Document Type: Project Design and Implementation

In September 2011, USAID funded a visit to Georgia by eight of the top wine experts in the United States (U.S.). A group of wine experts and journalists were recruited and briefed by the 2020 Development Company LLC team who has been involved with Georgian wine since 2006, shortly after the Russian embargo. This group included four Masters of Wine (MW), a wine maker and three of the top journalists, bloggers, and wine twitter experts in the U.S. The first appendix of this report provides a summary of the observations and recommendations for Georgian wine and tourism industries that were discussed by the group prior to their return to their home or summarized from the reports that each Opinion shaper (OS) provided. The remaining appendices comprise the remainder of the individual reports. The final appendix is a report provided by EPI’s staff member.

Globally, there are about 300 individuals who have achieved the distinction of MW from the UK-based Master of Wine Institute. This designation is known around the world as the most distinguished degree available to wine industry experts. There are currently 30 MWs in the U.S. According to the Masters of Wine website, the objectives of the MW program are to ―promote professional excellence and knowledge of the art, science and business of wine‖. The MW program requires the MWs to pass three parts of the examination (Theory, Practical, and Dissertation). These individuals are experts in all aspects of the wine industry from grape production to winemaking, distribution, and marketing. On the OS trip to Georgia, there were four MWs from the U.S. The exposure of Georgian wine to these leading wine experts will leverage their experience and exposure not only to the U.S. wine industry, but the extended network of the global Masters of Wine network.

The trip also included three top U.S.-based wine journalists; one traditional journalist who is also the founder of the Dallas Wine Competition and two bloggers and wine tweeters with significant following. Both of these bloggers are experts in wine tourism. Luiz Alberto owns a wine tourism agency in Italy and Diane Letulle is often a speaker at wine tourism conferences, including one in Brescia, Italy in October 2011. As an added bonus, Luiz Alberto, one of the wine bloggers has a web-based portal to sell consumer wines direct through the Internet and specifically through terminals his company has established in Italian wineries. This concept can be duplicated in Georgia and this option will be explored further in this report.

The OS are the experts on wine and their views and suggestions are going to be specific in their recommendations on wines and to wineries. The recommendations of this document can be utilized as a blueprint for future efforts in support of the Georgian wine and wine tourism industries.

The Georgian Hazelnut Growers Association (GHGA) is still a nascent group with roughly 700 members. Currently there are no dues and being a member confers limited benefits. The one exclusive benefit that current members receive is a discount at the recently established commercial drying center located in Tkaia and a discount at Anka Fair Trade’s two drying facilities, one located in Zedaetsere and the other in Kakhati.

Over the summer members of the Argentina Association of Regional Consortia for Agricultural Experimentation (AACREA) were active in Georgia. AACREA assisted GHGA to form initial member groups and provided GHGA with an organizational structure in which to grow. With AACREA’s help,
initial long-term structural development steps were taken.

As the harvest season draws to a close, GHGA has a number of ideas about how to move forward. I have spent time with the leadership and attempted to understand the organization’s goals and the range of activities they wish to undertake during the next twelve to eighteen months. Through a series of discussions, an action plan has been prepared to guide activities during the coming months.

Realization of the plan is highly dependent upon continued support from Agri-Georgia (AGG) and the donor community. Funds and resources are in limited supply at present. GHGA hopes to work with AGG and other interested members of the donor community to further define action plan initiatives and enlist further support.

STRATEGIC GOALS

GHGA subscribes to AACREA’s organizational vision and model (see “A High Level Vision and Action Plan to Develop the Hazelnut Sector, Part I: A High Level Vision for Sector Development”). Much work is still needed to develop and strengthen the organizational structure that is now forming. From discussions with GHGA leadership three key, interrelated, strategic goals emerged as critical during the next twelve to eighteen months.

• Build the organization
• Build trust, loyalty and value with and for growers
• Build revenue streams

GHGA must engage in activities that serve to build the organization. GHGA currently has nine working groups ranging in size from seven to ten members. There is an enormous amount of effort required to grow the organization from this point to the envisioned 2,000 groups of 20 members each. Therefore, the next twelve to eighteen months must lay the foundational work for growth, and build the organization. That means building membership, building groups, building the structure, as well as developing the supporting infrastructure.

