Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Document ofThe World Bank
Report No: 23514
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A
PROPOSED GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 5.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT
TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL
FOR A
ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS PROJECT
November 9, 2001
Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest UnitEnvironmentally and Socially Sustainable Development
Sector Management UnitBrazil Country Management Unit
Latin American and Caribbean Region
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(Exchange Rate Effective October 30, 2000)
Currency Unit = Real (R$)R$1.90 = US$ 1.00US$0.53 = R$1.00
DM2.275 = US$ 1.00EUR 1.16 = US$ 1.00
FISCAL YEARJanuary I - December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARPA Amazon Region Protected AreasBB Bank of BrazilCOIAB Coordinating Body of the Indigenous Organizations of the
Brazilian AmazonCRA Environment Resources CenterCSR Remote Sensing CenterEMBRAPA Brazilian Agribusiness Research Enterprise
EC European CommissionFLONA National ForestFUNAI National Indian FoundationGEF Global Environment FacilityGIS Geographic Information System(s)GOB Government of BrazilGTA Amazon Working Group (NGO)GTZ German Technical Cooperation AgencyIAG International Advisory GroupIBAMA Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural
ResourcesIBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The
World Bank)ICB Intemational Competitive BiddingINPE National Institute for Space ResearchIPAAM Amazon State Environmental Protection InstituteIPAM Amazon Environmental Research Institute (NGO)IPE Institute of Research and EducationKfW Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank)MMA Ministry of EnvironmentNCB National Competitive BiddingNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNRPP Natural Resource Policy ProjectOEMA State Environmental AgencyPARNA National ParkPD/A Demonstration ProjectsPOA Annual Operational Plan(s)PPG7 Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain ForestREBIO Biological ReserveRPPN Private Nature ReserveRFPP Rain Forest Pilot ProgramRFT Rain Forest Trust FundSEAMA Environment Secretariat of the State of Espirito SantoSUPES IBAMA State SuperintendenceTOR Terms of ReferenceUCG General Coordination UnitUC Public protected areaUNDP United Nations Development ProgramWWF World Wide Fund for Nature
Vice President: David D. FerrantiCountry Director: Vinod ThomasSector Director. John RedwoodTask Managers: Luiz Gabriel T. Azevedo, Adriana G.
Moreira
BrazilEcological Corridors Project
CONTENTS Pages
A. Project Development Objective ......................... 7
1. Project background2. Project development objective and key performance indicators
B. Strategic Context ......................... 11
1. Sector-related CAS goal supported by the project2. Main sector issues and Government strategy3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices
C. Project Description Summary ......................... 15
1. Project components2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project3. Benefits and target population4. Institutional and implementation arrangements
D. Project Rationale ......................... 19
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies3. Lessons learned and reflected in proposed project design4. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership5. Value added of Bank support in this project
E. Summary Project Analysis ......................... 26
1. Economic2. Financial3. Technical4. Institutional5. Social6. Environmental assessment7. Participatory approach
F. Sustainability and Risks ................... , 30
1. Sustainability2. Critical risks3. Possible controversial aspects
G. Main Grant Conditions ......................... 32
1. Effectiveness conditions2. Other
H. Readiness for Implementation ......................... 33
I. Compliance with Bank Policies ......................... 33
Annexes
Annex 1. Project Design Summary .34Annex 2. Project Description .40Annex 3. Costs and Financing Summary .59Annex 4. Description of Two Pilot Corridors .63Annex 5. Institutional Arrangements for Project Implementation .68Annex 6. Eligibility Criteria and Selection of Proposal for Subprojects in Interstitial
Areas .73Annex 7. Indigenous Action Plan .83Annex 8. Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements .89Annex 9. Project Processing Budget and Schedule .96Annex 10. Documents in Project File .97Annex 11. Statement of Loans and Credits .99Annex 12. Country at a Glance .103Annex 13. Maps .105
Page 6
Ecological Corridors Project
Project Appraisal Document
Latin American and the Caribbean RegionBrazil Country Management Unit
Date: November 09, 2001 Task Manager: Luiz Gabriel Azevedo, Adriana G. MoreiraCountry Manager/Director: Vinod Thomas Sector Director: John RedwoodProject ID: BR- Sector: Environment Program Objective Category: Environmentally SustainableRN 6572 DevelopmentLending Instrument: Grant Program of Targeted Intervention: t] Yes [Xl No
Project Financing Data [] Loan [ Credit (] Guarantee [X] Grant
For Loans/Credits/Others:Amount (US$m): 5.0Financing plan (US$m): Project finance comprises a single Rain Forest Trust Fund (RFT) grant of $5.0m' plus Governmentcounterpart and donations from other international entities as indicated below. Once the first phase is successfilllyimplemented and trigger conditions met, the second phase is expected to mobilize some $27.31 million in donor funds(including $1.1m from RFT) and $ 8.61million in domestic resources.
Source Government CPF RFTlDonors Total
Ecological Corridors Project Phase 1
Federal Govemment (IBAMA and execution via UNDP) 0.80 2.80 3.60Amazonas State Government and other local executors 0.15 0.47 0.62Bahia State Govemment and other local executors 0.15 0.31 0.46Espirito Santo State Government and other local executors 0.16 0.32 0.48
Sub total 1.26 3.90 5.16
Ecological Corridors Project Phase 2 (Preliminary)IBRD (RFT)Germany (KfWf2European Commission (EC)3
Federal Goverrnent (IBAMA and execution via 11NDP) 4.67 16.83 21.50Amazonas State Government and other local executors 1.38 4.28 5.66Bahia State Government and other local executors 0.65 1.15 1.80Espirito Santo State Government and other local executors 0.65 1.15 1.80
Sub total 7.35 23.41 30.76TOTAL Including CAC/PDI 8.61 27.31 35.92
Grantee: The Federal Republic of Brazil
it is expected that about US$ 4.0 million would be committed during the first phase of the Project while the remainingUS$ 1.0 million would be committed during its second phase.2 KfW expected commitment is EUR 16.316.483,52 million. KfW also has a EUR 3.059.340,65 million commitment to theProject to be implemented through the PDAIPDPI project.3European Commission expected commitment is EUR 7.0 million.
Page 7
Guarantor: N/AResponsible agency: Ministry of Environment
Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$M): 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Annual 1.08 2.82 0.45 0.40 0.25
Cumulative 1.08 3.90 4.35 4.75 5.0Project implementation period: 5 years (1.5 years for the first phase and 3.5 for the second phase)Effectiveness date: March 15, 2002 Expected closing date June 30, 2006
A: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE
1. Project background
Brazil Biodiversitv. Brazil is acknowledged as the most biodiversity-rich country in the world.With more than 56,000 species of vascular plants (one quarter of the world total), over 1,600 birdspecies (17% of the world's total), and 27% of the world's primates (77 species). Brazil ischaracterized by extraordinary species-rich biotas and very high regional and local endemism.
The Corridors project includes both the Amazon and Atlantic Forest regions. The Amazon, withits 23 distinctive ecoregions, is the repository of some of the greatest genetic diversity on earth. Itcomprises 30% of the world's remaining tropical rainforest, holding carbon stocks of around120 billion tons. According to the latest estimates, the region houses around 2.5 million speciesof insects, tens of thousands of species of vascular plants, at least 2,000 fish species, and 950 birdand 200 mammal species. The Atlantic Forest is one of the world's "hotspots" with areas ofexceptional biodiversity. Its botanical diversity is estimated in over 20,000 species and it alsopresents high levels of endemism. From the 202 species of animals identified as "threatened" inBrazil, 171 are found in the Atlantic Forest.
Brazil: Biodiversity, Endemism & World Rank
Diversity/ Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Butterflies Higher FreshwaterEndemism Plants Fishes& RankSpecies 524 1,622 468 517 3,132 -56,000 >3,000
Rank 1St 3rd 5th Pn 2nd 1 st 1 stEndemic 131 >191 172 294 200 -17,500 Und.
Rank 2n 3rd 5th 2nd 6th 1 st
Source: Mittermeier et al., "Megadiversity", 1998.
Pilot Program. The Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest supports a set of projectsaiming to optimize the environmental benefits offered by rain forest ecosystems in a way that isconsistent with the development goals of Brazil. With about US$340 million of financial andtechnical assistance pledged to date by the G-7 countries, the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities and the Netherlands, this program is the largest multilateral donation forenvironmental conservation in a single country. Its fifteen projects include nine currently underimplementation with the remainder expected to begin in 2001-2002. They include initiatives inBrazil's Amazon and Atlantic forest regions designed to (i) help strengthen the capacity of the
Page 8
public sector to set and enforce sound environmental policy; (ii) improve management of specialprotected areas, including parks, extractive reserves, national forests, and indigenous lands; and(iii) increase the knowledge base on conservation of the rain forest and sustainable utilization ofits resources. The Pilot Program is managed by the Brazilian Government in coordination withthe World Bank. The Bank administers the Rain Forest Trust Fund in accordance withagreements reached by the program participants, Brazil and donor countries.
The Pilot Program was set up to address the underlying causes of deforestation in Brazil's rainforests, and one of its specific objectives is to protect biological diversity. While other PilotProgram projects contribute to this objective, this project would be the first to address directly insitu conservation of biodiversity. There is a great need to address biodiversity in the Amazon andAtlantic rain forests. Taken together, they constitute the most important repository ofbiodiversity in the world. Both biomes are also severely threatened by human intervention.Recent satellite data from the Amazon region indicate that by 1998 almost 15% of the originalforest cover has been converted to other forms of land use (ranching, agricultural activities), andthe data does not include areas of forest affected by selective logging activities or wild fires. Arecent, Bank-sponsored study - "Flames in the Rainforest: Origins , Impacts and Alternatives toAmazonian Fire" (D. Nepstad, A. Moreira and A. Alencar, 1999)-shows that logging andground fires have degraded a substantial yet unmeasured area of Amazon forest that cannot bedetected by conventional satellite imagery. The threat to the Atlantic Forest is much more acute,less than 8% of the original forest cover remains today. These areas are scattered throughout theregion as an archipelago of isolated fragments of the forest that originally covered 1.5 millionsquare kilometers. The proximity to Brazil's principal urban and economic centers makes theAtlantic Forest one of the most threatened tropical forests in the world.
Ecological Corridors. The concept of "ecological corridors" is relatively new and there are noexamples in Brazil. First put into practice along the Appalachian Range in the eastern UnitedStates, corridors are currently being implemented in various developing countries (see item D-2below). The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor extending from southern Mexico to northernColombia is one significant and relevant international example. Corridors are not political oradministrative units, but large geographic areas designated for coordinated actions aimed atprotecting a substantial portion of biodiversity at the biome level. These actions involvestrengthening, expanding and linking protected areas within the corridor-parks, public andprivate reserves, and indigenous lands. Corridor strategies encourage low-impact uses such asnatural forest management and agro-forestry in critical zones within and between protected areas,and discourage high-impact uses such as large-scale forest clearing. Implementing such actionsrequires a high degree of involvement and cooperation by stakeholders at all levels. Anothercharacteristic of corridors is that their design must incorporate near term interventions whileplanning for results in 100 years or more. In short, the corridor concept signals an alternativeapproach to conventional forms of biodiversity conservation that is more encompassing,decentralized and participatory.
The Project. Systematic conservation planning requires strategies for managing wholelandscapes, including areas allocate to both production and protection. Protected areas alone arenot adequate for nature conservation, but they are the cornerstone on which regional strategies arebuilt. The overall goals of conservation-representativeness and persistence-have to betranslated into more specific targets for operational use, recognizing that reserves must becomplemented by off-reserve management. This project proposes to shift the current paradigm ofbiodiversity conservation in Brazil from "biological islands" to "biological corridors" which spanlarge tracts of critical areas in the Amazon and Atlantic forest. It strengthens regional and localcapacity through innovative corridor management models.
Page 9
The Rainforest Corridors Project is based on the premise that today's multiple and growingthreats to biodiversity protection require more than establishing discrete, government-runprotected areas surrounded by landscapes in which development activities proceed unchecked. Inmany regions throughout the world-notably the Atlantic rain forest-this approach has led to ascattered archipelago of isolated parks and reserves which are frequently besieged on all sides andinadequate to guarantee long-term protection of the plant and animal species they contain. Othershortcomings of this approach are especially evident in the Amazon, where 1 16 federal and stateparks and reserves-which cover 416,000 km2, or about 8.4% of the region-are widely scatteredin remote locations and are severely understaffed, with an average of one park ranger per15,000 km'2
As part of the preparation of the present project, a team of prominent Brazilian scientists designeda more integrated approach to biodiversity conservation in the Amazon and Atlantic forestregions. The team defined five priority corridors in the Amazon region and two in the AtlanticForest area based on "state-of-the art" studies commissioned by MMA and IBAMA of thedistribution of key plant and animal species plus a series of priority setting workshops. Broadareas were mapped and ranked according to biological value, degree of threat and social andinstitutional factors bearing upon the likely success of an intervention. The specific biologicalcriterion utilized for selection of the seven corridors included: (i) species richness, considering theabsolute and relative number of species present in the corridor area in relation to the regionalbiodiversity; (ii) community and ecosystem diversity; (iii) degree of connectivity existing alongthe (iv) integrity/size of supporting areas, and (v) endemic species.
Taken together, the seven corridors, including government-run protected areas (known asconservation units in Brazil), private reserves, indigenous lands, and interstitial areas, areimpressive in scale (see map in Annex 12). The five Amazonian corridors encompass nearly1.5 million km2-or an area equivalent to France, Germany, Spain and Portugal combined. Theycontain 73 conservation units, 116 indigenous lands, and key zones known to harbor exceptionalconcentrations of biodiversity. The two Atlantic forest corridors are estimated to contain at leasttwo thirds of the original biodiversity of this biome. They cover an area of over 20 millionhectares, sheltering the highest recorded diversity of vascular plants in the world, with largenumbers of endemic species of plants and animals.
Among the seven proposed corridors, the Central Amazon Corridor (CAC) in the state ofAmazonas, and the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor (CAFC) in the states of Bahia and EspiritoSanto were selected as the phase one pilots to be financed by the PPG7 Program. The selectionof the priority corridors involved different criteria for each region. Of the five corridors identifiedin the Amazon region , the Central Corridor (CAC), together with the Extreme Northern AmazonCorridor presented the highest degree of connectivity between protected areas and highestintegrity of natural ecosystems. The decisive criteria was the existing institutional base, which isstronger in the CAC, with a favorable composition of government and non-governmentorganizations, research institutes and private enterprises more likely to contribute to the successof the operation. In the two Atlantic Forests corridors, the basic criteria for selection was the levelof threat. The Central Atlantic Forest Corridor (CAFC) is more vulnerable and fragmented whencompared to the southern one. From 1985 to 1990, the data on forest cover indicated a loss of70,000 hectares of forest in the State of Bahia and 20,000 hectares in Espirito Santo. The lack ofconnectivity of extremely important ecosystems and the opportunity to illustrate how theseisolated remaining "islands" could be preserved and potentially expanded was a majorconsideration. Another aspect taken into account was the existence of several ongoing projects,especially bilateral associated German PPG7 projects, to protect the Southern Corridors and the
Page 10
paucity of projects in the CAFC. Hence it was felt that the CAC and CAFC would makeexcellent pilots for testing new corridor models.
The Ecological Corridors Project proposes to build sustainable economic, social and politicalframeworks to conserve biodiversity in the corridors. The corridors must be dimensioned andmanaged so as to guarantee that plant and animal species can survive and continue their normalbiological processes undisturbed. The first phase of the project is being undertaken by the RFT(US$5.0 million) with Federal and states support. There is agreement among donors that once thefirst 18 month start-up phase is successfully completed and trigger conditions are met, they willparticipate in a larger phase 2 operation totaling about US$ 27.964 million to provide financialresources for the actual implementation of activities defined during the first phase andculminating with the consolidation of the methodologies and approaches developed for theprotection of biodiversity in the two selected corridors.
2. Project development objectives and key performance indicators (see Annex 1):
The Ecological Corridors Project aims to contribute to the effective conservation of Brazil'sbiodiversity by testing an innovative approach in two of Brazil's most important biomes. Theproject's overall objective is to demonstrate the viability of ecological corridors in conservingbiodiversity in the Brazilian Amazon and Atlantic rainforests. The project is divided in twophases. The first phase will take approximately 18 months and will focus largely uponestablishing the institutional infrastructure for the Central Amazon (CAC) and Atlantic Forest(CAFC) corridors, and developing management plans based upon multi-disciplinary studies ofbiodiversity and related economic, social and political characteristics relevant to successfulcorridor management. It will also launch the first conservation initiatives and pilot techniquesderived from the corridor management plans. By the end of the 18 month-phase it is expectedthat significant progress will have been made in establishing prototype corridor managementinstitutions and plans that would orient implementation efforts in the second phase. During thesecond phase, with an expected duration of 42 months, the project will focus on the consolidationof corridors monitoring and vigilance systems, implementation of corridors management plansand implementation of sub-projects in interstitial areas. The specific project objectives andpreliminary performance indicators (bulleted) are summarized below, and elaborated in thelogical framework (Annex 1).
Project indicators:
Phase I
* Institutional structure established and functioning in the two corridors.
* Corridor Management Plans designed and approved.
* Emergency monitoring and vigilance systems revised and implemented.
* Revised proposal for Phase 2 completed and approved.
Phase 2
4 This total does not include KfW's EUR 3.059.340,65 million commitment to be available via PDPI.
Page 1 1
* Establish coordination bodies at Federal, state and municipal levels.
* Implement training and international exchange of experience.
* Design ecological corridors management plans.
* Develop ecological corridors dissemination strategy.
* Carry out relevant studies.
B: STRATEGIC CONTEXT
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project:CAS document number: #20160-BR. Date of latest CAS discussion: March 6, 2000.
In recognition of Brazil's preeminent position in biodiversity, environment has always figuredprominently in Brazil CAS objectives. The Bank continues to support (i) protection andconservation of priority ecosystems, and (ii) more efficient use and sustainable management ofnatural resources. The CAS emphasizes the importance of focusing ecosystem protection on theAmazon and Atlantic rain forests, where rapid environmental degradation imposes particularlyhigh economic, social and environmental costs. 'I'hese goals and geographic focus are an integralpart of the Rainforest Corridors project. The CAS emphasizes a number of strategies that are alsoaddressed by the present project, notably:
* improved coordination among different line agencies and levels of government inplanning and implementation of environmental policies;
* further decentralization to state and local levels of environmental protectionresponsibility, which is expected to improve management performance;
* new regulations and economic incentives to encourage environmentally responsiblebehavior as opposed to reliance upon command and control measures;
* involvement of stakeholders, including the private sector, local communities andNGOs in designiing/delivering environmental programs;
* increased enforcement of environmental policies, particularly in remote areas wheregovernmental institutions are most fragile; and
* promoting the use of economic instruments for environmental management.
2. Main sector issues and Government strategy:
Sector issues. The deforestation of the biologically rich Amazon and Atlantic forest regions isamong the key green issues in Brazil. Threats to these biomes are the result of a complex set offorces including the expansion of agriculture, ranching and logging coupled with poverty and alack of environmentally sustainable alternatives. Solutions require balanced measures to reducepoverty, provide sustainable alternatives, and strengthen effective protection of priorityecosystems.
Environmental issues have received growing government attention in recent years, driven mainlyby an increasing public awareness of deteriorating environmental conditions in Brazil evidencedby increased clearing and burning of tropical forests, degradation of watersheds and coastal areas,and over-exploitation of wildlife and fisheries. In the Amazon, timber extraction has increased
Page 12
with growing participation by foreign (mostly Asian) logging companies, and large tracts offorest are still being converted to cattle pastures. In the Atlantic forest region, the few remainingareas of old-growth forests - which are critical for biodiversity protection-face increasingpressures from hunters, farmers, loggers, and land speculators.
a Government strategy. On the positive side, the government is moving towards adoptingenvironmentally friendly policies for sustainable development, often in response to internationalpressure. Concrete achievements include:
* adoption of a "Green Protocol," which requires lending agencies to incorporateenvironmental criteria in the projects they finance;
* ratification of the Convention on Biodiversity and preparation of an Agenda 21 forBrazil and for the Amazon ("Agenda Positiva da Amazonia");
* approval of Law 9,985 on June 18, 2000 that instituted the National System ofConservation Units - SNUC (document available in project files);
* devolution of environmental management to states and municipalities;. introduction, in some states, of the "ICMS Ecol6gico", which establishes
environmental criteria in the distribution of tax revenues among municipalities,favoring areas with Conservation Units;
* increase in the amount of private land holding required to be kept in "legal forestreserves" in the Amazon from 50% to 80% (legislation to reduce the percentage wasrecently defeated in Congress);
* increased and improved land tax collection and legislative reform allowing forforested lands to be considered "in productive use";
* declaration of a temporary ban on mahogany extraction in Amazon forests;* approval of a national water resources law (1997) establishing a legal framework for
integrated watershed management;* approval of the Environmental Crimes Law (February 1998), which allows civil
charges and penalties to be brought against environmental violators;* commitment of President Cardoso to place 10% of the Amazon forests under effective
protection; and* inclusion of an environmental agenda in the guidelines for the preparation of the
Government's Pluriannual Investment Plan (PPA).
Notwithstanding the advances cited above, many of these initiatives are pilot efforts and publicenforcement capacity is severely limited. Moreover, the decentralization of authority forenvironmental management has been a mixed blessing and the combination of impoverishedsettlers, powerful stakeholders and economic crises pose serious risks for biodiversityconservation. Furthermore, Government sponsored development axes and large infrastructureprojects enshrined in the Plano Plurianual-the official multi-year development program-represent new and serious risks to the environment. Conservation efforts have generally beendisjointed and insufficient to effectively address key environmental threats to critical biomes suchas the Amazon and Atlantic rain forests. Many of the government environmental agencies inBrazil are still relatively weak, understaffed with constrained budgets, usually facing powerfuldomestic interests. There is also an urgent need to strengthen Brazil's environmental constituencyand develop a coherent and strategic policy framework for biodiversity conservation in Brazil(see further discussion in item D-3 below).
b. Institutional Roles and Challenges. The management of the Brazilian federal system ofConservation Units is the primary responsibility of IBAMA. In addition to this system, there are
Page 13
also many state and municipal protected areas. The GOB has also begun promoting theinvolvement of Brazilian society in conservation issues. Through meetings and workshops, localcommunities and their representatives are now taking a more active role in planning andmanagement of protected areas resulting in partnerships between government institutions, NGOs,and other institutions and private sector organizations.
One important challenge of mounting a corridors project is obtaining agreement, ownership andcooperation from the numerous and important stakeholders including the MNMA secretariats,IBAMA, state and municipal governments, FUNAI and indigenous groups, private landholdersand NGOs. In structuring the project a balance must be struck between the Federal Government,states and these other stakeholders while assuring that project design and implementation can becarried out efficiently. One important breakthrough has been obtaining agreement from MMAand donors that project execution will be decentralized with most activities being implementedand coordinated through local agents
A second challenge will be to act strategically in promoting the creation of new protected areasthrough other projects (notably, ARPA) and efficient in managing existing ones and contiguousareas. Corridors task managers also are co-task managers for ARPA and the Parana BiodiversityProject, assuring close collaboration on the first and sharing of technical advances in the second,which is very similar in scope. Creation of new protected areas and management of contiguousareas requires a variety of technical, legal, and political interventions that involve stakeholders atdifferent levels. These are covered in the studies and management plans that will be developedand implemented in the corridors. And special care will be taken to ensure appropriate staffing tocarry out these activities in a participatory manner.
3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices:
The following issues solutions (bulleted) to sector issues are proposed in the Corridors Project.
(i) Issue: fragmentation of areas and insufficient connectivity to ensure normal biologicalprocesses, especially among important biodiversity areas;* The implementation of corridors with comprehensive management plans and
adequate resources could ensure that sufficiently large areas are managed to ensureconnectivity;
* New protected areas will be created in the CAC through the ARPA project, that willtarget connectivity, especially in areas identified as important for biodiversityconservation;
* In the Atlantic Rainforest, the creation of new protected areas will be proposed, alsoaiming at connectivity, specially in areas identified as critical for biodiversityconservation;
* Areas identified as "very high" and "high" priority by the 1999 Macapa workshopand other/ongoing studies will be targeted for new protected areas.
(ii) Issue: encroachment on the integrity of protected areas owing to economic activity incontiguous areas;* The Project will specifically address buffer zone management identifying high-risk
areas/activities and introducing technologies and incentives to mitigate risks;
(iii) Issue: inadequate resourcing and on-the-ground management of protected areas;
Page 14
* One Project component will specifically support the development andimplementation of protected area/conservation unit management plans and will drawupon the ARPA and other projects to assist with this work;
* Resourcing issues will be addressed by the corridor management units which willseek public commitments and public and private sources for meeting recurrent costneeds.
(iv) Issue: insufficient support for protected areas at the local, regional and national levels;* The UCG and State Project Implementation Units will be responsible for public
relations and disseminating other concept of ecological corridors for conservation ofBiodiversity;
(v) Issue: lack of coordination among federal, state and municipal agencies responsible forenvironmental conservation and insufficient participation of NGOs and stakeholders;* Project management will integrate federal, state and municipal agencies into a
decentralized structure with clear roles and communication channels;* Development of protected area management plans will incorporate NGOs and local
stakeholders in design and implementation and provide them with sufficientrepresentation in project management structure to ensure their views areincorporated. The SNUC foresees the representation of NGOs in the management ofall categories of protected areas.
(vi) Issue: lack of previous experience with corridor implementation in Brazil;* Corridor management plans will be developed based upon best practice models and
relying upon necessary scientific, political, social and economic studies undertakenfor that purpose;
* Project structure will develop and implement a strategy for permanent andsustainable corridor institutional arrangements;
* The first phase of the Project will focus on two priority corridors in the Amazon andAtlantic forest regions piloting institutional structure, studies and management plandevelopment and establishing clear benchmarks in an 18 month start-up phase.During this phase a detailed implementation plan, including costs, eligibility andselection criteria and implementation arrangements for a follow-on second phasewould be established. Once triggers are satisfied, a second much larger phase wouldbe initiated to implement the CAC/CAFC management plans and adapt and replicatethe process in the five new corridors.
(vii) Issue: lack of models for biodiversity protection on indigenous lands;* A specific project component will address this issue, identifying areas/activities
posing risks, developing participatory approaches and drawing upon the experienceof government agencies, NGO, indigenous specialists and RFPP/other projects todesign and implement solutions with appropriate incentives.
(viii) Issue: lack of incentives for biodiversity conservation by economic agents;* This generic issue will be addressed in each of three project components-protected,
indigenous, and interstitial area management--drawing upon multi-disciplinarystudies/professionals to design and implement biodiversity conservation incentives.
* At each level of the project management structure, public relations and educationcampaigns will be undertaken to ensure the costs and benefits of corridormanagement are clear to and supported by stakeholders.
Page 15
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY (see Annex 2 for detailed description)
1. Project Component
Component 1: Strategic Coordination (US$ 0.8 million)
This relatively small component aims to ensure that the necessary organizational structure is inplace at the national and state levels to manage and implement the project. Specifically, it willdevelop the strategic actions needed at the national level to ensure that (i) corridors are designedand implemented in a manner that incorporates best practice supported in requisite multi-disciplinary studies, (ii) institutional arrangements, staffing and budgets are adequate, and (iii)key stakeholders work together to assume ownership of and actively support the ecologicalcorridors.
The Component will implement actions to launch the project and create the necessary conditionsfor its progressive decentralization and success by developing local project management capacity,building local constituencies, and establishing stakeholder partnerships. Actively promotingcollaboration among donors and other organizations with parallel prograrns will constituteanother important activity, especially since other Rainforest Pilot Program (RFPP) projects(PDPI, PPTAL, RESEX) and the Amazon Protected Areas Project (ARPA) are expected tocontribute directly to the Corridors project main objectives. Component I is organized into threesubcomponents: i) project administration, ii) marketing and advertising of corridors, andiii) specific studies. At the national level the responsibility for the Corridors project will be withthe Executive Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment. A small unit will be created to take onthe responsibility for the implementation of this component (see Annex 5 for a detaileddescription of roles and responsibilities).
