Perú: Reserva Ecológica Inkaterra

Stakeholder Participation

D
Figure 13: Consultation with Madama Community

uring the preparation of the project, special care was taken to involve local stakeholders. Extensive consultations were conducted with the communities near the reserve (e.g., Madama, Juan Velazco, Juan Pablo, Micaela Bastidas and Rolín). These consultations were conducted by ITA consultants and staffmembers who possess considerable sociological and anthropological expertise. These consultations culminated in a sophisticated socio-economic assessment of the communities.
The local communities consist of approximately 580 families in total. These families are primarily immigrants from the districts of Abancay, Ayacucho, Cusco, Junin, and Puno. The fact that they are immigrants has meant that they do not possess much knowledge of agricultural practices that could be conducted in equilibrium with the forest. Most of the community members plant crops such as corn, soybean, and yucca; however, they vehemently complain about the low market prices. In addition, they have indicated that they do not have access to credit and receive very little attention or support from government agencies. It is also clear that the organizational structure of each community is very weak. Although there is a primary school in some of the communities, attendance is quite low. In light of these circumstances, the community members repeatedly voiced strong support for entering into a long-term partnership with ITA in which they will assist in protecting the forest in exchange for technical assistance and the other benefits inherent in this proposal.
Discussions were also held with regional institutions, including the Regional Government of Madre de Dios, Regional Directorate of Agriculture of Madre de Dios, Regional Directorate of Education, and the Federation of Indigenous Peoples of the Madre de Dios River (FENAMAD). Beyond that, national agencies, such as INRENA, as well as the local staff of international organizations, such as Conservation International (CI), were consulted in the development of this proposal. During implementation, the local communities will be directly involved in many aspects of the project. Indeed, the project’s strategy for conserving the forest rests upon the formation and maintenance of successful partnerships with the local communities.

Incremental Cost Assessment

Most ecotourism operators in Peru have inadequate skills to develop or to implement forest conservation management plans and thus wider conservation benefits from private sector eco-tourism are constrained. A smaller number of companies (including Inka Terra) have demonstrated commitment and some capacity to manage forest assets. In the case of Inka Terra, the company has been actively supporting cataloguing and inventory work on biodiversity for a period of at least 20 years. The company has also undertaken environmental education work with tourist clients as part of the eco-tourism experience.

Since the Reserva Amazónica lodge (originally known as Cuzco Amazonico) was established 27 years ago, the company has provided approximately US$625,000 (historical value) in in-kind support (room and board) for visiting researchers. This amounts to an average contribution of about US$23,000 per year (as indicated by accounting records of the company). In the Baseline Scenario, Inka Terra would continue to support the IER as it has done in the past. But without the four new ecotourism attractions, Palma Real’s occupancy rates – and thus its revenues – would not be as high. As a result, there would be less funds available to support forest conservation and community development via the Inka Terra Association.
Without GEF support, Inka Terra would continue to support researchers who are interested in studying the forest, but it would be unable to produce a full inventory of the endemic species found in the reserve. Nor would it be able to rehabilitate primates and return them to the wild. Likewise, Inka Terra would continue to reach out to the local communities but it would have limited resources to offer them. It would not be able to provide agronomic assistance, reforestation programs, or animal breeding programs. Nor would the local communities receive much support from other nongovernmental or governmental institutions. For the most part, they would have to continue to fend for themselves.
Finally, in the Baseline Scenario, Inka Terra would continue to have ITA as a parallel not-for-profit organization but it would be unable to significantly strengthen ITA’s organizational capacities. ITA’s staff would need to continue to work with the ecotourism operations unless they were obtain to obtain grant funding from some other source besides GEF. ITA would not be able to obtain a loan to develop the ecotourism attractions because it does not have sufficient creditworthiness for local banks. In sum, ITA would not become a self-financing conservation organization in the Baseline Scenario.
The opportunity exists for GEF finance to create a significantly greater return in terms of forest conservation and management by covering the incremental costs of developing an integrated biodiversity management system (FCMP) and supporting institutional framework (ITA) in order to maximize the biodiversity benefits of the reserve. The GEF Alternative would allow ITA to be developed as a highly capable parallel NGO dedicated to preserving the forest, promoting conservation-compatible livelihoods in the surrounding communities, and fostering environmental knowledge, appreciation and skills among many different local stakeholders. It would also allow ITA – and thereby the IER – to become self-financing by allowing the installation of four new ecotourism attractions that would catalyse significant ongoing revenues. Beyond that, the GEF Alternative would enable ITA to carry out the other activities contained in this proposal – forest management planning, primate rehabilitation and reintroduction, animal breeding, fish farming, sustainable farming, and various forms of environmental training and awareness-raising. All of these items offer global benefits and entail incremental costs that the GEF is asked to cover.