginning. All project interventions in the Tabuleiro Park also complement the conservation management activities supported under the GEF MSP (WB as IA), as well as the institutional strengthening and Park infrastructure works planned under the KFW-supported "Pro-Mata Atlantica Project."
The project interventions in the Tabuleiro Park include: (i) strengthening of existing Park visitors infrastructure (small works), including the construction of interpretative trails and two thematic centers in the buffer zone and equipment for these centers and for fire control; and (ii) expansion of training (in participatory Park management), environmental education and dissemination activities planned under the GEF project, by supporting: (a) the organization of about 60 events (workshops, field trips, courses) involving about 50 community leaders, 270 schoolteachers, 60 municipal and Park staff and other 220 local stakeholders; and (b) publications and other Park promotional materials (10,000 folders, 10,000 books, 5,000 posters, 6,000 agendas, 5,000 T-shirts, 8,000 post cards, etc).
(iv) Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (US$ 7.8 million; 7.3% of base cost): A sub-component for project management is setting up and operating the PMU at state level and 14 subsidiary units at regional levels. Regional units act as executive arms for the stakeholder bodies responsible for participative planning, decision-making and oversight of implementation at state, regional, municipal and microcatchment levels. Project monitoring, evaluation and the distribution of findings are supported under a sub-component for monitoring and evaluation. A sub-component for community organization provides separate resources for the creation and operation of all categories of stakeholder bodies. The PMU is under the Secretariat for Rural Development and Agriculture (SDA) and its head is appointed by the Secretary of Rural Development and Agriculture. The State and regional units are largely staffed by secondments from implementing partner organizations within the Government, particularly the State Agricultural Research and Rural Extension Enterprise (EPAGRI), SDA, the State Secretariat for Social and Urban Development and Environment (SDS) and the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA).
Annex 11:
Summary of Indigenous People’s Strategy for the Santa Catarina Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Reduction Project (Microbacias 2)
Activities carried out with indigenous people under the MSP Brazil-Tabuleiro State Park are undertaken via the complementary operation Brazil-Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Project (Microbacias 2). The detailed indigenous people’s strategy for Microbacias-2 is available as Annex 13 of its Project Appraisal Document (PAD) dated March 27, 2002, but is also summarized here below.
About 94% of the approximately 7,000 IP of Santa Catarina live in 10 regularized indigenous lands which comprise about 40,000 hectares. It is important to recognize that these territories do not provide the natural resource base that could support the land extensive aborginal adaptations. Currently, the Kaingang, Xokleng and Guaraní peoples of Santa Catarina live by a mix of economic activities including extraction, subsistence and some commercialized agriculture (e.g. tobacco), non-agricultural income generating activities (e.g. handicrafts), periodic wage labor and public sector jobs (e.g. teachers and health agents).
There are three Mbya Guaraní indigenous lands in the Tabuleiro Park area. Two are located in the buffer zone: Indigenous Land Cachoeira dos Inacios with 68 hectares and about 90 people (municipality of Imaruí/southern region) and Indigenous Land Massiambu with about 5 hectares and approximately 70 people (municipality of Palhoça/northeastern region). The first land is fully regularized and the second is already formally identified. The third area is Indigenous Land Morro dos Cavalos with about 120 hectares and approximately 105 people (municipality of Palhoça/northeastern region); this area, currently within the park, has also been formally identified and hence is in the process of being de-annexed from the park.
The IP of Santa Catarina, similar to the non-Indian marginalized rural population of the state, live in a situation of dire poverty and significant degradation of their natural resources. Hence, considering Microbacias 2’s objectives of reducing poverty and improving natural resource management in rural areas, IP are included as one of the priority beneficiary populations of the project. It is not anticipated that the project will generate any negative effects on IP that would need to be mitigated.
It is important to note that the Microbacias 2 project constitutes the first time the State of Santa Catarina is working directly with IP on sustainable development. One of the basic elements of the State Government of Santa Catarina Plan is a proposal to cooperate in the process of indigenous development, respecting the principle of cultural pluralism and respect for the environment. Specifically, it is also the first time that State’s agriculture and development and environment agencies are including IP, as per their interest, for extension, technical and organizational assistance and other assistance to help improve their production activities, natural resource management and conservation and agricultural and non-agricultural income generation.
The project offers a variety of support to IP in targeted microcatchments, including, among others: assistance in establishing or strengthening local organizations (Components 1 and 4); support for special studies or diagnostics and formulation of Microcatchment Development Plans (Component 1), and in some cases river basin planning (Component 3); technical assistance for implementing specific Development Plans for their areas (Component 2); as well as access to the Rural Investment Fund (RIF) to help finance activities in improving production, environmental rehabilitation, improving housing and sanitation and income generation activities (Component 2).
Consultations carried out with the three indigenous groups during project preparation demonstrated that they are positive about participating in the project; more specifically, the indigenous groups welcomed potential assistance with environmental management, production, housing and income generation and viewed favorably the project’s participatory methodology and decentralized decision-making structure. They also expressed interest in working directly with state agencies, in particular EPAGRI (technical assistance and extension).
It is also important to note that the project overall is a “process project” (i.e., in continuous evolution) and that the indigenous strategy is to maximize IPs’ access to on-going project activities described in this project document, making adjustments as needed (described below) to ensure that: their socio-cultural values and organizations are respected; they are empowered in the decision-making processes of the project; special considerations for natural resource use in indigenous lands are taken into consideration; and that special monitoring of IP activities is assured. The targeting procedures for the project ensure that the presence of IP in a municipality or microcatchment will function as a weighted criterion for the targeting of that area for inclusion in the project.
It should be recognized that given the broad range and demand-driven nature of the project, it will be able to assist indigenous communities with the majority of their concerns that were articulated during the consultations. The project addresses social concerns (e.g., improvement of housing and food self sufficiency), economic issues (e.g., strengthening income generating enterprises) and environmental concerns (e.g., reintroduction of native fauna species), thus contributing to improving the overall sustainability of indigenous communities.
Annex 12: Letters of Commitment (Translations)
Letter 1: FATMA
Florianópolis, October 2004
To: The World Bank
Dear Madam or Sir,
The government of the state of Santa Catarina, through the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA), hereby confirms its commitment to act in an integrated manner for the development of actions of biodiversity conservation and environmental control though licensing, fiscalization and monitoring activities, employing all efforts to fully achieve the objectives and results contemplated by the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project, currently under preparation and for which the state government is requesting funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF).
The state government recognizes the necessity to combine efforts to effectively implement the Tabuleiro State Park Protected Areas, administered by FATMA. As such, in addition to this project and other actions of environmental control, FATMA is co-executor of the Program of Environmental Recovery and Support to Small Scale Rural Producers (PRAPEM/Microbacias II), under the responsibility of SAR, where it is developing activities of the Environmental Management component, and, in particular, activities related to community mobilization, environmental education, and strengthening infrastructure for visitors. In addition, FATMA is executing the Protection of the Atlantic Forest in Santa Catarina project financed by Germany’s KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) which targets five protected areas, among them the Tabuleiro State Park. Due to the convergent objectives of the projects, relevant themes are addressed in a complementary manner by these initiatives, which is absolutely necessary for the consolidation of protected areas.
The co-financing of US$853,203 for the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project, coming from the state budget, will be used primarily for recurring costs for project coordination personnel, technical studies and discussions, and to provide support to participatory planning and management of the initial development and implementation actions of the Park Management Plan as well as for actions of sustainable development in the Park’s buffer zone and for the monitoring, evaluation and dissemination of project information and the production of promotional material.
Sincerely,
Jânio Wagner Constante
General Director, FATMA
Ana Verônica Cimardi
Director of Environmental Studies, FATMA
Letter 2: SAR
Florianópolis, 7 October 2004
To: The World Bank
Dear Madam or Sir,
The State Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Policy (SAR) hereby confirms its commitment to act in an integrated manner for the development of actions foreseen in the Program of Environmental Recovery and Support to Small Scale Rural Producers (PRAPEM/Microbacias II), under the responsibility of SAR, and the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project, under preparation by the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA) and for which the state government is requesting funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF).