Component 2: Central Amazon Corridor - CAC (US$ 2.3 million)
This component addresses specific, strategic actions required to launch the process that will tumCAC into a viable ecological corridor. Much of the organizational launch and managementplanning will be done in phase I while actual implementation will largely be the work of phase 2.
The strategy for this component necessarily incorporates local stakeholder participation in design,decision and implementation. This will be achieved through the efforts of the ProjectImplementation Unit to include stakeholders in the Management Committees to be establishedand through subprojects in subcomponent 2.2 (Conservation Units) and especially insubcomponents 2.3 and 2.4, addressing Interstitial Areas and Indigenous Lands respectively.
Representatives of important Amazonian institutions involved in project design have identifiedpriority areas for this Corridor comprising protected areas where connectivity is already assured.Work will concentrate heavily on mitigating threats to protected areas and strengtheningmanagement but threats to their integrity require priority attention to consolidate and strengthenmanagement capacity. The subprojects selection process, including eligibility and classificationcriteria, is described in annex 6 of this PAD.
The component comprises four subcomponents: (i) corridor planning, vigilance and monitoring,(ii) conservation unit planning and management, (iii) interstitial areas, and (iv) protection ofbiological diversity in indigenous lands.
Page 16
Component 3: Central Atlantic Forest Corridor - CAFC (US$ 2.0 million)
The structuring of this component takes into account the extraordinary environmental and socio-economic characteristics of the region. From the environmental point of view, the definingcharacteristics are: (i) the extreme fragmentation and destruction of the Atlantic forest-less than7% remains of the original vegetation cover, (ii) its extraordinary biodiversity, and (iii) the highlevel of endemism. The socioeconomic panorama largely explains the devastation of the Atlanticforest region where roughly 80% of Brazil's population resides and produce 54% of the GDP.Consequently, involving stakeholders in participatory solutions to address problems in interstitialareas, consolidate UCs and increase connectivity becomes imperative.
This component is structured in a manner similar to what is proposed for the Central AmazonCorridor. Subcomponents are identical although the strategy invoked differs owing to thedifferences in the socioeconomic environment and the much greater Atlantic Forest fragmentationand destruction. Project management structure and emphasis on highly participatory componentdesign and implementation will also be observed. However, one marked difference will need tobe the much greater emphasis on contiguous areas management. The long term goal is first topreserve the small remaining areas. Second, and to the extent possible, to induce the creation of"micro corridors" within this much larger area by increasing the connectivity between priorityareas, primarily through private reserves (RPPN) and the creations of new protected areas. Thisstrategy is consistent with the recommendations of the PPG7 institutional review (Atlantic ForestReport). This component comprises three subcomponents: (i) corridor planning, vigilance andmonitoring, (ii) conservation unit planning and management, and (iii) interstitial areas.
Trigger Conditions for Phase Two
The first phase of the Corridors Project is conceived as a 'project launch' that will establish theorganization infrastructure and undertake necessary studies and preparatory work to define acomprehensive program of reforms and interventions to be carried out in the second phase.There are three areas that are critical to the success of the Ecological Corridors Project. These are:(a) development of comprehensive/coherent Corridors Management Plans for the CentralAmazon Corridor (CAC) and the Central Atlantic Forest Corridors (CAFC); (b) development of acoherent/integrated monitoring and vigilance system for both corridors - these should integratethe efforts at Federal (IBAMA), state and local levels (civil society); and (c) development of aintegrated information system involving all levels of Governments and civil society. Thereforecritical triggers are those primarily related to these goals. In addition to these, those triggers thatrelate to minimum requirements for satisfactory project implementation are also consideredcritical. Those are associated primarily with the institutional framework for projectimplementation. A joint World Bank/donors supervision mission will be carried out to evaluatethe final draft reports for the Corridors Management Plans. The agreed triggers for the project'sphase 2 are:
I) Institutional structure established and functioning in the two corridors - project unit andCorridors Committees;
2) Corridor Management Plans designed and approved - including indigenous lands,economic incentives studies and strategies for interstitial areas;
3) Emergency monitoring and vigilance systems revised and implemented;4) Revised project proposal for Phase 2 completed and approved in line with the
recommendations of the Corridors Management Plans;5) Information systems strategy designed and approved.
Page 17
2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project:
The Ecological Corridors Project will promote institutional reforms bearing upon:
(i) the conceptual, legal and operational creation of ecological corridors encompassingpriority biodiversity areas and managed by organizations with permanent, legal mandates
(ii) inclusion of interstitial (private) areas and activities in biodiversity conservationprograms with the support of affected communities, civil society and the private sector
(iii) decentralization of GOB management control
(iv) consolidation of management information systems
(v) evaluation/adoption of feasible fiscal incentives for biodiversity conservation
(vi) patrolling and vigilance policy
The project will encourage a decentralized, participatory approach involving a wide range ofstakeholders working together to promote ecosystem integrity and increase connectivity betweenprotected areas in large geographic regions (corridors). This approach derives from the FederalGovernment Policy to enforce decentralized environmental management. The consequence of this
policy at IBAMA consists on: (i) decentralizing certain functions to state environmental agencies(OEMAs), in particular local enforcement of environmental policies (especially notable in statessuch as Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais and Parana); and (ii) outsourcing management functions for
protected areas, as evident in over 30 co-management contracts that IBAMA has established inrecent years with third parties (mostly NGOs). In short, IBAMA is gradually divesting its formerfunctions as the sole or primary executor of environmental policies at all levels and is assuming amore normative and consultative role in dealing with state and municipal agencies. It is alsoincreasingly seeking partnerships with NGOs, universities and other civil society institutions.
These changes, however, are slow and encounter formidable resistance within IBAMA. TheEcological Corridors Project will support such changes by explicitly defining a broadconservation objective (implementation of rainforest corridors), within which IBAMA's role will
be limited to that of overall project coordination and execution of activities directly pertaining tofederal UCs where its comparative advantage and legal responsibility are greatest. The project
coordination at the corridor level will require effective partnerships between IBAMA and diversegovernmental agencies and interest groups, and--outside of federal UCs--project execution will be
carried out by state and local government agencies, local community groups, consulting firms,NGOs, other civil society organizations, indigenous communities, research institutions anduniversities, and individual landowners. In short, the Project will reinforce and accelerate trends
already underway within IBAMA that should enhance their efficiency and impact.
3. Benefits and target population:
The Ecological Corridors Project will bring the following benefits:
Page 18
* pilot and consolidate a new 'corridors approach' to biodiversity conservation;* expand and diversify protected areas in corridors, thereby increasing connectivity and
reducing risks to biodiversity* increase the knowledge base and establish systematic monitoring in regions of
exceptional biodiversity;* assure participation of diverse stakeholders in project coordination and implementation,
developing new mechanisms for environmental planning and conflict resolution, andbuilding new political constituencies for biodiversity conservation;
* formulate and support policy alternatives that provide increased economic incentives forenvironmental conservation;
* increase the efficiency and impact of federal, state and municipal environmental agenciesinvolved in the project;
* ensure the political and financial sustainability of Project activities; and* build a political, academic and popular based constituency for the new corridors.
The target populations/beneficiaries of this Project include:
* populations living throughout the Amazon Corridor, including indigenous groups andnon-indigenous populations living in interstitial areas;
* populations living in or adjacent to targeted protected within the Atlantic Forest Corridor;* private landowners (ranging from individuals to corporations) within the corridors
currently or potentially interested in establishing privately held reserves;* state and municipal governmental agencies, local community organizations, NGOs and
research institutions that can assist in implementing project-related activities within thecorridors.
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements:
Project management will be carried out by:
* A General Coordination Unit, residing in the Executive Secretariat of MMA.* State coordinating units, the UCEs, located at the Amazon State Environmental Protection
Institute (IPAAM) in Amazonas, at the Environmental Resources Center (CRA), in Bahia andat the Environment Secretariat of the State of Espirito Santo (SEAMA) in Espirito Santo. TheUCEs include coordinators for Project components.
* Project Management Committees overseeing and supporting the work of the UCEs involvingthe main environmental stakeholders in Amazonas. The Biosphere Reserve committees thatalready operate in Bahia and Espirito Santo will form the Atlantic Forest Committees.
Overall responsibility for the project will reside in the Executive Secretariat of the Ministry ofEnvironment (MMA). MMA, with support of the PPG7 Coordination, will provide policyguidance and coordinate links with IBAMA, the state and local governments, MMA, WorldBank, UNDP and project donors. Activities to be executed at this level by the UCG would consistprimarily in facilitating funds transfer, overall supervision and coordination, management ofstudies and facilitating politically and operationally the work of the decentralized StateCoordinating Units (UCEs).
* In the Central Amazon Corridor the Amazonas State Coordinating Unit (UCE) would belocated at IPAAM (State Environmental Agency). It would have a small number of staff
Page 19
comprising state officials supplemented by consultants paid from the project and most likelyhired through IJNDP. The real work of project implementation falls to the UCE, which will beresponsible for coordinating specific project components at the Corridor level. A ManagementCommittee will oversee CAC operations and decide priority activities. Membership in thisCommittee would include representatives of IBAMA, FILNAI, IPAAM, Association of AmazonMunicipalities, GTA and COIAB. IPAAM will preside the Committee during the execution ofthis project.
The organizational arrangements for the CAFC will be basically the same as those established forthe CAC except that State Coordinating Units (UCEs) will be set up in Bahia and in EspiritoSanto. The UCEs will be headquartered in the states' environmental secretariats and staffed withstate personnel supported by consultants. The management committee for each state would beformed by the existing Biosphere Reserve Committees Details concerning implementationarrangements are provided in Annex 5.
Technical assistance for Project implementation will be provided through a technical cooperationagent between MMA and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Zusammenarbeit/GTZ.
In phase 2, Project implementation arrangements would be supported by Banco do Brasil whichwould serve as financial institution to facilitate the transfer of funds to non-governmental and/orlocal executors of project activities.
D: PROJECT RATIONALE
The project is justified for the following, compelling reasons:* Brazil has the world's highest biodiversity in many groups of organisms (plants, fish,
mammals) and is among the top five countries in other major groups in which reliableestimates are available;
* with the largest intact area of tropical rainforest in the world, the Amazon provides asuitable location for testing the corridor concept on a large scale;
* the Atlantic forest represents one of the world's most threatened biomes with respectto biodiversity and habitat loss;
* Brazil's relatively stable economy and democratic regime provide appropriateconditions for implementing a long-term, participatory initiative of this nature; and
* no other Pilot Program projects specifically addresses biodiversity issues.
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection:
Institutional options. Three alternative institutional options for project coordination wereanalyzed in detail during the preparation phase. One option was to turn over the management andcoordination of each pilot corridor to an autonomous entity (probably a foundation), controlled byan oversight board in which IBAMA might have a leading role among other regionalstakeholders. This entity would administer its own funds, consisting of donor grants and theproceeds of fundraising, and any other revenue that may accrue to the entity), and it would haveconsiderable freedom and flexibility with regard to contracting, transfer of funds to executingagents, purchasing, hiring and fund raising. This model has the advantage of administrativeflexibility but would incur considerable risks in terms of institutional sustainability.The second option was to confer the overall responsibility for project implementation uponIBAMA and its Directorate for Ecosystems. Under this option, the project would be coordinatedby a small office at IBAMA headquarters in Brasilia, and project activities in each of the pilotcorridors would be supervised by a decentralized and largely autonomous unit established by
Page 20
IBAMA, with oversight provided by a corridor committee comprising of local and regionalstakeholders (public and private). This option supports decentralization and would be moresustainabie. However, IBAMA is relatively limited in scope and authority compared to MMA(the accepted option) and the proposal was considered too complex in terms of projectadministration and financial management.
The third, approved option makes MMA responsible for the operation and casts IBAMA in therole of looking after its own UCs and providing advice and support at the Federal and state levelthrough Management Committee participation. The MMA Project Coordinating Unit will besmall with a well-defined mandate and project execution will be in the hands of the UCE. Thestate Project Coordinating Units (UCEs) in each of the three states. The UCEs will reside in thestate environmental secretariats. Participatory Management Committees will oversee UCE andproject implementation. The UCEs will contract out most of the work of project implementationthrough "convenios" with Federal and state agencies or contracts with private sector entities andNGOs. This option was deemed the best because it decentralizes authority and operationsdirectly to the UCEs. ensures state support and resources, and maximizes flexibility. Thisorganizational set-up is discussed in Annex 5.
Implementation in two phases. Earlier versions of this project anticipated a single operationextending over 4-5 years. Due to its innovativeness and complexity, the donors and Bankrecommended that the project be implemented in two operations, beginning with an 18 monthphase one 'launch' during which institutional arrangements would be established, clear projectbenchmarks achieved, and detailed plans defined for the project's second phase, which wouldtake place during the following 3.5 years. IBAMA has concurred with this phased approach,which will enable the donors to evaluate concrete results before committing funds for the entireproject.
Focus on CAC and CAFC. The original design aimed to begin implementation of all sevencorridors in the Amazon and Atlantic forest regions. This option was soon discarded due to thecomplexity of the corridor concept and the recognition that the concept needed to be tested. As aresult, two pilot corridors were selected.
Of the five corridors defined to-date in the Amazon region, the Central Amazon Corridor and theNorthern Amazon Corridor have more protected area connectivity and ecosystem integrity (seemaps). In addition, CAC has by far the strongest institutional base of the Amazon corridors, witha healthy mix of governmental agencies, NGOs, research institutions and private enterprisesengaged in biodiversity conservation. Yet to date, few initiatives have been taken to linkprotected areas or promote conservation on private and indigenous lands in this corridor. As aresult, the CAC project can support innovative actions that can provide the foundation for a viablecorridor in the future.
The Northern Atlantic Forest Corridor exhibits far less protected area connectivity and ecosystemintegrity than its counterpart to the South (see Annex 11), where a variety of institutions andfunding agencies (including prospective donors of this project) have collaborated over the yearsin developing a relatively strong network of protected areas. As a result, the need for additionalsupport to strengthen the Southern Atlantic Forest Corridor is not as pressing, and there is a GEFoperation in the pipeline for Parana State that will address biodiversity conservation in theSouthern Atlantic Forest. The Northern Corridor, in contrast, contains some of the last remnantsof Atlantic forest, many precariously protected and harboring numerous endemic species that willbecome extinct if these habitats disappear. Local institutions and funding agencies, both publicand private, have been less effective here, although there is evidence of commitment to
Page 21
environmental issues throughout the Corridor. These factors provide a compelling case forfocusing on CAFC where conservation needs and incremental benefits are greatest.
Page 22
2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies(completed, ongoing and planned):
Sector issue Project Latest Supervision (Form 590)Ratings
_______________ _______________ _____________________(Bank-financed projects only)Implementation Development
World Bank-financed Progress (IP) Objective (DO)* Strengthen main Brazil - National S S
environmental agencies, Environment Project5and develop a legal andregulatory framework
* Environmental institutional Brazil - Rond6nia Natural U Ustrengthening and capacity Resources Managementbuilding Project (PLANAFLORO)
* Environmental Brazil - Mato Grosso U Umanagement Natural Resources
Management Project(PRODEAGRO)
GEF financed* Develop biodiversity Brazil - Biodiversity Fund S S
strategies for key biomes Projects (GEF-FUNBIO andin Brazil and promote GEF-PROBIO)partnerships amonggovernment, NGOs andprivate sector to promotebiodiversity conservation
Rainforest Pilot Program* Promote sustainable Brazil - Rain Forest Pilot S HS
natural resource Program, Demonstrationmanagement conservation Projects (PD/A)by local communities inthe Amazon and AtlanticForest
* Complete the legalization Brazil - Rain Forest Pilot S Sand assisting in the Program, Indigenous Landsprotection of Indigenous Project (PPTAL)Lands in the Amazon
* Develop and test Brazil - Rain Forest Pilot S Sapproaches to the social, Program, Extractiveeconomic and Reserves Project (RESEX)environmentalmanagement of extractivereserves in the Amazon
* Strengthen policy analysis, Brazil - Rain Forest Pilot S Sregulatory, zoning, Program, Natural Resourcesmonitoring and Policy Project (SPRN)
5 The National Environment Project (NEP I) was co-financed by KfW with technical assistance providedby GTZ.
Page 23
enforcement, andimplementation capacity ofstate environmentalagencies in the Amazon
* Promote sustainable use of Brazil - Floodplain Natural S Sthe natural resources of the Resources ManagementAmazon floodplains Project (PROVARZEA)
Other development agenciesGerman Technical Cooperation Brazil - Tripartite Protected N/A N/AAgency (GTZ) Areas Management in
Atlantic Forest of MinasGerais State
German Development Bank (KfW) Brazil - Protection of the N/A N/AAtlantic Rainforest in thestates of: (a) Sao Paulo; (b)Parana; (c) Minas Gerais; (c)Rio de Janeiro; (d) SantaCatarina - preparing; (e) RioGrande do Sul - preparing.
IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (HighlyUnsatisfactory)
3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design:The Rainforest Corridors project builds on the experience and lessons derived from diverseprojects funded by the Bank and other agencies in Brazil and internationally. The most pertinentlessons are summarized below:
Strengthening conservation units. The National Environmental Project (NEP), financed partly bya Bank loan to Brazil since 1990, had as a major objective the consolidation of 32 conservationunits (UCs) in all of Brazil, and in its subcomponent Atlantic Forest aimed to provide support tothe consolidation of another 18 Sate conservation units in the States of Sao Paulo, Parana,Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro and Santa Catarina. Following initial delays in implementation byMMA and IBAMA, project performance improved and noteworthy progress was made in(i) developing and adopting new guidelines for planning of UCs; (ii) improving infrastructure;(iii) adopting co-management of UCs with NGOs, state and municipal governments;(iv) implementing cost-rebovery policy through user fees and concessions; and (iv) training ofIBAMA staff. Yet the project only partially fulfilled or failed to meet its targets of (i) resolvingland tenure issues and demarcating 50% of the 30 UCs; and (ii) increasing the number of IBAMAstaff in conservation units (the number has actually decreased due to cost control by the federalgovernment). Local involvement in biodiversity conservation has not been successfully carriedout and the local constituency to support biodiversity conservation is not yet in place, because theNEP worked in many isolated parks all over the country, and due to the terms of the loanagreement and the philosophy existing at the time the project was signed, prior to the concept ofecological corridors. The lessons from this project are that future efforts to promote biodiversityconservation in Brazil require (i) further decentralization of responsibilities from the federal tostate and municipal environmental agencies; (ii) increased participation by interested stakeholders(in particular local communities, NGOs and the private sector); (iii) development of a strategicpolicy framework for biodiversity conservation (iv) focus on a few areas (2-7 corridors) rather
Page 24
than dispersing efforts over the entire country, and (vi) institutional development componentsmust accompany equipment and infrastructure implementation and not lag behind in order tomaintain leverage.
Decentralization. IBAMA is decentralizing some of its functions to state environmental agencies,especially is states where such agencies are strong such as Parand and Minas Gerais. In general,these agencies are quite weak in the Amazon region. Bank-funded projects such asPLANAFLORO and PRODEAGRO, and the Pilot Program's Natural Resources Policy Project,are addressing this need. As emphasized in a 1994 Bank study Decentralization and BiodiversityConservation, which analyzed experiences worldwide, decentralization is not a panacea and itgenerally requires long-term commitment due to a general lack of institutional capacity at locallevels of government. Despite these drawbacks, however, decentralization can provide aneffective tool for maximizing limited resources and increasing coordination betweengovernmental agencies at various levels. According to the report, in order to maximizedecentralization benefits and minimize risks a project must assure:(i) local participation, especially in a way that allows local people to understand and endorse theboundaries and management plans of nature reserves and that promotes clear tenure over land andother resources in and around the reserves;(ii) local capacity to increase skills and accountability among local government units and NGOsso they can work together to promote conservation and development;(iii) conditional subsidies, especially where divergent costs and benefits of conservation areexperienced by local and non-local groups, making it necessary for global and national society tobridge the gap with livelihood investments or grants;(iv) appropriate enforcement, especially against powerful local or central interests, always in thecontext of education and public relations;(v) stakeholder forums and ecoregional executives, which need decision-making and fiscalauthority to fulfill their three main roles of avoiding conflict through dialogue, authorizingconservation actions and requesting help from non-local society to meet local developmentpriorities;(vi) enabling policies, laws, and institutions to provide a clear and supportive framework forconservation on behalf of national govemments, thus creating incentives at the local level toharmonize development and conservation and so reduce the need for enforcement.
Engaging stakeholders. A 1994 report by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) emphasizesthe importance of facilitating "direct" biodiversity conservation activities by communities orgroups of people who have a vital interest in conservation because their livelihoods or quality oflife depend directly on biological resources. Specifically, the report found that:(i) more consideration needs to be given to the involvement of local people, their expertise andtheir priorities;(ii) projects need to build more on existing data on biodiversity and conservation priorities;(iii) more meaningful involvement of NGOs is needed throughout the project cycle to locate "Wotspots" and to establish global biodiversity networks;(iv) more creative cooperation among implementing agencies and other global organizationsworking in the field of biodiversity should be promoted; and(v) more innovative approaches are needed than has been demonstrated in past projects.
Involving NGOs and local communities in project design and implementation is a hallmark of thePilot Program, notably the Demonstration, Extractive Reserves and Indigenous Lands projects.This approach appears to generate greater project "ownership" among beneficiaries and maycontribute to project sustainability. The GEF projects (notably FUNBIO) are testing strategies forencouraging private sector support for biodiversity conservation. This is largely unexplored
Page 25
terrain in Brazil and will probably also require a long-term commitment. Close links will need tobe established between the Rainforest Corridors and these other projects, which could supportcomplementary activities.
Developing a strategic policy framework. In the area of biodiversity protection, a more strategicapproach is needed that defines key priorities, coordinates actions between differentgovernmental agencies, encourages greater participation by civil society, and combines policyregulations with incentives. Developing strategic goals, objectives and principles, based uponsound technical studies, is an integral part of the proposed project, which aims to channelconservation efforts in specific geographic areas (corridors) that harbor exceptionalconcentrations of biodiversity. In addition to GEF's PROBIO, the prioritization of biodiversityareas will also draw upon the recent work of the PRONABIO-Macapa Workshop and the newand complementary ARPA project to set aside 10% of the region's forests for completeprotection.
Other elements of a strategic policy framework for biodiversity conservation-such as increasedcoordination between governmental agencies and greater participation by civil society-arediscussed above and are a key feature of the proposed project. The final element combiningregulations with incentives constitutes a critical gap in Brazil's environmental policy agenda,which has numerous regulations yet little enforcement and virtually no incentives. The proposedproject will analyze a wide range of potential fiscal and financial incentives to promotebiodiversity.
Experience with other biodiversity corridors worldwide. The Global Environment Facility andthe Bank are supporting several biodiversity conservation projects around the world, including agroup of country-specific projects contributing to the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.Experience with these projects to-date has generated critical lessons reflected in the currentproject's design (see World Bank Operational Manual GP 4.04), such as:* "On the ground" management. Effective management of protected areas requires specific
measures and activities including staffing and training, provision of necessary equipment andinfrastructure, development of scientifically sound management plans, and establishment of anappropriate policy environment. The current project addresses all of these issues.
* Appropriate design. The multiple objectives of managing natural habitats requires measuresthat are carefully designed early in the project design, such as: defining an appropriate scalefor project activities; reinforcing connections to various habitat types; and recruiting qualified,multidisciplinary teams that work in close collaboration with local populations.
* Adequate financing and government commitment. The RFT will finance phase 1 andagreement will be confirmed with Trust Fund donors regarding the funding of the phase 2. Atthis point, pledges of support indicate that phases I and 2 could garner up to US$25.09million 6
in donor funding and an additional 24% in local counterpart. Further indications ofgovernment commitment are provided in the following section.
4. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership:
Indicators of project ownership and commitment:
6 This total does not include KfW's EUR 3.059.340,65 million commitment to be available through PDPI.KfW amounts have been formally pledged.
Page 26
* MMA and donors have demonstrated perseverance throughout lengthy project preparation andare finally reaching agreement over difficult project management arrangements and donorpledges for phase 2;
* Agreement of GOB and principle donors on project phasing, scope, and fast track processingresulting in approval by April, 2001, of the RFT portion of the Project.
* GOB placement of nearly 2 million hectares into protected areas of strict conservation.* GOB agreement to put 10% of Amazon under protected areas through the ARPA project and
approval of NEP II and pipeline Parana Biodiversity projects.* Endorsement of Amazonas, Bahia and Espirito Santo in hosting the projects.* GOB support to GTT in 1998 to refine the Corridors PAD.* IBAMA's recent experience in developing technical guidelines and managing UCs in
collaboration with NGOs and local communities, supported by the National EnvironmentProject (see section D-2);
* Continuing interest in the project and participation by a wide range of institutions (includingIBAMA, OEMAs, environmental NGOs, community organizations and private firms) overprolonged project development period;
* Time invested by NGOs, OEMAs, IBAMA and volunteers.
5. Value added of Bank support in this project:
Without the Bank's involvement it is questionable whether this project would ever be completed.In addition, value is added in the following ways:
* Bank role as 'independent broker' among competing agencies, stakeholders andinterests;
* Bank global experience with environmental reform and ecological corridors* Bank access to worldwide environmental and biodiversity information and experience
and its capacity to mobilize resources and funding;* Bank knowledge of monitoring status and trends in, and publications on, critical LAC
ecosystems;* Bank role and mandate as fiduciary for donor and G7 funds plus its financial
contribution through RFT funds;* Bank links to UNDP and its experience with direct financing mechanisms, such as
those used for the Demonstration Projects through the Bank of Brazil;* Bank's ability to promote collaboration among a variety of RFT, IBRD, and GEF
projects and especially ARPA.
E: SUMMARY PROJECT ANALYSIS (Detailed assessments are in the project files, see Annex 8)
1. Economic: N/A
Cost-Benefit Analysis: N/A
2. Financial: N/A
3. Technical:
MMA, IBAMA and the relevant state environmental agencies have no prior experience with theimplementation of corridors for biodiversity conservation. However, lack of experience ismitigated by project design. First, the project is designed in discrete components (i.e.,government-run UCs, privately held reserves, indigenous lands, etc.) that can be implemented by
Page 27
experienced institutions using already tested approaches that support the corridor concept.Second, the project is designed to combine effective project management and coordination withoversight by relevant stakeholders. Third, MMA and IBAMA have embraced the concept ofcorridors as an innovative approach to protected areas management, and the relevant OEMAshave also responded enthusiastically. Fourth, the project is structured in such a way that eachagency can proceed independently and project implementation will not be impeded by isolateddelays. Finally, project management will also be facilitated because:
* the project management structure is light and will be of superior technical and managerialcaliber;
* the UCG and corridor-level UCEs will have a high degree of autonomy and flexibility;* project funds will be administered by qualified financial agents;* staff of proven competence will be recruited for project planning, implementation and
monitoring;* technical assistance from GTZ will assist in analysis and support project staff.
4. Institutional:
Overall coordination of the Rainforest Corridors Project will lie with MMA which will establish aunit coordinated by the Executive Secretariat with the participation of the Amazon CoordinationSecretariat and the Biodiversity and Forests Secretariat..
Specifically, project implementation arrangements have adopted the following measures tosupport effective project management:
* autonomy of the project coordinating units (UCG and UCEs);* qualified technical assistance for these units, to be provided by GTZ as needed;* administration of personnel and procurement through a qualified agency such as UNDP;• transfer of funds to subproject implementers through an agency such as the Bank of Brazil;* provision for Bank and donor no-objections on the hiring of project staff; and* phasing so that a small 'start-up' operation focusing on two corridors will be followed by a
much larger second operation to upscale and implement.
