Switch Language:

Home › List of Suitable Proposals › MDGF-1740: Fortalecimiento de la Gobernabilidad Ambiental ante los riesgos climáticos en Guatemala

MDGF-1740: Strengthening Environmental Governance in the face of Climate Risks in Guatemala

PLEASE NOTE THIS CONCEPT NOTE IS THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION TO THE FUND. IN MANY CASES INDICATIVE BUDGET AMOUNTS APPROVED BY THE STEERING COMMITTEE ARE CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN THAT REQUESTED AND INDICATED HERE-IN. FINAL BUDGET AMOUNTS WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE AFTER APPROVAL OF THE FINALIZED DETAILED JOINT PROGRAMME DOCUMENT.
Fri, 2007/06/08 - 3:50pm — catalina.sobera...
Fri, 2007/06/08 - 4:36pm
Thu, 2007/06/14 - 11:32am
catalina.soberanis@undp.org
English  (current), Spanish 

ID: MDGF-1740

Environment and climate change
Round 1
(26/04/2007 - 31/12/2009)
Guatemala
$4,254,450
36 Months
Strengthening Environmental Governance in the face of Climate Risks in Guatemala

Attached Documents:

Top

A. Applicant Information

Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Lower Middle Income Country
  • Medium HDI, according to UNDP's 2006 Human Development Report
  • Rene Mauricio Valdes
  • rene.mauricio.valdes@undp.org
  • Carmen Aida Gonzalez
  • carmen.gonzalez@undp.org.gt
  • Ana Lucia Orozco
  • UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
  • Oficial de Ambiente y Energia
  • ana.orozco@undp.org
  • Julian Duarte
  • UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund
  • Oficial de Monitoreo y Evaluación
  • jduarte@unicef.org
  • UNDP - United Nations Development Programme ($2,171,030)
  • UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund ($900,000)
  • FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ($1,183,420)
Top

B. Concept Note

The purpose of the Joint Programme is to develop environmental governance mechanisms to strengthen the capacity for adaptation to climate change in Guatemala, especially for the most vulnerable and poorest of the population. To achieve this, the Programme intends to strengthen those mechanisms which allow for the proper administration of environmental interests and that foster adaptability to climate changes at a) at the national level, through interinstitutional coordination and strategical implementation of three relevant national policies (social, environmental and water resources), b) at subnational level, focusing primarily on the strengthening of financial and administrative environmental management, specifically of the drought corridor of Guatemala, and c) at the local level, through pilot project interventions in communities and municipalities.

