English - Global Environment Facility

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:
1. The PIF was approved by the GEF Secretariat on February 24, 2009. The project design
presented here is fully in line with the project rationale, objectives and amounts of funding
presented in the PIF Request, as explained in the following paragraphs.
2. The project maintains the original objective of generating a model of low environmental impact
ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) in Panama, contributing to
biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas. It adopts a two-pronged approach
aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas both at
the local and the national scale. Taking available resources into account, the PPG resulted in a
better focusing of financed activities based on the particular context encountered in the 9 selected
PAs. The initial design has been deemed consistent with the analysis of root causes of the low
development of ecotourism in the SINAP and the identification of opportunities and limitations
carried out during PPG (See part II.A).
3. In relation with the original design, the decision was made during the IADB/ANAM/ATP project
revision workshop (July 2010), to merge the original components 3 and 4 into a single
component, in order to obtain a slimmer and more efficient design and taking into account: a)
observed redundancies between outcomes in both original components, and b) the decision of not
including formal certification of ecotourism products and services, to avoid potential duplication
with the recently approved UNDP GEF project for the archipelagos (Project ID 3021) and based
on the results of the capacity assessment of local organizations which indicated that most would
require basic capacity building in the provision of ecotourism services prior to embarking on a
formal certification process. A decision was also made to divide component 1 into two separate
sub-components in order to reflect the need to raise SINAP´s level of financial independence on
the basis of a wider array of sustainable financing sources, as advocated in various technical
reports produced during PPG. A specific outcome indicator has been introduced to reflect this
shift.
4. In the PIF and the PPG, the cost of the project was estimated at US$12.5 million, of which
US$4.0 million were to be GEF funds and most of the remaining US$8.5 million to be provided
primarily by an IDB-financed loan under preparation which was to implement the National
Tourism Master Plan (2007-2020) also financed by the IDB and officially approved
(http://www.atp.gob.pa/archivos/pdf/planmaestro/Resumen%20Ejecutivo-Ingles.pdf). Although
this potential tourism loan was included in the IDB pipeline for Panama at the time of approval
of the PIF, in 2009 the Government of Panama made an adjustment in the list of loan
investments agreed to with IDB for fiscal reasons. The decision was made to maintain the
National Tourism Master Plan as a priority and to pursue its implementation using national rather
than multi-lateral funds. At the time, the Government also specifically requested that the GEF
project be maintained in the pipeline and committed to identifying alternative sources of cofinancing.
The Government maintains the National Tourism Master Plan as one of the highest
priorities of its administration and has been implementing its provisions using its own resources
as exemplified by the ATP 2010-2011 budget (for market research, promotion, development and
sector coordination). In this regard, the activities that would have been financed by the loan are
being implemented thus ensuring a sustainable baseline as originally contemplated. . A combined
CEO Endorsement Template-December-08.doc 29