English - Global Environment Facility

- 10 -
# of PA with linked biological, physical and
economic use indicators clearly selected (wildlife,
vegetation, water quality, volume of visitor
activities, number of concessions); baseline
completed; and monitoring methodology defined
D. Viability
Although overall monitoring of
biodiversity will take place during the
Project, it is important to define keystone
indicators that will enhance quality of
monitoring efforts in the long run
1.19 Selection of the nine priority protected areas was made on the basis of
cost-effectiveness. This selection was the main factor in ensuring effectiveness of
the interventions, particularly the operational improvements in planning,
monitoring, and on-site training (Components 2 and 3). Cost effectiveness was
achieved by focusing the project's interventions in 9 of the 89 protected area units
of the SINAP. These protected areas account for over 60% of the current
visitation to protected areas and are all located within 50 km of the ten
priority tourism destinations selected in the National Tourism Master Plan. As
such, these 9 protected areas are rated as having the highest potential either on
their own or when combined with nearby complementary tourism assets
to compete for an international demand from target markets (United States and
Europe). In addition, these 9 protected areas accounted for over 95% of the
revenues generated by visitor fees for the entire SINAP in 2009. With the US$4
million investment of the project, 50% of the protected areas annual operating
costs would be covered by the revenues generated from entrance fees by the end
of the project. A comparable investment of US$4 million in the next ten most
visited protected areas would have covered only 35% of annual operating costs.
A. Financing Instruments
II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS
2.1 The project was designed as a technical cooperation grant. It will be financed
through non-reimbursable resources from the Global Environment Facility and
local counterpart contributions. The disbursement schedule is based on the
referenced amount for priority activities to be initiated in each year of the Project.
The predicted flow of financial resources is as follows:
Table 3-Anticipated Disbursement Timetable
Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
GEF 35% 30% 25% 10%
B. Environmental and Social Safeguard Risks
2.2 While most impacts from this operation are expected to be positive and to derive
from the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and the socio-economic
improvement of local people, the Environmental and Social Review of the Bank
(ESR 09-09) assigned a Category “B” classification, mainly due to the
anticipation of potential direct, indirect or cumulative impacts that could result