Final Independent Evaluation of SINAP...

Final Independent Evaluation of SINAP 2

Paquita Bath and Allen Putney

6/23/2010

The SINAP 2 Project’s global objective is to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Mexico through the consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas, ensuring core conservation activities in 12 globally important Protected Areas, building a long-term endowment Fund for Natural Protected Areas, and launching sustainable development projects with local communities while building co-responsibility for conservation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................6

2.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................8

2.1 Background to the SINAP 2 Project....................................................................................................................8

2.2 Objectives of the Final Independent Evaluation........................................................................................10

2.3 Methodology Used In the Final Independent Evaluation.......................................................................11

3.0 Expand the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP)....................................................................13

3.1 Major Findings...........................................................................................................................................................13

3.2 Secure Counterpart Funds for the FANP.......................................................................................................15

3.2.1 Private Foundation Commitment...........................................................................................................15

3.2.2 GOM Commitment...........................................................................................................................................16

3.2.3 FMCN Reputation............................................................................................................................................17

3.2.4 CONANP Fundraising Capacity................................................................................................................18

3.3 Administer the Natural Protected Area Fund..............................................................................................19

3.3.1 Fund Management.............................................................................................................................................19

3.3.2 Administrative Rates........................................................................................................................................21

3.4 Disburse Interest Earned by the FANP Annually.........................................................................................23

3.4.1 Model 1: 2002-2008....................................................................................................................................24

3.4.2 Model 2: 2008-2010.....................................................................................................................................25

3.5 Lessons Learned.....................................................................................................................................................29

4.0 Conserve Globally Important Biodiversity.............................................................................................30

4.1 Major Findings.......................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Build the Capacity to Manage PAs for Conservation Values.................................................................32

4.3 Select SINAP 2 Protected Areas.........................................................................................................................33

4.4 Measure the Rate of Habitat Transformation..............................................................................................36

4.4.1 Fire.......................................................................................................................................................................... 40

4.4.2 Revegetation.....................................................................................................................................................43

4.5 Note the Presence of Indicator Species..........................................................................................................43

4.6 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................46

5.0 Promote Sustainability of Productive Activities in Select PAs...................................................47

5.1 Major Findings...........................................................................................................................................................47

5.2 Preparation of Plans for Sustainable Activities...........................................................................................49

Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2 Page 1Paquita Bath and Allen Putney

5.3 Sustainable Development Initiative (IDS) Projects...................................................................................50

5.4 Success of the Activities Undertaken...............................................................................................................53

5.5 Sustainable Activities and Community Relations.......................................................................................58

5.6 Lessons Learned....................................................................................................................................................... 59

6.0 Promote Social Co-Responsibility For Conservation........................................................................60

6.1 Major Findings...........................................................................................................................................................60

6.2 Alignment With Indigenous People’s Policy Of The World Bank........................................................61

6.3 IDS And PIE Projects...............................................................................................................................................62

6.4 Protected Area Advisory Councils....................................................................................................................63

6.5 Harmonization of Land and Resource Use Policies..................................................................................64

6.6 Evaluation of Infrastructure Projects..............................................................................................................64

6.7 Regulation of Natural Resource Uses..............................................................................................................64

6.8 Environmental Education and Interpretation Projects...........................................................................65

6.9 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................65

7.0 Promote Inclusion of Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Criteria In Development Projects........................................................................................................................................66

7.1 Major Findings.......................................................................................................................................................... 66

7.2 Overview......................................................................................................................................................................66

7.3 Harmonization of Environmental Policies....................................................................................................67

7.4 Evaluation of Infrastructure Projects..............................................................................................................69

7.5 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................69

8.0 Boost Institutional Capacity............................................................................................................................70

8.1 Major Findings.......................................................................................................................................................... 70

8.2 Central Coordination for FANP Funded Protected Areas.......................................................................71

8.3 CONANP Capacity.....................................................................................................................................................73

8.3.1 CONANP Budget................................................................................................................................................. 73

8.3.2 CONANP Staff.......................................................................................................................................................75

8.3.3 CONANP Project Coordinating Unit............................................................................................................76

8.4 Boosting Civil Society Organizations...............................................................................................................79

8.4.1 The IMAC Experience........................................................................................................................................79

8.4.2 The FANP “Call For Proposals” Experience.............................................................................................80

8.5 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................................................................81

9.0 Beyond World Bank Supervision.................................................................................................................82

9.1 Threats..........................................................................................................................................................................82

9.2 Opportunities.............................................................................................................................................................83


9.3 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................................84

9.3.1 Disburse FANP Funds..................................................................................................................................84

9.3.2 Conserve Globally Important Biodiversity.......................................................................................86

9.3.3 Promote Sustainability Of Productive Activities In Select PAs....................................................87

9.3.4 Promote Social Co-Responsibility for Conservation...................................................................87

9.3.5 Promote Inclusion of Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Criteria in Development Projects....................................................................................................................................88

9.3.6 Boost Institutional Capacity........................................................................................................................88

9.4 Special Fund On Climate Change.......................................................................................................................89

9.4.1 Climate Change Activity Within Mexico.................................................................................................89

9.4.2 Climate Change Special Fund Ideas..........................................................................................................90

Annex A: List of Participants Interviewed During the Independent Evaluation..........................................91

Annex B: Documents Referred to during the Independent Evaluation............................................................97

Annex C: GEF and Counterpart Funds for the FANP..............................................................................................101

Annex D: List of Sustainable Development Initiatives Supported by GEF Sinking Funds.....................105

Annex E: Terms of Reference...........................................................................................................................................126

Annex F: Paquita Bath CV..................................................................................................................................................138

Annex G : Allen Putney CV.................................................................................................................................................142

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluators are grateful for the transparency and openness with which our colleagues at CONANP, FMCN, and the World Bank treated their work, their data, and their dialogues with us. We are grateful to all the people interviewed and listed in Annex A, especially the community members who opened their homes and prepared meals for us. We are especially grateful to Alfredo Ávila Martínez and Andrew Rhodes Espinoza who accompanied us in the field, fixed the flat tires, answered hundreds of questions, and put in countless hours responding to our requests. The time spent by the PA Directors – Roberto Escalante, López, Carlos Pizaña Soto, José R. Campoy F., Elvira Rojero Díaz, and Federico Godínez Leal to show us around, reflect on the Project, and introduce us to the CONANP staff and local community members in the PA’s is greatly appreciated. Finally, the leadership of the Project - Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich and David Gutiérrez Carbonell for CONANP, Adriana Moreira for the World Bank, Renée González Montagut and Lorenzo Rosenzweig for FMCN, and the members of CTFANP – showcased what a great public-private partnership can look like.


ACRONYMS

APFF Area for the Protection of Flora and Fauna

CAMAFU Fire Management Learning Network

CC Central Coordination Unit of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas

CDI Commission for Indigenous Development

CONABIO Mexican National Council for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity

CONAFOR Mexican National Forestry Commission

CONANP Mexican National Commission for Natural Protected Areas

CONAP National Council for Protected Areas (advisory body)

COPLADES Development Planning Councils

CPR Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

CTFANP Technical Committee of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas

DES Direction of Monitoring and Evaluation within CONANP

ECCAP Climate Change Strategy for Protected Areas

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FANP Fund for Natural Protected Areas

FMCN Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GIS Geographic Information System

GoM Government of México

IDS Sustainable Development Initiative (community –based projects)

IMAC Mexican Conservation Learning Network

INE National Institute of Ecology


INEGI National Institute for Geographic and Data Statistics

IPDP Indigenous Peoples Development Program

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NAFIN National Finance Administration

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations

PAs Protected Areas

PAD Project Appraisal Document of the World Bank

PCU Project Coordinating Unit – responsible for the sinking funds from SINAP 2 within CONANP

PDPI Indigenous People’s Development Program

PET Temporary Employment Program

PIE Strategic Innovation Projects – based on a Call for Proposals for civil society organizations to receive FANP grants

POA Annual Operations Plan

PROCODES Regional Sustainable Development Program

PROFEPA Federal Agency for Environmental Protection (with law enforcement powers)

RB Biosphere Reserve

REDD Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation

SEMARNAT Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources

SHCP Secretariat of the Treasury and Public Credit (also called Hacienda)

SIMEC System of Information, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Conservation based in the Monitoring and Evaluation unit of CONANP.

SINAP 1 Restructured GEF Project - (No. TF028678) to strengthen 10 PAs in the national system of protected areas.

SINAP 2 Consolidation of Protected Areas System Project – based on GEF Trust Fund Grant TF05311


1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The evaluators firmly believe that the SINAP 2 Project is ready to move beyond World Bank supervision as it is being well managed by the two principal partners, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) and the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN). SINAP 2 is the best public-private partnership we have seen put into practice. The high expectations set by the World Bank during its supervision of SINAP 1 and 2, including strong international implementation standards, a long-term vision and focus on results, efficiency in administration, and a respectful approach to partnering and capacity building, are values that have been imbued in the projects. Building on this base, CONANP and FMCN have leaders and staff members working hard to ensure that the Project is a success, that the institutions are aligned, and that resources are effectively deployed to advance the conservation of biodiversity in Mexico in consort with local communities.

The indicators of success for the key project results have been met and, in many cases, surpassed. We describe major findings and lessons learned in each section. Drawing from our experience however, we find the following three findings the most remarkable.

1. SINAP 2 has consistently adapted – staying the course with its ambitious agenda but changing strategies in response to new conditions and big boosts in CONANP’s institutional capacity. This level of thoughtful flexibility and adaptive management is, in our experience, unusual in large multi-institutional projects. Some reasons why this project may have been more successful in this respect are:

o The advisory structure built into the project design, particularly the authority held by the Technical Committee for the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (CTFANP), ensured regular opportunities to align the FANP with GoM priorities and to ensure high level visionary reviews;

o World Bank supervision was consistently cited by interviewees for fomenting the long-term capacity of the partners to effectively manage protected areas and work together to leverage results and innovation in the field.

o The Central Coordination Unit of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (CC), housed within CONANP, was highly effective in providing small amounts of funding to host key meetings, engage a key consultant, or in other small ways help improve systems in an ongoing way;

o A strong commitment to a logical framework and use of yearly operating plans for each protected area (PA) helped to galvanize strategic approaches;

o Thoughtful leadership in the World Bank, CONANP, FMCN and the PA Directors – the evaluators were struck by the impressive resumés and the long-term commitment to conservation demonstrated by all the principal leaders in this Project.

o As the CONANP operational budget increased both nationally and within each PA, FANP funds served as a lubricant, adjusting to meet key needs and address funding shortfalls, ensuring that more rigid line item budgets could work more effectively.


2. The institutional capacity of both CONANP and FMCN has accelerated dramatically over the eight years of this Project. A comparison of CONANP and the national system of protected area system in 2002 and 2010 (See Section 8) shows huge jumps in budgets, staff, number of PAs, monitoring capacity, and sustainable development activities in the field. Similarly, the successful capitalization of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP) has catapulted FMCN to be the largest – and one of the most respected – environmental trust funds in the developing world. The World Bank’s investment in the SINAP 2 project included both the GEF funds and consistent ongoing coaching that have served as catalysts for this huge growth in capacity. Some of the reasons noted in this evaluation include:

o Strong, steady leadership that has been maintained across multiple administrations. CONANP has successfully developed a civil service of well-trained and highly committed conservation leaders who have built careers with experience in both governmental and civil society jobs in Mexico.

o The effective partnership and careful boosting of each other’s reputation has helped capitalize the FANP by successfully engaging other bilateral and private donors;

o FANP funds simultaneously supported field projects while boosting institutional capacity in the form of staff members and partnerships between CONANP and non-governmental organizations. Sinking funds also boosted CONANP staff capacity and leveraged funds from other Government agencies for field projects.

3. The most impressive sustainable development projects in the field are those that link ecosystem services to quality of life investments.

o SINAP 2, like most sustainable development initiatives we have seen, struggled with linking effective economic projects with conservation goals while addressing numerous hurdles from community isolation and poor roads, lack of effective marketing strategies, limited education and internet opportunities, and a long-term history of government subsidies. Results in this area are variable and will require ongoing investments and marketing efforts.

o Projects that are not cash oriented, but improve quality of life through home water catchment systems, better crop production from terraced agriculture, upgraded cooking facilities, and organizing projects around shared community goals such as wildfire containment or poaching reduction, are well received, align with conservation goals, and produce immediate benefits for community members.

o There is substantial opportunity for a greater analysis of lessons learned in the training, supplying, and activation of local fire brigades and vigilance committees in SINAP 2 PAs.

SINAP 2 has made an appreciable difference in the capacity of the GoM to dramatically improve its management of the PAs of Mexico. There is no question that Mexico still faces enormous challenges in its efforts to conserve the myriad species and ecological processes that it has been blessed with, while managing the needs of a growing population and unprecedented threats such as climate change. SINAP 2 has helped to position the Mexican government and civil society partners to better face those challenges.


2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE SINAP 2 PROJECT

For the past 20 years, the Government of Mexico (GoM) has invested heavily in building a protected area system designed to conserve a large portion of Mexico’s unique biodiversity and critical ecological processes. Mexico is a mega-diverse nation and critical to the efforts to conserve global biodiversity and evolutionary processes. It has both a huge number of species found in the highly diverse habitats throughout the country, as well as very high levels of habitat conversion. Efforts to strengthen the protected area system to help conserve a large proportion of Mexico's rich and unique biodiversity are inextricably linked to efforts to promote more sustainable livelihoods in the rural and economically marginalized communities that exist in and around the protected areas.

The World Bank through the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) has made two grants to support the full Mexican National System of Protected Areas (SINAP) . The success of the first GEF grant – SINAP 1 (1997-2003), was recognized by evaluators and implementers alike. Major SINAP 1 achievements directly affecting 10 protected areas included:

A public-private partnership to build and manage a National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP) to finance core operating costs in selected protected areas;

Core staffing and participatory mechanisms in place to work with local communities on long-term solutions to protected area conservation and sustainable livelihoods;

The desire to expand the successes of SINAP 1 to a larger number of protected areas as well as strengthen the management of the full system of protected areas led to the design of SINAP 2. In alignment with GOM priorities, the key goals of SINAP 2 were to:

1. Further capitalize the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP); 2. Conserve globally important biodiversity in select protected areas;3. Promote sustainability of productive activities in select protected areas;4. Promote social co-responsibility for conservation;5. Promote inclusion of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use criteria in development

projects.

To launch the Consolidation of Protected Areas System Project (SINAP 2), extensive agreements were put in place between the World Bank as implementing agency of the Global Environmental Facility, the GoM’s Nacional Financiera (NAFIN), and the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN). The Grant Agreement for the new project (No. TF050311 of 13 February, 2002), together with a Complementary Agreement between the National Commission for Protected Areas (CONANP) and the FMCN, spell out the legal roles and responsibilities of the parties. In addition, two Operations Manuals: 1) Guide to the management of the FANP and the interest of the endowment administered by the FMCN; and 2) Guide to the project components managed by CONANP and NAFIN; are both legally binding documents.


The key implementing parties are:

1. The World Bank is the executing agency for the GEF funds and oversees the Project. It provides supervision, reports on progress achieved, reviews requests for non-objection to important project decisions, and input as needed to the project. It also ensures that key safeguards are in place to ensure the Project is run with respect for local participation and the rights of indigenous people. Its supervisory role concludes in June of 2010.

2. The CONANP is the key implementing agency of the GOM responsible for the management of all of the Protected Areas included in SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 as well as the wider protected area system. It manages most of the sinking funds in the SINAP 2 Project.

3. The Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN) manages the FANP conservation trust fund. It is a private, independent, not for profit organization whose role is to raise and manage funds for the long-term benefit of conservation objectives in Mexico.

This Project is designed as a public-private partnership, requiring very effective coordination and trust between the parties (discussed further in Section 8). It also moves beyond the three key parties to engage other agencies as well as advisory groups with strong representation from the nonprofit community, academic institutions, private enterprise, and community organizations. There is a strong emphasis on ensuring that the many sectors that make up Mexican society have a voice in assuming responsibility and effective management of the country’s protected areas.

SINAP 2 was forged during a period of high expectations based in part on the success of SINAP 1 and a serious jump in the commitment to protected areas by the GOM. In 2002:

Mexico’s commitment to protected areas could be seen through legislation approving regulations for the protected area system, including the LGEEPA (1996) and the Protected Areas By-laws (2000) as well as two million additional hectares incorporated into protected areas since 1994;

Protected Areas received more than a tenfold budgetary increase during the Zedillo administration, which was maintained by the Fox administration. The GOM increased annual fiscal support to the protected area system from US$360,000 in 1994 to US$5 million in 1999 and provided an “extraordinary” additional $9 million in 2000.

The institutional management of the protected area system was elevated within the GOM with the creation of the National Commission for Protected Areas (CONANP).

Mexico had built a team of committed and professional protected area managers; Longer-term strategies such as the “Program for Natural Protected Areas in Mexico 1995-

2000” were being put into place; The innovative public-private partnership between the Mexican Fund for the Conservation

of Nature (FMCN) and the GOM was generating high levels of private donations for the protected area system – including over US$14 million during 2000 and 2001.

A 1998 global evaluation of national trust funds by the GEF was highly complementary of the FMCN and its management of the FANP.


Amid these portents of high achievement, SINAP 2 was launched in 2002. GEF funding was allocated and conditioned upon raising matching funds and high levels of GoM financial commitment to the PAs.

Table 2.1: SINAP 2 Total Project Budget in US$ Millions Component GEF Funds Required match Total Project

Funds

Endowment for the FANP $22.50 $22.50 $45.00

Start up funds for 4 PAs $ 1.90 $ 1.90 $ 3.80

Fundraising capacity $ 1.20 $ 1.20 $ 2.40

PA Management $35.15 $35.15

CC and Monitoring and Evaluation $0.20 $ 5.20 $ 5.40

Institutional Strengthening $ 2.50 $ 2.50

Mainstreaming conservation and sustainable use policies

$5.30 $15.65 $20.95

TOTAL $31.10 $84.10 $115.20

A mid-term evaluation in 2005 (Graf and Vreugdenhil) indicated that SINAP 2 Project execution was off to a good start, commended the partnership, and described some of the main challenges facing the PAs. Many of the issues raised in the mid-term review, such as fundraising potential, inadequate staffing structures within CONANP, and the difficulty of aligning conservation and poverty alleviation projects were priority goals for the 2005-2010 period of SINAP 2. This US$115 million dollar project is now nearing its conclusion. All of the partners are focused on lessons learned and plans for continued cooperation. In June of 2010 the World Bank will step away from its role as a supervisory agency, leaving ongoing operations in the hands of the GoM and its private partner, FMCN.

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE FINAL INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

This final independent evaluation of the SINAP 2 project reviews project performance from 2002-2010 and attempts to identify key lessons learned that will be helpful to the implementers as well as other nations and trust funds committed to strengthening national systems of protected areas. The goal is to determine the effectiveness of the project in strengthening Mexico’s national system of protected areas and provide recommendations for the future.


The specific evaluation objectives specified in the TOR (see Annex E) are to address the questions:

1. Are the institutional mechanisms for implementing this project functioning?

2. Are these mechanisms the best way to continue meeting the goals of the project?

3. Are the goals of the project still aligned with the mission and direction of the participating institutions?

The independent evaluators are to gather the information and put together recommendations that will be shared with all the key implementing partners. The achievement of these evaluation objectives will enable the Project's partners to consider possible changes in ongoing roles and responsibilities going forward as well as to start formulating longer-term plans to continue the path of strengthening the national system of protected areas as well as the 173 federal protected areas in Mexico.

2.3 METHODOLOGY USED IN THE FINAL INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

The independent evaluation team chosen for the project was put together by Aligning Visions LLC. The team is made up of Paquita Bath and Allen Putney, both independent consultants. They were chosen due to their:

Long experience working on protected area design and consolidation throughout Latin America;

Strong Spanish and English language skills; Proven capacity to manage an objective evaluation; Lack of conflicts of interest.

The methodology approved by the key implementing partners provided the consultants with:

1. Full access to the documents and reports from throughout the SINAP2 project (see Annex B: Documents Reviewed during the Independent Evaluation).

2. Visits to five protected areas that have received funding through the FANP. The evaluators chose a mix of protected areas by geography and by number of years in which the protected area received FANP funds under SINAP 2. The evaluators visited the following five protected areas with representatives from the key partner institutions in February and March of 2010.


Table 2.3: SINAP 2 Protected Areas Visited by Independent Evaluation Team

Protected Area State FANP funds started

Independent Evaluator

Reserva de la Biosfera Alto Golfo y Delta del Río Colorado

Baja California and Sonora

2002 Allen Putney

Reserva de la Biosfera Tehuacán – Cuicatlán

Puebla and Oaxaca 2002 Paquita Bath

Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Sierra de los Álamos

Sonora 2004 Allen Putney

Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar

Sonora 2006 Allen Putney

Reserva de la Biosfera Selva el Ocote

Chiapas 2008 Paquita Bath

All protected area visits included:a. Meetings with local community organizations;b. Meetings with protected area Directors and field staff;c. Meetings with nonprofits and community organizations engaged in

protected area activitiesd. Travel through the protected area.

3. Meetings and interviews with key members of the major institutions implementing the

project included representatives of the World Bank, CONANP, NAFIN, FMCN, and representatives of advisory bodies such as CTFANP (Technical Committee of the FANP). In addition on field trips the evaluators had the chance to meet with members of Advisory Councils, local communities and civil society organizations. See Annex A: List of People Interviewed.

Finally, the independent evaluators put together and presented draft findings for review and comment by the World Bank, CONANP, CTFANP and FMCN staff. Additional research then went into strengthening this draft, addressing missing topics, and fine tuning recommendations before submitting the Final Independent Evaluation in late March 2010.


3.0 EXPAND THE FUND FOR NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS (FANP)

The Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP) began in SINAP 1 with the decision to place Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funds in a permanent endowment fund that would generate annual interest targeted to conservation priorities in ten selected protected areas. To build on the success of this project and extend the benefits to additional PAs, this objective was supported by the GEF through SINAP 2 as follows:

1. Expand the endowment capital in the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP) (Endowment funds of US$22.5 million corresponding to 72% of the GEF donation).

2. Raise fundraising capacity for securing a 1:1 match for the GEF contribution to the FANP (Operating funds of US$1.2 million, corresponding to 4 % of the GEF donation).

This component was designed to bolster the FANP to benefit an additional 12 PAs with predictable and multi-year commitments of financial flows in perpetuity. A key assumption of this component is that the endowment is housed within the FMCN to increase financial transparency and agility to provide funds as needed in alignment with Protected Area priorities. Thus, the need for extensive public-private cooperation is built into the design of the Project.

This objective comprises the following subcomponents:

Secure Counterpart Funds for the FANP (3.2) Administer the FANP (3.3) Disburse the Interests Earned by the FANP Annually (3.4)

3.1 MAJOR FINDINGS

At the conclusion of SINAP 1 in 2002 the Fund for Natural Protected Areas stood at US$16.48 million dollars from GEF and US$5 million in counterpart funds, leading to a total fund of US$21,480,080. With the launch of the SINAP 2 project, substantial counterpart funds with a 1:1 match were built into the project design, requiring that funds be raised prior to GEF funds being deposited.

As the conclusion of the SINAP 2 project:

1. The implementing partners have raised US$7 million MORE than the required amount of counterpart funds – totaling US$29,746,834 in SINAP 2;

2. All GEF deposits have been made totaling US$22,564,377 in SINAP 2;3. The final FANP endowment fund stands at US$75,691,291 including all GEF and

counterpart donations from SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 coupled with earnings over time.4. The FANP continues to support 10 PAs from SINAP 1 funds and has incorporated 12

additional PAs with SINAP 2 funds. 5. The FANP annually generates over US$3.8 million in interest earnings for the 22 PAs in

addition to a 23rd PA that is covered by matching funds.


For a full breakdown of the donations to the FANP please see Annex C.

Major findings from this successful effort to capitalize the FANP, and explored in further detail in this section, include:

1. The FMCN’s commitment to manage the FANP fund in alignment with the national priorities of the CONANP and with the approval of the Protected Areas Directors has been a critical component for the strength and longevity of the public-private partnership.

2. The Government of Mexico through SEMARNAT made substantial deposits in the FANP. This is a remarkable commitment to a long-term endowment managed by a private entity outside of government control. The fact that a sovereign government committed US$8,500,000 is a tribute to the GoM’s recognition of the value of conservation trust funds and demonstrates the political will that was a key factor in the success of the public-private partnership.

3. While the FANP in SINAP 2 supports 12 protected areas, the design approved for the fundraising strategy included 34 protected areas, including the 10 from SINAP 1, 12 for SINAP 2, and an additional 12 high priority protected areas. This approach, coupled with greater flexibility in match spending guidelines, attracted private foundations to the FANP for a highly successful fundraising campaign.

4. The FMCN manages a number of endowment funds, by far the largest being the FANP. The growth of the FANP helped to catapult the FMCN to manage the largest conservation trust fund portfolio in the world, valued at $106,105,381 in December 2009. The size of this fund has enhanced FMCN’s reputation, brought more attention to the importance of Mexico’s biodiversity, and most importantly provides annual payouts that make a real difference on the ground in the protected areas.

5. The annual budget provided by interests from the FANP is now in the US$3.7 – 4.3 million range, providing flexible, ongoing funding to critical protected areas throughout Mexico. These funds will continue to flow annually after the end of World Bank supervision for the project – a gift in perpetuity to the protected areas of Mexico.

6. The FANP has been well managed from an investment perspective, with a conservative approach with 80% in fixed income assets to guarantee a reliable annual payout for the PAs.

7. Administrative costs are within the general limits set by other conservation trust funds and within the rates negotiated with the World Bank.

8. Transparent disbursement procedures are in place with strong mechanisms to ensure funds go to PA priorities. A major change in 2008 in increased GOM investments in PA staff led to a new approach that is still being refined.

The evaluators feel that the capitalization and management of the FANP has been extremely successful and very well executed. We do not feel that an extension of World Bank supervision is necessary as transparent, inclusive, and well defined processes are in place for ongoing public-private coordination.


3.2 SECURE COUNTERPART FUNDS FOR THE FANP

The World Bank in the negotiations for SINAP 2 set very high match standards to leverage the GEF funding and provide strong incentives for private and public fundraising as seen in Table 1.1. The FMCN was remarkably successful, raising more than the required counterpart in endowment funds for the FANP. One clear advantage of this project was timing. There is no question that 2002-2006 was a good fundraising period. The FMCN acknowledges that in the current global economic environment, raising this level of match would be far more challenging. Yet, there are important lessons learned that underscore why FMCN was able to successfully expand the FANP with counterpart funds.

3.2.1 PRIVATE FOUNDATION COMMITMENT

A high degree of commitment from a number of major US private foundations particularly the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Marisla Foundation and the Summit Foundation; and a Mexican foundation, the Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte, is evident in the match secured for SINAP 2. The GEF 1:1 match was definitely a leverage inducement. The key selling point however was that private foundations were able to work with the FMCN to endow separate funds within the FANP that would provide ongoing financial support to designated protected areas (PAs) in perpetuity. While the GEF funds in the FANP in SINAP 2 were oriented towards 12 protected areas, the design approved for the fundraising strategy encompassed 34 protected areas. These included ten areas from SINAP 1, twelve from SINAP 2 and an additional 12 PA of high biodiversity importance. Endowments for any of these 34 areas would be considered match for the GEF funds. As Carlos Saavedra, Executive Director of the Summit Foundation, said (personal communication):

The Summit Foundation has a long-term commitment to the conservation of the Meso American Reef. We were excited about the possibility for an endowment for Reserva de la Biosfera Banco Chinchorro with the FMCN. The leverage factor of knowing that our own commitment to this reef site was helping to secure a wider endowment for the full Mexican National Park system was an additional great incentive.

Examples of the value of these types of investments and how foundations coordinated matching funds to leverage ever greater endowments for specific PAs are included in Table 3.2.1. In addition, even greater leverage was achieved with some private–public matches. For example, the US$5,000,000 donation of the Packard Foundation for the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve was matched by both GOM and State government investments for a total value of $7,000,000 as a permanent endowment for the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve. It is clear from Table 3.2.1, that foundations often worked together to leverage high levels of match for PAs that they were particularly committed to. The fact that the FMCN already had transparent and reliable procedures accepted by the World Bank increased the trust required for deposits by private foundations.

An additional contributor to fundraising success was that, in contrast to the GEF endowment funds, matching funds did not have to be earmarked for basic operational expenses. As an example, the US$7 million Monarch Fund makes direct payments to the owners of the core area of the Monarch Butterfly Reserve as an incentive for them not to cut down their trees.


Table 3.2.1: Examples of Donor Endowments for Specific Protected Areas

Donor Protected Area Amount in US$

Packard Foundationand Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte

El Triunfo 2,000,000

Packard Foundation Monarch Butterfly 5,000,000

Packard Foundation Bahía de los Angeles 250,000

Global Conservation Fund Bahía de los Angeles 2,000,000

Marisla Foundation Bahía de los Angeles 250,000

Ford Foundation Río San Pedro 500,000

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Río San Pedro 600,000

Summit Foundation Río San Pedro 200,000

Marisla Foundation Banco Chinchorro 50,000

Summit Foundation Banco Chinchorro 1,400,000

This Table is not complete. For a full review of the match funds please see Annex C.

3.2.2 GOM COMMITMENT

The close working relationship between the FMCN and the Government of Mexico has led to a serious investment of US$8,500,000 from the GoM to the FANP endowment. What is even more remarkable is that this strong level of public-private cooperation has survived across three different administrations, including different political parties. The evaluators believe there are a number of reasons for this success:

Strong encouragement from the World Bank through GEF for an independent fund that would support the protected area system;

Long-term relationships of trust and confidence among the leaders of SEMARNAT, CONANP and FMCN;

Stability in senior positions within the government civil service, particularly in CONANP, as well as stability in the leadership of FMCN;

Highly respected FMCN Board members who are able to secure meetings at the Ministerial level;

Representation of government officials in the public-private partnership in a way guaranteed to ensure long-term alignment between the FANP and the GoM PA priorities: An ex-officio representative of the government attends meetings of the Board of

FMCN;


A number of government officials are on the CTFANP – a technical committee that reviews how the FANP is managed and how funds are disbursed. In addition, agendas and timing are usually arranged to ensure the presence of the head of CONANP.

PA Directors and Regional Directors have a strong voice in ensuring that PA priorities are incorporated within all disbursements from the FANP to civil society organizations.

In addition two state governments contributed funds to the FANP – the state of Mexico and the state of Michoacán. Like the federal investment, this is remarkable evidence of the commitment to their protected areas over the long-term and willingness to trust in a privately administered fund. It also points out the real service performed by a Conservation Trust Fund in providing transparency, alignment with government Protected Area priorities, and at the same time the efficiency of private management that can avoid the political and bureaucratic disruptions that often affect the best of government agencies. In both these cases, the matching contribution by a large private entity (Packard Foundation), ability to create an endowment in support of a specific protected area (Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve), and the need to coordinate activities given many of the threats affecting that reserve, all helped contribute to this investment in the endowment fund.

3.2.3 FMCN REPUTATION

The Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN) has done a remarkable job in building its reputation nationally and internationally. The very favorable review of FMCN by the GEF in January of 1999 in the publication Experiencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios para la Conservación , brought the fund to greater international attention. In 2003 the World Bank distributed an English version of the FANP Operational Manual at the Word Parks Congress meeting in South Africa. Since then, it has ensured strong levels of transparency, provided yearly audits, invested conservatively, and has succeeded in building the world’s largest private environmental trust fund in the developing world (Spergel, 2008), valued at US$106,105,381 at the end of 2009.

At the same time, FMCN does more than manage money. It actively builds partnerships, launches capacity-building programs, participates in the formulation of national policies and approaches, and carefully provides coordination and program advice with its public and private partners. Within Mexico, the FMCN is very well known within the conservation community in both public and private circles. On the international front, FMCN has taken leadership in a number of areas, bolstering its reputation with international donors:

A founder and leader in the creation and strengthening of RedLAC – the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds;

A leadership role in the creation of the MAR Fund to support the MesoAmerican Reef that crosses four national boundaries; and

Membership and support of the Conservation Finance Alliance and the studies, and surveys done to strengthen the capacity of conservation trust funds worldwide.

All of these investments have enhanced FMCN’s credibility in attracting the needed matching funds.


3.2.4 CONANP FUNDRAISING CAPACITY

The SINAP 2 project provided operational funds for building capacity in both the public and private partners for fundraising. The matching fundraising program was to be executed jointly by FMCN and by CONANP. GEF contributed US$1.2m in operational funds and FMCN raised a match of $1.2m which was audited by Castillo Miranda for FMCN. FMCN successfully raised the match for the FANP endowment as discussed in Section 3.2.

The anomaly in this fundraising strategy was an allocation of the operating funds to the Mexican Government to raise US$ 3 million in additional funds for the FANP. This aspect did not work out as anticipated as no funds for the FANP were directly raised by the GoM. However, US$300,000 in GEF funds was spent developing CONANP’s fundraising capacity.

The evaluators do not question the Government of Mexico’s or CONANP’s commitment to the FANP, especially given their own capital investments and acknowledged referrals and support for FMCN’s fundraising efforts. Nonetheless, the CONANP Department responsible for the fundraising felt that their efforts would be better spent raising funds for a different Fund – the Fondo Verde, in part because they expressed some difficulties in asking for funds for FMCN administrative costs. While this evaluation team feels that the FMCN administrative overhead rate is satisfactory (see Administration in 3.1.3) and clearly other private, government, and corporate donors do as well, the decision was made to focus on building the Fondo Verde.

The GEF funds were thus used to develop CONANP’s fundraising capacity to develop new funds – including the Fondo Verde – as well as a number of trusts (fideicomisos) that are managed by the Asociación Civil EcoBanca and the Grupo Financiero Monex. The creation of new funds is an unanticipated result of this Project. As the Mexican saying goes – “one should not put all of one’s eggs in the same basket” – and that seems to be the thinking behind this approach. The evaluators cannot assess the transparency or effectiveness of these funds from the materials received. They are being promoted as having a very low administrative cost of approximately 5% and are currently targeted at Mexican corporations, primarily to house mitigation and environmental compensation funds. This is an area where FMCN has not been historically active, so to date there does not appear to be any unnecessary competition. At the same time, it is clear that CONANP has to be very careful not to be the lead promoter of these funds – as they are also managed privately, and possible conflicts of interest could exist, especially when dealing with compensation fund negotiations.

A number of lessons can be inferred from this experience and from the agency’s ongoing struggles and internal debates about how best to raise funds in private hands for the PA system. Looking at the successful ways in which CONANP has worked closely with FMCN to help raise FANP funds, the evaluators see the following as lessons that are applicable to the wider issue of public-private fundraising partnerships:

1. Public agencies are reluctant to directly raise money for privately managed funds – and are often actively constrained by legal conflict of interest concerns;

2. Indirect methods such as public statements from the GoM that the FANP is aligned with national priorities and highly transparent are very valuable for FMCN-driven fundraising;


3. Government employees speaking highly of the results of FANP investments with private foundation donors is of great value to fundraising strategies; and

4. SEMARNAT deposits in the FANP spoke more loudly about the GoM’s commitment to the FANP and trust in FMCN management than any proposal or fundraising “ask”.

3.3 ADMINISTER THE NATURAL PROTECTED AREA FUND

3.3.1 FUND MANAGEMENT

FMCN is managed by an independent Board of Directors made up of representatives from the business community, nonprofits, and one ex officio government representative. By design, government representatives can never have over a 30% representation on the Board. For practical purposes, given complex Mexican laws that apply with official government representation, government representatives serve in an ex officio capacity. The Board has final decision-making authority over the investment and use of all funds. The FANP is managed by the FMCN’s Board Investment Committee made up of bankers and financial experts.