To build the organization, leadership must build trust, loyalty and value with growers and the membership. Currently the trust level between growers is low. They are unfamiliar with working collaboratively, especially in an organized structure. As groups are formed, and growers begin working together, trust will evolve. Efforts taken during the next year, to year and a half, should target reinforcing GHGA’s identity and organized group structure. Further, GHGA must deliver tangible benefits to members. Activities engaged in during this critical time period must be designed to provide tangible value to the membership. Without perceived benefit, growers will invest neither time nor effort in the association.

The third key goal is to develop revenue streams for the organization. At present GHGA is wholly dependent on donor groups and Agri-Georgia (AGG). Without the continued support of these outside entities, the GHGA will cease to exist. Therefore, GHGA must take steps during the next development stage to begin building revenue to become self-sustaining. To be fully self-sustaining will take more than the 18 months detailed here, however, the process needs to start as soon as possible. Infrastructure development will serve to create tangible benefits for membership, building loyalty, while continuing to further the need for long-term sustainability of the association.

All hazelnut industry participants recognize Post-Harvest Handling as a major factor in the quality degradation of the Georgian crop. Early in the season, the yields tend to be in the low 40’s and the quality is better, but as the first blush of harvest fades, so does the quality. Earlier this year, both HEPA and GHGA expressed interest in working together to find a way to address the quality problem faced by their respective memberships. In June 2014, on behalf of the associations, EPI hired a consultant in June to examine the main drivers behind poor quality and to develop a standard for the industry (See “Quality, the “Wild, Wild West,” and the Road Ahead,” by Thomas C. Beck).

The consultant found that growers were incentivized to preserve weight at the expense of quality. Current payments based solely on weight provide a disincentive for growers to dry nuts and employ proper post harvest handling techniques. As a hazelnut dries, the nut becomes lighter. Since the grower is paid on weight, irrespective of yield, moisture content, or quality, a kilogram actually becomes less valuable to the grower as it is dried and cared for properly. On the other side of the transaction, processors recognize that well cared for hazelnut stock, properly dried, is more valuable than heavier, wet, poorly cared for, product. Yields are higher and less total tonnage is required to fill orders when nuts are cared for properly and of good quality.

Regardless, current pricing and buying behaviors encourage poor quality, providing disincentives for proper treatment of stock. The consultant recommended that to promote quality in the near term, HEPA and GHGA jointly determine, agree, support, and implement a transparent pricing system reflecting the value of quality.

On June 26, 2014, and again July 5, 2014, GHGA and HEPA leadership met to discuss how best to address the inherent quality problems and the development of such a quality pricing incentive system.

At the July 5, 2014 meeting possible premium systems, based on quality, were discussed in detail. One concept discussed, with a number of variants, was based on providing a premium over a predetermined yield and moisture metric. Another concept, with variants, was based on discounting the Turkish market price to reflect Georgian stock’s moisture content and expected yield.

Both parties expressed verbal agreement on the feasibility of such an approach at the July 5, 2014 meeting, but no formal policy was adopted at that time. The meeting participants indicated that the premium pricing system should be a matrix chart calculating the value of a kilogram of in-shell hazelnut at each percentage of moisture and each yield percentage. Such a matrix is known of by, and in circulation among, the processors.

The July 5, 2014 meeting concluded with suggestions of how such an agreement would work in principle and how to promote the agreement to the market. The group concluded the meeting, committing to come together again later in July to formalize the agreement.

The follow up meeting did not transpire. The harvest began early. Seasonal and business requirements took priority over bringing together the leadership of the two associations to finalize the discussions. However, informal conversations with personnel and leadership of both associations during August and September indicate there is still interest in reaching such a pricing agreement.

On the basis of the MICE Tourism Value Chain Assessment conducted by EPI in the first quarter of 2011, this action plan has been developed to provide guidance in developing Georgia’s MICE Tourism Value Chain.

The document reviews the existing resources, facilities and expertise available, the potential markets, Georgia’s competitive position and challenges and then provides both long term general recommendations and shorter term more concrete recommendations to develop the value chain.

The MICE Tourism consultant/practitioner summarizes that Georgia has significant potential for MICE tourism and highlights as a major activity the development of a National Convention Bureau.

