PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM GOVERNMENT OF MÉXICO MEXICAN FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE THE WORLD BANK INDEPENDENT EVALUATION Allen Putney Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido Karla Ceciliano MÉXICO, D.F., MÉXICO March 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The consultants wish to acknowledge with gratitude the many people who made this evaluation possible. Given the short period of time available to carry out the mission, we put heavy demands on the different people with whom we had the fortune of working. We would like to sincerely thank them for the excellent cooperation, patience, and kindness we were afforded throughout the exercise. We especially want to thank the people who helped us during our field visits, and who kindly answered our many questions even though they probably have answered the same questions on previous occasions. We learned much from this work and are grateful for having had the opportunity. We want to particularly thank the staff of the Protected Areas Fund (FANP), the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN), the Coordinating Unit for Protected Areas of the National Institute of Ecology (UCANP-INE), the World Bank, and the Directors of the Protected Areas for their support and trust. We particularly want to thank Lorenzo Rosenzweig, Javier de la Maza, Adolfo Brizzi, Renée González, David Gutiérrez, Rafaello Cervigni, Liliana Urbina, Celia Piguerón, Lisette Benavides, Concepción Molina, Ricardo Hernández, Sergio Graf, Alejandro López, José Ramiro, Victor Sánchez, Fernando Durand, Gabriela López, Ximena Yañez, Jonathan Ryan, and José Warman. Finally, the team members want to acknowledge the value we attached to having the company of Lilia (from the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe) throughout our work. She made our efforts that much more complete and enriched our field visits enormously by adding a dimension that the people we visited especially valued. To all, many thanks. Sincerely, Allen D. Putney Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido Karla Ceciliano Rodolfo Roldán ACRONYMS AOP. Annual Operations Plan BR. Biosphere Reserve CAF. Administration and Finance Committee, FMCN CC. Central Coordination Unit of the Protected Areas Program CONABIO. National Council for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity CONANP. National Council for Protected Areas COPLADES. Development Planning Councils CTFANP. Technical Committee of the Protected Areas Fund DFANP. Management of the National Fund for Protected Areas FANP. National Fund for Protected Areas FMCN. Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature GEF. Global Environment Facility GOM. Government of México INE. National Institute of Ecology IPDP. Indigenous Peoples Development Program LGEEPA. Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection NGOs. Non-governmental Organizations NSPA. National System of Protected Areas PAs. Legally Protected Areas PRODERS. Regional Sustainable Development Program PROFEPA. Federal Agency for Environmental Protection RDs. Directors of the Reserves Participating in the Project SEMARNAP. Department of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries SHCP. Department of Treasury and Public Credit TACs. Technical Advisory Councils UCANP. Protected Areas Coordinating Unit WB. The World Bank TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ACRONYMS ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii I. EXECTUIVE SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCUTION 3 A. Background 3 B. Protected Areas Program 4 C. Objective of the evaluation 4 D. Methods 5 E. That which is seldom mentioned 6 III. LEGAL AND NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK 8 A. National and international context 8 B. Project context 8 IV. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 10 V. PROJECT ANALYSIS 11 A. National Fund for Protected Areas 11 B. Central Coordination Unit for the Project 12 C. Management of the 10 participating PAs 13 1. The most important resource 13 2. Management programs 15 3. Annual operations plans 16 4. Community participation 16 a. Analysis of the TACs 17 b. PA / Community partnerships 19 c. Indigenous People Development 21 Programs 5. Inter-institutional cooperation 22 VI. PERFORMANCE 23 A. General considerations 23 1. Key questions 23 2. Financial viability and stability 24 B. Alterations in the original design 24 C. Administrative and financial management 25 1. Financial management, PA level 25 2. Financial management, FMCN level 26 3. FMCN accounting and auditing systems 28 D. Fundraising and revenue generation 29 1. PAs 29 2. FANP 30 3. INE 31 VII. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 32 A. Project supervision 32 1. Technical supervision 32 2. Administrative supervision 34 3. Financial supervision 34 B. Monitoring 34 C. Independent evaluations 35 VIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 36 A. Principle strengths and impacts 36 B. Aspects that could be improved 40 C. Lessons learned 42 D. Looking toward the future 43 1. Political change 43 2. FANP 43 IX. PRIORITIES 46 A. Short term 46 B. Medium and long term 46 ANNEXES 47 1. Terms of reference 48 2. References 54 3. Schedules 58 4. Interviews 60 5. Resumes of the Evaluation Team 64 6. FMCN Organigram 81 7. FANP - Detail of Expenditures 82 8. FANP - Asset Management 83 9. FANP - Detail of Revenues and Expenditures 85 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an independent evaluation of the Protected Areas Program of Mexico. This Project is the result of Loan Agreement TF028678 of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) dated 5 June, 1997. The Government of Mexico (GOB), the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN), and The World Bank (WB) are signatories to the Agreement. The WB participates in the Project as the implementing agency for the GEF. The objective of this mid-term evaluation is to analyze Project performance and impact, and to outline recommendations for improvement. The evaluation was carried out by a consultant team during a period of 5 weeks in Mexico (5 January - 1 February, 2000) and subsequent office work for writing, revising, and correcting the report (2 February - 6 March, 2000). The consult team consisted of Allen D. Putney (Coordinator), Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido, Karla Ceciliano, and Rodolfo Roldán. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are based on a review of more than 40 documents, interviews with more than 150 individuals, and field visits to 4 of the 10 PAs that are the focus of the Project (Sierra de Manantlán, Montes Azules, Ria Lagartos, and the Vizcaino Desert). In the opinion of the evaluation team, this Project is the most successful observed during their 75 years of collective experience. The information collected, including on-site observations, indicate that the Project, which was restructured in 1997, has turned out to be a highly successful one, and that the three participating institutions (INE, for the Government of Mexico, the FMCN, and the World Bank) are implementing the project effectively and efficiently. As far as can be determined, it would seem that the Project's objectives will either be met or surpassed during the project period. Seen as a whole, the successes of the Project represent a milestone of excellence, not only at the national, but at the international level as well. The Terms of Reference for the Project specified three key questions, which are presented below. These questions are answered succinctly in Chapter 6, Section A. Reference is made in parenthesis to the sections of the report where these questions are answered in greater detail. 1. Are the various project agreements and memoranda of understanding being implemented? (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5) 2. Are these agreements and understandings the appropriate ones for obtaining the Project's objectives? (see Chapter 6 and 7) 3. Do the Project objectives reflect the policies of the participating institutions? (see Chapter 8). Six key strengths have contributed to the success of the Project to date and are presented below. However, it should be emphasized that permanent changes in many ecological and social processes, which may turn out to be critical to the Project, can only be observed over longer periods of time. The six current key strengths of the Project are: A creative Project design which includes: a basic staff paid by the GOM in each of the participating PAs, and seed capital, administered by the FMCN, which generates interest that covers the yearly basic operational costs for management of the PAs over the long term. The vision, leadership, talents, constant support, and cooperation among the managers of the participating institutions. The quality, dedication, creativity, and technical know-how of the staff of the participating PAs, especially their Directors. Diverse and creative interactive processes at the local level which have achieved a high level of community participation and inter-institutional cooperation. The attitude of solidarity that the PA Managers have demonstrated to the communities in and around the Reserves, by working with them to find lasting solutions to their basic unmet needs. The excellent budgetary and fiscal control systems in place for the Project. As with all projects, this one has aspects that could benefit from improvement. However, it is emphasized that these aspects are far outweighed by the Project's strengths. The Project elements which could benefit from improvement are as follows: definition with greater precision of national norms, criteria, and standards of "best practice", and related verifiable indicators, for PA management; fine-tuning of Project supervision processes with an eye to achieving greater continuity and relevance, and maintaining attitudes of mutual respect; adjustment of financial mechanisms to achieve greater stability by (1) recalculating Project costs based on experience, (2) increasing diversification of the investment portfolio, and (3) improving mechanisms at the level of each PA for capturing and managing local sources of funding; unification of processes for hiring and managing PA personnel, who are currently hired under different arrangements (through governments, NGOs, donors, etc.), so that fairness and stability can be achieved, and career paths developed; broadening and improvement of collective learning opportunities for PA management. the need to change the perception of PA managers, and provide them with the tools, to transform growing public visitation from a worrisome problem into a strategic opportunity; enhancement of the currently rudimentary PA infrastructure in order to provide better support to field staff; diversification of the mechanisms available to certify compliance with WB requirements regarding community participation and inclusion of indigenous peoples; and, enhancement of fiscal and economic incentives for landowners (ejidos, communities, and private individuals) to conserve natural ecosystems, especially in PA core zones. Again, it is imperative to emphasize that the Project's strengths far surpass its weaknesses, and in our opinion, the Project can be held up as a model of global significance. Thus, the Evaluation Team can, without hesitation or reserve, recommend that the project be extended and broadened. Further, the Team recommends that the current process of designing a follow-up project be carried forward with full confidence based on the positive conclusions and recommendations of this Evaluation. II. INTRODUCTION The independent mid-term evaluation of the Natural Areas Program of Mexico was requested by the participating institutions. The purpose is to analyze the activities carried out by the Project to date (see ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference). The evaluation is a tool to review project performance, and to identify needed adjustments for improving attainment of project objectives. A. Background In response to the growing deterioration of the nation's natural ecosystems, the Mexican Government developed, at the end of the '80s, a strategy to protect critical habitats. The National System of Protected Areas (NSPA) was one of the instruments created as part of that strategy. At the beginning of the '90s, the GOM and The World Bank (WB) began exploring ways to financially support the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to meet its conservation objectives. This dialogue culminated in 1992 with the approval of a grant of US$30 million from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for support to the Program for Protected Areas. At the end of 1992 the agency responsible for the Program, the Department of Urban Development and Ecology, was reorganized into two autonomous institutions, one of which was the National Institute of Ecology, which became responsible for the NSPA. As part of this reorganization, it was agreed to reduce the number of PAs to be supported by the GEF grant which, in turn was cut back to US$25 million. In 1994, the devaluation of the peso resulted in the cut-back of the government budget for 1995. At the same time, responsibility for management of the PAs was shifted to the newly created Department of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries (SEMARNAP). INE was included in the new Department and retained management responsibility for the NSPA. In mid-1995, the GOM and the WB agreed to carry out an independent analysis of GEF Project performance, and identify problems and possible solutions. In the meantime, the GOM took steps to improve the financial, operational, and political framework for managing the NSPA. As part of this strategy, the National Council for Protected Areas (CONANP) was established with representation from organizations from different sectors. These included environmental NGOs, the academic community, the private sector, and social groupings, including indigenous peoples. CONANP began operating in 1996 as an advisory body to government and produced a "Program for Protected Areas, 1995-2000". In 1996, when US$7.47 million of the GEF donation had already been spent, CONANP named a Design Committee to evaluate the options for establishing a trust fund. The idea was to mobilize the remaining grant funds for long-term support to the management of 10 of Mexico's most important PAs. CONANP adopted the recommendations of the Design Committee to establish a National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP) within the structure of the existing Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN). As proposed, the GEF funds support the operation of the 10 selected PAs in order to enhance: protection of biodiversity and the management of natural resources; community participation, including indigenous peoples, in PA `management through the development of management and operations plans; and, long-term financing to cover the costs of basic conservation activities and to facilitate the raising of complementary funding. B. Protected Areas Program The Protected Areas Program resulted from a formal agreement between the GOM (represented by SEMARNAP), the FMCN, and the World Bank to restructure the GEF Grant awarded in 1992. In this Project, The World Bank is the executing agency for the GEF. The Grant Agreement for the Restructured Project (No. TF028678 of 5 June, 1997), together with a Complementary Agreement between SEMARNAP and the FMCN, are the legal instruments that lay out the responsibilities of the parties. They are the guiding documents for the Project. Precise arrangements for project implementation are spelled out in the Operations Manual under three major headings: administration of the National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP) as a program of the FMCN; project coordination through the National Institute of Ecology (INE) of SEMARNAP; and, field management activities in the 10 participating PAs. In 1998, the Project was selected for analysis as part of the international effort to evaluate experience with conservation trust funds (GEF, 1998). The evaluation pointed to the successes of the National Fund for Protected Areas as part of the FMCN. Among the successes, the evaluation specifically noted use of the "logical framework" method for planning and evaluation, the dissemination of "best practices" as a means of promoting improved project performance, the promotion of community participation, and the establishment of links between the FMCN's different grant programs. C. Objective of the Evaluation The principle objective of this independent mid-term evaluation is to analyze Project performance and impact, and present recommendations for improvement. The specific evaluation objectives are as follows: 1. Evaluate the performance of the Project in terms of the agreements entered into by the participating organizations. 2. Determine the balance between the positive and negative outcomes of Project interventions. 3. Identify, analyze, and outline the principle successes achieved to date and future challenges. 4. Based on a critical analysis of the information gathered, present the participating organizations with specific recommendations for Project improvement. The achievement of these evaluation objectives will enable the Project's diverse stakeholders to gain an overall perspective of the Project as it operates today and how it might be improved. D. Methods The Evaluation Team carried out on-site activities in Mexico during a period of 5 weeks (5 January to 1 February, 2000) which was complemented by a further period of 5 weeks of office work to write, revise, and correct the report. Conventional evaluation methods were used which consisted of the following; 1. Interchange of information between the consultants and FANP in order to develop a detailed program of activities and agree on a work schedule. 2. Planning of field visits in order to harvest the experience that has been gained in managing the PAs, and to interview representatives of the diverse stakeholder groups. 3. Review of the documentation available, particularly that in the FANP Project files (see ANNEX 2: Literature Reviewed). 4. Field visits to 4 selected PAs (Sierra de Manantlán, Montes Azules, Ría Lagartos, and the Vizcaíno Desert) (see ANNEX 3: Schedules) to: a. interview field staff; b. observe close up the different Project interventions and interview the people involved with them; c. discuss the Project with representatives of local communities and other groups represented in the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) of each PA; and, d. evaluate Project-financed infrastructure, including both that designed to support management of the PA, and that constructed as part of community development projects. The criteria for selecting the areas to be visited were balance in terms of geography, ecosystems, and social situation; the time required to visit the area and interview the various stakeholders; and the suggestions of FANP and INE staff 5. Interviews with more that 150 people from a variety of sectors (see ANNEX 4: People Interviewed) both at the head offices and during field visits. Those interviewed included: a. members of the TACs; b. field staff of the PAs; c. staff of SEMARNAP, INE (UCANP), and PROFEPA; d. staff of the FMCN-FANP and the World Bank; e. NGOs; f. researchers and academics; and, g. consultants. 6. Processing and analysis of the information gathered. 7. Comparison of the results of this Project with that of similar projects in other countries. 8. Presentation and discussion of the preliminary findings of the evaluation at a seminar which took place on 31 January, 2000, with the participation of 20 people representing UCANP-INE, FMCN, FANP, SEMARNAP, WB, and CTFANP. 9. Writing of preliminary report drafts that were circulated to the participating organizations for review. 10. Drafting of the final report taking into account the comments received from the participating institutions. However, as with all methods, this one has its limitations. Much reliance was placed on indirect information sources such as documents and interviews. There was not time, nor was it contemplated in the terms of reference, to use direct and quantifiable methods of observation. In addition, the findings of the report are based on a sample of 4 of the 10 PAs participating in the Project. Several of those interviewed assured the Evaluation Team that our findings are valid for the group of areas included in the Project. However, if the areas visited are not representative of the entire group, then our findings could be somewhat skewed. The evaluation included an overview of the Project from the time of its original design (1996 and 1997), to the startup phase (1997 and 1998), and initial implementation (1998- 1999). The Evaluation Team was made up of the following individuals: Allen D. Putney (Team Coordinator), a U.S.- based independent consultant with more than 30 years of experience in biodiversity conservation and special expertise in the planning, management, and financing of protected areas. Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido, an independent Mexico-based consultant with more than 25 years of experience in biodiversity conservation, especially the management of PAs and wildlife, and scientific research. Karla Ceciliano, Director of the Costa Rican National Parks Foundation with more than 10 years of experience in the financial management of businesses and international programs, and as financial advisor to governmental and private entities. Rodolfo Roldán, an independent Argentina-based consultant with 10 years of experience in environmental NGOs and governmental agencies, environmental legislation, conflict resolution, and the development of an environmental fund. The Evaluators signed a contract for services with FANP on 20 December, 1999, began organizational work in the following days, and traveled to Mexico on 5 January, 2000. Submission of the final report was originally scheduled for 1 March, 2000 which gave the Team a period of 8 weeks to carry out the evaluation. However, since the Team had less than 7 weeks to complete to first draft of the report, it opted to dedicate 4 weeks to field visits, interviews, analysis of the information gathered, and the presentation of preliminary conclusions at a seminar. Writing, review, and correction of the report was carried out separately by e-mail. E. That Which is Seldom Mentioned The three institutions participating in the Project have very different structures, functions, cultures, and working conditions. As a result, it is natural for each institution, and the people working in those institutions, to develop a divergence of perceptions, some of which may be in conflict. This is a subject that is often difficult to bring out into the open, but these differences can have important negative consequences for the Project. Thus it is important that major differences in perceptions be identified early on and dealt with candidly. Later in the report, several specific examples are mentioned, but the Team has no way of verifying the validity of these. It can only point at that these differences exist, and that they can be an important factor in limiting the efficiency of Project implementation. III. LEGAL AND NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK A. National and International Context Mexico is signatory to a large number of international treaties and conventions relating to the management of PAs. The most important of these are: the Washington Convention for the protection of the flora, fauna and natural scenic beauty of the Americas; the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as habitat for aquatic species; the tripartite agreement between Mexico, the US, and Canada for the conservation of wetlands and migratory birds; the Convention on Biological Diversity; and, the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species. As indicated in the document, "Biological Diversity in Mexico: A Country Study" (CONABIO, 1996), the legal framework directly related to natural resources is based on the Constitution of the United States of Mexico, in effect since 1917. There are close to 1,100 legal instruments, both State and Federal, which regulate the use of biological resources in Mexico. The diversity of these instruments is great considering that they include laws, codes, regulations, decrees, official policies, inter-departmental agreements, and international treaties and conventions. The greater part of these, that are relevant to the Project, are the decrees creating individual PAs. There are a penal code and 16 laws that relate to biodiversity. The most important law is the Law on Ecological Balance and Protection of the Environment (LGEEPA), the framework law regarding protected areas. This law was amended after a thorough process of public consultation. The new dispositions entered into effect in December, 1996 (CONABIO, 1998). B. Project Context The second title of the current environmental law (LGEEPA ) deals with biodiversity in two chapters which contain some 35 articles on protected areas. The first of these lays out the concept of protected areas and defines their characteristics, types, and management categories together with the purposes and specific regulations for each. The second section of the chapter formally establishes CONANP. The third outlines procedures for establishment of protected areas, the basic studies required, inscription of the PAs in the Public Registry, and development of management programs. It also provides for economic incentives to encourage ample community participation in PA establishment, administration, and protection. Of particular interest is the article that expressly refers to the return of locally generated revenues to the PA that produced them. The fourth section refers to the National System of Protected Areas (NSAP). The second chapter of the title deals with ecological restoration zones, their creation and management. Concerning the 10 PAs participating in the Project, it is important to note Article 62 which indicates that once a protected area is established by Decree, its boundaries, authorized uses, or management provisions can only be modified by a subsequent Decree. This is pertinent because several of the protected areas participating in the Project were established prior to 1988 when the environmental law (LEEGPA) came into effect. Management plans for these areas did not exist at that time and to this date several areas are without them. Without management plans, there are no zoning provisions to legally regulate land use. The provisions of the seventh transitory article are also pertinent to the Project. This article instructs SEMARNAP to re-categorize those areas established before the LEEGPA came into effect to bring them into line with the law. In order to carry out this mandate, CONANP set up a "Re-categorization Commission" in June, 1999. The Commission has generated several proposals that have led to revised decrees for several protected areas, including some of those participating in the Project. The Commission is also working on several generic recommendations that could speed up the process (CONANP, Minutes of Sessions of 4 June and 3 September, 1999; personal communications with Juan Bezaury of CONANP and TNC, Celia Piguerón of UCANP-INE, and Alejandra Navarrete, SEMARNAP lawyer). Though this legal analysis does not correspond directly to the terms of reference of the Evaluation Team, it was considered important to include in this report because of its particular relevance for 8 of the10 PAs participating in the Project (El Triunfo, Isla Contoy, Islas del Golfo,.Manantlán, Mariposa Monarcha, Montes Azules, Rái Lagartos, and Sian Ka'an). IV. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK The National Protected Areas Fund (FANP) was established with funds from the GEF donation with a view to providing permanent funding for the basic operations of 10 PAs. An Operations Manual has been developed to clearly define the mission, objectives, and procedures for the Fund. The Manual provides greater detail than the Project Document. Currently, FANP administers only the funds provided by the GEF donation. However, the mid- and long-term goal is to tap into additional national and international funding sources. In fact, one of the agreements contained in the Project Document is that FANP raise an additional US$5 million by 2001 as matching funds for the GEF grant. FANP has developed a fundraising strategy, and Indications are that FANP, through the FMCN, is on its way to achieving that goal. The only concern is to assure that the funding received is for the highest priority interventions. One aspect of the fundraising strategy that has yet to be developed is the integration of FANP's international fundraising efforts with those of INE at the national level, and those of each of the PAs at the regional and local level. It is of particular concern that the Project gives relatively little support to revenue generation, at local and regional levels, and to the development of transparent and efficient mechanisms for administration of these funds. The isolated experiences of the different PAs in revenue generation and fund administration need to be analyzed to understand the universe of opportunities and problems that have been encountered to date. Out of these experiences it may be possible to distill some elements of "best practice", and support and guide the other PAs in experimenting with and establishing their own revenue generation and fund administration programs. There is urgency in this matter because each PA is inventing its own mechanisms through experimentation. On the one hand this is extremely positive, but on the other, precedents are being established that later may be difficult to change. What is needed is an understanding of the best options currently available, and the pitfalls that may be encountered. The idea is to support and guide the efforts of each PA, without suffocating the spirit of creativity. Recommendations: 1. That FANP be careful to make sure that funds received from new donors are targeted for the highest priority interventions that are required in the PAs. 2. That the DFANP and CC prepare an integrated program for support to the PAs, and the NGOs working with them, for development of revenue generation and fund administration programs. 3. That the CC, with support from DFANP, study the current mechanisms for administering funds raised at the local and regional level with a view to identifying the most successful, promising, and efficient setups so that these can be disseminated to the other PAs. V. PROJECT ANALYSIS The Protected Areas Program is structured around 3 principal themes: (1) the National Fund for Protected Areas, (2) the Project Central Coordination Unit, and (3) the management programs of the 10 participating PAs. A. National Fund for Protected Areas The National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP) is a trust fund created by a seed grant of US$16.48 million donated by the GEF to the GOM, and by Government decision, passed on in to the FMCN in July, 1997, for administration. A Technical Committee of the FMCN (CTFANP) is responsible for guiding and supervising FANP operation within the FMCN (see ANNEX 6: FMCN Organigram) and is composed of 7 members who represent the public and private sectors, social organizations, academia, and conservation NGOs. Daily administration of FANP is the job of the management staff (DFANP) consisting of a Director, an accountant, and a Coordinator of Institutional Development. DFANP also receives support, when needed, from the rest of the FMCN staff. The Operating Manual guides the day to day operations of FANP and these are outlined below. Greater detail on particular subjects can be found in the Manual itself. FANP's capital is managed by an overseas investment firm working under a discretional contract for asset management. This contract gives the firm responsibility for the selection of investments based on guidelines provided by The World Bank. The Administration and Finance Committee (CAF) of the FMCN assists CTFANP in supervising the work of the investment firm. DFANP has also contracted the services of a professional financial advisor to assist the CAF in developing an investment strategy, verifying disbursements, calculating the cash flow requirements of the Project, and in monitoring the performance of the investment firm. Since 1998, the interest generated by the Fund's capital, about US$1 million annually, is used to cover the basic operational costs of the 10 PAs participating in the Project, the CC, and FANP administration. Funding is assigned to each PA based on a formula that allocates 70% of the available funds in equal amounts to each PA; the remaining 30% is allocated according to the size of the area, the human population within, and the performance of the PA's administration. This formula is reviewed each year by the CTFANP. For the year 2000 budget, funds were allocated from a starting base of 65%, with an additional 5% allocated based on the number of communities within the area, and the rest according to the 1999 formula. The activities eligible for use of these funds are basic operational costs, equipment, conservation activities, community activities, training, and inter-institutional coordination. A emergency fund has also been established to meet exceptional funding needs that result from natural disasters or accidents. FANP disbursements are done according to an Annual Consolidated Budget Plan developed by DFANP and approved by the CTFANP. The Plan includes the Annual Operations Plans (AOPs) of the 10 participating PAs, the CC, and of the FANP. The individual AOPs of the PAs go through a review process, which includes each area's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the UCANP, the CTFANP, and the WB. The AOPs of the CC and DFANP are review by the CTFANP and the WB. Once the Consolidated Annual Budget Plan is approved by CTFANP and the WB, a bid is put out for the selection of conservation NGOs interested in providing accounting and adjunct personnel contracting services. Since 1999, the CTFANP has decided that a new bidding process will only be undertaken if the currently selected conservation NGOs do not perform as required. The WB concurred with this decision. The consolidation of this operational framework for FANP has been a gradual process over a period of 2 years. However, the information gathered by the Evaluation Team indicates that the process is currently working in an efficient and transparent manner. It should be underscored that the consolidation of FANP operations, and its contribution to the management of the 10 participating PAs, is an especially outstanding achievement, especially when compared to the situation that existed prior to the 1997 Project restructuring. It should be noted that the existence of the FANP mechanism has had a series of direct and positive consequences. These include: effective investment management; an efficient budgetary system (disbursement and control) that has resulted in greater flexibility and liquidity, improved spending, and increased discipline and controls; the ability to undertake long-term planning; improved geographic and thematic coverage (more interventions in more places); increased continuity of management programs; and, more systematic support to local communities and the generation of employment. Recommendation: Recognize these aspects of the current model which are functioning well, and build on these in future projects. B. Central Coordination Unit The Project's Central Coordination Unit (CC) is responsible for national level activities which involve more than one of the participating PAs, or which are required for the smooth running of the Project in general. This includes particularly those aspects of the Project regarding compliance with specific WB requirements regarding community participation and involvement of indigenous peoples; project supervision; the analysis of project experience; and the coordination of training and planning activities, contracting of personnel, and procurement. The CC currently consists of one professional contracted by the FMCN, but based at the offices of UCANP. The work program of the CC is spelled out in the Annual Operations Plan, which is an integral part of the Project's Consolidated Annual Budget Plan. The operation of the CC is still in a process of consolidation for two main reasons. First, during Project start-up the professional who makes up the CC changed twice. These personnel changes, together with the time required to identify and integrate a replacement, meant that nearly a year was lost. Second, the arrangement whereby the professional that staffs the CC is paid by the FMCN, but physically located at the UCANP, is a unique and temporary arrangement. One result is that the CC has never been fully integrated into the operations of UCANP. Although this situation can be attributed to differing opinions regarding the proper role of the CC within the UCANP and the FMCN, it is also the result of not having developed, through a participatory approach, an Operations Manual for the CC in tandem with that which was developed for FANP. Since the responsibilities of the CC are somewhat less than those of FANP, the development of an Operations Manual should be relatively easy. Development of the Manual would provide an effective process for clarifying roles and responsibilities, and for integration with the activities of the UCANP, FANP, the WB, and the management programs of the 10 participating PAs. Another subject which needs to be mentioned in the context of the CC is its role in supervising, monitoring, and evaluating Project performance and impact, and the relationship of these with similar responsibilities of the WB. These aspects could be articulated in the proposed Operations Manual for the CC. This subject will be treated in greater detail in Chapter VII. of the report. Recommendation: Develop an Operations Manual for the CC to articulate, among other items, roles and responsibilities, and mechanisms for coordination between: the supervision, monitoring, and evaluation activities of the CC and the WB; and, the respective roles of the UCANP and FANP in decisions regarding the CC. C. Management of the 10 participating PAs The Federal Government, through the UCANP, has complied with its commitment to allocate financial and human resources to cover the basic operations of the 10 participating PAs. The basic staff of each PA is made up of 5 individuals. Up until November of 1999, INE hired a Director, a program Manager, 2 Project Chiefs, and an Administrative Assistant for each PA through service contracts. Since then, the Department of Treasury and Public Credit (SHCP) formally authorized the inclusion of 5 positions for each PA to be hired as permanent INE staff members. Under this new arrangement, each PA now is allocated permanent staff positions for a Director, an Assistant Director, a Department Head, a specialized Technician, and an Administrative Assistant. 1. The Most Important Resource Without a doubt, it is the quality of the human resource that has, to a great extent, made possible the Project's many field successes. Of course, the overall system must provide these individuals with the tools and support required for Project implementation, and this is in fact what the Project has so successfully and consistently provided since the '97 restructuring. However, it should be recognized that the current high level of personal commitment and dedication of staff is due more to personal, rather than institutional, loyalties, and the stimulus provided by a new and exciting approach to PA management that significantly increases the probabilities of success. This is an ideal situation for the start-up phase of PA management when all processes are new ones and there are few models to go on. However, as management processes mature, the current charismatic leadership will change, experience will accumulate, and individuals will tire. Under these circumstances, in order to retain and further improve the human resource, it will become imperative to increase institutional loyalties through the provision of regular opportunities for training, improved field infrastructure, and a system of incentives and rewards linked to career development. The creation of fixed government staff positions for each of the PAs is an important step towards the institutionalization of management and the development of a system of incentives and rewards. However, government staff positions comprise only 30% of PA personnel. The remaining 70% are hired through a variety of arrangements with conservation NGOs, individual donors, local communities, and other government agencies. Under these conditions, it is imperative to standardize the conditions of employment for all staff. Equality of working conditions must be a basic component of a just and workable personnel system. The current lack of such a system is perhaps the greatest weakness now facing the Project. One possible solution is the development, perhaps through CONANP, of a "Conservation Service of Mexico", which would be a voluntary system to standardize conditions of employment. The system would include a series of guidelines and standards which would be established through CONANP, and vigorously promoted among the many institutions that support PA management. Were this system to be put in place, participating organizations would recognize and adopt the overall guidelines and standards regarding compensation, incentives and rewards, evaluation of personnel performance and qualifications, and accreditation by the "Conservation Service". The central idea is that those developing a career in the field of PA management, should have a career path, regardless of where the individual works or who pays the salary. Such a system would also serve to: provide a basic level of security for field staff; encourage a more professional approach to PA management; stimulate healthy competition for personal development through training and independent learning; recognize and benefit from the experience of field personnel; provide standard salary levels for different positions and levels of experience; and, generally unify working conditions for those who have dedicated their lives to PA management. Another basic condition that is required to support field staff is the development of adequate and functional field infrastructure. Such infrastructure would include, at a minimum, offices, guard stations, work centers, dormitories, and laboratories to support fieldwork. Specific requirements and designs will vary between PAs, but in each case, these should be appropriate for a PA, and wherever possible local materials should used. Architectural designs and site plans are tools that can be used to insure that all infrastructure is functional and fits with the surrounding environment. In the case of remote PAs, it may be necessary to provide living quarters for key personnel. It should be noted that the meetings of PA Directors (DRs), which INE has sponsored, have been highly effective as fora for sharing ideas and discussing improvement of PA management. They have encouraged a healthy interchange of experiences and knowledge among DRs, and have served as important venues for developing national guidelines, policies, and standards, and for training. This initiative is a good one and should be encouraged and strengthened. Resources that are assigned to the CC should support the convening of these meetings, and the attendance of the DRs participating in the Project. Recommendations: 1. That CONAP develop a program for a voluntary "Conservation Service for Mexico" as a means for unifying staff working conditions in the different PAs, and for developing career paths. 2. That INE enhance national standards and criteria for the design and construction of PA infrastructure, and seek additional sources of finance to improve infrastructure to support fieldwork. 3. That the Project provide enhanced funding for DR meetings, and strengthen the role of these meetings in developing national standards, and in training. 4. That the FMCN support INE in forming a PA Network through development of a web page that would facilitate, at a reasonable cost, the development of diverse learning communities. 