For managing the operational aspects of the FANP, the FMCN Board takes very seriously the programmatic and technical recommendations made by the Technical Committee for the Natural Protected Areas Fund (CTFANP). CTFANP is an advisory board made up of key government, private sector, and civil society organizations. It is made up of seven members nominated by the National Council for Protected Areas (CONAP), and ratified by the FMCN Board, to ensure a wide representation of different parts of the wider Mexican society in the management of the FANP. They are volunteers who meet four times a year and make recommendations to the FMCN Board for FANP procedures, annual expenditures, inclusion/exclusion of specific PAs, and overall reporting and management on the FANP. Decisions on the operational aspects of FANP management, consistent with World Bank guidelines, are made by CTFANP and reported to both CONAP and the FMCN Board. When CTFANP recommends changes that require modifications of guidelines established with the World Bank, then both CONAP and the FMCN Board of Directors are consulted. Ultimately, the FMCN Board has the responsibility for decisions made with regard to the FANP, but the impressive way in which the CTFANP is engaged, and makes meaningful decisions and recommendations, is another aspect of why this private-public partnership has worked so well.

FMCN uses an independent financial investment manager, currently Heyman y Asociados A.C., for managing their portfolio. Current management fees are 0.02 % of the fund, much less than the average 0.07-1.8% ranges for most conservation trust funds (Preston, 2009 p 16). Over the course of this project FMCN has changed managers, worked to lower the management fee structure from about 1% (included in the original design) to the current .02% and has evolved a conservative investment strategy. A Board Policy is in place for managing the funds which takes a risk-averse position, placing 80% of the FANP in fixed income instruments and only 20% set aside in equity for growth. The primary investment goal is to produce stable funds for expenditures in support of the protected areas and ensuring operations support for FMCN – while the secondary goal is to ensure the real value of the endowment is maintained above the cost of inflation. This approach provides a regular projection of approximately 6% a year for projects – providing a strong sense of stability to PA Directors vs. a feast and famine approach which a less risk adverse, higher equity portfolio might render. Projections are made in July for the following calendar year, providing time for effective budgeting and proposal writing.


Table 3.3: FANP Financial Returns 1997-2009

As can be seen in Table 3.3, returns averaged 8.26% until the economic recession of 2007-2008 when the average return dropped to 6.21%. As Greg Alexander stated: “Holding 70%, 80%, even 100% of a portfolio in cash and bonds worked in 2008” and obviously limited losses to the FANP (Preston, 2009 Foreword). Fortunately a strong rebound in 2009 raised overall return over the full life of the FANP to 7.44%. Long-term the FMCN Investment Committee of the Board is committed to continue to review their investment strategies and make adjustments every trimester with comparative weighted indexes such as the S&P 500. Inflation in Mexico has been very low for the past decade – under 6% and averaging about 5.1% in 2009 (indexmundi), nonetheless maintaining the value of the FANP above the rate of inflation will continue to be an ongoing management issue for the Investment Committee. A strategy on timing to transfer US dollars to Mexican pesos allows for further offsetting erosion by inflation through favorable exchange rates. As an example, in 2008 the flow to the PAs was not affected due to a secured flow of funds derived from the fixed rent portion of the portfolio and a favorable exchange rate. Overall, the Board’s conservative approach has been beneficial for both the PAs and the FANP in this period of high market volatility.


3.3.2 ADMINISTRATIVE RATES

There are three areas where the annual management of the FANP generates administrative/operation fees:

1. The FANP project management unit of the FMCN – within the Conservation Department;2. The Central Coordination Unit paid for by FMCN but housed in, and co-managed by,

CONANP;3. The overhead rate of nonprofits that support PA operating plans (POAs) with FANP

annual budgets.

FMCN CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT

The FMCN negotiated a management fee of 12% of the FANP in the PAD (World Bank, p 101). The 12% covers 7% in truly administrative costs (accountants and administration) and 5% in project technical review and fundraising efforts. This includes the project director of the FANP, whose roles include fundraising, coordinating the CTFANP, managing all reports to the parties, supervising the CC, and technically ensuring the effectiveness of the FANP expenditures. These expenditures are totally within the purview of the operating agreement with the GoM and the WB and well within the range of administrative rates of most trust funds (10-20% of total annual budgets) (Conservation Finance Alliance, p 12.).

The FANP has contributed directly to building the capacity of FMCN and vice versa. For example, the FMCN Director plays a key role in fundraising for the FANP, albeit not paid for out of FANP or GEF funds. In return however, the growth of the FANP has greatly enhanced FMCN’s reputation and capacity. The growth of the FANP also led to an internal restructuring within FMCN wherein the FANP Director assumed responsibility for all the matching funds as well, creating the Conservation Department. By successfully operating programs from each of the PA endowments, the Conservation Department is better able to attract additional operational project funds. As an example, the Gulf of California Marine program, funded through a US$9.5 million endowment match to SINAP 2, attracted an additional US$2 million in operational funds in 2009 to conserve the vaquita (a rare whale species) refuge within the PA Alto Golfo y Delta del Río Colorado Biosphere Reserve. The successful use of these operational funds, in turn builds the confidence of new donors to later contribute to the array of PA endowment funds under the FANP.

The fundraising process, as indicated above, is greatly benefited from CONANP and SEMARNAT endorsement of the project as a national priority. Within this context, the FMCN Director ensures good public relations and detects fundraising opportunities while promoting the FMCN. The FANP director approaches or responds to potential donors, works the institutional arrangements of the projects with CONANP and other institutions, and then designs the projects with technical information gathered by the Central Coordinating Unit (see below) from the different CONANP regions and departments. Once the alignment with CONANP is ensured, then the proposals are written, new projects are launched, and technical staff is trained to manage the projects going forward. Additional administrative staff is in turn trained by the original FANP staff. This system allows FMCN to constantly grow and respond to fundraising opportunities while strengthening CONANP and the protected area system.


CENTRAL COORDINATING UNIT

The Central Coordinating Unit (CC) can also spend up to 7% of the annual budget. However for SINAP 2 these funds were used to pay for project priorities that cut across the PAs such as training and monitoring and evaluation needs. The CC staff salaries were paid strictly out of SINAP 1 annual budget disbursements through 2010. The actual project expenditures from SINAP 2 annual disbursements averaged about 4% from 2002 to 2009 rather than the full 7%.

The CC provides oversight and coordination with all of the CONANP Protected Areas and central departments. The CC unit is housed within CONANP to ensure greater levels of coordination, faster communications, and higher levels of personal relationships and trust. Like the mid-term evaluation (Graf and Vreugdenhil, p.16), this evaluation team clearly considers the expenditures by the Central Coordinating (CC) unit as primarily program costs - designed to ensure project alignment with GoM priorities and effective high leverage spending allocations. Specific responsibilities of the CC include coordinating with CONANP to:

Monitor the activities undertaken with FANP funds in the PAs and maintain appropriate records;

Develop training programs and special projects to address common problems across multiple PAs;

Technical review of the PA Annual Operating Plans with CONANP to ensure appropriate resource distribution in support of these priorities;

Support the PAs in strategic planning using a log frame approach. This has been so successful that it has created a large demand for services from PAs outside of the SINAP programs;

Harvest learning from the strategic project reviews and partner presentations every year.

With the big change in project management in 2008, with the assumption of 900 new staff positions by the GoM, the CC has changed roles (see disbursement models in 3.1.5 below). Now in addition to review of the POAs, it is also responsible for managing the ‘Call for Proposal’ process for strategic projects and working closely with the nonprofit grant recipients. This has increased their work load and led to a recent change in structure including adding an additional staff person – now paid for the first time by the SINAP 2 annual disbursement. Additionally, increased expenditures are occurring with training and learning programs built into the strategic project grants to highlight successful innovations and enhance the collaboration between the nonprofits and CONANP staff. It is one of the ways in which the wider goal of enhancing the capacity of the key institutions and the full PA system is being attained. Now, in the post 2009 period, the allotted 7% expense rate is close to being reached.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Finally, FANP funds cannot be given directly to the GoM so funding is channeled through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local community organizations. During the 2002-2008 period they averaged the set 8.2% administrative rate primarily for hiring staff and assigning them to work for the PA Directors – essentially as full-time staff in the PAs. The NGOs covered the potential risks of labor disputes, social security and other benefit payments, as well as a complicated tax payment process, in an effort to ensure these staff were working full time in the PAs.


In many cases, additional basic needs for the PA were also channeled through the NGOs enabling investments such as vehicle repair, gasoline purchase etc. all of which required strong financial accounting covered by this administrative rate. Although funds channeled to basic operation averaged only one fourth of the allocation via salaries, these funds were considered critical to the PA managers. Public funds for basic operations have increased over time, covering the vast majority of the PA’s needs. Nonetheless, the small amount offered through FANP is still highly valued in the field as the funds are more flexible and are also available in early January – whereas public funds are often delayed in the first trimester. Hence, the small but agile FANP funds complement the larger public funds to enable the PA to be managed effectively year round.

With the major change in the spending of FANP funds post 2008 the administrative charge for the non profits who still provide POA basic needs was dropped to 6% in the 2009 FANP Operations Manual. Under the new disbursement model, fewer funds (only 20%) are assigned based on the POA process, staffing is no longer included, and the accounting burden on nonprofits is significantly reduced. Experience to date indicates that administrative costs are currently being covered at less than 6% (2.2% in 2009).

3.4 DISBURSE INTEREST EARNED BY THE FANP ANNUALLY

By law, the FMCN is unable to provide funds directly to government agencies. Thus, annual funds generated from the endowment capital go to civil society organizations (NGOs). From 2002-2008, these NGOs administratively supported the PA’s Annual Operating Plans (POA). As explained below, since 2009, NGOs undertake projects in and around the designated protected areas in collaboration with the PA Directors and staff. The FANP continues to provide funds via POA to the 10 PAs included in SINAP 1 and has added 12 new areas over the past 8 years as the endowments raised for SINAP 2 have been established.

One of the prescient contributions from the GEF was to provide US$1.9 million in 2002 to jumpstart immediate expenditures in four Protected Areas rather than waiting for the FANP endowment to start providing income payouts. Thus, four protected areas were able to benefit in Year 1 of the Project. FMCN raised a 1:1 match in endowment funds to the GEF US$1.9 million at the start of the project allowing the WB to deposit its fund early, generating additional interests to benefit the FANP endowment.

Table 3.4: Protected Areas Receiving FANP Support through SINAP 2

Protected Area StateFANP start

Total hectares

RB Alto Golfo y Delta del Río Colorado Baja California y Sonora 2002 934,756Cobio APFF Chichinautzin - PN el Tepozteco - Lagunas de Zempoala

Morelos , México y Distrito Federal 2002 65,722

APFF Cuatrociénegas Coahuila de Zaragoza 2002 84,347RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán Puebla, Oaxaca 2002 490,186APFF Sierra de Álamos Sonora 2004 92,890RB Banco Chinchorro – PN Arrecifes de Xcalak Quintana Roo 2006 144,360RB La Encrucijada Chiapas 2006 144,868RB El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar Sonora 2006 714,557RB Sierra la Laguna Baja California Sur 2006 112,437RB Mapimí Coahuila de Zaragoza, Chihuahua y 2008 342,388


DurangoRB la Sepultura Chiapas 2008 167,310RB Selva el Ocote Chiapas 2008 101,288

At the PA level, activities to be covered by the income derived from the endowment include: basic operation costs, basic equipment, basic conservation activities, basic community activities, and basic capacity-building activities included in each PA’s Annual Operating Plan. At the start of the SINAP-2 projects the funds from the FANP helped to cover approximately 30% of the annual basic operations budgets of the PAs from SINAP 1 and the new PAs coming in with the funds from SINAP 2. However, as the commitment from the GOM grew and more resources were provided for basic operations, the FANP support has made up a smaller proportion of the reserve budgets – approximately 8% annually at the conclusion of this project. As Ernesto Enkerlin, Director of CONANP puts it in discussing the evolution of the use of the FANP funds: “The FANP funds started out helping to provide life support to the PAs, then they moved to support strategic priorities, and now they can be truly catalytic.”

The FANP has had two major models for disbursement. The first from 2002-2008 had a primary focus of providing additional basic operating support to the PAs, usually in the form of additional staff. This model changed when CONANP assumed an additional 911 staff positions in 2008.

3.4.1 MODEL 1: 2002-2008

Interests generated from the FANP endowment were to be expended in support of “basic” PA needs to complement GOM funds and ensure that the most basic protected area operations were in place. A relatively complicated weighting system was put in place which gave different PAs different levels of “basic” support based on the square root of their size, number of inhabitants in the PA, number of communities, number of years of receiving FANP financing and other criteria to encourage ever greater investment from sources other than FANP. Basic needs included items such as office rent, basic equipment, office supplies – all of which required a proven government counterpart. In addition, projects such as: monitoring and evaluation; fire suppression; outreach work with local communities; restoration etc. could all be fully covered. In the majority of cases in the 2002-2008 period the primary need identified in the Annual Operating Plans (POAs) was for additional core staff to be able to implement projects within the PA. PAs had to have a minimum presence of a Director, a Sub- Director and 2 technical staff paid for from government funds. However, the FANP funds could be used to cover additional complimentary positions such as social promoters, monitoring and evaluation personnel etc. through local nongovernmental organizations.

To access funds, every PA submitted a POA that clearly set out its basic operational priorities for the year. The POAs are done in close consultation with the PA Advisory Council and in alignment with the key WB policies and the participation of indigenous peoples, and action plans for sustainable development. Furthermore, a detailed PA government budget is provided to ensure the GOM is covering most of the basic operational costs and that FANP funds will be complimentary.

Clear procurement procedures were developed for ensuring that funds supported the PAs. Funds were provided quarterly with regular reports and receipts showing expenditures prior to release of the next round of funding. Furthermore, PA Directors also had to sign off on the expenditures to ensure they were well aligned with PA priorities. A few nonprofits such as Espacios Naturales y


Desarrollo Sustentable, AC, became very adept at contracting staff for placement at PAs, creating some economies of scale and simplifying contracting procedures.

Finally, an Emergency Fund was also set up, and amounted to 10% of the full disbursement to the FANP PA’s. This fund could be accessed in case of natural disasters or fires by any of the participating PAs. Funds were programmed for every protected area within SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 so all PAs benefitted. Finally, the emergency fund provided flexible immediate spending to complement larger government funds being applied later to the disaster. Discussions in the field indicated that PA Directors were very satisfied with this system.

3.4.2 MODEL 2: 2008-2010

In 2008 CONANP secured an additional 911 full-time equivalent jobs in the civil service supported entirely by the GOM. This incredible jump in CONANP capacity to ensure basic PA operations is another indicator of the strong commitment of the GoM to its protected areas. Of the 911 newly created positions, 152 were personnel supported by the FANP in the PAs. A lot of work went into effectively transitioning these employees from nonprofit payrolls to the government to ensure greater long-term CONANP capacity.

The CONANP coup in acquiring so many new positions has greatly strengthened their ability to provide basic core management support to these protected areas. With this big jump in capacity, the basic operating budgets of the SINAP 1 and 2 PAs were truly being assumed to a very great extent by CONANP. This led to a drop in the overall percentage value of the FANP funds per PA from approximately 30% of the budget per PA to about 8% of the annual budget in 2008. Discussions between CONANP, FMCN, CTFANP, the World Bank and many other interested parties were held in the hope of allowing this smaller percentage of the annual PA budget to serve as a catalysis for innovation.

Post 2008, the primary focus of FANP funds moved from basic PA needs to strengthening the long-term management of the areas by supporting innovative strategies managed by NGOs and local community groups. The decision was made to put 80% of the FANP annual budget allocated to the PAs into a “call for proposal process” to civil society organizations interested in developing projects in the PAs in alignment with PA priorities. 20% of the FANP annual budget allocated to the PAs was set aside for continued support for core operations and expenditures as indicated by the POAs. This huge switch in focus created the hope that the civil society grants (80% of the FANP total yearly expenditures) would jumpstart needed investments in underfinanced areas such as monitoring and evaluation, sustainable development initiatives, and reforestation; engage nonprofits over the long term in the PA; and be an inducement for additional fundraising for the PAs.


CIVIL SOCIETY GRANTS – 80% OF FANP ANNUAL BUDGET

In brief, the Call for Proposals of 2008 offered strategic grants of US$40,000 to $122,000 per year to civil society organizations (NGOs) who had a letter of support from the PA Director and could show other sources of funding, a history of conservation activity in the PA or surroundings, and ability to comply with all Mexican laws and administrative responsibilities. The latter requirement actually makes it very difficult for local community organizations to apply, so a hoped for strategy is that the NGOs will collaborate with local community organizations and help build their capacity in the process. If the project was to take place on privately owned land – or on ejido land – letters of support from the affected owners were to be presented as well. An external group of experts evaluated the proposals and sent their recommendations to the CTFANP. CTFANP chose the final grantees, a decision which was then ratified by the FMCN Board in the annual budget approval process. Of the 117 proposals received in 2008, 22 were funded in 2009.

A number of lessons emerged from this experience:

1. As a whole NGOs all requested the higher end of the project money scale as there was no counterpart required;

2. PA Directors were inundated with requests for letters of support – putting them in difficult positions with organizations that they needed to work closely with, but which had failed to develop strategic proposals.

3. Many organizations could not spend the money within the year and extensions had to be granted.

4. Only two local community-based organizations received direct funding. Both community groups required substantial follow up for implementation support and administration, though one has also turned out to be one of the most effective projects to date.

A workshop was held that brought together all the FANP civil society grantees to reflect on the 2008 projects and learning. Based on this experience the groups provided some basic values guidance for the rationale for PIE funds and the purpose of interagency cooperation: (FMCN, Fortalecimiento…2.2.5)

To complement the capacities of each of the partners to achieve the common objective of conservation or our natural resources;

To leverage activities and resources; To avoid duplicating efforts; To express and live up to commitments; To guarantee continuity in important processes; and To ensure efficiencies given the insufficient funds dedicated to conservation.

With this input, strong participation from CONANP, and additional input from the PA Directors, new procedures were put in place for the 2009 Call for Proposals.

1. Grant range was lowered to $25,000 and maximums were based on counterpart requirements;

2. Counterpart funds were required: For projects requesting $US 25,000-$40,000 a 20% cash match was required For projects between US$40,000 and $81,000 a 40% cash match was required


For projects over US$81,000 a 60% cash match was required. 3. The letter from the PA Director had to directly link the proposal with national CONANP

priorities as well as specific PA priorities. Letters from Regional Directors were also accepted;

4. Regional CONANP Directors were more engaged and were part of the external evaluator team to ensure greater alignment with PA objectives.

Fewer proposals (61) were submitted, but they were uniformly seen as higher quality, with fewer large proposals and a greater strategic alignment with PA priorities. 15 new projects were funded and 10 exceptional projects from 2008 received additional funds. Many PA Directors were better prepared for this round of proposals as well. In some cases PA Directors held meetings to ensure that the NGOs worked together to submit proposals. Directors also clarified what types of proposals they considered a priority and what themes would not merit a letter of support. Thus, rather than giving out 7 or 8 letters of support, PA Directors were much more involved in ensuring that only the most strategic proposals received their endorsement. This has led to a number of models that are being reviewed for success over time including:

1 grant to 1 NGO for work in the PA; or 1 grant to 1 NGO to coordinate work of a number of different NGOs/community

groups in the PA; or 2 or more grants to separate NGOs to work in the PA but in a coordinated fashion.

The FANP Central Coordinating Unit is tracking which of these models provide better results over time.

It is too early to determine the successes from this new approach to strategic grants for nonprofits. However, both FMCN and CONANP are actively watching the trajectory of these grants and raising long term questions as to how to proceed. Specific issues that are still being raised include:

1. By only having guaranteed funding for 1 year, NGOs tend to invest heavily in their equipment, staffing etc. – none of which will benefit the PA over the long term unless subsequent funding continues;

2. 1 year grants fail to provide predictable multi-year funding to either the PA or the nonprofit. This results in inadequate lead time for raising matching funds, no long-term commitment of the NGO to the PA, and an inability to measure conservation impacts;

3. Community-based organizations are still not benefitting in a major way – the hope is that NGOs will begin to do more capacity-building to support their administrative and implementation capacity – but again this is a hoped-for result, not yet a tested hypothesis.

4. The current structure puts a lot of pressure and workload on PA Directors to manage the process and diplomatically fend off the many calls for endorsements.

5. Some PAs did not receive any funding through this process as their civil society counterparts did not submit winning proposals. This creates quite a bit of concern among those PAs that feel they have lost ground in ensuring ongoing FANP support.


CTFANP and FMCN, in close coordination with CONANP staff, are continuing to work through these issues and strive to improve the leverage and innovation impact of the FANP funds. There is also some pressure to reduce the 20% support for the Annual Operating Plans (POA) so that the GoM has full responsibility for all basic operational needs and 100% of the FANP funds directed to PAs can be used for strategic grants. This is an ongoing debate addressed below. Additional comments about the opportunities for these grants to boost civil society capacity are covered in Section 8.4.2.

Annual Operating Needs – 20%

While prior to 2008, almost the full amount of the FANP funds was geared to support the basic operations of the PA as determined by the Annual Operating Plan (POA), the amount of financing for basic operations has dropped to 20% in the last two years. These funds are available to all the PAs in SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 and provide greater flexibility in use of funds that are not as bound by more rigid government budgets. Just like in Model 1 above, these funds can be used to support core operating expenses as needed, but are no longer used for staffing expenses.

While there is no question that the GoM is assuming ever greater responsibility for core operating budgets, one of the major rationales for continuing to keep this fund in place over the past few years is to respond to the yearly slowdown in government funding from January to March. The start of a new year, delays in legislative approval, bureaucratic blockages and many other reasons all affect the ability of GoM funds to flow readily to all government agencies – not just CONANP. This slowdown in government funding is particularly hard on the PAs as it coincides with the dry season, higher incidents of fires, and peak migrations for important species. PA Directors also report that illicit loggers, hunters etc. all know that park staff activity drops at this time of the year as funds are unavailable for gasoline and other basic needs. PA Directors have vociferously voiced their support for this 20% to ensure they have the funds they need at the start of the year. The opposing argument is that the GoM should assume full responsibility for all core operating budgets and work to ensure that this yearly fiscal inertia be eliminated, rather than continue dependency on a private fund.

The evaluators feel the POA support funds, while only a very small percentage of the total budget for the POAs, served as exceptionally high leverage funds. They are the only funds a PA Director can access in response to the many unplanned problems, delays, equipment failures etc. that can besiege a PA that has to comply with a set annual budget with little room for line item variations. One of the rationales for conservation trust funds, and indeed for the public private partnership encouraged by the GEF investment, is precisely this greater level of reliability and flexibility in financial flows. The POA funds over the course of 2002-2010 have served this function proving to be high leverage and belying the small percentage of the PA budget that they represent.

EMERGENCY FUND

Finally, an emergency fund is accessible from the FANP funds. Emergency funding can be drawn for natural disasters in any of the FANP PAs and money can be moved extremely quickly to help get equipment or personnel to the scene of a disaster or fire. This fund is greatly appreciated as it allows for fast response in the hope of containing a fire or other disaster that could seriously damage the ecological values of the PAs. The fund allows expenditures of up to 50% of the total value of the funding for the POAs– so up to about US$ 200,000.


While the evaluators provide our own recommendations in Section 9.3, we are impressed with the efforts of all the parties to continue improving the procedures and transparency of the use of FANP funds every year. When a major change in 2008 occurred with the increased CONANP capacity, the parties conferred and have developed a new approach to try to ensure high levels of ongoing effectiveness and leverage for the FANP funds. Yearly adjustments are being made to resolve problems and attain greater impact on the ground in managing the PAs and strategically meeting the priorities as set by the PA Directors in consultation with local advisory councils and communities. The strength of this public-private dialogue and the commitment with which CTFANP, FMCN, and CONANP work to ensure solid coordination and alignment is an excellent harbinger for the continued success of FANP funds after World Bank supervision ends.

3.5 LESSONS LEARNED

Lessons learned were covered in each of the sub-sections but in summary the most important lessons from this successful experience are:

Securing Endowment Counterpart Funds1. Flexibility in allowing for a larger number of PAs to be considered within the match

was an important draw for private foundations;2. The GoM investment in the FANP was an impressive endorsement of both political

will and of the strength of the public-private partnership;3. Government agencies are not best suited for raising funds for private endowments

but their endorsement is critical;4. FMCN’s investment in leading international networks and sharing its learning has

enhanced its stature among international donors;5. Strong advisory body in CTFANP provides an important venue for ensuring ongoing

alignment between public and private partners while still recognizing FMCN institutional autonomy.

Administering the FANP1. A clear policy directive on fund management from the FMCN Board has been

critical;2. Over the past decade a conservative management philosophy has paid well;3. Investment committee Board members with serious banking and investment

profiles raise the stature of FMCN.

Disbursing the FANP1. Clear transparent processes allow for yearly adjustments to take advantage of

learning from previous experience;2. The flexibility of the FANP was demonstrated in 2008 when the funds shifted from

supporting core base operations to more strategic initiatives as CONANP took greater responsibility for budget and staff;

3. Processes that engage PA Directors and Regional Directors have helped to ensure ongoing alignment of PIE grants with CONANP priorities.


4.0 CONSERVE GLOBALLY IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY

4.1 MAJOR FINDINGS

The leading project objective of SINAP 2 was to “conserve globally important biodiversity in selected areas” of the Mexican national system of protected areas (WB, PAD p 2). This section reviews the strides made in managing the PAs for conservation values and what biological indicators are available to help PA Directors assess their management effectiveness. Social indicators are included in Section 5. Major findings, discussed in depth within this section, include:

Build Capacity to Effectively Manage Protected Areas for Conservation Values (4.2)

The GoM has made a huge commitment to increase the capacity of CONANP over the past decade, investing heavily in adding new PAs, greatly increasing staff, and providing regular budget increases. (See Section 8.3)

The SINAP 2 PAs all have core staff in place, dependable annual budgets, and both five year plans for management programs and logical frameworks, as well as yearly operating plans (POAs) laying out strategic directions to enhance conservation effectiveness;

The lack of strong law enforcement capacity in the PAs (responsibility of PROFEPA) continues to be a huge problem for PA Managers. Ultimately this problem threatens the long-term ecological sustainability of some PAs where illicit activities are becoming more prominent. (See Section 4.4.1)

A strategy for addressing climate change in protected areas was released in 2010. CONANP now has a much greater capacity for addressing these global impacts on the PA system. (See Section 9.4.1)

Fire Brigades and Committees for Environmental Vigilance formed in local communities have been effective in reducing the number of wildfires originating in agricultural plots. (See Section 4.4.1)

Many strategies are in place with local communities, as discussed in Sections 5 and 7 to help low-income residents engage in more sustainable activities. From a conservation impact perspective the evaluators were most impressed with the fire brigades and efforts to improve soil retention with organic fertilizers and terraces. These strategies, promoted in many different SINAP 2 PAs with use of the GEF sinking funds, can be most directly linked to conservation goals.

Build CONANP Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluating Conservation Status (4.2)

CONANP established a senior office for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) reporting directly to the Director in 2001 with 28 full-time staff;

The CONANP office of M&E has built a System for Information, Monitoring and Evaluation of Conservation (SIMEC) to ensure that solid scientific data can help drive strategies and projects and support the POAs. A GIS lab is part of this infrastructural investment. Biological, geographical and socio-economic data are collected;


FANP funds have been used to help PA Directors engage staff and local communities in building 5-year plans for management programs and logical frameworks. These frameworks ensure that threats are identified and appropriate strategies are developed with clear activity goals and conservation impact indicators. Once this 5 year framework is in place, the yearly POAs include monitoring line items, many of which are financed by FANP funds.

Select SINAP 2 PAs (4.3)

The Protected Areas chosen for SINAP 2 represent a diversity of ecoregions of regional and global ecological significance.

Measure Rate of Habitat Transformation (4.4)

The rate of habitat transformation across the SINAP 2 PA’s has been unevenly measured using GIS technology over the past decade, but marked improvements are noticeable since 2007.

A study by FMCN and CONANP, that used many different data sources, indicates that deforestation is proceeding slower inside biosphere reserves than in their immediate surroundings, and that deforestation rates decline following the establishment of staffing structures and management in these reserves. (González Montagut et. al.)

During this Project the CC unit has assumed much of the responsibility for compiling the available data on habitat transformation, species abundance, and sustainable use for the annual reports to the World Bank. The hope going forward is that through improved inter-institutional agreements with institutions like CONABIO data could be easily accessed. SIMEC could then assume more responsibility for ensuring the data is used more systematically by PA managers and fully incorporated into a regular biennial M&E cycle within CONANP.

Fire data has been a critically important source of information on habitat transformation for PA Directors. The training, supplying, and activation of local fire brigades in a number of SINAP 2 PAs is one of the most impressive community-level conservation achievements of this Project, deserving greater analysis of lessons learned.

Presence of Indicator Species (4.5)

Population trends of key species, using a clear set of protocols, are being tracked in over 30 PAs including 10 PAs from SINAP 1 and 6 from SINAP 2 (CONANP, SIMEC 2005. p 17 and CONANP-FMCN, Diagnostico p. 17);

Populations of 69 monitored indicator species were stable showing no significant upward or downward trend (González Montagut et.al. p 13);

Species monitoring efforts to date have greatly enhanced data availability. More can be done going forward to relate population changes (within a wider context) to human activities and management effectiveness.

The FMCN and the CONANP M&E staff are working together through engaging staff, training, and new networks to continue improving the link between species monitoring and management decisions.


In summary, the evaluators are impressed with CONANP’s efforts to protect the biodiversity in its charge. The increase in both budgets for the PA system as well as staffing (see Section 8.3) is a key measure of the commitment the GoM has made to conserving Mexican biological diversity. It has invested in the SIMEC system, given a high status to the Director of M&E within CONANP, and begun compiling M&E data with the intention of guiding ever more effective PA management strategies. We do not feel that an extension of World Bank supervision is necessary given the strides taken to date. We feel very substantial progress has been made in this arena over the course of the past decade. Nonetheless, ongoing strides are needed – particularly in more consistently analyzing habitat transformation and helping to better link biological monitoring indicators to reviews of management effectiveness. We address long-term recommendations for addressing threats as well as M&E in Section 9.3 given the complexity of the issues, the utility of watchdog organizations, and the ongoing opportunities to continue strengthening management effectiveness within Mexico.

4.2 BUILD THE CAPACITY TO MANAGE PAS FOR CONSERVATION VALUES

Over the past decade Mexico has made a huge jump in its commitment to effectively manage its natural protected areas. The federal Protected Area system has increased remarkably over the past few years to now encompass 173 federal PAs covering 24.4 million hectares, over 10% of the national territory. What were paper parks are increasingly well-managed efforts to preserve very complicated landscapes and marine areas that cover many ecoregions, multiple land owners, economically marginalized - and often indigenous - rural populations, and are assailed by many threats. As discussed in Section 8.3 on Institutional Capacity, the vast majority of these protected areas have a core set of staff in place, annual budgets, and basic management infrastructure. While the PAs still face many challenges and have many needs, the commitment and professionalism of the CONANP personnel has clearly seen a huge jump in the past 10 years. As part of this capacity increase, there has been increased attention to monitoring and evaluation to help drive increased management effectiveness across the whole PA system.

The need to enhance monitoring and evaluation capacity to determine the effectiveness of management strategies for conservation was recognized in the design of the SINAP 2 program. Component 3, system-wide institutional strengthening, was supported by the GEF with sinking funds of US$200,000 corresponding to less than 1% of the GEF donation (World Bank, PAD p.9) which went to enhance the M&E work in CONANP. While the direct contribution from GEF was relatively small, the government counterpart has been very high. In addition, annual funds generated from the FANP endowment also went to support the M&E subcomponent in some of the civil society grants provided since 2008. Finally, FMCN has also worked closely with CONANP to pull together data sources for addressing the effectiveness of PAs and for providing yearly reports to the World Bank (CONANP/FMCN 2008).

For the PAs selected for SINAP 2, four major evaluation indicators were identified:1. Rate of habitat transformation;2. Presence of indicator species;3. Number of people involved in sustainable projects; and 4. The number of hectares being managed sustainably.

Sections 4.4 and 4.5 cover the first two indicators, while Section 5 discusses the latter.


CONANP sets national priorities for conservation. In turn, each PA has a Plan for Management Programs that sets the 5 year goals for that PA. These Plans are developed with input from local communities and the advisory councils and have legal force. Within Mexico, the Plans for Management Programs tend to be very data heavy publication products. So in addition to, or in coordination with, these Plans, FANP has developed logical frameworks in SINAP sites to ensure an agile outcome oriented document that directly addresses threats, strategies to contain them, activity results, and most importantly, conservation outcomes. The annual operating plan (POA) reconciles budgets with clear operational goals tied to these logical frameworks. New data from M&E programs can influence management effectiveness by refining the POAs in each subsequent year. With the emergence of the SIMEC system there is more capacity on the part of CONANP to monitor these indicators. Additionally, the planning system has improved and is increasingly systematized. POAs are now being completed on the internet in an effort to achieve greater standardization of performance indicators and provide a clearer monitoring process for linking budgets and performance goals.

4.3 SELECT SINAP 2 PROTECTED AREAS

The federal system of protected areas is meant to encompass ecologically significant sites of both national and international biodiversity values within Mexico, aligning with Mexico’s commitment to the Program of Work of the Convention of Biological Diversity. SINAP 2 PAs are meant to represent the “jewels” within this system to ensure the conservation of species and ecoregions of global and regional importance. To identify these areas, a process that engaged academics, nonprofits, scientists, and different government agencies was initiated in 1998. They examined 114 PAs to select PAs that would be of global or regional ecological significance, have high levels of ecological integrity, and be prioritized for management support. The Dinerstein et al. model characterizing terrestrial ecoregions was used along with information provided by CONANP/SEMARNAT to narrow the list to 46 PAs based on 8 key criteria:

Environmental scores with regard to:1) Species richness2) Endemism content3) Concentration of species at risk4) Number and type of ecosystems (gradient)5) Representation of ecoregions

Socio-economic scores with regard to:6) Environmental services and functions7) Socioeconomic feasibility for a conservation project

And finally a threat measure – providing higher points for PAs with higher levels of threat:8) Type, dimension and velocity of threats

A final review by 34 experts provided a point classification of ecological importance. Finally, there were also requirements on the GoM as part of the GEF counterpart conditions. CONANP had to maintain a core set of personnel in the selected PAs, increasing amounts of basic yearly operating funds over the course of the project, writing a 5-year plan for management programs for each PA as well as yearly operational plans, in addition to ensuring participatory structures for local people.


These factors were all considered in choosing the 12 areas that were ultimately incorporated in SINAP 2.

Table 4.3 and Map 4.3 below provide an understanding of the effort made to incorporate ecoregions with high and unique biodiversity values that cut across the length and breadth of Mexico.

Table 4 .3: Ecological S ignificance of SINAP 2 Protected Areas

SINAP 2 Protected Areas

Major Terrestrial Habitat Types

Dominant Ecoregion*

Ecological Significance

Conservation

Status

RB Alto Golfo y Delta del

Río Colorado

Desert and Xeric Shrublands

Sonoran Desertand Gulf of CA marine.

Regional Stable

Cobio APFF Chichinautzin - PN el Tepozteco - Lagunas de Zempoala

Tropical and Subtropical Coniferous Forests

Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt pine-oak forests

Regional Endangered

APFF Cuatrociénegas Desert and Xeric Shrublands

Chihuahuan Desert with marsh and aquatic high levels of endemism

Global Vulnerable

RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán Tropical and Subtropical Coniferous Forests

Sierra Madre de Oaxaca pine-oak forest

Regional Endangered

APFF Sierra de Álamos Desert and Xeric Shrublands and Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests

Sonoran Desert and Sonoran-Sinaloan transition subtropical dry forest

Global Stable

RB Banco Chinchorro – PN Arrecifes de Xcalak

Coral reef system; seagrass beds; mangroves; arenales sand dune systems; Coastal dune vegetation

Coral reef complex system

Bio-Regional Stable

RB La Encrucijada Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests

Coastal/Marine

Central American Dry Forest – Mexican Mangrove

Bio-Regional Endangered

RB El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar

Desert and Xeric Shrublands

Sonoran Desert Regional Stable


RB Sierra la Laguna Tropical and Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests

Sierra La Laguna Dry Forests and Pine- Oak Forests

Global Endangered

RB Mapimí Desert and Xeric Shrublands

Chihuahuan Desert

Local Vulnerable

RB la Sepultura Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf

Sierra Madre de Chiapas moist forests

Global Critical

RB Selva el Ocote Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests

Chimalapas Montane Forest

Regional Endangered

Classified using the Major Habitat Types and Ecoregions developed by Dinerstein – checked against National Geographic/WWF site: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_nt.html

* Many of these PAs are based in transition zones between ecoregions, an explanation for the high levels of species richness and number and types of ecosystems.