The USAID/Ecuador Sustainable Forests and Coasts Project is a biodiversity conservation effort for the Ecuadoran Coast designed to benefit residents in dry forests and tropical rainforests by establishing long-term partnerships to ensure the sustainability of activities beyond the life of the project. Through these objectives, the project also expects to make a contribution in the area of adaptation to climate change and will align its strategy with that of USAID’s Global Climate Change Program.

The project´s intervention strategy will be aligned with the Government of Ecuador´s conservation and development policies. In particular, the project will work in close coordination with the Ministerio de Ambiente de Ecuador (MAE) (primarily the Subsecretariat for Marine and Coastal Management), the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAGAP) (especially the Subsecretariat for Fisheries), the Ecuadoran Navy, Plan Ecuador, the Ministry of Tourism (MINTUR) and the Ministery of Industries and Productivity (MIPRO).

This project will be implemented under a three-year base period contract (with the possibility of two additional option years). It collaborates with six main subcontractors—Rainforest Alliance (RA), Conservación y Desarrollo (C&D), EcoBiotec, Ecolex, Altrópico and the Coastal Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island — herein after referred to as partners, which will implement project activities together with Chemonics International. It is anticipated that additional partners, particularly at the local level, will join the project during the implementation period.

This work plan describes in narrative form the expected results, target goals, and planned activities. It includes a detailed timeline for implementation covering the October 2009-September 2010 (FY10) period, as well as general plans for the second and third years of project implementation (FY11 and FY12 respectively). The work plan is summarized in a chart in Annex 1, Annex 2 includes the project maps and Annex 3 includes the Organizational Chart.

Prior to determining intervention areas and activities from July through September, 2009, the project conducted a rapid assessment of the environmental (including climate change) and socioeconomic situation in the geographic regions originally selected in the proposal. The assessment specifically analyzed value chains, existing markets and potential products, and reviewed the legal and political land tenure situation in each region. The project then defined areas of intervention and strategies in conjunction with the MAE and the USAID Environmental Team. As a result, the project identified six priority geographical areas for project implementation, with five beginning in FY10. Three priority areas are in the province of Esmeraldas, one in Manabí, and two in Guayas.

The project analyzed main threats and opportunities in each intervention area to determine relevant intervention strategies and activities. The work plan is based on the results framework, which includes three Project Intermediate Results (PIRs) and their respective Key Results Areas (KRAs). The narrative of the work plan details the specific goals and activities for each KRA.

The USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts project integrates an adaptive management concept to its overall strategy and activities, including design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn, ultimately leading to adjustments to our implementation strategy if needed.

In October 2009, USAID approved a three-year work plan for the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts project, which contained a detailed description of the activities and key actions planned for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) and a general overview of the activities for FY11 and FY12. The present detailed work plan for FY11 presents specific strategies, activities and key actions for implementation from October 2010 to September 2011.

In FY11, the Project will continue to consolidate its FY10 initiatives in the same geographic areas the Project prioritized in FY10 together with the Ministry of the Environment (MAE) and the USAID Environmental Team, as follows:

1. Gran Reserva Chachi and its buffer zone
2. Reserva Marina (RM) Galera San Francisco and related watersheds
3. Machalilla National Park (PNM for its Spanish Acronym) and the Ayampe River watershed
4. Reserva de Producción Faunística (RPF) Manglares el Salado
5. Reserva Ecológica (RE) Manglares Churute, its buffer zone and mangrove concessions

The Project´s implementation strategy remains focused on providing the technical assistance needed to reduce threats to biodiversity conservation in these priority areas, and particularly in protected areas. In the FY11 work plan these threats, and the strategies and activities designed to minimize them, are tailored o the project´s results framework and presented in alignment with the Project´s Intermediate Results (PIRs).