2. Management Programs The management of each PA is guided by a Management Program that, once approved, establishes legal norms for the area. These Management Programs are developed by each PA staff, with the participation of the area's stakeholders. At a general level, each PA's TAC, which is made up of representatives of many of the stakeholder groups, provides a forum for discussion of the Management Program as a whole. However, stakeholder participation is more specific and detailed, both in the exchange of information and in consultation, when detailed planning is undertaken with the stakeholders directly related to each program component. This procedure is particularly important in relation to resource users and the academic community. Once the Management Program for each PA is developed, it is submitted to the UCANP for review and approval. It is then forwarded to the WB for information. Nine Management Programs have been developed, to date, for the PAs participating in the Project. The PA which as yet does not have an approved Management Program is the Monarca Mariposa Reserve. This area is currently in the middle of a participatory process to revise the decree that created the Reserve. Currently, the Management Program for each PA has been designed to respond to the specific threats to conservation that have been identified for the area. This is the most direct and efficient means for defining a basic management approach. However, as the threats to the area are brought under control, it is important to advance studies of the area and its surrounding zone of influence through two fundamental instruments: the analysis of the natural system through an ecosystem approach to identify critical sites, processes, and flows; and study of the human system through social analysis to identify key individuals, groups, processes and flows. Each PA participating in the Project has advanced these studies in differing degrees. It was noteworthy, however, that during the Team's visits to 4 of the Project's participating PAs, there was little evidence to indicate use of ecosystem or social analysis to: characterize the natural and human systems of the area; understand management problems and priorities; improve management decisions; or, communicate the technical underpinnings for management interventions. Recommendations: 1. Identify, through participatory approaches, effective and efficient methods for carrying out ecosystem and social analysis of the PAs. The objective would be to enhance the characterization of each area's natural and human systems, improve understanding of the area's management problems and priorities, provide timely information for management decisions, and communicate the technical underpinnings of management interventions. 2. Provide technical support to each participating PA in the use of different approaches to ecosystem and social analysis. 3. Annual Operations Plans The Annual Operations Plan (AOP) is used to plan, monitor, and evaluate the activities, and the related budget, of each PA, the CC, and DFANP. Since 1999, the AOPs have been based on a "logical framework" which has been developed specifically for each operating unit. The logical framework is used to identify activities and establish budgets that are designed to produce specific results, each of which is associated with a verifiable indicator used for monitoring and evaluation. The DRs present technical and financial reports to the CC every 3 months. The CC reviews the technical reports, while the DFANP accountant reviews the financial reports. Once these reports are approved, the CC and DFANP add theirs, and sends the package to the WB for information. When approved, the DFANP disburses the budget for the next 3 months. Even though the consolidation of this process has required a period of nearly 2 years, it is now an efficient and effective system that has gained the full support of those involved. 4. Community Participation The protected areas included in the Project were all established in areas where the lands and waters already had owners or traditional users, be they ejidos, indigenous communities, or individual landowners. For this reason, management of these lands and waters as PAs automatically implies the participation of owners and traditional users of these resources. Community participation may take a variety of forms, such as: the exchange (distribution and reception) of information; formal or informal consultation on the concepts, objectives, and potential sites for a program or project; discussion of those that have an interest in participating in a project and under what conditions; the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of project interventions; decision making relative to interventions that directly affect the lives of groups or individuals, or which are of vital interest to them; and/or, employment in project implementation by the PA administration or another entity of government, of the NGO community, or of academia. Participation is not a panacea for all of the intricacies of PA management. It is an important ingredient, whenever it is characterized by informed participation; that is, when those that participate in the process have useful information, skills, or perspectives to contribute, or when their interests are directly affected. a. Analysis of the TACs The instrument originally considered as most important for community participation was the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), formed by representatives of the most important stakeholder groups related to each PA. The TACs were conceived as a forum for the exchange of information and debate, for the formulation of proposals and consensus, and for the participation of communities in decisions regarding management interventions. The logic underlying the establishment of the TACs is impeccable. It is a demonstration of professionalism and respect for the PA's owners, occupants and neighbors. However, in practice, given the heterogeneity of the natural environments and social groupings that make up the natural and cultural mosaic of Mexico, and the diversity of DR leadership styles, the TACs have developed along different lines. Generally, the TACs do not live up to their name. Usually, they are not councils, for they do not give council. They are seldom technical for they are made of interest groups with specific agendas. Nor are they usually advisors, and in fact, in some instances they have sought to become decision-making bodies instead. Thus, in practice the TAC's role has evolved, and will continue to evolve, in different ways according to the specific dynamics generated in each PA. These dynamics depend, in large measure, on the management skills of the DR, and on his or her view of the TACs role, as well as the specific geographical, jurisdictional, physical, biological, social, ethnic, economic, and political characteristics of the PA. As a result, there can be no standard formula for TAC composition or operation. Some TAC meetings have developed into fora for the exchange of information, much of which is little related to management of the PA. In other instances, the meetings are called only to obtain formal approval of the AOP. This derives from the widespread impression that the WB requires this formal approval as a means of verifying compliance with community participation requirements. It was impossible for the Evaluation Team to trace the source of this belief, but it was strongly held in all of the areas visited, even though each of the DRs was strongly opposed to the concept. What is required is that the TAC participate meaningfully in the process of AOP formulation, but this is quite different from acting as a decision-making body. Certainly meaningful participation is a key concept worthy of enhanced and sustained effort in each PA, for it respects the very basis of democracy --- the principle that each group or individual should have a say in the collective actions that affect their livelihoods or interests. Thus, it is important that concerted effort be continued so that the TAC becomes, as near as possible, a neutral forum for the following functions as they relate to management of the PA: the exchange of information; the presentation, discussion, negotiation of concerns and interests of stakeholder groups; the development and review of the AOP; the resolution of conflicts among stakeholder groups; the patient building of consensus; and, advice to PA staff and other decision-makers. Even if the TAC mechanism were not in place, each DR would have to create something similar as a means of balancing the interests of different stakeholders. In fact, several of the DRs use other already established fora to interact with communities. Examples include the Communal or Eijidal Assemblies and the local or regional Development Councils. However, several DRs were of the opinion that it is through informal discussions with small groups or individuals, not the larger formal gatherings, that unbiased information tends to flow more freely. Another factor that must be handled with tact is the belief by some individuals or groups that they should have greater weight in the decisions of the TAC. An example from Ría Lagartos is illustrative. The owner of the Yucatán Saltworks Industry (ISYA) is an active member of the CTA, and notes that it is not logical that his opinion carry the same weight as the few fisherman who have organized as ecotourism operators in the PA. He notes that the salt industry generates employment and income on a scale that the incipient ecotourism industry cannot come close to matching. Thus, the balance of interests is a theme that requires delicate handling because of the sensibilities involved. The Team's review of the TAC mechanism indicates that the following points have been the most problematic: Misunderstandings regarding the objectives, attributes, and purposes of the TAC mechanism by the participants. Use of the TAC as a lobby for the interests of the most powerful of the productive sectors. Use of the TAC as a forum for the resolution of conflicts that are not particularly relevant to management of the PA. Little communication between TAC representatives and the groups they are supposed to represent. Unbalanced representation of the different stakeholder groups. Logistical problems in convening meetings. The lack of interest of one or more stakeholder groups in themes that may be of interest to others. The number of meetings required to deal meaningfully with substantive management issues. The amount of time available to stakeholder representatives, especially taking into account the number and variety of other fora that they are invited to attend. Many of these problems are well understood by the DRs, and each has developed mechanisms to overcome one or several of them. Of particular interest are the following: Training courses for TAC members; Publication of bulletins to disseminate, among stakeholders, information about the subjects discussed and decisions taken by the TAC. Formation of TAC Sub-committees that coincide with specific jurisdictions, usually State jurisdictions, or that respond to specific themes or user groups of particular relevance to management. There are two concepts that were introduced by the DRs that perhaps merit closer scrutiny by the participating institutions. One concept is to divide the TAC into two different committees that would have very different functions. One committee would be truly technical and advisory and would be made up of researchers, academics, and other technical experts. The other committee would be composed of resource users and would serve as a forum for the presentation and discussion of their respective interests with PA staff and with each other. Where possible, this committee would develop consensus among interest groups, and resolve conflicts as they arise. The other concept that might be considered is the diversification of mechanisms for certifying compliance with the WB requirement on community participation in the development of the AOP for each PA. Other potential mechanisms might include letters certifying participation of a particular stakeholder group, TAC Subcommittee, or other representative group, in the design, implementation, monitoring, or evaluation of a specific program or project, or review of the AOP as a whole or in part. To support the implementation of this concept, it may be useful to develop an inventory of existing alternative fora in each of the PAs Recommendations: 1. That the CC send a circular letter to the DRs participating in the Project to clarify that what is required is that the TACs participate in a meaningful way in the development of the AOP, but that formal approval of the AOP is not required. 2. That the participating institutions consider the division of the TACs into two different committees: one truly technical, composed of scientists and relevant experts, and the other of resource users. 3. That the WB consider diversifying the mechanisms used to certify community participation in the development and review of the AOP. b. PA / Community Partnership Analysis of community participation in PA management indicates that, even though this is a new experience for most, there are indications of positive outcomes in several instances. Many communities have demonstrated, through their active participation and support, that they support the creation and management of the PA. The Team found ample evidence of this during its fieldwork. Indeed, there were also cases of communities located outside of the PA requesting that the PA be enlarged to include them. Of course, the PA / Community partnership is of paramount importance. To begin with, conservation is a social process, especially taking into account the predominance of privately held lands, and existing customary resource uses, within the PAs. As a result, the PA / Community partnership is key to building relationships, and developing management interventions, that achieve improvements both in resource management and the satisfaction of unmet community needs --- in short, sustainable development. Examples of such partnerships are numerous: the establishment of agro-ecological and agro-forestry plots in Sierra de Manantlán and Montes Azules; sustainable management of forests in Manantlán; ecotourism development in Ría Lagartos; fisheries management, development of whalewatching, and management of trophy hunting of the big-horn sheep in Vizcaíno, among others. Not only are these partnerships important in and of themselves, they also develop multiplier and collateral effects that are in many cases of equal importance. These include awareness campaigns, training, and environmental education programs that result in positive changes in attitudes and behaviors. The combined effect of these interventions, as expressed by a large number of the people interviewed, is to alleviate pressure on the natural resource base of the PAs. Anther aspect mentioned surprisingly often during field interviews was the notion that management interventions can be beneficial not only to the communities themselves, but to wider society as well. This would seem to indicate that not only are communities conscious of direct benefits, but in many cases they also perceive the wider, less direct, benefits that are often less apparent. It was evident during field visits that the staff of several of the PAs have been able to demonstrate convincingly the value of sustainable resource use (agriculture, fisheries, tourism, wood, medicinal plants, natural fibers, wildlife, etc.). As a result, the communities themselves benefit from improvements in production, use of alternative resources, reduction of predatory practices, community organization, infrastructure development, and leadership training among others. Because of these benefits, many resource user groups work closely with the PA staff to reduce destructive practices, and assist law enforcement efforts. Even though there are many individual management successes that can be pointed out, the DRs themselves are quick to add that, overall, the impact of these successes is relatively limited, and much more work is needed. Many destructive practices continue, and alternative practices that are both less destructive and more productive need to be identified and incorporated into the regular activities of many communities. This is not a criticism of the successes achieved to date. It is simply a reminder that there is still much to do if the Project's ambitious objectives are to be met. It was also apparent in the PAs visited by the Team that the DRs and other staff members have assumed important responsibilities for the mediation of conflicts among and within stakeholder groups. It appears that these efforts have been largely successful to date, but it may be useful to strengthen and broaden these efforts through formal training. In summary, though a variety of community participation approaches are still in the process of being implemented, adapted, and strengthened, there is clear evidence that PA / Community partnerships, though not perfect, have achieved excellent results in a relatively short period. Recommendations: 1. Maintain present, in the design of future projects, that much is still needed to deepen and expand community participation in the 10 participating PAs. 2. Use the general request for proposals of the FMCN as a source of financing for developing the experimental phase of projects that could identify viable resource use alternatives that are less destructive and more productive. 3. Where possible, give priority to the use of GEF financial resources to the contracting of personnel that can work with local communities to assist in the development of sustainable resource use projects that will be financed by other sources, rather than using the limited GEF resources for implementation. 4. Provide periodic courses on mediation and conflict resolution for field staff. c. Indigenous People Development Programs An Operational Directive of the WB (World Bank, 1991) outlines the policies and procedures to be followed for those projects affecting indigenous peoples. Specific agreements regarding application of this Directive to the Protected Areas Program are outlined in a letter of understanding between the WB and the GOM (letter from Shahid Javed Burki, WB, to Guillermos Ortiz Martinez, SHCP, of 14.05.99). One of the original conditions for approval of the Project restructuring was the presentation to the Bank of a document outlining an Indigenous People Development Program (IPDP) for that year for each participating PA that includes indigenous communities within it. To be approved by the WB, the AOP of each PA participating in the project must demonstrate adequate participation of indigenous communities in the process of plan preparation, and that these communities have not been the subjects of discrimination. In spite of the inclusion of IPDPs in the AOPs of the Montes Azules, Islas del Golfo, Manantlán, Calakmul, and Monarca Mariposa Reserves, the participation of the PAs in implementation of these Programs has been limited. Rather, PA staff have supported the work of other entities that have more direct responsibilities and greater resources. Analysis of the AOPs for the year 2000 indicates that there is a general tendency to integrate the IPDPs into overall strategies for community development. The exception is Montes Azules where all of the communities in the PA are indigenous. However, it would be an exaggeration to say that the Management Program for this Reserve amounts to an IPDP. Rather, it contains elements that might be included in a full-blown IPDP. One of the issues raised by the special requirements for indigenous communities is the question of whether other marginalized communities become the subjects of discrimination as a result. This concern, and the high degree of inter-marriage, make it difficult in many cases to encounter just and equitable solutions. These issues are somewhat tangential to Project objectives, and the distinction between indigenous people, mestizos, and the marginalized is not particularly relevant to management. What is relevant is that all stakeholders participate in a meaningful way with regard to the PA management issues that most directly affect their livelihoods and interests. Recommendations: 1. Integrate the IPDPs into broader development strategies, bearing in mind that although these communities have particular cultural traits and characteristics, they form part of a larger context. 2. Begin the substituting the focus on indigenous communities to a broader focus on marginalized communities, understanding that interpretation of the term "marginalized" will vary from PA to PA. 3. Promote and intensify cooperation with agencies that have the mandate, resources and experience to deal effectively with the issues of indigenous community development, while retaining a constructive role for PA staff in coordination and support. 5. Inter-institutional Cooperation Project resources are inadequate to support all of the interventions necessary to resolve the most critical issues of resource management, while concurrently attending to the unmet socio-economic needs of local communities. Because of this, the DRs have given priority to the development of inter-institutional collaboration with other entities of government (Federal, State, and local), NGOs, academia, local communities, and the private sector. In the process, they have in many cases achieved some success by contributing to the design of projects sponsored by other organizations, so that they are sustainable and compatible with the management objectives of the PA. However, there are few national standards and criteria to stimulate and guide this process, and to specify responsibilities of the parties involved. Recommendation: Articulate a broader set of national standards for promoting, supporting, and guiding the development of collaborative relationships with other organizations that can provide support to the management programs of the PAs. VI. PERFORMANCE A. General Considerations 1. Key Questions The terms of reference for the evaluation specified 3 key questions which are answered succinctly below. The supporting details are presented throughout the report. 1. Are the project agreements being implemented? Yes, in general terms, with the exception of the financial mechanism (sensu strictu), the procedure for hiring auxiliary personnel, and the mechanism for administering the budget of each Reserve. In terms of the financial mechanisms, the only divergence has been the source of funding, which has changed for 3 reasons: The first disbursements of the WB, and the contributions of the GOM, did not occur as originally envisaged. The opportunity to include the GEF grant in a debt swap operation of the GOM was temporarily suspended by the Treasury Department (SHCP). This procedure would have increased the value of the grant by 26%. It was considered financially advantageous to retain the funds in US dollars and invest them overseas. For these reasons, the CAF decided to loan FMCN funds to FANP, and it is these funds that have covered Project costs to date, not the interest generated by the trust fund. The original concept for hiring Project supported staff was for INE to contract Project personnel on a temporary basis. Reserve personnel occupy permanent positions, however, and cannot be hired under service contracts because Federal law requires the payment of social benefits. Neither does Federal law permit INE to receive funding directly from FMCN. A specific request in this sense was turned down by the SHCP. Given the need to hire some 150 temporary Project employees throughout the country, and the fact that it is not part of the FMCN mission to implement projects, the FMCN Council opted, with the approval of the WB, to pass on the hiring of personnel to conservation NGOs. The success of this procedure during the first year was such that CTFANP recommended passing on the accounting for operational funds of each of the PAs to these NGOs as well. The NGOs in turn have benefited by upgrading their administrative capacities. However, adding an intermediate administrative level also implies an increase in administrative costs. Further, personal hired by the NGOs receive social benefits, a cost that was not included in the original Project budget. 