The state government recognizes the necessity to combine efforts to effectively implement the Tabuleiro State Park Protected Areas, administered by FATMA. Considering the convergent objectives of FATMA and SAR, relevant themes are addressed in a complementary manner by these institutions.
The Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project will build on actions developed by PRAPEM/Microbacias II, reinforcing the environmental dimension of that project. As such, maximization of the environmental benefits delivered by the project may be assured, especially in the areas of biodiversity conservation and recovery of degraded areas with actions that lead to the consolidation of Conservation Areas. On the other hand, the combating of the causes of poverty of the beneficiaries of PRAPEM/Microbacias II through the state government’s support of actions which (i) integrate environmental and social development with strategies of poverty reduction and improvement of the conditions of life of rural producers, (ii) promote decentralization and community participation in decisionmaking, (iii) reduce degradation and improve activities to protect the state’s natural resources, such as water and soil conservation and the reorientation of productive activities such as the adoption of natural agriculture, (iv) generate increased incomes and higher quality of life of the rural poor, including in those microcatchments located in the Park’s buffer zone, is recognized as an integral condition to the success of projects of consolidation of conservations areas.
The cofinancing of US$271,317 for the Tabuleiro project, coming from PRAPEM/Microbacias II, will be used primarily to support actions involved in the development and initial implementation of the Park Management Plan and the development of capacity-building programs and pilot activities for sustainable development in the Park buffer zone, planned in the mentioned project, without undermining the targets established in the Loan Agreement. Such activities include community conservation activities (including indigenous communities) involving continuous orientation and mobilization of the local community groups, the financing of small projects of environmental education elaborated by the communities, identification and selection of project pilot areas and implementation of pilot projects for the adoption of conservation practices, within parameters to be tested and validated by the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project.
Sincerely,
Moacir Sopelsa
State Secretary of Agriculture and Rural Policy
Neuto Fausto de Conto
State Executive Secretary of Prapem/Microbacias 2
Letter 3: SEBRAE
Florianópolis, 20 October 2004
To: The World Bank
Dear Madam or Sir,
The Small Business National Support Service (SEBRAE), which provides support to programs of sustainable development in the state of Santa Catarina, hereby confirms its commitment to act in an integrated manner for the development of actions foreseen in the Programa de Vida Sustentável no Meio Rural em Santa Catarina (Vida Rural Sustentável), as well as its commitment to carry out all financial administration of the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project, under preparation by the State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA) and for which the state government requested funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF).
SEBRAE, which has experience in the coordination and management of numerous projects which provide support to the development of small business all over Brazil, as well as in the promotion of cooperation between Brazil’s private and public sectors and principal research institutions, recognizes the necessity to combine efforts with FATMA to effectively implement the Tabuleiro State Park Protected Areas, administered by FATMA. Considering the convergent objectives of FATMA and SEBRAE, relevant themes are addressed in a complementary manner by these institutions.
The Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project will build on actions developed by SEBRAE, reinforcing the environmental dimension. As such, maximization of the environmental benefits delivered by Vida Rural Sustentável may be assured, especially as relates to sustainable development activities in the Park buffer zone for the promotion of agro-ecology, improving the economic and environmental sustainability of the supply and agriculture systems. A series of qualitative measures will be undertaken to identify the needs and priorities of small producers who depend on the natural resources for their livelihoods, as well as to identify existing problems, and the level of interest of small producers in adopting agro-ecological practices, thereby diminishing the pressure and risks of degradation in the protected areas. All these elements are indispensable for the consolidation of these protected areas.
The cofinancing of US$229,542 for the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project, under the Programa Vida Rural Sustentável, will be used primarily to support actions involved in the development and initial implementation of the Park Management Plan and the development of capacity-building programs and pilot activities for sustainable development in the Park buffer zone, planned in the mentioned project, without undermining the targets established in the Loan Agreement. Such activities include technical, financial and investment assistance for the adoption of agro-ecology systems and ecotourism practices, identifying markets for agro-ecology services and products, providing technical assistance support for the preparation of projects (small infrastructure and organic cultivation) financial assistance, providing financial, technical and management assistance for the implementation of agro-ecology systems (particularly for organic agriculture) including systems of planting, processing of rural products on a small scale and marketing assistance, technical assistance for the adoption of rural tourism, construction of a nursery for medicinal plants for the local population and information campaigns to encourage the consumption of organic products by the local populations. In addition, to value natural resources, cultural values, traditional arts and related themes, capacity-building activities to encourage the participation of producers in the program’s activities will be undertaken. All of the activities developed in the Park buffer zone under the Programa Vida Rural Sustentável will occur within parameters to be tested and validated by the Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation project.
Sincerely,
Carlos Guilherme Zigelli
Managing Director
José Alaor Bernardes
Financial Director
Anacleto Ângelo Ortigar
Technical Director
Annex 13: Detailed Description of Baseline Activities
Implementation of Emergency Actions (Component 1)
Over the last nine years, the CPPA has played a key role in the vigilance and monitoring of environmental legislation compliance in the Park area by providing routine and systematic control of poaching, deforestation and other threats which have their origins within the Park or in its buffer zone. In coordination with the CPPA, FATMA's staff from the Protected Areas Management Unit also carries out some complementary activities of Park inspection. During the life of the Project, the CPPA and FATMA will continue to carry out these activities. FATMA also executes the Program of Environmental Licensing in the Park buffer zone under which it grants or refuses site feasibility, installation, and operation permits. For activities with a high environmental degradation potential, the evaluation of an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) is required by FATMA as part of the process to obtain a site permit.
FATMA also conducts a Forestry Licensing Program for granting forestry permits in the Park buffer zone, thus preventing additional introduction of exotic species in the Park area.
Development and Initial Implementation of Park Management Plan (Component 2)
Between 1999 and 2000, FATMA produced the Park Zoning Plan, (PZP) which was partially financed by the World Bank through the Land Management II Project and resulted in a number of benefits to the Park, including providing an important basis for Park Management and establishing a format for resolving conflicts over land use. The PZP recommended that such conflicts be resolved through a process of gradual transition to more compatible uses. This process would be legally regulated through conservation agreements between the Government and land owners (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct – TACs). To continue its research efforts in the Park, and in order to systematically assess land and water potential throughout the State, as a non GEF-funded activity, FATMA's Geo-processing Laboratory will prepare over the next four years a series of environmental and land suitability maps for critical municipalities and watersheds of the State, including some of the municipalities located in the Park buffer zone.
EPAGRI has increasingly focused on sustainable agriculture by providing extension assistance to farmers and carrying out adaptive research aimed at securing the livelihoods of rural populations. In the Park buffer zone, EPAGRI is currently executing the state-wide, World Bank-financed Natural Resources Management and Poverty Alleviation Project (Microbacias 2). Under Microbacias 2, EPAGRI, together with the farm community, is carrying out participatory assessments in all relevant/critical microwatersheds of the Park buffer zone with emphasis on local knowledge to enable the local people to make their own appraisal, analysis and microwatershed development plans. The project will be implemented in 880 microwatersheds located in 293 municipalities of Santa Catarina State (including the nine municipalities of the Park buffer zone).
Under the SEBRAE financed Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program (initiated in January 2001), which promotes agro-ecology in 20 municipalities of the State (including 9 in the Park buffer zone), thus increasing ecological and economic sustainability in the food and agriculture systems, a series of qualitative surveys (PRAs) will be carried out to identify the perceived problems, needs and priorities of small farmers who depend on natural resources for their livelihoods.
As a follow-up to the PZP, FATMA, which has accumulated more than 15 years of experience in planning, management and research activities associated with protected areas management, will continue to carry out consultation meetings with local communities to strengthen their involvement in park affairs. In addition, FATMA will carry out a number of studies relevant to the conservation of the Park and will prepare geo-referenced maps for all protected areas of the State.
