FBEAMonitoring EvaluationPlanAlternative AnalysisNov2005(a).doc

FORESTRY AND BIODIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (FBEA)

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

USAID/Peru’s Forestry and Biodiversity Program was developed under the following two parameters that had to be taken into consideration, throughout the process of identification, analysis and final adoption of program alternatives from the environmental standpoint:

1. The Program would be implemented by the following five partners, each one of whom proposed individual sub programs with distinct features that USAID/Peru tried to maintain:

a) Chemonics-AD, as the main implementer of the Alternative Development Program

b) WWF, through its Certification and Development of the Forest Sector (CEDEFOR) program, funded jointly with Development Assistance (DA) and Joint Environmental Agenda (JEA) resources.

c) The Nature Conservancy (TNC) through its Parks in Peril Program mainly funded and managed by the LAC Bureau, with USAID/Peru’s contribution of financial and management resources.

d) Chemonics-PRA, through its support to several forest concessionary enterprises in its role of business facilitator.

e) The Field Museum of Chicago (FMC), through the support provided for the management of the Cordillera Azul Park, with AD and JEA funds.

2. USAID/Peru’s F&B Program had to be aligned with the general Mission Antinarcotics policy. Any proposal with deviations to this policy was non-eligible for USAID financing. This consideration also set parameters for the geographic location of the interventions: all initiatives had to be located within the AD area.

Within the two above parameters, four alternatives considered for the F&B Program:

A. The No-Action Alternative

B. An alternative making the work of all forestry and biodiversity partners solely focused on improved natural resource management.

C. An alternative making the work of all partners, mainly oriented to certification and creation of licit economic opportunities.

D. An alternative, differentiating the work of each partner according to their strengths and their geographical preferences within the AD area, assigning preference to the certification process, but still including improved natural resource management and protection activities.

Discussion of Alternatives Alternative A: No action.- This alternative would leave things stay the way they were before the Program. Illegal logging would remain unchecked, the existing confusion concerning resource access, institutional roles and responsibilities, and rights of private landowners would continue. Indirect impacts of road rehabilitation would not be mitigated and degradation would be further exacerbated. Nothing would be done to improve the selection, use and handling of pesticides in tree seedling and plantation and in treatment of wood products. In general, denying the possibility of introducing licit economic opportunities, conditions would be created for stimulating coca production and narcotics traffic. Consequently, this alternative was eliminated from further discussion.

Alternative B: The programs of all forestry partners are limited to improved natural resource management.- Given the fact that the amounts of USAID resources provided to each partner are different, and that all partners have particular strengths, objectives and priorities, each sub-program needs to have different and unique characteristics. This makes impractical the idea of having a standardized program for all partners. In addition, the F&B program, should aim at creating licit economic alternatives to coca production, that is, it should to the extent possible go beyond than just improving natural resource management by developing production chains and by identifying and taking advantage of market opportunities. Consequently, this alternative was also dropped for further consideration.

Alternative C: All partner sub programs are oriented to certification and the creation of licit economic opportunities.- For the reasons given above, it also results impractical to standardize all sub programs with certification as the only target. Some partners need to implement their programs according to their objectives and limitations. For instance, the FMC Activity went through a process of redesign due to the restrictions of working with communities that had not signed eradication agreements, and it now only focuses on park protection activities and environmental education programs. TNC needs to implement its Pacaya-Samiria and Central Selva interventions along the lines established by LAC’s Parks in Peril Program. The PRA Program’s main objective is business facilitation, and as such, its forestry activity is only limited to providing assistance to four large forest concessionaires. With regard to the Alternative Development Program, although certification is a major component, it also works in the establishment of local forests to mitigate indirect impacts of road rehabilitation, forest management interventions in native communities, and rubber plantation modules. Finally, WWF’s CEDEFOR Activity is mainly oriented to provide assistance to selected forestry concessionaires in developing and implementing general forest management plans, that eventually, but not always, may lead to certification. However, WWF’s Program also supports agroforestry production systems, and the establishment of a buffer reforestation strip to protect the Von Humboldt forest. In conclusion, this C Alternative was not adopted , because the Alternative D described below was selected.

Alternative D: Within USAID’s general parameters, each partner retains the main features and characteristics of its program, making maximum use of its particular strengths and available resources.- This was the preferred alternative, because in general assigns preference to the certification process, but it also takes care of each partner’s strengths and priorities. It complains with the mandate of the antinarcotics program, and encompasses an array of activities that vary from assisting to define the legal and regulatory framework for F&B, to supporting protection activities, combating illegal logging, mitigating the impacts of other AD interventions and generally offering licit economic opportunities to Program beneficiaries.

In the following paragraphs, the main features and characteristics approved for the five partner subprograms are presented.

WWF’s Program (CEDEFOR) has three components: a) Forest concessions management, to assist selected concessionaires to develop and implement General Forest Management Plans, Annual Operating Plans and watershed development plans; b) Agroforestry, to enrich approximately 400 agricultural plots with agroforestry production systems, including high value and fast growing native timber species; and c) Reforestation, aiming at establishing a boundary consisting of a 90 kms. long buffer reforestation strip between the Von Humboldt Forest and the unplanned settlements, including hundreds of illegal coca plots, along both sides of the San Alejandro-Aguaytía road.

PRA’s Forestry Activity is limited to providing assistance to four large forest concessionaires for obtaining their FCS International Certification. This would allow them to export their products to the most demanding markets of the world.

The Nature Conservative Parks in Peril interventions in the Pacaya Samiria Reserve, the Yanachaga National Park and the Yanesha Communal Reserve are improving technical capabilities in these areas for control, supervision and law enforcement. The Project also plans to establish two municipal conservation areas in Oxapampa, and land and natural resource planning will be supported in two contiguous watersheds. In Pacaya Samiria, a river turtle and four fisheries management plans are also being developed.

As of May 2005, the Field Museum of Chicago activities in the Cordillera Azul Park are only focusing in park protection activities oriented to address current threats to the park. Although their support is mainly provided to INRENA, they also aim at working with local governments and park management committees. To ensure sustainability, an ambitious environmental education program has also been developed.

Finally, the Alternative Development Program through Chemonics, is promoting the establishment of local forests in areas affected for road rehabilitation, the establishment of forest management projects in native communities, the establishment of rubber plantation modules. Chemonics has adopted INRENA’s forest management standards, complemented by other international standards, accepted by the FSC and used by the BOLFOR Project in Bolivia. Its plans include the contracting of an independent certifying entity that would evaluate the forestry management units that have received AD financing.