2. Are the Project agreements adequate for achieving Project objectives? En general, yes, with the exception of the TACs and IPDPs which have not performed as expected (see Chapter V., Section 4.). 3. Do Project objectives correspond to the missions of the participating institutions? Yes, clearly, otherwise the participating institutions would not have signed the Project Agreements. 2. Financial Viability and Stability The achievement of financial viability and stability for the PAs requires coordinated efforts at the international, national, regional or state, and local levels. These 4 levels of effort require a mix of strategies, procedures, capabilities, and constituencies that are quantitatively and qualitatively quite different. Yet each will increase its chances of success if coordinated with the others; if there is a clear demarcation of roles, responsibilities, and potential funding sources; and if there are clear and agreed standards for fundraising, revenue generation, and the administration of funds. It is important that the mechanisms that are developed for fundraising, revenue generation, and the distribution of funds among the PAs does not result in imbalances with a few PAs receiving disproportionate levels of funding while others struggle. At the same time, it is counterproductive to introduce disincentives for fundraising by diverting large amounts of the funds raised by one PA to fund another. Thus, coordination among the different levels of fundraising effort (international, national, regional or state, and local) is critical to assure equitable distribution of financial resources. B. Alterations in the Original Project Design As restructured in '97, FANP operates as a program of the FMCN with its own supervisory technical committee (CTFANP) and a minimal staff. This design assumed that all costs associated with Project implementation in the field (temporary personnel and operating costs) would be handled through the FMCN structure. As previously mention, when Project start-up began in 1997 the FMCN Council decided that it was inappropriate for the FMCN to hire field personnel directly. It was agreed by the participating institutions to amend the Project to facilitate the hiring of temporary field personnel through conservation NGOs. These NGOs were selected through an open bidding process. To handle the costs of field operations, in 1998 the FMCN opened individual bank accounts for the participating PAs. Each account was administered by PA staff and supervised by DFANP. This setup was altered in 1999 to pass on the administration of the individual accounts to the NGOs selected previously to hire field personnel. In this way, both the hiring of personnel and administration of budgets for field operations were consolidated within the NGOs. This change also lightened the administrative loan of DFANP, and enabled staff to dedicate increased effort to fundraising and monitoring of the Project cycle. Thus, the program now operates through two different setups. For the implementation of the AOPs of each participating PA, the flow of funds is FANP > NGO > Reserve. For administration of the trust fund and fundraising, the flow of responsibility is FMCN - CAF - CTFANP - FANP. C. Administrative and Financial Management 1. Financial Management, PA Level The procedures for financial management through NGOs have proven to be highly satisfactory for all concerned. For the Reserves, implementation of the system has required a tightening of internal procedures and increased transparency in financial management. In fact, the procedures established for this Project have been used for management of funding received from other sources. In terms of cash flows, even though current procedures have increased administrative overhead above the amount originally budgeted for this purpose (see ANNEX 7: Detail of Expenditures), the system has enabled the Reserves to receive the required funding when needed. Thus, the DRs are satisfied with the system even though it requires increased administrative costs. It is considered a very worthwhile investment. The NGOs recognize that administration of the FANP financial resources has led to institutional development through improvement of their personnel and financial management systems. In addition, this institutional strengthening has opened the possibility of accessing other funds destined for the Reserves they support. Three separate accounts are used to manage Project funds: (a) the payroll account, (2) the labor contingency account, and (c) the general expenditure account. Funds from the payroll account are disbursed by FANP every 3 months, but personnel are paid biweekly. This enables the generation of interest that is used to pay a one-month bonus at the end of the year rather than the two- week bonus required by law. This is an incentive for temporary employees who are currently denied the opportunity of developing a career within the protected area system. The labor contingency fund is maintained in a liquid account. Should it be necessary to tap into the fund, the PA notifies FANP, which determines the amount that is legally owed together with the associated NGO. FANP then deducts the required amount directly from the contingency fund. Because of this procedure, the contingency fund is included in the annual accounts submitted to the WB. The Director and Administrative Assistant of each PA manage the general expenditure account. FANP disburses funds to the PA's associated NGO every 3 months, and the NGO, in turn deposits the funds to the PAs account. This system enables the PA to carry out expenditures in a timely fashion as required. The PA funds are maintained in interest bearing accounts. The interest is spent on Project eligible activities considered priority by the DRs, and is reported as part of overall expenditures. Recommendations; 1. The additional cost of introducing the NGOs as intermediaries in the system, the social benefits afforded temporary Project employees, and labor contingency costs should all be included in future calculations of Project costs. 2. An actuarial calculation should be carried out to determine the actual amount needed in the labor contingency fund. This calculation should be based on the number of employees, their salaries, and their length of employment as per a fixed date. This amount should be adjusted annually based on the factors mentioned above. This amount can increase or decrease, depending on circumstances, and thus the annual expenditure for this item should be calculated as an adjustment to the existing amount, and not accumulated. 2. Financial Management, FMCN Level FANP's assets are administered by the CAF based on WB investment guidelines. Asset management has been contracted out to Salomon, Smith Barney through a bidding process approved by, and coordinated with, the WB. In addition, as recommended by the WB, independent financial advisor Richard Sutton has been contracted to assist in monitoring the work of the asset managers. It is important to note that the financial projections made at the time of the '97 Project restructuring included revenues that were to be generated through a debt swap operation of the GOM. At the end of 1997, the Treasury Department (SHCP) authorized an initial debt swap made with Project operating funds authorized for expenditure in 1998. The first disbursement of US$587,208 generated a return of US$157,372 (26.8%). In early 1998, Treasury notified the FMCN that further debt swap operations had been suspended until further notice. In these circumstances, the CAF decided that it was in the best interests of the Project to not request further disbursements from the grant capital and await the renewal of debt swap operations. They further decided to make a "loan" to FANP from FMCN's own trust fund, so that the annual operational expenditures of the Project could continue to be met in a timely manner. DFANP advised the WB of the strategy, and the WB concurred. Because of these decisions, the following situation developed in 1998 and 1999: no disbursements were made from grant monies; project operational costs were covered by a "bridging loan" from the FMCN; and the allowable expenditures for Project operational costs was calculated according to the projections shown in Annex 4 of the Project Document (FANP Investment Analysis), which included as part of the total, revenues to be generated by debt swaps, and interest earned by funds held in Mexico during these years. ANNEX 8 (FANP: Asset Management) contains an analysis of 4 possible interpretations of the total amount the asset manager should have generated to comply with the expenditure requirements of the Project, in view of the situation outlined in the previous paragraphs, and without including the revenues that were to be generated by the debt swap. It can be seen from this analysis that whichever of the 4 interpretations is used (each is based on compound interest calculations), the asset manager, Smith, Salomon Barney, has complied satisfactorily to date with the Project's investment benchmarks. Even so, it is prudent to look ahead to the situation that is expected in the financial markets for the year 2000. There are indications that perhaps it is time to consider the diversification of investments in order to achieve a mixture of currencies that may be critical to improving investment performance. Any improvement in investment performance would minimize the adjustment required to cover the revenues that would have been generated by debt swaps (for more details, see the note for Salomon, Smith Barney of 25 January, 2000). By the end of 1999, it became apparent that further debt swap operations would not be authorized by Treasury, and the WB was asked to approve an "invasion" of capital of approximately US$1.6 million. This amount is calculated to include: the amount which would have been generated had further debt swaps been authorized (approximately US$808,000); the amount of capital invasion that was authorized for 1997 but was never disbursed (US$400,000); and, the emergency fund which had never been segregated into a special account (US$494,402) of which some US$75,000 had already been spent on fire control. A more detailed analysis of this situation is presented in ANNEX 9: Detail of Revenues and Expenditures. It demonstrates that the decision by the FMCN to use the bridging loan mechanism, while the situation regarding debt swaps was being decided, was a good one. As shown in the analysis, that decision did not affect the assets of the trust fund, because the requested capital invasion was required in any case to cover costs that were not included in the original expenditure projections. In other words, if the bridging loan had not been provided, the trust fund's assets would not have generated sufficient interest to cover Project expenditures because of the shortfall created by the suspension of debt swap operations. Because of the bridging loan arrangement, it is impossible, in practice, for the Evaluation Team to determine the adequacy of the financial mechanism as originally conceived. The FMCN has faithfully covered Project expenditure requirements of the PAs, and thus, the original financial mechanism has never been tested. Recommendations: It is recommended that, as soon as possible, financial projections for the Project be recalculated to take into account the following: 1. The increased administrative overheads for the Project brought about by the introduction of NGOs as intermediaries between FANP and the PAs. 2. Actual labor contingency costs. 3. Better definition of the situation regarding the emergency fund. Initially this fund was created with a two-fold purpose: (a) to prevent capital erosion over time, and (b) provide a means for meeting extraordinary needs created by natural disasters. Over time, the original concept has been neglected, and the fund has been employed only for emergencies. However, it is important to address this issue because each situation should be handled differently. To prevent capital erosion, a specified capital reserve can be managed as part of the general strategy for the fund's other assets. The emergency fund, on the other hand, should be put into a liquid account that can be accessed rapidly. 4. Diversification of the investment portfolio should be considered to achieve a mixture of currencies to improve returns and cut down on the shortfall produced by the cancellation of debt swap operations. 5. If possible, and with the concurrence of the WB, the Project should refrain from arranging further bridging loans so that the financial mechanism can be put to the test as originally designed. 6. Resolve the situation with regard to the taxes paid with Project funds (actually paid by the FMCN bridging loan), which to date have not been recognized as an eligible Project expenditure, and define a strategy for dealing with these costs in the future. 3. FMCM Accounting and Auditing Systems According to Project Agreements, the FMCN is responsible for Project fund management. A cash flow (single entry) accounting system is used to track actual income received and expenses paid. Accounts payable, accounts receivable, earned interest, and inventory are registered in auxiliary accounts. The FMCN also manages funds received from other sources such as bi- and multi-lateral development agencies, private foundations, individual donors, and the Federal Government. Grants received from these organizations are incorporated into the FMCN general account rather than into separate project accounts. This general accounting system has two basic disadvantages. First, it is impossible to differentiate between the financial state of FMCN as a whole, and that of individual projects, unless individual auxiliary accounts are maintained as well. Second, expenditures that have been incurred, but not disbursed, are not accounted for until the actual transaction is made. This can lead to considerable error when trying to determine the financial state of FANP at any given time. Project agreements regarding the accounting system are vague, indicating only that they should be consistent with "generally accepted accounting principles". Without doubt, the FMCN is complying with that requirement since either a cash flow (single entry) or cumulative (double entry) accounting system would be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. However, neither system is adequate for FMCN's needs. The Evaluation Team recommends that the FMCN convert to the accounting system outlined in "Financial and Accounting Board (FASB), Bulletins #116 and #117", published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The accounting system outlined in these bulletins is recommended specifically by the AICPA for use by non-profit organizations. Another publication useful for non-profits is "Financial and Accounting Guide for Non-Profit Organizations" (Malvern J. Gross, 1983. Ronald Press). In addition, there are standard accounting packages available for non-profits such as Micro Information Products for non-profit organizations; fund accounting. The auditing requirements for the Project are also vague, again only specifying that audits be conducted according to "generally accepted accounting principles". This point was discussed with Bank staff, who recognized that FMCN audits could be improved to provide better tracking of legal commitments that have been made in the various legal agreements it has signed. D. Fundraising and Revenue Generation 1. PAs Individual PAs do not have long-term fundraising, revenue generation, and financial management strategies to guide their efforts. In general, existing field staff, including the DR, have neither the time nor the training required to carry out a systematic fundraising and revenue generation effort. As a result, the DRs have generally opted for an opportunistic approach, which in some instances has been quite successful. However, stable and more systematic fundraising and revenue generation efforts will require additional inputs. An important first step would be to inventory and analyze experience to date in the various PAs, and from this extract and disseminate "lessons learned". A further step would be to provide technical and financial assistance to each of the areas so that they can develop their long-term fundraising, revenue generation, and financial management strategies, and begin the startup phase of implementation. This is a theme which is attractive to many donors, especially private foundations. Individual proposals from the PAs themselves may also be of interest to the FMCN through their other grant programs. DFANP has already made considerable progress in this direction: The European Community has just approved a grant for the development and implementation of fundraising and revenue generation strategies for 4 participating PAs (Sian Ka'an, Ría Lagartos, Islas del Golfo, and Isla Contoy). The Spanish Technical Cooperation Agency, through Project Araucaria, is supporting the development of a revenue generation strategy for the Vizcaíno Reserve in Baja California. U.S. AID has provided a grant for the development and implementation of a fundraising and revenue generation strategy for El Triunfo. This is an excellent start, but funding sources for similar work are still required for Manantlán, Monarca Mariposa, Montes Azules, and Calakmul. It also important to note that the full-time presence of field staff in the PAs has been extremely important in generating financial assistance for PA management, and for the development of local communities. This in turn has stimulated support, often in kind, sometimes in cash, from local communities to the PA. However, this process has been largely opportunistic and has created a variety of ad-hoc financial arrangements that sometimes lack transparency and rigorous accounting procedures. While the FANP Operations Manual outlines procedures for the establishment of individual funds for donations to specific PAs, El Triunfo is the only one that has established such a fund. The reason the other PAs have not done so is that they are reluctant to use a "centralized" mechanism, with its attendant bureaucratic procedures, and the revenues generated at the local level are often not large enough to reach the minimum amounts stipulated in the Operations Manual. Recommendations: 1. That FANP and UCANP-INE seek funding sources to assist the Manantlán, Monarca Mariposa, Montes Azules, and Calakmul Reserves in developing, and initiating implementation, of long-term fundraising, revenue generation, and financial management strategies. 2. That FANP assist individual Reserves in developing regional and local mechanisms for revenue generation and administration tailored to the specific requirements of each Reserve. 3. That FANP analyze the viability of replicating the existing FANP > NGO > PA financial and personnel management system at the regional and local levels in general, or for specific PAs where it is most applicable. 2. FANP The fundraising strategy for FANP assigns priority to international sources, such as governments international agencies, foundations, corporations, conservation NGOs, development banks, multilateral organizations, museums, and individuals. FANP's focus is on those sources where the FMCN already has contacts and which have already indicated an interest in supporting projects in Mexico. Currently, FANPs fundraising efforts are centered on obtaining a second GEF grant, a process that is well under way. The general experience of environmental funds throughout the world is that it is extremely difficult to increase the capital of a trust fund once established. This is mostly because of specific donor restrictions which require direct donor supervision of grants, and this is not feasible with trust funds where the capital is in theory held in perpetuity. Thus, most donors prefer to finance a short-term project that lends itself to direct supervision. However, the goal to capitalize the FANP trust fund is still a valid one, even knowing now that it will be much more difficult than was expected at the time it was established. It must be accepted that the goal is long-term, and that meeting that goal will require creativity, persistence, and above all, patience. Having said that, it should be noted that there are positive indications that FANP will be able to meet their commitment to capitalize the trust fund with an additional US$5 million by the end of the Project, as stipulated in the Project Document. There are several mechanisms that FANP might explore in order to further capitalize the trust fund. Priority should, of course, be given to those mechanisms which, after careful analysis, are expected to provide the greatest returns for the effort invested. It may be useful to consider the following potential mechanisms: 1. Seek to convince donors, who are required to finance short-term projects, to disburse all project funds at the beginning of the project, and allow the interest accumulated over the lifetime of the project to be put into the trust fund. This mechanism is being put into effect, for example, with the project currently being undertaken with the Spanish Agency for Technical Cooperation. The interest accumulated during the first year of the project is being used as seed money to establish a capital fund for the Vizcaíno Reserve. 2. Explore with the DRs of each participating PA, possible sources of funding that could be transferred into a special account for the Reserve within the general FANP Trust Fund. 3. Develop co-investments or cooperative projects with the private sector for the provision of ecotourism services within PAs. 4. Establish a program to stimulate and capture voluntary donations from visitors to the Reserves. 5. Promote donations among FMCN's corporate and individual membership that are earmarked for FANP. 6. Develop joint implementation arrangements for carbon sequestration. 7. Enter into debt swap operations should they be reactivated by the Treasury. 