Guatemala is the most northern country on the Central American isthmus, and has been identified as a region which is highly vulnerable to climate variability and change. This vulnerability is exacerbated by conditions of poverty and by weak environmental management. These problems were seen clearly during recent catastrophic events related to the drought in the eastern part of the country, such as the episode of severe famine in the Ch’ort’i community in the municipalities of Jocotán and Camotán in 2001. Guatemala also suffers severe socioeconomic and environmental damage as a result of inundations caused by hurricanes or storms. A recent example was the situation following Tropical Storm Stan in 2005, which precipitated landslides and floods in the western part of the country with economical losses ascending up to US$50,000,000. The most vulnerable populations for both inundations (mostly Western Guatemala) and drought (Eastern Guatemala) in the Country are poor and indigenous. Especially women and children will suffer most from effects of drought and climate change, which will alter the quality and productivity of the natural resources and the ecosystems (MDG 7). Of the total national territory, 48% is at “high risk” from desertification and drought. This risk is latent in the central, eastern and Atlantic regions of the country. In those areas, 41% of the population is still living on less than US $1 per day, and the poor populations in particular are directly dependent on the use of natural ecosystems for their supplies of water, food and energy (consumption of firewood). See attachment for MDG indicators 26, 30 and 31. It is similarly important to stress that Guatemala has the highest levels of social inequality in Latin America (with the exception of Brazil). Faced with this situation, the challenge is to expand public and private investment to guarantee sustainability of critical environmental services provided by ecosystems (such as food, water, protection of the soil, disease control and protection against natural events). It is essential that the strengthening of environmental financial mechanisms through public-private alliances, are taken into account in poverty reduction efforts, in achieving the Millennium Development Goals and in strengthening the capacity for adapting to imminent climate change. The current obstacles to achieving the integration of climate risk considerations and to strengthening weak environmental and territorial management are: a) the basic needs of rural communities who depend on natural resources have not been met, b) there is weak coordination and inter-sectoral effectiveness as regards the environment, c) the limited financial resources of the governing bodies, d) the legal frameworks and institutional mandates are confusing and lack instruments for implementation, and e) there are no mechanisms which financially promote the added value of sustainable use of the natural resources. In order to deal with, and to seek opportunities for removing these barriers, the Joint Programme of Guatemala intends to articulate the most relevant social and environmental policies in order to integrate the issue of climate risk and to provide a framework of mechanisms for achieving adaptability: a) Policy for Fighting Poverty, Social Inclusion and Multiculturalism, b) National Policy of Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, and c) National Policy for Integrated Management of Water Resources.. The UNS in Guatemala has had experience in responding to emergency situations such as Hurricane Mitch in 1997, the Severe Famine in Jocotán-Camotán in 2001 and recently with Tropical Storm Stan in 2005. The lessons which were learned from these experiences illustrate the UNS’ capacity for mobilizing specialized human resources and for identifying technologies and helping in their transference. It also illustrates that the UNS often provides far more consistent support than the government. This provides more continuity in terms of national expertise (very few government officials experienced these three events, while, on the other hand, various UNS officials participated in the response to them). The Programme can also help the UNS in Guatemala by helping it improve the coordination of the development of more comprehensive efforts and helping UNS avoid duplication of efforts and viewpoints with government entities. The Joint Programme will work in this way to achieve two of the UNDAF expected outcomes: Outcome 1: Poverty will be reduced through sustainable, inclusive and equitable economic growth. Outcome 4: Increase in coverage, access and quality of basic social services, with special attention being paid to those persons at greatest disadvantage. It is hoped the intervention as a whole will contribute to achieving MDG 7 regarding Environmental Sustainability, achieving the effectiveness of conservation and sustainability of ecosystem services. It is also hoped that it will contribute to achieving other MDGs by connecting the transversal issue of water resource management.

1. Institutionalization of national mechanisms which facilitate coordination and implementation in the carrying out of national policies relevant to climate risk and adaptation. At the national level, the Joint Programme anticipates improving institutional coordination among the main public bodies related to environmental management and development planning. The purpose will be to help in the implementation of the following Policies: a) Policy for Fighting Poverty, Social Inclusion and Multiculturalism, b) National Policy of Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, and c) National Policy for Integrated Management of Water Resources. The outcomes sought for the institutionalization of coordination mechanisms are: 1.1 That there exist defined coordination mechanisms for the implementation of the three policies. 1.2 That institutional, sectoral and territorial jurisdictions regarding climate risk will have been clarified and agreed upon. 1.3 That the successful experiences in the country in terms of adaptation to climate vulnerability will have been systematized. 1.4 A decentralized implementation strategy will have been defined for policies related to poverty, the environment and integrated management of water resources (at the joint community of municipalities and municipal levels), through a joint action and investment plan of “demonstration interventions.” 1.5. Models of administrative and financial management have been defined and approved which achieve long term sustainability of resource management and of the provision of basic services. 2. Institutionalization of financial and administrative mechanisms in order to improve environmental management, with special focus on water resource management and environmental services. This will occur at a subnational level, articulating ecosystemic approach and watershed management with sociopolitical organizational structures. The expected outcomes at the subnational level for implementation of the policies are: 2.1 Models of environmental management will have been approved and promoted for adaptability to climate change. 2.2 Administrative Systems will have been designed at the level of joint community of municipalities and promoted which provide for democratic and participatory management of water resources. 2.3 Potential Payment for Environmental Services mechanisms will have been identified and negotiated with local communities and involved actors (such as private sector) for implementation at the level of joint community of municipalities. 2.4 Payment systems for basic public services in water and sanitation (respecting the concept of the right to access to water, at the minimum amount of 30 liters/day for the poorest) will have been defined and negotiated with the local communities and involved actors. 3. Development of pilot projects that demonstrate the environmental management of water resources at the level of the joint community of municipalities and of municipalities for the implementation of, and feedback concerning, policies at that level. The expected results at the local level are: 3.1 Pilot projects for the reduction of climate risk will have been undertaken in the communities and local governments. 3.2 The experiences of the demonstration interventions will have been systematized, so that strengths and weaknesses in the process will have been identified, which will then be used for the preliminary evaluation of the contents of the three national policies. 3.3 Environmental management monitoring systems will have been established at the municipal and local levels. 3.4 Public/private organizations and institutions which manage the provision of environmental services will have been established.