Under Microbacias 2 Project, FATMA will implement the strengthening of the existing Tabuleiro park visitors infrastructure, through the construction of interpretative trails and two thematic centers in the buffer zone, as well as equipment for these centers
Through its regular program of Environmental Education, FATMA will continue to play a key role in the implementation of community involvement and environmental education activities in the Park area, particularly providing support to a previously created network of voluntary Environmental Community Inspectors. It will also continue to carry out consultation meetings with the Inter-municipal Park Implementation Council and with community leaders to get their views on park management and strengthen their involvement in park affairs.
In the last five years, EPAGRI, in coordination with FATMA, through activities supported under the Land Management II Project and, more recently, under the ongoing Microbacias 2 Project, has carried out a series of environmental education activities in the Park buffer zone aimed at the protection and sustainable use of natural resources, while, at the same time, securing rural people's sustainable livelihoods. FATMA will continue to support capacity building of the above mentioned Environmental Community Inspectors and community leaders, through its regular program and with support from Microbacias 2.
Development of Training Programs and Pilot Projects (Component 3).
EPAGRI has carried out research on the recovery of degraded agricultural land, validating and disseminating technologies for the recovery and sustainable management of degraded soils in various parts of the State, including the Park buffer zone. It has also been actively engaged in research and development of soil conservation strategies in cropping systems. Under Microbacias 2, EPAGRI will continue to provide extension assistance and financial support to farmers and rural communities. Moreover, the Microbacias 2 Rural Investment Fund (FDR) would be the instrument to facilitate the adoption of the proposed project’s strategy within benefited microwatersheds.
Technical and financial assistance will also be provided by SEBRAE under the Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program, with emphasis on agro-ecological systems and on identifying markets for agro-ecological products and services.
The Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), through the Ethnology Unit (under the University Museum) provides technical assistance to the indigenous communities located in the Park area, to ensure that the development process fosters full respect for the human rights and cultural uniqueness of indigenous peoples living in the area, and that these peoples receive culturally-compatible social and economic benefits and do not suffer adverse effects from development projects which may affect their livelihood.
Annex 14: Additional Information on the MSP Project Proposer
1. Full legal name of Institution
Project Proposer: State Environmental Management Foundation (FATMA - Fundação Estadual de Tecnologia em Meio Ambiente) affiliated to Santa Catarina State Secretariat for Social and Urban Development and Environment (SDS)
Project Executing Agencies: FATMA and SEBRAE-SC. SEBRAE-SC is the Santa Catarina Branch of the Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support Service (SEBRAE - Serviço de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas de Santa Catarina): the project will be implemented by FATMA under a SEBRAE arrangement for procurement, administrative, and financial management functions.
2. Background
FATMA was created by legal decree No 662 (30 July 1975), three months before the creation of the Tabuleiro State Park. Working as the executing branch of SDS, FATMA has the primary responsibility for environmental matters within the State of Santa Catarina, including the following types of activities: creation and administration of Protected Areas; designing and coordinating the implementation of ecological corridors; environmental licensing, monitoring and enforcement; environmental education; and target scientific research. For more information, see:
SEBRAE-SC was created in 1990 by legal decree No 99.570 (09 October 1990) with responsibility for supporting the small Brazilian entrepreneur, fostering the development of small-sized business activity throughout the country. Main areas of support include: Training, Credit and Capital, Entrepreneurial Culture, and Local and Sectoral Sustainable Development. In Santa Catarina, it has a strong work program in support of sustainable development, including specific sub-programs on co-operatives formation, leadership, entrepreneurial capacity, local development, handicrafts production, small agro-business, tourism and business administration. For more information, see .
3. Type of organization
FATMA is a government organization within SDS. It has a total of 185 employees (77 Professionals). FATMA works in coordination with other governmental and non-governmental organizations, including those involved in the World Bank-financed Santa Catarina Natural Resources Management and Poverty Alleviation Project (Microbacias 2), which FATMA is one of the Executing Agency. Additional information may be obtained by accessing FATMA web site at
SEBRAE is a non-profit private institution working at national level with the objective of qualifying small entrepreneurs and seeking sustainable development conditions for small businesses. Sebrae’s management structure includes: (i) a National Deliberative Council (CDN), made up of more than 350 institutions represented by the government, business entities, and educational and research institutions; (ii) a Fiscal Council, elected every 2 years by the CDN (5 members and 5 alternate); and (iii) an Executive Board of Directors. Sebrae's central nucleus is located in Brasília and its units are structured and interconnected in all 27 Brazilian states, including Santa Catarina. At the national level, it has a total of around 4,500 employees. In Santa Catarina, SEBRAE-SC has a total of 137 employees (being 80 working at Headquarters in Florianópolis, and 57 in the interior of the State, including in the State area where the Tabuleiro Park is located). The central nucleus operation is carried out by the Executive Board of Directors, made up of a chairman, a technical director, and a financial/administrative director, assisted by technicians who are directly responsible for the development of Sebrae's programs and activities. This structure is basically repeated at the units in the states (including Santa Catarina) that count on their respective deliberative councils (which composition is similar to the national council), superintendencies, and management bodies. All such a structure is geared toward a clear objective: to support and make micro and small enterprises have the best conditions for sustainable development. Additional information may be obtained by accessing SEBRAE web sites at .br (or, brief in English at ). For obtaining Sebrae’s Functional Statement (Statute), see
SEBRAE branch in Santa Catarina (Sebrae-SC):
4. Names of Governing board members, officers and key personnel:
FATMA
|FUNCTION |NAME |e-mail |
|President |Sérgio José Grando |sergiogrando@fatma..br |
|Environmental Studies Department, |Ana Verônica Cimardi |ana@fatma..br |
|Chief | | |
|Pollution Control Department, Chief |Luiz Antonio Garcia Correa |big@fatma..br |
|Administrative Department, Chief |Jânio Wagner Constante |janio@fatma..br |
NATIONAL SEBRAE
|FUNCTION |NAME |e-mail |
|President |Silvano Gianni |Silvano.gianni@.br |
|Technical Department, Chief |Luiz Carlos Barbosa |Luiz.barbosa@.br |
|Administrative Department, Chief |Paulo Tarciso Okamotto |Ptokamotto@.br |
SEBRAE Branch in SANTA CATARINA (SEBRAE-SC)
|FUNCTION |NOME |e-mail |
|Director Superintendent |Carlos Guilherme Zigelli |Zigelli@sc..br |
|Technical Director |Anacleto Ãngelo Ortigara |Anacleto@sc..br |
|Administrative Director |José Alaor Bernardes |Alaor@sc..br |
Responsible Officer at SEBRAE-SC (for responding to the Tabuleiro GEF Project matters):
|FUNCTION |NOME |e-mail |
|Long Term Consultant |Mário César Gesser |Gesser@sc..br |
Responsible Officer at FATMA (for responding to the Tabuleiro GEF Project matters): Ana Verônica Cimardi, Chief of Environmental Studies Department (DEAM)
FATMA Officers/Staff to be involved in the execution of the proposed Tabuleiro GEF Project, under the overall supervision of the Chief of Environmental Studies Department (DEAM):
DEAM Environmental Officers with different expertise (Protected Areas Management, Flora, Fauna, Environmental Education, Environmental Economics, etc): Beloni Teresinha Pauli Marterer, Lenir Alda do Rosário, Maria de Fátima Bleyer Bresola, Márcia Regina Batista, Maris de Fátima Gaio, Shigueko Teresinha Ishiy Fukahori, João Luiz Godinho, Patrícia Maria Soliani Prada, Débora Schaefer and Débora Magali Brasil. DEAM Protected Areas Service Manager: João Augusto Bresola; DEAM Tabuleiro Park Officers: Luis Henrique Fragoas Pimenta and Marcos Adriano Tortato.
5. Membership (total number of members and key members), if applicable
FATMA: not applicable
SEBRAE: the coordination of SEBRAE’S actions and policies is carried out by the National Deliberative Council, made up of more than 350 institutions. In addition, SEBRAE’s revenue is mainly derived from a compulsory contribution incurred on companies' payroll throughout the country (see budget section below).