Executing agencies: Ownership and flexibility will be assured by staffing UCEs with highcaliber employees drawn from the state environmental secretariats. Implementation of theproject's components will be carried out primarily by institutions and consultants, under the directsupervision of the UCEs. Executing institutions will include NGOs, local communityorganizations, research institutions, universities, and private consulting firms. To assuremaximum quality and coordination, implementation of selected project activities - such as thepreparation of management plans for the pilot corridors, feasibility studies of other corridors,policy analyses and formulation- could be prepared by one or more firms or institutionscontracted through competitive international bidding.
5. Social7 :
The project has been under preparation for some five years and during this period extensivecontacts have been undertaken to elicit stakeholder inputs. The concept and delimitation of sevenrainforest corridors was developed by a team of five prominent Brazilian biologists, and
7 A document regarding social analysis has been developed by Project team and is available in project files.
Page 28
discussed with a wide range of potential stakeholders during a series of technical meetings atIBAMA's headquarters in Brasilia. Based on the planning of this team, IBAMA convenedrepresentatives of relevant government and non-governmental organizations to two regionalworkshops, one in each corridor, in October 1996. After conclusion of the third version of theproject proposal by the Ayres team in 1997, a second consultant team was hired to examine theinstitutional options for project management, which led to a refined version of the project, whichwas submitted by the GOB as an official project document in February 1998.
Prior to the conclusion of this consultancy, it became clear that the project would have to gobeyond its original focus and actively integrate indigenous lands and their inhabitants into theproject. In early 1998 the Bank contracted a senior specialist, to analyze the situation ofindigenous groups within the two pilot corridors. Based on this analysis report, a team ofspecialists was contracted to carry out in-depth consultations with governmental and non-governmental organizations related to indigenous peoples. Following the Bank's submission ofits draft April 1998 PAD, the GOB convened a Technical Working Group (GTT) comprising theMMA, state environmental officials, FUJNAI and NGO representatives (GTA, RMA) to refineand adjust the project further. Finally, in June 2000 the Executive Secretariat of MMA took overthe coordination of the Project and, based on the documents prepared by the GTT, expressed tothe Bank and donors the interest to accomplish the appraisal of the Project in the year of 2000 andthat the funds allocated for phase I be used not only in the planning of phase 2, but also to startstrategic actions in the corridors, such as integrated vigilance and beginning of implementation ofsome conservation units. This PAD draws heavily upon the GTT work. Delegations from MMAand potential donors visited Bahia and Espirito Santo in May, 2000 and received assurances ofcontinuing official support.
During implementation/operation: During implementation, stakeholder participation will beassured through the following mechanisms:
(i) Strategic Coordination and Planning. The UCG at MMA will coordinate strategic planningefforts to ensure that they involve principle stakeholders. However, most strategic planning willbe done at the decentralized UCE level. Management Committees will include state, IBAMA,FUNAI and NGO participants. Each of the project components in the state corridors - UCcreation and consolidation, interstitial areas and indigenous reserves - will begin with studies toformulate strategic management plans. These will involve relevant stakeholders and this will beensured through vetting of TORs and close supervision. In addition, critical studies such asPatrolling and Vigilance, marketing, and identification of useful fiscal incentives will necessarilyinvolve stakeholders.
(ii) Decentralized Management Structure and Planning. As explained in (i) above, there will bevery little central authority exercised over spending or corridor activities in this project. Bothplanning and execution will reside primarily in the state environmental secretary based UCEswith deliberative support of the Management Committees. Furthermore, much of the work willbe carried out in the field by specialists and experienced government officials.
Page 29
(iii) Protected Areas/Conservation Units. Most protected areas/UCs are under governmentagencies and the development of management plans will be participatory and consider the viewsof those working with protected areas. The preparation and implementation of the ManagementPlans can be done through convenios or agreements with consulting firms, NGOs, public orprivate institutions. In order to expand biodiversity protection through RPPNs, a communicationstrategy will be directed to the owners of potential areas, aiming to stimulate them to an adequatemaintenance of the lands and to the creation of new RPPNs. When dealing with RPPNs toupgrade/enforce conservation management, a similarly participatory approach will be taken sinceprograms cannot be imposed. Finally, proposals to create new protected areas will beaccompanied by a well-established process to elicit views of stakeholders as part of the decisionprocess.
(iv) Interstitial Areas. Activities in these areas will be demand driven hence the majorparticipatory effort will be to design management plans and the sub-component funding programwith input from stakeholders. Afterwards, participation will be ensured by disseminating phase Iinformation in target areas, convoking potential sub-component recipients, providing technicalassistance, and supervising implementation.
(v) Indigenous Reserves. A demanding consultation process will set the goals for concreteactions in indigenous lands, giving the most ample space to participation and self-determinationof the tribes. Since no activities can be undertaken without the consent of the indigenous groups,participation will require explaining the program and obtaining acquiescence, jointly developingmanagement plans and from this, work programs with fundable proposals, and jointimplementation and supervision. This work will be coordinated by specialists in the area, verylikely including a mix of government and NGO staff.
(vi) Dissemination. Separate central and corridor components will address the need todisseminate the corridors concept, build constituencies and fund raising. Scientific and projectdatabases and papers generated by the project will be made available.
6. Environmental assessment: Environmental Category [I A [X] B [] C
The project's main thrust is to create new protected areas and improve implementation of federal,state and municipal conservation units, especially on priority biodiversity lands; reconcile localnatural resources use with conservation objectives; integrate indigenous lands into an effectivebiodiversity strategy on a regional scale; and harmonize cross sectorial policies with biodiversityconservation at the corridor level to limit further resource degradation.
Overall the project objectives and activities are environmentally benign. No infrastructureprojects are anticipated. Innovative activities will be undertaken within and around indigenousreserves and Bank OD 4.20 will be observed. The major issue relates to indigenous peoples, forwhich the Bank OD 4.20 makes mitigating provisions. For these reasons, the project has beenassigned the environmental classification of "B". No logging in primary forest will be financedunder the project.
Page 30
F: SUSTAINABILITY AND RISKS
1. Sustainability:
Sustainability is a major focus of the project design. The central and decentralized corridorsmanagement units will have the responsibility to build political and public constituencies throughspecific dissemination and sub-components. This work will begin in the phase I design stagethrough the participatory approach described above. It is expected that with implementation andupscaling in phase 2, a concerted outreach effort will also be implemented.
Inevitably, recurrent costs will increase with corridors administration and implementation ofmanagement plans, including the possibility of having to pay for new protected areas. In part, theCorridors Project is intended to efficiently strengthen biodiversity conservation in areas where itis not now done, including UCs and other protected areas. However, steps will be taken to findalternative sources of revenue for UCs as part of the design of management plans and from fundraising and involvement of international and national foundations and the private sector. In thisregard, it is useful to note that the ARPA project has strong management and UC/interstitialstrengthening components that foresee the development of new sources of revenue and privatesector/NGO involvement. The Corridors Project should draw heavily upon this work.
Financial analysis and issues of sustainability will be integral components of management plans.The Corridors project will also be able to draw upon the experience of ARPA buffer zonecomponents and the Parana Biodiversity Project (GEF) to model its interstitial areas work.Securing international resources and partnerships, from private and public donors, forbiodiversity conservation would be an important element of planning for Corridors financialsustainability, much as it already is for the GEF's Biodiversity Fund in Brazil. However,commitments for increased funding, particularly of recurrent costs, would also be sought from theBrazilian federal and state governments.
2. Critical Risks:
Risk Risk Rating Risk Minimization Measure
From Outputs to Objective:
Ecological Corridors phase 1 is a "start-up" orprocess grant that will create organizationalstructure, design and pilot interventions."Objectives" will be achieved in Corridors IIwhen designs are implemented and upscaled.Indicators will be confirmed during appraisal.
From Components to Outputs:
1. The GOB and donors will refuse to carry out M As a condition for Corridors phase Iphase 2 as planned and/or elections will GOB and donors will be asked toundercut project commitment commit funding as quid-pro-quo for
RFT financing of Corridors I.Participation in design, includingvetting of 'triggers', M&E will
Page 31
cement ownership. Phase I will beconcluding at time of electionsallowing for political assessmentprior to phase 2.
2. MMA/IBAMA and state organizations M Mitigated by decentralized structureprove inept project managers housed in environmental secretariats
and technical assistance; also, phaseI is mostly studies/ organizationalinfrastructure which facilitatesimplementation.
3. Improvement of UC performance will prove S As condition for phase 2, 10difficult owing to continued grossly inadequate management plans will bestaffing, resources, capability completed; UC training programs,
TA, Vigilance and Control workwill help; IBAMA and states will beasked to assure recurrent costs; newrevenue sources will be explored;ARPA and RFPP projects willcollaborate; civil societyorganization will participate.
4. Creation of new protected areas will prove S Phase I will undertake studies toexpensive and/or politically difficult resulting identify tenure, cost and feasibility,in triage in favor of other activities targeting priority areas. ARPA will
help this effort. If new areas provenot to be feasible, other phase 2components could continue.
5. Interstitial areas management programs will S Management plans will beprove unsuccessful owing to lack of incentives elaborated in phase 1. Fundor poor organization structure for altemative activities
will provide incentive. Considerableresearch and experience inalternative and sustainable resourcemanagement exists supplementedby RFPP and ARPA. Pilots will bedesigned and launched in phase Iand studies will allow forassessment of componentfeasibility.
6. Involvement of indigenous lands in S Preliminary contacts elicited highbiodiversity conservation will prove degree of interest and menu ofunsuccessful owing to lack of incentives or proposed interventions that will bepoor organization developed jointly with specialists
and piloted in phase l; technicalassistance will be provided fordevelopment of sub-componentsand competitive fund is envisioned;component feasibility will beassessed in phase 1.
7. Reticence of GOB/states to undertake S Phase 2 decision will be based upon
Page 32
regulatory reforms, enforcement, establish phase I performance; studies ofincentives, provide adequate counterpart owing enforcement and fiscal incentivesto lack of political support, vested interests. will assess feasibility and prioritize
reforms.8. Low level of direct support from ARPA and M ARPA co-TM is also Corridors co-RFT programs TM and activities already
programmed for CAC; RFPP shouldbe able to ensure collaboration.
9. Poor participatory process dilutes M Participatory Managementownership, undercuts project Committees and UCs will oversee
project; interstitial and indigenouscomponents are demand driven andcomponents will ensuredissemination and TA.
Overall Risk Rating SRisk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N (Negligible or Low Risk).
3. Possible Controversial Aspects:
The project design calls for participatory management of environmental assets involving thecollaboration of all relevant stakeholders through a process of negotiation. Through this process,controversies are expected to be minimized or averted.
The fact that the project will not finance recurrent costs for federal UCs could be considered acontroversial aspect. Although there are new legislative provisions (SNUC law) that will allowfor more flexibility in using park revenues, the current system does not permit full allocation byIBAMA of its revenues from park to the operation, maintenance and administration of UCs. Thisis an issue that goes beyond the Ecological Corridors Project but which justifies the Bank's (anddonor's) position regarding financing recurrent costs.
G: MAIN GRANT CONDITIONS
1. Effectiveness Conditions:
* Operational Manual satisfactory to the Bank;* MMA/UNDP agreements acceptable to the Bank are signed and effective technical
cooperation agreements signed and effective;* The General Coordination Unit (UCG) is established and staffed;* The state Project Implementation Units and Management Committees, under terms and
conditions satisfactory to the Bank, have been established and staffed;* MIS and financial management system established;* Submission of an Annual Operational Plan (POA) for the first year of implementation,
satisfactory to the Bank.
Page 33
2. Other: Not applicable
H. READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. [] The engineering design documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready forthe start of project implementation.
[X] Not applicable.
2. [ ] The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for thestart of project implementation.
3. [ ] The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and ofsatisfactory quality.
4. [ ] The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G):
I. COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICIES
[ 3 This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
[X] The project complies with all other applicable Bank policies.
Signatures:
Task Managers: Luiz Gabriel T. Azevedo, Adriana G. Moreira
Sector Director: John Redwood
Country Director: Vinod Thomas
Page 34
Annex 1Project Design Summary
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
Hierarchy of Objectives Key Performance Indicatorn Monitoring & Evaluation Critical Assumptions
Sector Related CAS Goal Sector Indicators Sector/Country Reports (from Goal to BankMission)
Effective protection and * Species-rich areas under * Occasional Bank reports on Environmental issuesmanagement of rainforest effective protection. the environmental sector. continue to be a priorityand other protected areas. for GOB.
a Representative samples of * Relevant project supervision Broad based constituencyecosystems protected. reports. for rainforest conservation
continues to grow.
Project Purpose: Indicative End-of-Program Program Reports: (from Project Purpose totIndicators (by 2005): Goal)
Demonstrate the viability * Two ecological corridors a Independent evaluations. Government developmentof ecological corridors in representing significant policies (PPA) integratebiodiversity conservation in areas of the Amazon and * Annual reports on corridors conservation issuesthe Amazon and Atlantic Atlantic Rainforests are vigilance and monitoringRain Forests. established and managed systems.
sustainably Continued support for thePhase 1 (Corridor * Project implementation decentralization ofPlanning) * Ecological corridor model completion and evaluation environmentalDevelopment of Corridor is developed and tested for reports. management.management plans; replication and forstrengthen vigilance and incorporation into public Sustained commitmentmonitoring capacity at policies from states and localcorridor level; start communities to theimplementation of * Substantial decrease of "ecological corridors"management plans in deforestation rates in the concept.selected Corridors priority areasProtected Areas. No external developments
threatening the viability ofPhase 2 (Corridor the sites.Implementation)Consolidation of corridor Broad based constituencymonitoring and vigilance for rainforest conservationsystems; implementation continues to growof CorridorManagement Plans;implementation ofsubprojects in indigenouslands and interstitial areas.
Page 35
Project Development Outcome/Impact indicators Project Reports: (from Objective toObjectives (Phase 1): (to be met before effectiveness Project Purpose)
of Phase 2 by December,2002):
Institutional structure for Institutional structure * Supervision reports. Agencies and keythe two corridors fully established and stakeholders at theoperational. functioning in the two * Evaluation reports. corridor level are able to
corridors. cooperate effectively.Priority areas and * Minutes of corridorsactivities for effective * Corridor Management committee meetings. Continued support forbiodiversity conservation Plans designed and decentralization ofin each corridor approved. vigilance.established.
* Monitoring and vigilance Adequate UC staffing,Integrated strategy for systems revised and budget and equipment tocorridor monitoring and implemented. implement managementvigilance established for plans.each corridor. * Revised proposal for
Phase 2 completed andapproved.
Outputs from each Output indicators (Phase 1): Project reports: (from Outputs tocomponent (Phase 1): Objectives)
I. MMA and States have 1.1 Qualified counterpart staff * Supervision reports. Agencies and keystrengthened project mobilized at federal and state stakeholders at thestrategic coordination level, with defined * Disbursement reports. corridor level are able tocapacity. erformance goals. cooperate effectively.
*Evaluation reports.1.2 Project dissemination Continued support for
strategy designed and * Audit reports. decentralization ofapproved. vigilance.
1.3 Studies completed and Adequate UC staffing,Project Phase 2 designed. udget and equipment to
implement managementplans.
2. CAC management plan 2.1 Corridor boundariesdeveloped and agencies defined and mapped.adopting integratedmonitoring and vigilance 2.2 Integrated databases onsystems. biodiversity rich areas in the
corridor compiled as basis forcorridor management plan.
Page 36
2.3 Management plans preparedand approved for at least twoConservation Units within thecorridor area.
2.4 Existing management plansartially implemented in six
Conservation Units within thecorridor area.
215 Strategy for implementationf sub-projects in interstitial areas
designed and approved.
2.6 Indigenous lands pilot sub-projects designed and approved.
3.1 Corridor boundaries definedand mapped.
3. CAFC managementplan developed and 3.2 Integrated databases onagencies adopting biodiversity rich areas in theintegrated monitoring and orridor compiled as basis forvigilance systerns. corridor management plan.
3.3 Management plans preparedand approved for at least twoConservation Units within thecorridor area.
3.4 Existing management plansartially implemented in four
Conservation Units within the
corridor area.
3.5 Strategy for implementationf sub-projects in interstitial areas
designed and approved.
____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________i
Page 37
Outputs from each Output indicators (entire Project reports: (from Outputs tocomponent (Phase 2): project): Objectives)
1. MMA, states, 1. 1 Establish coordination * Supervision reports. Agencies and keymunicipalities and civil bodies at Federal, state and stakeholders at thesociety have increased municipal levels. * Disbursement reports. corridor level are able tocapacity in management of cooperate effectively.natural resources on a 1.2 Implement training and * Evaluation reports.regional scale. international exchange of Continued support for
experience. * Audit reports. decentralization ofvigilance.
1.3 Design ecologicalcorridors management plans. Adequate UC staffing,
budget and equipment to
1.4 Develop ecological implement managementcorridors dissemination plans.strategy. Destructive land use
1.5 Carry out relevant practices reduced in thestudies. corridors priority areas.
2. Key stakeholdersmanage the CACaccording to the agreed 2.1 Establish coordinationmanagement plan. unit and committee.
2.2 Define and map CACboundaries.
2.3 Establish database onbiodiversity and land use.
2.4 Develop and implementsubprojects in interstitialareas, indigenous areas andUC.
2.5 Develop and implementnew management plans forUCs.
2.6 Implement existingmanagement plans for UCs.
2.7 Develop environmentalmonitoring system.
2.8 Develop and implementpatrolling, vigilance
Page 38
surveillance and controlsystems.
2.9 Carry out relevant3. Key stakeholders training.manage the CAFCaccording to the agreedmanagement plan. 3.1 Establish coordination
unit and committees.
3.2 Define and map CACboundaries.
3.3 Establish database onbiodiversity and land use.
3.4 Develop and implementsubprojects in interstitialareas.
3.5 Preserve small remainingareas and manage themaccording to managementplans.
3.6 Induce creation ofmicro-corridors, bufferzones.
3.7 Increase theirconnectivity.
3.8 Support municipalities inelaborating managementplans.
3.9 Develop environmentalmonitoring system.
3.10 Develop and implementpatrolling, vigilancesurveillance and controlsystems.
3.11 carry out relevanttraining.
Page 39
Project Components/ Inputs (budget): Project Reports: (from Component toSub-components: Outputs)
1. Strategic Coordination 1. US$2.04 million * Project supervision reports. Participating institutions1.1 Project 1.1 US$0.70 million comply with agreementsadministration. 1.2 US$0.70 million * Disbursement reports. to collect and disclose1.2 Marketing and data on a timely basis.advertising of corridors. 1.3 US$0.64 million * Evaluation reports.1.3 Specific studies. Stakeholders within
2. US$15.51 million corridors agree on2. Central Amazonian priorities.Corridor (CAC) 2.1 US$4.60 million2.1 Corridor planning,vigilance and monitoring. 2.2 US$6.49 million2.2 Conservation unitplanning and 2.3 US$4.19 millionmanagement.2.3 Interstitial areas. 2.4 US$0.23 million2.4 Protection ofbiological diversity inindigenous lands. 3. US$13.88 million
3. Central Atlantic Forest 3.1 US$4.15 millionCorridor (CAFC)3.1 Corridor planning, 3.2 US$6. 10 millionvigilance and monitoring.3.2 Planning andmanagement of 3.3 US$3.63 millionconservation units.3.3 Interstitial areas.
Page 40
Annex 2Project Description
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
The project focuses on two corridors: one in the Amazon region and one in the Atlantic Forest region.The Amazon Corridor is relatively intact, with high degree of connectivity and large areas under legallyprotected status. The Atlantic rainforest corridor is highly fragmented, with minimal connectivitybetween forested areas and a very low percentage of its areas legally protected. The main projectobjective is to contribute to the effective conservation of Brazil's biodiversity in two of its mostimportant biomes by: (a) supporting the protection and management of existing legally protected areas inthe two corridors; (b) providing for the design and implementation of innovative and replicable modelsfor biodiversity conservation on interstitive areas; and (c) promoting institutional strengthening at thecorridor level.
The adopted strategy for project implementation establishes that the Ecological Corridors Project will beimplemented in two sequential phases (Figure A2.1). The first phase, lasting approximately 18 months,will be funded by the RFT and Governments. The second phase is planned for a 42 monthsimplementation period and will receive most of its financial support from the German KfW1 an theEuropean Commission. The Project logical framework (annex I) specifies a set of benchmarks that haveto be reached by the end of phase I in order to proceed with implementation of the second phase.
The project is divided in three main components: (i) Strategic Coordination, (ii) Central AmazonCorridor (CAC), and (iii) Central Atlantic Forest Corridor (CAFC). The project will focus on five majorthemes: (i) development and/or implementation of management plans in selected UCs; (ii) protectedareas development and implementation of a vigilance and enforcement strategy for each corridor;(iii) development of a strategy for the implementation of a comprehensive environmental monitoring2
system in each corridor; (iv) development and implementation of a dissemination strategy; and(v) development of comprehensive corridors management plan (CMP) encompassing a range ofassociated studies.
' Donors have been actively involved in project preparation and provided substantial comments to the preparationof this PAD.2 Focusing primarily on the consolidation of existing monitoring systems into an integrated information system.
1V Phase 2nd Phase
Triggers
Contract of studies Corridors Committeesand/or activities 1. and donors establish
pre-established in priorities and definethe PAD for the 1" activities to be financed
phase in the 2nd phase based onManagement Plan and a) Evaluation
lessons learned in the 1st of results ofphase the 1" phase Implementation of u
the 2nd phases r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b) Evaluation 1
Consolidation of Implementation and of CorridorsProject's completion of 1't phase Management
institutional activities anframework
FUNDS Counterpart + RFT
±,18'months mnths
Figure A2.1: Ecological Corridors Project Strategy Development
Page 42
COMPONENT I - STRATEGIC COORDINATION
This relatively minor component aims to develop the strategic actions needed at the national level toensure that (i) corridors are designed and implemented in a manner that incorporates best practicesupported in requisite multi-disciplinary studies; (ii) institutional arrangements, staffing and budgets areadequate, and (iii) key stakeholders work together to assume ownership of and actively support theconcept of "Ecological Corridors". These stakeholders include relevant federal, state and municipalagencies, environmental NGOs, business and grassroots organizations, and interested private citizens.At national level the responsibility for the Corridors project will be with the Executive Secretariat of theMinistry of Environment. A small unit will be created to take on the responsibility for theimplementation of this component.
The Component will implement actions to launch the project and create the necessary conditions for itsprogressive decentralization and success by developing local project management capacity, buildinglocal constituencies, and establishing stakeholder partnerships. Actively promoting collaboration amongdonors and other organizations with parallel programs will constitute another important activity,especially since other Rainforest Pilot Program (RFPP) projects (PDPI, PPTAL, RESEX) and theAmazon Protected Areas Project (ARPA) are expected to contribute directly to the Corridors projectmain objectives. Component I is organized into three subcomponents:
Subcomponent 1.1: Project Administration
During phases I and 2 of the project, a General Coordination Unit (UCG) will be established at theMinistry of Environment (MMA), in Brasilia. This Unit will be maintained for the implementation ofphase 2. The UCG will be responsible for: i) overall project coordination, assisting project managementcapacity at state level; ii) preparation of annual work plans and semi-annual progress reports inconjunction with state units; iii) project monitoring and evaluation (in coordination with PPG7Monitoring and Analysis Project - AMA); iv) coordination with related projects (other RFPP andARPA); v) contacts with the World Bank and donors. The UCG consists of a Executive Secretary andwill have technical support provided by the PPG7 National Committee. The Project will maintain aminimalist administrative structure. Details concerning the UCG are provided in Annex 3.
Subcomponent 1.2: Marketing and Advertising of Corridors
The purpose of this subcomponent is to build constituencies in order to increase public, political andfinancial support for the Corridors project. Activities will include design and implementation of adissemination campaign and support of project initiatives at Federal, state and municipal levels, incoordination with the GEF funded Amazon Protected Areas Project (ARPA) and other projects. Theconsolidated strategy will be discussed with key stakeholders during its development, includinggovernment, non-government and private sector representatives. The final strategy will be concluded bythe end of phase I and will be implemented in phase 2.
Subcomponent 1.3: Management Plans and Specific Studies
This subcomponent will support the preparation of the Corridors Management Plans, which will consistof studies and actions necessary to the preparation of phase 2, such as economic incentives adequate tothe conservation of the corridors and the collaboration with parallel programs such as ARPA and RFPP.
Page 43
Economic incentives for conservation and the evaluation of Central Amazon and Atlantic ForestCorridors' boundaries; and strategic studies to delimit other rainforest corridors and examine theirbiological, socioeconomic and institutional characteristics. Studies will be strongly based on thePRONABIO workshop and others supported by governmental and non-governmental institutions. Itwill also support the collaboration of parallel programs like ARPA and the RFPP to ensure thatwherever possible resources are directed towards other corridors.
One concrete output of this subcomponent will be the development of a project document for phase 2.A revised project document for the second phase should be submitted as reference, describing the rangeof activities that would be supported, detailed costing, institutional arrangements and other relevantinformation as deemed necessary to ensure adequate level of readiness for the successfulimplementation of the project's second phase. The preparation of such document should take intoaccount the lessons learned and the experience acquired with the implementation of the project duringits initial phase. A major corner stone to this effort will be the conclusions and recommendations of theCorridors Management Plans described in follow on sections.
CO3MPONENT 2- CENTRAL AMAZON CORRIDOR - CAC
This corridor is geographically located between the Solimaes River and Negro River watersheds in theState of Amazonas, stretching for approximately 246,000 kM2, of which almost 170,000 km2 arecurrently under different forms of legal protection (nearly 70% of the corridor's total extension). Thecorridor contains a wide range of habitats and the connectivity among protected areas is high, with largeextensions of forest in almost pristine conditions. The basic objective in this corridor is to maintain theecological integrity of all protected areas, preserving the existing connectivity between the areas,without penalizing the local population.
The local population within the corridor is around 1.6 million people, 90% of which live in one urbanarea (Manaus). The average population density in rural areas is one family for each 1,000 ha. TheAmazon Corridor also contains 60 indigenous lands, with an area of approximately 9.9 million hectares(26 demarcated). Much of this land is subject to traditional indigenous natural resource use (hunting,gathering and low impact agriculture and fishing). Deforestation has occurred in some marginal areaswithin the corridor and around the main urban areas (Manaus, Manacapuru, Tefe, and Novo Airao). Thecauses for deforestation are mainly agriculture, cattle ranching, mining and infrastructure development.
This component addresses specific, strategic actions required to launch the process that will turn CACinto a viable ecological corridor. Much of the organizational framework, management and planningwould be done in phase one while actual implementation would largely take place during phase 2. Thecomponent is structured in four subcomponents: (i) corridor planning, vigilance and monitoring;(ii) conservation unit planning and management; (iii) interstitial areas; and (iv) protection of biologicaldiversity in indigenous lands.
The strategy for this component necessarily incorporates local stakeholder participation in the decisionmaking process from the design through the implementation phases. This will be achieved through theefforts of the UCG at the corridor level, the deliberative role of the Management Committee andthrough subprojects in Subcomponents 2.2 (Conservation Units), 2.3 (Interstitial Areas) and2.4 (Indigenous Lands).
Representatives of important Amazonian institutions involved in project design have identified priorityareas for this Corridor comprising protected areas where connectivity is already assured but threats totheir integrity require priority attention to consolidate and strengthen management. The selection
Page 44
process of subprojects, including eligibility and classification criteria, is described in annex 6 and in the
Operational Manual.
Subcomponent 2.1: Corridor Planning, Vigilance and Monitoring
The focus of this sub-component during phase I would be threefold: (a) development of a
comprehensive Corridor Management Plan; (b) development and starting of the implementation of a
vigilance and enforcement strategy; and (c) development of an environmental monitoring strategy and
information system to be implemented during phase 2. In addition, the component would support the
administrative structure to facilitate and coordinate project implementation at the corridor level.