The project developed the FY11 Work Plan using a participatory approach, gathering input on needs and prioritizes thru strategic consultations with a wide range of stakeholders in each geographic area. The strategy building sessions focused on how to best promote conservation of areas critical to biodiversity conservation and reduce the major threats in each area. Stakeholders consulted included local government authorities, protected area managers, community members, NGOs and MAE authorities, among others. Key to developing the work plan was the close partnership the Project had developed with the MAE in FY10. This close working relationship is in part a result of the project´s support for activities related to the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP for its Spanish acronym) and technical assistance for the government´s programs and policies for biodiversity management. In addition, the Project´s close working relationships with parochial, municipal and provincial governments in each of the target areas facilitated work plan development and will continue to facilitate Project implementation. The Project expects to continue maintaining continuity in its partnership with the MAE and local governments, even during changes in leadership; however, this is always a critical factor in implementation.

The long-term sustainability of these efforts is being ensured by leveraging funds and creating partnerships with local, regional and international organizations and leveraging funds from public/private sources.

In response to PIR 1, In FY11, the Project will focus on implementing activities to achieve the result “Improve biodiversity conservation in critical habitats.” Strategies include minimizing the loss and/or alteration of those habitats (through improved management and rehabilitation of terrestrial and coastal marine habitats and public policy advocacy). A second strategy is to develop climate change adaptation measures, including activities to reduce risk factors (through establishing and implementing response and adaptation measures, reducing greenhouse gases and conserving carbon sink).

In response to PIR 2, the Project will improve local livelihoods and create economic alternatives by developing and promoting market based economic alternatives and economic incentives for conserving critical habitats.

Lastly, in response to PIR 3, the Project will continue to support partnerships for biodiversity conservation by promoting platforms to coordinate and lead conservation initiatives. This will ensure the continuity of biodiversity conservation in the medium and long term. The strategy consists of providing technical support to build local capacity in key stakeholders (particularly the MAE and local governments) by strengthening management of protected areas and improving inter-institutional communication and coordination. This will be accomplished by working through existing coalitions and partnerships and/or creating new ones while leveraging financial resources.

In FY11 the Project will continue complying with USAID environmental regulations through following procedures established in the Fichas de Revisión Ambiental.

In October 2009, USAID approved a three-year work plan for the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts project, which contained a detailed description of the activities and key actions planned for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) and a general overview of the activities for FY11 and FY12. Subsequently USAID executed the first option year, which goes through June 15, 2013. The present detailed work plan presents specific strategies, activities and key actions for implementation from October 2012 through September 2013, which corresponds to FY13, assuming that USAID will execute the project´s second option year and the project period of performance will extend through June 2014.

In FY13, the Project will continue to consolidate its initiatives from previous years, together with the Ministry of the Environment (MAE) and USAID Ecuador. Project technical assistance will continue to focus on the following four geographic areas from previous years, which were selected based on their importance for biodiversity:

1. Gran Reserva Chachi and its buffer zone
2. Reserva Marina (RM) Galera San Francisco and related watersheds
3. Parque Nacional Machalilla (PNM) and the Ayampe River watershed
4. Gulf of Guayaquil (including the Reserva Ecológica Manglares Churute, the Reserva de Producción de Fauna Manglares El Salado and mangrove concessions) In addition, activities will continue in the following two important areas that were added in FY12:
5. Bosque Protector (BP) Chongón Colonche: the mountain range that extends 95km east to west inland from the coast. Chongón Colonche was declared a protection forest in 1994.
6. Guayas Province, with a climate change strategy to support the provincial government.

The project developed this work plan using a participatory approach, gathering information on needs and priorities through strategic consultations with a wide range of stakeholders in each geographic area. Stakeholders consulted included local government authorities, MAE and MAGAP authorities, USAID, and NGOs, among others.

Key to developing this work plan was the close partnership the Project has developed with the MAE from the outset. The Project has worked with MAE authorities from the provincial offices for Manabí, Esmeraldas, Guayas, and Santa Elena, as well as from the Sub-secretariats for Coastal and Marine Management and Natural Patrimony, and protected area directors from the Galera San Francisco Marine Reserve, Machalilla National Park, Churute Mangroves Ecological Reserve, and El Salado Mangroves Wildlife Production Reserve. To this end and since the project´s inception, the Project has continuously supported the MAE´s conservation activities, particularly the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP for its Spanish acronym) and technical assistance for the government’s programs and policies for protected area management.