6. Recent programs/projects/activities
FATMA: Recent projects/programs (or components of projects) implemented by FATMA which were funded by International Financing Institutions (IFI) include:
|Project/Program |IFI |
|Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Reduction - Santa Catarina (43867-BR) (on-going) – |World Bank |
|Ecological Corridors and Protected Area component | |
|NEP II Project (35741-BR): Environmental Assets component for Santa Catarina (on-going) |World Bank |
|Land Management II Santa Catarina Project (3160-BR): comp. Environmental Legislation and Development of|World Bank |
|the Tabuleiro Park Zoning–Scheme | |
|NEP I Project (3173-BR): Altantic Forest component for Santa Catarina |World Bank |
|PDF Block A Grant for the preparation of the proposed GEF Tabuleiro State Park Project |GEF (WB as IA) |
|Feasibility Project to recover degraded areas of coal production in the Southern part of Santa Catarina|IDB / JICA |
|Water Resources Management Project |GTZ |
SEBRAE: Recent/current projects/programs and partnerships implemented/established by SEBRAE which are funded by National or International Organizations include:
|Project/Program |Natioanl and IFI |
|Promos/Sebrae Project to support Local Development Arrangements (on-going, total cost US$ 5.8 million )|IDB, Sebrae and Promos |
|[Promos: Special Agency of the Milan Chamber of Commerce for International Activities) | |
|Support Program on Conflict Resolution, to support the adoption alternative/quick conflict resolution |IDB, CACB and Sebrae |
|methods in Brazil (Programa Mediação e Arbitragem CACB – Conf. das Associações Comerciais do Brasil) | |
|Sustainable Rural Livelihood Program in Santa Catarina (Vida Rural Sustentável) |SEBRAE |
|National Partnership: OCB/SESCOOP/Sebrae | |
|OCB = Organization of Brazilian Co-operatives (created in1969) and |OCB and SECCOOP |
|SESCOOP = National Service of Learning and Cooperativism | |
| International Partnerships: |ICA |
|- The International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), Geneve |MCC |
|- Mondragón Corporación Cooperatova (MCC), Spain | |
|Support Program to strengthen the national knowledge basis on technology for generation [or |SEBRAE |
|improvement] of new products, processes and services associated with innovative markets (TIB) | |
|Feasibility Project to recover degraded areas of coal production in the Southern part of Santa Catarina|IDB / JICA |
7. Publications
FATMA’s illustrative list of publications include:
• FATMA. A natureza do Parque Estadual da Serra do Tabuleiro. Florianópolis: FATMA, 2003. 128 p.
• CIMARDI, Ana Verônica. Mamíferos de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis: FATMA, 1996. 302 p.
• MARTERER, Beloni Teresinha Pauli. Avifauna do Parque Botânico do Morro do Baú. Riqueza, aspectos de freqüência e abundância. Santa Catarina: FATMA, 1996. 74 p.
• ROSARIO, Lenir Alda do. As Aves em Santa Catarina: distribuição geográfica e meio ambiente. Florianópolis: FATMA, 1996. 326 p.
For SEBRAE’s illustrative list of publications include (for complete list of 941 publications, see ):
• SEBRAE. [pic][pic]Prefeito empreendedor, município empreendedor : como chegar lá apoiando a pequena empresa. Brasília, 2001. 107p.
• SEBRAE. O passo para a informatização bem sucedida das micro e pequenas empresas. Curitiba, 1992, 31 p.
• SEBRAE. Administracção basica para pequenas empresas. Curitiba: Sebrae/PR , 1993, 73 p.
8. Annual Budget and Sources of Revenue
SEBRAE’s revenue is mainly derived from a compulsory 0.3% contribution incurred on companies' payroll throughout the country (Contribuição Social Ordinária & Contribuição Social Adicional). Annual budget and sources of revenue for the last tow years are indicated below.
|Source of Revenue |Budget 2003 |Budget 2004 |
| |(Brazilian Real R$) |(Brazilian Real R$) |
|Contribuição Social Ordinária |17.089.958 |18.498.961 |
|Contribuição Social Adicional |10.253.109 |12.088.822 |
|Receitas de Serviços (services provided) |5.098.600 |7.521.396 |
|Receita Financeira |2.175.028 |600.000 |
|Receitas Diversas |86.663 |264.216 |
|Saldo de Exercícios Anteriores C.S. |1.923.900 |2.353.215 |
|Saldo de Exercícios Anteriores C.S.A | |6.028.394 |
|TOTAL |36.627.228 |47.355.006 |
| |(US$ 12 million equivalent) |(US$ 15.8 million equivalent) |
Source: 2003 - Relatório aprovado pelo Conselho Deliberativo e encaminhado para a Secretaria Federal de Controle. Valores executados no exercício de 2003; 2004 – Valores aprovados para o exercício de 2004.
FATMA’s 2003 budget was RS$ 14,890,844 (US$ 4.9 million equivalent) and 2004 budget is R$ 23,416,449 (US$ 7.8 million equivalent).
9. Experience with managing loan- or grant-financed projects
FATMA
|Name of Project |IFI |Amount |Period |
|Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Reduction - Santa Catarina |World Bank |US$ 1.5 million |2003-2007 |
|(43867-BR) – Ecological Corridors and Protected Area component | |(loan) | |
|NEP II Project (35741-BR): Environmental Assets component for Santa |World Bank |US$ 1.5 million (loan)|2003-2004 (?) |
|Catarina | | | |
|PDF Block A Grant for the preparation of the proposed GEF Tabuleiro State |GEF (WB as IA) |US$ 25,000 |2001-2003 |
|Park Project | | | |
|Feasibility Project to recover degraded areas of coal production in the |IDB / JICA | | |
|Southern part of Santa Catarina | | | |
|Water Resources Management Project |GTZ | | |
SEBRAE
|Name of Project/Program |Financing Agency |Amount |Period |
|Promos/Sebrae Project in Support of Local Development Arrangements [Promos:|IDB and Promos |US$ 2 million (IDB) |on-going |
|Special Agency of the Milan Chamber of Commerce for International | |and $0.4 million | |
|Activities) | |(Promos) | |
|Support Program on Conflict Resolution, to support the adoption |IDB and CACB |US$ (IDB), |on-going |
|alternative/quick conflict resolution methods in Brazil (CACB – | |US$ (CACB) | |
|Confederation of Brazilian Commercial Associations) | | | |
10. Administration and accounting-control procedures; current auditing arrangements
Under the proposed project, in addition to the World Bank Supervision Missions, FATMA’s Department of Administration (and Finance) will be in charge of supervising all the procurement, administrative and financial management functions to be undertaken by SEBRAE. The following paragraphs (and further Section 11) describe briefly the accounting, auditing and procurement procedures and arrangement of SEBRAE.
Accounting: SEBRAE-SC has an Administrative & Financial Department for the management of all its financial resources. The Director of Administration & Finance is assisted by technicians and professionals who are directly responsible for the development of Sebrae's programs and activities.
The external financial resources corresponding to specific projects are managed independently by SEBRAE-SC’s Administrative & Financial Department, following donors’ requirements, rules and procedures to allow the production of independent financial statements for each source of financing. These resources are controlled through specific so-called “cost centers” (Centros de Custo) and managed in special Bank accounts (in the currency required by the donor, if so). The financial statements are prepared following international accounting standards.
Sebrae’s fiscal year follows the country’s FY, i.e., it begins on January 1 and ends on December 31.
Auditing: SEBRAE-SC adopts the following auditing procedures:
- Internal auditing, a program established by the SEBRAE-SC together with the National SEBRAE;
- External Auditing: attached to SEBRAE’s National Fiscal Council, and undertaken on a quarterly basis. Currently, Ernest & Young is the external auditing company for both the National and the Santa Catarina Branch of SEBRAE;
- Auditing by the Federal Secretariat of External Control (Secretaria Federal de Controle Externo), and undertaken in Santa Catarina on an annual basis, after approval of accounts by the State Deliberative Council. The results from this auditing is forward to the National Court of Accounts.
- Auditing undertaken by the National SEBRAE to follow up on projects receiving resources from non-regular budgetary lines.
