The Protected Areas Fund as a financial sustainability strategy

The creation of a permanent fund to cover management expenses in protected areas, has helped government managed administrations to have an annual budget to cover their main operational activities, such is the case of the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve.

This fund is officially known as the Protected Areas Fund (PAF) and was established as part of a 1999 initiative carried on by Ecuador’s Ministry of Environment and the National Environmental Fund, the initiative was also supported by international organizations. The main goal was to diversify financial sources for public-sponsored protected areas and ensure financial resources in the long term.

The National Environmental Fund established in 1996 served as the main precedent to the PAF. It was considered as “an independent financial mechanism available to support plans, programs, projects, and any activity pursuing the protection, preservation, and improvement of the environment and natural resources”. This fund, created as a private organization, administered and channeled financial resources, provided technical counseling, but didn’t participate in the direct implementation of any initiative.

  • National policies established to support the creation of a National Environmental Fund, designed to provide budgetary stability to the Ecuadorian National System of Protected Areas.
  • Constant financial support from national and international cooperation agencies to create a trust fund destined to cover the operational and management costs of Governmental Protected Areas, included the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve.

The design and implementation of the PAF were the results of a negotiation process between the Ecuadorian Government, civil society and international agencies.

Its main goal is to provide support and financial stability to the Ecuadorian National Protected Areas System, thus contributing to the in situ conservation of Ecuador’s biodiversity. The PAF is being destined to co-fund basic operational expenses and provide technical support.

After a one-year interruption in 2015, the PAF is currently working with 30 Governmental Protected Areas, including the Cuyabeno Wild Reserve which has an annual budget of USD $56,000 allocated. Even though the FAP is not the only financial mechanism the Reserve has, the annual budget covered by it supports the main operational activities of the Area which are aligned with the strategic goals and results proposed in the annual operational plan.

Governance Beyond Borders

The Amazonian border integration initiative known as the Tri-National Program, was promoted by the Administrators of three protected areas (The La Paya National Park-Colombia, the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve-Ecuador, and the Güeppí National Park-Peru), enabling a management optimization under a regionally coordinated model.

It all started in 2005 as a result of the dialogue efforts carried on by the representatives of the three Protected Areas. In 2006 the initiative was consolidated as the Tri-National Program, since then it has continuously been strengthened over time.

The first important decision towards financial support for the initiative, was sought trough an agreement among the environmental funds available in each of the three participating countries. Afterwards, additional financial support was pursued through several projects that could cover the expenses of priority lines such as protected and buffer area’s management, social participation, organizational capacity improvement and the conservation corridor´s enhancement.

In this context, the Goverments united to seek operational, technical and financial mechanisms to ensure the conservation and sustainable development of the Corridor, with the ambition of becoming a successful pilot experience of transboundary management.

  • A shared vision among the three protected areas to solve similar issues in the border region.
  • Well defined structure of the Program under specific management guidelines, with a Coordinating Committee (three national authorities representing each of the Protected Areas National Systems) a Technical Committee (Head Managers of the three Protected Areas,) and a Technical Secretariat (rotating headquarters every two years among the three environmental authorities).
  • Procurement of technical and financial support from cooperation agencies.

The program’s institutional background was strengthened thanks to a strong structure comprised of: The Coordinating Committee; The Technical Committee; and, The Technical Secretariat. Furthermore, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the parties which provided a clear guideline for the job ahead.

Thanks to the technical and financial support gained, several coordinated actions were carried out to increase the functionality and management capabilities of the three areas. In Cuyabeno, guarding posts were repaired and equipped, and the Monitoring and Vigilance Program was consolidated as part of the Area’s Management Plan; later this was articulated with the park ranger’s work in all three Areas to effectively monitor strategic conservation spots inside the protected areas, buffer zones, and borders.

In regards of social participation for sustainable management, the work was aimed to strengthen the organic coffee and fine aromatic cocoa productivity chain and communitarian tourism innitiatives.

Co-Management Between Indigenous Communities and the Government

One of the great challenges for the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve was the consolidation of its boundaries and securing management agreements with the local populations and indigenous organizations. Under the previous logic of integrating cultural variables in the national preservation process, the project “Delimitation of the lower region, conflict resolution, and awareness of the communities about the resource management and use in the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve” was successfully created.

The project main goal was to preserve the biological and cultural integrity of the Reserve under a strong alliance between the MAE and the indigenous communities that inhabit and coexisted in the territory: Siona, Secoya, Cofán, Kicwa, and Shuar.

As a result, in 1995 began the process of establishing Natural Resources Use and Management Agreements with most of the communities in these five indigenous nations. Such efforts promoted local participation and the recognition of the Protected Area for shared management.

The agreements became formal documents that legitimized the communities’ right to live in the Reserve and use the natural resources within under special conditions.

 

  • Empowering the indigenous organizations to actively participate in the protected area.
  • Negotiation strategies between the indigenous organizations and the Government, in order to establish the Use and Management Agreements.
  • MAE’s openness to participatory planning processes.
  • Promotion of the sustainable use of natural resources within the protected area.
  • Acknowledgment by the local communities of the protected area’s relevance: environmental, cultural, social, and economic importance.

