Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority One:
Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas
1. Project name: Catalyzing the implementation of Uruguay’s National Protected Area System
2. Country: Uruguay
National Project:___X___ Regional Project:______Global Project:______
3. Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:
During PDF-B, METT was applied in a workshop held on May 10, 2005, with the participation of key stakeholders, including 22 representatives of ministries, 6 of municipalities, 5 NGOs, 5 park rangers, 5 private landowners, and 5 from staff of related projects involved in PA management.
Name / Title / AgencyWork Program Inclusion / Guillermo Scarlato
Laura García Tagliani / PDF B Coordinator
PDF B Technical Coordinator / DINAMA
DINAMA
Project Mid-term
Final Evaluation/project completion
4. Funding information
GEF support: 2,500,000
Co-financing: 4,783,000
Total Funding: 7,283,000
5. Project duration: Planned____5___ years Actual ___0__ years
6. a. GEF Agency: ■ UNDP UNEP World Bank ADB AfDB IADB EBRD FAO IFAD UNIDO
6. b. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): National Environment Agency (DINAMA)
7. GEF Operational Program:
drylands (OP 1)
X coastal, marine, freshwater (OP 2)
X forests (OP 3)
mountains (OP 4)
agro-biodiversity (OP 13)
integrated ecosystem management (OP 12)
sustainable land management (OP 15)
Other Operational Program not listed above: Multi BD OP
8. Project Summary (one paragraph):
Uruguay has isolated and scattered protected areas (PAs) that do not adequately conserve a representative sample of the country´s biodiversity, nor do they constitute a true, coherent PA system. Recently enacted legislation calls for the establishment of a National Protected Area System (NPAS) but policy and planning deficiencies, weak institutional and human capacities, financial restraints, and low awareness on biodiversity conservation prevent the implementation of this system and hamper the management effectiveness of existing PAs. The project will assist the GoU in overcoming barriers to the creation and implementation of a NPAS that would advance national goals for biodiversity conservation and capture global benefits in a range of ecosystems including coastal and marine, wetlands, forests, and temperate grasslands. It will support the legal and policy reforms started by the GoU through a two pronged approach that combines providing an enabling framework for the NPAS and the testing of management approaches in a number of field demonstration sites. The project will strengthen key PA capacities at the systemic, institutional and individual level by: (i) developing an enabling environment through supportive legal and policy frameworks; (ii) strengthening institutional capacities through the definition of appropriate institutional arrangements, structures, responsibilities, and occupational standards, (iii) enhancing knowledge, skills and competencies, and (iv) increasing societal appreciation of the benefits of PAs and the value of services they provide. On site interventions shall enable ground proofing of the new legal and policy frameworks, testing and developing new tools for enhancing PA management effectiveness, including different PA governance models, and hosting training and educational activities. As the long term sustainability of the NPAS will depend on the country’s ability to secure sufficient financial resources to meet the management costs of the PAs, financial issues have been addressed as cross-cutting components and include the practical testing of financial resource generation and distribution mechanisms, capacity building in financial planning and accounting, and ensuring that the NPAS plan will incorporate financial sustainability from the very start.
9. Project Development Objective: The biodiversity and natural heritage of Uruguay is conserved and supports national development goals.
10. Project Purpose/Immediate Objective: A National Protected Area System that effectively conserves a representative sample of Uruguay’s biodiversity is designed and under initial implementation.
11. Expected Outcomes (GEF-related): 1) Legal, policy and institutional frameworks that encourage effective management and sustainable financing for the NPAS are in place and operational; 2) Key stakeholders directly involved in PA management have the appropriate balance of knowledge and skills required for effectively running the NPAS and its constituent Pas; 3) Awareness on the values of PAs and their importance for sustainable development is increased and influences policies and practices; 4) Know-how on cost-effective management structures is expanded and reinforced through field demonstrations of different PA governance structures.
12. Types of Protected Area Activities Supported: Key interventions include: Developing a Strategic Plan as long-term planning instrument for the NPAS; developing strategies and instruments for reducing the current funding gaps and for PAs to achieve the minimal operations standards; providing technical assistance for the institutional redesign of government agencies to fulfil their mandates and roles in NPAS implementation; training programmes for a wide range of PA practitioners at the State, municipal and local levels; communication and awareness building programmes; and site demonstrations to overcome specific management challenges and to feed into the Strategic Plan. The site demonstrations include a number of protected area activities such as: testing different governance and co-management models; defining the most appropriate institutional structures, protocols, operational systems and capacities for co-management partnerships for each site; support the establishment and operations of Specific Advisory Commissions as set out in the NPAS Law; developing or updating management plans with integrated business plans; targeted training of key stakeholders at site level; testing innovative revenue generating instruments; planning and implementing awareness and communication strategies; developing of limited PA infrastructure and equipment to improve PA operations and contribute to the success of the demonstrations; testing strategies for prevention and control of invasive woody alien species.