The ecological significance and conservation status as indicated at the inception of the SINAP 2 project – these may have changed over the past decade.

Pantanos de Centla, originally on the SINAP 2 list, received funding from other sources thus opening a space for RB Mapimí in 2008. Similarly Huautla on the original SINAP 2 list was passed to a local university for management, opening up the opportunity for RB Selva el Ocote to join the SINAP 2 sites.

Map 4.3: Protected Areas within SINAP 1 And 2

An additional 12 PAs were identified that can be substituted if, as happened in the case of Isla Contoy and La Paz (in the Islas del Golfo), a PA in the SINAP 1 or 2 project receives enough funding from other sources that it no longer requires funds through the FANP. These additional 12 PAs, and


the 10 PAs included in SINAP 1 were also instrumental in helping FMCN attract private funders interested in individual PA endowments as matching funds for the FANP as noted in Section 3.2.1.

The selected SINAP 2 sites were of exceptionally high regional and global ecological significance. RB Mapimí is of national significance, and is perhaps the highest biodiversity value site within the Chihuahuan desert, with a high number of imperiled national species. These 12 PAs represent a broad spread across the country and cover many different major habitat types. Three of the 12 have major marine components and the important freshwater values, including globally unique ecosystems in places such as Cuatrocienegas cut across all the PAs. The project has enthusiastically embraced highly threatened areas such as Selva El Ocote and RB Mapimí, and the very difficult political and water use issues affecting PAs such as Delta del Río Colorado. By accepting PAs that are experiencing high levels of pressure, the project took on some of the more difficult and intractable issues affecting the long term health of ecosystem services and biodiversity values in Mexico.

4.4 MEASURE THE RATE OF HABITAT TRANSFORMATION

Since 2004, CONANP has greatly enhanced its use of Global Information System technology. The rate of habitat transformation is determined through the analysis of satellite images to detect areas affected by human disturbance both within and around the PA. CONANP has a GIS office established in the regional office based in Morelia, Michoacán. In addition, Mexico also has sophisticated agencies such as CONABIO and the Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI) which have land use/land cover maps at useful intervals and at scales such as 1:250,000 which are well suited for land cover analysis. Additionally, a 2002 study done on the effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change provides a good baseline for comparison for many of the SINAP 2 PAs, and their surrounding areas (Sánchez-Cordero).

The evaluators recognize that these studies are useful primarily in the forested PAs where advances in the agricultural frontier directly affect the ability to conserve ecosystem health and biodiversity. Some areas such as the desert PAs and marine PAs do not merit annual reviews of this type as indicated in Table 4.4. We were pleased to hear about a recent workshop in Palo Alto California, attended by both the FANP Director and the CONANP M&E Director, which began exploring appropriate ways to monitor marine environments – a new challenge globally.

Focusing therefore on forested ecoregions, the analysis of habitat change has been uneven over time. However, it is clear that the capacity of the M&E program has grown dramatically over the past few years. As can be seen in the chart below there has been a surge in the use of images since 2007 with more data available in the past few years. This is a good sign that we hope will lead to regular biannual habitat transformation reviews. An additional study is underway, due by mid 2010, on management effectiveness in the SINAP 2 PAs as addressed by the comparison of natural habitat transformation inside the PAs, as well as overall habitat transformation trends over time.


Table 4.4: Rate of Habitat Transformation within Protected Areas (percentage)

SINAP II Protected Areas Periods of Time* / % Annual Change RateHabitat

Transformation Declining

Start Date of Federal

ManagementRB Alto Golfo y Delta del Río Colorado 1

Desert ecosystem – this type of analysis is not useful

NA 1996


1973-1989

1989-2000

2000-2004

2004-2007

2007-2008

Yes 1998

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.02

APFF Cuatrociénegas 1973-1986

1986-1992

1992-2000

2000-2003

2003-2007

Yes 1998

0.05 0.16 0.15 0.52 0.06

RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán 1989-2000

2000-2003

2003-2007

No 1999

0.07 0.08 0.15

APFF Sierra de Álamos 1976-1990

1990-2000

2000-2005

2005-2008

Yes 2003

0.01 0.16 0.12 0.01

RB Banco Chinchorro – PN Arrecifes de Xcalak 1

Marine ecosystem – this type of analysis is not useful

NA 1998

RB La Encrucijada 1975-1987

1987-2000

2000-2005

2005-2008

Yes 1997

0 0.36 0.94 -0.4

RB El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar 1

Desert ecosystem – this type of analysis is not useful

NA 1996

RB Sierra la Laguna 1973-1990

1990-2000

2000-2005

2005-2008

Yes 2000

0.0158 0.0012 0.0035 0.0005

RB Mapimí 2000-2005

2005-2009

No 2000

-0.027 0.03

RB la Sepultura Joined SINAP 2 in 2008 data anticipated 6/10 NA 2000

RB Selva el Ocote Joined SINAP 2 in 2008 data anticipated 6/10 NA 1994

Data obtained from the job "Estimation and Update of the Rate of Habitat Transformation of the Natural Protected Areas SINAP I and II of FANP" coordinated by CONANP and FANP.

The many different time periods used above are due to the availability of adequate images, when analysis took place, or follow up to major events such as a large fire, etc. The variability of the results and multi-year time frames between images, coupled with the need for field corroboration makes these results interesting, but not as useful as more systematic and regular reports would be for management decisions. Nonetheless, field visits provided glimpses of how managers are using this information. For example, in Tehuacan-Cuicatlán, the Director was able to use satellite imagery to identify the areas most threatened by habitat transformation and allocate the majority of staff time and resources for outreach in those communities. This type of analysis is critical to best deploy the limited resources when dealing with large PAs and large numbers of communities both in and around the PAs. More systematic biennial reviews will provide greater opportunities for PA managers to identify, not just the priority areas for combating threats, but over time also provide insights into the effectiveness of their strategies.


An analysis by FMCN and CONANP, with available data from a range of sources, indicates that transformation rates have slowed since the creation of the PAs, and deforestation rates are lower inside the reserves than in their immediate surroundings (González Montagut et al. p 13). Table 4.4 points to similar conclusions with habitat transformation rates declining in the majority of SINAP 2 PAs. While this is good news, the evaluators caution that more rigorous analysis is needed to corroborate this finding and take full advantage of this large-scale project experience. An additional analysis provided based on the data in Table 4.4 but aligned with the creation of the PA and the actual start of federal management, indicates that deforestation rates can spike after a PA is decreed and then come down dramatically once federal management and staffing is in place.

Finally, FANP has also funded more detailed local habitat transformation reviews in a few of the PAs. In cases where more detailed data is available (see Mariposa Monarca or the Selva el Ocote example in 4.4.1 Fire below), the evaluators see PA Directors have better tools for addressing PA management effectiveness in responding to noted threats. An example of the type of reports that the evaluators feel can be very helpful to PA Directors is this FANP funded assessment of the Monarch Butterfly PA core area.

Chart 4.4: Vegetative Cover Comparison 2003 to 2009 in the RB Monarch Butterfly core area.

The early results of a 2010 study being undertaken by CONANP are presented in Image 4.4 below. This analysis is being done to cover all of the SINAP 2 sites. Studies of this type are incredibly useful for PA Directors and are indispensable for pinpointing areas for greater management attention. The evaluators are pleased to see this effort underway.


Image 4.4: Change in Land Use in APFF Sierra de los Alamos - Río Cuchujaqui and BR Sierra la Laguna.

Images from "Estimation and Update of the Rate of Habitat Transformation of the Natural Protected Areas SINAP I and II of FANP" coordinated by CONANP and FANP.

The evaluators are very pleased that the capacity to do this type of study is clearly now available within CONANP. We are also aware that initiatives such as the current 2010 study being undertaken are proceeding with a high level of collaboration between SIMEC and the CC. There has been substantial growth in the capacity to do a more in-depth reports and analysis on habitat transformation as demonstrated over the past few years. Land use and land cover information is so often an important indicator of ecological integrity, local community support for conservation approaches, and the pressures on biodiversity in a given area. We include recommendations in Section 9.3 to prioritize and systematize habitat transformation studies going forward. While we recognize that habitat transformation alone is not a fully adequate measure of conservation effectiveness (Redford 1992), we believe that it provides the best source of information available on threats, connectivity, and ecological integrity in forest areas. If managed more systematically, habitat transformation could be the most important source of feedback to PA Directors of forest areas as well as provide increased transparency to donors who wish to support long-term conservation efforts in Mexico.


Decreto

Manejo

Manejo

APFF Sierra de Álamos - Rio Cuchujaqui

RB Sierra la Laguna

4.4.1 FIRE

Another effective measure of habitat transformation in many parts of Mexico is the presence and extent of fire damage. Fire is consistently the biggest driver of land use change in Mexico as local farmers use it to “clean” and/or expand their fields. (CONANP/FMCN 2008 p.7) The vast majority of PAs manage fire education programs, fire brigade training, and increasingly use PET (temporary labor project) funds to pay for local farmers engaging in effective fire management programs. PET can pay for the reduction of wood and combustible materials around established plots, creation of fire breaks, as well as the actual management and/or fighting of fires.

Chart 4.4.1.A: Number of F i res/Hectares Burned in the PA System

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Año

Hec

táre

as

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Núm

ero

de In

cend

ios

Hectáreas Número de Incendios

Chart developed by FMCN with data from CONANP (2002 data were not available).


A further breakdown of fire data is also increasingly available at the PA level.

Chart 4.4.1.B: Number of FIRES/Hectares Burned in SINAP I AND SINAP 2 PA within Chiapas

SINAP 1 SINAP 2

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

0

3

6

9

12

15

RB Montes Azules

Superficie afectada No. Incendios

Año

Sup

erfic

ie A

fect

ada

(ha)

Núm

ero

de In

cend

ios

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

01000200030004000500060007000

0

10

20

30

40

RB La Encrucijada

Superfic ie afectada No. Incendios

Año

Sup

erfic

ie A

fect

ada

(ha)

Núm

ero

de In

cend

ios

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

0

5

10

15

20

RB El Triunfo

Superficie afectada No. Incendios

Año

Sup

erfic

ie A

fect

ada

(ha)

Núm

ero

de In

cend

ios

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0

10

20

30

40

50

RB Selva El Ocote

Superfic ie afectadaNo. Incendios

Año

Supe

rfic

ie A

fect

ada

(ha)

Núm

ero

de In

cend

ios

Charts developed by FMCN with information from PA staff. RB Selva el Ocote and Montes Azules have been supported more intensively with fire management projects

and by the organized network, CAMAFU, financed by FMCN.

This type of data can provide great feedback on the effectiveness of the log frames and goals set for PA management in forested areas. For example in Selva el Ocote, the PA Director has placed a major emphasis on fire as the biggest threat to the ecological integrity of the reserve. Table 4.4.1 provides a glimpse of the careful log frame planning that has taken place in many PAs to address key threats to the PA - in this example a strategy to reduce fire.


Table 4 .4.1: F ire Management Strategy for RB Selva E l Ocote 2008-2013

Strategy Indicator Goal Progress

Reduce the negative impact of fire on the tropical karst (limestone) ecosystem.

The area affected by fire.

No more than 3000 hectares affected.

An integrated fire management program in place:

• 5 community plans.• 15 community committees.• 246 km. of fire breaks• An average of 5 fires attended to

per year.• 680 hectares is average yearly

loss to burns.• In 2009, 2,743 hectares were

burned due to 1 very large fire (2,732 ha.) and the rest in very small fires.

Number of fires that impact more than 100 hectares. No more than 7

such fires.

Source: 2008 Management Plan for RB Selva el Ocote. PowerPoint provided by PA Director Roberto Escalante Lopez

In a field visit to RB Selva El Ocote solid advances had been made in working with local communities to reduce wildfire. Using FANP funds, many communities have formed fire brigades which worked to create fire breaks between agricultural areas and native vegetation, reduce combustible materials. Additionally, all members of the community had been better trained on how to manage small burns within their plots and community brigade members were on hand to ensure the fires are contained. Given how extremely difficult it is to subdue fires once they are out of control, communities have learned to do a better job of managing controlled agricultural burns. There are many similar success stories that we heard from other PAs such as Manantlán with impressive fire management strategies underway. FMCN secured a US$4.5 million endowment fund devoted to his topic and that served as a match to GEF capital and helps support the CAMAFU network. This fund works in alliance with the United States Forest Service thus ensuring continued technological transfer. Independent evaluations of this fire management program highlight the advances at the community level in the PAs in professionalizing fire brigades over the last ten years. Effective community mobilization for fire brigades is potentially one of the most impressive achievements within SINAP 2, deserving a more in-depth analysis of lessons learned.

At the same time, the RB Selva el Ocote example also pointed out one of the biggest weaknesses in the current PA management system – PROFEPA (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente or Federal Agency for Environmental Protection). The large fire in 2009 was not lit by local villagers. Rather it was ignited by a group of recent squatters who had no ties to the area and are suspected of drug dealing and marijuana cultivation. This one illegal settlement is responsible for the two biggest fires in the reserve over the last 5 years. Yet, no one has taken the political leadership to have them removed. The PA staff has no legal authority to make arrests, and can only denounce wrongdoings in the PA. PROFEPA is the designated body to enforce the law, but they are terribly understaffed, underfunded, and incapable of addressing threats of this size. The result is that PA Directors must engage in long-term (often multi-year) negotiations with state and federal police to get help in addressing what is arguably the biggest threat to the conservation of the reserve.


Based on examples like the above, the evaluators are convinced that the CONANP PA staff is doing an impressive job in developing appropriate strategies and, with the resources at their disposal, making a real effort to reduce critical threats to the PAs for biodiversity conservation. At the same time with limited law enforcement, some of the biggest threats are not being adequately addressed. Reversing this will require either a large investment in PROFEPA or a new relationship between the PA Directors and key law-enforcement bodies as crimes in PA need to be controlled. Allowing Mexico’s mega diversity to be threatened, streams eroded, ecosystem services degraded, due to a small number of law breakers is a critical political problem for the GoM and a major frustration for the PA Directors who are managing so many effective projects.

4.4.2 REVEGETATION

Another effort underway, often aligned with the Mexican National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR), is reforestation and revegetation of areas that were previously affected primarily by fires, agricultural use, and extensive grazing. According to CONANP data, across the full system 58,333 ha had been revegetated by 2005.

The results, as seen through just a few field visits, have been mixed. On the positive side, very impressive efforts to restore areas with local endemics using local seed, local nurseries, and local labor are realized annually. The PET (Temporary Labor Program), discussed in Section 5 is often used for this purpose. Restoration is a program greatly appreciated by local residents as it provides needed income, while also raising environment awareness of local seed stocks, local species, and the effort needed to recover from over grazing or devastating fires.

One very impressive effort in RB Selva el Ocote involved not only hand planting hillsides, but also using military helicopters to drop native seed on high rocky peaks that had been burned the year before. Revegetation results were very good! On the negative side, the area burned again a few years later with no additional access to military helicopters for reseeding again. The long-term needs of these areas unfortunately mean that one time efforts are often inadequate and that budgets, partnerships, and plans need to have a multi-year perspective. The latest CONANP Strategic Plan of 2007-2012 provides substantial attention to restoration efforts, particularly along biological corridors.

4.5 NOTE THE PRESENCE OF INDICATOR SPECIES

The other main indicator of ecosystem health requested by the World Bank was the frequency of observation of indicator species and, to the extent possible, indications of population growth or decline. The SIMEC system has put in place a number of reports on chosen indicator species in the PA system. The reports cited below (CONANP, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento) all provide background on species taxonomy, biology, distribution, habitat, and behavior. They then lay out the methodology used for tracking, and current assumptions about population presence. Table 4.5 provides a sample of the different types of species and methodologies being used in SINAP 2 PAs.


Table 4 .5: Examples of Species Presence Counts

Protected Area Indicator Specie Methodology Results


Ambystoma altamirani

Mountain stream salamander

Yearly netting with population surveys from 2002-2008

Stable

Selva El Ocote Bird populations Bird count/visual and audio at set points in 10 min time periods – species and population

Base line now available with 118 species including 22 considered to be at risk.

La Encrucijada Crododylus acutus and Caiman crocodilus fuscus

American Crocodile and Brown Caiman

2000-2008 night time population monitoring by transect with capture, tag, release program. Nesting area transects.

Stable. Nesting areas of C acutus under pressure leading to new outreach strategy with cattle owners.

RB Alto Golfo y Delta del Río Colorado

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Yuma clapper rail and other shore birds

Shorebird monitoring stations with vocal call- response used.

Sharp decline in the extent of wetlands due to decline in freshwater flows. Population improvements in areas of restoration. Strong PA management recommendations for additional restoration in key areas.

APFF Cuatrociénegas Hemichromis guttatus

Jewel Cichlid – an invasive that can outcompete endemics.

Capture-elimination effort counting population and weight.

Decline since 2006 thanks to engagement of local people in targeting cichlids for capture following education campaign.

Information from booklets produced by CONANP, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo and referenced in Annex B.


Effective systematized monitoring at a local level has clearly been underway for years for some species. A compilation of this data indicated that populations of 69 monitored indicator species were stable showing no significant upward or downward trend (González Montagut et.al. p 13). The evaluators note however, the need for caution in terms of inferring that changes in the population levels of monitored species, either on the positive or negative side, are directly linked to Project activities, or the lack thereof. Such determinations require more sophisticated analysis – and looking at multiple species to avoid making inferences based on natural population cycles (González Montagut et al. 2007). Population data is but one indicator of trends that should be taken into account for management, together with a host of other sources of information. In sum, population data can help partially inform management decisions, but is best when seen within a wider set of indicators such as habitat connectivity and water quality. A critique provided by Diana Montes Caballero (CONANP-FMCN Diagnostico…p 25) challenges SIMEC to also look at population for some species at a wider regional or national level as there is no comparable data for a species outside a particular PA to get a wider sense of population trends.

One of the global scientific debates – the selection of appropriate indicator species – also played out in field visits. PA Directors recognized that they would get different types of feedback based on the choice of umbrella species, keystone species, endangered species, and/or emblematic species. For example, the main indicator species selected in Selva El Ocote were the Elegant Eagle and the Jaguar. Given their large ranges, it was unclear whether sporadic sightings were of the same animal or multiple individuals, leading to unclear data for management. Regular systematized population studies across such a wide range proved too expensive and time-intensive. The PA Director in retrospect felt that having a more cost-effective systematized approach to regularly monitor a more localized species, such as amphibians, may in the long-run provide improved data on habitat quality. The selection of appropriate indicator species is an ongoing, and healthy, debate globally – not just within SINAP 2 sites. It reinforces the need to have habitat transformation data as well so that multiple species trends can then be seen within the wider context.

An impressive part of the SINAP 2 experience has been the ongoing willingness of the public-private partners to work together to keep improving results. In 2009 a workshop was held to get field feedback on the Monitoring and Evaluation efforts to date (CONANP-FMCN, Diagnostico). To continue strengthening the ties between monitoring and POA management strategies to improve the ability to assess management effectiveness, some of the recommendations were to:

1) Enhance capacity at the PA level for a dedicated and trained person to better manage M&E activities;

2) Build greater linkages and networks for exchanging information on M&E efforts and improving the capacity of all the participants (this is now a FANP priority for 2010);

3) Clarify monitoring protocols as part of an Operational Manual for the SIMEC;4) Create greater synergies between the logical frameworks and biological indicators to

assist with management.

The evaluators applaud the ongoing efforts to enhance the utility of M&E data for managers. We can see that CONANP, and its academic research partners, systematically monitor species in many PAs, use a variety of scientifically valid methodologies, and are making an effort to connect the surveys with feedback for protected area managers. The 2008 report from CONANP/FANP on the biological indicators provides a sense of the huge variety of methods being undertaken and an impressive array of species being tracked. These are all signs of a healthy M&E system being


aligned with efforts to increase management effectiveness. As a cautionary note however, it is not always clear to date how much increased investment has resulted in improved management effectiveness. As with any monitoring program, there is a danger of data collection becoming an objective in its own right instead of being a tool for management. Thus, it is important going forward to clearly articulate, at each stage of investment – and with the PA staff – on the uses that will be made of the data collected. This is even more important as new types of monitoring are increasing – such as sophisticated weather monitoring equipment in RB Pinacate – but with little clarity on the ground of what additional data should be collected and how it will be used. What is important going forward is that there be greater clarity on the costs and benefits of collecting ever more species data, the uses being made of the data, and the value of that data for management.

4.6 LESSONS LEARNED

Lessons learned are detailed throughout this section. In summary, important lessons going forward are:

1. A careful process went into the selection of SINAP 2 sites that is worth emulating for other projects trying to conserve regionally and globally important biodiversity;

2. CONANP has recruited a core PA staff, developed management programs, undertaken substantial outreach and has engaged with local communities in all PAs visited. The evaluators believe this presence has been critically important in improving the opportunities for PA biodiversity conservation;

3. Habitat transformation data is most useful as a management effectiveness indicator if systematically provided on an annual or biannual basis;

4. Systematic fire data can prove remarkably useful for evolving management strategies in forested systems, particularly when agricultural burns are one of the biggest threats to the PA;

5. Community based fire brigades appeared to be very effective in reducing the threat of fire in SINAP 2 PAs.

6. Species population surveys need to be more closely organized with PA Directors to help improve their relevance for PA management strategies;

7. Some of the biggest threats affecting PA are due to illicit activities - activities that are not being well policed by PROFEPA due to lack of staff and budget.


5.0 PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY OF PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES IN SELECT PAS

The second major Project result sought was the sustainability (economic, social and environmental) of productive activities in selected protected areas. A full list of these activities is presented in Annex D. The indicators for this result were: (1) “of the total area under productive use, the area of sustainable use has doubled”, and (2) “of the total number of users, the number applying sustainable practices has doubled” (FMCN, Manual de Operaciones, 2009, pg. 61).

5.1 MAJOR FINDINGS

Major findings are as follows:

1. The indicators of success for this project result have been met and surpassed in all of the PAs of the Project except one, Corredor Biologico Chichinautzin – PN el Tepozteco y Lagunas de Zempoala.

2. Sustainable productive activities, which CONANP termed “Sustainable Development Initiatives” (the acronym in Spanish is IDSs) received about one-third of the GEF Project funding. These funds were complemented by CONANP through its PROCODES (Conservation Program for Sustainable Development), PET (Temporary Employment Program) and native corn (maíz criollo) budget lines, and by other federal, state and municipal agencies.

3. The IDSs are managed by CONANP’s Project Coordination Unit through Project Coordinators located in each of the SINAP 2 PAs. From 2004 to 2006, only the IDSs funded by SINAP 2 were the responsibility of the Project Coordinators. However, since 2007, the Project Coordinators are in charge of all IDS Projects, regardless of the source of funding. The one exception is the IDS type projects that are funded by PIE grants and implemented by NGOs.

4. The contribution of the Project to IDSs has increased during the last two years of the Project through FANP funding for the Strategic Innovation Projects that often focus on community development and are implemented by civil society organizations. As noted above (Section 3.4.2) grant procedures for these projects are still being improved as experience is gained. However, from 2010 onwards, the PAs have been discouraged from proposing basic community activities as Strategic Innovation Projects since funding for IDSs is available through CONANP’s PROCODES and PET budget lines, and through other government agencies (2009 Operations Manual p 95).

5. GEF sinking funds supported the creation of the PCU within CONANP (see Section 8.33) and a Coordinator was assigned to each of the 12 PAs that are the focus of the SINAP 2 Project. The Coordinators guided and implemented all IDS Projects within their PA, and also worked with other federal, state, and municipal agencies to seek out and harmonize their inputs into the IDSs. Though the work of these Coordinators is in general highly


praised, they themselves realize that their focus has been more on social and economic objectives, while less attention has been given to conservation objectives.

6. Social and economic indicators on the success of IDSs were generally tracked, while associated conservation indicators tended not to be.

7. The quality of the IDSs varies considerably within and between PAs. The evaluators saw projects that were excellent and effective in terms of social, economic, and conservation objectives. Others were doing well in terms of conservation objectives, but not so well in terms of social and economic objectives; the reverse is also found, while still others seemed to be failing on all fronts.

8. All available evidence suggests that the expenditures for the IDSs have been carefully tracked and reported in a transparent manner. Irregularities that have been detected have been resolved.

9. In general, IDSs seem to have forged good relations with implementing civil society organizations, and with local communities. In some instances, however, these projects are used primarily as a subsidy for local communities, and seem to be generating dependencies that are not healthy in the long run.

10. In several cases, community members mentioned their disappointment with the low level of economic returns generated by the IDSs, and were outspoken about their need for greater investment from CONANP and FANP.

11. A variety of government agencies at the federal and state levels (agricultural, forestry, fisheries, tourism, rural development, and environmental agencies) also provide funding to local communities for IDSs in and around the selected PAs. Several sources indicated that there is significant potential to increase the level and diversity of these sources of funding.

12. The level of coordination with other government agencies with respect to projects in support of IDSs in and around protected areas is highly variable depending on the area and institutional and personal relations.

13. Projects that improve the quality of life, such as home water cisterns, lorena stoves, and agricultural terraces, were not designed for income-generation, but improved local sufficiency and were highly regard by community members.

14. The Project Coordinators, funded by the Project, helped coordinate IDS investments from other federal, state, and municipal agencies thus multiplying the funding available to communities.

15. PAs tend to be located in areas with limited economic potential where agricultural and livestock rearing activities are marginal at best, and some IDSs relating to these land uses appear not to be viable in the long run. Indeed, IDS projects related to livestock management may be propping up activities that seek to defy the limits of land use capabilities. In the long run this is a disservice to local populations and a real threat to conservation.


16. In several instances the evaluators noted that the ejidos or small land owners who were involved in projects made their living outside of the PA and carried out productive activities in the PA as a hobby or as an additional, but marginal, income source.

17. Some of the IDSs, especially those related to tourism, do not appear to be economically viable in the short run, though several have developed quality infrastructure that could hold the potential for economic viability in the future.

18. In almost all instances where tourism activities have been supported, marketing has not been adequately taken into account.

19. IDSs cover a broad range of themes (see Annex D), and CONANP staff cannot be expected to be technically competent in all of them. Thus, easy access to qualified technical backup is a prerequisite for successful outcomes. While the PCU attempted to provide the necessary backup, this was not always effective and sometimes was not requested when it should have been. Of the projects observed by the evaluators, those that received inputs from Universities appeared to be the best designed from a technical standpoint.

5.2 PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR SUSTAINABLE ACTIVITIES

Noting that over 80% of the lands within the national system of protected areas are communally held by ejidos or individually held by small landowners, CONANP has from the beginning had the policy to respect landownership and only regulate resource use within the protected areas. As a consequence, resource management to a large extent depends on the development of sustainable use patterns among the communities within and around protected areas.

Plans for sustainable activities (called Plans for Community Development Programs by CONANP) were used to apply the general policy within individual protected areas. These plans are developed based on the following principles:

1. The Plans should be developed through participatory processes without distinction as to gender or ethnicity.

2. Biodiversity conservation and the development of local communities is a co-responsibility.3. These ideals are pursued through productive projects that encourage both conservation and

sustainable development.

In developing these projects, CONANP sought to;

1. maximize synergies with other government agencies at the federal, state, and municipal levels;2. focus on productive activities that provide a sustainable alternative to on-going non-

sustainable activities; and 3. promote community participation and organization.


The general policies outlined above were put into action through a process that began by developing Plans for Community Development Programs, based on the following planning process:

1. Analysis of the environmental, social and economic conditions of the community;2. Information on the current management and use of natural resources;3. Identification of the impacts that are caused by restrictions imposed on communities by the

Protected Area Administration with respect to access to, and use of, natural resources;4. Analysis of the threats and opportunities to sustainable development; and,5. Identification of potential sustainable development investments that could be used to mitigate

threats and capitalize on opportunities.

As discussed in Section 6.4, every year the log frames, POAs, and plans for sustainable development initiatives are presented to the PA Advisory Councils or subcouncils for feedback before final approval.

Thus, the major output of the Plan was the identification of potential IDSs.

5.3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (IDS) PROJECTS

IDS projects are the major tool used to implement CONANP’s Community Development Programs. During the Project, roughly 58% of the funding for this was provided by GEF funding, 30% was contributed by CONANP, and 12% was provided by other federal, state, and municipal agencies (Sistematización Document, 2009). During the last two years of the project, additional funding for productive activities was provided by the FANP component of the Project budget for Strategic Innovation Projects (PIEs) through grants made to civil society organizations for Basic Community Activities.

GEF funding for IDSs is called “mainstreaming funds” in the Project Document, but commonly called “SINAP 2 funds” by Project participants. The SINAP 2 funds were spent as normal project disbursements on a sinking fund basis, and were administered by NAFIN for CONANP. CONANP funding came from their PROCODES, PET, and Maiz Criollo (native corn) budget lines and was complemented by funding from other Federal, State, and Municipal agencies.

When the use of interest generated by the SINAP 2 FANP Endowment was shifted during the last two years of the project so that 80% was assigned to Special Innovation Projects (hereafter referred to as PIEs for the acronym in Spanish) and implemented through non-governmental organizations, this resulted in an increased number of IDSs funded by the Project, which jumped from an average of 11 per year to 16 per year. While technical studies, community projects, and community capacity building are all eligible activities for funding as PIEs, during the past two years 77% of the PIE funds were spent on community projects. It is too early, however, to be able to evaluate the PIE funded IDSs. From 2010 onward, the PAs are being discouraged from proposing community projects for PIE funding since there are ample opportunities to finance these kinds of projects CONAMP and other government agencies.

According to the PAD, it was expected that funding for the IDSs would be split between the GoM and the SINAP 2 Project with about 75% funded by the GoM and 25% funded by SINAP 2. A PowerPoint


prepared for the last World Bank Supervision Mission by CONANP indicated that at the end of the Project, the breakdown was roughly 70% funded by the GoM and 30% funded by SINAP2 as shown in Chart 5.3 below.

Chart 5.3: Funding for Sustainable Development Initiatives (IDSs) in Mexican Pesos

SINAP II, $19,120,316.17, 31%

OTRAS FUENTES DE FINANCIAMIENTO, $43,304,404.84, 69%

PROYECTO SINAP IIFUENTES DE FINANCIAMIENTO DE IDS

Source: CONANP PCU

Further details on these IDSs with respect to the annual amount financed, the number of projects, and sources of funding is provided in Table 5.3.

Implementation of the IDS project concepts that were identified through the Plans for Community Development and funded by SINAP 2 started with a rigorous planning process. IDS project concepts were further analyzed by developing technical, financial and market analyses, and by weighing potential operational and administrative structures. These analyses provided the basis for detailed descriptions of the projects, the design of training plans, the development of contracts with the community, and the development of work and disbursement schedules.

However, it should be noted that the inputs to the planning process were not always used to inform implementation. This was especially true with respect to information on the use and management of natural resources by the communities, the limitations that were imposed on resource use when the protected areas was created, and the market analysis that was undertaken. As a result, there was little recognition or use of traditional resource management by the community, the link between limitations on resource caused by establishment of the PA and alternative projects was lost, and marketing was largely ignored. Perhaps most critical of all was the lack of integration of social, economic, and conservation objectives. This was exacerbated by the concentration on social and economic indicators, while giving much less attention to conservation indicators.


Table 5.3: Breakdown of Financial Contributions (Mexican pesos) to IDS Projects by Protected Area

FINANCIERO FINANCIERO

2004 1 $269,576.75 $133,000.00 66.96 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS

2005 1 $263,820.00 $1,004,900.00 20.79COMUNIDAD, PRODERS, PET, CDI, CONAFOR,

AYUNTAMIENTO/MUNICIPIO2006 1 $195,470.00 $60,000.00 76.51 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2007 1 $118,000.00 $24,000.00 83.10 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2008 1 $250,550.00 $13,500.00 94.89 COMUNIDAD, PROCODES

2007 4 $842,857.00 $1,588,145.00 34.67 COMUNIDAD, PET, COOPERATIVAS PESQUERAS, PRODERS

2009 2 $450,000.00 $1,314,250.00 25.51 COMUNIDAD, PET, COOPERATIVAS PESQUERAS, PROCODES

2004 1 $298,627.00 $400,135.20 42.74 COMUNIDAD, FANP, PET, PRODERS

2005 2 $421,101.09 $4,208,048.59 9.10COMUNIDAD, FANP, AYUNTAMIENTO DE MORELOS, PET,

CONAFOR, CDI, NATURALIA, PRODERS

2006 3 $701,955.26 $4,285,250.20 14.08COMUNIDAD, FANP, AYUNTAMIENTO DE MORELOS, PET,

CONAFOR, CDI, NATURALIA, PRODERS2008 3 $732,000.00 $3,022,000.00 19.50 COMUNIDAD, FANP, PET, PROCODES

2009 3 $1,320,000.00 $3,232,018.00 29.00COMUNIDAD, FANP, AYUNTAMIENTO DE MORELOS, PET,

CONAFOR, CDI, NATURALIA, PROCODESCUATROCIÉNEGAS 2006 3 $529,548.80 $883,417.50 37.48 COMUNIDAD, FANP PET, PRODERS

EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DE ALTAR

2009 2 $200,000.00 $300,000.00 40.00 COMUNIDAD,DIRECCION DEL ANP, PROCODES

2005 4 $714,084.00 $669,223.30 51.62COMUNIDAD, PET, SECRETARIA AL SERVICIO ESTATAL DE

EMPLEO, TNC, SEETAP, PRODERS2006 1 $250,000.00 $443,923.00 36.03

2008 3 $750,000.00 $1,027,254.00 42.20COMUNIDAD, PET, SECRETARIA AL SERVICIO ESTATAL DE

EMPLEO, TNC, SEETAP, PROCODES2009 2 $500,000.00 $283,200.00 63.84 COMUNIDAD, PET, PROCODES

2005 2 $769,550.00 $372,740.00 67.37COMUNIDAD, PET, CONAFOR, COPLANTA, PRONATURA,

PRODERS


PRODERS


PRODERS


PROCODES


PROCODES2005 3 $579,272.00 $1,017,736.00 36.27 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2006 1 $197,500.00 $682,000.00 22.46 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2007 1 $268,950.00 $710,250.00 27.47 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2008 1 $250,000.00 $1,084,700.00 18.73 COMUNIDAD, PROCODES2009 1 $260,000.00 $650,000.00 28.57 COMUNIDAD, PROCODES

2007 2 $498,210.00 $2,050,180.00 19.55COMUNIDAD, PRONATURA CHIAPAS, CDI, CONAFOR, AIRES DE

CAMBIO, MUN DE OCOZOCOAUTLA, PRODERS

2008 3 $719,666.38 $1,263,200.00 36.29COMUNIDAD, PRONATURA CHIAPAS, CDI, CONAFOR, AIRES DE

CAMBIO, MUN DE OCOZOCOAUTLA, PROCODESSIERRA DE ALAMOS -RÍO

CUCHUJAQUI2005 2 $518,764.00 $1,063,984.00 32.78

COMUNIDAD, PET, COORD. DE TURISMO DEL EDO. DE SONORA, PRODERS

2005 1 $210,754.02 $187,780.00 52.88COMUNIDAD, MUN. DE LA PAZ Y LOS CABOS, DIRECCIÓN ANP.,

PRODERS2006 2 $407,313.38 $128,680.00 75.99 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2007 1 $173,730.74 $52,649.05 76.74 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS

2008 1 $1,480,137.00 $2,184,000.00 40.40COMUNIDAD, MUN. DE LA PAZ Y LOS CABOS, DIRECCIÓN ANP.,

PROCODES

2004 1 $114,690.00 $892,750.00 11.38COMUNIDAD, FANP, ALIANZA PARA LA COOPERACIÓN

ESPÑOLA, PET, CONAFOR, SEDESOL, INDESOL, PRODERS2006 3 $523,702.75 $347,089.00 60.14 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS2007 1 $147,060.00 $124,800.00 54.09 COMUNIDAD, PRODERS

2008 4 $1,103,426.00 $6,392,362.00 14.72COMUNIDAD, FANP, ALIANZA PARA LA COOPERACIÓN

ESPÑOLA, PET, CONAFOR, SEDESOL, INDESOL, PROCODES2009 3 $740,000.00 $455,000.00 61.92 COMUNIDAD, PROCODES

TOTAL $19,120,316.17 $43,304,404.84 30.63

TEHUACÁN CUICATLÁN

OTRAS FUENTES DE FINANCIAMIENTO

SINAP II OTRAS

ALTO GOLFO DE CALIFORNIA Y DELTA DEL RÍO COLORADO

BANCO CHINCHORRO - PN ARRECIFES DE XCALAK

CORREDOR BIOLÓGICO CHICHINAÚTZIN; PARQUE

NACIONAL LAGUNAS DE ZEMPOALA Y PARQUE NACIONAL EL TEPOZTECO

ANP AÑO PROYECTOS

AVANCES AVANCES

APORTACIÓN SINAP II (%)

LA ENCRUCIJADA

LA SEPULTURA

PANTANOS DE CENTLA

SELVA EL OCOTE

SIERRA LA LAGUNA


Most of the work on the IDSs was spearheaded by the Project Coordinators who were hired with GEF sinking funds and assigned to each of the 12 SINAP 2 sites. The Coordinators were selected by the Directors of these areas. Each used different selection criteria, so in the end the Coordinators came from very different backgrounds. Yet through their determination and dedication, they were able to overcome numerous difficulties to implement with success a good number of the projects that they developed and guided. Indeed, there was remarkable agreement among those interviewed that the Project Coordinators were a rather extraordinary group that had added a whole new dimension to the PA staff. The PCU Unit in CONANP provided opportunities for the Project Coordinators to share lessons learned and to access technical assistance and training programs for local implementers. However, in some cases the technical assistance was ineffective, and in others was not requested when it was needed.