The Project’s implementation strategy is based on providing the technical assistance needed to reduce threats to biodiversity conservation in these priority areas, and particularly in protected areas. Just as in past years, in FY13, these threats, and the strategies designed to minimize them, are presented in alignment with the Project’s Intermediate Results (PIRs)

In response to PIR 1 (improve biodiversity conservation in critical habitats), in FY13, the Project will implement activities under the strategy for minimizing the loss and/or alteration of habitats, including remnants of high biodiversity areas, through improved management and rehabilitation of critical terrestrial and coastal marine areas (especially in habitats located in government protected areas), public policy advocacy, and climate change adaptation measures.

In response to PIR 2 (improved local livelihoods), the project’s principal mandate is biodiversity conservation in critical coastal marine areas. The ecosystems in these areas are fragile and constantly threatened by expanding agricultural and livestock frontiers. The project is careful not to promote economic activities that, while they might boost incomes in the short term, contribute to the destruction of the resource base in the medium and long terms. From this standpoint, the project will prioritize activities that ensure the sustainable use of the resource base for commodities in the value chain. In FY13 the project aims at consolidating three or four value chains: a) red crabs, whose value chain moves $64 million a year and involves over 2200 crabbers, by providing mechanisms for sustainable collection and for protecting mangroves; b) improved forestry harvesting, as an alternative for reducing illegal logging in the Ayampe River watershed; c) tagua harvesting and sales, which is the main non-timber forest product and primary source of income in the rainforest section of the Chongón Colonche Protected Forest and the Ayampe River Watershed; and d) cacao production and sales with Ecocacao in Galera San Francisco.

The main strategy in response to PIR 3 (partnerships formed for ongoing support for biodiversity conservation) will center on strengthening the MAE, local governments, grassroots organizations (such as Ecocacao), and other institutions (such as the National Fishery Institute) to play a leadership role in conservation coalitions promoted by the Project, and establishing/improving relations with other donors and USAID projects with a view to ensuring synergies and maximizing impacts.

Lastly, as requested by the MAE, the project will continue providing technical inputs for authorities to develop policies on harvesting, conserving and regulating natural resources, such as tagua, crabs, wood, and others related to climate change.

In FY13, the Project will continue to adhere to USAID’s environmental regulations through the procedures set out in the Environmental Review Worksheets.

In October 2009, USAID approved a three-year work plan for the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts project, which contained a detailed description of the activities and key actions planned for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) and a general overview of the activities for FY11 and FY12. The present detailed work plan for FY12 presents specific strategies, activities and key actions for implementation in FY12.

In FY12, the Project will continue to consolidate its initiatives from previous years, together with the Ministry of the Environment (MAE) and USAID Ecuador. Project technical assistance will continue to focus on the following four geographic areas from previous years, which were prioritized based on their importance for biodiversity:

1. Gran Reserva Chachi and its buffer zone
2. Reserva Marina (RM) Galera San Francisco and related watersheds
3. Parque Nacional Machalilla (PNM) and the Ayampe River watershed
4. Gulf of Guayaquil (including the Reserva Ecológica Manglares Churute, the Reserva de Producción de Fauna Manglares El Salado and mangrove conessions) In addition, this year the Project plans to include the following:
5. Bosque Protector (BP) Chongón Colonche: the mountain range that extends 95km east to west inland from the coast. Chongón Colonche was declared a protection forest in 1994.
6. Guayas Province, with a climate change strategy to support the provincial government.

The project developed this work plan using a participatory approach, gathering information on needs and priorities through strategic consultations with a wide range of stakeholders in each geographic area. Stakeholders consulted included local government authorities, MAE and MAGAP authorities, USAID, protected area managers, community members, and NGOs, among others.

Key to developing this work plan was the close partnership the Project has developed with the MAE from the outset. This close relationship is due, in part to the project’s ongoing support for the MAE’s conservation efforts, particularly the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP for its Spanish acronym) and technical assistance for the government’s programs and policies.

The Project’s implementation strategy is based on providing the technical assistance needed to reduce threats to biodiversity conservation in these priority areas, and particularly in protected areas. Just as in past years, in FY12, these threats, and the strategies designed to minimize them, are presented in alignment with the Project’s Intermediate Results (PIRs)

In response to PIR 1 (improve biodiversity conservation in critical habitats), in FY12, the Project will implement activities under the strategy for minimizing the loss and/or alteration of habitats, including remnants of high biodiversity areas, through improved management and rehabilitation of critical terrestrial and coastal marine areas (especially in habitats located in government protected areas), public policy advocacy, and climate change adaptation measures.