11. Description of how the institution procures and contracts for goods, services and works
According to the national legislation, SEBRAE does not need to apply the procurement rules foreseen under national Law n. 8.666/93. Instead, it follows specific procurement procedures endorsed by the National Court of Accounts. The existing procurement rules have been approved by the Sebrae’s National Deliberative Council (CDN) in 2002 (CDN’s Resolution nº 54 from 15/10/2001, published by the National Official Gazette nº 206 on 26/10/2001, and revised by Resolution No. 69 from 22/10/2002, and published in the National Official Gazette on 03/09/2002.). These Resolutions can be downloaded at: .
It should be noted that, according to a national regulation (issued by the National Court of Accounts in 21 December 1993), the contracting of SEBRAE by a public institution (such as FATMA) does not require procurement; i.e. for the proposed GEF-funded Tabuleiro project, FATMA does not need to undertake procurement for requesting SEBRAE to undertake procurement, administrative, and financial management functions to be carried out under the project by SEBRAE.
In SEBRAE-SC, the Director of Administration and Finance is the person responsible for the procurement of goods, services and works. All procurement documents and processes are sent to the Procurement Commission (3 members formally designated) for reviewing and evaluation.
Goods and Services: Under Sebrae regulations (Resolution No. 69/2002), the procurement of goods and services estimated to cost more than R$ 225,000 (US$ 75,000 equivalent) follows national competitive bidding procedures (for goods) and quality and cost based selection (for services); those estimated to cost more then R$ 25,000 (US$ 8,300 equivalent) but less than R$ 225,000 are carried out on the basis of at least 5 quotations (for goods) and 5 proposals (for services) in response to the written invitation to at least 5 suppliers (for goods) or service providers. In the case of Services, the concerned Sebrae unit responsible for the managing the activity prepares Terms of Reference. The quotations and proposals are evaluated on the basis of price, technical specifications and quality. Purchase of goods or contract of services estimated to cost less than R$ 25,000 (US$ 8,300 equivalent) are not subjected to procurement, but price must be justified (and have to be endorsed by the responsible Officer/Director), and a minimum of at least 3 quotations (for goods) and 3 proposals (for services) are required in response to the written invitation.
Works: Under Sebrae’s regulations (Resolution No. 69/2002), contracts estimated to cost more than R$ 600,000 (US$ 200,000 equivalent) follows national competitive bidding procedures; those estimated to cost more then R$ 45,000 (US$ 15,000 equivalent) but less than R$ R$ 600,000 are awarded on the basis of quotations obtained from the minimum of five qualified contractors in response to the written invitation sent to at least five contractors. The award till be made to the contractor who offers the lowest price quotation for the required work, and who has the experience and resources to complete the contract. Contracts estimated to cost less than R$ 45,000 (US$ 15,000 equivalent) are not subjected to procurement, but cost of contract must be justified (and have to be endorsed by the responsible Officer/Director), and a minimum of at least 3 quotations are required in response to the written invitation.
All on-going procurement processed by SEBRAE are posted at:
12. Contact Persons:
FATMA: Name/Title Ana Verônica Cimardi, Director (Department of Environmental Studies)
Address R. Felipe Schmidt, nº 485 – Florianópois, SC, Brazil
Telephone 55 48 224-8299; Fax 55 48 99810029
SEBRAE: Name/Title Gesser, Mário César, Long-term Consultant
Address Av. Rio Branco, nº 611 – CEP 88015-230, Florianópois, SC, Brazil
Telephone 55 48 221-0811; Fax 55 48 221-0801
Annex 15: Project Management Reports and Disbursements, and Audit
Project management Reports
The Project Management Unit (PMU) within FATMA (under a SEBRAE arrangement for procurement, administrative, and financial management functions) will prepare and forward to the Bank within 45 days following the end of each calendar quarter Project Management reports (PMRs), which comprise financial reports, Project progress reports, and procurement management reports. The financial reports of the PMR will include sources and uses of funds for the Project, expenditures, financed out of proceeds of the grant, and projected expenditures for the next six-month period. The procurement management reports will monitor the procurement process and contract expenditures under the Project. The Project progress report of the PMR will cover progress in achieving the activities and physical targets both cumulatively and corresponding to the period covered by the PMR.
Disbursements
Direct Disbursements to SEBRAE are expected to be requested by the PMU on the basis of the semi-annual disbursement projections included in the PMR. Payment requests (withdrawal applications and the supporting PMR) would be submitted to the Bank based on semi-annual statements reflecting disbursements both cumulatively and for the period covered by the PMR, and the Project´s planned expenditures and six-month cash flow forecast. Grant proceeds will be disbursed to a single project account administered by SEBRAE.
The following table (Table 1) sets forth the Categories of items to be financed out of the proceeds of the GEF Grant, the allocation amounts of the Grant to each Category, and the percentage of expenditures for items to be financed in each category. In addition, Table 2, presents a profile of grant disbursement estimates for each year of the project. Table 3 presents the detailed disbursements estimates by year.
Table 1. Allocation of Grant Proceeds by Financiers (US$ '000)
| | |GEF|SEBRAE |GoSC |GoSC |Total |For. |
| | | | |(MB2) | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| I. Investment Costs | | | | | |
| |A. Civil Works/Infrastructure | |2.2 |2.2 |2.3 |2.3 |9.0 |
| |B. Technical Assistance | |343.9 |222.5 |173.0 |251.9 |991.3 |
| |C. Training-Meetings | |32.8 |66.5 |25.3 |11.1 |135.6 |
| |D. Equipment & Goods | |106.0 |8.2 |6.5 |9.1 |129.8 |
| |E. Subproject & Small Grants | |20.8 |109.8 |94.6 |4.9 |230.1 |
|Total Investment Costs | |505.6 |409.2 |301.7 |279.4 |1,495.9 |
|II. Recurrent Costs | | | | | |
| |A. Salaries | |226.9 |211.5 |178.3 |173.7 |790.4 |
| |B. O&M | |8.6 |8.7 |8.8 |8.9 |35.0 |
| |C. Other Operating Costs | |1.6 |1.6 |1.6 |1.6 |6.5 |
|Total Recurrent Costs | |237.1 |221.9 |188.7 |184.3 |831.9 |
| | | |742.7 |631.0 |490.4 |463.6 |2,327.8 |
Table 3. Projected Disbursements
|Project Year 1 |
| |Amount (US$) | |
|Project Activities | |Activity Targets |
|1. Implementation of Emergency Measures | |Hire 5 consultants (junior/senior), organize/undertake|
| | |3 workshops/meetings, produce 120 folders, purchase 1 |
| | |off-road vehicle, 1 motorized boat, 50 signboards, 1 |
| | |kit tools for fire break and contract construction of |
| | |fire breaks |
|1.1. Strengthening Vigilance and Control | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |7,466 |Hire 2 consultant (junior) |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |562 |Organize 3 workshops, produce 120 folders/materials |
|(c) Equipment |43,538 |1 off-road vehicle, 1 motorized boat, 50 signboard and|
| | |1 kit tools for fire break |
|(d) Works |2,228 |Contract construction of fire breaks |
|1.2. Control of Aggressive Exotic Species | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |23,362 |Hire 3 consultants (2 junior and 1 senior) |
|2. Development and Initial | |Hire 6 Private Consulting Company and 2 consultants |
|Implementation of the Park | |(junior/senior), organize/undertake 31 |
|Management Plan | |workshops/meetings, produce 370 folders/materials, |
| | |execute 18 subprojects/small grants, execute 2 trips |
| | |and purchase 100 km2 of satellite images and 3 |
| | |softwares |
| | | |
|2.1. Preparatory Studies and Regulatory Tools for the | | |
|Occupied Areas of the Park | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |3 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior consultants |
| |112,611 | |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |Organize 16 workshops/meetings, produce 170 |
| |2,657 |folders/materials |
|(c) Equipment | |Purchasing 100 km2 of satelite imagens and 3 softwares|
| |35,164 | |
|2.2. Sustainable Development Strategies for the Park Buffer| | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |49,080 |1 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior consultants|
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |Organize 10 workshops/meetings, produce 200 |
| |1,998 |folders/materials |
| | | |
|2.3. Consolidation of the Park management Plan | | |
|Technical assistance |19,184 |1 Private Consulting Company |
|2.4. Support for Participatory Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |4,796 |1 Private Consulting Company |
|Subprojects/Small Grants |4,796 |18 subprojects on environmental education and |
| | |biodiversity conservation (small grants limited to |
| | |US$ 250 per subproject) |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |999 |Organize 1 workshops, 4 meetings and 2 trips another |
| | |national park in Paraná state with local decision |
| | |makers |
|3. Development of the Training Programs and Pilot Projects | |Hire 6 consultants (junior/senior), organize/undertake|
| | |2 workshops /meetings, 35 training events and 1 trip, |
| | |produce 470 folders/materials, execute 1 |
| | |subprojects/small grants, purchase multimedia |
| | |projector. |
|3.1. Training of Local Stakeholders | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |22,341 |Hire 5 consultants (4 junior and 1 senior) |