IDS projects included a number of “quality of life” activities that were not designed for income-generation but improved local self-sufficiency. These included a number of villages that received rain fed cisterns for home water consumption, lorena stoves to decrease the amount of fire wood required for cooking and reduce smoke in cooking areas, and community museums that were important in developing local pride. Another type of project where economic objectives are not primary, but which have been quite successful, are those that target the development of community fire brigades. The Project helped pay for tools and training, and the communities built fire breaks around their agricultural fields to diminish combustible materials and help control agricultural burns. These groups have also often received PET funding to assist with wildfire control or to create fire breaks in key areas to protect PAs. This is a good example of different sources of funding being used to create positive synergies.

Even though a good number of the IDS income generation projects were successful, especially some of those related to tourism, they were all carried out in relative isolation. While the Project Coordinators were good at sharing information and learning from each other, there was no attempt to fit these projects into larger frameworks or to develop linkages with productive networks in the region. Taken together, the IDS projects are rather miniscule in comparison to the overall resource use picture, though actual statistics are not available. The impact on conservation of the IDS Projects has never been evaluated in a systematic way, nor has there been much effort to fit the projects into overall community resource use plans.

5.4 SUCCESS OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN

Two verifiable indicators were chosen to measure the success of the “productive activities” component of the project. These were: (1) within the total area under productive use, the proportion under sustainable use has doubled; and (2) among resource users, the proportion that applies sustainable practices has doubled. These indicators have been met and surpassed in all of the Project areas except for one, Corredor Biologico Chichinautzin – PN el Tepozteco y Lagunas de Zempoala. The actual increases in total area under productive use and the number of beneficiaries by PA from the beginning to the end of the Project are presented in Table 5.4.


Table 5.4: Increases in Land Area Under Sustainable Use and Number of Beneficiaries During the Life of the Project

ANP SUPERFICIE TOTAL (Ha.)

SUPERFICIE ZONA

NÚCLEO (Ha.)

SUPERFICIE ZONA DE AMORTIGUAMIENTO

(Ha.)

POBLACIÓN TOTAL AÑO

MONTO FINANCIADO

(Mx Pesos)

SUPERFICIE BAJO USO

SUSTENTABLE (Ha.)

ACUMULADO

NÚMERO DE BENEFICIARIOS ACUMULADO

% POBLACIÓN ANP

BENEFICIADA

% SUPERFICIE BAJO USO

SUSTENTABLE

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA ALTO GOLFO DE CALIFORNIA Y DELTA DEL RÍO COLORADO

934,756.25 164,779.75 769,976.50 3,377 2002 $0.00 4500.00 25 0.74 0.58

SUBTOTAL 2009 $5,927,167.63 159050.00 2810 83.21 20.66

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA BANCO CHINCHORRO - PN ARRECIFES DE XCALAK

162,309 11,493 151,217 335 2003 $237,245.00 0.00 50 14.93 0.00

SUBTOTAL 2009 $7,087,214.29 144360.00 1960 585.07 95.47

ÁREA DE PROTECCIÓN DE FLORA Y FAUNA CORREDOR BIOLÓGICO CHICHINAUTZIN - PN EL TEPOZTECO y LAGUNAS DE ZEMPOALA

65,722 NA NA 53,865 2003 $140,000.00 200.00 310 0.58 0.30

SUBTOTAL 2009 $8,198,221.09 290.00 2461 4.57 0.44

ÁREA DE PROTECCIÓN DE FLORA Y FAUNA CUATROCIÉNEGAS

84,347 NA NA 13,465 2002 $94,898.00 40.00 70 0.52 0.05

SUBTOTAL 2009 $9,519,078.80 4088.58 7387 54.86 4.85


RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DE ALTAR

714,557 269,505.25 445,051.25 200 2005 $273,402.80 0.00 60 30.00 0.00

SUBTOTAL 2009 $4,229,112.80 501.00 387 193.50 0.11

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA LA ENCRUCIJADA

144,868 36,216 108,652 26,992 2002 $292,081.63 10.02 655 2.43 0.01

SUBTOTAL 2009 $13,781,222.63 463.91 4029 14.93 0.43

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA LA SEPULTURA

167,310 13759 153550 23,145 2002 $210,188.00 20.01 79 0.34 0.01

SUBTOTAL 2009 $10,674,368.00 7383.01 5059 21.86 4.81

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA PANTANOS DE CENTLA

302,707 133,595 169,111 16,293 2002 $168,887.05 162.58 390 2.39 0.10

SUBTOTAL 2009 $32,968,263.55 1395.42 13321 81.76 0.83

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA SELVA EL OCOTE

101,288 40431.87 60,856.27 6,246 2002 $157,356.00 36.00 536 8.58 0.06

SUBTOTAL 2009 $13,713,467.38 1811.75 13730 219.82 2.98

ÁREA DE PROTECCIÓN DE FLORA Y FAUNA SIERRA DE ALAMOS RÍO CUCHUJAQUI

92,890 NA NA 402 2002 $915,929.68 30.00 425 105.72 0.03

SUBTOTAL 2009 $9,679,292.53 3715.00 2655 658.81 4.00

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA SIERRA

112,437 32,519.82 79917.24 738 2002 $445,912.00 0.00 188 25.47 0.00


LA LAGUNA

SUBTOTAL 2009 $10,485,771.98 100.00 1577 213.66 0.13

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA TEHUACÁN CUICATLÁN

119,177 93,414 25,763 13,778 2004 $114,690.00 1401.00 913 6.63 5.44

SUBTOTAL 2009 $16,387,634.75 4872.90 11502 83.48 18.91

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA MAPIMÍ 342388.22 28532.77 313855.45 353 2002 $94,898.00 100.00 20 5.67 0.03

SUBTOTAL 2009 $4,481,314.40 27869.56 1407 398.58 8.88

TOTAL $142,650,815.43 472391.57 66878


The evaluators found that the quality of the IDSs in general varies considerably within and between PAs. This is certainly true for the IDSs supported by the SINAP 2 mainstreaming funds. The few IDSs supported by PIE funding have only been in place for one year, so it is too early to evaluate them.

Some of the IDS projects visited by the evaluators appeared to be well designed and implemented. Preliminary outcomes seemed to be effective in terms of social, economic, and conservation objectives. Other projects were doing well in terms of conservation objectives, but not so well in terms of social and economic values, and the opposite was found as well. In yet other cases, the projects appeared to be failing on all fronts, at least in the short run.

It needs to be remembered that PAs tend to be located in areas with limited economic potential where agricultural and livestock rearing activities are marginal at best. Several supposedly sustainable productive initiatives do not appear to be viable, at least in the short run. In a few instances, the projects seem to be propping up activities that seek to defy the limits of land use capabilities. In the long run, subsidizing such efforts is a disservice to local populations and a real threat to conservation.

The tourism related IDS projects visited by the evaluators varied in quality, especially with regard to the feasibility studies and infrastructure that has been developed, and the degree of community organization, though the balance was on the positive side. In some instances, community members had received substantial training in adventure tourism options (e.g. rappelling and cave rafting) as well as in CPR and emergency services. However, the amount of time and effort required to develop tourism infrastructure has taken a toll on some of the community organizations whose membership has dropped over the years. The concern now is a coherent marketing strategy that will increase levels of visitation. While a new effort is under way with the hiring of New Ventures to promote a number of these tourism projects, the lack of marketing to date raises questions about economic viability and the amount of time community members will continue to invest in these facilities.

In several instances the evaluators noted that individuals from ejidos or small land owners who were involved in projects made their livelihoods outside the PA and carried out productive activities in the PA as a hobby or as an additional, but marginal, income source. This is not necessarily bad if the project is instrumental in converting unsustainable activities into sustainable ones, and serves as a positive demonstration that influences other landowners. It does raise the question, however, of priorities. All things being equal, priority should be given to supporting recipients who are less economically advantaged. In practice, though, things are never equal, and a broad range of variables need to be taken into account.

IDSs cover a broad range of themes, and CONANP staff cannot be expected to be technically competent in all of them. Thus, ready access to qualified technical backup is a prerequisite for successful outcomes together with the recognition of the need to draw on this expertise at critical junctures. Indeed, of the projects observed by the evaluators, those that received inputs from Universities appeared to be the best designed from a technical standpoint.

All available evidence suggests that the expenditures for the IDSs have been carefully tracked and reported in a transparent manner. Irregularities that have been detected have been resolved. This


finding is consistent with the findings of the mid-term and final independent evaluations of SINAP 1, and the midterm evaluation of SINAP 2.

5.5 SUSTAINABLE ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

In general, IDSs seem to have served to forge positive relations with implementing civil society organizations, and with local communities. Interviews with local community members indicated great appreciation for the projects and optimism and excitement about being able to submit proposals for future ideas. In a few communities, the evaluators also saw the Project Coordinators, make a special effort to engage local women in developing ideas for proposals. The breakdown of beneficiaries by gender is included in Graph 5.5

Graph 5.5: Participation by Gender in Sustainable Development Initiatives

CONANP. Misión de Supervisión del Banco Mundial al Proyecto Consolidación de Áreas Naturales Protegidas – SINAP II. PowerPoint.

While the long-term prospects of many of these projects are positive, in some instances, these projects seem to be generating dependencies that are not healthy in the long run. Indeed, in several cases, community members mentioned their disappointment with the low level of economic returns generated by the IDSs, and were outspoken about their need for greater investment from CONANP and FANP.


A variety of government agencies at the federal and state levels (agricultural, forestry, fisheries, tourism, rural development, and environmental agencies) have also provided funding to local communities for IDSs in and around the selected PAs. Several persons interviewed indicated that there is significant potential to increase the level and diversity of these sources of funding. The level of coordination with other government agencies with respect to projects in support of IDSs in and around protected areas is highly variable depending on the area and institutional and personal relations, though in general the importance of such coordination is recognized and pursued.

5.6 LESSONS LEARNED

1. Though it is too early to gauge the success of the PIE Projects themselves, some quick lessons have been learned with respect to the grant-making process. From that standpoint, the PIEs are most successful when:

a. they require counterpart funding from the implementing organization;b. focus on critical management issues;c. well functioning projects are extended over a number of years; and,d. there is strong interaction between the PA management team and the implementing

organization.

2. The potential for increasing PA funding through alliances with other government agencies at the federal, state, and municipal level would appear to be quite large, and is perhaps the largest untapped source of funding.

3. The economic, social, and conservation objectives of IDS Projects are equally important, and the processes for designing, monitoring and evaluating them must address each effectively.

4. IDS Project Coordinators can come from any number of backgrounds and still be successful. What is critical is that they are well integrated into overall management of the PA, have opportunities to share experience and learn from one another, have relatively easy access to technical consultant and are well trained in their use.

5. One of the criteria for selecting IDS Projects should be the degree to which they fit into regional networks that can provide support services, economies of scale, opportunities for collective marketing, and integration into the local economy. This is especially true of projects related to tourism.

6. “Quality of Life” projects can be effective in offsetting the resource use limitations imposed by protected area status even though such projects may not generate cash income.

7. Universities can often play a key role in providing technical support for the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of IDS and PIE projects.

8. Experience with the successful multi-year SINAP 2 funded IDS projects suggests that the annually funded PROCODES, PET and Maiz Criollo Projects might also benefit from multi-year project designs.


6.0 PROMOTE SOCIAL CO-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSERVATION

Promoting social co-responsibility for conservation was the third major result of the Project indicated in the Project POA (Manual de Operaciones, 2009, pg. 62-65). The verifiable indicator for this objective was “at least 80% of conservation initiatives are the result of participatory processes promoted by the Project (including the design and implementation of the initiatives).

6.1 MAJOR FINDINGS


1. Each year the Logical Frameworks, Annual Operations Plans (POAs), Annual Reports, and productive activities (PROCODES, SINAP II, PET, and others) are reviewed by the Advisory Councils and/or Sub-Councils that function at the PA level, and for the FANP as a whole. Each of these entities is made up of stakeholder groups, and thus all conservation initiatives are the result of participatory processes at the national level, and all of those initiatives undertaken within PAs with functioning Advisory Councils and/or Sub-Councils are reviewed at the site level as well.

2. The Project has had a catalyzing effect on the development of a conservation culture amongst government agencies, civil society, visitors, users of natural resources, students, and the private sector.

3. The tools that can be used to promote co-responsibility for conservation are many, and include, among others: (a) the IDS and PIE Projects; (b) local Advisory Councils; (c) initiatives to harmonize environmental policies with other government agencies; (d) the evaluation and verification of environmental impacts and changes in land use for infrastructure projects in the PAs; (e) the inspection and regulation of natural resource uses; and (f) environmental education and interpretation programs.

4. The Project has been implemented through processes which are in alignment with the Indigenous People’s Policy of the World Bank.

5. The IDS and PIE projects have provided a whole suite of opportunities to work with local communities and the civil sector, and to formalize co-responsibility for conservation through project agreements.

6. The experience with Protected Area Councils has been quite varied and seems to depend to a great extent on the interest of the PA Directors in engaging with, and supporting, the Councils.

7. Efforts to harmonize environmental policies with other federal, state, and municipal agencies have provided excellent opportunities for promoting co-responsibility for conservation, and for exploring opportunities for co-financing of conservation projects.


8. While few of the PAs are in areas where there is significant infrastructure development, those that are have played a key role in reviewing environmental impact analyses, and proposals for land use changes.

9. The regulation of resource uses within the PAs has many times initiated conflicts with local communities. However, over time, PA managers have often been able to smooth those conflicts and find common objectives with resource users. IDSs and PIEs have been important tools in finding ways to resolve resource use issues and encourage sustainability.

10. Environmental education and interpretation projects have been instrumental in promoting a culture of conservation among students living in and around PAs, and with the public that visits PAs.

6.2 ALIGNMENT WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S POLICY OF THE WORLD BANK

Programs for the Development of Indigenous Communities (PDPI is the acronym in Spanish) are the main tool that has been used to implement the Indigenous People’s Policy of the World Bank. The PDPIs are a specific component of the social strategy that is required for each of the SINAP 2 PAs that have indigenous communities in or around them. The PDPIs seek to (a) strengthen indigenous institutions, (b) provide support for participation in management of the PA, (c) encourage sustainable development initiatives compatible with native culture, and (d) support indigenous values and traditions. The PA administrations are authorized to develop activities directly with indigenous communities or their authorities through the PDPI mechanism. The Annual Operating Plans of the SINAP 2 PAs include a specific section on, and budgets for, implementation of the PDPIs, and each has been approved by the World Bank. Implementation agreements for the actions contained in the PDPIs is accomplished through the signing of MOUs between the PA and indigenous groups or their authorities which lay out the terms of the activity, and the way it will be funded, monitored, and evaluated.

It is interesting to note that 44% of the IDSs undertaken in the twelve SINAP 2 PAs were implemented by indigenous groups. Thus the conclusions and lessons learned regarding the IDSs apply fully to those implemented by indigenous groups. It is also impressive that many of the complimentary funds obtained for IDS support have come from the Indigenous Development Commission (CDI) with whom CONANP staff has developed a good ongoing working relationship.


Graph 6.2: Participation by Ethnicity in Sustainable Development Initiatives


6.3 IDS AND PIE PROJECTS

Both the IDS and PIE Projects have enabled PA staff to interact on a regular basis with local communities, building confidence and trust, while delivering the conservation message. The evaluators were struck by the capacity of local communities to understand and discuss conservation themes, and to advocate conservation measures. While some of this may be a case of telling the evaluators what they want to hear, it at least indicates a solid familiarity with the themes. There is also a self selection process involved here, because only community groups interested in participation in the IDSs are selected, so there is already a predisposition to engage in sustainable production activities. An evaluator also heard about cases where community groups were opposed to the PA and its administration, and were not willing to consider conversion to sustainable use practices. However, this appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

Training and organizational development activities are a regular component of the IDS Project and can be part of PIE projects as well, and these activities have provided tools to communities that allow them to generate the financial resources that allow them to put into practice the conservation concepts that they learn. In addition, some of the IMAC supported training and networking projects – particularly one on the effectiveness of Advisory Councils – have also been a key part of this project (see Section 8.4.1). In addition, once community groups learn how to achieve their aims and objectives, these skills can be applied to any number of endeavors.


The PIEs in particular have provided opportunities for the PA Administrations to develop true partnerships with civil society organizations. This has the effect of not only multiplying conservation activities in and around the PAs, but also supporting the development of institutional capacities that will grow conservation work in the surrounding region.

6.4 PROTECTED AREA ADVISORY COUNCILS

While Advisory Councils are an excellent means for working on a regular basis with PA stakeholders, and drawing them into the complexities of conservation practice, they have not been successful in all PAs. From the discussions the evaluators had in the five SINAP 2 PAs visited, it appears that the main ingredient that distinguishes between successful, less successful, and failed Advisory Councils, is the interests of the PA Director. If the Director finds the Advisory Council useful, he/she tends to make it work.

The PCU has given particular attention to the needs of the Advisory Councils, and has organized training courses, provided facilitators when needed, and sought to develop learning networks. The IMAC project (Section 8.4.1) also provided additional facilitation and best practices support to Advisory Councils. PA Directors have also promoted Sub-Councils where needed to address gaps in geographical or thematic coverage. The effect of these initiatives has been to make the successful ones more successful, and to help develop the less successful ones. Still, managing Advisory Councils across large distances, covering a number of indigenous languages, and major cultural differences is a weighty task to take on. Even with PCU inputs, it was not hard to understand why some PA Directors do not make regular meetings a priority.

One evaluator attended meetings of Advisory Councils in the PAs visited. In all cases, the Council Meetings were long, rambling, and ambiguous in terms of decisions or agreements. This would lead one to believe that busy people would tend to lose interest. This may be a culturally biased observation, however. It was obvious that the Councils are perceived by many as an opportunity to interact with a variety of important individuals with whom they would not normally interact. Thus a Council meeting is at once a social event as well as an opportunity to promote individual agendas with people who count. Because of this, a long rambling meeting might meet a number of individual objectives without necessarily meeting PA objectives.

Some PA Directors are taking steps to try to make the Advisory Councils more focused. For example, in Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, an exceptionally large PA crossing 2 states, 51 municipalities, and many ethnic groups, three sub Advisory Groups have been created to work directly with sub-directors assigned to the 3 regions. These sub-groups are more homogenous. They are divided along state boundaries and can do more useful work based on the different realities in the various areas and the fact that PA management strategies can vary in how they impact local communities.


6.5 HARMONIZATION OF LAND AND RESOURCE USE POLICIES

It is impressive to note the number of international, federal, state, and municipal agencies that interact with a given PA. Thus, the potential exists everywhere to harness a variety of human and financial resources, equipment, and infrastructure that belong to sister agencies. PA Directors have found that harmonization of environmental policies is one of the most effective means for harnessing the resources of other agencies and developing shared agendas.

Still, it was pointed out by several individuals at different levels within CONANP that they have only begun to make use of sister agencies to further the PA agenda. Much more can be accomplished, and the field is wide open for entrepreneurial staff. However, to make the most of this opportunity, more work needs to be done to identify the most effective and efficient mechanisms for making this happen. Harmonization of land and resource use policies is one such mechanism, but no doubt there are many others that should be explored. Suggestions in this regard are included in Section 9.3 on recommendations.

6.6 EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

In several of the SINAP 2 PAs, infrastructure development is happening at an accelerating rate while in others it is only incipient. No doubt, it will become important in almost all of the PAs in the future. In many instances, the establishment and management of a PA is in itself a factor in accelerating the demand for infrastructure development.

One tool that has proved useful is the development of an on-line tracking tool for all developments that result in a change of land use within the PA system. This tool provides clear direction on the process for carrying out environmental impact studies, lists all developments that have not yet had an environmental impact assessment completed, and tracks the number of days between posting of the development and completion of the impact assessment. Thus, at any given moment one can determine the status of developments and their impact assessments for all PAs in the system.

Some of the PAs have a unique in-house capacity to evaluate the environmental impact studies that are required for significant infrastructure projects. In other instances, consultants must be hired. The evaluation provides an opportunity to dialog with the interested parties, and instances have provided the framework within which biodiversity offsets can be explored and discussed. Thus, the evaluation process for environmental impact assessments provides an important opportunity to avoid confrontation, build confidence and mutual respect, and seek solutions that work for all stakeholders.

For a few of the SINAP 2 PAs, the number of infrastructure projects is daunting. In these cases the PA Administration has had to begin on a selective basis, but as capacities and experience have been built, they have been able to steadily increase the percentage of EIAs that are evaluated.

6.7 REGULATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE USES


A few of the SINAP 2 PAs, especially the marine and forest PAs, have major resource uses that are regulated by the PA itself, or because of national or state laws that are enforced by sister agencies. In either case, the regulation process provides an opportunity to interact on a regular basis with sister agencies, and to draw on their resources and legal mandates for enforcement. CONANP does not have a mandate for law enforcement nor the capacity. Thus, cooperation with federal and state enforcement agencies is extremely important in some cases.

There is, however, one resource use that has defied enforcement, and that is the growth of plants that feed the illegal drug market. Obviously this is a problem that plagues PAs around the world, and for which few solutions have been found. The use of force can lead to wider social problems, so creative solutions are required to deal with the problems that this kind of resource use creates. Fires caused by land-clearing activities are a particular concern (See Section 4.4.1).

6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION PROJECTS

Each of the SINAP 2 PAs has instituted environmental education programs and several that have significant visitation have developed interpretive programs. The evaluators were impressed by the interest in these programs that was displayed by the local schools and students, and the role this plays in spreading a culture of conservation. In a number of cases PAs had collaborated with the RARE Pride campaign and continued using many of the emblematic species and other educational materials developed from that partnership.

One interpretation project that merits special mention is the Pinacate Visitor Center. The quality of the landscape and architectural design, construction, and maintenance is superb. The nature trails and the training of staff in attending the public are also excellent. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Center is that it is self-sufficient in terms of energy use through solar and wind power. This provides a powerful demonstration effect and is a good initial experience that could inform the development of a wider process of developing zero emission PAs.

6.9 LESSONS LEARNED

1. Protected Area Councils are an important tool for developing the culture of conservation and for stakeholder participation. The success of the Councils tends to depend to a large degree on the interest and inputs of the PA Director. Thus, the training of PA Directors in the establishment and nurturing of PA Councils is a key factor in improving their functioning and output.

2. Federal, state, and municipal agencies are perhaps the largest untapped resource for improving the management of PAs through the funding of IDSs, the harmonization of environmental policies, law enforcement, etc., and creative ways need to be found to harness this potential.

3. The energy invested in the evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) not only pays dividends in avoiding environmental impacts and sustainability issues, but also provides early opportunities to encourage biodiversity offsets.

4. The development of zero green house gas PAs provides an opportunity not only to demonstrate how infrastructure and transportation systems can be developed to minimize the emission of


green house gases, but could also be used as a means of generating funding for infrastructure and transportation through carbon offsets.

7.0 PROMOTE INCLUSION OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE CRITERIA IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

The fourth major desired Project result, as reflected in the POA (FMCN, Manual de Operaciones, 2009, p. 61-62), focused on promoting inclusion of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use criteria in development projects. The outcome sought was “the inclusion of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use criteria in development projects and other practices affecting the selected PAs.” The verifiable indicators for this objective were: (1) “at least 20% of the funds invested in the PAs by non-environmental government agencies are compatible with conservation and/or the sustainable use of biodiversity”; and (2) “at least 80% of the development initiatives financed by governmental agencies do not have negative effects on biodiversity and include mitigation measures.”

7.1 MAJOR FINDINGS


1. The indicators for this project result were met and surpassed.

2. Seven of the twelve SINAP 2 PAs give priority in their POAs to coordinating environmental policies and agreements with other government agencies, but even in these PAs, progress was slow and the harmonization of environmental policies was concluded with relatively few other government agencies.

3. As noted in Section 6.6, the development of an on-line tracking tool for all developments that result in a change of land use within the PA system has proven to be a very useful tool.

4. The evaluation and verification of environmental impacts and changes in land use associated with infrastructure projects in the PAs was a priority activity in half of POAs of the SINAP 2 PAs and led to the mitigation of some negative effects on biodiversity conservation.

7.2 OVERVIEW

This fourth desired project result was one that received the least attention, not because of disinterest, but because it applies to only a relatively small number of developments in just a few of the Project PAs. Because of this, there was little data on the indicators associated with this result, and only about half of the SINAP 2 PAs needed to implement this by including specific activities in their POAs. It should also be noted that this fourth result was considered related to the third in that the activities required to achieve both objectives included harmonization of environmental policies


with other government agencies, and the evaluation of environmental impact statements for infrastructure projects.


Two observations are in order:

1. The number of SINAP 2 PAs that found this relevant to their situation and included activities in their POAs to attain the fourth project result is strikingly low; and

2. Those PAs that did include activities in their POAs to attain this result made relatively little progress, since the number of government agencies where progress was achieved in this regard was relatively small.

Based on these two observations, the evaluators have to conclude that among the desired project results, the fourth was irrelevant to at least half of the areas, and was a minor activity in many of the rest.

7.3 HARMONIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

As pointed out in Section 6.5, the harmonization of environmental policies with other federal, state, and municipal government agencies can multiply the resources available to the PA to achieve its objectives, and cut down on projects with negative environment effects. Seven of the twelve SINAP 2 PAs have included harmonization of environmental policies with other government agencies as a priority within their POAs, and the number of agencies where this exercise has been completed has increased each year.

It is interesting to note, as shown in Table 7.3, that several of the Project PAs have been successful in getting non-environmental agencies to support conservation projects. This is certainly a creative mechanism for getting sister agencies to internalize conservation policies.

Strong alliances were noted between CONANP and CONAFOR as well as the Comisión de Desarrollo Indígena (CDI). The SINAP 2 project provided the Project Coordinators in the PA’s which facilitated coordination with CONAFOR and CDI offices (which lack field staff) to expend funds on projects developed by local communities. A particularly interesting project that was gaining a lot of interest on the part of local communities in Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, Selva el Ocote, and Los Alamos was a “payment for environmental services” subsidy managed by CONAFOR, designed to benefit ejidos and community members who could clearly document the forested lands, and hence watersheds, they were conserving. Finally, PA Directors often worked closely with municipal authorities and could point to advances in their collaborations at that level.

One of the most important government agencies with regard to subsidies in the Mexican country side is the Agricultural Ministry (SAGARPA). The evaluators did not find any partnerships between CONANP and SAGARPA which was disappointing given the number of agricultural projects underway. SAGARPA has traditionally provided subsidies for agriculture on steep hillsides – an area where a change of policy would help reduce deforestation, dramatically reduce erosion, improve water supplies, and redirect campesino efforts into less vulnerable agricultural areas.


Table 7.3: Contributions of Non-Environmental Entities to Conservation Projects in Mx Pesos

2004 $269,576.75 $0.00 100.002005 $263,820.00 $0.00 100.002006 $195,470.00 $0.00 100.002007 $118,000.00 $0.00 100.002008 $250,550.00 $0.00 100.002007 $842,857.00 $0.00 100.002009 $450,000.00 $0.00 100.00

CORREDOR BIOLÓGICO CHICHINAUTZIN

2004 $298,627.00 $0.00 100.00

2005 $421,101.09 $694,150.00 37.76 CDI, H AYUNTAMIENTO2006 $701,955.26 $425,000.00 62.29 CDI2008 $732,000.00 $0.00 100.002009 $1,320,000.00 $0.00 100.00

CUATROCIÉNEGAS 2006 $529,548.80 $0.00 100.00

2007 $200,000.00 $640,000.00 23.81CDI, MUNICIPIO DE OCOZOCOAUTLA

2008 $714,084.00 $50,000.00 93.46 MUNICIPIO DE OCOZOCOAUTLAEL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO

DE ALTAR2009

$250,000.00 $0.00 100.00

2005 $750,000.00 $0.00 100.002006 $500,000.00 $0.00 100.002008 $769,550.00 $132,150.00 85.34 SUBSECRETARÍA DEL SERVICIO 2009 $250,000.00 $66,000.00 79.11 SEETAP2005 $250,000.00 $0.00 100.002006 $500,000.00 $0.00 100.002007 $350,000.00 $0.00 100.002008 $579,272.00 $0.00 100.002009 $197,500.00 $0.00 100.002005 $268,950.00 $0.00 100.002006 $250,000.00 $0.00 100.002007 $260,000.00 $0.00 100.002008 $498,210.00 $0.00 100.002009 $719,666.38 $0.00 100.00

SIERRA DE ALAMOS 2005 $518,764.00 $16,820.00 96.86COORDINACIÓN DE TURISMO DE SONORA

2005 $210,754.02 $6,820.00 96.872006 $407,313.38 $12,050.00 97.13 DIRECCIÓN ANP2007 $173,730.74 $11,800.00 93.64

2008 $1,480,137.00 $320,200.00 82.21MUNICIPIO DE LA PAZ Y LOS CABOS, GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO

2004 $114,690.00 $130,000.00 46.87 INDESOL2006 $523,702.75 $0.00 100.002007 $147,060.00 $0.00 100.002008 $1,103,426.00 $5,045,681.00 17.94 SEDESOL, CDI, AECI2009 $740,000.00 $0.00 100.00

$19,120,316.17 $7,550,671.00 71.69

ANP AÑO

MONTOS

APORTACIÓN SINAP II (%)

FONDOS NO AMBIENTALESFINANCIEROS

SINAP II NO AMBIENTALES

SIERRA LA LAGUNA

TEHUACÁN CUICATLÁN

ALTO GOLFO DE CALIFORNIA Y DELTA DEL RÍO COLORADO

BANCO CHINCHORRO

EL OCOTE

LA ENCRUCIJADA

LA SEPULTURA

PANTANOS DE CENTLA

Long-term it would be very exciting to see the CONAFOR “payment for environmental services” be more important to family income than the subsidy for denuding hillsides in poor agricultural lands.


7.4 EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The on-line tracking tool for projects that require a change in land use in a protected area has been an important mechanism for systemizing the approach to the evaluation of environment impacts in development projects. It has also been important as a means of developing transparency for the process and monitoring response times.

Half of the SINAP 2 PAs have included the evaluation of infrastructure projects, or the permitting and regularization of settlement projects, as priorities in their POAs. In these cases, the number of evaluations and review of environmental impact assessments of infrastructure projects has increased, as has enforcement of permitting procedures for land settlement by colonists. As noted in Section 6.6, these activities can have an important effect on mitigating negative impacts of infrastructure developments, and reducing the number of unsustainable land use practices.

7.5 LESSONS LEARNED

1. Non-environmentally oriented development initiatives within the Project PAs are concentrated in a relatively small number of the Project PAs, but can be expected to increase over time.

2. The on-line tracking tool for environmental impact assessments related to development projects in PAs that result in land use changes has proven an effective instrument for improving transparency and encouraging shorter response times.


8.0 BOOST INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

One of the most important measures of the success of any project is a simple question: Are the institutions better able to pursue their purpose at the conclusion of the project? This section addresses system-wide Institutional Strengthening which was funded as a match to the GEF funds. Total matching funds of $2.5m were required (see Section 2.1), albeit given the huge growth in CONANP capacity far more was spent. In addition FMCN managed a long-term institutional strengthening program for nonprofits (IMAC) that was also privately funded. The three target areas for this component (World Bank, PAD p 9) were the:

1) Central coordination sub-component to support activities involving the endowment-supported PAs as a group;

2) Government Institutional Strengthening to support CONANP’s transition to an effective conservation agency; and

3) Help establish and consolidate a Mexican Conservation Learning Network (IMAC) for the sharing and adoption of knowledge on protected areas management, benefitting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs).

The evaluators also wish to highlight the important findings on the factors that contributed to the success of the public-private relationship - covered primarily in Sections 3.2.2. and 3.2.3 - with additional comments included in 8.2.

8.1 MAJOR FINDINGS

The findings here represent just the institutional capacity findings, not the programmatic findings that are covered in the other sections.

1. The Central Coordination Unit (CC), responsible for managing FANP funds in coordination with CONANP, has been very effective in ensuring the ongoing alignment between the public and private partners.

a. It’s dual nature – paid for and reporting to FMCN but residing within CONANP – has proven to be a good working model for daily coordination and the development of strong personal and professional ties;

b. The CC is valued within CONANP for its transparency in managing funding processes while also respecting lines of programmatic authority – not second guessing the priorities set by the PA Directors.

2. CONANP has gone through a truly remarkable jump in capacity over the past decade.a. It has dramatically increased staff and budget with numerous agreements to

greatly strengthen their presence throughout the PA system, and to assume ever greater responsibility for core operations in all 22 PAs within SINAP 1 and 2.

b. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) within CONANP, responsible for expending the sinking funds of SINAP 2, played an important role in building capacity for


work with social and economic development initiatives within the 12 SINAP 2 sites.

3. The IMAC (Mexican Conservation Learning Network), managed by FMCN, helped to initiate the excellent fire management learning network (CAMAFU) and supported many solid training and facilitated processes. However, it has failed to become an ongoing vehicle for learning and exchange for civil society groups within Mexico.

4. The FANP Call for Proposal process is now playing a role of boosting capacity in both NGOs and community based organizations.

8.2 CENTRAL COORDINATION FOR FANP FUNDED PROTECTED AREAS

The Central Coordination (CC) unit was designed to be the link between FMCN and CONANP – ensuring that FANP funds support the priority strategies of CONANP in the designated PAs as well as strengthen CONANP’s capacity as a whole. Frankly, in the opinion of the evaluators, these types of institutional coordination bodies usually sound good, but are rarely very effective in practice. In this instance however, the CC unit has worked and been a critical component of the success of this project. This subsection lays out the purposes and design and tries to distill the best practices from this experience.

The CC staff is hired and managed by the FMCN and paid for primarily out of interests from the SINAP 1 fund as discussed in Section 3.3.2. As just one example of the success of this team, a 4 th

person was recently added - paid for by CONANP. The CC key responsibilities are to:

Ensure FANP funding is linked to the POAs; Provide capacity building training and networking opportunities to staff and NGOs working

on SINAP 1 and 2 sites; Provide technical assistance to the PAs, most notably in promoting strategic planning

through 5 year log frames; and Support part of the monitoring and evaluation of the Project (as indicated in Section 4).

In addition, the CC uses money that is allocated for administration, but not fully used, to help fund additional strategic initiatives within CONANP such as support to GIS studies, extra training opportunities, etc., as well as to make CC staff available to support CONANP wide events and activities. This level of financial flexibility, with accountability, provides the CC with problem-solving capacities at short notice.