In response to PIR 2 (improve local livelihoods), the project’s principal mandate is biodiversity conservation in critical coastal marine areas. The ecosystems in these areas are fragile and constantly threatened by expanding agricultural and livestock frontiers. The project has to be careful not to promote economic activities that, while they might boost incomes in the short term, contribute to the destruction of the resource base in the medium and long terms. From this standpoint, the project will prioritize activities that ensure the sustainable use of the resource base for commodities in the value chain. Some examples of this are monitoring red crab stocks to ensure their sustainable harvesting, and surveillance and control for the protection of mangroves, which are the resource base for the red crab value chain that generates some USD $65 million for over 4,000 families. Another example is improving incomes through the application of improved forest resource extraction methods, the application of best practices in natural resource management, and access to economic incentives such as Socio Bosque.

The main strategy in response to PIR 3 (partnerships formed for ongoing support for biodiversity conservation) will center on empowering the MAE, local governments, grassroots organizations (such as FECCHE), and other institutions (such as the National Institute of Fisheries) to play a leadership role in conservation coalitions promoted by the Project and establishing/improving relations with other donors and USAID projects with a view to ensuring complementarity of efforts and maximizing impacts. In order to improve an environment conducive to biodiversity conservation and the proper management of natural resources, the Project will continue to provide technical assistance on environmental policy to the MAE, following up on its support for the inclusion of the draft Forestry Law in the Environmental Code, regulatory modifications of the Biodiversity Chapter [Libro de Biodiversidad], and the reworking of key chapters on Climate Change and Environmental Services, including the rationales for them. One of these develops Article 74 of the Constitution interpreting ownership [apropriación] of environmental services, without which the whole issue of environmental services would be very difficult to set up and manage and the other is on deforestation and degradation that has been avoided, as a minimum basis for the entire REDD+ system currently being developed.

In FY12, the Project will continue to adhere to USAID’s environmental regulations through the procedures set out in the Environmental Review Worksheets and dictated by the approved Environmental Assessment. It will also submit a revised Performance Monitoring Plan by December 30th, 2011 in accordance with revisions mandated by Modification 04 of the Task Order and to include targets for FY13.

The Strategic Forestry Plan was prepared in response to a request by the USAID/Ecuador Environmental Team to further define project-specific opportunities for forestry activities under the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts project. The Plan is consistent with the Project´s approved annual work plan and identifies opportunities that could be considered within the broader Project context depending on the availability of financial resources.

A group of Forestry Specialists (Chief of Party, Claudio Saito, Chemonics Forestry Expert John Nittler, and the Project´s Forestry and Non-Timber Product Specialist from subcontractor Rainforest Alliance, Christian Teran) provided information for the Plan following a series of site visits from October 25 to 31, 2009 and from January 18 to 22, 2010. In order to prepare the plan site visits and meetings took place in Quito, Esmeraldas, the Gran Reserva (GR) Chachi (including visits to the Pinchot Institute’s field activities), coastal watersheds corresponding to the Reserva Marina (RM) Galera San Francisco, and the Ayampe River watershed. The visits aimed at meeting with key forestry sector stakeholders to gather insights, experiences, and lessons learned for developing the plan. Mr. Nittler and Mr. Terán prepared a trip report and presented findings to the USAID Environmental team after Deputy Chief of Party, Arnaldo Rodríguez, consolidated and finalized the Strategic Forestry Plan.

Background

The overall goal of the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts Project is biodiversity conservation and is therefore also the starting point and overall objective of the Strategic Forestry Plan. During start up, the Project, together with USAID and the Ministry of Environment (MAE) selected six geographic work areas for Project activities based upon their importance to biodiversity conservation. These areas contain varying levels of forest. Opportunities exist for promoting sustainable forestry, protection, and restoration via activities that can help to minimize threats to deforestation and increase biodiversity conservation. To this end, in preparation of the Strategic Forestry Plan, the forestry specialized evaluated the forestry sector in each site and selected three sites for developing forestry sector strategies, as detailed below.