2.1.1 CAC Project Administration. The Project in the Amazon Corridor will be administrated through a
State Coordinating Unit (UCE) as described in Annex 5. CAC administration will be headquartered in
installations ceded by IPAAM, in Manaus. The UCE will be responsible for project executioncoordination and will report to the UCG with respect to physical and financial control procedures,
monitoring and technical aspects of the execution. In this subcomponent, the unit will build
constituencies and identify useful partnerships, promoting subprojects and disseminating successfulexperiences. Guidelines for the subprojects will be prepared and workshops will be held. Training and
technical assistance will also be promoted to assure the adequate conception and implementation of the
initiatives. TORs for management units and job descriptions for key staff along with procurementarrangements for their hiring should be ready by negotiation.
2.1.2 Corridor Planning. The CAC Management Plan will be developed and agreed during the first
phase of the project. It will incorporate the findings of multidisciplinary studies including a stakeholder
analysis, financial sustainability, economic incentives, priority areas, risk assessment, and design of the
Corridor information system regarding, among others, priority and vulnerable areas. The elaboration of
the Management Plan will require the participation and effective involvement of all stakeholders. Prior
to negotiation of the project the TORs for the Management Plans will be developed as well as necessaryprocurement documents. Special attention will be accorded UCs and areas contiguous to BR-174 and
Manaus owing to the threat posed to biodiversity conservation.
The management plans will be the major corner stones of the project during the first phase. They will
establish priorities and assist in fine-tuning project design for the second phase. It is envisaged that
there might. be a need to continue the development 3 of corridors management plans during the secondphase of project implementation. These plans will be contracted with reputable consulting firmsthrough an international selection process. The development of the plans will be monitored by all
relevant stakeholders including the Bank and donors. The plans will be approved by the respective
Corridors Management Committees in each corridor. In the CAC the management plan will also look at
the indigenous lands with the objective of determining priorities, formulating viable projects, and
identifying alternatives for interventions during the second phase with funds from KFW. This could be
linked with the potential use of funds from the PPTAL project to finance the development of ethnic
ecological assessments in the indigenous areas of the CAC.
The development of these plans should have as an essential goal the long-term sustainability of
interventions. For this purpose, it would look at economic incentives for conservation in both corridors.
Economic incentives types of initiatives have been implemented most notably in Parana, Minas Gerais
and Sao Paulo. One is a fiscal incentive that allocates ICMS revenues to municipalities that meet
3This would involve refining and deepening the conclusions and recommendations of the Management Plans asconsidered necessary during its evaluation at the end of the Project's first phase. The KFW has indicated that itwould agree, in principle, to finance activities related to further development of the plan if this is considerednecessary and agreed during the evaluation of the first phase.
Page 45
certain conservation criterion. Another is an incentive for landowners who have reduced the forestedarea on their holdings to below the legally mandated limit to compensate by purchasing and conservingother, important forested areas. These initiatives have met with some success. Other incentives, whichare little known in Brazil, include tradable rights and permits, bounties, netting, transferabledevelopment permits and individual quotas. A study will be conducted of fiscal incentives in Braziland elsewhere to determine their relevance, adaptability, political feasibility and potential impact. It isevident that they will need to be adapted-for instance, ICMS revenues in Amazonas are minimal andmost municipal revenue derives from the free trade zone of Manaus, which could conceivably be analternative funding source. If deemed feasible, sub-components will be launched in phase one andexpanded in phase 2.
Due to the importance of the CAC management plan for successful implementation of the project'ssecond phase, both the terms of reference and the final reports for the plan should receive a nonobjection from both the KFW and the European Commission, in addition to the Bank's regular approvalprocess. This is fundamentally important, as the initiatives to be proposed in the plan would be financedby these two donors.
2.1.3 Environmental Monitoring. The environmental monitoring and information system will bedeveloped and implemented by a reputable consulting firm to be selected during project execution aspart of the Corridors Management Plan. It should focus however, on the utilization and consolidation ofexisting information and systems with the objective of avoiding duplications and optimizing resources.The development of the environmental monitoring and information system will be preceded by thedevelopment of a monitoring and information strategy to be developed during the first phase. Thisstrategy should clearly identify information and monitoring demands4 , take stock of all existinginformation and systems, and present a clear definition of goals and objectives. Maps will bedeveloped (scale 1:1,000,000) that will superimpose geo-referenced information on: (i) limits andcharacteristics (type) of all of the extant protected areas; (ii) the hydrographic network; (iii) municipalboundaries and headquarters; (iv) vegetative characteristics; (v) critical biodiversity areas as identifiedin the PRONABIO - Macapa workshop and other sources; (vi) land tenure of unprotected areas andpriority for conversion to a protected area. It would be important for consolidation of the managementplan and for the design of phase 2 that this last item be completed during the preparation phase or atleast during the early part of project implementation.
The CAC Environmental Monitoring and Information System will be developed in conjunction withIBAMA's SIMBIO, AMA, SIVAM, PNMA 2 and RFPP systems. The system should enable CACmanagement to monitor principal indicators including forest cover integrity, fragmentation, burning,and other forms of depredation in a timely manner that will enable both rapid response and analysis oftrends.
2.1.4 Corridor Enforcement and Surveillance. The preparation of the Corridors Management Plan willinvolve the design of the Corridor Patrolling and Vigilance System based upon existing experience ofgovernmental and non-governmental organizations working in this field and targeting high-riskareas/activities. The System will require sufficient staffing of qualified personnel, moderncommunications, infrastructure and equipment in order to respond professionally and with agility todepredations. Training of UC staff and environmental sensibility campaigns for local inhabitants andstakeholders will be required. System design will take place during phase I along with theimplementation of surveillance and enforcement campaigns where possible. The full implementationand monitoring of the proposed enforcement and surveillance activities specified in the CorridorManagement Plan will take place during the second phase of the Project.
4 The process should be "demand driven" rather than "supply driven".
Page 46
2.1.5 Marketing of the Corridor. This activity will complement the marketing strategy and support thework to be carried out in protected and interstitial areas at state and municipality levels. Its objective isto build a constituency and ownership of policies and interventions.
Subcomponent 2.2: Conservation Unit Planning and Management
Public protected areas (UC) will constitute the backbone of the Corridor. They already occupyapproximately 30% of the Central Amazon Corridor. This subcomponent will strengthen UCs,guaranteeing the long-term viability biodiversity. The conservation units to benefit from the Projectshould previously be equipped with one Unit Chief, one technician and three inspectors. Activities willinclude the following:
2.2.1 Preparation of Management Plans. By the end of 18 months from the time of effectiveness threenew management plans will be concluded, based on guidelines for indirect use UCs prepared byIBAMA, also considering the best practices in Brazil and other countries. Technical assistance fromIBAMA or independent consultants or NGOs will be available as necessary. These management planswill be implemented in the second phase. Other UCs to be supported by the Project during phase 2 havebeen pre-identified. New conservation units can also be identified in the Management Plan (MasterPlan) or in workshops for this purpose'.
2.2.2 Implementation of Management Plans. In phase 1, the implementation of management plans inthose UCs which already have their plans defined will be initiated. For phase 2, the management plansto be implemented will be identified in the CAC's Management Plan as well as the criteria for projectselection, aiming to attend the macro objectives of biodiversity protection in the Corridor. The projectwill not finance recurrent costs in Federal UCs. Financing of recurrent cost in State and/or municipalUCs will be included in a decreasing basis over the implementation period6.
2.2.3 Conservation Unit Management Training. This activity will be designed during the first phase andits implementation will initiate with a conservation unit meeting. Draft TORs for the contract ofconsulting services for the design of the training program would be available by negotiations.
Subcomponent 2.3: Interstitial Areas
This subcomponent aims to strengthen biodiversity conservation in the corridor's interstitial areas(outside conservation units and indigenous lands) and promote conservation and sustainabledevelopment forms of land use. It is directed specifically to private and non-governmental sectorssupporting private owners, community groups and NGOs. Subprojects will be prepared andimplemented by executing institutions of the subprojects, formed by these target groups, eitherindividually or in partnership. Areas contiguous to conservation units and indigenous reserves will begiven priority for support. It is envisioned that a fund will be set up and subprojects will be financed ona competitive basis.
2.3.1 Subproiects. Three thematic areas will be supported by this component: (i) promotion ofsustainable management that enlists local support in modifying land use in priority areas whileattending the economic needs of the affected corridor population. Examples of subprojects includemanagement of pristine ecosystems, recuperation of degraded ecosystems, commercialization ofproducts obtained from sustainable management of natural resources, ecotourism, alternatives for firecontrol and deforestation, and environmental education; and (ii) promotion of conservation and
5 A preliminary list of UCs identified for project implementation is illustrated on tables A2.1 and A2.2.6It is proposed that recurrent costs in State and/or municipal UCs be financed in a decreasing basis from 50% to
10% at the end.
Page 47
environmental education mainly in Private Reserves, Legal Reserves and Permanent PreservationAreas. This thematic area could include technical and legal assistance to proprietors, low impacteconomic proposals, training in natural resource management and income generating initiatives likeecotourism.
Note should also be taken of a recently published World Bank study, that could be very useful inhelping to identify critical areas for zoning/establishing different types of protection while providingeconomic based justifications potentially of interest to Federal, states and municipal governments.
2.3.2 Dissemination. The CAC State Coordinating Unit will actively inform targeted audiences andinterested groups about the Project, proactively identify potential beneficiaries, promote dedevelopment and submission of pilot subprojects proposals, and disseminate successful experiences.Manuals and workshops will be organized to support subproject preparation and training and technicalassistance will guarantee successful design, project approval and implementation. The StateCoordinating Unit will monitor and evaluate all projects under the coordination of the ManagementCommittee. This essential set of activities will initiate in phase one and continue through the end ofproject implementation.
Subcomponent 2.4: Protection of Biological Diversity in Indigenous Lands (Annex 7)
The Central Amazon Corridor includes 60 indigenous reserves covering 99,000 km2 and correspondingto about 40% of the total corridor area of 246,000 km 2. These lands support traditional indigenousactivities-hunting, fishing, harvesting of forest products and traditional, low impact agriculture.Owing primarily to the low density of the indigenous population-0. 1 habitant/km2 or about 37,000inhabitants from 16 distinct ethnic groups-much of the forest remains intact, comprising an importantbiodiversity repository.
Some of the threats to biodiversity conservation in indigenous lands, such as mining (garimpo),logging, invasion by settlers (colonos andfazendeiros), and excessive hunting, fishing and exploitationof natural resources, are similar to problems confronted by protected areas. Even when reserves havebeen legally established and demarcated, effective protection is rare. Other threats are unique toindigenous reserves and include a legislation to be regularized, regarding economic activities such aslogging and mining.
A preliminary evaluation undertaken by FUNAI and consultants working on project preparationindicated that many indigenous groups would be disposed to participate in the project, designating partsof their lands for biodiversity protection, if they could obtain support for (i) protection of their lands;and (ii) alternative economic activities based upon environmentally correct natural resourcemanagement. Both of these requests are contemplated in the project. Consultations with indigenousgroups in 1998 resulted in recommendations that will orient phase one.
* A specific indigenous component should be included;* This component should comprise sub projects that cover large areas and consider ethnic relations
among groups served to improve focus;* Indigenous demands for vigilance and communications systems, training, resolving issues of
connectivity and overlapping jurisdictions, and developing sustainable economic and environmentalprojects should be considered; and
* An effort should be made to integrate the diverse PPG7 agendas serving indigenous populations inorder to enhance and focus the indigenous component.
Page 48
2.4.1 Subproiects. The characteristics of subprojects and/or initiatives to be supported by this sub-component will be derived from the CAC's management plan. This effort can be supported orcomplemented by the PPTAL project through the development of ethnic-ecological assessments in theindigenous lands in CAC. Subprojects will be demand-driven with appropriate incentives to take intoaccount the priorities defined in the Corridor Management Plan, in concurrence with the specificindigenous areas management characteristics in full accordance with the respective indigenous peoples.The subprojects will be funded with earmarked allocations through the PDPI projects. Thecharacteristics of subprojects and the selection criteria are described in Annex 7.
2.4.2 Administration. Workshops will be organized to support subproject preparation by the indigenousgroups, and training and technical assistance offered to ensure successful design, and implementation.The program will be designed and launched in phase one and will be continued and expanded in phase2.
COMPONENT 3-CENTRAL ATLANTIC;RAINFORESTtCORRIDOR - CAFC
In contrast with CAC, this corridor consists basically of privately owned lands. Geographically locatedalong the coast in the southern part of the State of Bahia and central-northern Espirito Santo, withapproximately 8.6 million hectares. The main urban centers are Ilheus, Porto Seguro in Bahia, andVit6ria, capital of the State of Espirito Santo.
The areas defined for the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor based on the scientific workshop to definethe priority areas to the conservation of the biome are: in Bahia (i) The areas beginning in the South ofTodos os Santos Bay until the Canduru State Park (Parque Estadual do Conduru); (ii) the area in theNorth Section (buffer zone) of the "Discovery Coast" (Sitio do Patrim6nio Mundial Natural da Costado Descobrimento) - Atlantic Forest Reserves that go from Una Biological Reserve until theDescobrimento National Park; and in Espirito Santo: (i) the coastal area that extends from the Northernsection of the State until the Sooretama Biological Reserve (Conjunto da Reserva Biol6gica deSooretama) and the Linhares Private Nature Reserve (Reserva Particular de Patrimonio Natural deLinhares); and (ii) the mountainous area that goes from Santa Tereza until the Capara6 National Park(part of the National Park lies in the Sate of Minas Gerais).
The area coincides with the central of the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve that ranges along eightstates in the Brazilian coast. In 1999, UNESCO defined the Discovery Coast as one of its "WorldHeritage Sites". The region includes eight separate protected areas containing the best and largestremaining examples of Atlantic forest in the Northeast region of Brazil and contains high numbers ofrare and endemic species. The site displays the biological richness and evolutionary history of the fewremaining areas of Atlantic forest of Northeast Brazil. The site reveals a pattern of evolution of greatinterest to science and importance for conservation. The fact that only these few scattered remnants of aonce vast forest remain, make them an irreplaceable part of the world's forest heritage.
Approximately 314,000 hectares are currently under protection in 49 conservation units, and other52.000 hectares in 15 indigenous lands. There is also a total of approximately 30,000 hectares ofprotected forests in two large private reserves (CVRD and Aracruz Celulose). The total protected areacomprises only circa of 5.3% of the total corridor area. The spatial distribution of these areas makesthem rather "stepping stones" than a contiguous pattem favorable to connectivity. The strategydiscussed below takes these peculiarities into account. Few of the federal conservation units and evenless so on state level have been systematically implemented. In their majority, these areas experiencepressure from poaching, illegal timber felling and invasions.
In ecological terms, the corridor shows patches of rain forest of extreme biological diversity with the
Page 49
highest degree of endemism, known in Brazil. The predominant forest type is dense lowland andmountainous broad-leaved rain forest, with some of the most important mangrove areas and semi-deciduous forests in Brazil. The area around Abrolhos National Marine Park is important as the singleknown reproduction area of a whale species in the southern Atlantic
Population density varies between 20 inhabitants/km2 in the southern part to 50-100 inhabitants per km2
in the north. Population growth was calculated at 1% p.a., between 1981 and 1990, some areas actuallylost population due to interregional rural-urban migrations. Besides cattle ranching and small-scalecoffee production, increased pressure upon the forest patches comes from large-scale Eucalyptusplantations for paper mills. In Espirito Santo, the expansion of these areas is currently banned by theState legislation. As a consequence, a project aiming at the expansion of reforestation in agriculturalproperties is being implemented. The results are that 7.000 hectares/year of production forests directedto useless lands to agriculture which do not include legal reserves areas have been planted. Thisprogram is implemented by the State through Secretariat of Agriculture in partnership with ARACRUZCelulose, which gives in addition per year two million of Eucalyptus seedlings and 60.000 seedlings ofnative essences to the recovery of degraded areas in small rural properties. Besides instituting aneconomically sustainable activity and environmentally adequate to the agriculture, the Program alsoreduces the pressure of commercialization and local use. This experience can also be adopted in Bahia,where another industrial center of paper and cellulose is located. This activity can also be developed byother consumers of wood located within or around the Corridor.
This component is structured in a manner similar to what is proposed for Central Amazon Corridor.Subcomponents are identical although the strategy invoked differs owing to the differences in thesocioeconomic environment and the much greater Atlantic Forest fragmentation and destruction.Project management structure and emphasis on highly participatory component design andimplementation will also be observed. However, one marked difference will need to be the muchgreater emphasis on contiguous areas management. The long terms goal is first to preserve the smallremaining areas. Secondly, and to the extend possible, to induce the creation of "micro corridors"within this much larger area by increasing the connectivity between priority areas, primarily throughprivate reserves (RPPN) and the creations of new protected areas. This strategy is consistent with therecommendations of the PPG7 institutional review (Atlantic Forest Report).
Subcomponent 3.1: Corridor Planning, Vigilance and Monitoring
This subcomponent has a similar structure and similar goals as those of CAC, addressing thedevelopment of local capacity for participatory management and the preparation of the CAFCManagement Plan. This subcomponent will implement the following activities:
3.1.1 Proiect Administration. State Coordinating Units (UCEs) will be established in the States of Bahiaand Espirito Santo as described in Annex 3. These organizational structures should be in place by thebeginning of phase one. The UCEs will coordinate project implementation at regional level, integratingthe activities of the other subcomponents by the executors and reporting to the General CoordinationUnit (UCG) regarding financial and physical control procedures, monitoring and technical aspects. TheProject will also include two deliberative Management Committees. The Committee in CAFC will berepresented by the Biosphere Reserve Committees. These organizational structures will be establishedin the beginning of phase one. In the context of this subcomponent, the UCEs will build constituenciesand identify potential beneficiaries, promoting the subprojects and disseminating well-succeededexperiences. Guidelines for the subprojects will be prepared and workshops will be held. Training andtechnical assistance will also be promoted to assure the adequate conception and implementation of theinitiatives. TORs for management units and job descriptions for key staff, budgets and physical spacealong with job descriptions and procurement documents should be ready by project negotiation.
Page 50
3.1.2 Corridor Planning and Management Plans. The management plans constitute the main planninginstrument for the implementation of the Corridors. Therefore, they should be proactive, includeguidelines and operational recommendations, indicating specifically what should be done in each areaof the Corridor, focusing on increasing biodiversity protection and guaranteeing its sustainable use.This Plan should: (i) define priority areas and boundaries for the corridors; (ii) consolidateenvironmental, social, economic and cultural information about the corridor areas; (iii) define majorimpacting activities and respective threatened areas; (iv) identify the inadequate use of environmentalresources; (v) determine the quality and availability of water resources related to biodiversity only; (vi)existing conservation units; (vii) establish ways to promote connectivity among natural areas andpotential for the creation of new UCs; (viii) develop technical proposal for the implementation ofconservation initiatives at local level; (ix) consider strategies and alternatives to integrate monitoringand vigilance initiatives; (x) design in situ biodiversity conservation strategy and sustainabledevelopment and management strategy; (xi) present costs estimate; and (xii) identification of possiblepartnerships to further enhance the implementation of conservation activities in the corridors.
A draft final report for the management plan should be available for review and discussion 18 monthsafter effectiveness and its final version must be completed as a condition to initiating the second phaseof the project. The draft TOR for this work should be ready by project appraisal.
3.1.3 Environmental Monitoring. A monitoring system appropriate to the characteristics of thisCorridor and fully integrated with other, extant systems, including those used by the UCG will bedeveloped during phase one as part of the Corridor Management Plan.
The monitoring system, conceived from this strategy, will be oriented to meet actual demands ofsupport to decision-making, planning or actions directed to the solution of specific problems. Resultinformation will be available through democratic channels to interested public.
3.1.4 Support to Corridor Patrolling and Vigilance. The preparation of the Corridors Management Planwill also involve a consultancy to develop the Corridor Patrolling and Vigilance System drawing uponbest practice and experience of governmental and non-governmental organizations working in this field.Following the development of this strategy, the implementation of these activities will start. Thepatrolling and vigilance system will continue to be supported and expanded during the second phase ofproject implementation.
The vigilance system was proposed by both States integrating the CAFC and will be systemic andintegrated. The final purpose of the system will be the reduction of deforestation and clandestine naturalresources exploitation and the promotion, in the short term, of connectivity among forest fragments ofthe Atlantic Forest. The following indicators will be used to verify the proposed objectives:(i) reduction of deforested and/or burned area; (ii) optimization of water resources use; and(iii) reduction of environmental degradation level caused by diverse economic activities.
The starting point of the subcomponent was a diagnosis of the current situation of the biodiversity in theCAFC region. The main kinds of harm to the biodiversity identified were: (i) deforestation andpredatory fishery; (ii) urban expansion; (iii) mining; (iv) hunting and illegal transportation of animals;(v) inadequate deposition of solid waste; (vi) lack of licensing of polluting activities and/or impactingactivities; and (vii) illegal water withdrawal.
In terms of strategy, the selected priorities were: (i) decentralization of activities and operationalautonomy at local level; (ii) integration of institutional missions of involved federal and state agencies,seeking the unification of operational procedures through specific agreements (convenios); (iii) unifiedcoordination of activities by a deliberative committee, comprised of representatives of all organismswith institutional mission in the areas of vigilance and patrolling; (iv) proactive consultative
Page 51
participation in the activities of the organized society and local populations; (v) increase andimprovement of human resources capacity as essential condition to the success of the actions;(vi) acquisition of equipment and vehicles in minimal quantity necessary for the feasibility of theactivities; (vii) complementation of georeferenced data basis allowing for great reliability of themonitoring in the planning and implementation of the system; (viii) utilization of flights as a logisticmeans predominant for the support to the actions on land, together with georeferenced information; and(ix) division of the corridor in specific areas allowing for the planning and implementation of theactivities.
The main courses of action that will allow for the success of the vigilance and patrolling system are:(i) completion of vigilance, inspection and licensing systems; (ii) predatory hunting and fishery control;(iii) efficient preventive actions to avoid forest fires; (iv) improvement of the list of producers,consumers and other agents that have substantial impacts on the biodiversity; (v) promotion of specificvigilance and patrolling plans in the conservation units; and (vi) monitoring of forest cover and land usein the corridor area.
3.1.5 Corridor Marketing. A corridor marketing strategy will be developed complementing the work tobe carried out by the UCG. The focus of the CAFC effort will be to disseminate information on theCorridors project and build a constituency and support among state, municipal, NGO and localstakeholders.
Subcomponent 3.2: Conservation Unit Planning and Management
Unlike in the Central Amazon Corridor, the conservation units in the Atlantic Forest are consisted ofsmall fragments scattered in areas of high environmental degradation. Besides constituting a greatbiological wealth, which is specially concentrated in indirect use conservation units, they contain highconcentrations of threatened species and urban centers in the buffer zones and great economic andextractive pressure. Many UCs are not large enough to store their biological features. In addition, theStates do not possess a in situ protection system or adequate management structure for these areas.Thus, the actions envisioned in the corridor area would aim at the dissemination of educational andconservationist activities with the purpose of reducing the predatory exploitation, promoting, recoveringand maintaining the biodiversity inside the units and in its surroundings. This subcomponent willstrengthen and implement indirect use UCs, prioritizing environmental education nuclei in order tointegrate the society in this effort and develop the participation of the communities to achieve theconservation objectives. The conservation units to benefit from the Project should previously beequipped with one Unit Chief, one technician and three inspectors.
CAFC conservation units have an especially important role as repository for stocks of biodiversity forthe maintenance and restoration of ecosystems. They are also envisioned as centers for propagatingcorridor conservation concepts and actions. This subcomponent will strengthen selected conservationunits with the greatest capacity for multiplying successful experiences. Activities will be developed asfollows:
3.2.1 Selection of priority UCs to be supported by the Project. The selected conservation units forphase I will have their management plans prepared and other specific actions implemented. The otherUCs to be supported by the Project during phase 2 have been pre-identified in the areas correspondingto the biosphere reserve. New conservation units can also be identified in the CAFC Management Planor in workshops for this purpose (see table I for identified UCs). The results of the PRONABIO MataAtlantica Workshop will also be considered.
3.2.2 Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans. Terms of reference for CAFC UCmanagement plans and procurement documents should be ready by project negotiation. The UCEs will
Page 52
contract specialized consultants to elaborate the plans. By the end of phase one, 03 (three) newmanagement plans will be concluded and other 06 (six) UCs will be under implementation. Phase 2 willexpand this activity always being certain to prioritize UCs according to established criteria and to theManagement Plan, maintaining a highly participatory process. The project will not finance recurrentcosts in Federal UCs. Financing of recurrent cost in State and/or municipal UCs will be included in adecreasing basis over the implementation period7.
Subcomponent 3.3: Interstitial Areas
The interstitial areas occupy the largest part of the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor, containingimportant remnants of natural ecosystems. The conservation, enlargement and restoration of theseremnants will greatly contribute to the connectivity of the CAFC hence are critical to acihieving Projectgoals. This subcomponent will be initiated in the second phase and will support activities andsubprojects identified in the Management Plan that focus on sustainable resource management andimprovement of environmental conservation, supporting the participation of the communities as finalexecutors of the activities. Project participation in these undertakings will focus on giving support to thepreparation of the projects, providing technical assistance, promoting exchange of experience andimplementing relevant examples for sustainable development.
Procedures and criteria for subproject selection will be prepared by the UCEs under guidance of UCGand approved by the committees. The subcomponent will include a campaign to disseminate corridorinformation, build constituencies, and identify useful partnerships. This subcomponent is speciallydesigned to induce the private sector to support small proprietor, community groups, non-governmentalorganizations and municipalities, prioritizing contiguous areas to the UCs. It is envisioned that a fundwill be established to finance these projects on a competitive basis.
Examples of subprojects to be supported by the subcomponent include those directed to the sustainableuse of the land and those that attend the economical necessities of the population, such as:commercialization of products obtained from sustainable managed natural resources; ecotourism;alternatives to burning control and deforestation. The subcomponent will also give legal and technicalassistance, training and support to those activities aiming at conservation in Private Properties, LegalReserves and Areas of Permanent Protection.
3.3.1 Support to Municipalities and Preparation of Municipal Management Plans. Support tomunicipalities will consist of actions of technical and political nature to support Municipal ManagementPlan preparation in strategic municipalities and promote integration between state and municipalagencies. The activities also aim to promote integration among state and municipal environmentalagencies and to identify funds and public policies that contribute to the management of the corridor.
3.3.2 Protection of Biodiversity in Indigenous Lands. Indigenous lands occupy only 1% of the CAFCarea. Besides its undersized representation, in territorial terms, the indigenous areas in the corridor areinterrupted and uncharacterized and their natural resources have been intensely destroyed since colonialtime. These areas do not constitute expressive depositories of regional biodiversity, since they do notdifferentiate from the further areas of the corridor, the latter being characterized by fragmentation andreduction of the biological value of its forest remanescents and by an environment of intenseeconomical development and high population density.
In contrast, the indigenous lands in the Amazon Central Corridor encompass large extensions(approximately 280,000 hectares) spread in continuous units equivalent to 40% of the total area of the
7 It is proposed that recurrent costs in State and/or municipal UCs be financed in a decreasing basis from 50% to10% at the end.
Page 53
corridor. Occupied by indigenous people who have little or no regular contact with the society/State -including some groups still not contacted - these lands possess high levels of environmentalconservation, constituting an important biodiversity reserve, where the Project prioritizes protectionefforts through the participation of the indigenous communities.