12. a. Please select all activities that are being supported through the project.
_X_Enabling Environment (please check each activity below)
_X__Policy, legislation, regulation
_X__Capacity building
Capacity building budget: Capacity building underpins the project strategy. It can be estimated that about 3,400,000 US$ (47% of the total budget) would be directly linked to capacity building: about 50% of Outcome 1; 100% of Outcome 2; around 30% of Outcome 3; and about 30 % of Outcome 4.
(Please record budgets for capacity building if they are clearly identified as a discrete budget line.)
Comments on Capacity Building: Please note if capacity building is geared towards indigenous and local communities:
Capacity building is geared towards a broad range of PA stakeholders. Among them, local communities will be targeted as strategic beneficiaries and partners of the project.
_X__Education and awareness raising
_X__Institutional arrangements
_X__Finance and incentive
_X__Replication and scaling up
_X__Management practices related to status of biodiversity
12. b. Is carbon sequestration an objective of the project (This question is included for purposes related to the GEF-3 targets for the Climate Change focal area)
____Yes _X _No
The estimated amount of carbon sequestered is:______
13. Project Replication Strategy
13a. Does the project specify budget, activities, and outputs for implementing the replication strategy? Yes X No___ All four outcomes include approaches for replication. Standard formats and procedures will be defined to record and gather lessons form the pilot sites as they are generated, ensuring that data gathering is systematically incorporated into work schedules.
13b. For all projects, please complete box below. An example is provided.
Replication Quantification Measure / ReplicationTarget Foreseen
at project start / Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of Project / Achievement at Final Evaluation of Project
Diversity of PA governance models for the NPAS / In the 10-year strategic plan, each one of 4 tested models is proposed for replication in at least one additional specific site.
Integration of budget and business planning into management plans / All pilot PAs and at least 2 additional PAs
Number of non-pilot PAs which are replicating the models and practices tested in demonstration sites / At least 4 additional PAs
14. Scope and Scale of Project:
Please complete the following statements.
14a.The project is working in:
____a single protected area
__X__multiple protected areas
__X__national protected area system
14b. the level of the intervention is:
____global
____regional
_X_national
____sub national
14c. Please complete the table below.
Targets and TimeframeProject Coverage / Foreseen at project start / Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of Project / Achievement at Final Evaluation of Project
Number of PAs legally incorporated in NPAS at the end of the project / At least 10
Hectares in PAs legally included in the SNAP at the end of the project / 92,500
Hectares in PAs included in NPAS 10 year strategic plan / 641,000
Improvement of management effectiveness in the set of PAs legally included in the NPAS at the end of the project / 50% of them have METT scores within the range of “good”. (1)
Improvement in management effectiveness of PAs where pilot demonstrations are implemented / Farrapos, Laguna de Rocha, and Cerro Verde: 58%; Lunarejo: at least 37%
(1) The ranges for each level of management effectiveness have been established as follows, using the WB/WWF METT slightly adapted by PDF B teams and PA practitioners to render it more adequate to the context and terminology used in the country: Poor: <36% of maximum possible score (0-38 points); Fair: 37-57% (39-60 points); Good: 58-75% (61-78 points); Excellent: 79-100% (83-105 points).
1
Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority One:
Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas
14. d. Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable. Examples are provided below.
NOTE: METT assessment was conducted in May 2005 on a set of 16 areas, at the beginning of the PDF B. These included existing PAs and sites that are under consideration of DINAMA to be incorporated to the NPAS in its first phase. In February 2006, the METT was applied to an additional site, (Cerro Verde e Islas de la Coronilla), considering it will be a site demonstration of the project and is currently under consideration for proclamation as PA. Four areas within this total set will be pilot sites of the Project and have specific on site actions to raise management effectiveness. The remaining will serve as a test subsystem to indicate the improvement in management effectiveness derived from the projects interventions to build capacities at the systemic level. In some cases, where the administration of an area is shared by various institutions, METT was applied for different sectors of the area to better reflect current management scenario. Existing PAs have not yet been classified according to management categories set out in the NPAS. Therefore, the table below shows the approximate IUCN equivalent of the current status of some PAs, but this is liable to change because part of the project will be reclassifying PAs. In other cases, IUCN management categories are not applicable to the PAs as they are defined today.