The coastal region of Ecuador is made up of many different ecosystems and micro-habitats, with the high levels of biodiversity, but the remaining forest continues to be under tremendous threat of land conversion for agriculture expansion, cattle production, and over-exploitation of economically-valuable timber species.

The Government of Ecuador (GOE) has committed to conserve forests and biodiversity and has launched several programs aimed at conserving forests. The most important (for the project’s objectives) is Programa Socio Bosque, which uses a payment for conservation framework. Others include ProForestal, which was created to promote reforestation, and the newly developed mechanism called Socio Manejo that contributes to the conservation and adequate management of forest resources. These efforts provide a framework for the GOE on environmental and forest policy. Unfortunately, the ongoing modes operandi for extracting wood from natural forests potentially threatens the gains that could be made through such innovative programs and international positions.

USAID lessons learned in other regions (Reserva de la Biosfera Maya and Bolivia) have shown that forest conservation is far more efficient when a sustainable use is allowed, wherein the human groups can obtain direct benefits from the forest (like timber or mangrove concessions), hence fostering social mechanism of control, than strict conservation schemes, based on external control systems like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Certification has been promoted to enhance forest management in countries where governance capacities are insufficient to adequately manage natural resources and enforce pertinent regulations, given that certification relies largely on non-governmental organizations and private businesses. In Ecuador, only 21,300 ha (less than 0.2% of forests) 3 were FSC certified under two existing permits (Ebeling y Yasué, 2008), and there were also no further Chain of Custody certificates among processing companies.

Strategic Forestry Plan Summary

The Plan defines forestry and conservation activities in the following three project areas selected for forestry activities: (1) GR Chachi; (2) Galera, Bunche and San Francisco River watersheds (all related to the RM Galera San Francisco) in the province of Esmeraldas; and the (3) Ayampe River watershed in the province of Manabí. These three areas (out of the six project areas) were selected based on the specific types and levels of remaining forests in each area, and the importance of those forests for biodiversity conservation.

The Plan summarizes the following four main causes limiting forest management in Ecuador that foster deforestation:

1. Fragmented ownership pattern of forest resources, a situation that causes value chains to be complex, opportunistic and hard to control, since logging in small lands is unpredictable. This factor also limits the access of timber to high-value end markets because there is no regular flow of timber, transportation costs are high, and there is a lack of technical sawing. This situation provides opportunities for middle-men living in or around the forested areas, who buy illegal wood from small land owners.
2. Lack of control and illegal markets. There is no effective enforcement of forestry laws in Ecuador. The National Forestry Agency is severely underfunded. As mentioned before, forest conservation is far more efficient when a sustainable use is allowed, than strict external control systems.
3. Unclear land tenure: lack of ownership, unclear land borders, and land tenure within protected areas or private land tenure within Indigenous lands all favors deforestation: land owners and squatters alike systematically cut forested areas in order to prove ownership while limiting access to Programa Socio Bosque and ProForestal.
4. Lack of private or community ownership on underground resources: even setting aside a natural forest for conservation and management is no guarantee to its preservation, because rights to underground resources (oil and minerals) belong to the GOE, which has the authority to concession to third parties, reducing the incentives for forest conservation.

In developing the Project´s Strategic Forestry Plan there are two reasons to keep the importance of biodiversity conservation at the forefront. First, and foremost, sustainable forest management, protection, and restoration activities will help to reduce threats on critical ecosystems. Second, working with the stakeholders in the selected areas will allow for sustainable changes in attitudes related to natural resource management. To achieve sustainable use of Ecuador’s forests, it is crucial that the private sector be involved with value chain development in areas conducive to natural forest management, plantations, and agro-forestry systems. The overarching strategy for commercial forestry activities in the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts Project will be based upon engaging the private sector and serving as an honest broker between the private sector and resource holders.

Unlike many previous efforts, the Project’s direct role in implementing commercial forestry will be limited to gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information; building awareness; identifying public and private partnerships (PPP) opportunities along value chains; and providing strategic technical assistance and training inputs to overcome major obstacles. Project funding will not be used directly to produce forest management plans, plant trees with commercial value, or other direct-investment interventions. To confront these challenges the USAID Sustainable Forests and Coasts project will apply the principles of adaptive management in order to adapt and learn, and ultimately make adjustments to its implementation strategy if needed.