Therefore, considering the fact that the indigenous lands in the CAFC retain the same characteristicsand biological value as the other areas in the corridor, projects to be implemented would have the samenature as those proposed for the interstitial areas: recuperation of biodiversity, vigilance and promotionof environmentally sustainable economic activities. This justifies the integration of actions to beexecuted in the indigenous lands in the subcomponent Interstitial Areas (subcomponent 3.2) that willhold operationally the activities in these areas.
In this context, other activities will be identified and integrated with other PPG7 projects that supportinitiatives in indigenous communities within the CAFC. Another project, Recovery of the AtlanticForest Biome in the Discovery Coast (Recomposicdo do Bioma Mata Atldntica na Costa doDescobrimento) proposed MMA, can be a good example of activities in the surrounding area of MontePascoal National Park. This project also aims to protect and improve living conditions of Patax6indigenous group. The activities to be developed in this component are: forest recovery, introduction ofagro-forestry systems, manufactured products, ecotourism and training.
This kind of initiative, which are part of the subcomponent Interstitial Areas, can be expanded to othercommunities and be supported by institutions and ventures implemented in the Corridor.
Page 54
Table A2.1: AREAS SELECTED FOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES DURING FIRST PHASE.
Central Amazon Corridor - State of Amazonas
Name Area (ha) Type Domain Proposed AcciihtAnavilhanas 350,018 Ecological Station (EE) Federal Implementation of Management
______________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PlanAmana 2,377 Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) State Preparation of Management PlanTupe 13,500 Relevant Ecological Interest Reserve (ARIE) Municipal Preparation of Management PlanUrubui 36,600 Environmental Protected Area (APA) Municipal Preparation of Management PlanCaverna 334,700 Environmental Protection Area (APA) State Implementation of ManagementMaruaga . Plan
Mamiraua 1,124,000 Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) State Implementation of ManagementPlan
Juami-Japura 572,650 Ecological Station (EE) Federal Implementation of Management_______________ ______________ ~~~~ ~~~~~~Plan
Jau 2,272,000 National Park (PARNA) Federal Implementation of Management
Medio Jurua 253,226.5 Extractive Reserve (RESEX) Federal Implementation of ManagementI______________ ______________ ________________________________________________Plan
Total Area (ha): 4,959,071.5
Central Atlantic Forest Corridor - State of Bahia
Name Area (ha) T_ pe Domain Proposed Acti' inDescobrimento 21,129 National Park (PARNA) Federal Preparation of Management PlanUna 11,400 Biological Reserve (REBIO) Federal Implementation of Management
______________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PlanCosta de Itacare 14,925 Environmental Protection Area (APA) State Implementation of Management- Serra Grande _____________________________Plan
Conduru 8,941 State Park (EE) State Preparation of Management PlanTinhare-Boipeba 43,300 Environmental Protection Area (APA) State Implementation of Management
_________________ _______________ __________________________________Plan
Pratigi 32,000 Environmental Protection Area (APA) State Implementation of Management_________________ ________________ _____________________________________________ Plan
Total Area (ha): 131,695
Page 55
Central Atlantic Forest Corridor - State of Espirito Santo
Name Area (ha) Type Domain, Proposed ActiitySooretama 24,000 Biological Reserve (REBIO) Federal Implementation of Management
Forno Gad61 StePPlanFono Grande 621.2 State Park (EE) State Implementation of Management
PlanIta(inas 3,150 State Park (EE) State Implementation of Management
Pedra Azul 1,240 State Park (EE) State Preparation of Management PlanTotal Area (ha): 29,011.2
Table A2.1: AREAS SELECTED FOR POTENTIAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES DURING SECOND PHASE.
Central Amazon Corridor
Name A _rea (ha) Type DomainProjeto DBFF 3,288 Relevant Ecological Interest Reserve (ARIE) PrivateJavari-Buriti 15,000 Relevant Ecological Interest Reserve (ARIE) FederalTefe 1,020,000 National Forest (FLONA) FederalRio Negro 436,042 State Park (EE) StateUatuma 560,000 Biological Reserve (REBIO) FederalJutai-Solimoes 284,285 Ecological Station (EE) FederalSauim-Castanheira 109 Ecological Station (EE) FederalDuque 10,000 Reserve PrivateWalter Egler 709 Reserve Private
Total Area (ha): 2,329,433
Fonte: IBAMA, 1997.
Page 56
Central Atlantic Forest Corridor - State of Bahia
Name Area (ha) ITye Domain
Sub-Region 1 and lA - Jequiri,a River to Je uitinhonha RiverCachoeira Pancada Grande 50 Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Candengo 7,500 Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Lagoa Encantada 1,800 Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Wenceslau Guimaraes 1,200 Biological Reserve (REBIO) State
Sub-Region 2 - Jequitinhonha River to Mucuri River
Caraiva/Trancoso 31,900 Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Coroa Vermelha 4,100 Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Sto. Ant6nio 2,300 Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Monte Pascoal 13,500 National Park (PARNA) Federal
Fazenda Avai 469 Private Reserve (RPPN) Private
Sub-Region 5 - AbrolhosPonta da Baleia/Abrolhos 34,600 | Environmental Protected Area (APA) State
Abrolhos 91,300 National Marine Park (PARNA) Federal
Total Area: 188,719 ha
Page 57
Central Atlantic Forest Corridor - State of Espirito Santo
Name Area (ha) Type DomainRio Preto 2,830 National Forest (FLONA) FederalCorrego do Veado 2,392 Biological Reserve (REBIO) FederalC6rrego Grande 1,504 Biological Reserve (REBIO) FederalSub-Region - south of Doce RiverGuanandy 5,242 Environmental Protected Area (ARPA) StatePico do Goiapaba-Acu 3,740 Environmental Protected Area (ARPA) StatePraia Mole 400 Environmental Protected Area (ARPA) StateTres llhas 12,960 Environmental Protected Area (ARPA) StateCachoeira da Fuma,a 27 State Park (PE) StatelIha das Flores 17 State Park (PE) StateMata das Flores 800 State Park (PE) StatePaulo Cesar Vinha 1,500 State Park (PE) StateDuas Bocas 2,910 Biological Reserve (REBIO) StateMestre Alvaro 3,470 Biological Reserve (REBIO) StateAugusto Ruschi (Nova 4,000 Biological Reserve (REBIO) StateLombardia)Comboios 833 Biological Reserve (REBIO) FederalCaparao 26,000 National Park (PARNA) FederalTotal Area: 68,625 ha
Page 58
Figure A2.3: Schematic Structure of Project Components
MMA - State Coordination
* Coordination* Marketing* Management Plan/Specific Studies
Central Amazon Corridor Central Atlantic Forest CorridorCD
1. Planning, Vigilance and Monitoring 1. Planning, Vigilance and Monitoring (C
* Coordination Planning * Coordination* Monitoring * Planning/Management Plan* Vigilance * Monitoring* Marketing * Vigilance2. Conservation Units Planning and Management * Marketing* Management Plans 2. Planning and Management of Conservation Units* Implementation of Management Plans * Selection of Conservation Units* UC Management Training * Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans3. Interstitial Areas * 3. Interstitial Areas* Sub-projects * Support to Municipalities in the preparation of Municipal Director Plans* Dissemination * Sub-projects4. Protection of Biological Diversity in Indigenous Lands * Dissemination* Sub-projects
Page 59
ANNEX 3
Cost and Financing SummaryBRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
Estimated Project Costs (US$ million)
Project Cost by Component - Phase Is Government CPF RFT Total
Strategic Coordination 0.16 0.61 0.77
Central Amazon Corridor 0.49 1.79 2.28
Central Atlantic Forest Corridor 0.61 1 .50 2.11
Total Baseline Costs 1.26 3.90 5.16
Unallocated
Indigenous Component CAC/PDI
Total Project Cost 1.26 3.90 5,16
Total Financing Required 1.26 3.90 5,16
Project Cost by Disbursement Category Government CPF RFT Total
Goods 0.20 0.58 0.78
Works9 0.11 0.25 0.36
Services'0 0.80 2.86 3.66
Training 0.04 0.17 0.21
Recurrent Costs" I 0.11 0.04 0.15
Total Project Cost 1.26 3.90 5.16
Total Financing Required 1.26 3.90 5.16
8 Phase I will be financed by the RFT along with local CPF.9 This category relates to minor/small civil works which may be required for the implementation of theUCs' management plans (eg. Fences, observation towers, UCc headquarter buildings, etc) and/or for theimplementation of the corridors' monitoring and vigilance systems.'° This category includes consulting services as well as other technical services such us surveying,information systems development, mapping, etc." This category would apply only to incremental recurrent costs related to the maintenance of the Corridorssecretariats and with recurrent costs of State and Municipal UCs
Paae 60
Estimated Project CostsLocal/Foreign/Taxes by Financiers
Project Cost by Financier - Phase 1 Government CPF RFT Total
1. Foreign 0.32 2.41 2.73
II. Local (excl. taxes) 0.34 1.49 1.83
111. Taxes 0.60 - 0.60
Total Project 1.26 3.90 5.16
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS (US$ million) - Contingencies Included
TOTAL TOTAL PHASE I PHASE 2R$ US$
Total Grant CPF Total Grant CPFCOMPONENT 1: Strategic Coordination 4.08 2.04 0.77 0.61 0.16 1.27 0.98 0.291. 1. Project Administration 1.40 0.70 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.50 0.36 0.141.2. Marketing and Advertising of Corridors 1.40 0.70 0.37 0.29 0.08 0.33 0.26 0.071.3. Specific Studies 1.28 0.64 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.44 0.36 0.08
COMPONENT 2: Central Amazon Corridor12 31.02 15.51 2.27 1.78 0.49 13.24 10.38 2.86
2.1. Corridor Planning Vigilance & Monitoring 9.20 4.60 0.99 0.75 0.24 3.61 2.56 1.052.2. Conservation Unit Planning & Management 12.98 6.49 0.86 0.7 0.16 5.63 4.58 1.052.3. Interstice Areas 8.38 4.19 0.19 0.15 0.04 4.00 3.24 0.762.4. Protection of Biodiversity in Indigenous 0.46 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.05 -Lands"3
COMPONENT 3: Central Atlantic Rainforest 27.76 13.88 2.12 1.5 0.62 11.76 8.26 3.50Corridor__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3.1. Corridor Planning Vigilance and Monitoring 8.30 4.15 1.49 1.10 0.39 2.66 1.81 0.85 T23.2. Conservation Unit Planning and Management 12.2 6.10 0.63 0.40 0.23 5.47 3.58 1.893.3. Interstice Areas 7.26 3.63 - - . 3.63 2.87 0.76
Unallocated 2.64 1.32 - - - 1.32 1.16 0.16PROJECT TOTAL 65.50 32.75 5.16 3.89 1.27 27.59 20.78 6.81Indigenous Component CAC/PDI 6.34 3.17 - - - 3.17 2.64 0.53PROJECT TOTAL Including CAC/PDI 71.84 35.92 5.16 3.89 1.27 30.76 23.42 7.34
12 Counterpart funds are distributed as follows: Component I and Component 2: Total CPF=20%, corresponding to 10% taxes and 10% cash; Component 3: totalCPF=30%, corresponding to 20% cash and 10% taxes.1' KfW's commitment of EUR 3.059.340,65 million to the implementation of activities in indigenous areas of the CAC would be available via PDPI for phase 2,according to financing procedures of PDPI. The CPF for these activities corresponds to about 20% of the grant allocation.
Page 62
Financing Sources (US$ million)(Years ending December 31)
Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
RFT 1.08 2.82 0.45 0.40 0.25 - 5.00
K _W - - 3.75 4.10 4.26 2.64 14.75
EC - - 1.80 1.88 2.01 1.88 7.57
Federal Government 0.28 0.51 1.50 1.22 1.24 0.72 5.47
State Governments 0.11 0.36 0.60 0.77 0.83 0.47 3.14
Total 1.47 3.69 8.09 8.37 8.59 5.71 35.92
Financing Sources (% of total annual project costs)(Years ending December 31)
Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
RFT 75.6 76.0 5.6 4.8 2.9 - 13.9
KfW - - 46A4 49.0 49.6 46.2 41.1
EC - - 22.2 22.5 23.4 33.0 21.1
Federal Government 13.0 13.0 18.4 14.5 14.5 12.6 15.2
State Governments 11.4 11.0 7.4 9.2 9.6 8.2 8.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Page 63
ANNEX 4
Description of Two Pilot CorridorsBRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
The concept of ecological corridors is a relatively new and multidisciplinary approach tobiodiversity that has not been applied in Brazil to date. The Rainforest Corridors Project is aunique ecosystemic approach for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and forestresources in the Brazilian rainforest areas. As part of the preparation of the present Project, a teamof prominent Brazilian scientists designed an innovative approach to biodiversity conservation inthe Amazon and Atlantic Forest regions. Based on current data on the distribution of key plantand animal species and of existing protected areas (including indigenous lands), the team definedseven rainforest corridors in these biomes. The identification of these corridors involved twomajor sources of data. The first source consisted of existing information on the distribution ofplants and animals, derived primarily from a 1990 workshop in Manaus (focusing on theBrazilian Amazon), a 1994 workshop in Miami (which identified important centers of endemismthroughout the Neotropics), and various regional workshops involving the Atlantic Forest region.All of these workshops identified sites of biological significance and designated priority areas forconservation based on species richness and on the variability and integrity of natural communitiesand ecosystems. For the Atlantic Forest, the additional criterion of endemism was particularlycritical. The second source of data consisted of information on the distribution of existingprotected areas. The combination of these data provided the basis for delineating the corridors.
Comprised of government-run protected areas (known as conservation units in Brazil), privatereserves and indigenous lands, as well as the areas connecting them (interstitial areas), thesecorridors are impressive in scale: the five Amazonian corridors encompass nearly 1.5 million km2
- or an area equivalent to France, Germany, Spain and Portugal combined. All seven corridorsare strategic for biodiversity protection, containing 73 conservation units, 116 indigenous lands,and key zones known to harbor exceptional concentrations of biodiversity.
Choice of Pilot Corridors
The Rainforest Corridors Project will focus on two of these corridors: one in the Amazon and onein the Atlantic Forest. The purpose of having two pilot corridors is to test the corridor approachunder the different conditions of the two main biomes and, based on the lessons learned, toprepare and support implementation of additional corridors.
The Central Amazon Corridor was chosen because it already contains large conservation units(Mamiraua, Jau, Anavilhanas, Rio Negro and Uatuma), which represent nearly 30% of the wholecorridor and can be considered the central backbone of the corridor. In addition, there are a fewlarge indigenous reserves in the eastern part of this corridor. The fact that management ofconservation units in these areas is relatively advanced will facilitate the implementation of theCorridors Project and increase the likelihood of successfully implementing a corridor, allow toshow results quickly and serving as a model for other corridors. Mamiraua, Jaiu, Anavilhanas andUatuma have their management plans completed or well underway. In addition, IBAMA/Manausand the local non-government groups have demonstrated implementation capacity and havealready collaborated on a number of local initiatives. The pressure on this corridor is consideredrelatively low compared to the other 5 proposed Amazonian corridors, which make it an excellentcorridors case study.
Page 64
The selection of the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor is due to the fact that it is under extremethreat and because it contains the largest remnants of the Atlantic Forest with significantbiodiversity compared to other possible corridors, and because chances of maintaining orreestablishing a minimum of connectivity are relatively good. State and non-governmentalorganizations implementation capacity is also strong and there is a great deal of data available onthe corridor. For these reasons it is also expected that the Corridor will generate positive resultsand serve as a model for other Atlantic Forest corridors.
Description of the Central Amazon Corridor
The corridor does not have a legal status nor will it require one at this juncture. It is basicallyconstituted by several types of protected areas that are contiguous or in close proximity. Theborders were defined during preparation to maximize existing protected areas and also to includesignificant biodiversity areas.
Geographic Boundaries
This corridor is geographically located between the Rio Solimoes and Rio Negro watersheds,stretching approximately between 570 W - 69° W and 01° N - 05° S and is almost entirely withinthe State of Amazonas. Its overall extension is approximately 245,000 km2 , of which almost170,000 km2 are currently under different forms of legal protection (nearly 70% of the corridor'stotal extension). The major urban centers are Manaus, Manacapuru and Tefe. It is composed of acentral axis where almost contiguous protected areas are located. This axis has two sub-regions.One sub-region, to the west, consists of conservation units (MamirauA, Jau, Uatuma,Anavilhanas). The second sub-region, to the east, consists of indigenous lands territories(Waimiri-Atroari, Trombetas-Mapuera and Nhamunda-Mapuera). In addition, several indigenousreserves and other protected areas, further to the west and beyond the sub-region of conservationunits, are scattered and not connected among them. Towards the eastern sub-region, around theBR-174 (Manaus/Boa Vista) road, additional Conservation units and a few indigenous reservesare also included.
Corridor Characteristics
The corridor contains a wide range of habitats (flooded and terrafirme forests, small lakes andblack rivers). Within this corridor, the connectivity among protected areas is large and largeextensions of forest are in almost pristine conditions. Hence the Corridor strategy is to maintainthe ecological integrity of all of the protected areas while increasing the connectivity in some keyareas without creating problems for local populations.
The local population within the corridor is 1.6 million, 90% of which live in the Manaus region.The average population density in rural areas is one family for each 1.000 ha. Deforestation hasoccurred in some marginal areas within the corridor, around the larger towns (Manaus,Manacapuru, Tefe, Fonte Boa, Novo Airao) and along the margins of the Rio Solimoes. Thecauses of deforestation are mainly agriculture; cattle ranching, mining and infrastructuredevelopment and these are most prevalent along transport corridors (Manaus-Caracarai, Manaus-Manacapuru, Manaus-Itacoatiara, Manacapuru-Novo Airao, Manaus-Porto Velho). The trend ofdeforestation in these regions is increasing at a moderate pace.
The Central Amazon Corridor contains 46 Indigenous Reserves (21 of them demarcated). These
Page 65
territories correspond to a total of approximately 99,000 km2, which corresponds to about 40% ofthe total land surface of the corridor. This large extension is an important repository ofbiodiversity and remains in pristine condition. The indigenous population in the corridor isapproximately 9,000 inhabitants belonging to 16 distinct ethnic groups, which is a very lowpopulation density (approximately 0.1 person/kM2). Much of this land is subject to traditionalindigenous natural resource use (hunting, gathering and light agriculture and fishing). Theseindigenous areas could contribute significantly to biodiversity conservation in the corridors.Projects could be developed and managed by the indigenous groups and communities residing inthese reserves. For this reason the Corridors Project will collaborate with a second RFPP project,the PDPI, to identify important areas for conservation and a menu of feasible interventions. ThePDPI will work with communities to identify and implement specific projects.
Potential Institutional Support
During a 3-day workshop in Ariau, Amazonas in November 1996 key institutions that couldcontribute to corridor implementation were identified, including:* Federal: MMA, IBAMA, ELECTRONORTE, FUNAI, EMBRAPA, INPA, INCRA,
Universidade do Amazonas, CNPq, Museu Goeldi and INPE.* Regional: SUDAM, IPAAM• NGOs: Instituto Mamiraua, Fundacao Vit6ria Amaz6nica, MEB, COIAB, IPE, CPT.
Description of the Atlantic Forest Corridor
In most of the Atlantic Forest, protected areas have become ecological islands disconnected fromother fragments of remaining natural habitat. Increasingly, urban development, agriculture,ranching, industrial forestry, or other land uses surround conservation areas, have beenthreatening the viability of the area's ecosystems. It is clear that without active intervention theecological integrity of the conservation units will continue to deteriorate and fragments in privatehands will be lost. Since the majority of the Atlantic region comprises lands beyond recovery andfor which the concept of inclusion in an ecological corridor is meaningless, only areas that harborimportant biodiversity reserves, contributing to connectivity and with a reasonable chance ofbeing protected have been included in this Corridor.
Issues and Lessons Learned
Work on an ecological corridor project in Ecuador (Fundaci6n Maquipucunu, 2000), hascatalogued critical issues and produced a number of recommendations that are fully applicable tothe proposed Atlantic Forest Corridor. Some lessons that have been incorporated into Project areas follows:1. Given that the primary goal of biological corridors is to conserve biodiversity and ecological
processes and to ensure connectivity among habitats over large areas, a well-designedmonitoring system should be in place to obtain accurate information at the local and regionallevels.
2. Land use pressures will continue and new forest will be cleared mostly where land tenure andeconomics encourages exploitation (over 70 percent of the land in the Atlantic region isprivately owned). Therefore, a participatory consultation process including all majorstakeholders - representatives of indigenous peoples, landowners, conservation organizationis,government agencies, and commercial sectors - will need to be launched immediately tomotivate interest and awareness and build a constituency for proposed activities.
Page 66
3. The success of a corridor initiative depends strongly on the commitment of stakeholders tosupport Projcct activities on a long-term basis. Lack of effective participation could hinderthe coordination and exchange of information necessary for the design of a comprehensivestrategic framework that would gain the adherence of stakeholders. Hence, a very careful,
ongoing communication strategy is needed to reduce risks of poor participation and non-acceptance at all levels.
4. The long-term sustainability of corridors is believed to be linked to the provision of economicopportunities to local communities, which goes beyond biodiversity conservation. Potentialsocial impacts of the corridor approach must be carefully considered. A social assessmentshould be conducted at the initial stage of implementation, coupled with a social monitoringand evaluation mechanism during Project implementation.
The success of the corridor concept will depend upon cooperation among law enforcementagencies.The successful creation of new RPPNs is critical for providing ecological stepping-stones inprivately held lands. This will be especially challenging in the Atlantic Forest where 80% oflands are in private hands.
Geographic Boundaries and Characteristics
The Corridor stretches roughly in a North-South direction between 390 W - 42°W and 130 S -210 S. Major river systems comprise the Rio das Contas, Rio Pardo, Rio Jequitinhonha, RioMucuri and Rio Doce, in the south. The main urban centers are l1h6us, Porto Seguro and Vit6ria.
The proposed Atlantic Forest Corridor is basically constituted by privately owned lands.Protected areas are small, widely scattered and there is little natural vegetation left outside the
remaining fragments covered by federal and state conservation units. A total of 314,000 hectaresis currently under protection in 49 conservation units, and another 52,000 ha are officially setaside for 15 indigenous reserves, totaling approximately 370,000 ha. This is very little
(approximately 5.3%) compared to the Corridor's overall extension of 8.64 millions hectares. Thespatial distribution of these areas comprises "stepping stones" rather than a mosaic of contiguousareas favorable to connectivity. Few of the federal conservation units and even fewer state unitsare being effectively managed. Almost all protected areas experience pressure from poaching,illegal timber felling and invasions. The strategy discussed elsewhere in the text takes thesepeculiarities into account.
Unlike the Central Amazon Corridor, the indigenous reserves represent small patches (< 1% oftotal area) of reasonably conserved forest and are not very representative of the rest of theCorridor. These lands are small for the population they support and much smaller than theterritories occupied by their ancestors. Some reserves include reforestation programs owing tolong periods of exploitation. The indigenous groups have also lost much of their original cultureand lifestyle and are living in poverty.
In ecological terms, the Corridor includes fragments of rain forest that are of extreme biologicaldiversity and contain the highest degree of endemism known in Brazil. The predominant foresttype is dense lowland and mountainous broad-leaf rain forest, with important manglares, semi-deciduous forests (in Bahia), and coastal reefs between Nova Vi,osa, Prado, Caravelas andAlcobaca. The area around Abrolhos National Marine Park is also important as the single knownreproduction area of sperm whale in the southern Atlantic.
Population density varies between 20 inhabitants/km 2 in the southern part to 50-100 inhabitants
Page 67
per km2 in the north. Population growth has been estimated at 1% p.a., between 1981 and 1990.Some areas actually lost population due to interregional rural-urban migrations. Besides smallscale coffee production and cattle breeding, increased pressure upon the remaining forest comesfrom large scale reforestation with Eucalyptus ssp for paper mills in the extreme south of BahiaState.
Potential Institutional Support
* During a workshop held in Porto Seguro in November 1996, the following institutions wereidentified as potential contributors to the implementation of this Corridor Federal: MMA,IBAMA, FUNAI, INCRA, EMBRATUR, and CNPq; the Federal Universities of Bahia,Minas Gerais, Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro; INPE, CEPLAC, Museu Nacional andMuseu Mello Leitao.
* State level: CRA (BA), DDF (BA), Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente do ES, IDAF(ES) State University de Santa Cruz (BA), UNICAMP, State Superintendencies of IBAMA.
* Private Sector: Coompanhia Vale do Rio Doce, Aracruz Florestal, Veracruz Florestal,Petrobras, Bralanda, BahiaSul Celulose, and Banco Real.
. NGOs: Conselho da Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlantica, Rede de ONG's na MataAtlantica, Gamba, Germen, Ascae, Cepedees, Grama, IESB, Jupara, Terra Viva, FASE,SASOP, CPT da Zona Cacaueira, ASPTA, IPEMA, Funda,co SOS Mata Atlantica,Conservation International do Brasil, WWF and Funda,co Biodiversitas
Page 68
Annex 5Institutional Arrangements for Project Implementation
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
Overall responsibility for Project implementation will reside in the Executive Secretariat of theMinistry of Environment (MMA). MMA, with support of the PPG7 Coordination, will providepolicy guidance and coordinate links with IBAMA, other Secretariats within the Ministry, States,local governments, donors, and the World Bank. Activities to be executed at this level by theProject-financed General Coordination Unit (UCG) would be minimal, consisting primarily of:(a) serve as facilitator for financial flows - transfer of funds, consolidation and submission ofstatement of expenditures (SOEs) to the National Treasury and to the World Bank, preparationand submission of audit reports, etc; (b) serve as political and operational facilitator to expediteand support the activities of decentralized State Coordinating Units, (UCEs) and of Projectexecutors (e.g. IBAMA, NGOs, etc.); and (c) support the execution of strategic tasks such asseeking financial support to expand Project components or the inclusion of additional corridors.
The MMA will institute a General Coordination Unit, residing in the Executive Secretariat andstaffed with one General Coordinator; one Coordinator for the Central Amazon Corridor, being astaff from the Amazon Coordination Secretariat; one Coordinator for the Central Atlantic ForestCorridor, being a staff from the Biodiversity and Forest Secretariat; and a technician specializedin financial procedures. This team would provide assistance to the UCEs in order to assure thatProject implementation is in accordance with its objectives and with the operational proceduresagreed with the financial agents. However, no financing from the Project would be provided tosupport central staffing besides the small UCG. Expenditures to be incurred with the creation andmaintenance of such units can be considered as Government counterpart funding.
The UCG would specifically:
* establish a Project office;* manage relations with all executing agencies as well as functional links with IBAMA/MMA,
other federal agencies, donors and the World Bank;* manage Project funds, audits and accounts;* prepare semi-annual progress reports;* ensure close collaboration with ARPA, the RFPP and other key organizations;* supervise the design and the contracting of strategic studies, analyses and policy formulation;* supervise the design and implementation of actions targeted to promote biodiversity
protection in other corridors;* supervise the design and implementation of outreach and information dissemination tasks;
and* provide the rules and capacitate the executors in operational procedures related to the
planning and physical and financial follow up applicable to the Project.
In phase 1, MMA would likely establish technical assistance agreement with UNDP to facilitatethe contracting of consultants for the UCG, procurement, financial flows and related Projectmechanics. The transfer of funds to IBAMA (for work in Federal UCs and IBAMA led studies)would be done directly by the MMA while funds to States and/or municipalities would betransferred through agreements (ConvMnios). In the interest of efficiency and transparency, theBank of Brazil will be engaged as financial agent and will cost 2.2% to channel funds directly to
Page 69
subproject executors (NGOs, private groups, etc.) following the successful model of the PilotProgram's Demonstration Projects (PDA).
Corridor Level Arrangements
Project implementation would be managed at local level. At the corridors level institutionalarrangements would involve three main instances: (a) Management Committee; (b) StateCoordinating Unit; and (c) executors.