|(b) Equipment |4,476 |1 multimedia projector |
|Training and Workshops/meetings | |Organize 18 training of school teachers, 5 training of|
| | |community leaders, produce 430 folders/materials, 1 |
| | |trip to the community leaders to visit similar cases |
| | |in a Protected Area in Paraná State, 3 training of |
| | |decision makers from local governments and 9 training |
| | |of project staff. |
| |23,653 | |
|3.2. Development of Pilot Activities in the Park Buffer | | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |------------------------ |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |------------------------ |
|3.3. Development of pilot –activities in the Indigenous | | |
|Areas | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |1,184 |1 junior consultant |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |2 worshops for discussion and selection of a pilot |
| | |activity in indigenous peoples land located in the |
| | |Park region, produce 40 folders/materials. |
| |414 | |
|(c) Subprojects/Small Grants | |Implementation of a pilot project (a demonstrative |
| |15,987 |model for sustainable agroforestry. |
|4. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation and | |Hire 1 project management, 1 Private Consulting |
|Information Dissemination | |Company, 2 consultants (junior/senior) and 1 |
| | |independent NGO, purchase 1 vehicle, 1 computer and 1 |
| | |sofware, rental 10 hours airplane, 20 days of rental |
| | |car and 200 fuel litres, publicar 4 edition |
| | |newsletters |
| | | |
|4.1. Project Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |Hire one project management (co-manager) |
| |64,268 | |
|(b) Equipment |15,454 |1 vehicle, 1 computers and 1 sofware |
|4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |14,165 |1 junior consultant and 1 independent NGO |
|(b) Services |1,695 |10 hours airplane rental, 20 days of rental car and |
| | |200 liters of fuel. |
|4.3. Project Information | | |
|Dissemination | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |1 Private Consulting Company 1 junior consultant |
| |26,943 | |
|(b) Services |5,329 |4 edition newsletters |
|(c) Goods | |--------------------------- |
|Project Year 2 |
| |Amount (US$) | |
|Project Activities | |Activity Targets |
| | | |
|Implementation of Emergency Measures | |Hire 3 consultants (junior/senior), organize/undertake|
| | |3 workshops/ meetings, produce 40 folders/materials |
| | |and contract construction of fire breaks |
|1.1. Strengthening Vigilance and Control | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |3,407 |Hire 1 consultant (junior) |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |567 |Organize 3 workshops, produce 40 folders/materials |
|(c) Works |2,250 |Contract construction of fire breaks |
|1.2. Control of Aggressive Exotic Species | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |7,751 |Hire 2 consultants (1 junior and 1 senior) |
|2. Development and Initial | |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company and 1 consultants |
|Implementation of the Park | |(junior/senior), execute 12 workshops/meetings, |
|Management Plan | |produce 125 folders/materials, execute 18 |
| | |subprojects/small grants. |
|2.1. Preparatory Studies and Regulatory Tools for the | | |
|Occupied Areas of the Park | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |-------------------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |2,282 |Organize 1 workshop/meeting for 400 persons (the |
| | |Government and landowners and other resources users) |
|2.2. Sustainable Development Strategies for the Park Buffer| | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |34,430 |1 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior consultants|
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |1,510 |Organize 7 worshops (discussion for with |
| | |socio-economic “regions” in the park buffer zone), |
| | |produce 125 folders/materials |
| | | |
|2.3. Consolidation of the Park management Plan | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |----------------------- |
|2.4. Support for Participatory Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |4,844 |1 Private Consulting Company |
|(b) Subprojects/Small Grants |4,844 |18 subprojects on environmental education and |
| | |biodiversity conservation (small grants limited to |
| | |US$ 250 per subproject) |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |71 |Organize 4 meetings with local decision makers |
| | | |
|Development of the Training Programs and Pilot Projects | |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company, 1 Park Manager |
| | |invited from Abruzzo National Park (Italy); hire 3 |
| | |indiv. consultants, 35 training events, studies trips|
| | |for 465 persons, 5 workshops and execute 10 |
| | |subprojects and produce 800 folders/materials |
|3.1. Training of Local Stakeholders | | |
|Technical assistance |30,636 |2 consultants (1 junior and 1 senior) and 1 Park |
| | |Manager invited from Abruzzo National Park (Italy) |
|(b) Equipment | |---------------------- |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |58,739 |Organize 17 training of local farmers, produce 650 |
| | |folfers/materials, studies trips for 390 persons, |
| | |organize 17 training events for local entrepreneurs, |
| | |produce 600 folders/materials, studies trips for 75 |
| | |persons |
|3.2. Development of Pilot Activities in the Park Buffer | | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |38,096 |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior |
| | |consultants |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |2,325 |Organize 5 worshops (1 for with socio-economic |
| | |“regions” in the park buffer zone), produce 200 |
| | |folders/materials |
|Subprojects/Small Grants |88,808 |5 subprojects (infrasctructure for parks visitors, |
| | |viewpoints and other ecoturism equipment, small works |
| | |for livestock management in the buffer zone) |
| | | |
|3.3. Development of pilot –activities in the Indigenous | | |
|Areas | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |------------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |---------------------- |
|(c) Subprojects/Small Grants |16,147 |5 subprojects (infrasctructure for parks visitors, |
| | |viewpoints and other ecoturism equipment, small works |
| | |for livestock management in the buffer zone) |
| | | |
|Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation and | |Hire one project management (co-manager), 1 Private |
|Information Dissemination | |Consulting Company, 1 independent NGO and 1 junior |
| | |consultant, rental 10 hours airplane, 20 days of |
| | |rental car and 200 fuel litres, publish 4 edition |
| | |newsletters, prepare/publish 2.550 project information|
| | |folders and 1.250 project posters. |
| | | |
|4.1. Project Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |64,911 |Hire one project management (co-manager) |
|4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |10,173 |1 independent NGO |
|(b) Services |1,712 |10 hours airplane rental, 20 days of rental car and |
| | |200 fuel litres. |
|4.3. Project Information | | |
|Dissemination | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |27,213 |1 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior consultant |
|(b) Services |5,382 |4 edition newsletters |
|(c) Goods |1,076 |2.550 project information folders and 1.250 project |
| | |posters |
|Project Year 3 |
| |Amount (US$) | |
|Project Activities | |Activity Targets |
|1. Implementation of Emergency Measures | |Hire 3 consultant (2 junior and 1 senior), organize 3 |
| | |workshops, produce 40 folders/materials, contract |
| | |construction of fire breaks |
|1.1. Strengthening Vigilance and Control | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |3,441 |Hire one consultant (1 junior) |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |572 |Organize 3 workshops, produce 40 folders/materials |
|(c) Equipment | |--------------------------- |
|(d) Works |2,272 |Contract construction of fire breaks |
|1.2. Control of Aggressive Exotic Species | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |7,828 |Hire 2 consultants (1 junior and 1 senior) |
|2. Development and Initial | |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company and 2 junior |
|Implementation of the Park | |consultants, organize 12 worshops/meetings, produce |
|Management Plan | |125 folders/materials and undertake18 subprojects |
| | | |
|2.1. Preparatory Studies and Regulatory Tools for the | | |
|Occupied Areas of the Park | | |
|Technical assistance | |---------------------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |1,152 |Organize 1 workshop/meeting for 400 persons (the |
| | |Government and landowners and other resources users) |
|2.2. Sustainable Development Strategies for the Park Buffer| | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |34,774 |1 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior consultants|
|Training and Workshops/meetings |1,524 |Organize 7 worshops (discussion for with |
| | |socio-economic “regions” in the park buffer zone), |
| | |produce 125 folders/materials |
| | | |
|2.3. Consolidation of the Park management Plan | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |----------------------- |
|2.4. Support for Participatory Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |4,893 |1 junior consultants |
|(b) Subprojects/Small Grants |4,893 |18 subprojects on environmental education and |
| | |biodiversity conservation (small grants limited to |
| | |US$ 250 per subproject) |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |72 |Organize 4 meetings with local decision makers |
|Development of the Training Programs and Pilot Projects | |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company, 2 consultants (1 |
