sustainable financing for « protected areas » in

SUSTAINABLE FINANCING FOR
« PROTECTED AREAS »
IN MADAGASCAR –
A SHORT OVERVIEW
Jean-Paul Paddack
WWF Madagascar and West Indian Ocean Programme
ABCG Meeting – Washington, DC, 09 June 2005
President Marc
Ravalomanana
announced his
“Durban Vision” at
the World Parks
Congress -- here
with WWF
International’s DG,
Claude Martin, and
Luc Hoffmann,
Founder and WWF
VP Emeritus
September 17, 2003:
« …je veux vous faire partie
de notre résolution à porter la
surface des aires protégées de
1.7 millions d’hectares à 6
million d’hectares dans les cinq
ans à venir, et en référence
aux catégories des aires
protégées de l’UICN. »
MADAGASCAR’S BIODIVERSITY
• One of the 17 mega-biodiversity countries
representing 80% of world’s biodiversity
• 10,000 plant species identified, of which
80% endemic
• Close to 100% of lemurs are endemic
• 280 bird species, 110 endemic
• 346 reptile species, 314 endemic
« The single highest major biodiversity
conservation priority in the world »
page
4
Madagascar’s Protected
Areas Network
Madagascar’s
Future
Protected Areas
Network
“Durban Vision”
SUMMARY OF “DURBAN”
COMMITMENTS
Objective
(Ha)
ANGAP
Existing
(Ha)
6,000,000
1,700,000
To be
created
terrestrial
and marin
(Ha)
800,000
Potential
terrestrial
sites to
be
identified
(Ha)
7,766,000
Sites
which
have
funding
(Ha)
1,600,000
Sites
created
during
EP3
(Ha)
Marine
and
coastal
sites (Ha)
500,000
1,000,000
CONTEXT
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
 NEAP: Launched in 1990, divided into three 5-year
phases:
 EP1 (1991-1996): Regulatory framework and
institutions
 EP2 (1997-2002): Consolidation and scaling-up
 EP3 (2003-2008): Mainstreaming and
sustainability
Launching the Process
July 2000: First workshop on sustainable financing
in the environment sector (middle of EP 2)
September 2000: establishment of the Sustainable
Financing Commission (SFC).
March-April 2001: Study tour to the Americas.
May 2001: International Symposium on
Sust.Financing of PAs/Biodiversity orgnaised by
IUCN, WWF & ANGAP
September 2001: Creation of Steering Committee
for Foundation/Trust Fund
A Typology of Financing Instruments
• Special Instruments such as trust
funds, debts swaps
• Tourism-related fees,
concessions or taxes
• Sector-based environmental fees
• Ecological payments for
environmental services
• Private sector investments
Feasibility Analysis: Priorities
Sera
probablement
Will
most
likely be usedutilisé
and is et
relatively
easy to
implement
relativement
facile
à mettre en
oeuvre
Sera
probablement
Will
likely
be used with utilisé
some mais
avec difficultés
de mettre en
implementation
difficulties
oeuvre
Sera possible mais avec difficultés
Will be difficult to implement
pour sa mise en oeuvre
Difficult and unlikely in short to
medium
term à court/moyen terme
Peu faisable
Strategic Framework
Public
Funds
Fonds
Publics
Specific Mechanisms
Mécanis mes s pécifiques
Trust Fund
HIPC
****
****
Trus t Funds et
Fondations
PPTE
Conversion de
la dette
Bilatérale
Debt conv.
Aires protégées
terrestres
Eco-systèmes forestiers
Approches intégrées au
développement rural
Zônes côtières et
marines (y inclus AP
marins)
Pollution
Education
environnementalle
Communication et veille
env.
Rendement potentiel
A définir
****
Fees from Tourism Sector
Droits touristiques
DEAP/S
F
Park
fees
Billets
Concessions
Activités
Plongée
Croisières
Concession
Activity
Diving
Plane
Cruises
d'avion
Chambres
d’hôtel
Hotel
rooms
Aires protégées
terrestres
Eco-systèmes
forestiers
Approches intégrées au
développement rural
Zônes côtières et
marines (y inclus AP
marins)
Pollution
Education
environnementalle
Communication et veille
env.
Rendement potentiel
**
*
*
*
**
*
**
Taxes et redevances
Taxes
and fees
Ext Nat.