Management Committees
The management committees would be the deliberative instances of the corridors. Theco.nmittees would monitor and evaluate Project implementation and the achievement of proposedProject objectives. The composition of corridors committees would vary in accordance with theparticular characteristics of each corridor. Specific tasks of the corridor committees wouldinvolve:
* Annual evaluation of Project implementation and of the achievement of Project objectives.The committees would issue annual reports summarizing the main conclusions andrecommendations of their respective evaluations;
o Approval of terms of reference for the preparation of the Corridors Management Plans;* Monitor the development and approval of the Corridors Management Plans;* Propose and approve eligibility and ranking criteria for activities to be supported by the
Project;* Approval of the Annual Operation Plan (POA);* Approval of proposed subproject and activities to be supported by the Project in accordance
with Project criteria; and* Participate in the development and implementation of strategies for dissemination of
information about the corridors and the developments of partnerships to support Projectimplementation.
State Coordinating Units (UCEs)
Project implementation at local level would be managed and coordinated by a State CoordinatingUnits (UCEs). Similarly to the committees there are differences between the CAC UCE and theUCEs for the CAFC as explained in follow on section. These units would be staffed primarily bystaff of state agencies and that may be supplemented by a small number of consultants and bystaff of other agencies (e.g. IBAMA). In addition, UCEs can contract the support of experts andspecialists for the development of specific and well-defined tasks. The specific responsibilities of
the UCEs include:
* Management of interfaces with the UCG in order to ensure satisfactory Projectimplementation;
* Disseminate the corridors concept and Project information at local level;* Prepare and submit to the approval of the Corridor Committee eligibility and ranking criteria
for the selection of activities to be supported by the Project;* Prepare and submit to the approval of the Corridor Committee quarterly Project
implementation reports;* Operate and maintain the Project's information system;* Financial management of Project implementation;
Page 70
* Management of procurement procedures for Project implementation;* Implementation of Project's information and dissemination strategy;* Prepare the Annual Operating Plans (POA); and* Provide management and operational support to Project executors and to the corridors
committees.
Executors
Project implementation will be carried out by different executing institutions. Activities inFederal conservation units would be implemented under the responsibility of IBAMA while stateagencies would carry out the implementation of Project initiatives in state conservation areas. Itis also envisioned that a number of initiatives to be supported by the Project can be carried out bycivil society organizations (NGOs), the private sector, municipalities, indigenous groups, orthrough partnerships and associations among different groups of interest.
Project executors would have the responsibility of implementing the activities under strictobservance of: (a) guidelines of the World Bank as specified in the grant agreement; and(b) criteria and regulations established by the corridors committees. Executors should keepdetailed financial and technical records of every activity under their responsibility and shouldreadily provide all necessary information to the UCE, corridor committee or UCG as necessary.
Executors may identify alternatives and possibilities for the implementation of initiatives and/oractivities that can receive financial and/or technical support from the Project in consonance withProject objectives and eligibility criteria.
Central Amazon Corridor (CAC)
The CAC Management Committee is the highest decision making instance at the corridor level.The committee would oversee CAC operations, decide priority activities and supervise themanagement of competitive funds established for small projects in the interstitial and indigenouslands. Membership in this Committee would include the State of Amazonas, IBAMA, FUNAI,and two NGOs. The committee would establish its regiment, determining number and frequencyof meetings, reporting procedures, etc. Committee members would approve annual operatingplans for activities to be supported by the Project and would monitor, evaluate and approve theimplementation of the CAC's management plan. The committee would not be involved in theday-to-day operations of the Project and it is not intended at micro-managing the UCE or theactivities carried out by executing agencies.
In the Central Amazon Corridor the State Coordinating Unit (UCE) would be housed at theIPAAM (State Environmental Agency). It would have a small number of staff - state employees.This group may be supplemented by consultants during phase 1. Most of the operational andmanagement work related to Project implementation falls within the range of responsibilities ofthe UCE. These include, among others, the following activities: (a) to supervise and monitor theelaboration of a CAC's strategy and its implementation; (b) to coordinate the preparation andimplementation of CAC's Management Plan; (c) to ensure close inter-institutional collaborationat the corridor level; (d) to select and supervise contracting of corridor subprojects; and (e) tocoordinate the preparation of annual operating plans, financial and audit reports, SOEs,procurement documents, contracts, etc.
Page 71
CAC activities would be managed by the UCE but carried out by different institutions,
comprising of public and private organizations such as IBAMA (for Federal UCs), IPAAM (forState UCs and State Components), NGOs, private sector and indigenous communities.
Central Atlantic Forest Corridor (CAFC)
The organization arrangements for the CAFC would be similar to those established for the CAC,except that there would be two Corridor Committees and two State Coordinating Units (UCEs),focusing on Project implementation in the states of Bahia and Espirito Santo. The UCEs wouldbe headquartered in the states environmental secretariats and staffed with state personnelsupported by consultants. In the case of the CAFC, the Biosphere Reserve Committees of eachstate would play the role of Management Committees. The State Coordinating Units will providetechnical and administrative support to the functioning of the committees.
Institutions to be Involved in Proiect Implementation
The following institutions will be involved in Project implementation:
* Ministry of Environment (MMA);* Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA);* National Indian Foundation (FUNAI);* Amazon State Environmental Protection Institute (IPAAM);* Secretariat of Planning of the State of Bahia (SEPLANTEC);* Center of Environmental Resources of the State of Bahia (CRA);* Department of Forestry Development of the State of Bahia (DDF);* Military Policy of Bahia - Company of Environmental Protection (COPPA);* Environment Secretariat of the State of Espirito Santo (SEAMA);* Company of Environmental Police of Espirito Santo;* Institute of Forestry Protection/Secretariat of Agriculture of the State of Espirito Santo;* Civil Society Organizations in Amazonas, Bahia and Espirito Santo;* Biosphere Reserve Committees in Bahia and Espirito Santo;* Bank of Brazil;* Others.
Ecological CorridorsProposed Institutional Arrangements
PPG7 J Executive SecretanatCoordination SECEX MMA
Bank of Tecti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nica AssistanceBrazil -. - - - - Agency to facilitatecontracts, procurement
and financial flow
Atlantic Amazon
4
|Biosphee Reserv| Biosphere Reserve | mplemen ottn|
Commibtee Committee | Commiftee
BAHIA ESPIIT SAJNTO
| Project Implementation || Project Implementation || Project Implementation
Unit - UCE Unit- UCE Unit- UCEBahia Espirito Santo IPAAM
f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IExecutors Executors Executors
IBAMA IBAMA IBAMACRAIDDF SEAMA IPMM
NGOs NGOs NGOsprivate sector, etc private sector, etc private sector, etc
i Second phase only
Page 73
Annex 6Eligibility Criteria and Selection of Proposal for Subprojects in
Interstitial AreasBRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
1. Atlantic Forest Corridor
A) Procedures for Criteria Definition
The definition of eligibility criteria and selection of proposals for subproject is based on theobjectives of the Ecological Corridors Project:
* To increase connectivity between remnant areas in the Atlantic Forestor in large areas of preserved forests in the Amazon;
* To make effective the conservation of biological diversity in preserved areas;* To strengthen participatory management in order to preserve biological diversity;* To lessen pressure on natural resources; and* To stimulate public policies that supports the design of Ecological Corridors as a new
conservation strategy.
Criteria will prioritize the execution of actions in the interstitial areas, which emphasizemaintenance/rehabilitation of forest cover. Actions shall be executed on an integrated way,through a combined effort of actors, among civil and governmental entities, jointly in well-established and coherent partnerships. It will emphasize initiatives guided to the rehabilitation offorest areas, and the implementation of alternative development models, preferably involvinglocal communities in all development phases of subproject.
B) Topics
Proposals should deal with the following topics:
1. Natural Resources Sustainable Management
1. I Agro-forestry Systems (SAFs)1.2 Generation and dissemination of low environmental impact agricultural productiontechnologies, added to increase in forest cover, except forest monocultures1.3 Management of non-timber forest resources
2. Natural Resource Conservation and Rehabilitation
2.1 Creation and implementation of RPPNs2.2 Rehabilitation of degraded areas
Page 74
C) Evaluation Procedures
Proposals will undergo an analysis and evaluation process which will involve three differentphases: responsiveness to formal and legal requirements for participation, technical feasibility ofproposals (undertaken by expert consultants), and the extent to which proposals are guidedtoward Ecological Corridors Project objectives. The phases for analysis and evaluation process ofproposals are as follows:
Phase 1: Eligibility criteria evaluated by State Coordination Units- Screeningundertaken by UCEs - Eliminatory;
Phase 2. Technical feasibility criteria evaluated by "ad hoc" consultants andcoordinated by UCEs- Eliminatory;
Phase 3: Financing priority criteria evaluated by the Management Committee.final approval of proposals will be made by the Management Committee -Classifying.
General features of the projects:
1. Duration: Projects will have the maximum duration of 36 monthis (3 years).
2. Amount: The maximum amount to be financed by the project will be US$125,000, excludingcounterpart funds.
3. Counterpart: Counterpart minimum amount required for each project will vary according toamount requested in accordance to the following parameters:
a. Projects lesser than US$20,000- minimum of 10% of counterpart funds.b. Projects between US$20,000 and US$50,000 - minimum of 20% of counterpart funds.c. Projects over US$50,000- minlimum of 30% of counterpart funds.
(The nature of counterpart funds will be defined in agreemnent in accordance to PD/A manual.Discuss the possibility of defining maximium co unterpart.funds).
D) Criteria for Appraisal and Evaluation for Proposals
Phase 1: Eligibility criteria (eliminatory)
* proposals duly prepared in standard forms (to be defined by ProjectCoordination Unit - PCU), sent by the legal representative of the proposinginstitution, including a formal endorsemenit document from the otherparticipating institutions;
* proposals which objective is physically located in priority areas forconnection to be defined by the Management Plan;proposals which objective is among defined topics;
* proposals should include a monitoring plan;* proposals which proponents meet completely the following requirements:
- be a legal non-profit entity, private or public;- be a cooperative or producers association;
Page 75
- if civil entity, be legally established for at least 12 months prior to proposalpresentation date, with headquarters in a proven address;
- in this phase, a declaration from the institution itself that there is no debt
with CGC, CADIN, FGTS, INSS and the other federal, state, and
municipal contributions.Non-financing items of the Project will be listed in the Operational Manual
(in accordance with PD/A models).
Phase 2: Technical feasibility criteria (eliminatory)
Technical feasibility appraisal will be undertaken by ad hoc consultants, and it
will follow a technical guidelines defined by State Coordination Units - UCEs.
In accordance to these guidelines, consultants will present conclusive opinions
approving or not approving proposals, according to the analysis of the following
features:
* real contribution of proposal objectives to the design of the EcologicalCorridors Project;
* relevance of the method (or strategy) regarding proposed objectives;
* institutional technical capacity to guide and to coordinate actions;
* managing and structural capacity to implement actions;
* coherence in budgetary proposal related to foreseen actions and presented
schedule.* projects with economical goals should present a minimum of 1/3 of
counterpart funds, in addition to the presentation of a marketing survey
indicating trading feasibility for the products;
* replication potential of methods and strategies;
* long term sustainability potential of actions.
Phase 3: Selection criteria (classifying)
Proposals that are recommended by consultants will undergo an evaluationprocess within the scope of Management Committees. A different set of criteria,representing a diversity of assessment features will be used. Such criteria will
have different weights, reflecting a greater topic relevance that one criterion will
have over the other. Thus, evaluation of proposals will take into account both
designing features and management features shall be used during implementation
of actions.
-* Criterion related to the location of the proposal:- The proposal is located within the area of influence of a Integral Protection
Conservation Unit (2 points);- The proposal is located within the area of influence of a Sustainable Use
Conservation Unit (I point).
Criterion related to the location of the proposal in priority areas establishedin the workshop "Evaluation and Identification of priority actions for
conservation, sustainable use, and partitioning of benefits from Atlantic
Forest biodiversity" (Atibaia, Nov/99):- The proposal is located in priority areas, priority 1 (3 points);- The proposal is located in priority areas, priority 2 (2 points);
Page 76
- The proposal is located in areas classified as unknown, but with probablebiological importance (I point).
- Criterion related to forest cover (SNUC cadaster):- Proposals involving rehabilitation of remnant forest areas (3 points);- Proposals involving conservation of remnant forest areas (2 points);- Proposals involving rehabilitation of forest cover (I point).
- Criterion related to the creation of RPPNs:- Proposal involving the creation and implementation of RPPNs (> 50 ha)
within the areas of influence of total protection UCs or in Priority Areas forConnection (APCs), which do not have UCs (3 points);
- Proposals involving the creation and implementation of RPPNs (> 50 ha)within the influence areas of UCs (2 points);
- Proposals involving the creation and implementation of RPPNs (> 50 ha)(I point).
- Criterion involving social actors (local communities directly or indirectlybeneficiaries or affected by the proposed actions):- Proposals that objectively demonstrate the direct involvement of local
communities in project design and implementation (3 points);- Proposals that objectively demonstrate the direct involvement of local
communities in project implementation (2 points).
-* Criterion related to sustainability:- Proposals demonstrating real potential of proponents to completely sustain
project actions after conclusion of financing (3 points);- Proposals demonstrating real potential of proponents to partially sustain
project actions after conclusion of financing (2 points).
- Criterion related to partnership:- Proposals involving partnerships between civil and governmental entities
(3 points);- Proposals involving partnerships (2 points).
- Criterion related to environmental education activities:- Proposals presenting environmental education activities related to project
objectives (2 points).
Proposals will be classified according to score received, while being necessary a minimum scoreof 50% of total possible points.
The flow of funds and accounting of approved project will follow the model defined by PD/A,which detailed procedures will be part of Project Operational Manual.
(At the beginning of phase 2 a call will be made, and in case where funds are not totallycommitted, other calls per proposal will take place).
Page 77
2. Amazon Central Corridor
A) Preliminarv Definitions
The Amazon Central Corridor has a great potential for society involvement. Its characteristicsconcerning social-economic features, degree of connectivity, conservation status, and current andpotential threats lead to prioritization of direct local involvement of several actors throughsubcomponents "Conservation Units", "Indigenous Lands" and "Interstitial areas". Thus, thesesubcomponents will be partially implemented through the presentation of proposals (sub-projects)prepared by different local actors, which will undergo an eligibility and selection processmanaged by the State Coordination Unit - UCE, and approved by the Management Committee.Initially, the distribution of funds among proposals shall be limited to the funds available for eachsubcomponent.
In order to define eligibility and selection criteria, the objectives of the Ecological CorridorsProject and the social actors who are to be prioritized in financing were taken into account.Project objectives consist of preserving biological diversity, stimulating conservation actions andsustainable use in the area within the Corridor, and to be a reference case for future nationalconservation policies. Specifically, the Project proposes to:
* increase connectivity between nature conservation areas;* make effective the conservation of biological diversity in protected areas;* strengthen participatory management for biological diversity conservation;* decrease pressure on natural resources; and* stimulate public policies to support Project objectives.
Therefore, it was taken into consideration that major involved actors will be social organizations,profit or non-profit, which actions directly influence the consolidation of the Corridor and theconservation of natural resources. There is a great potential for the involvement of the society inthe Ecological Corridors Project, and this involvement should enrich discussions related todevelopment and conservation models for the region.
In comparison to other development project being implemented in the region, available funds forthe Ecological Corridors Project are small. Therefore, it was opted to prioritize thoseorganizations, which are not generally contemplated with governmental financing, such as smallproducers associations, traditional communities cooperatives and associations. Concerning profitmaking organizations, it shall be proven that the proposal does not fit for credit lines existing inthe region. Possible profits, in case of proposals implementation, will be invested in activities thatpromote sustainable development and biological diversity conservation.
Projects maximum amount will be US$125,000, and maximum duration of three years.Counterpart amounts will follow PD/A model, varying from 10% to 30%, depending on the case.Technical assistance to projects will be defined case by case. There will be a minimum scoringfor project acceptance, being 40% of total possible score in accordance to the criteria defined inphase 3. Questions related to the monitoring of subprojects will be clarified in the OperationalManual.
Page 78
B) Procedures for Appraisal and Evaluation Proposals
Organizations interested in getting funds from the Project shall formalize their request by sendinga proposal that will be evaluated in three different phases:
Phase 1: Eligibility criteria evaluated by the State Coordination Unit -Eliminatory:
Initially, all proposals will be evaluated regarding eligibility criteria, andclassified as belonging to one of the Project subcomponents: "Interstitial areas"and "Indigenous Lands". It is understood hereto that "Interstitial areas" are thosethat are neither conservation units nor indigenous lands, but include the RPPNs,Legal Reserves and Permanent Conservation Areas.
Phase 2: Technical feasibility evaluated by expert consultants - Eliminatory:
After screening and previous analysis by the UCEs and PDPI wheneverapplicable, eligible proposals shall be technically appraised by ad hoc consultantswho shall issue a conclusive opinion, and classify proposals in accordance totheir technical feasibility and level of priority for financing. It is considered thattechnical feasibility to be a prerequisite with eliminatory features, and itsdefinition shall follow criteria specified in the standard form to be filled in by theconsultant. These criteria shall be clearly defined at the beginning of phase I ofthe Project, but some important points that are to be taken into consideration havealready been identified (see phase 2 below: Technical Feasibility Criteria).
Phase 3. Priority for financing, according to selection criteria - Classifying:
Proposals will also be classified by the Management Committee in accordance topriority criteria that have a ranking feature. There are specific selection criteriafor each subcomponent. Proposals shall get a minimum score, to be defined inthe first phase of the Project, to assure a minimum level of merit and priority.
C) Appraisal and Evaluation Criteria for Proposals
Phase 1: Eligibility Criteria
* Proposal should be physically located within the Amazon Central Corridor;* Proponent should be a social, profit or non-profit, organization;* In case of profit organization, it should be proven that proposal does not fit
for credit line offered in the region. In these cases, proponent shoulddemonstrate that profit yielded from the implementation of the proposal willbe reinvested in actions promoting sustainable development and conservationof biological diversity;
* Proponent should sent a declaration stating to be in compliance with CGC,CADIN, FGTS, INSS, federal (SRF), state and municipal taxes;
* Proposal should be responsive to one of the Project subcomponent:Indigenous Lands or Interstitial Areas or Conservation Units;
* In cases of NGOs or entities from organized civil society, proponent shouldhave at least 12 months of legal establishment;
* All institutions involved in the project must endorse the proposal;
Page 79
* Proposal shall be sent in previously defined standard form for the EcologicalCorridors Project, accompanied by a proposing letter, signed by the legalrepresentative of proposing institution;
* In cases of community proposals, it should be proven the degree ofinvolvement of community member in its preparation;
* Counterpart funds compatible with the implementation of the proposalshould be presented (flexible criteria to be considered, as in PD/A); and
* Proposal shall be coherent with the Ecological Corridors Projects objectives.
Phase 2: Technical Feasibility Criteria
As previously mentioned, specific criteria for technical feasibility appraisalshould be defined at the beginning of phase 1 of the Project. At this phase,consultants should take into consideration the merit and the capacity for proposalimplementation by the proponent. The following aspects should be taken intoconsideration:
* Degree of potential impact of the proposal in relation to Ecological CorridorsProject objectives;
* Pertinence of the method or strategy related to proposed objectives;* Infrastructure and technical qualification (or measures foreseen to get them)
for implementation of proposal;* Management and structural capacity to implement actions;* Coherence of the budgetary proposal concerning foreseen actions and
presented timetable;* Long term sustainability of the proposal; and* Transparency in implementing and monitoring.
Project which gather favorable conditions for sustainability shall be prioritized,considering that:
* Proposal has the support of several social actors;* Natural resource will be managed in participatory way;* Ensure sustainability after termination of received financing; and* Give Incentives to the minimization of negative impacts of eventual
economic activities on natural resources.
At the end of this phase, consultants shall issue a conclusive opinion related tothe feasibility of the proposal, classifying it in accordance to one of the followingcategories: not recommended for financing; recommended with changes; andrecommended without changes.
Phase 3: Selection Criteria
Those proposals, which received recommendations from consultants (either withor without changes), will be appraised according to selection criteria that willclassify them for priority financing. In this phase of the evaluation process,criteria have a hierarchical organization, with different scoring, which aredifferentiated by subcomponents:
Page 80
* For Interstitial Areas Subcomponent- Criterion related to the location of proposal:
- The proposal is located within a 10 km strip from a conservation unitor indigenous land: (I point);
- The proposal is locate outside the 10 km strip from a conservation unitor indigenous land: (O point).
-+ Criterion related to the location of the proposal in priority areas set in theworkshop "Evaluation and Identification of priority action forconservation, sustainable use and partitioning of benefits from theBrazilian Amazon biodiversity" (Amapa, September/99):- Proposal is located in priority areas of priority 1 (3 points);- Proposal is located in priority areas of priority 2 (2 points);- Proposal is located in areas classified as unknown (I point);- Proposal is locate outside priority areas (O point).
- Criterion related to the number of proponent social actors:- Partnerships agreed to implement the proposal, and there is organized
society participation (I point);- The establishment of inter-institutional partnerships and organized civil
society participation is not proven (O point).
- Criterion related to multiplying potential in other areas, ecosystems, orfor other species:- Proposal has methods or strategies that could represent an experience
to be repeated in other corridor, if it yields positive results (3 points);- Proposal has methods or strategies that could represent an experience
to be repeated in major part of the corridor, if it yields positive results(2 points);
- Proposal has methods or strategies that could represent an experienceto be repeated in specific sites, if it yields positive results (1 point);
- Proposal has methods or strategies that cannot be repeated (O point).
-- Criterion related to the merit of the proposal objective:- Proposal directly promotes conservation of feeble/threatened
ecosystems, and/or threatened species (I point);- Proposal has other specific objectives (O point).
Particularly for proposals related to "Promotion of Sustainable Management"topic, the following criteria also apply:
-+ Criterion related to economic and environmental sustainability potential:- Proposal demonstrates that actions have real potential for economic
and environmental sustainability, after termination of financing(2 points);
- Proposal does not demonstrate that actions have real potential foreconomic and environmental sustainability, after termination offinancing (O point).
- Criterion related to the use of regional species:
Page 81
- Proposal directly or indirectly promotes regional species valuation(3 points);
- Proposal directly or indirectly does not promote regional speciesvaluation (0 point).
X Criterion related to added value to used natural resources:- Proposal directly or indirectly promotes added value to used natural
resources (3 points);- Proposal directly or indirectly does not promote added value to used
natural resources (0 point).
X Criterion related to use of low impact technologies:- Proposal incentivates use of low impact technologies (2 points);- Proposal does not incentivate use of low impact technologies (0 point).
* For the "Indigenous Lands" subcomponent-+ Selection criteria were not defined for the Indigenous Lands
subcomponent because it was decided to follow the recommendations ofthe consultants contracted to undertake indigenous consultations, whichpropose the design and implementation of three regional subprojects:Upper Solim6es, Mid-Solimaes and Japura, and East of the Corridor.However, in order to leverage proposals from the "Indigenous Lands"subcomponent, the following parameters were defined as "selectionrequirements":- Proof of establishing partnerships and agreements with participating
indigenous organizations;- Proof of direct indigenous communities involvement;- Existence of a monitoring proposal;- Part of the proposal objective intends to diminish the impact on
threatened species;- Proof of search for economic and environmental sustainability of the
proposal after termination of financing;- The portion of the proposal that deals with the promotion of
sustainable management should value regional species, add value tothe used resource, and should use low impact technologies.
D) Requirement for Contracting Projects
Proposals which have met all three evaluation phases and which have been recommended forfinancing shall be formally contracted by the Management Agency and present the followingdocumentation:
* Documentation related to CGC, negative certificates from CADIN, FGTS,INSS, payment certificate of federal taxes and bonds (SRF) to be presentedup to 30 days after evaluations results notification;
* In cases of NGOs, copies of the statute and minutes of the election of currentdirectorate and/or Advisory Council;
* In cases of Municipalities and State Organizations, presentation ofNomination Act, and the negative certificates from CND and CADI-N;
* Presentation of bank data for allocation of funds.
Page 82
E) Topics
* Use and sustainable management of renewable natural resources;* Biodiversity conservation in private areas;* Products transformation.
Page 83
Annex 7Key Findings of the Indigenous Peoples Action Plan
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
Introduction
1. The Pilot Program has two components that deal exclusively with indigenous peoples in theLegal Amazon: (1) Project for Integrated Protection of Indigenous Lands and Populations of theLegal Amazon (Indigenous Lands/PPTAL), and (2) Indigenous Peoples Demonstration Project(PDPI, not yet effective. The indigenous component of the Ecological Corridors Project would beimplemented through the PDPI, and the indigenous lands within the area of the Corridors wouldbe regulated by PPTAL. This decision is a response to one of the major recommendations of theMid-Term Evaluation of the Program to its Executive Secretariat in the Ministry of theEnvironment - to promote spatial, thematic and administrative integration among projects in theProgram in order to increase its efficacy. This decision was confirmed after consultations withindigenous organizations and leaders in the Amazon region, particularly with the Coordination ofIndigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), the largest and most representativeindigenous in the Amazon. COIAB gathers approximately 64 organizations of 50 indigenouspeoples.
PPTAL
2. The objective of PPTAL is to assure the legal rights of indigenous people guaranteed by theConstitution through the process of identification, delimitation and demarcation of indigenouslands in legal Amazon, as well as the implementation of protection measures for these areas.Project implementation began in 1996. The project was originally scheduled to conclude in 2000,but extension of the Closing Date for the project until December 31, 2002 has been agreedbetween the government and the Bank. In order to make PPTAL development feasible throughFUJNAI (the government agency responsible for the protection of the indigenous groups) projectexecuting agency - a management unit reporting directly to the President of FUNAI was created.This consists of the PPTAL Executive Secretariat and an Advisory Committee composed of equalnumber of representatives from the federal government and indigenous groups. The project isimplemented in collaboration with GTZ and JNDP. The major component of PPTAL is land-titling regularization, a primary condition for an effective protection of the indigenous lands. Theprocess of regularization of indigenous lands in Brazil comprises five phases: (i) Identificationand definition of boundaries, which involves anthropological, ethno-historical, mapping and landsurveys studies; (ii) Delimitation, i.e., the recognitior by the State through Decree-lawsrecognizing permanent possession by indigenous peoples, which mandates physical demarcation;(iii) Demarcation which means the surveying and marking of declared boundaries by setting upbenchmarks and signs. (iv) Homologation, the confirmation of physical boundaries by aPresidential Decree: and (v) Land registration in the local real-estate registry and in the NationalProperty Secretariat (SPU).
PDPI
3. The objective of PDPI is to enhance the perspectives for economic, social and culturalsustainability of indigenous peoples in their lands, and the conservation of the existing naturalresources. This objective is to be reached through financing at local level of subprojects, whichare proposed, planned and implemented by indigenous communities themselves, thus becomingdemonstration subprojects. Guidelines principles of PDPI are: (i) the respect for indigenous waysof life; (ii) strengthening of development of indigenous communities; (iii) consideration ofindigenous knowledge and its importance for the sustainability of small subprojects;
Page 84
(iv) contribution to economic self-sufficiency. Finally, the eligible subject areas for suchsubprojects are the monitoring of indigenous lands, sustainable economic activities, and culturalrescue and valuation.
Indigenous Legislation in Brazil
4. Initially, it is worth mentioning the sui generis legal nature of indigenous lands: theybelong to the Union, constitutionally recognized as permanent possessions and for the exclusiveuse by indigenous living in the lands. These lands are non-disposable, while the indigenous rightsover them are perennial. The Constitution recognizes expressly these rights as primordial, whichmean that they precede the national, state itself and its legal implementation. As an integral partof the national territory, the general norms of the Brazilian legal system are applied to them,meaning for example that if it is illegal to deforest stream heads anywhere in the country, it isalso forbidden to do so in the indigenous lands. Therefore, any specific act or norm over aspecific parcel that is incompatible with or restrictive of the right of exclusive indigenous use isconstitutionally considered void. The Constitution also declares null and void any privateproperty claims over indigenous lands. It allows for mining, forestry or other activities onindigenous lands only when they are in the national interest and are specifically agreed to by anact of congress.