Name of Protected Area / Is this a new PA? Please answer yes or no. / Area in Hectares / Global designation orpriority lists
(E.g., Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage site, Ramsar site, WWF Global 200, etc.) / Local Designation of Protected Area (E.g, indigenous reserve, private reserve, etc.) / Approx. IUCN Category for each Protected Area[1] /
I / II / III / IV / V / VI /
1. Esteros de Farrapos e Islas del Río Uruguay / Yes / 17,496 / Esteros de Farrapos e Islas del Río Uruguay Ramsar Site / Pending / X
2. Cerro Verde e Islas de la Coronilla / Yes / 9,000 / Included in Bañados del Este Ramsar site and Biosphere Reserve / Proposed: habitat/species management area (IUCN category IV) / X
3. Laguna de Rocha / No / 25,000 / Included in Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve / Included in “Laguna José Ignacio, Garzón & Rocha National Park and Multiple Use Area” / X
4. Parque Natural Regional Valle del Lunarejo / No / 20,000 / Natural Regional Park / X
5. Área Natural Protegida Quebrada de los Cuervos / No / 365 / Protected Landscape / X
6. Parque Natural Municipal Bañados del Santa Lucía e Islas Fiscales del Río Santa Lucía / No / 21,000 aprox / Ecologically Significant Area (municipal designation of about 2,500 ha in Montevideo) / X
7. Islas del Río Santa Lucía / No / 550 aprox. / X
8. Laguna José Ignacio / No / 4,000 / Included in “Laguna José Ignacio, Garzón & Rocha National Park and Multiple Use Area” / X
9. Laguna Garzón / No / 4,000 / Included in Biosphere Reserve / Included in “Laguna José Ignacio, Garzón & Rocha National Park and Multiple Use Area” / X
10. Refugio de Fauna Laguna de Castillos / No / 8,185 / Included in Ramsar site and Biosphere Reserve / Wildlife Refuge / X
11. Monumento Natural Dunas de Cabo Polonio y Costa Atlántica / No / 1,000 / Included in Ramsar site. / Natural Monument / X
12. Reserva Forestal de Cabo Polonio / No / 6,000 / Forest Reserve / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA
13. Parque Nacional de Islas Costeras / No / 73 / Partially included in Ramsar site / National Park / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA
14. Parque Nacional San Miguel / No / 1,553 / Included in Ramsar site. / National Park / X
15. Parque Nacional y Reserva de Fauna y Flora Potrerillo de Santa Teresa / 715 / Included in Ramsar site and Biosphere Reserve / National Park / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA
16. Bosque Nacional Islas del Río Negro / No / 1,850 / National Forest / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA
17. Parque Arequita / No / 1,000 / Park and recreation area / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA / NA
8
Cómo informar sobre los avances en el manejo de áreas protegidas individuales
Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority One:
Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas
Section Two: World Bank/WWF Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas
23
Cómo informar sobre los avances en el manejo de áreas protegidas individuales
Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority One:
Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas
HOJA DE DATOS: Informando sobre los avances en el manejo de áreas protegidas individuales
Nombre del área protegida / Esteros de Farrapos e Islas del Río UruguayLocalización del área protegida (Departamento, secciones judiciales y/o policiales comprendidas en el área protegida. En lo posible indicar coordenadas geográficas y adjuntar mapas) / Río Negro
Fecha de establecimiento (distinguir entre expresión de interés y establecimiento legal) [2] / Expresión de acuerdo del gobierno para el establecimiento del AP Compra por parte del MGAP / Establecimiento legal
No todavía
Detalles sobre la tenencia de la tierra (por ej., propietarios, derechos de uso, etc.) / 7,562 has. MGAP (islas), 6,327 MVOTMA (Esteros) 3,607 superficie agua (fiscal).
Autoridad(es) de Manejo / DINAMA y MGAP
Tamaño del área protegida (ha) / 17,496 has. (7,562 has. islas), (6,327 Esteros Farrapos) (3,607 espejo de agua Río Uruguay). Se enfatizo la no asignación a terreno permanente
Cantidad de personal / Personal Permanente 2, asignados por DINAMA. Intención por RENARE / Personal Zafral
Presupuesto / Viáticos, combustible (quincenal, mensual)
Clasificaciones, designaciones (Categoría UICN, Patrimonio Mundial, Ramsar etc.) / Ramsar (designada fin de 2004)
Justificaciones para la clasificación, designación / En espera de Decreto. Ramsar, buen antecedentes para ser considerada área protegida
Breves detalles sobre otros proyectos relevantes en el área protegida
Señalar los dos objetivos primarios del área protegida
Objetivo 1 / Conservación por biodiversidad
Objetivo 2 / Utilización de recursos – desarrollo sostenible
Indicar las dos amenazas principales del área protegidas (justificar la elección de las amenazas seleccionadas)
Amenaza 1 / Extracción ilegal de recursos
Amenaza 2 / Represa Salto Grande
Señalar las dos actividades de manejo de mayor importancia
Actividad 1 / Extensión (Facultad de Ciencias)
Actividad 2 / Educativa (Proyección: recuperación bosque)
Nombre del/los facilitador/es y fecha de la evaluación:______Diego y Maria Ana