1. BUILDING GOVERNANCE IN THE AREA OF
INFLUENCE OF THE SOUTHERN INTEROCEANIC
HIGHWAY IN PERU
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GFI – WRI
Claudia Enrique Fernández
cenrique@dar.org.pe
Mayo,

2. Main Message
From theory to action  this implies
prioritization, negotiation and political
consensus.
Our focus was on strengthening
governance from the local levels  creating
local demand for governance.

3. Area of Influence of the IOS (Section 2, 3 y
4)
-Protected Areas;
-Indigenous Territories;
-Permanent Forest
Productivity;
-Significant socio & TRAMO 3
environmental liabilities,
with active/unattended
causes (illegal gold mining,
TRAMO 2
illegal logging, coca crops,
etc.).
TRAMO 4
Indirect impacts:
-Migration;
-Invasion of Indigenous
territories;
-Invasion of Protected
Areas;
-Increased deforestation
-Increase in liabilities.

4. Stakeholders of IOS
CAF
National Government
(MEF, MINAG, MTC,
GTSCIOS
MINEM y MINAM)
(IOS
Academy
CS/working
group
Regional Governments
(Cusco, MDD y Puno)
Unions
Grassroots
organizations Local Governments
IOS Situation Challenges for DAR Indigenous
Confederations
Limited knowledge of governance •Need to raise awareness and
by government officials and CSOs. articulate CSOs on governance
frameworks.
•Interiorize governance concept
with government and local
authorities.
Regional agendas without Prioritize IOS within the regional
coordination/links to IOS. agendas.
Variety of stakeholders with different Communication Capacity
interests . (technical & political level).

5. Why Governance?
In Peru, especially since mid-2000, there is an
investment boom in the Amazon, where:
The investment evaluation processes do not comply
with proper planning .
There is no proper management of environmental and
social impacts or risk analysis of mega projects.
It is an urgent scenario for the Amazon: balance
between investment and socio-environmental
sustainability.

6. What do we hope to change with
a governance assessment?
Move from project/case analysis to the
proposal/alternative.
The lack of governance in the design of mitigation
programs.
The weak state capacity.
Reversing the investment gap in governance.

7. STUDY/EVALUATION TIMELINE AND ADVOCACY WORK FOR
THE SECOND PHASE OF IOS/PGAS
Processing Information
DAR’S Evaluation
Political Advocacy Breakfast meeting with
Government Authorities
(Presentation of initial
Regional workshop governance proposals for
and presentation of Phase II
governance
methodology First meeting request
to the government
Internal workshop for
Phase II
the adjustment of the
Governance research and selection of selected indicators
Indicators
2009
Julio Agosto Setiembre Octubre Noviembre Diciembre
Investigation is set in Regional Trips Regional Trips
motion (Work Plan) Formal Presentation of
Meeting with the
the Study
Stakeholder Government
2010 Mapping
Enero Febrero Marzo Abril Mayo Junio Julio Agosto Setiembre Octubre Noviembre Diciembre
Submission of Workshops in 3 Meeting with
preliminary regions for independent
proposals to the validation and experts/ Submission of
government and feedback discussion of the proposal to the
CAF proposal government
Meeting with End of the
CAF study
integration of workshop
outcomes/contributions
Analysis and preliminary 2011 ….
results

8. DAR’s Adaptation of the GFI
(Actors, Rules) = Political and social &
environmental context before the start of the
program, according to each of the six
governance principles.
(Practice) = Evaluation of four projects of
PGAS-CVIS within the context of governance
indicators, goals and objectives.
Governance Proposals for impact management
programs and projects.

9. DAR’s Scorecard DAR
RESUMEN DE MATRIZ DE INDICADORES DE GOBERNANZA/BUEN GOBIERNO
PRY 9 – FORTALECIMIENTO DE LAS CAPACIDADES DE GESTIÓN AMBIENTAL Y
SOCIAL DE LOS GOBIERNOS REGIONALES Y LOCALES Y PROMOCIÓN DE LA
PARTICIPACIÓN DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL.
Principios de Componente del Evaluación
Indicadores del Proyecto
Gobernanza Proyecto (Malo, Regular, Bueno)
Componente 1: -Gerencias Ambientales
Consolidar la operando con niveles de
capacidad de decisión articulados en ROF y
gestión ambiental y CAP institucionales.
social de las
Gerencias
Ambientales
PLANIFICACIÓN Regionales y Locales
en Cusco, Puno y
Madre de Dios.
Componente 3:
Fortalecer las redes o - Plan de seguimiento,
espacios de vigilancia y alerta
concertación de temprano en
para el seguimiento y funcionamiento.
monitoreo ambiental.
RENDICION DE No se identificaron componentes ni actividades para
CUENTAS este proyecto.

10. RESULTS:
The CAF / INRENA program had several
limitations concerning the construction of
governance concept and scenarios.
The PGAS CVIS was insufficient in promoting
governance due to political interference

11. From theory to action
It is Not enough research or technical rigor to
achieve real change.
Concept Internalization
Prioritization of Issues
Proposals/alternatives

12. Achievements
Sub-National level:
Construction of a common position from civil society on a
governance model in the context of infrastructure projects.
National level:
Internalization of the concept and principles of governance
by the Ministry of Environment, for design of the second
Phase of the PGAS CVIS.
International level
Recognition of the IOS as a driver of deforestation in the
R-PP of Peru that was approved by the FCPF, in March
2011.

13. Where are we now?
National and Sub National Level
Importance of building consensus. This is just the beginning of a long
process
Continuing building & strengthening capacities for a sustained action and
an immediate response to situations and opportunities.
Define and defend the cost of governance  more than a cost is a benefit.
Promoting a participatory and transparent management of impacts
(including Phase II of the PGAS CVIS).
International
Raise governance in the R-PP process.
Advocate for more coherence of MDBs’ investment, as well of FCPF, FIP,
etc.

14. www.dar.org.pe