3. INE INE has a comparative advantage in fundraising at the national level, especially through governmental mechanisms, international agencies, multilateral organizations, associations, universities, and the private sector. Currently INE receives important contributions for the SINAP through each of these sources. A recent report (Pérez Gil S., R. And F. Jaramillo M., in press) has documented that a grouping of 31 PAs received a total of US$40 million during the period from 1997 to 1999. The donor universe was surprisingly large with donations received from 268 different entities. The study further determined that fully 2/3 of the donations were national in origin. Of all donations, 34% were from the public sector, 22% were NGOs, 18% from academia, and 18% from the private sector. Some 70% of this donor group provided information for the study which helped determine the specific amounts donated, the frequency of donations, how funding was channeled, to whom, when, and for what purposes. It is especially noteworthy that study found that fully 79% of the total amount of the contributions to the 31 PAs came from the public sector. This is a clear indication of where future efforts might be directed. VII. PROJECT ASSESSMENT Project Assessment is an on-going process that includes project supervision by the participating institutions, a regular monitoring system, and mid-term and final independent evaluations. A. Supervision Project supervision, like the evaluation process itself, is a sensitive subject, for it implies judgement of the performance of institutions, and by extension, the staff of those institutions. Recognizing this, the Team has opted, as much as possible, to identify generalized perceptions, through interviews, of project elements that need improvement. These perceptions are qualitative, and thus a matter of opinion or interpretation. Perhaps it is less important to try to prove or disprove these perceptions than to try to determine their potential impacts, and where necessary, recommend remedial actions. Thus, the Evaluation Team recommends that perceptions regarding project supervision be taken as themes for reflection and open discussion among the parties. Project supervision consists of technical, administrative, and financial components that are carried out by UCANP, the CTFANP, and the WB. 1. Technical Supervision Technical supervision is carried out by the WB through supervision missions, of which there are usually 2 per year, and the review of the AOPs of the participating PAs. After an initial period of adjustment, the AOP review process seems to be working well, and all parties are satisfied with it. . According to the Project Document, the supervision mission teams are to be made up of Bank personnel, based both in Washington and Mexico City. They should have expertise in protected areas, social sciences / anthropology, training, finance, and administration. There is a generalized perception among key personnel of the FMCN and INE that the work of these teams has suffered from a lack of continuity. There have been 3 Task Managers over a period of 3 year, each with quite different working styles. These different styles led to significant changes in focus and requirements, both during the design and startup phases of the Project. Each mission has been made up of different individuals with differing technical expertise, and as a result the themes reviewed and the conclusions reached have varied. This lack of continuity has led to the perception that the Bank changes the "rules of the game". Personnel of both FANP and INE feel there is a need for the WB to be more consistent in the application of its own rules, and of agreements that have been reached through consensus. These perceptions are exacerbated by the lack of a common framework for the reports of each mission. It was difficult for the Evaluation Team to find, in the documents in the FANP files, a thematic thread that can be consulted my new Task Managers, new members of the supervision teams, or for that matter, by independent evaluation teams. However, due to time limitations, the Team did not consult the WB files. It is quite possible, therefore, that a more complete picture can be reconstructed from this source. If this is the case, then it would be useful to put together a succinct record of themes discussed, decisions taken, and follow-up required as a result of the supervision missions, and circulate this information to both FANP and UCANP. It is encouraging to note that the lack of confidence, which was a major obstacle to the design and start-up phases of the Project before the '97 restructuring, no longer exists among the parties to the Project. Still, there is a lingering perception among the leaders of both UCANP and FMCN that there is too much "micro-management" on the part of the WB. In fact, this theme was specifically mentioned by the FMCN's Director at the seminar that was organized to discuss the preliminary findings of the evaluation. Modern principles of management hold that when there is greater flexibility there is greater creativity. Some donors even believe that the more latitude in decision-making that is granted to Project managers, the more control the donor retains over the outcome. The Evaluation Team recommends application of the principle that decisions be taken, as far as possible, at those levels closest to the problem, though always within, and in accordance with, general standards and criteria. It may be useful at some point for the Project partners to discuss this theme openly in an attempt to resolve the issue of micro- management. Technical supervision by UCANP is done through the Project's Central Coordinating Unit (CC), and consists mainly of the review of the AOPs of the participating PAs, and participation in events such as Bank supervision missions, meetings of the DRs, training courses, and other special events. However, given the diverse responsibilities of the CC, limited staff time (the CC consists of only one individual), and the number of participating PAs, the opportunities for field supervision are scarce. As mentioned, there are relatively few national standards, criteria, and norms to guide the management of PAs. So even if there were more opportunities for field supervision, it would be more in terms of personal perceptions than in terms of institutional policy. Taken as a whole, project supervision by the Bank and UCANP is largely a paper exercise. There is relatively little field supervision. Though this is understandable because of the number of participating PAs, the distances between them, and the limitations of staff time and budgets, it is not desirable. As far as possible, a balance needs to be struck between the extremes of "official tourism" on the one hand, and "paper supervision" on the other. A partial solution might be to make a small investment to develop, together with the DRs, a series of simple standards and guidelines for PA management. If these were in place, it should then be possible to improve the efficiency of field supervision opportunities when they occur. This might also serve to more explicitly define, unify, and institutionalize management approaches. Recommendations: 1. Adopt the principle of taking decisions as close to the problem as possible, in accordance with general standards and criteria. 2. Openly discuss the issue of micro-management among the Project parties in an attempt to achieve common criteria that can be used to guide implementation of existing inter-institutional agreements and to the proposed CC operating manual. 3. Within existing limitations, seek to increase the frequency and consistency of field supervision missions of the Bank and the CC. 4. Establish a common framework for Bank and CC field supervision missions that can also be used as an outline to report findings. 5. Develop a standard format or checklist for Bank supervision missions to enhance consistency. 2. Administrative Supervision Administrative supervision is based on implementation of the Project budget and adherence to the procedures outlined in the FANP Operations Manual. It begins with the review of each PA's accounts by the NGO that administers its funds. In turn, the NGO accounts are reviewed by the DFANP Accountant, and the DFANP accounts by the WB. The NGO and FANP accounts also undergo independent audits. This system of supervision means there are several levels of verification, and these appear to function quite efficiently. 3. Financial Supervision There are three levels of supervision to assure effective management of the FANP trust fund by the asset management firm, Smith, Salomon Barney. The first level consists of a periodic review of the performance of the investment portfolio by an independent financial analyst contracted by FMCN. The analyst's recommendations are transmitted to the FMCN. These are reviewed by the CAF, which makes decisions on needed changes in the investment strategy. These are passed on to the World Bank for review, and if approved, the FMCN gives instructions to the asset management firm for action. This system, characterized by multiple levels of review, provides confidence in the decisions taken, and spreads responsibility. B. Monitoring The Project monitoring system is based on the "logical frameworks" that have been developed for the Project, and for each of the PAs. Verifiable indicators have been identified for the general Project objective, the expected results, and the activities of each PA. The baseline for each of these indicators has also been established. The change in these indicators is reported in the three-month technical report of each PA, and later reviewed by the CC and the WB. The logical framework for the Project and each PA is based on a simple model that proceeds from the general objective to expected results and individual activities. However, it is a model which proceeds from a general objective to very specific activities, and . leaves out a level of analysis that is included in other models, the level of "Project Purposes". As a result, direct indicators are lacking to evaluate the management processes of each PA . This means that the opportunity to define the basic elements of good management, and measure their strengthening through the Project, has been lost. Of even more concern is the notion that one can measure the impact of the Project by establishing cause and effect relationships between biological indicators, such as the rate of transformation of natural habitat or the number of observations of key species, and Project interventions. There simply are too many other variables at work. These indicators are quite valuable as early warnings on trends in the PA, but they are not valid for measuring Project impact. On the other hand, considerable effort has been invested in developing the system of indicators in use today. It is doubtful, therefore, that now is the time to promote a another change in the monitoring system. Perhaps it would be more realistic, therefore, to schedule a review of Project indicators sometime in the future. Meanwhile, it is recommended that some effort be made to collect examples of other monitoring systems currently in use in other PA projects. It is suggested, for example, to review, among others, the following: the system recommended by the World Commission of Protected Areas of IUCN - The World Conservation Union; the system developed by the Fund for Protected Areas of Perú (PROFONANPE); the "scorecard" approach of The Nature Conservancy; the checklist approach of PG7 Consultants; and, the system developed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as part of its cooperative program with the WB, the Forests for Life Campaign Recommenations: 1. That the CC and DFANP review the monitoring and evaluation systems of protected area projects to identify elements that might be incorporated in the current system. 2. That an intermediate level of analysis, "Project Purposes", be introduced into the logical framework model currently in use. This would bridge the gap between the "General Objective" and "Expected Results". C. Independent Evaluations Two independent evaluations are scheduled for the Project: the present mid-term evaluation, and a final evaluation at the conclusion of the supervision of the Project by the WB. These evaluations provide an opportunity to involve independent specialists, who have no direct ties to any of the institutions involved in the Project, in the evaluation process. They also provide an opportunity to carry out a review of field activities and institutionalize the process of feedback and adjustment through a systematic approach. VIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS There are a variety of approaches that can be used to assess protected area projects. IUCN (Hockings, 1997) recommends an approach that focuses on the design, the inputs, processes, outcomes, and outputs of a project. The U.S. Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1989) recommends that the evaluation of a biodiversity project be based on biological, socio-economic, institutional capacity, and inter-institutional cooperation criteria. The European Community (Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Finalndia, 1997) evaluates the relevancy, impact, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of its projects. The World Bank (Banco Mundial, 1998), on the other hand focuses on the performance of the implementing institutions and project impacts. Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages. Given that the restructured Project, which is the focus of this evaluation, has been in operation only a little over 2 years, it is still early to evaluate such variables as the outcomes and some impacts of Project interventions. It is possible, at this stage, to make some judgements on such attributes as project efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, the sustainability of project design, and initial processes and impacts. However, It is easy to get lost in the details of the evaluation and loose sight of the larger picture. For this reason, the Evaluation Team has opted to combine several of the attributes being analyzed into the broad headings of strengths, impacts, and aspects that could be improved. Using this approach, it is hoped to emphasize general findings without repeating too many of the details that are outlined in previous chapters of the report. A. Principal Strengths and Impacts The Evaluation Team considers that there have been 6 key strengths that have lead to the enormous success of the Project to date: 1. The basic design of the restructured Project, with GEF, GOM, and FMCN the partners who together provide the inputs required for basic management, on a stable basis, for the 10 PAs participating in the Project. 2. The vision, leadership, talents, constant support, and the spirit of cooperation of the managers of the partner institutions; that is, the Task Managers of the WB, the Secretary of SEMARNAP, the members of CONANP, the Head of UCANP, and the Directors of the FMCN and DFANP. 3. The quality, dedication, creativity, and technical know-how of the staff of the protected areas, led by an extraordinary group of Directors who have achieved authority, effective presence, and stable field management. This is precisely the basic human resource that is so necessary to catalyze processes, attract human and financial resources, work side by side with local communities, and coordinate and supervise field work. 4. The diverse and creative processes of interaction at the local level developed by field staff of the PAs, who have achieved an admirable level of effective community participation and inter-institutional cooperation. 5. The spirit of solidarity of PA staff with local communities in attempting to find lasting solutions for their basic needs through the capture, channeling, and reorientation to sustainable development of the program initiatives of other entities. This spirit of solidarity is highly valued by all of the communities that were visited. Reserve staff assist them in developing initiatives with a wide variety of social actors. Thus, communities feel that Reserve staff are with them in their struggles, assisting in numerous ways, from the development, write-up, and presentation of proposals to development agencies, to transport or the bringing of functionaries of other institutions to the communities so that their voice can be heard and red tape made manageable. 6. Efficient and effective mechanisms for budgetary administration and control by FANP, NGOs, and the PAs. For the first time, an important part of the budget arrives in the PAs on time and at regular intervals, making possible stable processes for planning, implementation, reflection, and redesign, all of this within a transparent budgetary system that is above reproach. Without doubt, the Project has played a catalytic role in strengthening the management of the 10 participating protected areas, and indirectly, of the entire protected areas system of Mexico. In the opinion of the Evaluation Team, who collectively have more than 75 years of experience with protected area projects, this is the most successful project encountered. In a period of only 2 years, the Project has established extraordinarily strong foundations for the effective management of the 10 participating PAs. This has demonstrated, without a doubt, the soundness of the Project's design, which should be replicated in other areas. This is a highly successful formula, which serves as a model of international significance. Because of the strengths that have been outlined, the Project has achieved the following impacts in the 10 participating PAs in a period of only 2 years: 1. Creation of a protected areas trust fund. The establishment and effective administration of a trust fund, which generates a stable and predictable stream of income, used to finance the management of 10 PAs, is a significant achievement. While the fund currently serves only a fraction of Mexico's PAs, it has the potential for expansion. It is a mechanism that has already covered, thanks to the GEF Project, its considerable start-up costs. It is a creative platform that holds considerable promise for a variety of financial mechanisms, many of which have probably not yet been identified. 2. Physical presence, management continuity, and effective authority in the participating PAs. The provision of basic Reserve staff in each PA is critical to effective management and the stimulation of associated planning, community participation, inter-institutional coordination, monitoring, and evaluation processes. 3. Less bureaucracy. The physical presence of the DR in the proximity of the PA, which was not the case before the Project, has reduced bureaucracy. Now practical decisions are taken on the spot. As told to the Team by local actors, their concerns relating to the PA get resolved expeditiously. They support the concept of even further autonomy for each PA, though they recognize the need for national standards and consistent policies within the PA system. 4. Expansion of thematic and geographical coverage of the management programs. Project resources have enabled a significant increase in the proportion of each PA that is effectively managed, while at the same time enabling a greater sophistication and diversity of management interventions. 5. Greater local control over resources. There is pride manifested by local communities, associated with the effective management of the PA, which has led to increased local control over the resources that are vital to their livelihoods. They openly admit that previously chaos reigned with anyone, including outside interests, allowed to over-exploit their resources. Several community leaders commented that they were grateful to have PA staff as allies who assist them in resisting destructive outside interests. 6. Laws and regulations are increasingly respected. Community leaders that were interviewed attest to the fact the proportion of illegal resource use taking place is diminishing in their areas, thanks to the regular presence of PA staff and the number of local resource users that work with them. These community members often act to denounce or prevent illegal resource use and prevent the surreptitious activities of outsiders. 7. Promotion, development, and maintenance of integrated management approaches that combine sound resource management, community development, and coordination of the activities of a complex range of actors. This too has been made possible because of the regular presence of PA staff in the area. Management processes are complex and require consistency, predictability, and at least minimal financial resources. These basic elements are now available thanks to the Project. 8. Increased maturity and professionalism of management. Because project inputs arrive in the Reserves consistently, and at regular intervals, it is now possible to plan, hire and train auxiliary staff, learn from experience, and work with communities, other government agencies, academia, NGOs and the private sector on a sustainable, long-term basis. This enables relationships to be consolidated, processes to mature, and confidence to be established. 9. Penetration of the PA into local dynamics. Thanks to their stable physical presence, it has been possible in many instances for Reserve staff to become a vital part of the community, entering into local dynamics. In most cases, this has not been easy, and in others is still incipient. Staff have certainly paid their entrance dues having had to deal with many immediate community needs which are little related to conservation. Yet an effective sharing of agendas, a willingness to listen, and a good neighbor attitude are important prerequisites for being taken seriously and becoming part of local dynamics. 10. Local advice and technical information in the hands of the community. Informants recognize that thanks to the PA, today work is in progress (research and applied studies) that provides the communities with essential information that significantly improves the quality of local decision-making processes. Communities have requested, and received, advice from PA staff, and those they bring to the Reserve to help out with matters of critical interest. Several community leaders proudly point to the fact that the "reserve" has been there to provide council when needed. Examples include calculations of allowable harvest or carrying capacities (shellfish, fibers used in basketry, timber, big horn sheep, deer, grazing, butterflies, viewing of charismatic species by tourists, agricultural rotations), marketing studies, testing of non-traditional resource uses, weighing of resource use options, and identification of personal contacts in critical agencies, to name just a few. 11. Management programs are developed through analysis, the use of the logical framework, consensus building among stakeholders, and careful monitoring, evaluation, feedback, and adjustment based on verifiable indicators. 