While the evaluators have opinions about how the FANP funds could be potentially used even more effectively going forward (see Section 9.3), we are very impressed with the CC’s ability to build the capacity to manage new open and transparent processes in full coordination with CONANP, and to learn by doing. Areas of excellence from the 2002-2008 period were the training in the use of log frames with ZOPP methodology, improvements in the POA process, and taking an early lead on M&E work while the CONANP SIMEC system was established. Since 2008, the CC has developed a new capacity to launch public calls for proposals with transparent review and decision making processes. For example, much of last year was spent organizing workshops for NGOs and PA staff on the “call for proposal” process in an effort to encourage ever great coordination between PA Directors and local NGOs. The CC also hosted a “conservation knowledge week” bringing together all of the recipients of the 2008 grants to share their results.


Ideas of the best practices that underlie why this particular coordination unit has worked well, and better than many we have seen in other countries, include:

1. The staff is hired and managed by FMCN, but is physically housed in CONANP reporting to the CONANP Director of Conservation Programs;

2. The FMCN Director of the Area of Conservation is responsible for managing the FANP funds and directly supervises the CC Unit;

3. The CONANP CPU, responsible for managing the sinking funds of SINAP 2 (see Section 8.3.3), has provided a clear and responsible partner for the CC with which to coordinate activities while building synergies between the FANP and GEF sinking fund;

4. The CTFANP drives decisions for FANP expenditures. Given that key members of the government and the head of CONANP serve on this committee, it is another means of ensuring high levels of alignment and support;

5. Personalities – this is the “art” vs. the “science” of why relationships work well, but clearly there have been instances where the partnership hasn’t been totally smooth. In these cases, leaders in both CONANP and FMCN have had the political will and long-range vision to look above the immediate frictions to focus on the good of the project as a whole, and move forward;

6. The FANP Operations Manual is very specific and well used. It provides clear guidelines and transparencies about roles, processes, and how decisions will be made. Most importantly it has been updated regularly as a way to ensure it stays relevant and provides the flexibility needed for effective partnering and conservation.

7. Both CONANP and FMCN staff are very adept at recognizing each others’ contributions and the need for both to be acknowledged for their deep commitment to conservation in Mexico.

8. PA Directors love the FANP’s plasticity and ability to fill in key expenses when government budgets prove inflexible. Their enthusiasm and appreciation of the FANP is driven by the FMCN and CC’s successful mechanisms, but in turn also drives the willingness to support each other and work productively together for ever more efficient financing mechanisms.


8.3 CONANP CAPACITY

CONANP has matured enormously over the past decade. It has dramatically increased its budget, its personnel, its number of protected areas, and its ability to provide core operating support to diminish threats and expand outreach to local communities in and around the PAs in its care. As described in the PAD (World Bank, p 5), as of 2002, 56 PAs had dedicated staff paid by the GoM – a huge advance from 1992 when no PA had permanent official staff. With the creation of CONANP in June 2000 the ongoing professionalization has continued to advance quickly. As of the end of this Project, CONANP has 1,762 staff (1,562 in the Human Resources system at CONANP and approximately 200 more contracted through UNDP funds) working in 130 PAs with an additional 10 PAs under joint management agreements (private communication with CONANP HR Director).

8.3.1 CONANP BUDGET

Table 8 .3.1 Evolution of CONANP’s Budget

Graphic provided by Rene Macias, CONANP 2010.


Chart 8.3.1: Breakout of CONANP’s Budget

While unfortunately, the global economic recession appears to be impacting the projected budget for 2010, the growth over time is still remarkable. Chart 8.3.1 shows a breakdown of major line items within CONANP, with the steady growth of staff and basic operating expenses over the past 5 years. An additional major institutional gain was the transfer of the Regional Sustainable Development Program (PRODERS – now called PROCODES) to CONANP – providing substantial additional resources and improved integration of projects within the PAs as discussed in Section 5.

The budget reflects an ever growing commitment from the GoM towards its PA system. Funding is derived primarily from national budget allocations through SHCP, the national treasury. Other sources of funding include entrance fees and bilateral and private donors. A few PAs with unique attributes have been able to succeed in collecting substantial revenue through entrance fees. This has mainly occurred in island environments with international tourist visits such as Isla Contoy and some of the Islas del Golfo. GEF has been a major contributor to the PA system both through the SINAP 1 and 2 projects - and the FANP endowment, as well as projects managed through UNDP for specific PAs. Other major international bilateral donors, private foundations as well as international environmental nonprofits have been enormously generous given the mega diversity of Mexico and the obvious commitment of their Mexican counterparts. They have made substantial investments in projects as well as the FANP endowments with FMCN (Section 3.2.1). There are two large and relatively untapped resources for the PAs. The first are other governmental agencies at the federal, state, and municipal levels – discussed in Section 5 and 7. The second is Mexican individual and corporate donors who FMCN and environmental nonprofits are increasingly working to cultivate.

Given this major upswing in budgets and staff the comparative importance of SINAP 2 funds to the targeted PAs actually dropped significantly over the course of the project. In 2002, a SINAP 2 PA could rely on Project funds for up to 30% of its annual operating budget. At the conclusion of the Project, funds amount to about 8% of most of the PA’s annual budget. This is a much desired progression, indicating the GoM has increasingly stepped up its commitment, its financial contribution, and its long-term ability to provide core support to the PAs.


8.3.2 CONANP STAFF

With regard to staffing, the professionalization of CONANP within a relatively short period has been remarkable for any agency, but particularly a government agency moving steadfastly forward over three different administrations. In 1993 only 10 declared PAs had assigned staff. By 2002, 56 PAs had staff, 80 PAs by 2006 and 130 PAs by 2010.

Graph 8.3.2: CONANP Staff Growth

577 548 572641

1542 1562 1562

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Plazas CONANP por Año

Numbers provided by Human Resources/CONANP. These numbers do not include an additional approximately 200 staff positions paid for by UNDP funds and not on the HR books.

Between 2002 and 2008, a jumble of personnel was assigned to assist with PAs paid from, and technically part of, a mix of nonprofits, GoM agencies, and donors. PA staff included consultants with short-term, renewable assignments and longer-term staff attached to NGOs but reporting to PA Directors. The evaluators were extremely impressed that from 2002-2008, the FANP was used to “make this system work” (see Section 3.4.1), while at the same time FMCN and others continued to make the case for a professional civil service staff with defined career paths and homogenous benefits etc. When that political opportunity arose with the addition of 911 new positions to CONANP in 2008, all the parties worked together to transfer 152 SINAP 2 assigned staff to positions within CONANP – a huge undertaking.

While the Human Resources system within CONANP still shows a mix of different types of employees, due to regulations set by the wider GoM system, huge strides have been made in professionalizing the CONANP. An additional resource is a fund through UNDP which provides some flexibility in managing additional needed staff. Within SINAP 2 one small, but highly valued, group of employees – the 12 social promoters paid by the GEF sinking funds – will be transferred in June 2010 to the UNDP funds and eventually become permanent CONANP staff. The evaluators are pleased that SINAP 2 funds have contributed to helping build this permanent capacity as the social promoters play a key role in the interface between CONANP and the local communities in SINAP 2 sites.


The advantage of the huge growth in CONANP staff is not merely more core staff in each PA, but also the institutional opportunity to build a professional cadre, address inequities in salaries and benefits, and strengthen opportunities for training and promotion. CONANP has invested in staff training and conferences that promote cross-PA learning. FANP funds have supported meetings among the PA Directors and staff for SINAP 1 and 2 sites, and sinking funds have been used for professional development among the 12 social promoters. One of the impressive institutional development programs in place is a partnership between CONANP and CENEVAL (Centro Nacional de Evaluación) which allows staff to get accredited for their years of experience by taking on-line courses and tests to get the equivalent of a High School or University diploma, helping staff increase their professional advancement opportunities while getting credit for their work and years of experience. Separate central GoM funding is used for activities such as an annual conference of all PA Directors that greatly enhance learning across the PAs. There are ongoing opportunities to continue building the capacity of CONANP personnel both with FANP funds as well as significant funding flowing to CONANP HR and Programmatic areas from the GoM.

Another noted institutional leap for CONANP has been decentralization through regionalization. In the early years, all PA Directors reported directly to Mexico City. As the number of PAs and number of staff grew, this quickly became an overwhelming reporting load. In response, CONANP was divided into nine regions blanketing the country. The regions were not divided by state lines, but rather drawn to capture large ecoregions which face similar threats and opportunities. Regional Directors supervise the PA Directors and have a deeper understanding of the ongoing issues in the area. SINAP 2 sites are represented in eight of the nine regions.

As with all institutional changes, decentralization has not been seamless. It creates an additional level for coordination and has its share of administrative confusion given that administrative staff has been pulled out of the individual PAs for greater budget coordination at the regional level. Nonetheless, the evaluators feel that in its intention and long-term prospects, regionalization is a necessity to more effectively distribute CONANP employees throughout the nation and ground decisions in a greater understanding of the local context. It also provides a more direct ability to coordinate with state government agencies and regional organizations and look at funding across ecoregions as discussed in Section 9.3.

8.3.3 CONANP PROJECT COORDINATING UNIT

Within CONANP, the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) was developed to successfully expend the $5.3 million in sinking funds provided through the GEF grant by integrating the SINAP 2 funds directly with the PAs. The PCU is responsible for executing all the components administered by NAFIN for CONANP (see Table 1.1). The PCU Director, reports to the Director of Conservation for Development who also manages PROCODES, PET, and Maiz Criollo, enabling greater coordination of these programs and allowing the SINAP 2 funded social promoters to help direct important sources of funds for local communities (Section 5 and 7). Solid ongoing coordination exists between the PCU and the CC as well as with the various directorates within CONANP to ensure that Project moves forward smoothly.

With GEF sinking funds, the PCU Director has managed the coordination of the hiring of 12 social promoters – one for each SINAP 2 site - with the PA Directors. This group of 12 staff has enjoyed training opportunities, participated in field site visits, and built direct networking opportunities with each other and the Director. Field site visits and interviews with these staff indicated an


impressive and motivated group that have been largely responsible for some of the effective outreach with local communities as discussed in Sections 5-7. They describe their work as “catalyzers” as their assignment is to ensure that effective sustainable development programs are reaching local communities. In many cases, as discussed in Section 5, they help invest funds from other agencies in the communities – most often CONAFOR and CDI (Indigenous Development Commission) – as they are directly working with key communities, and the other agencies lack staff.

While the strength and weaknesses of the project work have been covered in Section 5-7, the institutional capacity of CONANP has clearly been improved by this project. These individuals have developed a substantial knowledge base for effectively working with local communities. In addition, the central function has helped to promote greater use of feasibility studies prior to launching economic development projects and is working to improve marketing efforts once the infrastructure is in place. While these processes could still be improved (Section 5) the evaluators recognize the important role the central unit has played in setting quality standards for consultant selection, building economies of scale for marketing ecotourism efforts, and raising the capacity within CONANP for managing economic development projects.

Another aspect of this project that has proven successful, albeit difficult, is the relationship with NAFIN, SHCP, and the CONANP fund managers. A major function of the PCU Director is to ensure that the GEF sinking funds are released from NAFIN to CONANP so they can get to the field. Table 8.3.3 explains the steps and time frames involved.

Table 8.3.3: Financial Planning and Disbursement of GEF Sinking FundsStep Process Step Responsible party Average Turn Around Time

1Annual Operating Plan is done

PA Director and PA staff

Done yearly as part of CONANP and SINAP process – a requirement for SINAP 2 sinking funds.

2

Contract signed with community for programs

Social promoter and PA Director and community members

Takes time to define what projects community wants to do and particularly in ejidos – exactly which families will engage.

3

Budget the expenses for the project and get quotes for materials and equipment

Social promoters Takes time – once this is submitted then the project and budgets are clear and engagement with PCU begins for access to the SINAP 2 sinking funds.

4

PA Director submits itemized request to PCU

Dir of PCU sends to NAFIN who checks for full WB compliance

4 days – most projects are in the US$25,000 range.

5

NAFIN sends requests for no objection to World Bank

NAFIN 4 days


6Bank provides no objection

WB Usually within 3 days

7Request for money goes to SHCP

SHCP – (Hacienda or Treasury Dept)

6 months

8SHCP sends money to CONANP

PCU Dir sends money to PA Dir

4 days

9PA Director approves actual purchase of equipment etc.

PA and social promoters

This often takes a few weeks of re-checking price quotes etc. given the time lag but moves forward quickly.

10

Equipment or materials given to local community for project

Social promoters and PA Directors

11Full receipts, pictures etc. sent to PCU

PA Directors and social promoters

All funds must be accounted for prior to submitting additional projects.

All aspects of this process appear to move promptly except the approval process within SHCP. This slows down the work in the field, dampens the enthusiasm and excitement of local community members, and diminishes the stature of the PA staff locally. However, that said, this is still a relatively good turn around for Mexican financial agencies. The PCU, the World Bank, and NAFIN all deserve credit for making the process move as quickly as possible. The evaluators understanding is that efforts to have NAFIN be the sole manager of the project funds were overruled by SHCP, creating the greater bureaucratic delays. As discussed in Section 5, the field visits by the evaluators saw the funds were reaching the local communities, albeit with the delays indicated.

As a final note on this process, NAFIN reported that CONANP had little experience, prior to this grant, in directly working with them in receiving multilateral funding. They gave CONANP high praise for being organized, consistently sending the required forms and materials and felt that CONANP was in good shape for managing future funds and requiring less supervision than was provided for with this grant.

The evaluators are impressed with the number of projects that have taken place through the sinking fund investment and the coordination efforts of the PCU (see Annex D). This unit has enhanced CONANP’s reputation in the field while coordinating closely and leaving all field decisions with the PA Directors. We are pleased that come June 2010 the social promoters who have played such a key role in advancing quality of life and economic development projects, will be retained in CONANP.


8.4 BOOSTING CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

8.4.1 THE IMAC EXPERIENCE

FMCN formed a tripartite partnership with The Nature Conservancy and PACT to launch a match-supported effort to create the Mexican Conservation Learning Network (IMAC) for the sharing and adoption of knowledge on protected areas management. The target was non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in activities in and around the SINAP 2 PAs but extending to the broader PA network. These organizations received direct assistance, facilitation, scholarships for courses and workshops, access to information and databases, and support for institutional development.

Hoped for results from this investment were a number of ongoing networks organized around key geographies (e.g. the Gulf of California) or by theme (e.g. Fire Management, Cities and Watersheds, Natural Protected Areas, Advisory Councils for PAs). The idea was to strengthen collaboration in key areas as well as build increased capacity in the management of NGOs. In addition a lot of time was put into developing an online resource on protected area knowledge. Today one well-organized network is still functioning (CAMAFU), a few are still struggling to find their stride (e.g. Watersheds and Cities), but the others have failed to thrive. Interviewees, reflecting on this reality, point to the following lessons learned:

1. Successful networks had a committed individual who was exceptionally good at hitting deadlines for follow up and instilling a sense of ongoing achievement and progress.

2. Successful networks had clear goals that determined who would participate, limiting the size to a committed group. Explicit outcomes and benchmarks helped the group stay focused and gain momentum through their collaboration and shared learning;

3. If there are too many problems that members are facing (e.g. big issues like managing national parks), then it is harder for a group to have a shared understanding of a problem, and to work on improved strategies and solutions.

4. Efforts to drive the network through web technologies failed due to:a. Some members have poor access, so they dropped out;b. Contributing written resources to an on-line site was not a priority for the NGOs

or academic partners.c. CSO members don’t have a strong culture of writing and documenting their

experiences – so again they did not contribute much. 5. Organizations that put in counterpart funds for their training or participation tended to

work harder on encouraging the success of their networks.6. A few highly regarded practitioners need to be closely engaged in the network to help

draw others and keep momentum going. 7. The ongoing work of CAMAFU has a full-time leader and an ongoing funding stream of

$80,000 per annum from the US Forest Service – ensuring accountability for results to both members and donors.

There are times when network success should not be determined strictly by their ongoing utility. Many networks are formed precisely to do one activity. An example from NW Mexico was a


coordinated lobbying effort by NGOs to pass a sustainable aquaculture law. IMAC support in facilitating these meetings was an important contribution towards this larger goal.

IMAC also provided the networks, and many individual NGOs, with training support, strong facilitated meetings, and access to other workshops and courses. In one example a full-scale learning study was done on the PA Community Advisory Councils, resulting in a guide and training programs at the request of PA Directors. This was followed in a few places by facilitated meetings to restructure a PA Advisory Council. However, while the individual activities were well received, they were not enough to build an ongoing and engaged network that has continued to strive to improve the Advisory Councils. In other areas the project offered substantial NGO management support in improved governance and leadership. NGOs such as Pronatura NE reported that they had gotten a lot out of the project support and felt the inputs had helped them mature as an organization.

In conclusion, the IMAC experience was generally positive for those engaged and was a good contribution to capacity building in Mexico. However, as a permanent process paralleling the SINAP 2 initiative, it did not become self sustaining. FMCN stated they should have put in place a plan during the start of the project to make the managers responsible for achieving greater institutional independence and financial sustainability. Instead, staff focused on shorter-term goals and successes, thus missing an opportunity to create longer-term vehicles for promoting ongoing learning and networking within the NGO/CSO community.

8.4.2 THE FANP “CALL FOR PROPOSALS” EXPERIENCE

With the big change in the use of FANP funds in 2008 from supporting staff for the PAs to managing “Calls for Proposals” for the NGO and CSO groups, a new opportunity emerged for boosting civil society organizations. While the mechanics of this process and the issues to date in administration were covered in Section 3.4.2, this section looks at the opportunities for using these funds for boosting institutional capacity.

1. A marked improvement is already underway in ensuring dialogue between the PA Directors and local NGOs and CSOs in an effort to have strategic funds benefit the conservation objectives of the PA;

2. Three models are emerging as discussed in Section 3.4.2 – one of which has a focus on NGO-CSO coordination and engagement. The model provides a real opportunity for NGOs to invest heavily in helping build capacity in their local community counterparts;

3. One of the CSO’s funded in 2008 was so successful that it received funds again in 2009 – the Consejo de los Recursos Naturales de la Región Cañada de Oaxaca, A. C. Working in the RB Tehuacan-Cuicatlán, this group has organized over 10 local fire brigades/environmental vigilance committees – and is rapidly expanding to another ten. This is a great example of very fast growing networks that tap into local knowledge, trust and pride in their environment. The example could help launch other successful CSO projects, hopefully with equally high opportunities for replication and leverage.

4. NGOs have used the 1 year grant cycles to invest in equipment, staffing, etc. – raised as an issue for long-term PA benefits – but from a civil society perspective, represented a great opportunity.


Clearly the evolution of the FANP over the past decade to being used primarily for supporting civil society engagement in and around the PAs has the potential for high leverage – a potential discussed further in Section 9.3 Recommendations.

8.5 LESSONS LEARNED

Lessons learned on institutional capacity have been included in each subsection. In summary, the most important lessons include:

Public-Private Partnership1. The evaluators are convinced this has been a very successful public-private

collaboration. In an effort to document many of the factors that contributed to the success of the public-private relationship – we encourage readers to review Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 8.2.

Role of a Coordinating Unit in Public-Private Partnerships1. A successful institutional alignment resulted from CC staff being hired and managed by

FMCN, but physically housed in CONANP, reporting to the CONANP Director of Conservation Programs;

2. The Advisory Board (CTFANP) that drives decisions for FANP expenditures includes key members of the government, the head of CONANP, and representatives of other key sectors. CTFANP serves as another mechanism for ensuring high levels of alignment and support between the partners;

3. The FANP Operations Manual is very specific and well used. It provides clear guidelines about roles, processes, and how decisions will be made. Most importantly it has been updated regularly as a way to ensure it stays relevant and provides the flexibility needed for effective partnering and conservation.

CONANP Institutional Capacity 1. The Mexican Government has demonstrated high political will with the huge jump in

CONANP budget and staff over the past decade.2. FMCN and civil society organizations all recognized that all PA staff should be based

within CONANP and made an impressive administrative process work to transfer staff to CONANP in 2008.

3. The PCU successfully expended GEF sinking funds for SINAP 2 with impressive project coordinators in the field managing a large number of sustainable development initiatives.

4. Reinforcing the findings of the Mid-term Evaluation, the evaluators felt that the need to disburse GEF grant funds through SCHP, rather than directly through NAFIN, resulted in inefficiencies and delays.

Civil Society Capacity1. Short-term capacity building funds have demonstrated positive results for

strengthening some local community groups;2. The IMAC project did not become institutionalized over the long-term, but provided a

number of trainings, facilitations, and network opportunities that have resulted in individual NGO capacity building and longer-term networks and relationships.


9.0 BEYOND WORLD BANK SUPERVISION

The evaluators firmly believe that this Project is ready to move beyond World Bank supervision and is being well managed by the two principal partners, FMCN and CONANP. However, prior to jumping to the transition, we felt it important to reiterate from the findings discussed above, that the Bank has played a key role in many of the successes. Reflecting on what has worked well can help to drive ongoing future successes both in this project and in other World Bank supervision of GEF projects.

The FANP fund, in addition to advancing the GOM and FMCN goals, is a mechanism for advancing part of GEF’s mission – to finance the incremental costs of protecting globally significant biodiversity resources. The World Bank, in its supervision capacity of these funds, has advanced this mission through the following efforts:

1. Recognizing the opportunity with the restructuring of SINAP 1 to strengthen the protected area system of Mexico with a capitalized trust fund (Section 2.1);

2. Developing strong relationships with the principal Mexican players through the design and implementation process of SINAP 1 and 2 – spending extended time in ensuring alignment and agreement among the key implementing agencies (Section 2.1);

3. Utilizing World Bank requirements in operational management, reporting, the indigenous people’s policy etc to raise the standards for the project and ensure that other donors would be impressed with the project design and implementation (Sections 2.1, 3.3.1 and 6.2);

4. Being flexible in the design of match funds requirement for successfully capitalizing the fund (Section 3.2.1);

5. Reviewing Annual Operating Plans and providing an additional set of eyes and recommendations for ongoing policies and strategies. This function was particularly useful following the major change in FANP funding with the expansion of CONANPs staff capacity in 2008. The World Bank has supported CONANP’s ever increased commitment to assuming the core operating support for the PAs and utilizing the FANP funding for more leveraged activities and innovation (Section 3.4.2);

6. Encouraging the use of FANP funds, match funds, and GEF sinking funds to build the institutional capacity of both FMCN and CONANP; and

7. Responding quickly as the funding administrator for “no objection” approval of sinking fund disbursements (Section 8.3.3), setting a standard for efficiency and continuing to encourage the GOM to use efficient processes, such as those demonstrated by NAFIN, to ensure effective projects in the field.

These investments from the World Bank – not just of GEF funds – but of the time, skills, and long term vision to effectively guide the use of these funds, have been a critical input into the success of this project. It is clear that this project is recognized internationally and has had a demonstration effect in terms of best practices for environmental funds. The World Bank has also played a role in multiplying this experience through other GEF Projects around the world. Finally, learning from this experience also helped inspire the Natural Heritage Fund concept that is being promoted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN/WCPA) to support globally significant protected areas.


As FMCN and CONANP move forward without World Bank supervision, it will help them to remember the benefits of having applied these high standards, the leverage of having invested in their own institutional capacity, and the need to hold themselves accountable for long-term conservation results to the global community.

With regard to the key questions asked of the evaluators:

1. Are the agreed upon instruments working? – In the vast majority, yes. We have provided detailed descriptions in each Section on what is working.

2. Are the agreed upon instruments the most effective for reaching the goals of the project? We have described the successes of many of the instruments, and more importantly described how the partners have managed a transparent process for adapting instruments that need to be tweaked. This ability to make changes and adapt as the project environment changes has allowed the SINAP 2 Project to evolve and accompany the rapid maturation of the two primary institutions. We provide our own ideas for additional tweaks below.

3. Are the project objectives still aligned with the missions of the key institutions? The project objectives have been totally aligned with the missions of the key institutions throughout the duration of SINAP 2. Even more importantly, the project activities have evolved as the capacity of the institutions has evolved. As Ernesto Enkerlin, Director of CONANP, stated: “SINAP 2 began by responding to basic needs in the PAs, then it began investing in strategic projects, and now it can become catalytic.”

The evaluators feel that the SINAP 2 project is a great example of adaptive management – responding to and meeting different needs over time. We are confident the partners will continue to show this flexibility going forward to meet the needs of the PAs. We are also delighted that so much of the capacity developed during this project is continuing forward, both thanks to FMCN’s effective fundraising and management of the FANP fund, and to CONANP for growing so effectively in staff, budget and expertise over the past decade. That said, this section explores threats and opportunities and how they could impact future ways in which FANP funds and CONANP priorities can be directed in the future, as well as a more in-depth exploration of some of the big themes for a potential larger investment in a special fund for climate change.

9.1 THREATS

The ending of a transformational Project, such as SINAP 2, provides an opportunity to identify the lessons learned and consider how these and other insights gained from the project might be applied to future projects or activities. In so doing, it useful to analyze the threats that can be perceived, and the opportunities on which FMCN and CONANP might build.

The major threats that need be considered going forward, from the standpoint of the evaluators, are as follow:

1. Changes in government priorities that might lessen government commitment and budgets for protected areas.


2. A change in leadership within CONANP and/or the FMCN that could alter the commitment to the public-private partnership, or the priorities and processes that has been so critical to the success of the SINAP 2 Project.

3. The increasing number and severity of natural disasters due to climate change.

4. The possibility of accelerating climate change overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems and human communities to adapt, both of which could lead to significant losses in biodiversity.

5. The economic downturn in North America could increase significantly the number of people in the communities within and around the PAs, and augment pressures for the unsustainable use of natural resources.

6. The steadily increasing size and complexity of CONANP could lead to decreases in effectiveness due to bureaucratization, and less cooperation with the civil society organizations, other government agencies, local communities, and the private sector.

7. The lack of effective law enforcement in the PAs, especially with respect to the production and distribution of drugs, could result in significant biodiversity loss.

8. Invasive species continue to be introduced and become more widespread causing significant loss of biodiversity.

9. The increase in adventure tourism overwhelms the management capacities of the APs where it is concentrated.

9.2 OPPORTUNITIES

There are many opportunities for increased conservation effectiveness and greater synergies across the PA system.

1. Creative fundraising for climate change projects could provide significant opportunities for effective adaptation and mitigation measures. This idea is explored in more detail in Section 9.4 as it provides the strongest opportunity for considering a future GEF allocation or other large investment.

2. The countless programs and projects funded by other international, federal, state, and municipal agencies represent a huge untapped source of potential funding and in-kind services that could be co-opted for more effective PA management.

3. There are numerous opportunities to work with existing academic institutions to enhance the quality of preparation for, and in-service training of, CONANP staff at all levels.

4. PAs provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the public how infrastructure can be designed or converted to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Pinacate Visitor Center is an excellent example in this regard.


5. There appear to be important opportunities to grow the FANP endowment through greater engagement with the private sector.

6. Increasing visitation to PAs provide an opportunity to expand considerably the culture of conservation, while strengthening public commitment to the preservation and expansion of the PA System.

7. The large number of indigenous communities within and around PAs provides a unique opportunity to harness their cultural belief systems to introduce new ways of thinking about people’s relationship to nature, and to encourage individual responsibility for conservation.

8. An in-depth study on how to improve the capacity to prosecute environmental crimes within PAs, analyzing alternative models such as strengthening PROFEPA, providing greater policing authority to CONANP, or working in new partnerships.

9. The strong baseline for PA staffing in Mexico provides the opportunity to continue building the institutional capacity for effective conservation with specific ideas such as:

a. A partnership between CONANP and academic centers to establish a Park Guard/Ranger School that can cover basic to post-graduate levels of courses, including tying sustainable development initiatives to conservation goals;

b. Professionalization of the CONANP civil service by creating more opportunities for technical staff to move into management positions and preparing today’s junior managers for PA Manager positions; and

c. Re-invest in learning networks, building from the IMAC experience, but with a longer-term commitment for supporting key geographic and thematic groups of Mexican conservation professionals committed to abating key threats. Members should include staff from CONANP and civil society organizations, and where possible the private sector.

9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Given that the project is so transparent and the key actors are working hard to learn by doing and find high levels of leverage, we feel that our recommendations are but one more input into a much wider set of recommendations already coming from the CONANP staff, the CTFANP advisors, the FMCN, the communities and the civil society groups all committed to the Mexican PA system. We thus offer the following recommendations in the spirit of sharing ideas, recognizing that this Project will continue forward with great input from many constituencies throughout Mexico.

9.3.1 DISBURSE FANP FUNDS

The high level of FMCN success in securing more than the required counterpart funds and managing the endowment well leaves little room for any comments beyond kudos. In terms of annually investing the interest from the FANP endowment in the PAs however, we submit our recommendations:


1. Create a contingency fund that helps resolve the current tension between PA Directors wanting to ensure flexible annual operating funds through ongoing use of the POA and the GoM pride and motivation in working to secure basic operational funds in all PAs.

a. The fund would be accessible only when there are documented problems in ensuring funds are reaching the PAs and with a request from the Director of CONANP.

b. 10% of the annual FANP interest is kept in reserve for contingencies.c. At the start of the year the CTFANP has the opportunity to recommend higher levels

of contingency funding if there is a crisis in the Mexican Treasury or in CONANP with regard to ensuring appropriate funding flow to the PAs.

d. FMCN would no longer require or manage a separate POA/Log frame system – but in cases of contingency requests would use the POA submitted within CONANP. We do suggest however a small fund dedicated to enabling PA Directors to revise their Plans for Management Programs to make them more targeted and actionable, and linked to threats to the PA and the gaps identified through an independent evaluation of management effectiveness (see 3.c below).

2. The Emergency Fund should be maintained and continue operating as it is today;

3. The PIE funds for civil society organizations should continue to be viewed as learning projects and adapted regularly. Our suggestions going forward are to:

a. Lower the maximum annual amount to any given NGO to US$80,000 with a match requirement;

b. Clarify that funding can be multi-year provided the project is being implemented very successfully and PA Directors feel it is responding effectively to key threats in the PA;

c. Create a small (US$100,000 maximum) fund from the FANP disbursement to annually address a key best practice and work to expand replication rates and leverage so that benefits can accrue to the wider PA system.

d. Consider another major shift of FANP funding in a few years to follow a replication strategy. For example – if the PIE process after a few years shows that by far the best investment in social and conservation gains in local communities is the creation of fire brigades – then move this project beyond the small number of communities it is currently serving to try replicate across a majority of communities within and around a PA.

On a different point the evaluators also want to raise the long-term issue of moving beyond the current group of SINAP 2 sites. While the design of the Project is commendable and it has clearly led to huge growth in capacity within these PAs, it is also the long-term goal of the Project to support the full suite of PAs in Mexico. One way to consider having new PAs enter into the FANP funding process after World Bank supervision ends is to:

4. Take a small portion of FANP funds to assign an FMCN fundraiser to a Regional Office of CONANP. This person’s role would be to:

a. Fundraise for FANP endowment funds for PAs and connector areas between PAs;b. Coordinate alignment of international, federal, state, and municipal government

agency funds targeted to PAs – including CONAFOR, CDI, and SAGARPA at a minimum.


5. If the trial assignment is successful and generates substantial funds for Regional PA’s then duplicate the experiment with other Regional offices.

a. Keep all the SINAP 1 and 2 and additional PAs connected through training and capacity grants going forward.

b. As additional funds are assigned toward SINAP 2 PAs, allow them to “graduate from SINAP 2” and assign FANP funds to a PA that has less capacity but continues to meet the criteria of preserving globally and regionally important biodiversity.

9.3.2 CONSERVE GLOBALLY IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY

The commitment of the GoM to cover the basic operating expenses of the PAs is moving the full system towards much higher levels of conservation. Additionally, increased efforts are being made to improve both the timeliness of habitat transformation data as well as better link species population data with management needs. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4, better methods of tying threats to strategies and systematically reviewing habitat transformation will enhance management effectiveness and funding efficiency.

1. CONANP should work directly with the Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) to establish databases within CONABIO with metadata derived from monitoring by OSC and CONANP using scientifically-rigorous protocols and linked to clear management applications. CONANP would benefit from an institution like CONABIO guaranteeing a more systematic review of habitat transformation in and around the PAs. Having an institution other than CONANP report on the state of PA conservation and provide open access to metadata also increases transparency. The funding and capacity is there in both organizations, it is a matter of political will.

2. SIMEC system can then tie the POAs to results on habitat transformation to ensure PA Directors are looking at the causes and threats behind habitat transformation figures.

3. A special purpose grant is encouraged from the PIE funds to provide ongoing support to PA Directors who seek to update the Plans for Management Programs for their PA by looking at threats, developing appropriate strategies, and acting on independent evaluation of management effectiveness (as was previously provided by the CC using Zopp Logframe methodology). While we do not see this as something that FMCN needs to own going forward, we recognize its importance to the PA Directors and to effective planning and conservation effectiveness in the field and hope that it becomes integrated into the ongoing improvements in the CONANP POA system.

4. Ensure independent evaluations of management effectiveness every 5 years going forward looking at management processes that move from central office to field operations to help ensure the FANP continues to be used effectively.

5. Begin exploring alternatives to the dependency on PROFEPA for law enforcement activities within PAs. While this is an overwhelming theme, there are examples of successes. As a case in point, some PA Directors have had very good relationships with the Federal Highway Patrol – calling when a poacher or logger is moving onto federal roads, etc. Document what is working and explore longer term solutions – including higher levels of political will from governors or other authorities that are slow to respond to incursions into PAs.


6. Explore in greater depth the effectiveness of the community fire brigades, and the factors for success, for greater replication both within Mexico and further afield.


9.3.3 PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY OF PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES IN SELECT PAS

The work on IDSs during the SINAP 2 Project period has provided a number of insights that need to be considered for future implementation.

1. Further work is needed to evaluate the IDSs in terms of their social, economic, and conservation objectives. Which ones worked best and why?

2. The most successful IDSs should be used for training and replicated in appropriate circumstances.

3. Consideration should be given to the development of umbrella initiatives into which discreet IDSs can fit as franchises or branches of the larger business. Examples might include concept such as “SINAP Artisans, Inc.”; “PA Organics, Inc.”, or “Conservation Eco-Lodges, Inc.”

9.3.4 PROMOTE SOCIAL CO-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSERVATION

Recommendations for promoting social co-responsibility for conservation include:

1. Developing a national environmental education system for PAs that not only includes lesson plans and activities, but encourages student research, publications, and national Congresses (such as the one organized by CONANP in 2009 and that took place in San Luis Potosí) where student research results are presented.

2. Expand public use facilities and information so that the public can know and appreciate the country’s PAs, and develop deeper commitments to conservation.

3. Build on the Pinacate Visitor Center model to demonstrate to the public how facilitates can be designed or retrofitted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Accelerate initiatives in each of the PAs to harmonize environmental policies and develop shared agendas for the PAs.

9.3.5 PROMOTE INCLUSION OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE CRITERIA IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Though a number of strategic alliances have been struck with other international, federal, state, and municipal agencies, there is ample room to accelerate the development of such alliances through the adoption of shared agendas. This would best be accomplished at the level of the Regional Offices where dedicated staff could be made responsible for identifying potential partnerships and negotiating new strategic alliances and shared agendas.


9.3.6 BOOST INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

The evolution of both CONANP’s and FMCN’s institutional capacity over the course of this project has been nothing short of superlative. A number of suggestions are made herein to continue growing institutional capacity with funds that are currently available within the FANP and CONANP. Additional suggestions are made in Section 9.3 on what larger scale ideas may be feasible with additional sources of funding.

1. The evaluators support the ongoing use of FANP funds for meetings and learning among PIE recipients and PA staff. We recommend doing more to make these sessions as critically constructive as possible with clear ideas coming out for next steps in advancing projects in the field;

2. The special fund recommended in 9.3.1 (#3c) could include the financing of learning and capacity-building projects as determined by CONANP priorities;

3. The PIE call for proposal in PAs should encourage mechanisms for strong regional or national NGOs to build the capacity of community-based groups and provide ever greater opportunity for community-groups to apply directly for PIE funds;

4. Current funding available within CONANP Human Resources for professional development could be better integrated with learning and dissemination of key SINAP 2 lessons and ongoing PIE and management effectiveness efforts.

