In March 2005, jointly between the Directorate of Protected Areas and the Project for the Management and Conservation of the Upper Yaque del Norte River Basin (PROCARYN), began actions to prepare the Management Plan for the Juan Bautista Pérez Rancier National Park (Valle New).
The main objective of the Management Plan is that through a pragmatic and operable document it is possible to strengthen the capacities for conservation, management and administration of the protected area.
Both the management category and the conservation objectives of the protected area indicate that the PNJBPR is due to conservation, but in reality the protected area has a land use contrary to its objectives in 55.66% (510 Km 2) of its territory, which is dedicated mainly to agriculture, livestock, housing and some ecotourism projects.
The main action for the medium and long-term success of the "Management Plan" consists in achieving the stabilization of the agricultural frontier and restoration in the first term of the critical areas or sensitive ecosystems, for this it is important to consider an "opportunity cost", and a negotiation process that allows the 20 communities and more than 17 major owners to develop a model that achieves not only the stabilization of the agricultural frontier but also the creation of socio-productive alternatives built under an institutional architecture that allows the creation of a compensation fund to strengthen the implementation of the PNJBPR Management Plan.
This document tries to provide the conceptual and methodological bases for the development of an "environmental compensation model" that allows the solution of socio-environmental conflicts through a negotiation process between the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the different communities and owners to achieve agreements that allow the usufruct of the land that is currently under use with a series of regulations and restrictions and the payment of an amount that consolidates the formation of an “environmental compensation fund”.
The environmental compensation fund can allow the implementation of the programs and subprograms contained in the current management plan, but even more importantly, the financial sustainability of the protected area in the long term. Being a relevant point the proactive participation of the different actors at the community and individual level.
Both the model and the approach to environmental compensation must be developed within an "institutional architecture" that makes it viable in the short and medium term, born from the same internal structures of the key actors, with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources being the managing entity. that technically and legally strengthen the institutional architecture that develops environmental compensation actions.
A point considered of relevance in the document is the creation of criteria and indicators that allow the development of a system of "monitoring and evaluation" of the process of implementation of the management plan and therefore of the different actions within the environmental compensation model, It is important for this to consider the strengthening of the technical and administrative capacities of the protected area, which may arise from the same funds from the payment of environmental compensation.
The points will be reflected in this document which contains in its different points the justification framework, concepts, analysis and proposal for the implementation of the approach and environmental compensation model for the Juan Bautista Pérez Rancier National Park.
goals
Overall objective
Present in documentary form a proposal that lays the conceptual, social, economic, geographical and operational bases for the implementation of an “Environmental Compensation approach and model” (CAM), within a larger program of “Environmental Services Payments” (PSA), as an operational part of the Management Plan 2005-2010 of the Juan Bautista Pérez Rancier National Park.
Specific objectives
- Conceptually and operationally justify the proposal for the development of a CAM approach and model to be implemented as part of the operational framework of the Protected Area Management Plan; Generally present the social, economic and conservation situation of the PNJBPR at present and as CAM's approach and model can strengthen the conservation and management actions of the protected area, developed through consultation and participation actions with key stakeholders in the protected area; Document and publicize the level of acceptance by local stakeholders and / or direct users on the joint implementation of the CAM approach and model for the protected area, Propose the institutional architecture that could operationalize the CAM approach and model and the management of the “environmental compensation fund”;Present the results of the case study developed for one of the CAM Sectors, as an example of implementation of the Environmental Compensation approach and model; Establish the requirements for complementary studies to support the development of the PNJBPR Management Plan and implementation of the approach and model of CAM.
Justification of the model
During the development of the Management Plan of the Juan Bautista Pérez Rancier National Park (Valle Nuevo), a series of socio-environmental variables could be identified that put at risk in the short and medium term the implementation of any type of proposal that promotes the conservation and management of the protected area, considered in the management plan, given the socio-environmental characteristics that the PNJBPR has.