12. Community participation is practiced in a great variety of forms. The most common form is through the formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of those programs and projects that are of greatest interest to the major stakeholder groups, and secondarily through participation in the TACs. 13. Increase in the number and quality of development projects and other forms of support, growth of local economies, and increases in employment. Though the degree of increase in these factors is highly variable between PAs, important successes can already be observed after only 2 years of Project operation. Perhaps the most spectacular are the tripling of the sustainable harvest of shellfish, and the opening of a well-managed sport trophy hunting program for big horn sheep, producing an average annual income to the community of US$100,000, both in the Vizcaíno Reserve; and the conversion of agricultural plots in the Montes Azules Reserve from 3 year production / 15 years fallow cycles to permanent cropping on a sustainable basis. 14. Effective grassroots coordination of the inputs and support provided by a variety of sources (federal, state, and local governments; NGOs, communities, academia, grassroots organizations, private sector, interested individuals, etc.) for the PA management programs and the sustainable development of its human population. 15. Significant reduction in the degradation of natural resources, destructive resource use practices, forest fires, and illegal activities. Community leaders recognize that this is due in great part to PA management programs, and the regular presence of PA staff in the area. Many of the destructive practices happened because of ignorance and a lack of alternatives, and PA staff have been effective in pointing out the negative consequences of destructive practices and in assisting in finding viable, more productive, long-term alternatives. Perhaps the most noteworthy achievement is in fire control. PA staff, in many Reserves, have given priority to fire control campaigns, finding alternatives to slash and burn agriculture, pointing out the destructive consequences of the use of fire for land clearing and weed control, and organizing fire suppression crews. As a result, there has been a significant reduction in both the number and extent of forest fires. 16. Rehabilitation of degraded areas. Many areas degraded by forest fires, agriculture, or livestock grazing are being reforested. Many communities now have experience with reforestation techniques and have their own nurseries. Because of this, the survival rate of transplanted seedlings is increasing, as is the percent of coverage. Most communities are now reforesting with native species. Some communities have decided, through interaction with PA staff, to leave fallow areas that are degraded, but that could be restored to agricultural use with appropriate techniques, such as the used of "green manures". Other communities have decided to create their own community "ecological reserves" or "restoration zones". 17. Learning communities. The Project has provided opportunities for the sharing of experiences among the staff of the PA System. The best example is the periodic meetings of the DRs, which present an excellent venue for the sharing of experiences, approaches, and techniques and to participate in short courses. The Project has also stimulated and/or enabled other learning communities such as the Reserve administrative assistants, the NGO group that supports the Reserves, the work of the FMCN internationally to establish a network of environmental funds, horizontal cooperation among communities, etc. This summary of Project strengths and impacts takes up little space in the report. However, the significance of the Project's achievements should not be underestimated. The strengths and impacts listed above are truly impressive for a project of only 2 years old. They also indicate that FANP has had a real impact on the protected areas of Mexico, and should be supported by future projects. B. Aspects that Could be Improved Although the Project has been astounding success until now, there are always aspects that can be perfected, especially as management processes mature. The Evaluation Team suggests that the following elements be analyzed and improved: 1. The need to better articulate at the national level the norms, criteria, and standards, and their associated indicators, that define effective management of a PA, bring together lessons learned, and provide benchmarks for measuring performance. However --- it is essential to recognize the creativity of the DRs who have, with relatively little guidance, produced rather extraordinary advances in management of their PAs. Thus, great care must be exercised to not introduce rigidities into the system or over-technify management. Good management is a mixture of art, science, and technology. The artistic dimension is particularly fragile, and can too easily be suffocated by bureaucracy and rigidity. The challenge, therefore, is to articulate sound standards at the national level, while giving maximum latitude for creativity, at the Reserve level, in achieving those standards. 3. Discontinuous processes of field supervision by the WB and CC that have sometimes made it difficult to maintain a relatively consistent approach to the Project, and to the prioritization of aspects requiring closest attention. The relative lack of national standards has meant that field supervision tends to turn more on personal opinion than institutional criteria, and it is more difficult to capture lessons learned. There may also be a need to adjust reporting procedures somewhat so that findings, and decisions on required follow-up, are better institutionalized by the partner organizations, and acted upon. This appears, however, to be less of a problem today than during the startup phase of the Project. 4. Build in administrative flexibility and develop mixed structures. It is clear today that management of a protected area is a complex undertaking requiring the inputs from, and coordination of, a host of actors from a wide variety of sectors (governments, private, NGOs, academia, communities, etc.). Yet many of the administrative and bureaucratic structures existing today were not designed for flexibility or to enable cooperation, and even fewer permit a flow of personnel, funds, and responsibilities from one to another. Yet this is what is needed as demonstrated by the arrangements required for this Project. Thus, as new administrative structures are designed, and opportunities are presented to redesign old ones, it will be necessary to build in flexibility, and where possible, to create mixed structures that allow easy participation by a range of actors. This will be especially important when developing local and regional structures for revenue generation and the administration of funds. 5. Insufficient mechanisms for supporting collective learning, feedback, and redesign of management approaches based on the rich and varied field experiences of the Project. 6. A general tendency to perceive the incipient public visitation to the PAs as a threat, rather than an extraordinary opportunity to communicate directly with public on the importance of PAs and the man / nature relationship, and for revenue generation. 7, A segmented vision of the natural and human systems of the PAs and their zones of influence, and insufficient use of the tools of ecosystem and social analysis to identify sites, leaders, groups, flows, and processes critical to management, and to communicate the technical fundamentals that support management priorities. 8. The generalized but erroneous perception that the TACs must approve by unanimity the AOPs for each PA. It is a perception that feeds the dynamic of converting the function of the TAC from that of an advisory entity to that of a policy- making body. 9. Re-conceptualization of the IPDPs so that they serve as an instrument for focusing on marginalized groups in general. 10. The need to develop, and make more accessible, greater fiscal and economic incentives for the owners of lands within the PAs to encourage them to dedicate their lands to the conservation of natural ecosystems. 11. A rudimentary infrastructure which does not provide sufficient support to PA field management, resulting in difficulties and inefficiencies for staff. It needs to be underlined, however, that these aspects of the Project that could benefit from improvement do not appear to have significantly affected Project performance. As a result, these points should be taken as observations which are not of major significance, but which may merit consideration and improvement. C. Lessons Learned By far, the most important lesson to date is that the design of the restructured Project has proved to be highly successful. The critical elements of this design (as it exists today) are: Decisive government support at multiple levels. A mixed structure that maximizes the combined benefits of a basic staff in each PA, paid by government; a privately held trust fund that generates a relatively stable stream of interest that covers the basic operational costs of the participating PAs; NGOs that contract auxiliary personal and administer the PA operating funds contributed by the Project; and Project supervision by both international and national entities. Effective and decisive collaboration, at the personal level, between the leaders of the institutions participating in the Project. There is a tendency to want to innovate and prove new models. However, the model established for this Project has been highly successful, under present conditions, and it seems logical to promote its replication and extension. Project experience also can contribute to the practical redefinition or re-conceptualization of theoretical concepts used by GEF. Perhaps it is useful to reflect on Project experience related to the following: 1. Incremental cost: Normally incremental cost is understood as the difference in cost between what is required to realize global objectives, and the normal cost of meeting national and local objectives. However, in practice, that difference does not exist because the Project itself has a catalytic effect. By creating a new and practical model for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and by this means combating poverty, the Project has attracted a host of other entities that collectively contribute more than the GEF Project itself. Thus, in practice, the incremental cost has turned out to be the cost of creating a new model and catalyzing support for its implementation. 2. Community participation: Participation can take a variety of forms, but it is most useful when it is informed participation that is related to vital interests of the participants. The Project demonstrates that informed participation in relation to vital interests can be effectively achieved when the communities participate at all stages (formulation, implementation, evaluation, feedback, reformulation) of projects that seek to meet their critical needs through sustainable approaches. The evidence seems to indicate that this project approach is a more meaningful form of participation than the TAC approach, though both are useful. 3. Mainstreaming (the insertion of biodiversity management, or the broader concept of sustainable development, into the regular programs of the spectrum of social actors). Actions to implement the concept of mainstreaming can originate from pressures applied either at the top (supply) or at the bottom (demand), or both. The tendency seems to be to focus at the top; that is, to implement mainstreaming concepts through inter-institutional agreements, inputs into planning, cooperative projects, and the like. However, this Project is a good example of the bottom-up approach, which is more direct, more focused, and more specific, but of course is less broad. 4. Empowerment: This Project is an excellent example of how a process of natural resource management (conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity) can be an effective vehicle for empowering communities in the struggle against poverty. The catalysts have been the effective participation of communities in management of the PA, and the solidarity of PA staff with the communities in their search for long- term solutions to their most critical unmet needs. D. Looking Toward the Future 1. Political Change The Project has benefited from what many call a "political oasis" in relation to the environment. When there is a change of government, as will happen shortly in Mexico, there can never be guarantees of continuity. Thus there is always concern, or in other instances hope, for what the next administration might bring. However, the Project operates in a context that would seem to favor a continuation of the priority consideration it deserves. Elements that would favor continuity include: 1. The growing participation of civil society in the definition of, and follow-up to, public policies regarding PAs, especially regarding the design of projects and the determination of priorities. Evidence of this includes CONANP, the National and Regional Councils for Sustainable Development, the role of NGOs in support of PAs, and the TACs in each Reserve. 2. The resources managed by FANP are now privately held, even though they originally came from Government. 3. The General Law on Ecological Balance and Protection of the Environment (LGEEPA) has been enacted and soon the regulations on PAs will establish a stronger and more detailed legal base for management of these areas. 4. There is a growing tendency in government to base decisions on technical criteria. 5. Through this Project, Mexico has acquired both international obligations and a positive foreign image, and both would need the attention of the new government. 2. FANP Listing the principle Project strengths, impacts, and elements needing improvement inevitably leads to consideration of what the future might bring. The effectiveness of the basic Project design and the capacity of the participating institutions is evident. Thus, it is apparent that the current move to consider a follow-up project is fully warranted. In designing this follow-up project, it is recommended to take into account the following elements: 1. strategic considerations: retain the key elements of the current project design such as the provision of basic staff by the GOM, and use of the FANP trust fund mechanism, with the interest being used to support PA operations over the long-term; recognize the value of the lands of local communities that are dedicated to conservation as a counterpart contribution of the community to the Project; develop a simple set of national standards and criteria, with their related verifiable indicators, in order to define with clarity, and institutionalize, "best practice" for effective PA management.; Institutionalize communities of learning and the training of personnel of the PAs by developing a web site that will give access to training courses and materials, news and information of common interest, technical bibliographies, and access to key documents; and, articulate the management of each PA with regional planning efforts. 2. operational considerations: designate a portion of the GEF funds for the co-financing of projects with other donors; include in the monitoring system for the Project a quantification of the inputs contributed from other sources; include provisions to develop in each PA, according to each one's particular characteristics, mechanisms for revenue generation and administration; earmark funds to develop, perhaps through CONANP, a "Conservation Service of Mexico", a voluntary system for establishing guidelines for the unification of the conditions of service of employees assigned to PAs. Include resources to assist the PAs in (a) developing effective programs for public use, (b) establishing ecosystem and social analysis approaches for identifying critical sites, processes, groups, leaders, and flows; (c) communicating the technical basis for management decisions; and, (d) for significantly improving field infrastructure. It became apparent during interviews with World Bank personnel, that two subjects are to be given priority attention in the design of the follow-up project: community participation and mainstreaming. The Evaluation Team recognizes that these are currently priority issues for The World Bank that have been highlighted as a result of the lessons learned from previous projects. However, the Evaluation Team has not found evidence that these two themes are priority issues for the Project. In the 4 PAs visited by the Team, there was ample evidence of solid work on these two subjects. Of course, there is always room for improvement; but in our opinion, these themes do not merit priority attention. What we does merit priority attention, in our view, are (1) greater support to field personnel by facilitating the unification of the conditions of service of staff paid from different sources, and development of essential field infrastructure, (2) development of ecosystem and social analysis capabilities as inputs to programming, (3) development of locally suited mechanisms for revenue generation and administration, and (4) improved management of, and provisions for, public use. Finally, it should be noted that the DRs were of the opinion that future GEF funds should be used more or less for the same activities as now. There was the suggestion that future funds not be allocated to specific areas, but rather to specific themes (for example, Infrastructure, training, equipment, auxiliary personnel, revenue generation, etc.) so that the benefits could be spread across more areas. However, the Evaluation Team does not recommend the adoption of this approach. There seems to be a "critical mass" that is necessary in order for management to attain viability. How large that mass must be varies considerably, depending on the characteristics of the area. What is clear is that the current Project has assisted the participating PAs in reaching that critical mass. This would not be the case if resources were spread more widely. IX. PRIORITIES Many recommendations have been presented throughout this report. The purpose of this section is to order them somewhat, presenting only the most important and classifying them in terms of whether they are a concern in the short-term, or can be dealt with in the medium-and long-term. A. Short-term Continue promotion of a follow-up project that maintains the central characteristics of the current Project. Increase the continuity of Bank supervision missions by establishing a checklist of instruments to be reviewed, a regular format for mission reports, and review by new mission members of the reports of past missions. Discuss the issue of micro-management among the participating institutions so as to reach common criteria. Adopt the goal of promoting the taking of decisions as close to the problem as possible within the parameters of national standards and guidelines. Develop, through a participatory process, an Operations Manual for the CC. Establish a common framework for WB and CC field supervision. Within existing limits of staff time and budget, increase the frequency of field supervision missions by the WB and the CC. Improve financial projections and the stability of Project income by making a more realistic estimate of Project costs, and by diversifying investment portfolios to achieve a mix of currencies. Forgo the use of "bridging loans" from the FMCN so that the true effectiveness of the financial mechanism can be determined. Give priority for the use of GEF funds to the work with communities and other entities to develop solid sustainable resource use projects that can be funded by non-Project sources. Incorporate the IPDPs within a more generic concept relating to the development of marginalized communities. Send a circular to the DRs defining a spectrum of options for certifying compliance of the PA with the WB Directives related to community participation and indigenous people. Provide technical assistance to the PAs for the development of public use programs with a view to forming a public consciousness regarding conservation and generating revenues B. Medium- and Long-Term. Amplify the norms, criteria, and standards that define good management of PAs, and identify the related indicators. Articulate the efforts of the FMCN and INE in fundraising at the international and national levels with the revenue generation and administration measures developed at the regional and local levels. Support the PAs in the development of revenue generation programs at the regional and local levels, together with the development of efficient and transparent mechanisms for administration of these funds. Establish a voluntary type of civil service system (Conservation Service of Mexico) to unify the conditions of service for PA personnel paid by different funding sources, and enable the establishment of career paths. Assist the PAs in developing the tools of ecosystem analysis to identify critical sites, processes, and flows, and social analysis to identify critical leaders, groups, processes, and flows. Train personnel in the use of these tools to inform management decisions and to communicate the technical underpinnings of management decisions. Develop programs to promote and support learning communities through the use of a web page. Develop a spectrum of mechanisms to provide incentives for private landholders to dedicate their land to the conservation of natural ecosystems. Seek additional sources of financing to improve field infrastructure. Develop national standards for the design and construction of infrastructure that is in harmony with the PA environment. ANNEXES ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT A. Subject of the Evaluation The subject of the evaluation is the Protected Areas Project, established through Grant Agreement TF028678 of June 5, 1997, signed by the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature, the Government of Mexico, and The World Bank. B. Background In April, 1992, an agreement was signed for a US$25 million grant from the GEF to the National Bank for Public Works and Services (BANOBRAS), through the Government of Mexico. The grant was to support the conservation and sustainable use of the natural resources of 10 Mexican protected areas. As a result of project restructuring in 1996, it was recommended that the remaining project funds be used as seed capital for a trust fund, from which the interests would be used to support the annual operations costs of the Project PAs. CONANP designated the FMCN to be the recipient and administrator of resulting National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP). The restructuring of the Project included the establishment of a Technical Committee (CTFANP) and a small secretariat for the Fund within the FMCN, and a Central Coordination Unit (CC) within the National Institute of Ecology (INE) of SEMARNAP. This process culminated with the signing of the Grant Agreement by the GOM, FMCN, and the World Bank in June, 1997, and the transfer of US$16.48 million to an FMCN account managed by a previously selected asset management firm. The Grant Agreement is the guiding document for the Project and specifies the binding legal commitments of the parties.