5. Documenting the best practices within the IMAC networking experience would be helpful prior to trying to replicate a similar project – which should be done. The intention of the initiative, and some of the positive results, indicate that Mexico has the conditions to host more effective conservation learning networks.

9.4 SPECIAL FUND ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Given the success of the SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 projects and the effectiveness of the public-private partnership, the evaluators were also asked to provide their perspective on how a new possible GEF allocation could be used. We have given this some thought and discussed ideas with CTFANP members, resulting in this short exploration of a Special Fund on Climate Change – a proposal that would take time to design, but for which there is substantial energy, commitment and enthusiasm within Mexico.

9.4.1 CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITY WITHIN MEXICO

Mexico has been engaged in climate change treaties and agreements since 1992 and the GoM definitely perceives climate change as a growing threat to the natural and human capital of the country. A number of federal agencies are particularly concerned about the magnitude of climate change; the direct threats to the natural and human capital of the nation, and the capacity for communities and ecosystem to adapt over time. They recognize that the high levels of habitat transformation and fragmentation that Mexico’s natural communities have experienced over the past decades increases the vulnerability of the natural communities and the human populations that rely on those ecosystem services.


While scientists are still struggling to determine when new data can be definitively linked to climate change, rather than just be within a normal range of fluctuations or due to other phenomenon such as El Niño, Mexico has started producing some sobering data. For example, the minimum temperature along the Gulf Coast of Mexico and the Yucatán peninsula has been rising. With less cold at night, they are seeing an increase in insect and virus infestations in trees (CONANP, ECCAP p.8). Another cited example is a change in rainfall patterns with fewer but much more violent precipitation events – resulting in greater runoff, higher levels of erosion, and less aquifer refill capacity. There are enough indications of early climate change disruptions that the Mexican government is taking this threat very seriously.

In March of 2010, CONANP, in collaboration with FMCN and many other academic, government, and civil society partners, released the Strategy for Climate Change in Protected Areas (ECCAP). Part of a wider commitment from the GoM to address climate change, ECCAP focuses on two key goals:

1. Increase the ability for ecosystems, and the populations they house, to adapt in the face of climate change; and

2. Contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and strengthen the ability to store carbon.

CONANP will address these goals going forward in an effort to best protect the PAs and human communities from the threats of climate change.

9.4.2 CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIAL FUND IDEAS

Creative fundraising for climate change projects could provide significant opportunities for effective adaptation and mitigation measures, consistent with the ECCAP priorities. Areas that should be considered in investigating this proposal include:

1. Increasing the ability for ecosystems, and the populations they house, to adapt in the face of climate change;

Connector ecoregions become ever more important in adaptation and allowing for species movement and evolution;

Greater partnerships would be needed with the state PA systems and key community and private lands;

Improvements in management planning and core investments in the federal PAs – beyond those included in SINAP 1 and 2;

Expanding effective management programs in threat reductions in the PAso Focus on fire brigades and fire management in forested areas;o Focus on water systems for local communities;o Build on the lessons learned from the “payment for environmental

services fund” in CONAFOR to see how REDD or other funds could further strengthen community resolve to be environmental caretakers.

2. Contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and strengthen the ability to store carbon.


As mentioned in Section 6.8, there are wonderful examples of green technologies being used in PA visitor centers and other infrastructure – models that can be expanded to other PAs;

There are huge opportunities to provide solar and other technologies to local communities to limit greenhouse gases;

Working with an established and effective fund like the FANP for effectively managing carbon funding for Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) projects and future carbon funding opportunities;

Develop transparent disbursement procedures for ensuring that local communities benefit through “payment for environmental services;”

Establish a policy, strategy, and action plan to achieve “zero emission PAs.”

Many of the key skills and competencies displayed by both CONANP and FMCN would be needed in developing a strategic response to climate change and an applied use for carbon sequestration or REDD funds.


ANNEX A

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS INTERVIEWED DURING THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

WORLD BANK

Adriana Moreira Gerente del Proyecto SINAP 2 María Elena Castro Senior Social Scientist, LCSEO

GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO

NATIONAL COMMISSION OF NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS (CONANP)

Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich Comisionado Nacional de CONANP David Gutiérrez Carbonell Director General de Operación General Adrián Méndez Barrera Director de Fortalecimiento de Operación RegionalFlavio Cházaro Director General de Desarrollo Institucional y Promoción Carlos Manterola Pina Director de Sostenibilidad Financiera y Procuración de FondosSergio Torres Morales Subdirector de Procuración de Recursos Financieros René Macías Romo Director General de Conservación para el DesarrolloAlfredo Ávila Martínez Coordinador del Proyecto SINAP 2Rocío Esquivel Solís Directora de Evaluación y SeguimientoJavier Jiménez González Director Regional Frontera Sur, Istmo y Pacífico SurCarlos Castillo Director Regional Noroeste y Alto Golfo de CaliforniaAngel Elechiguerra Director Recursos HumanosRubén Valdez Pino Subdirector de Organización y Profesionalización

RESERVA BIOLÓGICA SELVA EL OCOTE

Roberto Escalante López Director del ParqueRomán Pérez Subdirector del ParqueJosé Rodríguez Responsable para Incendios y RestauraciónGuadalupe Rodríguez Directora de PlaneaciónHéctor Sandoval Coordinador de Educación AmbientalJosé Juan López Santiago Responsable SINAP 2 en la RB Selva el Ocote

RESERVA BIOLÓGICA TEHUACAN CUICATLAN

José Carlos Pizaña Soto Director RB Tehuacán - CuicatlánJuan Manuel Salazar Subdirector RB Tehuacán – CuicatlánRafael Arzate Responsable SINAP II en la RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán


Juan Manuel Salazar Torres Subdirector Operativo Fernando Reyes Flores Subdirector

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA ALTO GOLFO Y DELTA DEL RIO COLORADO

José R. Campoy F. Director de la ReservaMartín Sau Cota Sub-Director de la ReservaAlfredo Ornelas Cortés Coordinador de Participación SocialJesús Alberto Ruíz Ortega Jefe de Proyectos de PROCODESEduardo Soto Montoya Coordinador de Monitoreo BiológicoMaría Jesús Mtz. Contreras Jefe de Proyectos, Cultura ConservacionistaMartha J. Román R. Coordinadora de Proyectos CEDESElda Gpe. Gaxiola G. Enlace Administrativo

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DEL ALTAR

Federico Godínez Leal Director de la ReservaJosé Antonio Dávila Paulín Sub-Director de la ReservaHoracio Ortega Morales Supervisor Dayana Prunedaríos Educador AmbientalMariano Martínez Arballo Coordinador de PlantelHéctor H. Munro Educación AmbientalVíctor E. del Río Delgadillo Jefe de Proyectos, Estación BiológicaFélix Sotelo Jáquez Coordinador, Estrategia Social

APFF SIERRA DE ÁLAMOS RÍO CUCHUJAQUI

Elvira Rojero Díaz Directora del APFFAlejandro Gómez Nísino Sub-Director del APFFPedro Acosta Aguilar Promotor ComunitarioNoelia Micaela Meza Verdugo Promotora de Educación AmbientalHernán Vega Lagarda Jefe de ProyectosVidal Félix Valenzuela GuardaparqueRanil Campoy Favela Asesor ProyectosIsidoro Rodríguez Domínguez GuardaparqueDulce Lucia Enríquez Burrola Promotora de Educación para la ConservaciónAlfonso Prieto Tinoco Técnico OperativoAlonzo Enríquez Rascón Promotor de Educación para la ConservaciónClaudia Navarro Romeo Técnico en TurismoLourdes Ma. Alcantar Robles Asistente Técnico de ProyectosAlmal Montaño Hernández Asistente de Monitoreo BiológicoClaudia Noemi Moreno Arzate Técnico OperativoIsidro Hurtado Montoya Promotor Comunitario

NACIONAL FINANCIERA (NAFIN)

Lourdes González CarmonaEnrique Alva


MEXICAN FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE (FMCN)

Lorenzo Rosenzweig Director EjecutivoRenée González Montagut Directora del Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas (Directora del

Área de Conservación after 2004)Ximena Yañez Soto Directora de Finanzas y Soporte OperativoYarit León Reyes Directora de Administración de la Dirección de ConservaciónAlejandra Mendez Torres Auxiliar Administrativo de la Dirección de ConservaciónKarla Ayuso Espinosa Asistente Administrativo de la Dirección de Conservación

CENTRAL COORDINATION UNIT FOR FANP

Andrew Rhodes Espinoza Director de la Coordinación Central Ana Barillas Gómez Asistente Técnica de la Coordinación CentralEileen Müller Guerra Asistente Técnica de la Coordinación Central

ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE FUND FOR NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS (CTFANP)

Pedro Álvarez Icaza President Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich Comisionado Nacional de CONANP Gabriela Anaya ReynaElías García Martínez Víctor Sánchez Cordero

CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES

Francisco Padrón Gil Acción Cultural Madre Tierra, A.C. and IMACMaría José Villanueva Noriega Consultora IndependienteDaniel Ramos The Nature Conservancy of Mexico

SELVA EL OCOTE

Cooperativa Cascada del Aguacero, Ejido Lázaro Cárdenas María Eva Pérez Pérez President, Cooperativa Cascada del Aguacero Carlos Díaz Pérez Secretario, Cooperativa Cascada del Aguacero

Cooperativa Sima de los Catorros Judith Villanueva Cortez Presidente Chema Tesorero Carlos

Miembros del Ejido Emilio Rabasa


Miembros del Ejido San Juan Chamula Andrés Jiménez Díaz Mariano Jiménez Díaz Representante Sindicato de Café Don Gregorio Representante Apícola Manuel Promotor de Café

Miembros del Ejido Armando Zabadua Dom Ranulfo Promotor de Café Grupo de Mujeres de la Cooperativa Panificadora

Pronatura Sur Israel Amescua Torrijo Director de Programa en Selva el Ocote Eduardo Rodríguez Responsable para Reforestación

TEHUACAN-CUICATLAN

Representantes del Consejo de los Recursos Naturales de la Región Cañada de Oaxaca, A. C. Julio Sanchez Hernandez Presidente Raul Reves Lopez Promotor Antonio Hernández Martínez Gelacío Morga Cruz

Miembro de la Cooperativa Tepelmeme Jose Luis Mendoza García Vivero de agave

Miembros de la Comunidad San Pedro Nodon Israel Méndez Sanchez Neptalí Sanchez Antonio Sanchez

Miembros de la Comunidad San Juan Raya y el Museo Paleontológico Alvaro Reyes Cortés Minerva Cruz Encargada del Museo Silviano Reyes Hernández Juan Reyes Barragan Presidente Cipriano Reyes Hernández

Miembros de la Comunidad Zapotitlán Salinas y el Museo Comunitario Martín Xopanatzil Gerardo Carillo Carillo Juan Pedro Hernández Mendoza Marco Antonio Parrilla Encargado del Museo


RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA ALTO GOLFO Y DELTA DEL RIO COLORADO

Recorrido Ciénaga Juan Butrón Méndez Presidenta del Ejido Luís Encinas Johnson

Recorrido Golfo de Santa Clara Procuso Aztorga Bernabe García Ma. Celia Cuellar Duran José Luis Gallardo Clemente Montes López Ricardo Sánchez Rocha Carlos Alberto Tirado Pineda Eduardo Ramírez Chávez Daniela Díaz García Mario A. Mora Rodríguez Iram García Bañez Jesús Ramírez García T. Mario Alberto Aguilar Rodríguez Ricardo Zazuerte Barnal José Luís Camilla José Luís Dueñas M. Aldama Rivera

RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DEL ALTAR

Centro de Visitantes Izar Said Izaguirre Pompa Responsable de Monitoreo Lorena Velásquez Atención Visitantes Víctor Delgado Jefe de Proyectos

Consejo Asesor Guillermo Munro Presidente Consejo Asesor José Alfredo Souza C. Representante de los Ejidos en la Reserva Carlos Bañez Treñado Sub-Dirección Municipal de Ecología, Puerto Peñasco Amaranto Celes Aloya Propietario Peñasco

APFF SIERRA DE ÁLAMOS RÍO CUCHUJAQUI

Recorrido Rancho La Sierrita Doña Conchita

Consejo Asesor Guadalupe Mendel Torres Guía Turística Sandra Martínez Contreras Red Fronteriza de Salud y Ambiente Yesenid Clark Mendivil Líder de Proyecto Corredores de Turismo Alternativo, ITSON Berta A. Leyva Osorio Apoyo en Proyectos ITSON Carlos A. Jacobo Hernández Profesor ITSON Sergio Ochoa Jiménez Profesor ITSON Blanca Xochotl Acosta Rey Asuntos Ambientales, Grupo México René Caldera RFSA, A.C. María Antonia Hurtado E. Rancho Guadalupe


Roberto Tituscio Martinez R . Rancho El Divisadero Rubin Ahorez E. Rancho Santa Barbara Onofre Sacido Esquer Ejido Cnoquincultvi Carlos Valdés Casillas Director, Programa Regional de Conservación de Especies

Amenazadas, Pronatura Noroeste

Reunión con PRONATURA y Nature and Culture International Manuel de Jesús Montoya Brigada Comunitaria Manuel de Jesús Valenzuela Maestro Luís Morales Santini Asesor NCI Stephanie H. Meyer Administradora, KEMM y NCI Guillermo Amado Acostadinos Club Ecológico Karla Salazar Arias Club Ecológico José Luís Ortega Ramírez Incendios Forestales Rafael Ángel Arenas Wong Pronatura Noroeste Cayetano Aragón A. Comisión Nacional Forestal Luz del Carmen Parra V. Delegada de Turismo de Alamos José Luis Arredondo Z. Maestro de Telesecundario

Recorrido La Aduana Doña Valentina


ANNEX B

DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO DURING THE

INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

Bezuary Creel, Juan, El valor de los bienes y servicios que las áreas naturales protegidas proveen a los mexicanos. The Nature Conservancy – Programa Mexico. 2009.

Conservation Finance Alliance, Rapid Review of Conservation Trust Funds May 2008 Second Edition. Prepared for the CFA Working Group on Environmental Funds by Barry Spergel and Philippe Taïeb. 2008. CONANP, Estrategía de Cambio Climatico para Areas Protegidas (ECCAP). Released on March 3, 2010.

CONANP, Estrategia de Conservación para el Desarrollo. PowerPoint.


CONANP, Monitoreo del Ajolote (Ambystoma Altamirani) en el Parque Nacional Lagunas de Zempoala, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, October 2009.

CONANP, Monitoreo de Aves en la Reserva de la Biosfera El Ocote, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, December 2009

CONANP, Monitoreo Poblacional de Especies Clave: Cocodrilianos (crododylus acutus y Caiman crocodilus fuscus). Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, October 2009.

CONANP, Monitoreo del Palmoteador de Yuma (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) en la Biosfera Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Río Colorado. Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, December 2009.

CONANP, Monitoreo del Pez Joya (Hemichromis guttatus) en el Area de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas. Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, December 2009.

CONANP, Programa de Conservación y Manejo, Reserva de La Biósfera Alto Golfo de California y Delata del Río Colorado, México.2007.

CONANP, Programa Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas 2002-2007 and 2007-2012SEMARNAT/CONANP 2007.

CONANP. Proyecto de Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas (SINAP II). PowerPoint.


CONANP, Resúmen de Applicación de La Estrategia de Conservación para El Desarrollo. PowerPoint.

CONANP, Sistema de Información, Monitoreo y Evaluación para la Conservación - SIMEC. Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, 2004.

CONANP, Sistema de Información, Monitoreo y Evaluación para la Conservación - SIMEC. Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, 2005.

CONANP y FMCN, Diagnóstico de la Estrategia de Monitoreo Biológico en Áreas Protegidas Federales en México. Diana Montes Caballero. May 2009

CONANP y FMCN, Sistema de Monitoreo y Evaluación del Fondo para Areas Naturales Protegidas, Reporte Anual, 2008. Annual Report to the World Bank reporting on indicators of FANP.

CONANP and FMCN, Annual Rate of Habitat Transformation, 1973-2008. Excel Spreadsheet.

CONANP and FMCN, The Fund for Protected Areas: an Effective Public-Private Partnership. PowerPoint.

CTFANP, Minuta de la cuadragésima séptima reunión del Comité Técnico del Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CTFANP). March 3, 2010. Minutes taken by Renée Gonzalez in the offices of the Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A. C. (FMCN)

Commission for Environmental Cooperation, North American Conservation Action Plan. 2008.

Dinerstein, E., D.M. Olson, D.J. Graham, A.L. Webster, S.A. Primm, M.P. Bookbinder, and G. Ledec. 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 129 ppEnkerlin Hoeflich, Ernesto y Patricio Robles Gil, Mexico’s Natural Wonders: Ensuring the Future Through Conservation. Collection Voces de la Tierra, Sierra Madre. 2009. Mexico City.

FANP, Avance del Ejercicio de los PIE 2009. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Estado de Origen y Aplicación Histórico, 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Marcos Lógicos por ANP, SINAP II, 2009, 2010. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Manuales de Operaciones, 2000, 2008, 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN)

FANP, Númeralia del SINAP II. Excel Spreadsheet. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).


FANP, PIE’s Finales 2010. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, PIE’s Seleccionados para 2010. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Plan Anual de Gasto y Presupuesto Consolidado, 2005-2010.

FANP. Reporte Anual SINAP II 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reportes de Monitoero del FANP, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reporte Técnico, CC II 2009. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reporte Técnico CC II, Texto Explicativo 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reporte Técnico de la Administración , SINAP II, 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reportes Técnicos Anuales por ANP, SINAP II, 2005-2010. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN) Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial, Experiencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios para la Conservación. Informe de Evaluación Resumido #1-99. Enero de 1999.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Borrador – Política de Inversión. Comité de Inversiónes, Consejo Directivo de la FMCN.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Fortalecimiento en la participación y cooperación de las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil y la Comisión de Áreas Naturales Protegidas en pro de la Conservación - Memoria Técnica del Evento. Primer Semana de Intercambio de Conocimientos para la Conservación. 27 y 28 de julio de 2009. Ciudad de México.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Manual del Consejero Versión 2009-2010. Consejo Directivo de la FMCN.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, FANP Manual de Operaciones. Version 2009.

González Montagut, R, C. Molina Islas, A. Rhodes Espinoza, Biosphere Reserves: Do They work? FMCN 2007.


Graf, Sergio And Daan Vreugdenhil, Evaluación de Termino Medio “Consolidation Of The Protected Areas System Project” (050311TF050311-GEF2: MEXICO). Shepherdstown, W Va. November, 2005.

Olson, D. M, E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D'amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W.Wettengel, P. Hedao, & K.R. Kassem. 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51:933-938.

Preston, Marja and Ray Victurine, Conservation Trust Fund Investment Survey, For Financial Years 2007 and 2008. Wildlife Conservation Society, Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds, Conservation Finance Alliance, Fondo Français por Environnement Mondial. September 2009.

Redford, K. 1992. The empty forest. Bioscience, Vol. 42, No. 6: 412-422

Reserva de la Biosfera Selva El Ocote, Las Mejores Prácticas de Café de Conservación, Un Manual.

Reserva de la Biósfera El Pinacate y el Gran Desierto de Altar. Programa Anual de Monitoreo de Vida Silvestre.

Reserva de la Biósfera El Pinacate y el Gran Desierto de Altar. Suministro de Energía en Centro de Visitantes del Pinacate.

Saccardi, Daniel, Conservation Trust Fund Investment Survey. Wildlife Conservation Society, Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds, Conservation Finance Alliance. September 2009.

Sánchez-Cordero, Víctor and Fernando Figueroa, Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodiversity Conservation, 2008. 17:3223–3240.

SEMARNAT, Logros 2009, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. 2009.

SEMARNAT, Programa de Manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Selva El Ocote, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. 1a edición diciembre 2000.

Spergel, Barry, Protected Area Endowments: Donation and Board Seat Analysis. 10/14/2008.

Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas (UNICACH), Chamaedorea ernesti-augusti (Palma Cola de Pescado) Colecta y Almacenamiento de Semillas. Facultad de Ciencias Biologicós, PROMEP 103.5 (08/5190) junio de 2009.

World Bank, Mexico - Consolidation of the Protected Areas System Project (GEF) Project Appraisal Document, Latin America and Caribbean Region, 2002.


ANNEX C

GEF AND COUNTERPART FUNDS FOR THE FANP

Donations to the FANP Endowment

Project Donor PA Endowment FundsGEF US$

Counterpart Funds

Donor Project US$

SINAP I GEF

Triunfo, Manantlán,

Montes Azules, Vizcaíno, Isla

del Golfo, Calakmul, Sian

Ka´an, Isla Contoy, Ría

Lagartos, Mariposa Monarca

$ 16,480,080.00

Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte

Cuencas Prioritarias $ 3,000,000.00

Fundación Packard

Fondo de Conservación el

Triunfo $ 1,000,000.00 Fundación Ford

Iniciativa Río San Pedro

$ 500,000.00 NFWF (lo dono la Packard a traves de NFWF) $ 500,000.00

TOTAL $ 16,480,080.00 $ 5,000,000.00

Project Donor PA Endowment FundsGEF US$

Counterpart Funds

Donor Project US$

SINAP 2 GEF Alto Golfo, Chichinautzi, Tehuacan , Cuatrocienegas, Sierra de Alamos, Encrucijada, Sierra la Laguna, Pinacate, Ocote, Sepultura, Mapimí, Banco Chinchorro

$ 7,564,377.00

Fundación Packard Fondo Monarca $ 5,000,000.00

SEMARNATFondo Monarca

$ 1,000,000.00

SEMARNATSINAP I

$ 1,500,000.00 $ 2,210,000.00 Fundación

Homeland Fondo de

Conservación Banco Chinchorro

$ 50,000.00 Fundación Summit $ 50,000.00

NFWF Iniciativa Río San Pedro

$ 100,000.00

Wick $ 10,000.00 Estado de México

Fondo Monarca $ 253,574.85


Estado de Michoacán $ 250,017.29

SEMARNAT SINAP II

$ 549,915.86

$ 227,826.07

$ 551,764.11

$ 234,609.24

$ 7,350,000.00

Fundación Summit

Fondo de Conservación

Banco Chinchorro

$ 50,000.00

$ 50,000.00

$ 200,000.00

Fundación Packard y Marisla

Fondo de Conservación Bahía de los

Ángeles $ 375,000.00

SEMARNAT SINAP II

$ 710,217.16

$ 175,617.29

$ 348,668.96

$ 175,390.90

$ 602,820.64

$ 147,230.64

FMCN

Fondo para fuego, restauración y

prevención $ 4,500,000.00

$ 5,440,000.00

SEMARNAT SINAP II

$ 176,533.73

$ 276,324.52

$ 846,424.41

$ 976,656.48

Fundación Summit

Fondo de Conservación

Banco Chinchorro

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00 Estado de México Fondo Monarca $ 249,615.28

Global Conservation

Fondo de Conservación $ 1,000,000.00


FundBahía de los

Ángeles

Fundación Packard Fondo Marino $ 1,290,000.00

TOTAL $ 22,564,377.00 $ 22,528,207.43

Endowment DonationsFANP TOTAL $ 39,044,457.00 $ 27,528,207.43


DONATIONS TO SINKING FUNDS IN FANP

Project Donor Sinking Fund USD

Counterpart Funds for the FANP Endowment

Donor Project US$

SINAP 2

GEF

Start up funds $ 1,908,000.00

Fundación Summit

Fondo de Conservación Banco Chinchorro $ 200,000.00

Fundación SummitIniciativa del Río San Pedro $ 200,000.00

Fundación Packard

Fondo de Conservación Espíritu Santo $ 1,500,000.00

Fundraising funds $ 630,802.92

Fondo Monarca

Movimiento Azteca $ 882,904.17

Desarrollo sostenible en la Reserva de la Biósfera el Vizcaíno AECID $ 300,000.00

Reservas Marinas

Comunidad Europea $ 732,238.32

Fondo Río San Pedro

Fundación Ford $ 100,000.00

TOTALES $ 4,553,945.41 $ 1,900,000.00


Endowment Donations Beyond the Required Counterpart for SINAP 2

Counterpart Resources

Donor Project US$

Global Conservation

Fund

Fondo de Conservación Bahía de los Ángeles $ 1,000,000.00

Global Conservation

Fund Fondo Marino $ 1,000,000.00 Fundación

Packard Fondo Marino $ 4,710,000.00

Fundación Summit

Fondo de Conservación Banco Chinchorro $ 200,000.00

International Community Foundation

Fondo de Conservación Bahía de los Ángeles $ 125,000.00

Estado de México

Fondo Monarca $ 183,627.26

TOTAL $ 7,218,627.26

Total Endowment Funds Raised for the FANP $ 75,691,291.69

Supplied by FMCN


ANNEX D

LIST OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES SUPPORTED BY GEF SINKING FUNDS

Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity

Sustainable Development

InitiativeEnvironmental Benefits

IDS/04/CONANP-01

RB Tehuacán-Cuicatlán

Zapotitlán de Salinas

Rehabilitación De Un Museo

Comunitario En Zapotitlán Salinas Puebla (Segunda Parte) Primera

Etapa

Restricción del crecimiento ▪habitacional en zonas vecinas del jardín botánico

Restauración de los ecosistemas ▪prioritarios en el área

Sensibilización respecto al manejo ▪sustentable de los recursos naturales en la zona

IDS/04/CONANP-02

RB Alto Golfo de California

y Delta del Río Colorado

Luis Encinas Jhonson

Proyecto Ecoturístico

Ciénega De Santa Clara (Primera

Parte)

Protección de especies endémicas y ▪especies en peligro de extinción, p.e cachorrito del desierto

Conservación de los ecosistemas ▪prioritarios, p.e humedales y matorrales xerófilos

IDS/04/CONANP-03

APFF Corredor Biológico

Chichinautzin

Los Laureles

Proyecto Ecoturístico En La

Comunidad San José De Los

Laureles Del Apff Cobio

Chichinautzin-Pn Lagunas De Zempoala

Mantenimiento de los servicios ▪ambientales que proporcionan los diferentes ecosistemas de la zona

Recuperación de zonas arboladas por▪ medio de la restauración y reforestación

Recuperación gradual de poblaciones▪ de flora y fauna silvestre

Manejo sustentable de los recursos ▪forestales

Restricción en el cambio del uso del ▪suelo

Incremento de los niveles de ▪infiltración y escurrimientos subterráneo de agua

IDS/05/CONANP-01


Chichinautzin

Amatlán de

Quetzalcoatl


Comunidad Amatlán De

Quetzalcoatl Del Apff Cobio

Chichinautzin-Pn El Tepozteco

Incorporación de tierras ociosas al ▪proyecto para la generación de bienes y servicios ambientales

Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por▪ medio de la reforestación y restauración de áreas impactadas


Conservación de suelos▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en zonas ▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



recuperadas Restricción en el cambio del uso del ▪

suelo

IDS/05/CONANP-02


Chichinautzin

Nepupualco

Uma De Venado Cola Blanca Y

Parque Ecoturistico En La

Comunidad De Nepopualco Del

Apffs Cobio Chichinautzin

Restauración y conservación del ▪hábitat para el manejo sustentable de la vida silvestre

Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por▪ medio de la reforestación y restauración de áreas impactadas.




suelo

IDS/05/CONANP-03



Salinas de Gortari

Proyecto Centro De Producción

Ostrícola "Estero San Judas"

Conservación de áreas de anidación ▪de especies de aves playeras migratorias y residentes endémicas o amenazadas

Conservación del germoplasma de ▪diversas especies vegetales halófitas endémicas y de uso tradicional para la etnía Tohono Odam

Conservación de sitios de ▪reproducción de especies intermareales

IDS/05/CONANP-04

APFF Sierra de Álamos-

Río Cuchujaqui

Santa Bárbara

Proyecto De Producción De

Mezcal Con Planta De Agave Nativa

(Agave Bovicornuta) En La

Comunidad De Santa Bárbara Del

Apff Sierra De Álamos-Río Cuchujaqui

Conservar la diversidad de ▪ecosistemas como la selva baja caducifolia y los bosques de pino-encino y pino.

Incremento poblacional de especies ▪de distribución restringida, como el Agave bovicurnata

Protección y recuperación de suelos ▪por medio de técnicas agroecológicas

Conservación de ecosistemas de ▪distribución restringida (zona de transición de las regiones Neártica y Neotropical

Conservación de la integridad ▪funcional de los ecosistemas y los servicios ambientales generados, captación de agua, retención de suelo y captura de CO2

Disminución del sobrepastoreo▪ Conservación de hábitat de especies ▪

como el jaguar y la guacamaya verde

IDS/05/CONANP-05

RB La Sepultura

Adolfo López

Mateos

Manejo Silvopastoril De

Ganado Bovino En

Recuperación de zonas desmontadas▪ Disminución de zonas de potreros ▪

evitando desmontes en selvas


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



El Ejido Adolfo López Mateos

Recuperación de suelos al disminuir ▪el uso de fuego

Recuperación de vegetación forestal ▪al disminuir la superficie de zonas de forraje

IDS/05/CONANP-06

RB La Sepultura

Sierra Morena

Producción Y Comercialización

De Palma Camedor (Chamaedorea

Quezalteca) En El Ejido Sierra

Morena, Municipio De Villa Corzo,

Chiapas

Repoblación de áreas silvestres de ▪palma comedor (especie en peligro de extinción)

Disminución de la extracción de la ▪palma silvestre

Conservación asociaciones vegetales ▪a nivel dosel y sotobosque.

Conservación de hábitat natural y de ▪transito de especies animales.

Conservación de Bosque Mesófilo de ▪Montaña

Conservación de suelos y recarga de ▪manto freáticos

Disminución de presión a zona ▪núcleo

IDS/05/CONANP-07

RB La Sepultura

UPROSIVI (incluye 9

comunidades)

Proyecto De Mejoramiento En

Las Prácticas Para La Producción De Café En La Sierra

De Villaflores

Conservación de hábitat de especies ▪de flora y fauna (avifauna y especies endémicas)

Conservación y recuperación de ▪suelo por medio de prácticas agroecológicas

Disminución de presión y protección ▪de la zona núcleo

Conservación de servicios ▪ambientales: infiltración de agua y captura de CO2

IDS/05/CONANP-08

RB La Encrucijada Coapa

Producción De Abonos Orgánicos Y Fomento De La

Horticultura Orgánica En El

Ejido Coapa, Municipio De

Pijijiapan, Chiapas

Reducción de la contaminación de ▪mantos freáticos por de productos químicos agrícolas

Incrementa de la cobertura vegetal ▪(diversificación de sistemas de producción)

IDS/05/CONANP-09

RB La Encrucijada

Guanajuato

Proyecto De Consolidación Del

Centro De Producción De

Plantas Forestales Tropicales, Frutales Y

Ornamentales En El Ejido

Guanajuato De La Reserva De La Biosfera “La

Restauración del hábitat por medio ▪de especies endémicas

Aumento de la superficie arbolada▪ Conservación de niveles de humedad ▪

y recuperación de suelo Reducción de la contaminación de ▪

mantos freáticos por de productos químicos agrícolas

Conservación de la biodiversidad por ▪medio de manejo tradicional

Conservación de especies prioritarias▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Encrucijada”.

IDS/05/CONANP-10

RB La Encrucijada

El Castaño

Proyecto Para El Fortalecimiento

De Las Actividades De Ecoturísmo En La Ranchería “El Castaño” De La Reserva De La

Biosfera La Encrucijada

Conservación de la cobertura vegetal ▪en la zona

Reforestación y restauración de ▪zonas impactadas por procesos productivos

Conservación de ecosistemas de ▪humedales (maglares, tulares, popales, esteros, lagunas y playa)

Conservación de la biodiversidad de ▪los humedales por medio de prácticas de manejo sustentable.

IDS/05/CONANP-11

RB La Encrucijada

La Palma


De Las Actividades De Ecoturísmo En La Ranchería “La

Palma” De La Reserva De La


Conservación de la cobertura vegetal ▪en la zona


Conservación de ecosistemas de ▪humedales (maglares, tulares, popales, esteros, lagunas, dunas y playa)

Conservación de la biodiversidad de ▪los humedales por medio de prácticas de manejo sustentable.

IDS/05/CONANP-12

APFF Sierra de Álamos-

Río Cuchujaqui

La Aduana


Comunidad La Aduana Del Apff

Sierra De Álamos Río Cuchujaqui

Conservación de la integridad ▪funcional de los ecosistemas de la zona: selva baja caducifolia, bosque de pino-encino y bosques de pino

Conservación y mantenimiento de los▪ servicios ambientales: producción de agua, retención de suelo y captura de carbono.

Restauración natural de los ▪ecosistemas al disminuir el impacto de la agricultura y la ganadería

IDS/05/CONANP-13

RB Sierra La Laguna

San Antonio de

La Sierra

Proyecto Para La Producción De

Lombricomposta En San Antonio De La Sierra En La Rb Sierra La Laguna

Recuperación de la fertilidad y ▪permeabilidad de lo suelos

Reducción de la explotación de los ▪mantos acuíferos

Reducción de los niveles de ▪contaminación por agroquímicos en suelo y agua

Reducción de los efectos del pastoreo▪ sobre la cubierta vegetal

IDS/05/CONANP-14

RB Pantanos de Centla Rivera Alta

Proyecto De Para El Manejo

Sustentable De Pejelagarto

(Atractosteus Tropicus) En Estanquería

Rústica

Disminución de la presión sobre ▪especies silvestres

Conservación ecosistemas de ▪humedales y su diversas biológica

Protección de especies endémicas ▪y/o en riesgo (Pez cabeza de hueso y Mojarra castarrica)


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



IDS/05/CONANP-16

RB Pantanos de Centla

Tabasquillo

Aprovechamiento De Especies De

Lirio (Euchornia Crassipes) Y Guano

Redondo (Sabal Mexicana) Para La

Elaboración De Artesanías

Se conservan y mantienen ▪ecosistemas prioritarios

Mantenimiento de cuerpos de agua ▪evitando la eutrofización

Conservación del hábitat y zonas de ▪descanso y alimentación de especies prioritarias como el venado cola blanca y diversas especies de quelonios

IDS/05/CONANP-17

RB Pantanos de Centla El Bosque

Proyecto Para La Elaboración De

Harina Y Machaca De Pescado Para

Consumo Humano (Primera Etapa)

Protección de especies endémicas ▪y/o en riesgo

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios principalmente el manglar

Conservación de sitios de incubación ▪de especies intermareales

IDS/06/CONANP-01

RB Sierra La Laguna San Simón

Establecimiento Y Manejo De Un

Apiario En El Ejido San Simón De La

Rb Sierra La Laguna.

Conservación de los ecosistemas de la▪ zona

Reducción de la presión ▪antropogénica sobre los ecosistemas

Éxito reproductivo de la flora ▪melífera nativa

IDS/06/CONANP-02

APFF Cuatrociéneg

as

Cuatrociénegas

Establecimiento De Una Planta

Procesadora De Lácteos En El Ejido

Cuatrociénegas Del Apff

Cuatrociénegas.

Restricción del libre pastoreo ▪caprino en praderas naturales ▪Protección de las especies endémicas, principalmente pastos y arbustos ▪Reducción del sobrepastoreo en agostadero Recuperación de ▪cobertura vegetal al establecer cercas vivas, plantaciones mixtas de mesquite y especies forrajeras nativas Mejorar la ▪estructura y fertilidad del suelo por medio de labranzas cero o de conservación

IDS/06/CONANP-03


Chichinautzin

San Juan Atzingo

Proyecto Ecoturístico San

Juan Atzingo

Recuperación del hábitat para la ▪fauna silvestre

Incremento de la masa forestal por ▪medio de la reforestación

Mantenimiento y recarga de ▪acuíferos por infiltración resultado de la conservación y recuperación de suelo

Recuperación y conservación de los ▪Lagos Zempoala, regulación de microclima

Manejo sustentable de los recursos ▪naturales promoviendo el ordenamiento ecológico de la zona.