The Use and Management Agreements include the following: Community Management Plans, Operational Plans and a Compliance Monitoring System. The Community Management Plans are valid for ten years and can be renewed.

The Community Management Plans were built as internal agreements by and for the community in accordance with: The regulations for natural resources use in communal spaces issued by the Reserve; The current status of use of such resources; and the rights of the indigenous communities. As a result of the previous, the boundaries of the Protected Area and the communities territories were consolidated.

Furthermore, spaces for discussion have been created in order to deal with convergent and divergent points of view that include the indigenous and governmental visions about the territory, its conservation, and sustainable management.

The co-management of the area between the MAE and indigenous organizations, achieved an important result: The ending of new settler’s arrivals to indigenous territories as well as the colonization/expansion of the local communities into the Reserve.

Law on Urban Agriculture for the city of São Paulo

CITIES WITHOUT HUNGER contributed to the passage of a bill on urban agriculture in São Paulo in 2004 (Lei 13.727, de 12 de Janeiro de 2004). By this law, the institutional and legal framework for urban agriculture in São Paulo was created. 

Hans Dieter Temp, founder of CITIES WITHOUT HUNGER, made an effort to push for the implementation of that law, i. a. going to Brasília to support his case. 

The key lesson learnt here is that a well-functioning and transparent communicative connection with governmental institutions is crucial for achieving far-reaching goals of urban planning. The need for urban agriculture projects, though, was recognised by citizens at a local level, whereas the city administration had not realised such action on their own account. 

Natural resource governance

The project aimed to improve governance of land and water resources at the community-level in order to enhance community resilience to water hazards and promote sustainable drylands management. This entailed several measures:

  • Establishment of a water resource management committee that is responsible for the water retention structure, for undertaking early warning and preparedness for flood and drought; and for ensuring that water is proportionally distributed. The committee also liaises with wider landscape management programmes and the government and NGOs.
  • Demarcation of the migratory route for pastoralist communities in order to reduce potential conflict over animals entering farmlands, and farms encroaching into rangelands.
  • Establishment of revolving funds for agriculture (seed bank) and livestock drugs to sustain livelihood activities and provide continued services over the longer term period.

The Eco-DRR project complemented another larger initiative by UNEP, known as the Wadi El-Ku Catchment Management (WEK) Project in North Darfur, implemented along the same wadi and roughly at the same time. The WEK project demonstrate how effective and inclusive natural resource management can improve relationships over natural resources, therefore contributing to peace-building and improving the livelihoods of conflict-affected communities.

Natural resource governance requires stakeholder dialogue to understand needs of the communities involved and for successful implementation of the measures. Furthermore, involving necessary authorities (e.g. linking the water management committee to government and NGOs for technical assistance and finance; and involving government and all relevant stakeholders for the demarcation of the migratory route) helps to ensure sustainability of the project. Having these activities replicated through other projects (e.g. WEK and other projects) is also important. Indeed the demarcation of the migratory route was extended from the 10KM to a total of 120KM route.

Building partnerships and community engagement

Building strong partnerships at the local and national level and working with the local community is essential for the implementation and overall success and sustainability of the project.

Furthermore it was essential to connect the local communities to government bodies and ensure the state takes joint ownership of the activities so that any future support that is needed can be sought from the government.

UNEP had strong longstanding partnerships (with local stakeholders and local and national implementing partners)  in place in the project area. 

In a fragile context like in Sudan, having long standing partnerships are vital for the success of the project. 

 

During implementation of community based activities it was learned that community level projects must make it least demanding of time and energy from community members, and ensure the right timing of activities to match communities’ schedule, as project activities generally require voluntary work.

Moreover, when communities see clear evidence of the benefits of the interventions, they then become more willing to implement and continue with similar activities on their own in the future. Interventions that show less direct livelihood benefits require good dialogue and awareness raising campaigns.

 

 

 

Develop local and national capacity for Eco-DRR

The project invested significantly in building capacity for Eco-DRR implementation. Firstly, awareness raising for different audiences (communities in the project area, government, university and other local and national audiences) was conducted by various means such as radio, conferences, workshops, factsheets and posters, 3D model and video.

 

Secondly various workshops on Eco-DRR implementation were undertaken at the local level to instruct on nursery management, early warning and preparedness, community resilience centre management, as well as trainers training. Field demonstrations and practical trainings at the provincial and national level served as a basis for strengthening Provincial and National Governments’ understanding of Eco-DRR practice in order to sustain future implementation and replication of Eco-DRR measures.

 

Finally, the project involved universities in Afghanistan in national and provincial EcoDRR conferences and trainings, in an effort to mainstream Eco-DRR concepts and practical knowledge in university programmes.

Having a long standing relationship and working with local organizations and actors is important for a good communication strategy and enabling capacity building. Furthermore, additional funding enabled a learning exchange to promote Eco-DRR and CCA in the region between Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Dialogue, involving stakeholders and working with local organizations, having a local pilot demonstration project and investing heavily in strengthening capacity are key for sustainability.