(SEMARNAP, FMCN, WB). The FANP Operations Manual provides a detailed description of the Project's operating procedures under three Headings: FANP administration within the FMCN, central coordination of the project by INE, and the10 PAs participating in the Project. C. Sources of information about the program Major project references include the legal documents, operating instruments, and analytical documents. The most important are: the Donation Agreement; the letter regarding the policies of the NSAP (June 2, 1997); the letter regarding the IPDP (May 14, 1996); the Operational Directive on Indigenous Peoples of the WB; the document on Community Participation in Projects Financed by GEF; the Rules Governing Functioning of the Technical Advisory Committees (May 8, 1997); the letter on Complementary Financing (April 30, 1997); the Complementary Agreement between INE and the FMCN (July 2, 1997), the Project Document (May, 1997), the GEF publication, "Evaluation of Experience with Conservation Trust Funds" of 1999; the 1998 audit; and the publication, "Notes on GEF Experience, No. 7" (GEF, 1999). The contact personas are as follows: International Affairs, SEMARNAP José Luis Samaniego GEF-UNDP Unit in SEMARNAP: Jonathan Ryan Protected Areas Coordinating Unit, National Institute of Ecology, SEMARNAP: Javier de la Maza David Gutiérrez Celia Piguerón Erika Domínguez Jorge Diez De parte de la Coordinación Central del Proyecto FANP: Concepción Molina The World Bank: Christine Kimes Luis Constantino Rafaello Cervigni Adolfo Brizzi Ricardo Hernández Jorge Franco FMCN: Lorenzo Rosenzweig Renée González Liliana Urbina Lisette Benavides FANP Technical Committee: Mauricio Ruíz Galindo Exequiel Ezcurra Deocundo Acopa Juan Bezaury Sebastián Poot Balam Jorge Soberón D. Key questions regarding the purpose and objective of the evaluation Who is interested in the results of the independent evaluation? The Evaluation and Monitoring Unit of the GEF; the Administrative Unit for Mexico of the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean of the Word Bank, as executing agency of the GEF; the Protected Areas Coordinating Unit of INE; and the FANP Technical Committee, FMCN. What needs to be known? The effectiveness of the project supporting the PAs program of Mexico. The independent project evaluation (the project is now in its second year of operation), will center on three key questions. However, it must born in mind that the impact of project interventions on the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources can only be measured over the long-term (greater than 5 years). 1. Are the Project Agreements being implemented? 2. Are these agreements adequate for meeting project objectives? 3. Do the project objectives correspond to the policies of the institutions involved? The initial project objectives area as follows (Operations Manual, 1998, section 10.1): 1. Conservation of the biodiversity of 10 PAs. 2. Sustainable use of the resources of the buffer zones in each PA. 3. Effective implementation of the Management Programs of the PAs. 4. Local participation in conservation and sustainable use activites. 5. Adequate financing available for conservation and sustainable use activities. These objectives and their respective indicators are analyzed in the 1999 Operations Manual, and in the project reports of December, 1998 and August, 1999, submitted by the CC, which lay out the system for monitoring and evaluation of the project. By when is the information required? An advanced draft report should be ready before February 28, 2000 and the final report by March 24, 2000. E. Evaluation Methods As part of the bid, interested parties will present a proposed work program that will indicate the methods to be used, especially with respect to the following: Desk review of background information. Development of criteria for the selection of the PAs to be visited (at least four are recommended). Development of a guide for the collection of field information; it should cover the methods for interacting with stakeholders in the PAs, possible sub-contracting of local experts, institutional support requirements (people to accompany the consultants, interviews, coordination). Interviews with the CC and DFANP as well as other project participants. Processing, analysis, and structuring of field information. Incorporation of the changes and adjustments in the draft report. Presentation of the final evaluation report. F. Composition, characteristics, and size of the evaluation team It is recommended to put together a team of from 2 to 4 specialists in the management of natural resources and PAs, social analysis, financial analysis, and administration. Preference will be given to evaluators who have the following qualifications: Experience in PA work in Latin America, especially with the conservation community, and related local communities. Fluency in English and Spanish. Leadership qualities and the ability to apply unbiased evaluation methods. Absence of conflicts of interest. G. Logistics It is estimated that 90 consultant-days will be needed: 60 consultant-days to visit 4 of the 10 PAs (5 day visits to each); and 30 consultant-days for desk reviews (prior to the field visits) and report write-up and presentation. The selection of field sites to visit will be carried out together with program personnel, based on the proposed methods, and with sufficient anticipation to plan the schedule and logistics for the evaluation. H. Reporting and formats The following sequence of activities is requested: Seque Activity When How/ Observations nce 1 Oral presentation of the After the field visits. The presentation .will take most relevant aspects of place in the offices of the evaluation. UCANP or FMCN with project personnel. 2 Submission of a draft No more that 2 weeks The report will be report. after the oral presentation submitted in electronic (before February 28, format (Word for Windows, 2000). 95 or 97) and in hard copy (6 copies). 3 Consensus comments of One week after the participating submission of the draft institutions on the draft report. report (SEMARNAP/INE, FMCN, World Bank) 4 Final report that takes into Before March 24, 2000. account the comments made by the participating institutions The final report should include: 1) executive summary, 2) purpose and objective of the evaluation including the key questions, 3) project background, 4) evaluation methods, 5) answers to the key questions and main findings, 6) recommendations, 7) lessons learned. A report of approximately 50 pages is expected. Annexes should include the terms of reference, work plan, list of contacts, literature reviewed and other pertinent elements. I. Budget A maximum budget of US$42,000 is available for the evaluation, US$10,000 of which is for perdiem. ANNEX 2: REFERENCES Adrien, Marie-Hélène y Charles Lusthaus. Autoevaluación Organizacional. Universalia. Asselin, Robert J. y Ana María Linares, Ruth Norris. Institutional Evaluation of FONAMA. Fondo Nacional para el Medio Ambiente, Bolivia. Enero, 1996. Banco Mundial. Minutas de la Misión del Banco Mundial del 18 al 28 de Marzo de 1999. ____________. Minutas de la Misión del Banco Mundial del 6 al 11 de junio de 1999. ____________. Ayuda Memoria, Misión de Supervisión, 31 Agosto - 3 Septiembre, 1999. Proyecto de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (FANP) CONABIO. La Diversidad Biológica de México: Estudio de País. CONABIO, 1998. Consultoría Educativa para el Desarrollo Profesional, Diagnóstico de Participación Social en la Reserva Integral de la Biosfera de Montes Azules. Enero, 2000 Convenio Complementario al Convenio de Donación al Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Julio, 1997. GEF. Proposal for Project Development Funds (PDF), Block B. Grant: Consolidation of the Protected Areas Program in Mexico. October, 1999. GEF Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation Team. Evaluation of Experience with Conservation Trust Funds. Global Environment Facility. November, 1998. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.C. Manual del Consejero. Diciembre, 1998. _________. Informe Anual, 1998. Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Manual de Operaciones, 1999. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.C. _________. Términos de Referencia, Evaluación Independiente del Proyecto de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. _________. Guía de Procedimientos Administrativos, FANP-ONG, 1999. Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial. El Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Notas sobre la Experiencia del FMAM, No. 7. Abril, 1999. Hockings, Marc. Evaluating Management Effectiveness; a Framework for Evaluating Management of Protected Areas. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Working Group on Management Effectiveness. Draft for Discussion, November, 1997. Instituto Manantlán de Ecología y Conservación de la Biodiversidad, Universidad de Guadalajara. Programa de Manejo de la Reserva de la Biósfera, Sierra de Manantlán: Puntos Básicos del Documento para Consulta. INE/SEMARNAP. Mayo, 1997. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Banco Mundial. Documento Preliminar, Memoria Taller de diseño del proyecto “Consolidación del Programa de Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México”. Xochitla, Enero, 2000 Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. Pautas para el Diseño, Monitoreo y Evaluación de Programas. Finlandia. 1997. National Research Council. Evaluation of Biodiversity Projects. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1989. PARKS. Vol.9, No.2. Junio, 1999 (volume dedicated to the theme of protected area managment assessment). Pérez Gil Salcido, R. y F. Jaramillo Monroy. Financiamiento y Consecución de Apoyos y Fondos en Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México: Estudio de Caso para 31 Áreas Selectas. Próximo a publicarse por el FMCN y otros. Price Waterhouse Coopers. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.C. Estados Financieros Correspondientes a las Áreas Naturales Protegidas (ANPS) al 31 de diciembre de 1998 Junto con la Opinión de los Auditores Independientes. Marzo, 1999. Putney, Allen. Manual de Monitoreo y Evaluación. Programa para Machu Picchu. Perú. Agosto, 1999. Putney, Allen y Lorenzo Rosenzweig, Victor Pulido. Evaluación Externa Independiente de PROFONANPE. Profondo para Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (PROFONANPE). Lima, Perú. Diciembre, 1999. Reserva de la Biosfera Calakmul, Programa de Desarrollo de Pueblos Indígenas. POA´s: 1998-2000 Reserva de la Biosfera El Vizcaino. Programa Operativo Anual 1999. Reserva de la Biosfera Islas del Golfo de California, Programa de Desarrollo de Pueblos Indígenas. POA´s: 1998-2000 Reserva de la Biosfera Monarca, Programa de Desarrollo de Pueblos Indígenas. POA´s: 1998-2000 Reserva de la Biosfera Ría Lagartos. Programa Operativo Anual 1999. Reserva de la Biósfera Sierra de Manantlán. Informe Técnico Cuatrimestral, 1 Mayo - 31 Agosto, 1999. _________. Informe Técnico Anual, 1998. _________. Programa de Desarrollo de Pueblos Indígenas. POA´s: 1998-2000 _________. Informe Técnico Cuatrimestral, 4 Enero - 30 abril, 1999. _________. Programa Operativo Anual 2000. Reserva Integral de la Biosfera de Montes Azules. POA´s 1998-2000 _________. Análisis de las reuniones del Consejo Técnico Asesor. (Documento elaborado por el personal de la RIBMA). _________. Temas expuestos en las reuniones del CTA. (Documento elaborado por el personal de la RIBMA). Sharpe, Christopher J. Manual de Monitoreo del Sistema Nacional de Parques. EcoNatura. Carácas, Venezuela. 1998. Sistema de Monitoreo y Evaluación del Programa Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.C. Octubre, 1999. Unidad Coordinadora de áreas Naturales Protegidas. Acciones para Fortalecer la Política sobre Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Gobierno de México. Instituto Nacional de Ecología. Junio, 1997. __________. Evaluación del Funcionamiento de los CTAs, 1997-1999. INE, 1999. United Nations ACC Task Force on Rural Development. Monitoring and Evaluation; Guiding Principles. IFAD Publications. Rome, 1985. Vásquez, Pedro G. Manual de Monitoreo y Evaluación de los Proyectos de PROFONANPE. Fondo Nacional para Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (PROFONANPE). Lima, Perú. Octubre, 1999. World Bank. Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity Projects. June, 1999. __________. Global Environmental Facility, Trust Fund Grant Agreement. June, 1997. __________. Mexico, Protected Areas Program, Proposed Restructuring Project. Project Document. GEF Report 16988-ME. May, 1997. __________. Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Projects. Junio, 1996. __________. Understanding on Content of Indigenous Peoples Development Plans for Purposes of GEF Grant 28604. Mayo, 1996. __________. Operational Directive 4.20: Indigenous Peoples. Setiembre, 1991. __________. Reglas de Funcionamiento de los CTAs. ANNEX 3: SCHEDULES Overall Schedule 13-14 Dec. Selection of field sites and logistical preparations.(National Consultant and DFANP) 05 Jan. Flight to Mexico City, Team Coordinator. 06 Jan Initial Team orientation by DFANP and the CC.. 07-10 Jan. Field trip to Sierra de Manantlán (Team Coordinator and National Consultant). 11 Jan. Literature review at FMCN; arrival of Financial Consultant. 12-15 Jan. Field trip to Montes Azules (whole Team). 16-19 Jan. Field trip to Ría Lagartos (whole team). 20 Jan. Literature review, FMCN offices. 21-24 Jan. Field trip to Vizcaíno (whole Team with the CC) 25-26 Interviews, Mexico City. 27-28 Analysis of information gathered, and drafting of preliminary conclusions and recommendations. 29 Jan. Interviews with Rafaello Cervigni and Renee Gonzalez; preparations for seminar. 30 Jan. Preparations for seminar; report writing. 31 Jan. Seminar to present and discuss the preliminary findings of the evaluation with key personnel from the WB, FMCN, and UCANP. 01 Feb. Return of the international consultants to their home offices. 02-10 Feb. Report writing. 11-14 Feb. Review of preliminary draft; preliminary draft sent to the FANP II Design Team. 15-18 Feb. Correction of the draft report; draft report sent to the participating institutions. 19-27 Feb. Participating institutions review the draft report and forward their comments to the Team Coordinator. 28 Feb. Team Coordinator distributes the comments to the other Team members. 29 Feb. Team members send their reactions to the comments to the Team Coordinator. 1-3 March Team Coordinator amends draft report according to the comments received. 6 March Final report sent to the participating institutions. Sierra Manantlán Schedule 07 Jan. Flight to Guadalajara; pickup truck to Aútlan; presentation of the management program by Reserve staff; presentation of the cooperative program with the local research center (IMECBIO.). 08 Enero Visit to Ayotitlán (Administrative Council and members of the Marketing Coop); San Miguel (site of densest populations of perennial corn, Zea diploperennis, soil conservation, patio gardens, etc.); Tiroma (community nursery and demonstration plot); Platanarillo (Artisans Coop, Eijido Leaders); el Terrero (overnight). 09 Enero El Terrero (Ejido leaders, sustainable timber harvest); visit to La Laguna (reforestation, fire prevention, occupied lands, public use infrastructure); return to Autlán. 10 Enero Wrap-up meeting with Reserve staff; pickup truck to a Guadalajara ; flight to México, D.F. Cronograma Montes Azules 12 Enero Flight to Tuxtla Gutiérrez; pickup truck to Comitán y Amatitlán.. 13 Enero Canoe to Nueva Argentina (Community planning, and project on agro- ecology, and alternative products); canoe to Amatitlán; pickup truck and cane to Ixcán.Research Station (overnight). 14 Enero Canoe to the Chajul Research station (tour of the facilities; research and conservation projects); pickup truck to Lacanjá (tour of resource management projects; reforestation and ecological restoration; presentation of Management Program by Reserve staff. 15 Enero Visit to Bonampak (Ecotourism Project); pickup truck to Villahermosa; flight to Mérida. Cronograma Ría Lagartos 15 Enero Mérida (meeting with Regional Delegate of SEMARNAP and Reserve staff). 16 Enero Visit to the El Cuyo Field Station (presentation of management program). 17 Enero Visit to the Río Lagartos Field Station(presentation on Projects; analysis of the TCA experience). 18 Enero Launch tour of the Ría with fishermen who have organized ecotours; interview with the owner and personnel of the saltworks; return to Mérida. 19 Enero Meeting with TAC members; flight to México, D.F. Cronograma Vizcaíno 21 Enero Flights to Hermosillo, Guerrero Negro; meeting with fishermen (shellfish program). 22 Enero Visit to the pronged-horn antelope camp (antelope program); Volcán las Vírgenes (Cave Paintings); San Ignacio (overnight). 23 Enero San Ignacio (museum); big-horned sheep camp (big-horned sheep trophy hunting program), Guerrero Negro. 24 Enero Trip to the Laguna Ojo de Liebre (grey whale program, saltworks); flights to Hermosillo, México, D.F. ANEXO 4: PERSONAS ENTREVISTADAS 1. Abarca Nucamendi, Adulfo Program Director, RIBMA 2. Abundes, Martha Wildlife Officer, SEMARNAP, Yucatán RL 3. Achoy Jr, Enrique Malarrimo Tours A.C., RDV TAC 4. Aguirre, Carlos Montes Azules A.C., Chajul Research Station, ENDESU A.C, RIBMA 4. Alcérreca Aguirre, Carlos President, BIOCENOSIS A.C., RL TAC 5. Alcocer, Ernesto Staff, RL 6. Alonso, David Ducks Unlimited of México A.C. DUMAC , RL TAC 7. Anaya Figueroa, Ana Luisa CONABIO, CTFANP 8. Antonio, Roman Staff, RL 9. Arce Zuñiga, Eufrasio (aka. Facho) Staff, RDV 10. Arcos Díaz, Gustavo Staff, RIBMA 11. Arellano, Alfredo Director, Sian Ka‟an Reserve 12. Arias Torres, Octavio Staff, RIBMA 13. Avila Hernández, Ma. de Lourdes Staff, RIBMA 14. Ayala, Jerónimo Livestock producer, La Laguna Ejido, RSM 15. Beh Estrella, Felipe Staff, RL 16. Benavides, Lissette Coordinator of Institutional Development, FANP 17. Bezaury Creel, Juan The Nature Conservancy International Program, CONANP 18. Bravo Alfaro, Fernando President, Ambas Californias Coop., RDV TAC 19. Bremer, Beatriz Laguna Tours A.C., RDV TAC 20. Brizzi, Adolfo World Bank, México 21. Burgos, Lorena Staff, RL 22. Casillas, Eustaquio Staff, RDV 23. Ceja Rodríguez, Margarito Small farmer, Ejido El Rodeo, RSM 24. Celis Vallejo, Fidencio President, Flamingos Tours SPRRL, RL TAC 25. Cervantes Bieletto, Odetta Administrative Assistant, RIBMA 26. Cervigni, Raffaello World Bank, México 27. Constantino, Luis World Bank, Washington, D.C., ex Task Manager 28. Córdoba Reynaga, Luis (aka. “colores”) Extension Agent, RSM, Cuzalapa 29. Cruz, Gerardo Forestry Technical Advisor, El Terrero Ejido, RSM 30. Chan Bor, Manuel Lacandón farmer, Lacanhá, RIBMA 31. Chan Bor, Rodolfo Staff, RIBMA 32. Chan Kayom Yuc, Juan Lacandon Community Council, RIBMA TAC 33. Chan Kin Chan Bor Kin Secretary, Lacandon Community Council, RIBMA CTA 36. Chan, Román Lacandon framer, Lacanhá 34. Chavarín Morales, Gilberto Staff, RSM 35. Chávez, Irma Administrative Assistant, RL 36. De la Maza Elvira, Javier Coordinator, UCANP-INE 37. Díaz, Gonzalo Plant Manager, ISYSA, RL 38. Domínguez, Erika Central Staff, UCANP-INE 39. Durán, Alejandro Staff RIBMA 40. Durand, Fernando Director, Ría Celestun-Los Petenes Reserve, TAC 41. Elías, Rogelio “Milpilla” parcel, RSM 42. Enciso Monjes, Juan President, El Sauz Basketry Coop, RSM 43. Enciso Montes, Javier Forestry Technical Advisor, El Terrero Ejido, RSM 44. Erosa, Guillermo Staff, RL 45. Esliman Salgado, Aarón Program Coordinator, RDV 46. Flores Guerrero, Manuel President, Ojo de Liebre Coop, RDV TAC 47. Flores Jacobo, Felipe Drip irrigation parcel, RSM 50. Flores Serratos, Dimas Basketry Coop., RSM TAC 51. Franco, Jorge World Bank, México 52. Frías, Ricardo Montes Azules A.C., Chajul Research Station, ENDESU A.C. RIBMA 52. García, Gabriel Staff, RSM 53. García, Jesús Federation of Cooperatives, Puerto Viejo, RDV TAC 54. García, Salvador Environmental Education, RSM 55. Gómez Méndez, Antonio Nueva Palestina, RIBMA 56. Gómez, Martín Program Coordinator, RSM 57. González Montagut, Renée Director, FANP 58. González Sansores, Mauricio Lacandón framer, Lacanhá, RIBMA 59. Graf Montero, Sergio Director, RSM, RSM TAC 60. Gutiérrez Carbonell, David UCANP-INE 61. Hermanson, Diana FMCN 62. Hernández Encino, Diego Nueva Palestina, RIBMA 63. Hernández, Ricardo World Bank, México 64. Herrera Silveira, Jorge CINVESTAV Yucatán, CTA RL 65. Hirose, Javier CIRNAC, RL TAC 66. Houseal, Brian TNC, Washington D.C. 67. Jaramillo Monroy, Fernando PG7 Consultants and FAUNAM A.C. 68. Jardel, Enrique IMECBIO, University of Guadalajara, RSM TAC 69. Jiménez, Mariano Ex Commissary, La Laguna Ejido, ex RSM TAC 70. Justo Jacobo, Miguel President, Indigenous Community Rural Cooperative Society of the Sierra de Manantlán, RSM TAC 71. Justo, Rogelia President, Indigenous People's Union, RSM TAC 72 Kantú, René Assistant Director, RL 73. Kin Bor, Víctor Lacandón, Lacanhá, RIBMA 74. Kin Kin, Román Staff, RIBMA 75. Kin Paniagua, Vicente Lacandón farmer, Lacanhá , RIBMA 76. Kin, Enrique Lacandón, Lacanhá, RIBMA 77. Kumai, Pedro Gonzalo (aka. Pataná) Staff RL 78. Leyva, Jesús President, Las Salinas Coop, CTA RDV 79. López López, Germán President, Commissary of Nueva Argentina, RIBMA TAC 80. López Portillo Vargas, Alejandro Director, RIBMA 81. López Vales, Gabriela INE-UCANP 82. Loria Cordero, Gerardo Staff, RL 83. Llamas, Juan José Staff RSM 84. Maciel Ibarra, Samuel Boat operator, Laguna Ojo de Liebre RDV 85. Martínez, Luis M. Researcher, IMECBIO; seconded to RSM 86. Massó, Antonio Researcher, SEMARNAP; seconded to RDV 87. Maza Trejo, Eustaquio Staff, RL 88. Méndez Díaz, Juan Frontera Corozal, RIBMA 89. Mercedes, Nadia Staff, RL 90. Migoya VonBertrab, Rodrigo Coordinator of Scientific Research and Monitoring, RL 91. Molina, Concepción CC 92. Monroy de la Cruz, Felipe Treasurer, Indigenous Communities Coop., Sierra de Manantlán, RSM 93. Monroy, Claudia ENDESU A.C. 94. Moreno, Arturo Economist, IMECBIO, University de Guadalajara, Seconded to RSM 95. Muñoz, Daniel PROFEPA Agent, North Pacific Delegation, BC 96. Murguía, Carmen Administrative Assistant, RSM 97. Navarrete, Alejandra Lawyer, SEMARNAP 98. Norris, Ruth Independent Consultant 99. Ojeda Manrique, Jesús Alberto Pescadores Unidos Coop., Laguna Ojo de Liebre, RDV TAC 100. Oliva, José Luis SEMARNAP, Yucatán, RL TAC 101. Ordoñez, Víctor World Bank, México 102. Ortiz, Sergio Biologist, ISYSA, RL 103. Pedro Peón Roche Director General and Owner ISYSA, RL CTA 104. Pérez Reyna, Karina Environmental Education, RIBMA 105. Pérez, Abelardo Farmer, Nueva Argentina Ejido, RIBMA 106. Pérez, Celso Farmer, Santa Cruz Ejido, RIBMA 107. .Pérez, Estario Extension Agent, RIBMA 108. Pérez, Manuel Farmer, Nueva Argentina Ejido, RIBMA 