| | |junior and 1 senior) and 1 Park Manager invited from |
| | |Abruzzo National Park (Italy), udnertake 19 training |
| | |events and studies trips for 75 persons, produce 440 |
| | |folders/materials and execute 5 subprojects |
|3.1. Training of Local Stakeholders | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |22,328 |2 consultants (1 junior and 1 senior) and 1 Park |
| | |Manager invited from Abruzzo National Park (Italy) |
|Training and Workshops/meetings |20,134 |Organize 13 training of local farmers, organize 6 |
| | |training of the local entrepreneurs, produce 440 |
| | |folders/materials, studies trips for 75 persons |
| | | |
|3.2. Development of Pilot Activities in the Park Buffer | | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |32,617 |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |--------------- |
|(c) Subprojects/Small Grants |89,696 |5 subprojects (infrasctructure for parks visitors, |
| | |viewpoints and other ecoturism equipment, small works |
| | |for livestock management in the buffer zone) |
| | | |
|3.3. Development of pilot –activities in the Indigenous | | |
|Areas | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |------------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |---------------------- |
|(c) Subprojects/Small Grants | |--------------------- |
|Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation and | |Hire one project management and 2 junior consultant, |
|Information Dissemination | |publish 4 edition newsletters and execute 1 seminar |
| | |aimed to dissemintae project results |
|4.1. Project Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |65,580 |Hire one project management (co-manager) |
|(b) Equipment | |----------------------------- |
|4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |--------------------- |
|(b) Services | |------------------------ |
|4.3. Project Information | | |
|Dissemination | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |2,599 |2 junior consultant |
|(b) Services |5,436 |4 edition newsletters |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |843 |1 seminar aimed to dissemintae project results |
|(d) Goods |1,087 |2.550 project information folders and 1.250 project |
| | |posters |
|Project Year 4 |
| |Amount (US$) | |
|Project Activities | |Activity Targets |
| | | |
|1. Implementation of Emergency Measures | | |
|Strengthening Vigilance and Control | |Hire 1 consultant junior and contract construction of |
| | |fire breaks |
|(a) Technical assistance | |---------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |---------------- |
|(c) Equipment | |--------------- |
|(d) Works |2,295 |Contract construction of fire breaks |
|1.2. Control of Aggressive Exotic Species | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |1,581 |Hire 1 consultant junior |
|2. Development and Initial | |Hire 1 Private Consulting Company and 5 junior |
|Implementation of the Park | |consultants, organize 12 workshops/meetings and 2 |
|Management Plan | |trips other state, produce 500 folders/materials and |
| | |execute 18 subprojects |
|2.1. Preparatory Studies and Regulatory Tools for the | | |
|Occupied Areas of the Park | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |878 |1 junior consultants |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |1,450 |Organize 5 meetings for sigmimg conservation |
| | |agreements, produce 150 folders/materials |
|(c) Equipment | |--------------------- |
|2.2. Sustainable Development Strategies for the Park Buffer| | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |--------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |----------------- |
|2.3. Consolidation of the Park management Plan | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |103,177 |1 Private Consulting Company and 1 junior consultants|
|Training and Workshops/meetings |560 |Organize 2 workshop for public discussion and |
| | |endorsement of the Plan, produce 280 folders/materials|
|2.4. Support for Participatory Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |15,955 |1 Private Consulting Company and 3 consultants(1 |
| | |junior and 1 senior) |
|(b) Subprojects/Small Grants |4,941 |18 subprojects on environmental education and |
| | |biodiversity conservation (small grants limited to |
| | |US$ 250 per subproject) |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |1,620 |Organize 1 workshops for establishment of the Park |
| | |Management Committee , produce 70 folders/materials, |
| | |realizar 4 meetings and 2 trips other state with local|
| | |decision makers |
|Development of the Training Programs and Pilot Projects | |Hire 2 consultants (1 junior and 1 senior) and 1 Park|
| | |Manager invited from Abruzzo National Park (Italy), |
| | |organize 7 training of local farmers and produce 150 |
| | |folders/materials |
|3.1. Training of Local Stakeholders | | |
|Technical assistance |14,430 |2 consultants (1 junior and 1 senior) and 1 Park |
| | |Manager invited from Abruzzo National Park (Italy) |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings |5,502 |Organize 7 training of local farmers, produce 150 |
| | |folders/materials |
|3.2. Development of Pilot Activities in the Park Buffer | | |
|Zone | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |------------------ |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |------------------ |
|3.3. Development of pilot –activities in the Indigenous | | |
|Areas | | |
|(a) Technical assistance | |---------------- |
|(b) Training and Workshops/meetings | |---------------- |
|(c) Subprojects/Small Grants | |-------------- |
|Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation and | |Hire one project management (co-manager), 2 junior |
|Information Dissemination | |consultant and 1 independent NGO, rental 10 hours |
| | |airplane, 40 days of rental car and 400 fuel litres, |
| | |4 edition newsletters, organize 1 seminars aimed to |
| | |dissemintae project results and produce 400 |
| | |folders/materials |
|4.1. Project Management | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |66,215 |Hire one project management (co-manager) |
|4.2. Monitoring and Evaluation | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |18,393 |1 independent NGO |
|(b) Services |2,559 |10 hours airplane rental, 40 days of rental car and |
| | |400 fuel litres. |
|4.3. Project Information | | |
|Dissemination | | |
|(a) Technical assistance |2,625 |2 junior consultant |
|(b) Services |5,490 |4 edition newsletters |
|(c) Training and Workshops/meetings |1,543 |1 seminars aimed to dissemintae project results, |
| | |produce 400 folders/materials |
|(d) Goods |1,098 |2.550 project information folders and 1.250 project |
| | |posters |
Table of Contents
PART I - Project Concept 3
A - Summary 3
B - Country ownership 4
1. Country Eligibility 4
2. Country Drivenness 4
C – Program and Policy Conformity 5
3. Program Designation and Conformity 5
4. Project Design 5
Background 5
Threats 7
Baseline Activities 98
GEF Alternative and Incremental Costs 10
Project Activities and Outcomes 1514
Implementation Arrangements 2423
Project Implementation Plan 2524
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 2625
5. Sustainability (including financial sustainability) 2928
Factors contributing to Sustainability 2928
Risk Assessment and Mitigation 3029
6. Replicability 3129
7. Stakeholder Involvement 3130
Stakeholder Identification 3130
Project Formulation Process 3130
Participation During the Project 3231
Information Dissemination 3231
Social Assessment 3231
Process Framework for Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts 3331
Indigenous People’s Strategy 3332
D – Financing 3332
8. Financing Plan 3332
9. Co-financing 3534
E – Institutional Coordination and Support 3534
10. Core Commitments and Linkages 3534
11. Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between and among Implementing Agencies, Executing Agencies, and the GEF Secretariat, if appropriate. 3635
Part II – Response to Reviews 3635
A – GEF Secretariat 3635
B – Convention Secretariat 3635
C - Other IAs and relevant ExAs 3635
D - STAP 3635
Part III – Project Category Annex 3635
Table 1. Incremental Cost Table 1413
Table 2. Threats to the Park and Related Project Interventions 2322
Table 3. Project Implementation Plan 2624
Table 4. Data Gathering Methods for Project Impact Monitoring Purposes 2726
Table 5. Reporting Plan 2927
Table 6. Project Expenditures 3433
Table 7. Consolidated Project Budget 3433
Table 8. Co-financing 3534
Annex 1. Project Logical Framework 3736
Annex 2 : Procurement Arrangements 4140
Annex 3: Process Framework for Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts 4342
Annex 5: Map of Zoning Scheme 4847
Annex 6: Map of Socio-economic Regions 4948
Annex 7: Project Management Structure 5049
Annex 8: List of Stakeholders and Institutions 5251
Annex 9: Social Diagnostic Executive Summary 5453
Annex 10: Microbacias 2 Project Description Summary 5756
Annex 11: Summary of Indigenous People’s Strategy for the Santa Catarina Natural Resources Management and Rural Poverty Reduction Project (Microbacias 2) 5958
Annex 12: Letters of Commitment……………………………………………………………………60
Annex 13: Detailed Description of Baseline Activities ........................................................................63
Annex 14: Additional Information on the Project Proposer………………………………….………..65
Annex 15: Project Management Reports and Disbursements, and Audit .............................................72
wb12009
C:\Documents and Settings\WB12009\My Documents\35985.doc
04/27/2006 11:10:00 AM
-----------------------
[1] "Hottest hotspots" are those hotspots with at least 2.0% of the world's endemic plants and vertebrates which comprise only 0.4% of the Earth's land surface. See Myers et al., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853-858.
