Perú: Reserva Ecológica Inkaterra

Budget

This budget corresponds to the “Most Likely Scenario” described on page 18. It is based on very conservative assumptions. It would not be unrealistic for this project to catalyse even more funding if the new ecotourism attractions prove to be as successful as Inka Terra anticipates. If so, ITA will be able to devote resources towards investigating and developing additional sustainable uses of biodiversity (“biobusinesses”) in conjunction with ITP and the local communities.

	IFC	GEF	Inka Terra	ACEER	MOBOT	José Koechlin	ITA	TOTAL
Project Preparation	-	25,000	-	-	-	65,518	-	90,518
Inka Terra Expansion & Refinancing	5,000,000	-	5,000,000	-	-	-	-	10,000,000
Forest Management & Conservation	-	166,307	40,465	-	90,000	-	254,782	551,554
Community Partnerships for Cons. & Devt	-	33,312	-	-	-	-	93,464	126,776
Environmental Training Programs	-	21,510	-	187,000	-	-	310,050	518,560
New Ecotourism Attractions	-	363,243*	-	-	-	-	37,015	400,258
ITA Staff	-	140,628	-	-	-	-	203,290	343,918
Travel Expenses	-	-	25,200	-	-	-	8,400	33,600
Miscellaneous Administrative Costs	-	-	37,800	-	-	-	12,600	50,400
TOTAL (US$)	5,000,000	750,000	5,103,465	187,000	90,000	65,518	919,601	12,115,584
Percentage of Total	41.3%	6.2%	42.1%	1.5%	0.7%	0.5%	7.6%	100.0%

*This will be provided as a loan. ITA’s payback of the loan has not been counted as co-financing.
ITP has paid for much of the ITA staff costs to date. In the future, ITP will continue to pay for the conservation work that ITA will carry out at Machu Picchu, Cusco, and Lake Titicaca. Yet because this GEF proposal focuses on the IER reserve near Puerto Maldonado, these planned expenditures are not shown. Likewise, ITP will continue to pay for much of ITA’s staff costs at the IER reserve. ITP will transfer these funds to ITA in accordance with the legal agreement to be established as part of this project. Since these expenditures will essentially constitute ITA’s own sales revenues (from use of the Canopy Walk and other attractions), the budget credits these expenditures to ITA (instead of ITP).
Importantly, GEF is only being asked to cover the incremental costs associated with part of the additional work (including new staff) that ITA will carry out as part of this project. In fact, GEF will not need to cover the full incremental costs because this project will catalyse its own long-term revenues. This is one of the innovative aspects of this proposal: a conservation NGO will generate its own revenues rather than rely upon continuous grants.