The Project´s Strategic Forestry Plan presents five strategic pillars for forest management and conservation designed to reduce threats to biodiversity and improve the overall enabling environment of sustainable forestry while recognizing that some activities may go beyond the Project´s original objectives and resources. The five strategic pillars are as follows:

• Strategy 1: Conserve natural forests with high importance to biodiversity, mainly within the GR Chachi, the Ayampe River watershed and the remnants of natural forest in the coastal watersheds of the RM Galera San Francisco.
• Strategy 2: Strengthen forestry value chains in natural production forests, with the area of the highest potential being the GR Chachi and perhaps small pockets in the Ayampe River Watershed.
• Strategy 3: Restore degraded forests to foster biodiversity conservation, in the coastal watersheds related to the RM Galera San Francisco, which is the area with the largest extent of degraded forest/lands, and much of the upper reaches of the Ayampe River watershed.
• Strategy 4: Develop Plantations and Agro-forestry Schemes. Areas where there is the most potential and need for these interventions are in the RM Galera San Francisco watersheds and the Ayampe River watershed.
• Strategy 5: Forestry policy

Overall activities include the development of Environmental Management Plans and the implementation of corresponding activities; land titling, access to Socio Bosque and Proforestal, reforestation of native species, strengthening of non-timber forest product (NTFP) value chains (including tagua nuts, kapok and bamboo), exploring opportunities for commercial plantations (replacing pasture or monocultures), using native species like balsa (Ochroma piramydale), laurel (Cordia allidora), and amarillo (Centrolobium sp.); generating alliances for conservation and promoting social-based systems for control, surveillance and monitoring. Additional potential activities include technical support to the GOE (particularly to the MAE and Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries –MAGAP), at the policy level.

Egypt has two registration systems: Sigueal el-shaksi (sometimes called the “deeds” system), and Sigueal el-ainee (sometimes called the “title” system). Sigueal elshaksi (deeds) is the older of the two and operates in urban areas. Sigueal el-ainee (title) was introduced in 1964 with the intent of converting the entire country to a registration-of-title-type system but it has been implemented only in rural areas.

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has made a policy commitment to transform its obsolete and incomplete registry that uses a Personal (Grantor-Grantee) Index and handwritten Deeds of Title to prove ownership into a modern civil law registry, encompassing all residential and commercial property and providing a unique Parcel Identification Number (PIN) for every parcel and unit. This intended transformation will substantially increase certainty of ownership and provide an essential basis for collateralizing real estate finance.

The Egyptian Financial Service (EFS) Project is assisting with the implementation of Sigueal el-ainee in urban areas. More specifically, this task requires the redesign of business processes under Law 142/1964, development of streamlined and automated processes and implementation of Sigueal el-ainee in two selected urban areas. The two areas selected are Nasr City and 6 October City. Smaller cadastral zones within these two areas that will provide for approximately 30,000 real estate properties or objects (apartments, villas, etc.) to be surveyed have not been determined to date.

The Purpose of the Manual

This Manual will eventually present in a comprehensive manner the full range of field operation activities, systems, processes and procedures as a guide for implementers of Sigueal el-ainee in established urban areas.

Version One of the Manual is a road map for discussion and agreement on implementing the Preparatory Phase for first registration under Sigueal el ainee. As important parameter decisions are agreed between EFS and the process owners, the Manual will become more detailed and explanatory of the steps required to reach the stage of the issue of Sahayfa Akariya to real estate owners.

As the Manual progresses through various iterations, it will be used for training field data collection teams in the preparatory phase and introduction of Sigueal el ainee in areas specifically designated by a Ministerial Decree.

Eventually, the pilot will establish a base of experience that will more confidently form a version of the Field Operation Manual that can be used as the foundation for upscaling Sigueal el ainee in Cairo.

The Manual is currently in one volume but will likely eventually become two volumes: Volume I will outline the processes and the procedures in Field Operations, while Volume II will provide samples of the different forms used for data collection and documents required to support the property registration processes and procedures.

The Manual will need to be translated to Arabic and all training courses based on the Manual delivered by Arabic-speaking staff.