IDS/06/CONANP-04

RB Sierra La Laguna

San Antonio de

la Sierra (Subcuenc

a Potrerillos

Módulo Demostrativo De

Manejo Agrosilvopastoril En San Antonio De

La Sierra

Conservación y restauración de ▪ecosistemas prioritarios

Diversificación de agrocultivos▪ Conservación de la cobertura vegetal ▪

mediante reducción de la deforestación Recuperación del suelo e incremento ▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



)

de su fertilidad Disminución de la frontera ▪

agropecuaría Reducción de los niveles de ▪

contaminación de suelo y agua Reducción de la compactación de ▪

suelo Aumento de los niveles de captación ▪

de agua

IDS/06/CONANP-05


Tabasquillo

Proyecto Para El Manejo Y

Aprovechamiento A Través De La Construcción Y

Establecimiento De Una Unidad De

Manejo Sustentable (Uma)

De Tortuga Dulceacuícola (Dermatemys

Mawii Y Trachemys Scripta

Venusta)

Protección de especies endémicas▪ Protección de especies en estatus de ▪

peligro de extinción Disminución del impacto en las ▪

sistemas lagunares Disminución de la sobreexplotación ▪

de la tortugas y recuperación de sus poblaciones

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios principalmente acuáticos

IDS/06/CONANP-07

APFF Cuatrociéneg

as

San Juan de

Boquillas

Establecimiento De Un Taller Para La Elaboración De

Artesanías De Carrizo (Arundo

Donax) En El Ejido San Juan De Boquillas,

Municipio De Cuatro Ciénegas,

Coahuila.

Protección de las especies endémicas ▪y en riesgo de extinción por medio de la conservación de ecosistemas sistémicos terrestres y acuáticos (pozas).

Disminución de la cacería furtiva ▪principalmente de venado cola blanca.

Controlar la proliferación de ▪especies introducidas en ecosistemas prioritarios (carrizo asiático)

IDS/06/CONANP-08


Chichinautzin

Nepupualco


Parque Ecoturístico En La



(Segunda Parte)

Restauración y conservación del ▪hábitat para el manejo sustentable de la vida silvestre

Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por▪ medio de la reforestación y restauración de áreas impactadas.




suelo

IDS/06/CONANP-09

APFF Corredor

Amatlán de


Incorporación de ▪▪▪tierras ociosas al proyecto para


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Biológico Chichinautzi

n

Quetzalcoatl


Quetzalcoatl Del Apff Cobio

Chichinautzin-Pn El Tepozteco

(Segunda Parte)

la generación de bienes y servicios ambientales

Incremento de la cubierta ▪vegetal por medio de la reforestación y restauración de áreas impactadas


Conservación de suelos▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en ▪

zonas recuperadas Restricción en el cambio del ▪

uso del suelo

IDS/06/CONANP-10



Salinas de Gortari

Proyecto Centro De Producción

Ostrícola “Estero San Judas”

Segunda Parte

Conservación de áreas de anidación ▪de especies de aves playeras migratorias y residentes endémicas o amenazadas

Conservación del germoplasma de ▪diversas especies vegetales halófitas endémicas y de uso tradicional para la etnía Tohono Odam

Conservación de sitios de ▪reproducción de especies intermareales

IDS/06/CONANP-11

RB La Encrucijada

Salto del Agua

Manejo De Alimentos

Balanceados Para Ganadería

Intensiva En El Ejido Salto Del

Agua

Diversificación de agrocultivos▪ Ampliación de la masa forestal por ▪

medio de establecimiento plantaciones forestales, frutícolas y de ramoneo

Recuperación del suelo e incremento ▪de su fertilidad

Disminución de la frontera ▪agropecuaría

Reducción de los niveles de ▪contaminación de suelo y agua

Conservación y restauración de ▪ecosistemas prioritarios (selva alta y relictos de sabana)

IDS/06/CONANP-12

RB La Sepultura

Rosendo Salazar

Turismo Alternativo En El

Ejido Rosendo Salazar (Centro Turístico Tolán

Sociedad Cooperativa De R.

L. De C.V.).

Reducción de la presión de apertura ▪de frontera agrícola hacia la zona núcleo

Conservación de la vocación ▪paisajística de la zona

Conservación de los ríos y cuerpos de▪ agua (naturales y artificiales) que confluyen en la zona

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios (selva baja caducifolia y bosque de pino)

Conservación del hábitat de la ▪biodiversidad existente en la zona Conservación de especies emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en peligro de extinción (avifauna)


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Conservación de servicios ▪ambientales (producción de biomasa, agua y oxigeno)

IDS/06/CONANP-13

APFF Cuatrociéneg

as

San Lorenzo

APROVECHAMIENTO SUSTENTABLE

DEL PALMITO (Yuca Spp.) POR

MEDIO DEL ESTABLECIMIENTO DE UN VIVERO EN EL EJIDO SAN

LORENZO, MUNICIPIO DE

CUATRO CIÉNEGAS, COAHUILA.

Reducción de pérdida de cobertura ▪vegetal asegurando el abastecimiento de alimentación y refugio especies animales

Protección de especies endémicas y ▪en riesgo de extinción (principalmente reptiles)

Recuperación y conservación del ▪ecosistemas prioritarios (Desierto Chihuahuense)

Reducción de la extracción legal e ▪ilegal de palmito

IDS/06/CONANP-14


San Juan Raya

Museo Paleontológico Comunitario En San Juan Raya, Municipio De

Zapotitlán Salinas, Puebla.

Regulación el pastoreo de ganado ▪caprino

Restricción del saqueo de flora ▪silvestre (especies prioritarias)

Restauración de los ecosistemas ▪prioritarios en el área

Sensibilización respecto al manejo ▪sustentable de los recursos naturales en la zona

Contención de la expansión de la ▪frontera agrícola

IDS/06/CONANP-15


San Juan Bautista

Atatlahuca

Reconversión De Tierras De Uso Productivo A

Través Del Trato Con Abonos

Orgánicos En La Comunidad San

Juan Bautista Atatlahuca.

Recuperación y restauración de ▪suelos impactados, conservación de la cobertura vegetal

Reducción de los índices de erosión ▪del suelo

Reducción de la deforestación▪ Reincorporación de biomasa a la ▪

constitución edáfica de suelo recuperando y elevando los niveles de nutrientes del suelo

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios (selva baja cadicifola, bosque de pino-encino y bosque mesófilo de montaña)

Reducción de los niveles de ▪contaminación del suelo y agua a través de la disminución del uso de plaguicidas y fertilizantes

IDS/06/CONANP-16


San Juan Tonaltepec

Estrategia De Conservación De Agua Y Suelos En La Comunidad De

San Juan Tonaltepec,

Aumento de la captación de agua en ▪la localidad

Reducción sedimentos en los ríos ▪durante la temporada de lluvia

Conservación y mantenimiento de ▪los manantiales de la zona


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Oaxaca.

Reducción de la erosión eólica ▪conservando las masas forestales

Administración eficiente del agua ▪captada

Recuperación de cobertura vegetal ▪al establecer bordos con plantaciones de especies típicas de la región, como el mezquite, el guaje, el maguey o el nopal tunero

Recuperación gradual de la ▪fertilidad del suelo

IDS/07/CONANP-01

RB Banco Chinchorro

Xcalak

Proyecto Para El Fortalecimiento De La Actividad

Artesanal En Mujeres De La Comunidad De

Xcalak

Protección de especies endémicas ▪y/ en peligro de extinción

Uso sustentable de caracol rosado y ▪otras especies de moluscos

IDS/07/CONANP-02


Zapotitlán de Salinas

Rehabilitación De Un Museo

Comunitario En Zapotitlán Salinas Puebla (Segunda Parte) Segunda

Etapa

Restricción del crecimiento ▪habitacional en zonas vecinas del jardín botánico Restauración de los ▪ecosistemas prioritarios en el área ▪Sensibilización respecto al manejo sustentable de los recursos naturales en la zona

IDS/07/CONANP-03

RB Banco Chinchorro

Xcalak

Proyecto Para El Fomento Del Manejo De

Residuos Sólidos (Separación Y

Disposición) En La Comunidad Xcalak.

Mermar los niveles de ▪contaminantes en suelo y cuerpos subterraneos de agua mediante la reducción de lixiviados en el suelo

Erradicación de tiraderos de basura ▪a cielo abierto

Conservación de especies ▪emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en peligro de extinción mediante la erradicación de fauna nociva

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios (selvas, lagunas costeras, humedales y dunas costeras)

IDS/07/CONANP-04

RB Banco Chinchorro

Mahahual

Fortalecimiento De La Actividad

Ecoturística En Las Cooperativas Pesquera De

Banco Chinchorro

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios (barrera arrecifal, selvas, lagunas costeras, humedales y dunas costeras)

Conservación de especies ▪emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en peligro de extinción

IDS/07/CONANP-05

RB ALTO GOLFO DE

CALIFORNIA Y DELTA DEL

RÍO COLORADO

EJIDO MÉDICO

CIRUJANO ALBERTO OVIEDO MOTA

Granja Acuícola "Laguna Del Indio" En El Ejido Médico Cirujano Alberto

Oviedo Mota.

Restauración y conservación del ▪humedal “Laguna del Indio”

Conservación de zonas de ▪alimentación y descanso pertenecientes a la Ruta Migratoria del Pacifico de aves playeras y anátidos


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Conservación del hábitat del ▪Palmoteador de Yuma (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), especie endémica.

IDS/07/CONANP-06

RB BANCO CHINCHORR

OXcalak


Ecoturística En La Comunidad

Pesquera De Arrecifes Xcalak



IDS/07/CONANP-07 IDS/08/CON

ANP-06

RB SIERRA LA LAGUNA

SANTO DOMINGO

Establecimiento Y Manejo De Una

Plantación De Palo De Arco Asociado Con Chiltepín En Santo Domingo, Reserva De La

Biosfera Sierra La Laguna.

Conversión del área bajo manejo ▪convencional a manejo sustentable

Control de la erosión y recarga de ▪mantos acuíferos

Estabilización microclimática y ▪captura de carbono atmosférico

Preservación de la diversidad ▪biológica

Generación de biomasa y nutrientes▪


ANP-10

RB PANTANOS DE CENTLA

HIDALGO

Manejo Y Aprovechamiento

A Través De La Construcción,

Establecimiento Y Equipamiento De

Una Unidad De Manejo

Sustentable De Tortugas

Dulceacuícolas.

Protección de especies endémicas▪ Protección de especies en estatus de▪

peligro de extinción Disminución del impacto en las ▪

sistemas lagunares Disminución de la sobreexplotación ▪

de la tortugas y recuperación de sus poblaciones

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios principalmente acuáticos


ANP-14

RB LA SEPULTURA

EJDO TIERRA Y LIBERTAD

Forestería Comunitaria En El

Ejido Tierra Y Libertad,

Municipio De Villaflores.

Regeneración natural de la masa ▪forestal mediante manejo del bosque

Reducción de incendios forestales ▪mediante manejo de “combustible”

Incremento de la superficie forestal ▪mediante reforestación

Conservación y recuperación de ▪suelos

Disminución de la presión a zona ▪núcleo (vigilancia y erradicación de tala clandestina Limitación de la frontera agropecuaría)

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios


ANP-07

RB EL OCOTE

EJIDO ADOLFO LÓPEZ

MATEOS

Fortalecimiento De La Actividad Turística En La

Cascada El Aguacero,

Municipio De

Conservación de la cobertura ▪forestal en el sitio y márgenes del río garantizando la conservación y recuperación de suelos, retención de humedad, producción de oxigeno, captación de carbono etc.


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Ocozocoautla De Espinosa, Chiapas.

Regulación de clima▪ Infiltración de agua de lluvia y ▪

recarga de acuíferos Conservación y recuperación del ▪

hábitat para el desarrollo de la flora y fauna silvestre

Disminución de la presión hacia los ▪recursos forestales por cambio de uso del suelo para actividades agropecuarias.

Reducción de incendios forestales▪


ANP-07

RB EL OCOTEEJIDO

EMILIANO ZAPATA

Fortalecimiento De La Cafeticultura

Orgánica: Capacitación,

Infraestructura, Certificación Y

Redes De Comercialización

En El Ejido Emiliano Zapata I En La Rb El Ocote.

Conservación de áreas montañosas ▪por medio del desarrollo del cultivo de café bajo sombra

Se incrementa la cubertura vegetal ▪de la zona por medio de la reforestación y restauración de terrenos ejidales

Incremento poblacional de fauna ▪silvestre

Conservación de un microclima ▪estable en áreas de cultivo de café orgánico

Diversificación de especies ▪arbóreas y el consecuente aumento de las diversas poblaciones de aves en el área.

Reducción de la apertura de la ▪frontera agropecuaria.

Diversificación de cultivos de café ▪orgánico con la siembra de especies maderables y frutales.

Disminución de efectos fisico-▪químicos sobre fuentes de agua y mantos freáticos

IDS/08/CONANP-01


Chichinautzin

Amatlán de

Quetzalcoatl



Quetzalcoatl Del Apff Chichinautzin-

Pn El Tepozteco (Tercera Parte)

Incorporación de tierras ociosas al ▪proyecto para la generación de bienes y servicios ambientales

Incremento de la cubierta vegetal ▪por medio de la reforestación y restauración de áreas impactadas




suelo

IDS/08/CONANP-02

APFF Corredor

Nepupualco


Restauración y conservación del ▪hábitat para el manejo sustentable de


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Biológico Chichinautzi

n

Parque Ecoturístico En La



(Tercera Parte)

la vida silvestre Incremento de la cubierta vegetal ▪

por medio de la reforestación y restauración de áreas impactadas.




suelo


ANP-12



Luis Encinas Jhonson

Proyecto Ecoturístico

Ciénega De Santa Clara (Segunda

Parte)

Protección de especies endémicas y ▪especies en peligro de extinción, p.e cachorrito del desierto

Conservación de los ecosistemas ▪prioritarios, p.e humedales y matorrales xerófilos


ANP-01

RB Sierra La Laguna

San Antonio de

la Sierra

Programa De Mejoramiento De

La Calidad De Vida Del Ranchero

Sudcaliforniano (Primera Fase)

Incremento del área bajo manejo ▪sustentable

Reducción de la pérdida de la ▪diversidad biológica

Reducción de la emisión de gases de ▪efecto invernadero

Disminución de la contaminación de▪ mantos freáticos

Disminución de la contaminación ▪del agua, el aire y el suelo

IDS/08/CONANP-05 RB EL OCOTE

Juan de grijalva II

Rehabilitación Y Mejoramiento Del

Centro Ecoturístico Juan

De Grijalva Ii (Primera Etapa)

Municipio De Ocozocoautla De

Espinoza, Chiapas

Conservación de la cobertura ▪forestal en el sitio y márgenes del río garantizando la conservación y recuperación de suelos, retención de humedad, producción de oxigeno, captación de carbono etc.

Aumento de la masa forestal por ▪medio de la reforestación y restauración de parcelas

Regulación de clima▪ Infiltración de agua de lluvia y ▪

recarga de acuíferos Conservación y recuperación del ▪


Disminución de la presión hacia los ▪recursos forestales por cambio de uso del suelo para actividades agropecuarias.

Reducción de incendios forestales▪

IDS/08/CONANP-09


San Pedro Nodón, Santa

Agroforestería Y Eficientización Del Uso De La Leña En

Reducción de los índices de erosión ▪del suelo Mejoramiento de la ▪cubierta forestal Estabilización del ▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



María Ixcatlán,

Río Blanco, Río

Poblano, La Estancia

y Apoala

Comunidades De La Mixteca Oaxaqueña

microclima local Mayor infiltración ▪de agua en el manto freático. ▪Conservación de la fauna local. ▪Mantenimiento de las especies de bosques templados, de selvas bajas, así como las especies que se hospedan sobre estas, como algunos agaves, lianas y epífitas en general.

IDS/08/CONANP-11


Chichinautzin

San Juan Atzingo

Proyecto Ecoturístico San

Juan Atzingo (Segunda Parte)







ANP-05

RB La Sepultura

UPROSIVI (incluye 9

comunidades)

Proyecto De Mejoramiento En

Las Prácticas Para La Producción De Café En La Sierra

De Villaflores (Segunda Parte)

Conservación de hábitat de especies ▪de flora y fauna (avifauna y especies endémicas)

Conservación y recuperación de ▪suelo por medio de prácticas agroecológicas

Disminución de presión y ▪protección de la zona núcleo

Conservación de servicios ▪ambientales: infiltración de agua y captura de CO2


ANP-09

RB La Encrucijada

Salto del Agua

Manejo De Alimentos

Balanceados Para Ganadería

Intensiva En El Ejido Salto Del Agua (Segunda

Parte).

Diversificación de agrocultivos▪ Ampliación de la masa forestal por ▪

medio de establecimiento plantaciones forestales, frutícolas y de ramoneo

Recuperación del suelo e ▪incremento de su fertilidad

Disminución de la frontera ▪agropecuaría

Reducción de los niveles de ▪contaminación de suelo y agua

Conservación y restauración de ▪ecosistemas prioritarios (selva alta y relictos de sabana)


ANP-04

RB La Sepultura

Corazón del Valle

Manejo Forestal Comunitario En El Ejido Corazón Del Valle De La Rb La

Sepultura


Mejoramiento de la cubierta ▪forestal.

Manejo de Combustibles forestales▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



Aclareo y saneamiento de los ▪bosques


ANP-06


José María Pino

Suarez



Especies Nativas En El Poblado Pino

Suaréz De La Rb Pantanos De

Centla

Se protegen las especies endémicas▪ Se protegen las especies en riesgo▪ Se mantienen y conservan los ▪

ecosistemas prioritarios


ANP-02

RB EL OCOTEArmando Zabadua





En El Ejido Ing. Armando Zebadua En La Rb El Ocote

Se conservan las áreas montañosas ▪por medio del desarrollo del cultivo de café bajo sombra y en base al proceso de transcisión de manejo de café convencional a café orgánico.

Las actividades de reforestación en ▪los terrenos ejidales incrementan la cubertura vegetal de la zona, lo que propicia el incremento poblacional de fauna silvestre.

Se mantiene un microclima estable ▪en áreas de cultivo de café orgánico, lo que genera la diversificación de especies arbóreas y principlamente el consecuente aumento de las diversas poblaciones de aves en el área.

Se incrementa por hectárea la ▪producción de café bajo sombra, por lo que disminuye la apertura de la frontera agropecuaria.

Con acciones de restauración y ▪fororestación se recuperan áreas impactadas.

Se diversifica la superficie con el ▪cultivo de café orgánico con la siembra de especies maderables y frutales.

Disminuyen los efectos químicos y ▪fisico-químicos sobre fuentes de agua y mantos freáticos producidos por la utilización de productos químicos en el desarrollo de prácticas de cultivo convencionales.


ANP-03

RB EL OCOTENuevo San

Juan Chamula





Se conservan las áreas montañosas ▪por medio del desarrollo del cultivo de café bajo sombra y en base al proceso de transcisión de manejo de café convencional a café orgánico.

Las actividades de reforestación en ▪los terrenos ejidales incrementan la cubertura vegetal de la zona, lo que


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



En El Ejido Nuevo San Juan Chamula En La Rb El Ocote

propicia el incremento poblacional de fauna silvestre.

Se mantiene un microclima estable ▪en áreas de cultivo de café orgánico, lo que genera la diversificación de especies arbóreas y principlamente el consecuente aumento de las diversas poblaciones de aves en el área.

Se incrementa por hectárea la ▪producción de café bajo sombra, por lo que disminuye la apertura de la frontera agropecuaria.

Con acciones de restauración y ▪fororestación se recuperan áreas impactadas.

Se diversifica la superficie con el ▪cultivo de café orgánico con la siembra de especies maderables y frutales.

Disminuyen los efectos químicos y ▪fisico-químicos sobre fuentes de agua y mantos freáticos producidos por la utilización de productos químicos en el desarrollo de prácticas de cultivo convencionales.


ANP-07


Tepelmeme Villa de Morelos

Establecimento De Un Vivero

Comunitario En Tepelmeme De Villamorelos,

Oaxaca

Disminuir la presión extractiva de ▪agave en los diferentes ecosistemas donde se localiza la especie en forma silvestre (selvas bajas y los matorrales xerófitos)

Reducir las tasas de extracción ▪selectiva (del agave) en el mediano plazo

Recuperar y/o mejorar las ▪condiciones fisicoquímicas de las tierras de cultivo

Reconvertir áreas agrícolas ▪abandonadas

Reducir la erosión en áreas ▪forestales


ANP-13


Los Reyes Metzontla y Coatepec

Establecimiento Y Cercado De 80 Has

De Plantaciones Agroforestales En Santiago Coatepec

Y Los Reyes Metzontla

Mejoramiento de la cubierta ▪forestal.


Mayor infiltración de agua en el ▪manto freático.

Mantenimiento del bosque de ▪cactáceas

Mantenimiento de la fauna local.▪



San Juan Raya

Museo Paleontológico Comunitario En

Regulación el pastoreo de ganado ▪caprino

Restricción del saqueo de flora ▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



ANP-08

San Juan Raya, Municipio De

Zapotitlán Salinas, Puebla (Segunda

Etapa)

silvestre (especies prioritarias) Restauración de los ecosistemas ▪

prioritarios en el área Sensibilización respecto al manejo ▪

sustentable de los recursos naturales en la zona

Contención de la expansión de la ▪frontera agrícola


ANP-10

RB La Encrucijada

El Castaño


De Las Actividades De Ecoturismo En La Ranchería “El Castaño” De La Reserva De La


(Segunda Parte)

Conservación de la cobertura ▪vegetal en la zona


Conservación de ecosistemas de ▪humedales (maglares, tulares, popales, esteros, lagunas y playa)

Conservación de la biodiversidad de▪ los humedales por medio de prácticas de manejo sustentable.


ANP-11

RB La Encrucijada

La Palma


De Las Actividades De Ecoturismo En La Ranchería “La

Palma” De La Reserva De La


(Segunda Parte)

Conservación de la cobertura ▪vegetal en la zona


Conservación de ecosistemas de ▪humedales (maglares, tulares, popales, esteros, lagunas, dunas y playa)

Conservación de la biodiversidad de▪ los humedales por medio de prácticas de manejo sustentable.

IDS/09/CONANP-14


Chichinautzin

San Juan Atzingo

Proyecto Ecoturístico En La Comunidad De San

Juan Atzingo Del APFFS Cobio

Chichinautzin-PN Lagunas De

Zempoala (Tercera Parte).






IDS/09/CONANP-15


Chichinautzin

Nepupualco

UMA De Jabalí En El Ejido De

Nepopualco Del APFFS Corredor

Biològico Chichinautzin.

Se incorporan tierra ociosas a la ▪conservación generando bienes ambientales El sustrato geológico ▪del área le confiere propiedades singulares de una alta permeabilidad, con un coheficiente de inflitración de 70% El predominio del relieve ▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



endógeno le confiere al área propiedades altimétricas que favorecen la precipitación pluvial y por ende la infiltración y el escurrimiento subterráneo y su afloramiento posterior cuenca abajo. Se ▪promueve la conservación, manejo, restauración del hábitat y aprovechamiento sustentable de la vida silvestre.Con acciones de restauración se recuperaran áreas impactadas. ▪Actividades de reforestación incrementará la cubierta vegetal de la zona, lo que propiciará el regreso de fauna silvestre

IDS/09/CONANP-16


Chichinautzin

Tlayacapan

Jardin Etnobotánico En

La Comunidad De Tlayacapan Del APFFS Corredor

Biológico Chichinautzin.

Se incorporan tierras consideradas ▪como ociosas a la conservación generando bienes y servicios ambientales de incalculable valor.

El sustrato geológico del área le ▪confiere propiedades singulares de una alta permeabilidad, con un coeficiente de infiltración del 70 %.

El predominio del relieve endógeno ▪le confiere al área propiedades altimétricas que favorecen la precipitación pluvial y por ende la infiltración y el escurrimiento subterráneo y su afloramiento posterior cuenca abajo.

Se promueve la conservación, ▪manejo, restauración del hábitat y aprovechamiento sustentable de la vida silvestre.Con acciones de restauración se recuperaran áreas impactadas.

Actividades de reforestación ▪incrementará la cubierta vegetal de la zona, lo que propiciará el regreso de fauna silvestre

IDS/09/CONANP-17


José María Pino

Suarez



Especies Nativas En El Poblado Pino

Suaréz De La RB Pantanos De

Centla (Segunda Parte)

Se protegen las especies endémicas▪ Se protegen las especies en riesgo▪ Se mantienen y conservan los ▪

ecosistemas prioritarios

IDS/09/ RB La Las Lauras Proyecto De Incremento del área bajo manejo ▪


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



CONANP-18 Encrucijada

Producción Y Engorda De Pez

Armado En La Rb La Encrucijada

sustentable Reducción de la pérdida de la ▪

diversidad biológica Disminución de la contaminación ▪

del agua, el aire y el suelo

IDS/09/CONANP-19

RB La Encrucijada

Roberto Barrios

Implementación De Técnicas

Amigables Al Ambiente Para Dar Valor Agregado A

Productos Pecuarios En El Ejido Roberto

Barrios De La Rb La Encrucijada

Incremento del área bajo manejo ▪sustentable

Reducción de la pérdida de la ▪diversidad biológica

Reducción de la emisión de gases de ▪efecto invernadero

Disminución de la contaminación de▪ mantos freáticos

Disminución de la contaminación ▪del agua, el aire y el suelo

IDS/09/CONANP-20

RB El Pinacate y

Gran Desierto de

Altar

Villa Tres Cruces

Desarrollo De La Herbolaria En La Comunidad Villa

Tres Cruces De La Rb El Pinacate Y

Gran Desierto De Altar

Recuperación de áreas urbanas ▪impactadas

Se evita por completo la producción ▪de carbón vegetal

Se incrementa la masa vegetal▪

IDS/09/CONANP-21

RB El Pinacate y

Gran Desierto de

Altar

Quitovac

Proyecto Para La Producción De

Artesanías En La Comunidad

Indígena Quitovac En La RB El

Pinacate Y Gran Desierto De Altar

Recuperación de suelos impactados ▪al utilizar terrenos de área urbana.

Disminución de la frontera ▪agropecuaría.

Manejo sustentable de biomasa.▪ Conservación y recuperación del ▪


Manejo y conservación de material ▪prima tradicional de la región.

IDS/09/CONANP-22

RB Banco Chinchorro

Xcalak Fortalecimiento De La Actividad

Pesquera En Arrecifes De

Xcalak

Se protegen las especies de : ▪Cocodrilo de río ( Crocodrylus acutus), Cocodrilo de mar (Crocodrylus moreletti), Manatí del caribe (Trichechus manatus), Jaguar (Pantera onca)

Protección de las 3 especies de ▪mangle consideradas dentro de la NOM 054: Mangle rojo (Rhizophora mangle) Mangle botoncillo (Conocarpus erectus) mangle blanco (Laguncularia racemosa); Corales pétreos formadores de arrecife: Coral cuerno de alce (Acropora palmata) y Coral cuerno de ciervo (Acropora cervicornis)

La importancia del sistema lagunar ▪Rio Huache como único afluente superficial de la zona sur del Estado de Quintana Roo que mantiene


Agreement PA

Ejido or Commun

ity



comunicación superficial con el Caribe, lo hace un importante sitio para de refugio natural para el crecimiento de juveniles de especies de importancia comercial, sitio importante para la anidación de aves migratorias. La poza como estructura arrecifal única en México

IDS/09/CONANP-23

RB Banco Chinchorro

Mahahual


Ecoturística En Las Cooperativas Pesqueras De

Banco Chinchorro (Segunda Parte)



IDS/09/CONANP-24


San José Miahuatlá

n

Establecimiento de 30 has de

plantaciones de Guaje Blanco y elaboración de

120 tons de abono orgánico en San José Miahuatlán

Mejoramiento de la cubierta forestal.▪Reducción de los índices de erosión ▪

del sueloMayor infiltración de agua en el ▪

manto freático. Estabilización del microclima local ▪

Mantenimiento de la selva baja caducifolia Mantenimiento de la fauna local.

IDS/09/CONANP-25


La Estancia

Construcción De 25 Sistemas

Familiares De Captación De Agua

Pluvial En Coixtlahuaca

Reducción de los índices de erosión ▪Reducción de la presión sobre los ▪

recursos forestales Estabilización del microclima local▪ Mayor retención del agua de lluvia▪

IDS/09/CONANP-26


San Perdo Nodón

Construccion De Obras De

Retención De Agua En San Pedro

Nodón, Oaxaca

Reducción de los índices de erosión ▪en cárcavas

Mayor infiltración de agua en el ▪manto freático.

Estabilización del microclima local▪ Mejoramiento de hábitats▪ Mayor retención del agua de lluvia▪

IDS/09/CONANP-27

RB La Sepultura

Tierra y Libertad

Forestería comunitaria en el

Ejido Tierra y Libertad,

Municipio de Villaflores

(Segunda parte)

Regeneración natural de la masa ▪forestal mediante manejo del bosque

Reducción de incendios forestales ▪mediante manejo de “combustible”

Incremento de la superficie forestal ▪mediante reforestación

Conservación y recuperación de ▪suelos

Disminución de la presión a zona ▪núcleo (vigilancia y erradicación de tala clandestina Limitación de la frontera agropecuaría)

Conservación de ecosistemas ▪prioritarios


List provided by CPU, CONANP of all Sinking Funds Projects in SINAP 2 sites.


ANNEX E

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Términos de Referencia

Evaluación Independiente Final del Proyecto

“Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Naturales Protegidas”

Identificación del sujeto de evaluación

El sujeto de evaluación es el Proyecto “Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas” de

acuerdo al Convenio de Donación TF050311 de fecha 13 de febrero de 2002 entre el Gobierno de

México, Nacional Financiera, S.N.C., el Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.

C. (FMCN), y el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo (Banco Mundial).

Antecedentes

En abril de 1992 se firmó un acuerdo por US$ 25 millones entre el Banco Mundial (como agencia

ejecutora del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (GEF)), el Banco Nacional de Obras y

Servicios Públicos, S. N. C. (BANOBRAS) y el Gobierno de México, a fin de apoyar la conservación

y uso sustentable de los recursos naturales de diez áreas naturales protegidas (AP) en México.

Como resultado de un proceso de reestructuración en 1996, se recomendó que del remanente de

los recursos se constituyera un fondo patrimonial, cuyo rendimiento sirviera de apoyo a largo plazo

a las AP incluidas en el proyecto. El Consejo Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas designó al

FMCN como el receptor y administrador de este Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas (FANP).

La reestructuración del proyecto incluyó el establecimiento del Comité Técnico del FANP y un

equipo de trabajo dentro del FMCN, así como una coordinación central dentro de la Comisión

Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) de la Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y

Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Este proceso culminó con la firma del Convenio de Donación


TF028678 entre el FMCN, el Gobierno de México y el Banco Mundial en junio de 1997, y el

posterior depósito de los recursos en julio del mismo año (US$ 16.48 millones) en una cuenta a

nombre del FMCN. La supervisión administrativa por parte del Banco Mundial terminó en

noviembre de 2003, después de una evaluación independiente de medio término en el año 2000 y

de una evaluación independiente final en junio del 2003.

Los avances en el primer proyecto de apoyo del GEF (denominado SINAP-1 por ser el primer

proyecto en apoyo al Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas) a las áreas naturales

protegidas de México permitieron gestionar una segunda aportación del GEF para apoyar a 12

áreas naturales protegidas más. Este segundo proyecto es denominado SINAP-2 y es el objeto de

la evaluación descrita en los presentes términos de referencia.

A diferencia del proyecto SINAP-1, en el cual el único administrador de los recursos es el FMCN,

en el proyecto SINAP-2 Nacional Financiera es la receptora de la mayor parte de los recursos no

patrimoniales ejercidos por la CONANP. Estos recursos no patrimoniales apoyan tres componentes

a cargo de la CONANP: fortalecimiento del sistema de áreas protegidas (monitoreo a través de

indicadores con una aportación de GEF), sinergias interinstitucionales y procuración de fondos.

Dentro de la CONANP la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto da seguimiento al ejercicio de estos

recursos. Adicionalmente, el FMCN es responsable del ejercicio de una parte de los recursos

extinguibles para procuración de fondos. Por otro lado, el FMCN administra la totalidad de los

recursos patrimoniales del proyecto, siguiendo las bases de colaboración establecidas en SINAP-1.

La aplicación en campo de los intereses del patrimonio es responsabilidad de la CONANP a través

de sus equipos de trabajo en las AP incluidas en el proyecto.

SINAP-2 es un proyecto de US$ 31.1 millones, de los cuales US$ 24.4 millones son recursos

patrimoniales y US$ 6.7 millones son extinguibles. Los recursos extinguibles han sido aprobados y

el Banco Mundial los desembolsa a medida que avanza el gasto. En diciembre de 2008, el Banco

Mundial llevó a cabo el último de cuatro depósitos de los recursos patrimoniales. Estos depósitos


tuvieron lugar a medida que el FMCN mostró que había obtenido una contrapartida de 1:1 en

recursos patrimoniales para las 34 áreas naturales protegidas reconocidas como prioritarias por las

partes.

El Convenio de Donación (TF050311) es el documento rector del proyecto SINAP-2 y establece los

compromisos legales adquiridos por las partes (Gobierno de México, NAFIN, FMCN, Banco

Mundial). De acuerdo a este Convenio el proyecto debe ser evaluado a medio término y al final de

la supervisión administrativa del Banco Mundial. En 2005 tuvo lugar la evaluación independiente

de medio término del proyecto SINAP-2, la cual fue concluida en octubre de ese año. El Convenio

establece que en junio de 2010 concluirá la supervisión administrativa del Banco Mundial siempre

y cuando una evaluación externa independiente y el Reporte de Término de Implementación del

Banco Mundial así lo indiquen.

En cuanto a la base legal del proyecto SINAP-2, además del Convenio de Donación, el FMCN y

CONANP firmaron un Convenio de Concertación Complementario el 14 de febrero de 2002, que

establece las responsabilidades de cada una de las dos instituciones. Los lineamientos para el

ejercicio de los recursos administrados por NAFIN están descritos en un Manual de Operaciones

preparado por la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto en CONANP, mientras que las reglas de

operación del patrimonio y sus intereses se encuentran en el Manual de Operaciones del FANP

elaborado por el FMCN. El Manual de Operaciones del FANP describe en detalle las actividades

de sus tres componentes: la administración del FANP dentro del FMCN, la coordinación central

dentro de la CONANP, que vincula a ambas instituciones, y las 22 AP incluidas en los proyectos

SINAP-1 y SINAP-2.


Fuentes de información sobre el programa

Existen varios documentos de información sobre el programa, que incluyen compromisos legales,

instrumentos de operación, documentos de análisis. Los principales son:

1) los Convenios de Donación TF028678 (5 de junio de 1997) y TF050311 (13 de febrero de 2002),

2) el Convenio de Concertación Complementario del Segundo Acuerdo de Donación entre la CONANP y el FMCN (14 de febrero de 2002),

3) el Plan Futuro de Operación de SINAP-1 (noviembre de 2003),

4) el Manual de Operaciones de FANP (versiones 1998 a 2005),

5) el Manual de Operaciones de la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto en CONANP,

6) l a “Carta e Implementación” enviada por la CONANP y el FMCN a Banco Mundial en diciembre del 2001,

7) l a Directriz Operativa concerniente a los Pueblos Indígenas del Banco Mundial,

8) el Documento Proyecto (enero de 2002),

9) la publicación “Experiencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios para la Conservación” de GEF (1999),

10) los resultados de las auditorias administrativas y financieras del proyecto para los ejercicios 2002 a 2008 en el caso del FANP y los resultados de las auditorias del 2003 a 2008 en CONANP. Los resultados de la auditoria 2009 de FANP estarán disponibles a partir de junio del 2010,

11) la publicación “Notas sobre la Experiencia del FMAM 7” de GEF (abril 1999),

12) los resultados de la evaluación independiente de medio término del SINAP 1 del 2000,

13) los resultados de la evaluación independiente final del SINAP 1 del 2003;

14) los resultados de la evaluación independiente de medio término del SINAP-2 de 2005.