Nat
Ext. Nat
Forêt
FFN
Ext
N.R. ExtExt.
Petroleum
Ext
Fisher. BioprosBioprospect
FFN
Mines
Petrol.
Pêche
pection
Carburant
Fuel
Loteries
Lottery
**
*
Aires protégées
terrestres
Eco-systèmes
forestiers
Approches
intégrées au
développement
rural
Zônes côtières et
marines (y inclus
AP marins)
Pollution
Education
environnementall
e
Communication
et veille env.
Rendement
potentiel
**
**
**
*
**
Potential new
sources of
funding?
• Mining sector
through some
form of taxation?
• Private mining
sector through
partnerships:
QMM in Fort
Dauphin? Phelps
Dodge in
Ambatondrazaka?
Mobilisation
du secteur
privé
Private
Sector
Mobil.
Dons
Grants
Prêts
Loans
Services environnementaux
Environmental
Services
Concessions de
Droits BV
Watershed
Cons.Conc.
conservation
CO22
CO
Aires protégées
terrestres
Eco-systèmes forestiers
Approches intégrées au
développement rural
Zônes côtières et
marines (y inclus AP
marins)
Pollution
Education
environnementalle
Communication et veille
env.
Rendement potentiel
*
***
***
**
**
A FOUNDATION AND
TRUST FUND
STEERING COMMITTEE
Created by Minister of Environment on September 2001 to « set
up a Trust Fund to contribute to the funding of biodiversity and
protected areas conservation in Madagascar »
Includes 7 members from the National Park Service (ANGAP),
Sustainable Financing Commission, banking, legal and private
sectors, and, national and international NGOs.
Mandate includes:
- Conceive the Trust Fund’s profile
- Draft Procedures Manual
- Develop fund-raising strategy
- Develop investment policy
- Operationalize Trust Fund
FUNDING SOURCES
SECURED – In Sum:







CI and WWF (1 M each):
BMZ/KfW (Germany):
Malagasy Government:
World Bank:
GEF:
BMZ/KfW (Germany)
Private Sector
????
USD
2,000,000
3,200,000
12,000,000 (over 19 yrs)
7,500,000 (grant)
10,000,000
3,200,000 (2nd tranche)
______________
37,700,000
MOBILISING PUBLIC FINANCING
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT
SECTOR
Summary of Main Findings (1)
• PRSP environmental strategy does not reflect finalization of the third
phase of the environmental program (PE3) and the “Durban Vision” aiming
at increasing protected areas from 1.7 million ha to 6.0 million ha.
• Full costing of the environmental strategy remains to be completed and
extended to take into account the implementation of the “Durban Vision”.
• Less than 1% of the freed HIPC resources since 2001 have been used
for environmental purposes, compared with an initial commitment of using
up to 10% of the total debt relief for this purpose.
Summary findings (2)
•
The treatment of the environmental sector in the
government’s budget is not transparent and prevents
effective reviews of public expenditure in the sector: (i) the
relations between the budget and executing agencies of the
environmental policy are not apparent; and (ii) foreign-financed
projects include large amounts of current expenditure that are
recorded in investment under the current economic
classification of expenditure.
•
Sustainable financing of the environment and biodiversity
conservation should be treated as a global issue of public
finance and budgetary policy, not an issue of tax policy
Some Lessons Learned (1)
• 1. LEADERSHIP – PRESIDENT, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
NGOs, DONORS.
• 2. ENVIRONMENT SECTOR MULTI-DONOR SECRETARIAT, AND
PARTNERSHIPS.
• 3. FORMALISING THE DIALOGUE ON SUSTAINABLE FINANCING,
WITH MANDATE FROM THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT.
• 4. COLLABORATION OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND
ENVIRONMENT.
Some Lessons Learned (2)
• 5. DEVELOP ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATIONS TO “SELL” /
EXPLAIN THE ENVIRONMENT TO PUBLIC FINANCE
MINISTRIES. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
CONTRIBUTES TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION.
• 6. DEVELOP PROPER COSTING PROJECTIONS –
PROTECTED AREAS AND FOUNDATION, EARLY ON.
• 7. BUILD ONE SUCCESS FIRST, THEN ANOTHER…
SUCCESS BREEDS SUCCESS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!