For Outcome 1, the entities responsible for supporting the government will be: UNDP, FAO and UNICEF, jointly with SEGEPLAN (Department of Planning and Programming), MARN (Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources), MSPAS (Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance), municipalities and community organizations. UNDP, UNICEF and FAO will specify, along with government entities, communities and municipalities, coordination mechanisms for carrying out the proper implementation of the three national policies. For Outcome 2, the responsible entity will be UNDP, the joint community of municipalities and the local decentralized government entities. At the UNS level, UNDP will collaborate with FAO and UNICEF, in association with, and with the support of, SEGEPLAN, via the process of Strategic Territorial Planning (PET), MARN, MSPAS and the municipalities. The priority community actions to be developed at that level will be specified and mutually agreed by the subnational entities, MSPAS and the municipalities. For Outcome 3, the responsible support entities will be UNDP, UNICEF and FAO. In order to strengthen municipal environmental management, UNDP, UNICEF and FAO will have MARN, the communities and municipalities as their principal associates. UNDP, UNICEF, FAO and the associated government entities will implement actions for increasing the knowledge and skills of municipal officials and community leaders. Areas of concern will include the integration and operation of commissions for the comprehensive management of ecosystems at the village and hamlet level, as well as awareness-raising in and organization of the beneficiary population. The systematization of experiences and areas for coordination will guarantee the inclusion of other similar initiatives which will be, or have been, developed at the municipal, subnational and national levels. For example, there is a project being carried out with a joint community of municipalities which is trying to systematize and to uncover the obstacles that impede the governance of the water resources (Dutch Cooperation). Within the framework of the established lines of the above-mentioned three policies, the Joint Programme recognizes water resources management as critical to improving the adaptability to climate change in the long term, especially in terms of managing droughts. Owing to the nature of its production and management, water resource management involves: territorial planning, sustainable management, productive use and social use (which, when done well, can improve health conditions, especially in children). Water resources also involve sanitation and community and neighborhood organization (providing the setting for empowerment and for participation in the management of services for the poorest populations). It also entails private participation in the provision of services, tertiary services and the development of financial and administrative systems for their management, all of which provide an arena for creating local capabilities.

The principal indicators for evaluating and monitoring the expected outcomes of the programme will be the following: Outcome 1: • A Joint Strategy of Institutional Coordination for carrying out water and sanitation policies for climate change adaptation, with an emphasis on implementation at the municipal level. • # of documented successful experiences that define pilot interventions. • Approval of local action and investment plans for the management of water resources and for adaptation to climate change for poor rural populations, with an emphasis on municipal management. • # of clearly defined coordination mechanisms for implementing the three policies at the national, subnational and municipal levels. • Monitoring and information systems functioning and accessible to users. Outcome 2: • # of financial mechanisms which achieve long term sustainability of resource management and provision of basic environmental services established. • # of environmental management programmes and projects approved and promoted at the subnational, municipal and local levels. • # of monitoring systems of environmental management established at the municipal and local levels. • # of territorial interventions formulated and approved within the framework of the three policies. • # of local monitoring systems established. Outcome 3: • # of pilot projects carried out at the subnational, municipal and local levels. • # of documented and systematized successful experiences that can be replicated on a national scale. • # of public/private organizations and institutions which are managing environmental service provision. • % of rural population in the selected municipalities with reliable water supply • % of rural population in the selected municipalities with reliable sanitation systems. • # of documented pilot projects • # of systematized pilot experiences. The majority of the data and statistics for monitoring key indicators are collected frequently by MSPAS, MARN, INFOM (Municipal Development Institute) and the municipalities. If necessary, opinion surveys will be conducted among the programme’s beneficiaries. The programme will also identify indicators for the level of products and activities. For each indicator the following will be established: a baseline, targets for 2011, a mechanism for validation and a percentage figure for expected annual progress and progress achieved during the project cycle as a whole. . Supervision and evaluation activities will be coordinated between the United Nations System in Guatemala and associates, through a specific monitoring plan. It is anticipated that a mid-term evaluation will be carried out in conjunction with MARN, MSPAS and INFOM, in order to evaluate programmatic and financial progress. The results of the mid-term evaluation will be used to make programmatic, organizational and financial adjustments in the different activities. SEGEPLAN, MARN, MSPAS and INFOM, in conjunction with the UNS, will organize six-monthly and annual meetings in order to review programmatic and financial progress. Municipal, departmental and national information systems (MSPAS, MARN and INFOM) will be strengthened in the geographical area of the programme in order to facilitate the processing and analysis of data. The basis of the monitoring and evaluation will be the Annual Joint Work Plans that will be defined with the implementing partners. A plan of field visits will be established in order to review progress at the level of the beneficiaries.