Las personas contacto se incluyen en la siguiente lista:

De parte de la Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas:

Ernesto Enkerlin

Alfredo Ávila (Coordinador del Proyecto)

David Gutiérrez

Jorge Carranza


Flavio Cházaro

Pia Gallina

Rocío Esquivel

De parte de la Coordinación Central del Proyecto FANP:

Andrew Rhodes

Ana Laura Barillas

Luz María Murillo

De parte de NAFIN:

Liliana Velásquez

Lourdes González

Enrique Alva

De parte del Banco Mundial:

Claudia Sobrevila

Adriana Moreira (Gerente del Proyecto)

María Elena Castro

Musa Asad

Víctor Ordóñez

Dmitri Gourfinkel

Gabriel Peñaloza

Juan Carlos Serrano


De parte del FMCN:

Lorenzo Rosenzweig

Renée González (Directora del Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas)

Montserrat Díaz

Yarit León

Mireya Méndez

Ximena Yáñez

De parte del Comité Técnico del FANP:

Pedro Álvarez Icaza, Presidente

Gabriela Anaya

Javier de la Maza

Ernesto Enkerlin

Elías García Martínez

Víctor Sánchez Cordero

D. Preguntas clave sobre el propósito u objetivo de la evaluación:

¿Quiénes están interesados en los resultados de la evaluación independiente?

La Unidad de Evaluación y Monitoreo del Secretariado del GEF, la Unidad Administrativa para

México del Banco Mundial como agencia implementadora del GEF, la CONANP, NAFIN, el

Consejo Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, el Comité Técnico del FANP y el Consejo

Directivo del FMCN.


¿Qué es lo que se desea saber?

Se requiere determinar la efectividad del proyecto de apoyo al programa de áreas naturales

protegidas (AP) en México. De acuerdo a la sección 3.09 (d) del Artículo III del Convenio de

Donación TF050311, la evaluación deberá ser realizada por consultores independientes aceptados

por el Banco Mundial y de acuerdo a términos de referencia aceptables para el Banco Mundial.

Dichos consultores deberán evaluar el desempeño del proyecto y presentar sus resultados al

Banco Mundial en la forma de un reporte final. Este reporte deberá contener recomendaciones,

cuando proceda, para ajustes a las reglas y procedimientos basados en los resultados de dicha

evaluación.

La evaluación del proyecto, que se encuentra en su séptimo año de operación, se centrará en tres

preguntas clave, considerando que el impacto en la conservación y uso sustentable de los recursos

naturales sólo puede medirse en el largo plazo:

1. ¿Se encuentran operando los instrumentos acordados?

2. ¿Son los instrumentos acordados los más adecuados para lograr los objetivos del proyecto?

3. ¿Corresponden los objetivos a los principios de las instituciones involucradas?

Los objetivos del proyecto son los siguientes (de acuerdo al Documento de Proyecto del 10 de

enero de 2002, página 2):

1. Conservar la biodiversidad de importancia global en áreas selectas del Sistema Nacional de

Áreas Naturales Protegidas;

2. Promover la sustentabilidad económica, social y ambiental de actividades productivas en áreas

protegidas selectas;

3. Promover la co-responsabilidad social para la conservación; y

4. Promover la inclusión de criterios para la conservación de la biodiversidad y el uso sustentable


en proyectos de desarrollo y otras prácticas afectando áreas protegidas selectas.

Estos objetivos y sus respectivos indicadores se encuentran en el Documento Proyecto (enero del

2002). Los reportes de marzo del 2003 al 2009 de la coordinación central presentan los resultados

anuales del sistema de monitoreo y seguimiento del proyecto en cuanto a la aplicación de los

intereses del patrimonio de SINAP 2 y los informes semestrales presentados por la CONANP en

febrero y agosto de 2004 a 2009.

E. Fechas de entrega

Un reporte intermedio avanzado debe estar disponible el 26 de febrero de 2010. El reporte final

debe estar disponible antes del 31 de marzo de 2005.

F. Metodología para la evaluación.

Como parte de la respuesta a la convocatoria los participantes interesados presentarán una

propuesta de trabajo que ilustre la metodología a seguir, en particular con respecto a los elementos

siguientes:

• Revisión de gabinete de la información;

• Elaboración de plan para a visita a las cinco AP apoyadas por el proyecto;

• Elaboración de guía para recabar información en campo: deberá incluir la forma de interacción

con los grupos sociales presentes en las AP, posibles subcontrataciones de expertos locales,

necesidades de apoyo institucional (acompañamiento, entrevistas, coordinación);

• Entrevistas con los miembros de la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto en CONANP,

funcionarios relacionados con el proyecto en CONANP, personal de la coordinación central y

de la administración dentro del FMCN y otros participantes del proyecto;

• Procesamiento, consolidación y sistematización de información de campo;

• Elaboración de reporte intermedio y presentación a FMCN, Banco Mundial y CONANP;


• Incorporación de cambios y ajustes al reporte intermedio;

• Presentación de informe final de evaluación.

Se pide que los candidatos desarrollen también un calendario de trabajo, y un presupuesto

desglosado.

G. Composición, características y tamaño del equipo de evaluación

Se recomienda integrar un equipo de dos a tres personas que tengan experiencia en recursos

naturales y manejo de AP, aspectos sociales, gestión, aspectos financieros y administrativos.

Los evaluadores deberán, de preferencia, contar con los siguientes atributos:

- Experiencia en trabajos con AP en América Latina en particular con la comunidad

conservacionista y las comunidades rurales vinculadas a éstas.

- Dominio de los idiomas español e inglés.

- Capacidad y liderazgo para desarrollar y aplicar una metodología de evaluación objetiva.

- Ausencia de potenciales conflictos de interés.

Las propuestas deberán indicar la persona responsable de la coordinación del equipo, el nombre

de los integrantes y sus respectivos campos de especialización.

H. Logística de la evaluación

Se estima invertir 90 días-consultor: 60 días-consultor visitando las cinco AP a razón de cuatro días

por cada área; y 30 días-consultor para el trabajo de gabinete (previo a las visitas de campo), la

elaboración del reporte y la presentación del mismo. La planeación de la visita a las áreas se

llevará a cabo conjuntamente con los integrantes del programa, de acuerdo a la metodología


propuesta, y con suficiente anticipación para planear el calendario y logística de la evaluación.

I. Presentación y formato de los avances de la evaluación

Se solicita la siguiente secuencia de actividades:

Secuencia

Actividad

Cuando

Observaciones

1 Presentación oral de los aspectos más relevantes de la evalución.

Al término de las visitas de campo.

La presentación se llevará a cabo en las oficinas de la CONANP o el FMCN junto con los integrantes del programa.

2 Entrega de un reporte intermedio.

No más de dos semanas después de la presentación oral (fecha límite 26 de

febrero de 2010).

El reporte será entregado en forma electrónica (Word for

Windows) y en forma impresa (6 juegos).

3 Comentarios consensuados de las instituciones participantes al programa (CONANP, FMCN, Banco Mundial) al reporte intermedio.

Una semana después de la entrega del reporte intermedio.

4 Versión final del informe que tome en cuenta los comentarios de las

instituciones participantes al programa.


Antes del 31 de marzo de2010.

El reporte final deberá incluir:

1) resumen ejecutivo, 2) propósito u objetivo de la evaluación incluyendo preguntas clave, 3)

antecedentes del proyecto, 4) metodología de evaluación, 5) respuestas a preguntas clave y

hallazgos sobresalientes, 6) recomendaciones, 7) lecciones aprendidas. Se espera un reporte de

aproximadamente 50 páginas sin incluir anexos. La sección de anexos deberá incluir una copia de

los términos de referencia, el plan de trabajo, lista de contactos, bibliografía consultada y otros

elementos pertinentes a la evaluación.

Documentación requerida

Los consultores interesados deberán presentar lo siguiente:

• Propuesta técnica de máximo cinco cuartillas que incluya metodología, actividades previstas y cronograma.

• Propuesta económica por un monto máximo de $400,000 (incluyendo viáticos e impuestos).• Curriculum vitae del consultor. • Tres referencias.

Recepción de documentación y plazos

La documentación requerida deberá ser recibida por el FMCN a más tardar el 13 de noviembre de

2009 por correo electrónico dirigido a Mireya Méndez, Oficial del Área de Conservación del FMCN,

[email protected], y confirmar por correo electrónico o al teléfono al 01 22 88 13 60 58 al 60

ext 108.

Proceso de selección y adjudicación


• El FMCN informará a los proponentes sobre la selección del Comité Técnico del Fondo para

Áreas Naturales Protegidas a más tardar el 27 de noviembre de 2009.

• El contrato será firmado entre el consultor y el FMCN. El consultor proporcionará la información

necesaria para el contrato, así como el comprobante fiscal por el monto acordado.


ANNEX F

PAQUITA BATH CV

Paquita Bath 10450

Allenby Way Truckee CA,

96161

[email protected]

www.aligningvisions.com

Over 25 years of experience facilitating institutional capacity building, strategic planning, learning, partnering, board development, and participatory evaluation services with mission-driven organizations, with an emphasis on conservation organizations in the Americas.

PRINCIPAL ALIGNING VISIONS, LLC 2005 …

Aligning Visions LLC is a consulting firm that facilitates and coaches clients on effective conservation planning, learning, and institutional capacity-building strategies.

Recent projects include: Develop the content for a web-based learning center on effective approaches to partnering

for conservation outcomes based on case studies and examples of effective conservation partnering efforts from around the globe.

Facilitate an implementation plan for a regional leadership project along the MesoAmerican Reef.

Conduct an independent assessment of a large multi-partner project to create and manage protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon (ARPA) with recommendations.

Facilitate a strategic plan and focused proposal for agribusinesses expanding operations in Brazil to “responsibly source” soy products to ensure environmental laws are respected.


mailto:[email protected]

Coordinate a strategic planning process for 4 conservation organizations (WWF, TNC, Foundations of Success, and Greening Australia) to increase the global use of a shared conservation planning methodology resulting in Conservation Action Plans.

Facilitate a 3-Year Business Plan for strategic investments in the Humboldt Coast and Current in Peru and Chile for The Nature Conservancy.

Team member of a Global Environmental Facility Project Evaluation of a Mexican sustainable use reserve.

Facilitate board and staff retreats for strategic plans, operational work plans, and role alignment with numerous clients including:

Summit Foundation Lassen Land and Trails Trust (California); Central Savannas Program of The Nature Conservancy (Brazil).

EDUCATION

Stanford Graduate Business School, Executive Education Program 2000 M.S. California Polytechnic State U., International Agricultural Development 1986 B.S. Georgetown University, School of Foreign Service 1980

VICE PRESIDENT SIERRA BUSINESS COUNCIL 2002–2005

The Sierra Business Council is a regional nonprofit dedicated to a prosperous economy and quality of life that respects the magnificent natural resources of the Sierra Nevada.

Facilitated capacity-building sessions across the region including the acclaimed Sierra Leadership Seminar, Annual Conference, and team community action plans.

Co-author of Building Vibrant Sierra Communities – A Commercial and Mixed-Use Handbook of tools to encourage more compact development and limit sprawl.

Diversified funding with ‘fee for service” approaches, government grants, and many successful proposals for programs such as redeveloping a brown field, limiting erosion in ski areas, purchasing conservation easements, and supporting operations.

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

SENIOR DIRECTOR, STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND RECRUITING 2000–2002

Co-directed Human Resources for a 3,400 person high-growth international organization.

Launched leadership development and executive education programs. Ensured sustainability through a $4.5 million endowment.

Built organization-wide recruiting function. Used competency-based hiring, values-based advertising, and TNC’s top web page to attract over 600 new employees a year.

DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION LEARNING NETWORK 1997–2000


Developed organization-wide training priorities for staff, trustees, and partner organizations including orientation program for over 400 new employees a year, thematic conferences, and strategic workshops linked to new conservation approaches. Partnered with Universities and other experts to develop tailored workshops and enhance knowledge-sharing tools.

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN 1992–1997

Built and managed a 10-person team to strengthen the institutional capacity of over 20 Latin American and Caribbean partner organizations implementing Parks in Peril – an international program dedicated to turning “paper parks” into well-managed conservation units. We implemented organizational assessments, leadership training, capacity-building interventions, networking events such as the 400+ person Conservation Training Week bringing in practitioners from over 22 countries, and documented best practices.

Provided one-on-one mentoring, facilitation, and training in conservation strategies, board development, strategic planning, participatory rural appraisal, gender in natural resource management, leadership, and fundraising.

Raised over $2 million in operating and program funds. Lead author of two books dedicated to the evolution of civic society in Latin America:

o Resources for Success for nonprofit organizations (English, Spanish and Port.) o Rumbo al éxito for Boards of Directors (available in Spanish)

SCIENCE TRAINING COORDINATOR, SCIENCE DIVISION 1991–1992

Co-authored the book, Rapid Ecological Assessment (English and Spanish) – a breakthrough strategy for rapidly evaluating tropical landscapes for biodiversity values in situations where biological data is scarce and enabling more timely conservation decisions. Provided follow-up training programs throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

OTHER EMPLOYMENT

DIRECTOR, LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAMS, OEF INTERNATIONAL 1988–1991

Managed AID-funded projects in Central America on micro-enterprise credit and training programs for low-income rural women. Worked with local staff to institutionalize these one-time projects into 3 Central American micro-enterprise organizations. Now over 20 years old, they have served tens of thousands of rural women.

CONSULTANT, INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION, GUATEMALA 1987–1988


Evaluated and documented rural womens’ economic development projects. Thesis on “Gender Issues in Agricultural Extension in Central America”

PUBLICATIONS

Partnership Resource Center – a web site for conservation practitioners (TNC) 2009 Building Vibrant Sierra Communities: A Commercial and Mixed-Use Handbook 2005 Sediment Source Control Handbook (Editor), SBC 2005 Hiring and Retention Guides, The Nature Conservancy 2000 Rumbo al éxito on board development, Co-author, TNC 1997 Resources for Success for conservation nonprofits, Editor, TNC 1993 Evaluación ecológica rápida (Rapid Ecological Assessment) Co-author, TNC 1992

LANGUAGES

English Native language Spanish Fluent - over 9 years living in Spanish-speaking countries Portuguese Very Good - facilitate workshops and manage international teams

CITIZENSHIP

Dual National: USA and Great Britain.

RECENT VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE

Board, Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation. 2009 Vice-Chair, High School Site Council, Truckee High School 2008


ANNEX G

ALLEN PUTNEY CV

ALLEN D. PUTNEYP.O. Box 4046, Incline Village, NV 89450, USA

Tel. (001-775) 833-3627; Fax: (001-775) 833-3626; e-mail: [email protected]

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS: Four decades of international experience in the management of natural resources working through government agencies, international organizations, universities, and non-governmental organizations. Special expertise in environmental funds; the planning, management and evaluation of protected areas; conservation of biological diversity; and coastal zone management.

SPECIAL SKILLS:

Program and project planning, management, and evaluation

Leadership of project teams

Strategic planning

Organization and facilitation of meetings and workshops

Technical writing

THEMATIC EXPERTISE:

Natural resource management, especially protected areas and coastal zones Evaluation of Global Environment Facility projects National environmental and protected area funds

LICENSES:

NAUI Certified SCUBA Diver

Private pilot licensed for single engine airplanes (no longer current)

LANGUAGES:

English (mother tongue)

Spanish (fluent in both written and oral communication).

Portuguese (fair in written and basic in oral communication)


mailto:[email protected]

GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE:

Central and South America (Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina)

Insular Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, St. Martin / Sint Maarten, St. Bartolemy, Saba, St. Eustatius, St. Kitts – Nevis; Montserrat, Antigua & Barbuda, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao)

Global Programs

Turkey, Madagascar, Mozambique, and the Maldives Islands.

AFFILIATIONS AND AWARDS:

Member, IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas

- Vice Chair for World Heritage, January 2006 to present.

- Member, IUCN World Heritage Technical Advisory Group, 2000 to present ;

- Leader, Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values, 1998-2006

- Caribbean Regional Vice Chair, 1988-1992

Recipient, 2004 Fred M. Packard International Parks Merit Award of the World Commission

on Protected Areas, IUCN – The World Conservation Union.

EDUCATION:

1970-1972: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, M. Sc. in Forestry.

1962-1966: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, B. Sc. in Forest Management.


PRINCIPAL POSITIONS HELD:

'98 — Present: Independent Consultant

Consultant to the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States to develop a monitoring and evaluation system for their Project on "Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods" (OPAAL), with financial support from the World Bank/GEF. 4 weeks.

Consultant contracted by the U.S. Forest Service to lead a 3 person team in the assessment of opportunities for the development of a biodiversity conservation program in the lowlands of Bolivia. 6 weeks.

Consultant contracted by Chemonics International to serve as a Parks Management Specialist for the USAID funded Caribbean Open Trade Support Program for Antigua and Barbuda to assist in the development of a management plan for the Codrington Lagoon National Park. 8 weeks.

Consultant contracted by the Environment Division of Antigua and Barbuda, with Funding from the OAS and GEF, to develop a Sustainable Finance Plan for Codrington Lagoon National Park, Barbuda. 6 weeks.

Contract with IUCN – The World Conservation Union to serve as Vice Chair for World Heritage of the World Commission on Protected Areas. Activities include participation in development of a New Agenda for Natural Heritage, a capacity building strategy for Natural Heritage, a feasibility study for a Global Fund for Natural Heritage, and participation in World Heritage Committee Meetings and the IUCN World Heritage Panel. 8 weeks.

Consultant contracted by Chemonics International to serve as a Parks Management Specialist for the USAID funded Caribbean Open Trade Support Program for Dominica to assist in the updating of a management plan for the Morne Diablotin National Park. 8 weeks.

International Consultant to WWF-US for development of a Feasibility Study for the Development of a Conservation Trust Fund in Mozambique in collaboration with the Government and interested parties, 4 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union, with funding from UNESCO, to evaluate the nomination of Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, as a World Heritage Site. 2 weeks.


Team Leader, mid-term evaluation of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States Project on "Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods" (OPAAL), with financial support from the World Bank/GEF. 4 weeks.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) Fund for Peru with financial support from U.S. AID. 5 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union for development of an Action Plan for Fundraising for the Global Framework Program for Natural Heritage Training and Capacity Building with financial support from the UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2 weeks.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Project. “Program for Consolidation of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor”, Central American Council for Environment and Development with financial support of UNDP/GEF. 3 weeks.

Consultant to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on the sustainable finance of Amazonian protected areas, with emphasis on Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru, 2 months.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Project, “Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve”, Government of Mexico with the financial support of UNDP/GEF. 3 weeks.

Consultant to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for the design of a national environmental fund for Paraguay with funding from the InterAmerican Development Bank. 3 months over a period of 1 year.

IUCN Representative at the World Heritage Meeting on “A New Look at the Authenticity and Integrity of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Americas”, August 24-26, 2005, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Project. “Consolidation and Implementation of a Coastal Zone Management Program for Biodiversity Conservation”, Government of Argentina with financial support of UNDP/GEF. 3 weeks.

Guest Speaker for the launching of the Project, “The Sacred Dimension of Lanín and Nahuel Huapi National Parks” of the National Parks Administration, Argentina. 1 week.

Consultant to the Madagascar Foundation for Protected Areas and Biodiversity to assist in the development of a manual for grant-making; funded by WWF-US and WWF International. 2 weeks.


Project Director, “Support for the Participation of IUCN in the International Symposium on the Conservation of Cultural and Biological Diversity: the Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes” (Tokyo, Japan) organized by UNESCO and the United Nations University, in collaboration with IUCN, the Secretariat of the the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Secretariat of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and FAO. 3 months.

Consultant to IUCN, with financing from UNESCO, to assess whether Sangay National Park, Ecuador, should be removed from the list of endangered World Heritage Sites. 2 weeks.

Consultant to UNDP/GEF for the final evaluation of the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Belize Barrier Reef Complex Project, Belize. 3 weeks.

Team Leader, final evaluation of the Sabana-Camagüey UNDP/GEF Biodiversity Conservation Project, Cuba. 3 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN, with financing from UNESCO, to evaluate the nomination of Corcovado National Park and Isla del Caño Biological Reserve, Costa Rica, as a World Heritage Site. 2 weeks.

Invited participant, Symposium V, “The Baltic Sea – A common Heritage; a Shared Responsibility” of the Symposium Series on Religion, Science, and the Environment, convened under the auspices of His All Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Christian Orthodox Church, and His Excellency, Mr. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission. The Symposium was carried out on a cruise that visited Poland, Russia, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. 1 week.

Team Leader for an institutional evaluation of the Foundation for Development of the National System of Protected Areas (FUNDESNAP), Bolivia, with financing from GTZ, Germany, and the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bolivia. 3 weeks.

Consultant contracted by GFA, a German consulting firm, to assist the Peruvian Fund for Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) and the Peruvian General Directorate of Natural Protected Areas and Wildlife in planning the expansion of the Protected Areas Project funded by the German Development Bank (KfW). 3 weeks.

Leader of a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Team for the evaluation of the Fund of the Americas of Colombia (currently valued at about US$ 50 million) at the request of U.S. AID. 6 weeks.


Lecturer for a course on the Evaluation of Management Effectiveness undertaken by the Orlrog Institute of Argentina (sponsored by the National Parks Administration and University of Tucumán), in cooperation with the Argentinean Park Guards Association; course held in Bariloche, Argentina, with attendees from Argentina, Bolivia, and Uruguay. 2 days.

Consultant to UNESCO and the Olrog Institute of Argentina (sponsored by the National Parks Administration and University of Tucumán) to develop and present a course on the Evaluation of Management Effectiveness for managers of World Heritage Sites in Argentina, with attendees from southern Brazil and Paraguay as well; course held at the Iguazú World Heritage Site, Argentina. 1 week.

Coordinator, Project on Sacred Natural Sites funded by the Ford Foundation and implemented through the Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN – The World Conservation Union. 9 months over a period of 3 years.

Consultant to The Nature Conservancy (TNC), an international non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., to help determine the products, lessons learned, and experiences from their Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean that would best contribute to the World Parks Congress; assist in identifying the TNC and partner organization staff members who should be nominated to present this material. 1 month.

Invited Participant, Symposium IV, “The Adriatic Sea – A Sea at Risk, A Unity of Purpose”, of the Symposium Series on Religion, Science and the Environment, convened under the auspices of His All Holiness The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and His Excellency Mr. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission. 1 week.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union, with funding from UNESCO, to

evaluate the nomination of Del Este National Park, Dominican Republic, as a World Heritage Site. 2 weeks.

IUCN designated Team Member for a UNESCO / IUCN / ICOMOS World Heritage Monitoring Mission to the Machu Picchu World Heritage Site, Perú. 2 weeks.

Consultant to the St. Lucia National Trust to assist, as Institutional, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, in the development of a project on Coastal / Wetland Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods to be funded by the Global Environment Facility through the World Bank. 4 weeks.


Consultant to the Foundation for the Sustainable Development of the Chaco, Paraguay to evaluate draft management, financial, and operational plans for the Defensores del Chaco National Park. 1 week.

Consultant to the Peruvian Fund for Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) to review the design of a project to support the conservation of 5 protected areas in Peru, which is being proposed to the Global Environment Facility through The World Bank. 10 days.

Consultant to The Nature Conservancy, with funding from U.S. AID, to assist in the development of a project to conserve the biodiversity of the Carrasco – Amboró National Parks of Bolivia. 4 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union, with funding from UNESCO, to

evaluate the nomination of Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park, Goiás State, Brazil,

as a World Heritage Site . 2 weeks.

Consultant contracted by GFA, a German consulting firm, to assist the Peruvian Fund for Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) and the Peruvian General Directorate of Natural Protected Areas and Wildlife in the planning, management, and development of 5 protected areas; funding provided by the German Development Bank (KfW). 4 weeks per year for 5 years.

Consultant to the Secretaria do Planejamento e Meio Ambiente, Governo do Estado do Tocantins, Brasil to assist in the development of a master plan for Cantão State Park being funded by the Inter American Development Bank. 10 months.

Consultant to the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature to lead a team to evaluate the Mexican Protected Areas Fund Project, established through a grant of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and administered by the World Bank. The fund supports the management of 10 priority protected areas managed by the National Institute of Ecology. 2 months.

Consultant to the Peruvian Fund for Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) to lead a team to evaluate the Fund's performance and impact. The fund was established through a grant from the GEF, which is administered by the World Bank. The fund supports the management of Peru's protected areas, mainly through the Natural Resources Institute (INRENA). 1 month.


Consultant contracted by GFA, a German Consulting Firm, to assist in the development of a Project on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, Bolivia, financed by the German Development Bank (KfW). Identification of investment priorities for the protection and management of 6 protected areas, the review of management plans, and the design of an integrated program for project implementation. 2 months.

Consultant to the World Bank / PROFONANPE (the protected areas fund of Peru) to assist in the design of a monitoring and evaluation system for the projects funded by PROFONANPE. 4 days.

Consultant to the Program for Machu Picchu, financed by a debt reduction agreement between the Governments of Peru and Finland, to assist in the development of a monitoring and evaluation system for the Program. 2 months.

Consultant to UNDP / Government of Guatemala to assist the National Environmental Commission in the development of a national biodiversity strategy and action plan financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 2 weeks.

Consultant to UNDP / Government of the Maldives to assist the Ministry of Planning in the development of a national biodiversity strategy and action plan, a project funded by the Global Environment Facilty (GEF). 1 month.

Consultant to a World Bank / Government of Argentina Project on Native Forests and National Parks to analyze the Administration of National Parks and recommend modernization measures. 2 months.

Consultant to FAO / Government of Turkey to assist the Ministry of Forestry of Turkey in the development of its protected areas program, with emphasis on a participatory approach to park planning; work with a planning team to identify and plan the development of a major national park in the Black Sea Region. 2.5 months during two different missions.

Protected Areas Management Specialist on a team formed by Tropical Research and Development, Inc., to evaluate the Parks in Peril Program of The Nature Conservancy (funded by U.S. AID). Visits to 7 protected areas in five countries (Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, and Guatemala). 3 months.


Consultant to UNDP / Government of the Dominican Republic to provide the conceptual basis for the development of a Global Environment Facility (GEF) Project on in-situ conservation of biological diversity. 2 weeks.

'92 — '97: IUCN — The World Conservation Union

Program Officer for the Southern Cone, Regional Office for South America, resident in Bariloche, Argentina (6.95 — 6.97):

- responsible for representing the Secretariat of IUCN; assisted National Committees of IUCN and national groupings of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas to develop, fund, and implement national conservation action plans;

- linked IUCN programs in southern South America with their counterparts in other international organizations;

- provided technical assistance to the Argentine National Parks Administration in protected area planning and project development;

- organized the technical contents, and served as Technical Secretary, of the First Latin American Congress on National Parks and Other Protected Areas, Santa Marta, Colombia.

Director, Western Hemisphere Relations, U.S. Office of IUCN in Washington, D.C. (1-6.95):

- responsible for working with the IUCN offices of the Western Hemisphere to coordinate programming and collaboration on activities of common interest;

- helped integrate programs in the Hemisphere with global IUCN programs;

- coordinated with international programs of particular relevance to IUCN activities in the Hemisphere;

- served as relay point for communication between IUCN members in the Hemisphere, and Washington-based constituents.

Acting Executive Director, IUCN—US, and Representative of the IUCN Director General in the U.S. (4-12.94)

- provision of leadership in the development and implementation of the IUCN/US programs as an integral part of the global IUCN program;


- development of a U.S. National Committee of IUCN Members;

- supervision of IUCN-US staff and budget;

- collaboration with other national and international conservation organizations;

- liaison with U.S.-based IUCN members and partner organizations; fundraising; lobbying for IUCN programs with the US government, and other U.S.-based organizations.

Director of Conservation Programs, U.S. Office, IUCN (1.92-3.94)

- responsible for the development, supervision, and evaluation of conservation programs and staff;

- liaison with U.S.- based donor and technical assistance organizations to involve them in programs of the Union, raise funds, and develop collaborative ventures;

- support to IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) in the Western

Hemisphere by providing assistance to WCPA Vice Chairs, raising funds, and

providing technical supervision of staff in regional offices;

- organizer and technical coordinator of global meeting in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, of national environment funds from 22 countries;

- drafting of the Caracas Action Plan, an output of the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas.

'86-'92: Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, CANARI (originally the

Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Program, Inc.), resident in the U.S. Virgin Islands

President and Director

- founded the Institute and built it into the largest non-governmental environmental

organization in the insular Caribbean;

- responsible for all aspects of the development, funding, and running of CANARI, with 15 full-time employees, numerous part-time consultants, and an annual budget of about $500,000 from grants by foundations, universities, and bi- and multi-lateral aid programs;

- offices located on St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands), St. Lucia, and Dominica;

- the Institute's goal: to enhance local capacity to manage natural resources critical to development;


- program focus on in-situ conservation of biodiversity and community-based management with projects in Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Barbuda, Dominica, Barbados, and St. Lucia;

- CANARI served regional networking functions in its major program areas;

- organized and presented regional workshops and short-courses on topics relating to the major program areas;

- taught graduate course on natural resource management at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus (Barbados);

- founded and developed the Caribbean Consortium of Universities for Natural Resource Management.

- served as Caribbean Regional Vice Chair of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas

'77-'85: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources

Associate Research Scientist, and Principal Investigator, Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Program (ECNAMP), resident in the U.S. Virgin Islands ('78-'85):

- founded and developed ECNAMP as a cooperative program of the Caribbean Conservation Association (headquartered in Barbados) and the University of Michigan;

- program focus was on the assessment of resource management problems in the Eastern Caribbean, and the design, funding, implementation, and evaluation of pilot programs, especially in fisheries, forestry, coastal zone, and biodiversity management;

- prepared and presented numerous lectures and workshops on natural resource management at the University of Michigan and in the Caribbean;

Consultant, resident in Dominica, West Indies ('77)

- responsible for the development, funding, implementation, and evaluation of a wildland management program for the island of Dominica;

- program used as a demonstration site for resource management training in the Eastern Caribbean.

- prepared a major proposal to expand the program to the entire Lesser Antilles.

'72-'76: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)


Forestry Officer Assigned to Ecuador ('74-'76)

- led a team to develop the concepts for a system of national parks and protected areas;

- identified areas to be included in the system and priorities;

- developed financial estimates and personnel requirements for the system;

- recommendations for the system were accepted by the Government of Ecuador, and 7 new protected areas were legally established

Forestry Officer Assigned to Costa Rica ('72-'74)

- worked with counterparts to set up a national program of environmental education and interpretation of the natural environment for national park visitors;

- integrated the education and interpretation elements into park management plans;

- at the request of the Government of Ecuador, participated in developing the first management plan for Galápagos National Park and World Heritage Site.

'66-'70: U.S. Peace Corps

Volunteer Assigned to Chile

- developed a master plan for Puyehue National Park, Osorno Province ('68-'70);

- provided technical assistance to reforestation and fire control programs in Cautín

and Malleco Provinces (66-'68);

SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS, 1978-1997:

Consultant to The World Bank to provide technical assistance in the launching of PROFONANPE, the protected areas fund of Perú, a project of the Global Environment Facility (GEF); '95 (1 week).

Consultant to the Regional Office of FAO for Latin America and the Caribbean to participate in a workshop to design a proposal for a regional project on biodiversity and protected areas to be submitted to the Global Environment Facility (GEF); '95 (4 days).


Consultant to the National Parks Administration of Argentina to evaluate the impacts of proposed infrastructure projects in Iguazú National Park and World Heritage Site, and the review of new areas to be incorporated into the national park system; '94-'95 (5 weeks).

IUCN — The World Conservation Union facilitator for a workshop in Perú to synthesize a strategy for the development of a National Protected Areas Fund; '93 (1 week).

Consultant to the UNEP Caribbean Environment Program to develop an integrated regional program for specially protected areas and wildlife; '91 (1 week); '90 (2 weeks); '89 (2 weeks).

Consultant to the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States to develop a project sketch for establishment of a protected areas system and legislation for St. Vincent and the Grenadines; '89 (4 days).

Head, Project Design Team for U.S. AID to support the Government of Jamaica in the development of a national parks and protected areas system; '88 (3 weeks).

Consultant to the Government of Venezuela on priorities for national park development; '88 (3 weeks).

Membership on two U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, advisory panels (U.S. insular areas and tropical deforestation); '85 (2 weeks), and '82-'83 (2 weeks).

Consultant on management of the Galápagos National Park and World Heritage Site to the Government of Ecuador, '82 (1 month); '80 (2 weeks); the Darwin Research Station, '80 (2 weeks); and Unesco, '80 (2 weeks).

Consultant to UNESCO to identify potential biosphere reserves and World Heritage Sites, Guyana; '80 (6 weeks).

Consultant to the World Wildlife Fund on wildland training requirements for the Caribbean; '80 (6 weeks).


Consultant to IUCN - The World Conservation Union, World Commission on Protected Areas, to inventory the national parks and protected areas of the insular Caribbean; '79-'80 (6 weeks).

Consultant to the Government of the Dominican Republic on priorities for national parks development; '78 (1 week).

Consultant to FAO in park interpretation assigned to the first Latin American Workshop on National Park Planning; '72 (3 months).

PUBLICATIONS (Professional Reports and Papers Excluded):

Building Cultural Support for Protected Areas through Sacred Natural Sites. In Friends for Life: New Partners in Support of Protected Areas. Jeffrey A. McNeely, Editor. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 2005.

Co-Editor, The Full Value of Parks and Protected Areas: From Economics to the Intangible. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Lanham, Maryland. 2003.

Editor, issue on Non-Material Values of Protected Areas. PARKS. Vol. 10, No. 2. June 2000.

Editor, issue on Financing Protected Areas. PARKS. Vol. 4, No. 2. June 1994.

Caribbean. In Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 1994. p. 323-346.

A workbook of practical exercises in coastal zone management for tropical islands. (Co-author). Commonwealth Science Council. London. 1988. 300 p.

A conceptual framework for the management of the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve. VIRMC I research series, subtask 1, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service and Virgin Islands Natural Resource Management Cooperative. Atlanta. 1988. 44 p.


Data synthesis and development of a basis for zoning of the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve. VIRMC I research series, sub 2.7 and 2.9. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Virgin Island Resource Management Cooperative. Atlanta. 1986. 44 p.

Environmental guidelines for development in the Lesser Antilles (Co-author). Technical Report No. 3, Caribbean Environment, Caribbean Conservation Association. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1984. 44 p.

Survey of conservation priorities in the Lesser Antilles. Technical Report No. 1, Caribbean Environment, Caribbean Conservation Association. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. October, 1982. 44 p.

Overview of conservation in the Caribbean region. In transactions of the 45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C., 1980.

Towards a strategy for the management of living natural resources critical to development in the Lesser Antilles. In Proceedings of the Conference on Environment Management and Economic Growth in the Smaller Caribbean Islands, September 17-21, 1979. Department of State 8996, International Organization and Conference Series 143. Washington, D.C., 1979.

Estudio de las alternativas de manejo del área circundante a Machalilla - Pto. López. Working Document No. 20, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador. August, 1976, 44 p.

Informe final sobre una estrategia para la conservación de las áreas silvestres sobresalientes del Ecuador. Working Document No. 17, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador, February, 1976. 61 p.

Informe sobre sesiones de trabajo para la planificación de áreas silvestres. Working Document No. 15, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador. June 1975. 18 p.


Una estrategia preliminar para la conservación de las áreas naturales y culturales del Ecuador. Working Document No. 12, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador. October 1974. 15 p.

Plan maestro para la protección y uso del Parque Nacional Galápagos (Co-author). Working Document No. 1, UNDP/FAO Project ECU/71/022. Santiago, Chile. 1974. 91 p.

Planificación de programas interpretativos, guía para la preparación de programas interpretativos para parques nacionales. (Co-author). Technical Working Document No. 18, FAO/RLAT Project TF 199. Santiago, Chile. 1974. 21 p.

Plan de interpretación, Parque Nacional Volcán Poás. Technical Working Document No. 12, FAO/RLAT Project, TF 199. Santiago, Chile. 1974. 83 p.

Objectives and evaluation in interpretive planning. (Co-author). Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall 1973. p. 444-445.

Cost per visitor contact; a step towards cost-effectiveness in interpretive methods. (Co-author). March, 1972.

Updated 8/08


Final Independent Evaluation of SINAP...

Documents

Transcript of Final Independent Evaluation of SINAP...