With 910 km 2 established by decree 233 of 1996, the protected area has approximately 20 communities that are located within and on the near periphery of its limits that according to current estimates exceed 7,000 (data estimated in participatory micro-workshops 2005) people with agro-productive and pastoral activities in the protected area, considering that only in the Castillo community is currently estimated a population of 1,250 people between Dominicans and Haitians (Melgar, M. PLUT, 2005).
In the Comprehensive Ecological Assessment (EEI) prepared by the Moscoso Puello Foundation, it indicates that in 1999 the protected area, of the 910 km 2 that compose it, 390 km 2 present some type of forest cover, while 510 km 2 is distributed among forests secondary in different seral stages and mainly for agricultural and livestock production (300 km 2). It is notorious in field trips, interviews with members of the communities, local government, government organizations (forestry, politur, national army, etc.) that despite the efforts of the Directorate of Protected Areas (DAP) and the administration of the PNJBPR agricultural and livestock areas have expanded gradually but steadily in the last six years. This directly affects the eight conservation targets identified in the ISS. Which are listed below:
- Coniferous Forests; Cloudy Forests; Broadleaf Forest; Manaclares; Headwaters of rivers above 1800 meters above sea level; Headwaters of rivers below 1800 meters above sea level; Amphibians; Mammals. (EEI, FMP, 2005)
The main critical threats, which impact conservation objects by hierarchy from highest to lowest, are presented below:
- Agricultural practices; Agricultural expansion; Wood extraction; Arson; Introduction of exotic species of flora and fauna; Livestock; Contamination by chemical waste; Fishing; Construction of roads.
It is obvious that the situation of the PNJBPR is not different from other protected areas of the country and the Mesoamerican region, given the socio-environmental and productive characteristics that rural areas go through with the lack of opportunities for the acquisition of arable land, considering the inadequate tendencies of land distribution. And the growing need to conserve the remnants of existing ecosystems in protected areas and, in priority, those linked to areas for the production, collection and storage of water (hydrographic basins).
The foregoing may lead to consider the "Coase Theory" which states that: if appropriation rights are clearly defined, they are initially distributed as they are distributed and as long as the transaction cost is zero, the negotiation efficiency between the parties affected by an externality can produce a situation of Pareto optimality for both parties. The previous theory is the one that has allowed to validate the models of Payment for Environmental Services (PSA) and Environmental Compensation (CAM), in simple words to understand "sometimes you have to give in and / or go back both parties to win" the framework that allows Technically and legally, the development of a PES and CAM proposal is the "Management Plan". (Look at annex 1)
The Coase Theory which has allowed together with the "hedonic statistics" to cement PES systems since its appearance in the 60s (see Annex 1), allows to show that logic always destines technicians to the use of tax measures (laws, regulations, etc.) that in the end have shown their little applicability and in many cases the excessive increase in negative actions that impact natural resources.
The current moment allows the feasibility of the development of the approach and model of environmental compensation considering the elaboration of the Management Plan and its management tools, which has allowed the generation of synergies in the different local actors, mainly at the level of the communities wishing to seek a solution that allows the proper use of natural resources that to this day are being exploited in an inappropriate way.
Area managers should consider the following strategic questions when discussing the feasibility of developing an environmental compensation model:
- Will the relocation, eviction and / or purchase of land for the communities and individual users be real options? Currently there is the capacity to monitor and regulate the use of the land of the communities and individual producers? What socio-productive alternatives on land and off land will be offered to the communities and individual users to restrict the productive and subsistence activities within the protected area? What technical assistance actions are being carried out, to reduce the environmental impact against the conservation objects, product of the socio-productive activities? The Management Plan prepared could operationalize without considering biological complexity,economic and social of the protected area? Financing for the implementation of the protected area management programs and subprograms can be paid from the budget assigned to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources? Where will the financial resources for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure already developed through funds contributed by KfW through PROCARYN, for PNJBPR?