Indigenous Peoples of the Central Amazon Corridor
Context
5. The objective of the Ecological Corridors Project is the protection of biodiversity. Toensure such preservation over the long term, including protected areas, it is necessary to assurethe involvement and the participation of local population. For traditional populations such asindigenous communities who have the rights to the natural resources as their source for survival,the protection of biodiversity and the permanent availability of these resources is necessary; as anassurance of their subproject prospects for the future. However, although they have survived overcenturies in the regions where they live without causing major impacts, they are currently underpressure by third parties and by the increasing need to generate cash income in order to haveaccess to services and of consumer's goods.
6. In the specific case of the Central Amazon Corridor, there is a core of continuousenvironmental conservation units, composed by the State of Amazonas Sustainable DevelopmentReserves of Mamirauai and Amana, and the Jau National Park, comprising more than 5 millionhectares, extending from the Solimoes/Japura River down to the Negro River. The easternportion of the corridor is basically comprised of continuous indigenous lands: Waimiri-Atroari(regularized), Trombetas-Mapuera (under identification) and Nhamunda-Mapuera (regularized),which comprise over 6 million hectares, extending, in the shape of an arc, from Rio Negro toMapuera. Ticuna best lands are located in upper Solim6es, the largest of indigenous populationliving in the region of the corridor. In the region of the JapurA, the lands of Maku-Nadeb, ParanABoa-Boa and Uneuxi are located, as well as two conservation units, the Ecological Reserve andthe Ecological Station of Juami-Japura, continuous and separated by the Japura river. Besides theindigenous lands, along the corridor there are other state and federal UCs of several managementcategories.
Indigenous peoples consultation
7. The Bank, in recognition to the importance of indigenous lands in the context of theCentral Amazon Corridor, contracted a group of anthropologists to guide the consultation among
Page 85
indigenous groups with the objective to inform them on the Ecological Corridors Project and tocollect reactions and relevant information that could guide the design of a component forsubprojects with indigenous links within the scope of the Project.
8. The undertaking of consultations to indigenous groups met their own demand for basicinformation on the Project and the PPG7 essential condition to attain positive engagement ofthese communities in subproject implementation. The consultation was not a plebiscite of theapproval or rejection of the project, but rather an open dialogue that allowed the expressing ofdoubts or mistrusts and, above all, indicated ways through which the rights and interests ofindigenous groups may be inserted in the Project in a compatible and cooperative way with theirobjectives.
Indigenous needs and priorities identified during the consultation process:
* Support to community actions in territorial surveillance, and implementation of a radiocommunication system to interconnect villages, organizations, public agencies, and to make itpossible for appropriate reactions to illegal incursions on indigenous lands;
* Support of management of lakes and agricultural and extractivist production by indigenouscommunities, including support for commercialization;
* Conservation of natural resources in indigenous lands (sanctuaries) or in between these lands(the Uneixi-Tea interfluvial area);
* Institutionally support indigenous organizations in subproject design and implementation, andstrengthening of their partnerships, according to established relationships;
* Training and capacity building of indigenous environmental agents and installation, operationand maintenance of telephone systems;
* Incorporation of COIAB in the coordination level of the Central Amazon Corridor.
Major recommendations by the consultation team:
* The project should include a specific linkage between project management and indigenousgroups within the corridor areas that would allow for continuous two-way communication ofindigenous interests and demands.In the context of the Central Amazon Corridor, the project should prioritize the design and
implementation of three sub-regional indigenous projects: (i) upper Solimoes; (ii) mid-Solimoes.
* The project should allocate resource to (i) restart dialogues with the indigenous groups livingin the CAC through workshops for the design of indigenous subprojects to be submitted tothe PDPI program; and (ii) contract technical assistance to develop coherent proposal for theimplementation of subprojects.
* The above mentioned workshops should also include training on subproject design in thePDPI, and assure participation/enforcement of indigenous groups in the demarcation processof indigenous lands that are programmed for this area.
* After the workshops, the consultants contracted by PDPI, provided with conditions toundertake field activities and surveys on local and regional prices, would provide assistanceto indigenous.groups in finalizing their subprojects.
Biodiversity development and conservation (protection) subprojects in the indigenous lands in theCentral Amazon Corridor- links with the PDPI
9. PDPI status in the Pilot Program: PDPI is a complement of the PPTAL, as it aims at theeconomical, social-cultural and environmental sustainability of the indigenous groups and lands
Page 86
after demarcation. It is also an institutional partnership tool between PPTAL/FUNAI, and theDemonstration subprojects Subprogram (PD/A), a component of the Pilot Program executed bythe Ministry of the Environment. This new line of financing for indigenous subprojects in LegalAmazon will maintain the same operational system of the PD/A, respecting the ethnic differencesof indigenous populations, and it will be implemented by a Management Unit located inManaus/AM, and linked to PD/A Technical Secretariat. COIAB will indicate the manager forPDPI, who should be approved by the Ministry of the Environment.
10. PDPI subprojects: Subproject proponents shall be indigenous organizations that arelegally constituted. Indigenous and/or environmental organizations may be proponents providedthey are invited by the indigenous communities. All subprojects would follow some generalbasic rules, such as having the most possible participation of the communities in theirimplementation, demonstration of environmental and economic sustainability, in case ofsubprojects aimed at production and commercialization. Regarding technical assistance, eachsubproject would identify its own needs and shall incorporate the costs in its budget. PDPI willalso keep a separate fund to pay for technical assistance, which could be accessed by request fromexecutors/proponents, or by management from supervision visits. In addition, local indigenousorganizations that are not technically prepared for subproject design, will be able to requestsupport from PDPI and from the Supporting Group for Preparation and Implementation ofsubprojects (GAPEP). For that purpose, they would send to PDPI a proposal form with basic dataand a general idea of the subproject. Concerning counterpart funds, they would correspond to aminimum of 10% of the total subproject value in the case of subproject with value of up toUS$25,000, or a minimum of 20%, for subprojects with a value of from US$25,000 to 130,000.
11. Subprojects approval process: The approval process for financing proposals sent to PDPIwill involve the following phases: (i) preliminary analysis of the proposal by the programtechnical group to check its responsiveness to predefined criteria for eligibility; (ii) request ofcomments from the subproject Analysis Group (GAP) regarding that specific proposal, whileeach proposal shall be evaluated by two members of GAP; (iii) final decision on acceptance ofproposal, to be taken by PDPI coordination on small subproject (amount up to US$25,000), andby a Executive Commission composed of representatives form govemment agencies and ofindigenous organizations, presided by the technical group manager on medium and largesubprojects (amounts between US$25,000 and US$130,000).
12. Basic lines of work within each PDPI topic area: As mentioned before, PDPI topic areasare indigenous lands monitoring, sustainable economic activities and cultural revival.
* Indigenous lands monitoring involves: (i) strengthening of local trained agents insurveillance and maintenance of indigenous land boundaries; (ii) support for rehabilitation ofdegraded areas; (iii) sensitization of indigenous and non-indigenous populations (regional) onboundary lines; (iv) minimization of eventual environmental impacts of activities throughenvironmental planning.
* Sustainable economic activities will include: (i) family subsistence; (ii) promotion of adiversified agricultural production; (iii) creation of conditions for better access of indigenousproducts in the market; (iv) feasibility studies for commercialization of indigenous products(cost-benefit analysis, production costs, transportation and final price); (v) considering localethno ecological features and knowledge.
* The initiatives for cultural revival will involve: (i) strengthening of indigenous traditionalknowledge and incentives of its use; (ii) contribution to indigenous cultural and historicconservation; (iii) formulation of school curricula adapted to indigenous reality;(iv) promotion of cultural exchanges between ethnic groups for exchange of experiences;(v) contribution to the conservation of indigenous idioms.
Page 87
13. Negative List for PDPI: PDPI would not finance subprojects with activities detrimental toenvironmental sustainability and to demarcation, such as:
* physical investments in indigenous lands without the indigenous Declaration of PermanentPossession issued by the Ministry of Justice;
* any type of mineral extraction unless proper institutional arrangements are in place;* vegetable extrativism without a sustainable management plan;* cattle raising outside appropriate areas (explanation: to avoid deforestation for cattle raising,
but to allow indigenous groups to raise animals for food in ecologically suitable);* use of chemical/soluble fertilizers and/or pesticides;* unjustified deforestation and;* civil works, such as road, dams, landfill or drainage constructions without analysis of
environmental impact and appropriate mitigatory measures;* agro-industrial activities or any other potentially polluting activities without adequate
institutional arrangements;* use of non-renewable natural resources, if economically viable alternatives exist;* use of non-degradable materials without a suitable disposal and/or recycling plan;* activities contrary the indigenous rights to intellectual property and control of biological and
genetic resources existing in their lands.
14. Adjustments in the PDPI to accommodate the indigenous component of the CentralAmazon Corridor: The results of the ethno-ecological survey (and of the environmental surveyswhich are integrated with indigenous lands identification studies) programmed for the landswithin the CAC will help guide the design of subprojects of the indigenous component of theProject. Besides, subproject design of these subprojects may have the support of GAPEP to makeproposals to the PDPI. PDPI Management Unit will contract GAPEP consulting services afterconsultation with the Amazon UCE. GAPEP will also be a tool for disseminating subprojectprinciples, guidelines and priorities among indigenous groups defined in the CorridorManagement Plan. To ensure a permanent link between PDPI and the project, a personresponsible to deal with issues related to the Corridor will be contracted by Management Unit ofPDPI. In addition, there will be indigenous representatives on the Corridor ManagementCommittee.
15. Approval process for subprojects: The procedures for approval of indigenous subprojects ofthe Corridor, and the ones already approved by PDPI will be the same. However, adaptation willbe made in the approval procedures for the proposals presented by groups living in the Corridorarea, incorporating representatives from Corridor Management Committee in PDPI ExecutiveCommittee for approval of proposals, thus incorporating the principles of the corridor in proposalevaluation. This Committee will judge proposal merits, including those counting with GAPEPadvisory.
16. Resources for the indigenous component of the project: A total of EUR 3.059.340,65million (US$2.7 million) was allocated by the German government for specific use in theimplementation of the indigenous component of the Ecological Corridors Project. These fundswill be intemalized in the PDPI through an amendment to the KfW Grant Agreement for thisproject. Additionally, it is estimated that at least 60 pre-proposals or subprojects will bepresented to the PDPI by indigenous groups living in the Corridor. Pilot Program experienceteaches that the participation of GAPEP in subprojects design costs about R$2,500 persubproject,. Thus, the average cost for the design of about 60 subprojects was estimated by theManagement Unit of PDPI at about R$ 150,000, (approximately US$78 thousand, averageexchange rate in November, 2000). As foreseen in PDPI project document, it is probable thatsubprojects designed with GAPEP help would require technical assistance, during itsimplementation. Therefore, a total of US$156 thousand was allocated to the Fund for technical
Page 88
assistance provided by PDPI during supervision visits and advisory services for up to 60subprojects.
In order to make technical advice available to indigenous subprojects in the area of the Corridor,funds amounting to US$234 thousand were allocated. The costs for the participation of twomembers of the Management Committee of the Central Amazon Corridor in the PDPI ExecutiveCommittee were added to this amount. Estimating that three annual meetings of the Committeewill be undertaken during the project implementation period, another US$15,000 was added tothe amount mentioned above, with a total of US$249,000 for operational costs of the indigenouscomponent of CAC. These funds will be included in the budget of each subproject.
Page 89
Annex 8Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
1. Procurement
Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's"Guidelines. Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits", published in January 1995(revised January/August 1996, September 1997 and January 1999); and "Guidelines: Selectionand Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" published in January 1997 (revised inSeptember 1997 and January 1999); and the provisions stipulated in the Grant Agreement. AProcurement Assessment for the Project was carried out and approved by the RPA on June 6,2001 which includes an action plan to address the identified risks.
Procurement Responsibility. The Executive Secretariat has an Institutional ArticulationDepartment (DAI) (Departamento de Articula.do Institucional e Agenda 21) which has becomethe Project Coordinating Unit - UCG for the proposed project. The Project in the States ofAmazon; Bahia; and Espirito Santo will be administrated through three Project ImplementationUnits-UCEs. The UCG coordinator and the implementation coordinators (UCEs), with theassistance of UNDP (UAP/ABC), will be responsible for the overall project procurement activity,including compliance with procedures and timetables agreed with the Bank. UNDP (UAP/ABC)has the capability to carry out the project procurement with close supervision of the Borrower.
The activities under the project will be carried out by each one of the participating units with thegeneral coordination and monitoring of a project coordinators with a small technical unitcomprising an assistant and a procurement officer. Some of the processing of procurement actionswill be carried out by UNDP (UAP/ABC) hired as a procurement agent paid for by the Ministryof Environment (MMA) own resources.
PNUD will carry out the operational aspects of procurement under a PRODOC Agreementfollowing the standard UNDP Cost Sharing and Checklist documents pursuant to techllical input(technical specifications for bidding and shopping and TOR for Consultants for Request forProposals) from the implementing agencies.
The implementation coordinators (UCEs) should be assisted with at least one administrative staffand should be responsible to ensure that UNDP (UAP/ABC) performs its responsibilities in atimely fashion. The UCG, who is already familiar with the Bank's procurement guidelines, willbe provided with clear working instructions closely reflecting the Bank's procedures andoutlining all procedural aspects of procurement under the project. The working instructionsshould be integral part of a "black book" containing standard requests for proposals, forms ofcontract, model letters, timetables, model TOR and any other information related to procurement.In addition, a procurement workshop, involving the project coordinator (UCG), the UCEscoordinators, and UNDP (UAP/ABC) staff would be organized prior or at least within fourmonths of the Grant's effectiveness. The workshop would focus on the Bank's procurementpolicy and procedures and their application to the procurement arrangements planned for projectimplementation.
Page 90
2. Procurement Methods
The methods to be used for the procurement under the Project are described below, and theestimated amounts for each method are summarized in Table A. The thresholds for the methodsand the prior review are stated in Table B.
Procurement of Works (US$0.35 million)
Works procured under the proposed Project relates to small civil works which may be requiredfor the implementation of the Conservation Units' (UCs) management plans (e.g., fences,observation towers, UCs headquarter buildings) and/or for the implementation of the corridors'monitoring and vigilance systems. Consequently, procurement of all works estimated to cost lessthan US$100,000 equivalent per contract up to an aggregate amount of US$0.35 million, will bedone through three quotations procedures, (using a standard model to be developed by UCGapproved by the Bank) in response to a written invitation, which will include a detaileddescription of the works, including basic specifications, the required completion date, a basicform of agreement acceptable to the Bank, and relevant architectural drawings, where applicable.Any package above US$100,000 will be procured through NCB procedures acceptable to theBank.
Procurement of Goods (US$0.78 million)
Goods procured under the project would include office equipment, furniture, computer equipmentand software, communication and information systems, vehicles and Sundry items for trainingactivities33. These items will be procured through shopping (International/National) procedures.Any package above US$100,000 will be procured through NCB procedures acceptable to theBank.
Selection of Consultants (US$3.66 million)
Consulting services will be contracted under this project for, inter alia, consultant services,training and workshops for an estimated total cost of about US$3.66 million and consisting of(i) institutional strengthening; (ii) coordination and monitoring; (iii) technical studies; and(iv) specific project related training, study tours and workshops.
Firms. All contracts for firms would be procured using QCBS and the Bank's Standard Requestfor Proposals.
Individuals. Specialized advisory services would be provided by individual consultants selectedand hired in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 5.1 through 5.3 of the ConsultantGuidelines, up to an aggregate amount of US$0.44 million equivalent.
Training (US$0.21 million)
Training programs for monitoring agents, local visits, study tours, workshops and seminars willbe supported by the Project. The services to be financed under this category include travel,subsistence, and logistics, to be procured using administrative procedures reviewed and foundacceptable by the Bank, which will be reflected in the Operational Manual.
Page 91
Incremental Operational Costs (US$0.16 million)
Incremental operational costs refers to the management and supervision of the Project, includingairplane rental, maintenance and supplies, communication services, and spare parts for officeequipment and vehicles. It may include travel and subsistence expenses for UCEs and UCGsstaff. These services are estimated to cost US$0.16 million equivalent, to be financed inaccordance to biannual plans approved by the Bank. Identification of suppliers of sundry itemsand minor services will be made through market inquiries in the local market throughidentification of suppliers offering the lowest list prices for sundry items. A purchase order willbe issued using regular administrative procedures, for each small purchase. The market inquirieswill be updated periodically.
3. Procurement Review. The Bank's procurement review will be in accordance withAppendix I of the Guidelines for Procurement and the provisions stipulated in the GrantAgreement. The Bank will prior review the first two shopping procedures for each implementingagency. Seemingly the first two quotations for works of each implementing agency will besubject to prior review.
With regard to consultant services, prior to issuance of any requests for proposal, a complete planfor selection of consultants under the project should be updated by the implementationcoordinator and submitted for the Bank's review. The plan should be adhered to by UNDP. TheBank's review of selection of consultants will be in accordance with Appendix I of theGuidelines for Selection and Employment of Consultants and the provisions stipulated in theGrant Agreement. Consultant contracts estimated to cost the equivalent of US$100,000.00, percontract, or more will be subject to the Bank's prior review. Consultant firms contracts estimatedto cost less than the equivalent of US$100,000.00, per contract, will be subject to post review.For employment of individual consultants estimated to cost the equivalent of US$50,000 or more,the qualifications, experience, terms of reference and terms of employment of the consultants willbe provided to prior review and the contracts will be awarded only after the Bank's concurrence.Contracts for individual consultants estimated to cost less than the equivalent of US$50,000, willbe subject to post review. Consultant contract documents to be reviewed will include TORs,shortlists, evaluation reports, contract forms. A review process similar to individual consultants,will apply to training and workshops.
In addition to the regular tasks of prior and ex-post reviews, the Bank may also carry out spotchecks of the quality and consistency of its financed procurement work, with the objective ofstrengthening the fiduciary responsibilities.
4. Procurement Plan. A procurement plan covering the whole duration of the project, listingall contracts for goods and consultants was prepared during the appraisal and found satisfactory;it will be the basis for the periodic updated by UNDP and the implementing agencies. This planwas approved by the RPA's office and it is in project files. Key instruments for carrying out theproject procurement by UNDP (UAP/ABC) should be: (i) the completion of a detailedprocurement plan for the project's goods, including contract packaging, applicable procedures andprocess scheduling; and (ii) consultant selection process plan for the project's consultant services,including contract packaging, applicable procedures, shortlists, selection criteria, and so forth. Apreliminary version of the plans was reviewed during the appraisal. The procurement plan andconsultant selection process plan will be updated periodically, every 6 months. The planincludes: (i) list of contracts completed, under execution, under procurement, to be procured inthe upcoming calendar semester and, tentatively in the subsequent semester; (ii) costs ofcompleted and under execution contracts, estimated costs for upcoming contracts; (iii) scheduleof shopping; and (iv) schedule of works and particular methods of selection of consultants.
Page 92
5. Procurement Records. All entities involved in the project, will maintain such a record
system to systematically record all procurement in the project action for purposes of auditing
reports and to comply with legal covenants in the Grant Agreement. Initial Bank's supervision
missions should validate the establishment of adequate filing system of documents and electronic
data bases on procurement and financial records of contracts financed under the grant.
The detailed records and original regarding the procurement process should be retained at UCEs,
UCG and/or UNDP (UAI'/ABC). These records will be maintained for at least two years after
the project's closing date. The records for consultant services will include public notices for
expression of interest, request for proposals and addenda, technical and financial reports, formal
appeals by consultants and outcomes, signed contracts, addenda and amendments, records on
claims and dispute resolution and any other useful information.
The Operational Manual shall detail procedures on this topic, which should include specifics
about logging and filing correspondence.
Annex 8, Table A: Grant Costs by Procurement Arrangements
(in US$ thousand equivalent: all amounts are Bank-financed at 75% except NBF)
Total CostExpenditure Categor% Procurement Method
ICB NCB Other N.B.F1. Goods 0.73 0.78
(0.54) _ (0.58)
2. Works 0.35 0.36(0.24) _ (0.25)
3. Consultant Services 3 56 3.66(2.78) (2.86)
4. Training 0.20 0.210.16) (0.17)
5. Miscellaneous _ _ 0 18
5. Recurrent Costs 0.14 0 15(0.04) (0.04)
Total 4.98 0 18 5.16.________ _________ _________ ________(3.76) (3.90)
ICB. International Competitive Bidding; NCB: National Competitive Bidding; Other: includes National andInternationial Shopping, Limited International Bidding and Direct Contracting; NBF: Not Bank-financed
Page 93
Annex 8, Table Al: Consultant Selection and Training Arrangements(in US$ million equivalent: all amounts are Bank-financed except NBF)
ji6 |ftfiditu -4 Cost.ategory.- -
QCBS QBS SFB LCS CQ Other N.B.F.A. Firms 3.5 3.5B. Individuals 0.4 0.4Total 3-9QCBS: Quality- and Cost-Based Selection; QBS: Quality-Based Selection; SFB: Selection under a Fixed Budget; LCSLeast-Cost Selection; CQ: Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications; Other: Selection of individual consultants(per Section V of Consultants Guidelines), NBF: Not Bank-financed.
Annex 8, Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior ReviewEf' penditu r e ~. 4;.?ontrnct Y ali- ' Pr0curementi. Contr'a, ,SdbJcts t`
-'4 4 4Methodi -' - . ';'lbrRenew -'
US $ thousands US $ thousands
1. Goods > 100 NCB All
< 100 Shopping Prior review of I' and 2nd shopping< l 00 Shopping procedures contracts irrespective of amount.
IS / NS Post review, one in ten contracts for allprocurement, on other shopping procedures
Aggregate Prior Review(Goods): $25,000
2. Works > l00 NCB All
• 100 Three- Prior review of I" and 2nd Three QuotationsQuotations procedures contracts irrespective of amount
Post review, one in ten contracts for allprocurement, on other shopping procedures
Aggregate Prior Review(Goods): S35,000
3. Consultant Services QCBS Prior review of consultant selection plan withand Training > 200 TORs and shortlists. Subsequently, prior review
(Exoected to be Firms) for all contracts > $200 equiv.
Aggregate Prior Review(QCBS): $ 400,000
> 50 CQ Prior review for all Individual Consultant(Expected to be Individual contracts > $50 equiv.Consultants)
Post review, random sample, on all contractservice below threshold.
Total value of contracts subject to prior review: $ (10% of GrantAmount)
Page 94
6. Procurement Risk Assessment. The CPAR for Brazil was prepared in 1991. Actionswere initiated to start sector work in the area of procurement in FY 2001. A key aspect fordefining the level of prior review is the absence of a centralized unit to assist on the procurementprocessing. The assessment involved officials from MMA to complete data collectionquestionnaires about laws and regulations. UCG (MMA) is familiar with Bank financed projects.With regards to LTNDP(UAP/ABC) and the UCEs, since the unit's staffing is yet to be completedand its procurement team yet to be organized, there is no assessment of the procurement agent or
the state units, although the states have had experience with the implementation of Bank financedprojects. The CMU Implementation Team at Brasilia will be retained to assist in the procurement
reviews. The project's procurement risk rating assessment is Average. The risks identified in the
capacity assessment include: (a) difficulties in preparing a procurement plan; (b) monitoring andmanaging the contracting process; (c) lack of manuals; (d) experience of the staff in
procurement.
Overall Procurement Risk Assessment:
HighAverageLow
7. Frequency of procurement supervision missions proposed: One every 12 months,including special procurement supervision for post-review/audits.
8. Procurement Audits. The states coordinating units (UCEs) and project coordinating unit
(UCG) will provide the Bank, no later than six months after the end of each year, procurementrecords audited by independent procurement experts, acceptable to the Bank of all UCEs.Procurement audits should be carried out in accordance with TORs satisfactory to the Bank.
DISBURSEMENT
9. Financial Management, Disbursements Arrangements and Auditing - Previousexperience with the Ministry of Environment - MMA indicates that generally acceptable systemsare in place. However, as a result of the financial management assessment, the ExecutiveSecretariat - SECEX has developed a financial management system (SIGMA I) to better integrate
its administrative, financial, disbursements and procurement functions. SECEX has now to makeSIGMA I operational for this project. It is expected to have the system operational by projecteffectiveness. An action plan, which establishes the process of developing and the installation of
an integrated project management system, including physical monitoring and procurementmodules before project effectiveness has been agreed with project managers. Improvements in the
areas of project accounting and reporting will facilitate timely preparation and submission ofaudit reports.
The financial management systems of SECEX/MMA were reviewed by a Bank FinancialManagement Specialist during project preparation for compliance with OP/BP 10.02 and the
Loan Administration Change Initiative (LACI) Implementation Handbook. Based on this review,the project was certified as a category "B", indicating that the Project satisfies the Bank's
minimum financial management requirements and can generate relevant financial information,either for tracking or management purposes. However, Disbursements for all expenditures would
be made on the basis of statements of expenditure (SOEs), except for goods and works exceedingUS$100,000 equivalent; contracts with consulting firms above US$100,000 equivalent; and with
Page 95
individuals above US$50,000. The information required for the compilation of SOEs would bemaintained by the project management unit in SIGMA I data base and files kept by themanagement unit. The annual financial audit will include a separate opinion on the eligibility ofexpenditures disbursed on the basis of PMRs.
10. Special Account - In order to facilitate project implementation, the Borrower will establisha special account in US Dollars with a commercial bank, with an authorized allocation based onprojected disbursements for four months, so as to initiate disbursements under the traditionaldisbursement methodology. National Treasury Secretariat - STN will keep control over thebalance and will be responsible for preparing the reconciliation of the Special Account balance.The Authorized Allocation for the Special Account is US$300,000, which should be limited toUS$200,000 until disbursement reaches US$800,00.
11. PMRs- Based Disbursement. - If SECEX/MMA closes to disburse funds though PMRbased method, and once the Bank approves the Borrower's financial report system for PMR-based disbursements, disbursements should follow the procedures described below:
* All withdrawals from the Grant Account shall be deposited by the Bank into a specialAccount based upon Table C. Each such deposit into the Special Account will be withdrawnby the Bank from the Grant Account under one or more of the eligible categories.
* Each application for withdrawal from the Grant Account for deposit into the Special Accountmust be supported by a Project Management Report.
* Upon receipt of each application for withdrawal the Bank shall, on behalf of the Borrower,withdraw from the Grant Account and deposit into the Special Account an amount equal tothe lesser of: (a) the amount so requested; and (b) the amount which the Bank has determined,based on the Project Management Report accompanying that application, is required to bedeposited in order to finance eligible expenditures during six-month period following the dateof the Financial Management Report; and c) the amount deposited, when added to the amountindicated by the Project Management Report to be remaining in the Special Account, cannotexceed the amount of US$ 1.0 million as agreed with the Loan Dept.
In the case of a faster than expected draw-down of the special account, an interim PMR may besubmitted to request a supplemental disbursement prior to the next scheduled quarterlydisbursement request. All supporting documentation authenticating the expenditures reported inthe PMRs will be maintained by the PIU and made available for review by auditors and Bankmissions as requested.
12. Auditing Arrangements - According to arrangements for Bank-financed projects inBrazil, the special account will be audited in conjunction with the annual financial audit of theproject accounts for the period January I to December 31. This audit will be performed byFederal Secretariat of Internal Control - SFC, according to terms of reference acceptable to theBank. The audit report will be submitted to the Bank no later than June 30 in the year followingthe year for which the project accounts are audited. The Auditor's TOR will include the issuanceof a management letter on internal controls six months after effectiveness.
