Hugo Chudyson

Elaine Ferreira

Coordinated Audit on

Latin American Protected Areas

SecexAmbiental Department of Agriculture and Environmental Audit

Curitiba, 29 September 2015

Summary

• Supreme Audit Institution (SAI)

– Federal Court of Accounts of Brazil (TCU)

• Coordinated Audits

–Brazilian Amazon Protected Areas – 2012/13

– Latin American Protected Areas – 2014/15

Supreme Audit Institution (SAI)

Definition of SAI:

•Public National Institutions that assess the sound use of public funds

•Mission goes beyond the financial audits of government accounts and extends to the evaluation of public policies

INTOSAI and UNEP 2010

INTOSAI and United Nations

• UN Resolution A/RES/69/228 (Dec, 2014): recognizes the role SAIs can play and encourages relevant UN institutions to intensify their cooperation, including in capacity-building, with the INTOSAI in order to promote good governance at all levels by ensuring efficiency, accountability, effectiveness and transparency.

Federal Court of Accounts (TCU)

– SAI of Brazil, created in 1890

– Supports National Congress (Legislative)

–Carry out compliance and performance audits

– Specific Department to environmental auditing

Protected areas (PAs)

–Universal topic

–No boundaries

Protected Areas ↔ Public heritage

– SAIs can evaluate PAs management

Coordinated Audits on Protected Areas

1) Brazilian Amazon – 2012/13 247 Protected Areas (Federal and state level)

2) Latin America – 2014/15 1120 Protected Areas (12 countries)

National Coordinated Audit

Brazilian Amazon Protected Areas

2013

Audit on Brazilian Amazon

• TCU + 9 State Courts of Audit (TCEs)

– Performance audit

– 247 PAs – territory > France and Spain together

• Assessment

– Normative, institutional, operational aspects

Products developed

Tree of

problems

Diagram of

regulations

Audit on Brazilian Amazon

• Assessment

– Implementation and Management

– Georeferenced maps – Indimapas

• Indicators and Index

Indimapa

Protected Areas Implementation and Management Index

• Legal framework

• Rappam – WWF and Tracking Tool – World Bank

• Experts

• Audit standards

Multidimensional assessment

G – Management plan

H – Human resources

$ – Financial resources

E – Physical structures

T – Territorial consolidation

F – Environmental inspection

P – Research

B – Biodiversity monitoring

C – Managing council

M – Community management

U – Public use

N – Concessions

L – Articulation in the PA

13 Indicators

Indimapa

Index of PAs Implementation and Management = average of 13 indicators

High (2 ≤ i ≤ 3) Medium(1 ≤ i < 2) Low (0 ≤ i < 1)

247 PAs evaluated

International Coordinated Audit

Latin American Protected Areas

2014

Audit on Latin America

• Coordinated by

– Federal Court of Accounts of Brazil (TCU)

– General Comptroller of the Republic of Paraguay (CGR)

• 12 countries

– Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela

12 Countries

1120 Protected

Areas evaluated

COMTEMA

Audit on Latin America

• Criteria

– Aichi Biodiversity Target 11

• Elements

– Quantitative - by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas

– Qualitative - conserved through effectively managed systems of protected areas

Results

Latin America Outlook

• Quantitative element

– 8/12 countries had already reached the goal of protecting at least 17% of their terrestrial areas

Latin America Outlook

Quantitative element: Aichi Target 11 evaluation

Country Land area

(km²)

Number of protected areas

(PAs)

Land protected areas (km²)

Land protected areas percentage

Brazil 8.515.767 1.966 1.460.918 17,2%

Argentina 2.791.810 436 215.150 7,7%

Bolivia 1.098.581 130 221.913 20,2%

Colombia 1.141.748 633 141.851 12,4%

Costa Rica 51.100 168 13.286 26,0%

El Salvador 21.041 72 5.260 25,0%

Ecuador 256.370 50 50.150 19,6%

Honduras 112.492 91 31.086 27,6%

Mexico 1.964.375 176 206.681 10,5%

Paraguay 406.752 91 83.378 20,5%

Peru 1.294.364 152 239.391 18,5%

Venezuela* 1.075.987 400 390.458 36,3%

Total 18.730.387 4.365 3.059.523 16,3%

Source: World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), National Reports to CDB and data of SAI

Latin America Outlook

• Qualitative element

– The international commitment requires that, besides its creation, the protected areas should be efficiently managed

– To evaluate these aspects, EFS used Indimapa

Latin America Outlook

• Qualitative element

– 19% of the Latin American PAs evaluated are in the green level, indicative of a high degree of implementation and management

– Almost 30% are at the low management level

Indimapas Maps of 12 countries

Brazilian Outlook – 313 federal PAs

Brazilian Outlook

Implementation Level of 313 federal PAs

G Management plan 1,03

H Human resources 1,49

$ Financial resources 1,09

E Physical structures 2,29

T Territorial consolidation 1,65

F Environmental inspection 1,66

P Research 1,65

B Biodiversity monitoring 0,94

C Managing council 1,70

M Community management 1,36

U Public use 0,87

L Articulation in the PA 0,93

Indicators

Management Plan (MP)

• Latin America

– 47% (526 PAs ) do not have MP

• Brazil

– 53% (165 federal PAs) do not have MP

Biodiversity monitoring*

• Latin America

– 44% (492 PAs) do not carry out the activity

• Brazil

– 50% (156 federal PAs) do not carry out the activity

• Without systematic monitoring, the effectiveness in biodiversity conservation can’t be measured.

* continuous and systematic activity

Human resources

• Latin America

– 13% (145 PAs) do not have a single person in charge of their management

• Brazil

– 3% (9 federal PAs) do not have a person in charge

• Essential activities are not done

Territorial consolidation*

• Latin America

– 52% (580 PAs) have not completed the territorial consolidation process

• Brazil

– 47% (146 federal PAs) have problems in completing the process of territorial consolidation

• Main difficulties: illegal occupation; land regularization, among others

*property rights

Conclusion

Aichi Target 11

Quantitative element: 8/12 countries reached the terrestrial target;

Qualitative element: 19% at a high level of implementation and management;

Protected Areas are created but not effectively implemented

Conclusion

Insufficient articulation among players to the achievement of the goals of protected areas

Conditions incompatible with the needs of protected areas

Few utilization of economic, social and environmental potential of protected areas

Main Recommendations

• Mechanisms should be established to ensure the essential resources (management plan, human and financial resources, physical structures, among others) to the effective implementation and adequate management of these territories.

Main Recommendations

• To define strategies for territorial consolidation of PAs that consider the technical, legal, social and environmental issues involved in this process

• To promote local networking, both institutional and non-governmental in order to enhance environmental governance

Executive Summary Portuguese, English and Spanish

2012-2013 2014-2015

Two-page release

2012-2013 2014-2015

Thanks!

secexambiental@tcu.gov.br

hugoca@tcu.gov.br

+55 (61) 3316-5066

Discussion

• Benefits of external evaluation for managers

• Priority for action – Brazilian perspective (cost-benefit, feasibility):

– Management plans

– Territorial consolidation

Visited spots

• 65 Brazilian Protected Areas (federal level)

– 29 in 2013

– 36 in 2014

TCE-RR

Visita à APA Baixo Rio Branco - RR