[2] There are a total of 57 communities (and 3 indigenous lands) located in the Park and its buffer zones.
[3] Palhoça, Santo Amaro da Imperatriz, Águas Mornas, São Bonifácio, São Martinho, Imaruí, Garopaba, Paulo Lopes and Florianópolis. See Annex 4 for details.
[4] The Park hosts important colonies of marine birds (e.g. Sula leucogaster, Fregatta magnificens and Larus dominicanus) and intercontinental migratory shorebirds (Calidris fuscicollis, Tringa melanoleuca, Tringa flavipes, Sterna maxima, Charadrius semipalmatus, Pluvialis squatarola, and P. dominica).
[5] The threats in the marine park areas (7 islands and several islets), which in the past were associated with illegal park visiting, has been significantly reduced after a formal agreement initiated in 2004 between FATMA and the State Environmental Police (CPPA), which increased efficiency of monitoring and enforcement, and appears to be resulting in the elimination of poaching and island visiting, both of which were considered to be significant threats to the TSP in the past. Park V&C supported under CPPA's Environmental Vigilance and Control in the TSP involves 40 CPPA environmental police who are responsible for monitoring and enforcement.
[6] The latter is a rodent (Cavia intermedia) that was recently discovered in one of the Park's islands and provides an outstanding example of endemism, as it has one of the worlds' smallest geographical distributions for a mammal (found in an area of only 4 ha²).
[7] Examples of threatened plants include: Laelia purpurata, Araucaria brasiliensis and Campomanesia littoralis. Reported endangered species are: (i) mammals - Felis concolor, Alouatta fusca and Cavia intermedia; and (ii) birds - Harpia harpyja, Pipile jacutinga, Triclaria malachitacea, Amazona vinacea and Spizaetus ornatus.
[8] Outlined in Annex 9.
[9] The following six zones defined in the PZP are: Preservation Zone (includes two of the Park’s islands - one of them where the rodent Cavia intermedia was recently discovered; this zone supports the preservation of the area in an undisturbed state; all entry is prohibited, except in an emergency, and it would eventually permit scientific research which cannot be conducted elsewhere); Conservation Zone (restinga, natural grasslands and forest areas to be used only for research, and eventually for highly controlled visiting); Historical-Cultural Zone (ruins and other historically-relevant areas, to be used for limited public use - low impact visiting); Extensive (and eventually Intensive) Use Zone (restinga, beaches, natural grasslands, forest areas to be used for limited public use - low impact visiting; this area includes the Park Administration and visitors center); Rehabilitation Zone (forests, mangrove, restinga areas identified for restoration), and Special Rehabilitation Zone (areas under land use conflict, where conservation agreements need to be negotiated and implemented).
[10] These “unoccupied” [terras devolutas] are public vacant lands where, according to Brazilian law, the State can request the Federal Government to cede the land to the State (or alternatively, place it under State control); this request has already been made by GoSC.
[11] In the last few years, there has been a significant increase in the number and flux of uncontrolled Park visitors, particularly in fragile and restricted areas such as coastal islands, restingas and Campos de Altitude.
[12] The legal basis for TCs (Terms of Agreement Termos de Compromisso) and TACs (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct Termos de Ajuste de Conduta) was established in Federal Law # 7347 (July 24, 1985). The main distinction between the two instruments is related to the populations affected and respective remedies. Specifically in the case of the TSP, TCs only apply to those individuals who purchased or occupied lands prior to the creation of the PA. In contrast, TACs apply to: (i) those individuals who illegally purchased or occupied Park lands after its creation in 1976; and (ii) those living in the Park’s buffer zone who are conducting activities which are incompatible with the zone’s land use objectives. The TSP’s buffer zone has been designated by the PZP as “Area of Environmental Protection” and represents an approximate area of 10,000 ha that surrounds the Park. Within this zone, sustainable use of land and water resources is permitted.
[13] In Brazil, there have been successful precedents in the application of TACs and TCs in the management of PAs. One of the more successful examples is their use by IBAMA (National Environmental Institute) in the marine biological reserve “Marinha do Arvoredo”, to modify existing diving practices, even before the preparation of the PA Management Plan. The TACs were signed between the Federal Attorney, diving companies and IBAMA. It also included a monitoring and an environmental education program (undertaken by an independent university) with the objective of providing inputs to the Management Plan. The Management Plan is now ready and diving is allowed, providing that it is used only for educational purposes.
[14] See Annex 9 for further information.
[15] Equipment to be financed: 1 vehicle, 1 motorized boat, fire-fighting equipment and 50 signs to be placed in locations of high ecological priority.
[16] GPS, vehicles and recurrent costs.
[17] Terms of Adjustment of Conduct (TACs) in TSP buffer zone, and Terms of Agreement (TCs) and TACs in TSP core area – for distinction between TACs and TCs, see footnote #10).
[18] For the production of maps, satellite images would be treated and complemented with field work (cadaster), and identified land uses classified according to their impact on biodiversity.
[19] This activity co-financed by the Microbacias 2 project was proposed by indigenous groups living in the Park area, and is expected to be part of a series of complementary interventions to be identified by these groups in their microwatershed plans supported under the Microbacias 2.
[20] A professor of anthropology from this Unit (counterpart) would be appointed by the university to assist the indigenous groups in the implementation of this subcomponent. Moreover, with support from the Microbacias 2 project, a well-trained extensionist would assist the indigenous groups in the development of their microwatershed plans.
[21] Community participation in monitoring would involve participants of Activity 2.4.2 (Incentive to Community Conservation Activities) and groups of volunteers of the Network of Environmental Education (created in the Park region during the Land Management II Project).
[22] Particularly the growth in recent decades of tourist activities, which are relevant to the Park region.
[23] This State Attorney’s Office was created in December 2000 and was the first thematic office created in the country to deal exclusively with legal issues associated with a Protected Area.
[24] Particularly the growth in recent decades of tourist activities, which are relevant to the Park region.
-----------------------
[pic]
[pic]
Park Management Committee (PMC)
Project Steering Committee (PSC)
State Environmental Police
(CPPA)
EPAGRI
(State Rural Extension)
State Attorney’s Thematic Office
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- financing decision in financial management
- monthly income plan in banks
- financing healthcare in the us
- what are financing activities in accounting
- pandemic flu death in us in 2009
- number of deaths in us in 2019
- financing activities in cash flow statement
- financing plan sample
- college financing plan pdf
- owner financing homes in virginia
- college financing plan 2021
- college financing plan requirements