Page 96
Annex 9Project Processing Budget and ScheduleBRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
A. Project BudgetPlanned Actual
(At final IEPS stage) FY96 15,000N/A FY97 118,430
FY98 141,300FY99 94,575FY00 94,105FY01 53,260Total 516,670
B. Project ScheduleTime taken to prepare the project (months) 57First Bank mission (identification) June 1996Appraisal mission departure November 27, 2000Negotiations November 9, 2001Planned Date of Effectiveness April 2, 2002
Prepared by: Ministry of Environment, Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Resources(IBAMA), State Environment Agencies of Amazonas, Bahia and Espirito Santo.
Preparation assistance: BIRD, KfW, GTZ, EC
C. Staff who worked on the project included:
Name Specialty
Luiz Gabriel T. Azevedo Task ManagerAdriana G. Moreira Senior Environment SpecialistlCo-task ManagerChris Parel Public Sector Management SpecialistNeila Soares AnthropologistElisa Romano BiologistAnthony Anderson Senior Environment Specialist (former Task Manager)Philip Hazelton Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist
(former Co Task Manager)Claudia Sobrevila Senior Biodiversity SpecialistJudith Lisansky Senior AnthropologistAnemarie G. Proite Procurement AnalystTulio Correa Financial Management SpecialistChristoph Diewald PPG7 Team LeaderHanneke Van Tilburg LawyerDietmar Wenz Economist! KfW Task Manager
Page 97
Annex 10Documents in the Project File*
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
A. Project Implementation Plan
* 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas* Agreement between International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Sociedade
Civil Mamiraua. June 1996.* Ayres, Jose Marcio; Fonseca, Gustavo da; Rylands, Anthony; Pinto, Luiz Paulo; Cavalcanti,
Roberto; Queiroz, Helder and Masterson, . Donald. "Innovative Approaches to BiodiversityConservation in Brazil: The Neotropical Rainforest Corridors Coordination: Sociedade CivilMamiraua". 1996.
* The World Bank /G7-MMA-IBAMA. Relat6rio do "Workshop sobre o Projeto Proposto:Parques e Reservas". Brasilia, fevereiro 1996.
* DIREC, MMA/IBAMA Concepcao do Projeto Parques e Reservas, dezembro de 1994.. DMP Consultoria. Elaboracao de Modelo Institucional e Gerencial para Gestao dos
Corredores Ecol6gicos (Projeto Parques e Reservas). Maio 1997.* Ecological Corridors Project. December 1998. English Version.* Executive Project Summary. February 1997.* Felix, lara Musse and Zettelmeyer, Winfried. Corredor Central da Mata Atlantica. KfW.
Outubro 1998.* FEPAD - Fundacao de Estudos e Pesquisas em Administracao. Proposta de Elaboracao de
Modelo Institucional e Gerencial para Gestao dos Corredores Ecol6gicos (Projeto Parques eReservas). Maio 1997.
* Heinen, Joel T. Economics, Objectives and Success of Private Nature reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Jeff Langhloz. Conservation Biology, February 1996.Human Behaviour, Incentives, and Protected Area Management. Conservatin Biology, April1996.
* IBAMA. Documento resposta a carta dos doadores do Projeto Corredores Ecol6gicos.Documento Complementar a versao do projeto de dezembro de 1998. Outubro de 1999.IBAMA. Versao 1.0 do Projeto Parques e Reservas. setembro 1996.
* IBAMA/DIREC. Concep,ao Basica do Projeto Parques e Reservas maio de 1995.* Ledec, George Suggested Criteria for Evaluating Management Plans for National Parks and
Other Protected Natural Areas. September 29, 1992.* Ledec, George. Guidelines for Prepaing Management Plans for National PArks and Other
Protected Areas., Latin American and Caribbean Region, The World Bank. Caracas, February1992.
* Mesoamerican Biological Corridor News No. 99-1. April 13, 1999.* MMA/IBAMA. Criterios de Selecao e de Priorizacao de Unidades de Conservacao a Serem
Contempladas pelo Programa Nacional de Meio Ambiente. MMA/IBAMA, Diretoria deEcossistemas, Departamento de Unidades de Conserva,co. Brasilia, marco 1993.
* MMA/IBAMA. Projeto Corredores Ecol6gicos., dezembro 1998. Versao final.* MMA/IBAMA. Projetos Parques e Reservas, versao 3.0. Agosto 1997.a MMA/IBAMA/DIREC. Projeto Parques e Reservas, Versao 2.0. Brasilia, janeiro 1997.* Nature Conservantion Policy in the Neitherlands - Objective, Methods and Results.
* Including electronic files
Page 98
* Peres, Carlos A. and Terborgh . John W. Amazonian Nature Reserves: An Analysis of theDefensibility Status of Existing Conservation Units and Design Criteria for the Future..Conservation Biology, February 1995.
* Plan de Ordenamiento y Reglamento de Uso, Parque Nacional Laguna de La Restinga.Direcci6n General Sectorial de Parques Nacionales - INPARQUES. Caracas, Junio 1991.
* Politica de Unidades de Conserva,3. Resultados dos Grupos de Trabalho, 29 de novembro a02 de dezembro de 1994.
* Projeto de Localiza,co de Areas de Relevante Interesse Ecol6gico na Regiao entre o rioPurus e o Rio Xingu. Brasilia, dezembro 1994.
* PRONABIO. Dossie Imprensa. Avalia,co e Identifica,co de A,ces Prioritarias para aConserva,co, Utiliza,co Sustentavel e Reparti,ao dos Beneficios da Biodiversidade daAmaz6nia Brasileira. Setembro de 1999.
* Regulamento Parcial de la Ley Organica para la Ordenacion del Territorio sobreAdministraci6n y Manejo de Parques Nacionales y Monumentos Naturales. Direcci6nGeneral Sectorial de Parques Nacionales - INPARQUES. Caracas, Junio 1991.Santilli, Marcio. Terras Indigenas nos Corredores Ecol6gicos. Janeiro 1998.
* Segunda Reunion Tecnica Binacional Bolivia-Brasil sobre o Corredor Biol6gico Itenez(Guapore) - Mamore. Flor de Oro, Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado. Fundaci6nAmigos de la Naturaleza (FAN), decembre 1997.
. Seminario sobre Presen,a Humana em Unidades de Conservagao. Proposta Preliminar.Brasilia, novembro 1996.
* TC/BR. Projeto Parques e Reservas, Versao 2.0. Janeiro 1998.
B. Bank Staff Assessments* Agreement between International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and TC/BR
Tecnologia e Consultoria Brasileira S.A. May 1997.* Ajuda Memoria - Miss3o de Pre-Avalia,co. 1-29 de junho de1998.* Ajuda Mem6ria - Reuni3o do Grupo Tecnico de Trabalho, 18 e 19 de agosto de 1999.* Avalia,co de Modelo Institucional e Gerencial para Conserva,co da Biodiversidade em
Corredores Ecol6gicos. Termo de Referencia. IBAMA/DIREC, dezembro 1996.* Diagn6stico da regiao entre os rios Pururs e Xingu para cria,co do AIRE. Termos de
Referencia.* Project Appraisal Document. Vers3o Maio 1999.* Projeto Corredores Ecol6gicos. Missao Pre-Appraisal, Informa,ces Gerais. DIREC/IBAMA.* Projeto Unidades de Conserva,ao - Missao de Avalia,ao do Projeto. Relat6rio Sucinto para
Apresenta,co no Seminario. MMA/IBMA, GTZ. Brasilia, novembro 1996.* Relat6rio do Workshop: Corredor Ecol6gico da Mata Atlantica. MMA/IBAMA. Porto
Seguro, Bahia, outubro 1996.* Relat6rio do Workshop: Projeto Parques e Reservas. Manaus, outubro 1996.* Termo de Referencia para a Contrata,ao de Consultoria A Elabora,ao de Modelo Institucional
e Gerencial para Implementa$3o do Projeto Parques e Reservas.* Termo de Referencia para Contrata,co de Assessoria Administrativa para o Projeto Parques e
Reservas. Maio 1998.* Termos de Referencia para Apoio As Atividades de Prepara,ao do Projeto. IBAMA, abril
1998.* Termos de Referencia para o Projeto Parques e Reservas. MMA, junho 1996.* Termos de Referencia: Subsidios para o Processo de Consultas As Popula,oes Indigenas em
Terras Incluidas nos Corredores Ecol6gicos do Projeto Parques e Reservas.
C. Other
00 Gz7I G621, 0001 Cal LI 000o 004K1 01OVAI,OINV-S,S 33011 0.0000 oor.o 0it oL' 0 cot0 WI) 01 r)0151 4OOOIOO K001 0001100
W 50 09901 29OL IN)1 01Co11 000 00061, me311909150540 MR1 1401 009MO 01 0 1 O 040 lOl I o W00 012t0 5103 WOOOd KG3'66 1050C0,0100o eeL MI 001 001 Ill Lu WI) 1)1001HY 0.1404) P51.104i10 %561 1111)000000 ol la0 .401 MO1 VI) 000 0016 Iw10110141EJ11313 0661 0000040.C11) 010 0i 11)0 0D00 r.MC'l w,om 110 00 0u51.130I9l1AYO9 ; 0fu913409m09 9061 1)0)0040COO1 001 UII rAYr, 00t 0MD 00151 004002 00. 1001150 0061 400140000el 011) 0000 WC1 2110 C0 00 01m .0fl00)0 00 0611900.001119 pf 0006 00D00 n40 o Flo000 - sy.0 n 401am 41s304 1311M0100 01 toslOdO000 00011 RE IoL (20.0 o ouo 00 4(: 41040 91)j wax41441014*3 061 0-10.1
6l 1`9 Z,,, '0 Ca0 1111 0Coo 005 AiJO)200100tI004 SW6 ITWWA40.000 101, W1,01 000 110 0400ro 000) 0 ARIVS0W,,NtJ*I?0II OV1 0001005
0 EU5 L/0 1)1 MD0 an (W.0 0001 01115 AO101140l1 04)501 1011COIl 0.Z1 0001 00 r C 000' Co0 0000 kAw1AO.0'jO4OQ*awl 591061 3)0015.W0. 0 60 066) 110 COOD CIO 00111 AmmcOd)05*054 1001 I.I00000I'0 IL06 160 VL CCO LI0 W00 00 INN00 H))(5142)411 .16r1 .200415.4000. cl Ai13 10 (00 C 110 041/0 000 l4.3iAINlWNJ4 IF,(' Beq41400.Itl It 41I I IG'K1040 .000 201 MO 0015 I04401034305* 101 3.51 O105 LZ1) KW0 000 COC 00 000 A4SNnli'404104 1061 0311000CA0L01' z itI (000 .Co00 00 001)0 (1 e10 10r, id rmimi0 1061 02t0004000 0040-1 0040,1 04(5 CO Co 04on0 0001 cm1092 Z003 & 01 100000.4000, ~ Ca115 01 01 aOn 0(a1) no. t iOk "I I4Im VW 01: MOIL 1.kD9IPQVIMO 31, 0t0 MOO Co1 00 00 (005,yA1)400510MAE6 313100C.) O 000 00 C,0 an510 000D 0091, .151)4.41)1010IN No13061, 010000000 0,610P rzi 0000 0 Ca 001 MO w9p0 .0O1,l4 Al 0061 10014WC,5 el101- 0Z001 06W CO C 000 0000 A1.H0A12l.31003H105100 0061 10110
000 C 00z1 0000 000C .CO 000 0010 R0040000IMI41306 30100C000 T) 0011 000u 000C Co C 00l0 005 ill yI Y01f)iI.0NCM01d10 9r001CA 0101100
01 091)0 OlOlOl C 0(5 D n0o 001 000L H00744111I3 0001 001400.-06 19'0 050 000O r C CO00 WC, 5lQflnv.40100r)i IOm0i-0010 9661 91)0015.
I01 000 0 1C321 J44.L III CO0 n 0015XY 0000L C H5.1? I51 5413 90 W61 1469000W00 101 1E01 M 042515 On11 0a (A)0 1021 wrm01 N130 961L Pi0000
0)00 I10, - 101 .151 III[ SflD L 001 00012 0)4.4040000i 401404 0066 1.01f0400ml )01 090011 6z9v 0.000 00( 1110 (10 00001z ""qt$ II013331114 0001 om0000.
COO L v1 1.10 rq 000 101 00,0 00091I 49(0000015 2410 20061 rwr10*0cc,15 0215 a 0000 $1 W000 Co Vco 000 000N01~ 0191N0004013154100A1 6%k0 000000
000 7 051 L50 T M an 013 001M COOX000 00001 041300-,2111011001N.VAIV8 -0413 020 4.1000000 11 2 Il 000 00 Ca1 C 5014 O(A. 015DI X1113900011.17503910 00611OC1 000000.-0015 1001 10011~~MI W000 11 CO 000 00D9 1000210100W W013061, 001r00
000 10 15000 000 11u (lo1) c10c a de&C1135410s21.).10OO 00 00100(0 00 0LS 0009li 1)015 150t Co 000 f Et0 IU'4Qf4 :11 A1`00 000301: 11)4 ANI'W 04)24 U)110.
W05 1 000 000OLr, o 110 000 0005 iu111504-u13011I C"45 310400d
0)0 0910 I' ct, a 0001 DO0) DO 00 C, 0 A10w 019.NimimoI owe5 DU10001
LI)50 'A '515 I 050 00 0001) 000ix 0 (131 De11521) 11100l1 04012) 0 .1V10110 1 0000
000 (00 Ca,,69 C OD C0 001) Ca09 It asme l3wow wi 2)130130 0110 low0 0)00000)15 o C Z 000 1.00 000 n00 000 010)21 10425101,31)0 AIO0PA)d 459093.310 1000 110000
P 0A01,0140111 010 0100n1130 ouwl II 10101vc l4II i)O ~r AI El '"W
130fOJJ SJOp!.UOJ IuadOIOaa :'IIzvHq~s1!pajaJ pug~ SULO'} Jo SjUalW3jul
66 e5ed
unn a SE Ko sew Lu s e BHI*lDb B M%Z 661 scsi(4
UUU es Y 1g WO EX) WOD c)191 in BSU bUPIJMM(Al M6L f)>II
Fin OZ IL 5o Sill 1 ML D wSK MLt JlM 1 It590cI
p USi fi PO s4pfll IM j3O J c30 aI9dJrmd AJ 01 JaGDukIsowwusmqeL)
SWrpUP 5U11B1 SSII IP IIn'oru IPU10
Pawie PM sumvy ssri w twOOL e§ecjtle wroS" _
ue^%4q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~o a6ed;u
c ) 0 c = 17, 1= 0 Q 0 0a 0 c 0 r- 0 0 0 C 5 o 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
an :n -n C - eNrJ C - -noC,c 1~5 I,<,0 C 'It;1 ,8r o 0 q Z C 0 Oz O O C O O 0 4 C O O Ot o* C0 C O O OZ CO
li Cf -= C i q C, ° - c C -k 2~ o ; c °11, ° ° f4o c c = - r-<oc-, o 0x
-- -. tN - #.I elf'. - -4'.e~~~~~~~~I - - In
., o o c 0 o° g o0 p C ° vCO 8 o c !; o c cc
ie~~~~ i: o o o c w. o~ =:ce i~o o oooooroc o o o c Q o oc~ o o o C cko
s-~~~~~' 8 D C 8 8 c, o o re 8 o5 s c; o 8, 7, C, 8~ 8) < 8ro c zz c 8 r c coo o oo o o tc =n o C occ,: o c a o oO 03
0 70 0~~~~~~~~~~'t0?00.~~
._8 8 ° C; 8 a c a C>g88o8o8 .8og888 c 8 g R 8 , o oo 8o o8to~ ~ -s oo-.o o ov j o^ ; oo x oo 0000000 0.'.0 00 .
~~~ ~~~~~. ~~~~~~0 0' 00'~~~~~~~~~~~~. 00 4IVJ cmQ Q'
Cu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t
0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
D I I >* _ __g gg~ 3: 'N~w
§ gss sgi sss sss gas gsrgj gs gXo;r& _
Page 102
Approv.als Pmcdinq Ctmnmitnent
FY Approial Compury Luwl Et4u.v Quasi Partic
200U Sicpctiba 2700000 Ai.) XXI tHl ISM( ) 00.X)i 'ikcon Salva&r 3500.00 0n 00K) I00 5000.004)
2000 ItBA 50000A1 0 00 0 00 o 50000 00i(997 (-IBC W5t-1010 0c0 rie 00 1500O000It)99 (Cibrxm-c M00 0.0 7500.00 0 .0I'P>S I-SA 3500000 1000A00) 0 00 45000.00
9I+b (liobmsaho 11 n 00 0) 0 u) tl }K \ 3 on 01998 lpirnpa-R1 2l 2).0 0 (0) (92 07 0 00y 49X MNBR LTDP 2000000tl 5000l 00) tl 00 I 5MO cm)
ilmal l'end1ing Commitment: 17050000 150W000) 14592 07 42100.00
Page 103
Annex 12Country at a Glance
BRAZIL: Ecological Corridors Project
Brazil at a glanceLatin Upper-
POVERIr and SOCIAL A 4wice middle.Breait 4 Canb. income 009981;moft di.monD'
1999PvpuLm#. YiO..Vrr friumars) iCA 1 509 673 GNP Doper c09tte IAIL. ¶0e10d. Lt'SS 4t420 3,8-40 4.930GNP fArku mohtJd, US$ MStc'1j 742.7 1 96S 2, 61
Averaee anrurni vrnth, 199349
f10Dutr0n (%9) 1.4 1 A I .4Le5bow oTl,cor 2.1 25 ji Gt-osMoset lecan" esiomnte tlDteU reDt aevilabl. 192-991 c11 / moot
Poowl (19f K1 p 04eb11:, brtw peoor. jv.1y Anow
trban popation f1 of tOz popoiloani L I 75 78L do o"aooarcv at both fl-S 07 70 70firarnIolrstaRLy wfao, ;.000 Siw 38 21 27Chbill rmilr011011 (K6 Of C0*0o uJId0r Sl C If 7 Are-s to W41e0 .IhterAocres to rnproovd wralm so07,c9 t9; of 0(pxLg bo) 76 70inaUcy f96*'popodaJ ago 1lj 15 12 10Gross Pprimary onroguIwi f( of sftrro7aror povl tlS 126 113 199 -
5.I1be .. b.LX-.i -C r1d1 , f!4 ev.0oF¢mcal c
XEY ECONOMIC RA1IOS and LONGT6ELW tRERsNDS
19?0 1909 199L 1999econormic ,~
GOP fkjs$ .Wcir7ns) 225.0 i48.Fs 707 1 131.4t31er*s "rallisc w'1L.cI1rwOoP 22.0 24t f 21,3 71,069po1. of gaeo. rnd s,o..-cos70p I 1 0.2 74 9.7t,ras5s 4orIostb savirnoGO0P 20c.7 28 ° le, 21.7GM"es national s09inasG)DP 18.0 25.0 le3 7 0.r
Current lcooUkr b3ban-04hO J.7 CtJ4 .4 43 ..1Interest pa.yeinnnsoDp 2.1 0.0 1.A I 6 I ~ 2 noontotal d9ULGOP 27 3 2.66 29 5 2LI OTlotal debt co eOoAPlOt S,02 32.3 735 120.LIProot Val M of dolUGOP .. 27.9 P tre.o&t vaiu of darIoWo ts _ . 337 5
19799199 1989.9 199J 199D 1999431vvv,eQ* annual arnosvrlGDP 2,9 2.t 0.1 la 4,0 Sm'GJ.1 PCr, cada 0.9 07 U1.4 . 27 2t 1 -io i
o o goods and %CiotKo 9.8 4. 0.2 .s.S s.8
STRUCTURE ot the ECONOMY1979 1999 1998 1999 G th or ofcn'ostcOrwt and sDP (v.)
07 GDP)Ic¶il..u 110 9 8.f6 04 .S J1 e
Anldustip 40 8 42.7 2U.f8 31 .M acwhn.LIUw 310 a 9f 22 7 2.I
492res 3 48.8 82.0 f9.9Pn.iioo eGn:>Ltoe, 0t9 5 s676 G 38 LIG'A<icrnoal celo"rn ent c000rw1wle.l t77 14.3 17.8 16 -e,ooM nCal t-oton rd rvKO% 9.7 SO 10t1 9, -0
GOOtI 11011001 LdCre 2.1979.89 2911.29 1990 1999 G3t. ot cnpo and import M)AgrIckilrAil 3A 4 9 0. 0 fX ti ,
PiSUlO 00$1101h1 1.9 l *1 .3. 1.74
tMsrEtutotnnn 19 1.1 72.0 'O 7 : _ soriliol 34 2.7 o l l 3
Prnatc insio t 9 S8 -3,4 9A4 : |-e~| _ 1 _Genmal norioL consmpti,rOi .4 .2.0 2.1 9.3<2eess eomeostic investment 0,1 2.4 0.1 e.9Illmtports of 004* am vor#ihs, .1I,4 12.4 8. -17.4 f alIr1 _ a Ir7Gro>ss natianral) oducl 'i 9 2,2 17
ob: 1999 000 d - pnoni, aro osbnmwos
rlr domowis show Wm MtY nidicato10 in lhe OuhntIy (in botd) conipoopi w*lh its inornoeo wzttD hrmato LI da c ale mi-so. tla 'JiamoncDl willDo rno-oepltw.
Page 104
PRtCES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE1979 1989 1998 1999 Irllabon 1%)
JAintefie pte . 1,4X.7 27 86rrwpltt itG ae1a,ic S%S 1,322 5 3.9 11 3
Goventnrlt fr7wl,te
Ou1fen ltfwtuo . 2A.4 219 -
cuueti bt.uAt.1t i bmtihM -4 4 -5 2 r dQBLr _t1plOwv.4all V.1 pijs/der.nt . 5 2
TRADE1979 1989 1998 1999 "Dort and *ort levels I m "QL)
I-oull 4axwfis ! .0b. 34,375, N',1,.1 118¢11 >e
Cc4te-: . 6 t803 2,576 2441tS>Fso,A)-s 3.847 4.755 3.7141.1kadWuWta 1 575 31.!r34 3,251
Iota rn"eo1t teirb 18,;64 57,133 49.219rOfJw .b)j t 249 3,0iS7 2,S1.978 305 2.1 *
rapn 335 t5 216*I*l
Czi >alqood. . 4.873 2.263 2. ^.
Expl±Ip o4 in2fex (19915-0163 Q8 92 a6
tar)r gf5001 I10 f 119,95. 00 85 84 89 n *r.?Tel ins tfII na 995 - 1 s 5 *9e 9?
BALANCE of PAYMENTS1970 1089 199I 1999 l urro"taccotmtbalm¶cctoGOP 1)
f xw t 0; se0vO tSf tw6,C8 .38.,394 55,4?3 61,138_Im.S01. Ot 9LoXtt 3I1 w .IX 21.724 21.485 09,65C S0 51 51 .3
Resuitcl tkp13 5,Cd6 14,905 -14,1 /t f5629
9Ž1 .arl0 5A479 13 i65 ,21 itl r ? I 8 r1 .6
N4tl iul &iI( SriWs 5 249 1,77f3 C:.Q
w~Ileiill Jklm(O" tedh1c* : -10,490 1 ,92 33,615 -241.,5
f'ria"149lv¢9twyo Owlt-t 1,0'3 7.ge7 tr,3)1 136341
-.1flQi 9 l(11.I±%yt6 2..+b78r7 5,195 11,281$ 10741
Res~tws indudig gulJ. .USS mTho4 9,L45 7 672 4.3.91 35. 325cAfofy1,1?mi ralt^1Lc, WAYUSI;5) 9 791 12 I0'3 ff 1.1 1 3
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS1979 1989 1998 19"
w tSS fmttIkIJns Composition of 199791 dtDSt 1US 11l.)
Tolal dEtt1 oudtrnln(ig a,id dbtaje-0 61,37 .2 t 114 5.32 232.C04 221,792Iito 1.790. S, t1 6,296 6622 A. ti 922
I 0136 0 1 3t tt *3,i,122 sre., 47 1 x-ba
;tRC 2314 1,4-75 1, I 3 .3 .',
aaon .p:.3s. 01 ne, I 0l Et .vru*Of'co t aIIM. 10 44 9701A"tiol ceditWA 436 i23 4,911t 1,0..
Nfhtel-P cled"Ors 5,236 3716 21.90 9 157-6Frce,q -ett tV01kr) 1IteM 2,419 t.767 31.d13 26.916'or1itol t.C;U 0 0 b S2 3.234 ,1.r .3
'eWuil DBnke fp%09lnc4nimi-menb b674 933 1,90 1.465 4 .IIJL:E at
D.ist"(VTisS N)322 81E 1,240 1.533 II IVA 11 J.#0F1,0 fuI al FI.aM
Ptlno,oW re$mywner.1S Ili 811 %t31 9f,16 .n2G zrtl
Nc1 fCftS no228 ^52 245 S83
litesev4 pa$,ft15 60c £04 386 428bi, lI1I11i 67s 5- 46 1-t33 153
Page 105
Annex 13Maps
72- w W 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ Q. ~~~~~~~~~~~~42- I 6
tt Guiana1 -Central da Anax8n 46RElaC
Su- Col6mbia <~ ) 9Jriname raincesa oc, o__iX i 2 -Norte da Arnaz6nla
I bq C. C ; -. - sS-,., Q!- J ur ' AS 1 -1 l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.esadaanz8na
A -Sld da AnwtaiZIl5.- Ec6tcnes SLIAiaz o
.'-.. ~~~~~~~~6 -Centrolfda Mato a*I . 0 RUM MA
Equador"Eqlsador ) - * 2 0bf-- . . . -<6-> *e -/ ~~Unidades de
< X s le~ <41o-~ ir \ s7Conservag5o~~~0 Federaise
~ 6° 0 / {v\/ ° = ' _ ; ; _ CorredoresI *_ Ecol6gicos
I 6 X a91l - 2 v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 -- *X F I0 I '6-
S* Am. -lS*,idb-.d~RP
t \ *^A - 0 PaW0. hbWm0Ea Ea.W6g..ag
| \tui ' 0 , i - 6 , \4^ ' , - t ; 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, III
- -. ~~~~~~R
\ \ < I n l // / F t o 21C/0 E 2/2 0I
I ; A I u i I . ~ , . S i v v i > ^ I " I I
44' 4i V. t42° 40-Z' ° 38° 366° tC
1 4 _ _ m u , 't t a 6
| P C6ri,> W t W4y| (orredor |
t g- 'o \ _ ,' 1 s aPd° ) Mi '°\\ ~~~~~~~~Mata Atlantica
16 n8.7 21/ S 7vmonte
< c t > ; i * 1 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fots0C: e5m c
,,, ~~~' Teras,,ie,s FUAJ 1999 . t |X* - -|_t) \: ,>;y - d rSs . f _ 7 4 X = EZabonbaem21/02£OOI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~urit rdovas
sa g < w _ .- / / |o 2 o /l - o f <- Rodovia sem pavimentasao~~~~~~~~~~~puUcaos plo BGE
% '' ' ,66 ' * ~~~~~~~~~t 'o ' _°T R era Idig
.f 1 <> _ ~~~~~~~~- .S| ~~~~~~7- . > , ..CS~~~~~Liit Estadual d s utnae
70' W Gr,-' 68A 1 66'~ 58,
~29 N E
S~~~~
-. CorredorEcol6gico
K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Central da'> /~~~~~~~~~4 Amazbnia
UNAJ. 1999
12 SOOOQet500000
,rpublicados polo ISGE.
20
J 0 1 j--idol~~~~~~~~7'Esraadoter
Raedori 0orn paimonai
Liisintdernaclidnae
Unidadea do CanerraoiRPPNvi Fedieranlctizg poiada )
3 r '~~~~~ 4>~~~ / [III Fe~~~~Rdevial dem pavmtegi ntegrlX1~J __I Estaduaki prvto9io Integal
L~~~~~> sauld s utnAe
IMAGING
Report No.: 23514 BR
Type: PAD