The Country Team in Guatemala is comprised of ten agencies with permanent representation in the country: FAO, PAHO/WHO, WFP, UNFPA, UNDP, UNESCO, UNOPS, UNICEF, UNV, UNAIDS and OHCHR. In addition, the Country Team supports the projects of UNEP, ILO, OCHA and UNIFEM. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are other members of the Country Team. The Country Team will familiarize itself with, analyze and approve the annual work plans. A unit will be created within the UNS with representation from FAO, UNDP and UNICEF for the implementation, follow-up and evaluation of the programme. Although the direct participants in the implementation of this programme are the above-mentioned agencies, the possibility is not excluded that other agencies, funds and programmes could also collaborate in its implementation. The local implementation partners will be SEGEPLAN, MARN, MSPAS, INFOM, the municipalities and, in some cases, community-based organizations from civil society in those areas where the programme is being implemented. The United Nations System had a leading role two years ago in responding to national emergency events related to Tropical Storm Stan (2005). On that occasion, the UNS had the capacity to respond immediately by reassigning resources from regular programs and directing them to dealing with the emergency. The UNS collected US $30 million through the Flash Appeal. The funding was broken down as follows: 14 WFP, 5 UNICEF, 3 PAHO and 7 UNDP (4 for shelters and 3 for logistic support, coordination and others) and 1 UNFPA. Among the primary lessons learned from this experience were: a) the value of utilizing and complementing the capabilities of the UNS agencies by establishing permanent ties with the government and with other actors such as NGOs, b) the lack of assignment of institutional and sectoral roles created confusion and a functional overlap in the central as well as local arena c) supporting the development of an information system that focuses on disaster risk management, would create a platform for centralizing and sharing information for timely and successful decision-making, d) the need to create strategies for raising awareness of the issue of disaster risk and for laying the foundations for incorporating this issue into the reconstruction, rehabilitation and development processes. Gender and Multicultural issues should also be incorporated into this strategy, e) the need to develop strategies which add-on to the particular dynamics of the local organizational system, respecting local models of development, leadership and livelihoods The governance of the Joint Programme will be ensured through the creation of an Interagency Commission, made up of FAO, UNDP and UNICEF. The commission will ideally be composed of the deputies of the responsible agencies. Specific meetings will be held on a regular basis in order to review the programme’s progress, with the participation of implementing government entities. The Office of the Resident Coordinator will be in charge of the overall supervision of the programme through regular meetings with the Interagency Commission.

Top

C. MDG-Related Indicators

  • Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
  • 26. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area
  • 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural
  • 31. Proportion of population with access to improved sanitation, urban and rural
Top

D. Formulation Advance

Yes
$20,000
UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
Top

E. Resident Coordinator's Undertakings

  • The Concept Note has been reviewed by the national government and the UN Country Team.
  • If approved by the MDG-F Steering Committee, the UN Participating Organizations undertake to submit a draft Joint Programme Document within eight weeks of notification.
  • All UN Participating Organizations have or will sign the global Memorandum of Understanding with the Multi-Donor Trust Fund Office.