109 Piguerón Wirz, Celia UCANP-INE 110. Pizano, Arturo Staff, RSM 111. Poot Canxek, Luis Staff RL 112. Quijano, Mauricio Project Director, RL 113. Ramírez, Ruben Researcher, IMECBIO, seconded to RSM 114. Robert, Olivier Researcher, IMECBIO, University of Guadalajara RSM 115. Robles de Benito, Rafael Regional Director, SEMARNAP Yucatán, CTA RL 116. Rodríguez Ayala, Pablo President, El Terrero Ejido, RSM TAC 117. Rodríguez Meza, José de President, Platanerillos Ejido, RSN TAC Jesús 118. Rodríguez, Eduardo “Milpilla” parcel, RSM 119. Rodríguez, Gabriel Biosfera 2000 Sudcaliforniana Coop, RDV TAC 120. Rodríguez, Raúl Commissar, La Laguna Ejido, RSM TAC 121. Rodríguez, Rigoberto Community Council, El Terrero Ejido, RSM 122. Román Pérez Pérez Sub-director, RIBMA 123. Román, Tania Staff RSM 124. Romero, Marcela ENDESU A.C. 125. Rosenzweig Pasquel, Director, FMCN Lorenzo 126. Rubio Ortiz, José Ramiro Director, RL, RL CTA 127. Ruiz Barranco, Héctor Director of Operations, INE-UCANP 128. Ruiz Galindo, Mauricio President, FANP Technical Committee (CTFANP) 129. Ryan, Jonathan GEF Unit, UCAI-SEMARNAP 130. Sánchez Ramírez, Salvador Staff, RL 131. Sánchez Rodríguez, José Instructor, El Terrero Sawmill, RSM 132. Sánchez Sotomayor, Víctor Director, RDV, RDV TAC 133. Sánchez, Eugenio Araucaria Project, Autonomous Community of Murcia, Spanish Agency for International Cooperation 134. Sánchez, Gertrudis Staff, RD 135. Sánchez, Miguel San Javier Office, RIBMA 136. Sánchez, Oscar El Terrero Ejido, RSM 137. Sánchez, Salvador Administrative Assistant, RL 138. Sánchez-Cordero Dávila, Institute of Biology, UNAM Víctor 139. San Martín, Talia Assistant, FMCN 140. Santana, Eduardo Research, IMECBIO, University of Guadalajara, RSM TAC 141. Santiago Torres, Manuel Frontera Corozal, RIBMA 142. Serratos, Felipe Farmer, Platanerillos Ejido, El Sauz, RSM TAC 143. Sosa Escalante, Javier University of Yucatán, RL TAC 144. Tabasco, Melgar Staff, RL 145. Toledo, Héctor Federal Inspector, PROFEPA, seconded to RDV 146. Urbina Cortez, Arturo Staff, RIBMA 147. Urbina, Liliana Accountant, FANP 148. Vázquez Cruz, Antonio Nueva Palestina, RIBMA 149. Warmann G., José ENDESU A.C. 150. Yañez Soto, Ximena General Administrator, FMCN 151. Zadroga, Frank Independent Consultant RIBMA= Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve RL= Ría Lagartos Reserve RDV= Vizcaíno Desert Reserve RSM= Sierra de Manantlán Reserve TAC = Technical Advisory Committee ANNEX 5 RESUMES OF THE EVALUATION TEAM ALLEN D. PUTNEY P.O. Box 4046, Incline Village, NV 89450, USA Tel/Fax (775) 833-3626 E-mail: Allen.Putney@worldnet.att.net SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS: Three decades of experience in the management of natural resources in Latin America and the Caribbean working through government agencies, international organizations, universities, and non-governmental organizations. Special expertise in the planning and management of protected areas, conservation of biological diversity, and environmental funds. SPECIAL SKILLS: Program and project management Leadership of project teams Strategic planning Organization and facilitation of meetings and workshops Technical writing THEMATIC EXPERTISE: Natural resource management, especially conservation of biodiversity and protected areas Coastal zone management National environmental funds National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE: Andean South America Insular Caribbean Global Programs Central America LANGUAGES: English (mother tongue) Spanish (fluent in both written and oral communication). LICENSES AND MEMBERSHIP: NAUI Certified SCUBA Diver Private pilot licensed for single engine airplanes Member, IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (Chair, Global Network on the Non-Material Values of Protected Areas) PRINCIPAL POSITIONS HELD: '98 – Present: Independent Consultant Chief of Mission, contracted by the National Fund for Protected Areas of Perú (PROFONANPE), to lead an independent evaluation of the Fund, which was established through a GEF Grant and now administers funds from a variety of sources. The Fund is dedicated to supporting the management of protected areas and their surrounding zones of influence. This is the first independent evaluation of an environmental fund that has received a GEF Grant. 3 weeks. 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. Cnsultant 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 environmental non-governmental organization in the insular Caribbean; - responsible for all aspects of the development, funding, and running of CANARI, which had 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 is 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. '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. '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 („78-„97): 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; '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; '95 (4 days). Consultant to the National Parks Administration of Argentina to evaluate the impacts of proposed infrastructure projects in Iguazú National Park, 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 Peru 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 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). EDUCATION: 1970-1972: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, M. Sc. in Forestry. 1962-1966: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, B. Sc. in Forest Management. PUBLICATIONS: 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 Publication 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, guia 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 12.99 Name: RAMON Gabriel PEREZGIL Salcido Birth Date and place: México, D.F. 24/III/ 55 Education : - Biologist, Mammalogist, graduated from the School of Sciences at UNAM (Mexico‟s National University) (1974-1978). - Postgraduated studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, on Wildlife and Natural Resources Management (School of Natural Resources, Natural Sciences and Zoology Museum) (1979-1982) . - Further Studies at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, Captive Breeding of Endangered Species, Jersey, Channel Islands, U. K. (1983). - Further Studies at the Centre for Holistic Resource Management, in New Mexico, USA (1984, 1986). - Fellowship and associate of the LEAD Programme, the Rockefeller Foundation, LEAD International and El Colegio de Mexico (1995-1997). - Several short courses and workshops on varied topics throughout his professional life. Teaching Experience: - Has been full professor at the UNAM (School of Sciences) and other universities in Mexico (Universidad Veracruzana, Chiapas‟s State University ICACH, ENEP-Zaragoza, etc.). - Coordinator and/or trainer of several workshops and courses on Conservation, Wildlife biology , Zoos, Natural Protected Areas, Natural Resources Management, and Sustainable Development. Some of the most recent ones are: -with USF&WS (Protected Areas) 2 years, once a year. -with IDB & Universalia &IDRC (Monitoring and Evaluation) every 3-4 months, throughout Latin America -with IUCN-ORMA (Monitoring and Evaluation) 2 years every other month, in Central America. -with PG7/FAUNAM (Grantsmanship & Fund Raising) 3 times -with El Colegio de México (several issues) twice a year since 1993 -with FUNDEA and Ford Foundation (Protected Areas) 3 years, once a year -with U.Iberoamericana (UIA), UAM-Xochimilco and OPCIONES (Sustainable Development) 1 year -with REUTERS Foundation and IUCN (Ecology and Environment) first time. -with State of Morelos (Wildlife Management and PA) 2 years, 4 times - Founder and Director of the School of Biology, ICACH (Chiapas‟ Science and Arts Institute-University) - Has been invited to lecture-deliver more than 90 conferences on several issues and topics: Wildlife and Wildlife Management, Natural Protected Areas (Establishment, Operation, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, Policies, Status in Mexico and Central America, Diversity of PA, management categories, etc.) Mammalogy, Science and Research, Zoological Parks, Captive Breeding of Endangered Species, FAUNAM, FUNDAMAT, IHN, Cedros Island, Nature Conservancy, Chiapas, Grantsmanship & Fund Raising, Etnozoology, Sustainable Development, Biodiversity, Ecotoursim, National and International Conservation Priorities, IUCN, Species Survival efforts, Extinction, Conservation Monitoring and Evaluation, etc. - Academic Tutor of several students from Mexico and abroad, among them up to 39 students from the University of East Anglia (Norwich, U.K.) Research and Extension Experience: - President and Founder of FAUNAM, A.C. (Wildlife and Protected Areas Research Centre) - President and Founder of the Wildlife Research Laboratory of the School of Sciences at UNAM - Principal investigator for projects for the World Wildlife Fund and IUCN WWF/IUCN Joint Projects - Research Coordinator for the Institute of Natural History of the Mexican State of Chiapas - Deputy Directory (1985-1991) of the Institute of Natural History of Chiapas - Founder and President of the Board of The Chiapas‟ Foundation for the Management of Tropical Areas (FUNDAMAT) - Director of Terrestrial Flora and Fauna (Wildlife Service) at the Deputy Ministry of the Environment, SEDUE, Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología of the Mexican Government - Founder and President of Difusión y Ciencia, S. C. (organisation devoted to Science disclosure or dissemination) - Awarded Conservation Fellowship by The Nature Conservancy‟s International Programme - Within the IUCN (World Conservation Union) is an active member of the Steering Committee and the Executive Committee of the Survival Species Commission (SSC), regular member of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and of its North American Steering Committee. -Member of Advisory Council (Mesoamerica) of the Regional Office (ORMA) of IUCN, and also coordinates the Secretariat of the Mexican Members Committee of IUCN. - Co-Founder of the IUCN‟S Mexican Members Committee - Member of the Board of several conservation organizations in Mexico and several scientific societies and associations in Mexico and abroad. - Member of the Board of the IMERNAR (an IUCN member organization) - Member of the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Field Research (FFR) - Member of the Board of FUNDEA and Xochitla (Protected Area) (an IUCN member organization) - Former Fellowship and Advisor/Collaborator in Programmes of Conservation International in Chiapas in particular and Mexico in general. - Founder and Director General of PG7 Consultores (That has worked on projects for the Government of the State of Chiapas, Agrupación Sierra Madre, Conservation International, the Secretaria de Gobernación (Ministry of Internal Affairs), CONABIO (National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of the Biodiversity), the IUCN, the Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAP), the Law Enforcement Agency (PROFEPA), The Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN), the National Protected Areas Council, several private organizations, the Business Coordinator Council (CCE) and others. - Coordinator of the Programme for Biodiversity Conservation of the Insular Territory for the Mexican Government , Ministry of Internal Affairs (Secretaria de Gobernación) - Principal Consultant for the United Nations Development Programme for the launching of the Sustainable Development Network (SDN) in Mexico - Has conducted research on the Economic Importance of the Terrestrial Vertebrates of Mexico for the CONABIO - Member of the External Review Team (5 people) that conducted a Technical Audit of the Triennial Programme 93-96 and the international performance of the IUCN worldwide. - Research and Design Coordinator of the SIRENA (Information System on Wildlife Traffic and violations / transgressions of Nature Protection Legislation) for the PROFEPA (Law Enforcement Agency) -Served as a regular member of Mexico‟s National Council for Sustainable Development - Served as a member of the Mexico‟s National Protected Areas Council. - Associated to the “Leadership on Environment and Development” Programme. The Rockeffeller Foundation & LEAD International. - Director of the Private Sector‟s Studies Center for Sustainable Development (CESPEDES) belonging to the Bussiness Coordinating Council. - National Coordinator for the drafting of Mexico´s Biodiversity Strategy (in response to the international Convention on Biological Diversity) - Regular contributor of articles and notes for TO2 (Ecology section, weekly entries, internet information service), The National Geographic Magazine (Spanish Edition) and Conservationist NGO´s bulletins and magazines. Has served in a consultant capacity and/or provided specific advice to different national and international organisations, among them: - Birdlife International - British Council - Conservation International - Council of Agriculture and Cattle Producers COPAECH, Chiapas - FUNDEA (an UICN member) - GEF/World Bank, - Government of the State of Chiapas, - Government of the State of Tabasco - Hombre – Naturaleza A.C. - Indigenous Community of Ixtlán, Oaxaca - Interamerican Development Bank IDB, - International Primate Protection League - IUCN and its Mesoamerican regional office ORMA - Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN) - Mexican Institute of Renewable Natural Resources - Mexico's Business Coordinating Council CCE - Mexico's Federation of Conservationists Organizations (FECOMEX, an IUCN member). - Ministry of Internal Affairs (Secretaría de Gobernación) - Ministry of the Environment ; Natural Resources and Fisheries Ministry (SEMARNAP) of the Government of Mexico - NAFTA's Commission of Environmental Cooperation CEC/ CCA/ CCE - National Tropical Ecology Programme of CONACYT (Science and Technology Council) - Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, USA - OPCIÓN, S.C. - PRONATURA - Quintana Roo State Research Centre CIQRO - The Nature Conservancy International Programme - U.S. AID - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - United Nations Development Programme UNDP, - Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana/Unidad Xochimilco's Man and Biosphere Department - World Bank - World Conservation Monitoring Center‟s Protected Areas Unit PADU. - World Wildlife Fund-US - WWF-International He has authored 6 books, contributed with chapters (in over 10) and written several scientific, technical and educational articles. Has tutored and directed numerous graduate students. He is a regular or life member of 14 scientific societies and associations in México and abroad. Current Major Activities: - He is currently researcher and coordinator of FAUNAM, A.C. a NGO devoted to conservation related activities, and Director of PG7 S,C. working primarily on Research and Technical Advice on Wildlife and Protected Areas. José María Velasco 109 local "8a" Colonia San José Insurgentes Postal Code 03900 Mexico D.F. MEXICO Telephone:(525) 611- 2100 and 611-2340 Fax number:(525) 611 -2340 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org CURRICULUM VITAE Name: Karla Ceciliano P. Language: Spanish (mother tongue) and English Email: email@example.com Education: Bachelor in Business Administration, University of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica. Advanced student of the Certified Public Accountant career. Experience: August 1994 to date: Executive Director, National Parks Foundation (FPN). This organization was created basically to administer all of the donations given to the Costa Rican Government in the natural resources sector. Main duties: reorganization of the funds (approximately US$18 million). Establishment and implementation (procedures and formal reorganization) of the trust funds for the self sustainability of each Conservation Area. Assistance in the administrative and financial areas of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. January 1999 to date: dvisor to the Minister of Environment and Second Vice President of the Government of Costa Rica, Lcda. Elizabeth Odio, in the administrative and financial areas. January 1995 through December 1998: The FPN was the implementation office for the US$7.3 million GEF-UNDP Project (COS/92/G31/A/GEF/99) "Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Development of the 'La Amistad-Pacific Region' and 'Osa' Conservation Areas". I was directly responsible for the implementation of Trust Funds that could support sustainable development activities in the buffer zones surrounding the protected wildlands of the two conservation areas. These trust funds were established as "local banks" completely managed by the communities of the area. September 1998 through October 1998: Consultant for the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) for the "Identification and assessment of institutional options for the creation of a trust fund in support of a poverty alleviation program in Guatemala". March 1997 to date: Financial Advisor of the National Biodiversity Institute (INBio). July 1995 through November 1995: Advisor to Costa Rican Government on the establishment of the Central American Fund for Sustainable Development funded by the Global Environment Facility, US$ 15 million. October 1992 - July 1994: CEO of C&C Consultores S.A., member firm of Coopers & Lybrand International. Main Duties: coordination and follow-up of the works performed by the different service departments ( accounting, human resources, internal audit, financial advisory services, emerging business services, etc.) Between January 1993 and August 1991 I designed and implemented a complete reorganization process of the administrative and financial departments in the National Biodiversity Institute (INBio). Between September 1993 and February 1994 I participated as the financial analyst in the team which evaluated the results and achievements of the "Specific Agreement on Support to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Costa Rica between the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) and the Government of Costa Rica". Between May 1994 and August 1992 I was designated as external controller of the Swedish contribution to Costa Rica April 1992-September 1992: Chief Accountant, Inversiones Guanaranja, S.A., Commonwealth Development Corporation Investment in Costa Rica, orange plantation. January 1990-February 1992: Emerging Business Director, C&C Consultores S.A. December 1985-December 1989: Administrative Assistant, C&C Consultores S.A. CURRICULUM VITAE PERSONAL DATA Name: Rodolfo Roldán Address: Soler 3561 –2 H- Capital Federal, C.P: 1425 Buenos Aires, Argentina Tel. (Argentina): 5411-49637908 Tel (México): 5762-1311 –Messages 5785-0954 – “ Emial:: firstname.lastname@example.org Birth Date: 07-10-69 Birth Place: La Calera, Córdoba Province, Argentina Age:: 30 years D.N.I: 20.749.256 EDUCACIÓN University Degree -Bachelor in Marketing, Catholic University Postgraduate Courses - Planning, Negotiation, and Mediation of Environmental Conflicts - Training of Experts in the Management of the Environment, "Regional Planning and Conservation of the Natural Environment". Scholarship - Conservation and Managment of Wetlands, Ecological Aspects - Natural Resource Economics. Languages: - Spanish and english Specialized Courses (´97 y ´98) 1998- Political Marketing, specialization in “Electoral Campaigns”, Institutional Marketing, specialization in “Governmental Organizations” "Achieving Excellence in Education” "How many people can the earth support” “Europe: The New Tiger? The Shape of Tomorrow´s Global Economy” 1997- Fourth Seminar on Antarctic Research Corporate Image Total Marketing Selling services. Short Courses 1998- Wildlife Trade Natural Resource Economics . Environmental Policy Resource Evaluation by Satellite Biological Diversity of Argentina. Official Participation in Specialized Events 1998- -IV Conference of the Parties on the United National Framework Convention on Climate change, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Workshop: Biodiversity, Climate Change and Finance 1997- -Selected among 100 outstanding youth leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean by Univision Network, Miami to be part of the “Voices of the Future, Face to Face with the President of the United States, Bill Clinton”. -Member of the Latin American Delegation to the Global Youth Forum, Korea. - Preparatory Group, Conference on Climate Change, Kyoto, Japón. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1998-Diciembre ´99 Legislative Advisor: Commissions on Ecology and Urban Planning Legislature of the City of Buenos Aires Principle projects- -Technical and Administrative Procedures for Environmental Impact Evaluation -Toxic Wastes -Guidelines and procedures for developing the Law on Toxic Wastes -Inventory and registration of non-government organizations 1998/9- Consultant, Department of Natural Resource and Sustainable Development -Coordinator of activities undertaken within the Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – San Francisco Bay and Malheur, Oregon Refuges- and the Youth Program of the Department -Participation in the Exchange Program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Malheur Refuge, Oregon), March-April (1999). -Coordinator of the activities undertaken with the National Parks Administration in Iguazú and Nahuel Huapi National Parks as part of the "Protected Areas of Argentina "Contest 1996/1999. -Assistant to the Director of the Costanera Sur Reserve in: -Mediation of Environmental Conflicts, -Regional Planning. 1996/1997- -Consultant, Department of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development -National Consultation on a proposed National Environmental Fund for Argentina. -Coordinator: 1st Regional Youth Forum for Latin America and the Caribbean in cooperation with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) -Participation in organization of the Global Forum of Non-governmental Organizations on the Biodiversity Convention; and Environmental Management for the City of Buenos Aires and its Surroundings. Other Courses First Aid Methods for Teaching Swimming. Life Guarding Recreational SCUBA Diving Rock Climbing ANNEX 6 Organigram of the FMCN BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSERVATION PROGRAM FIRE PREVENTION IINTERNATIONAL CON - ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE SULTATIVE COMMITTEE AND FINANCE TECH. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE COMMITTEE GENERAL DIRECTOR CONSERVATIÓN PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT FUND DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTERNAL. SERVICES OP DEPT. ANNEX 7 - FANP DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES 1998 - 2000 (US$) 1998 % 1999 % Protected Areas 1,126,200 79.91% 1,249,507 74.66% 1 Central Corrdination 95,678 6.79% 126,180 7.54% FANP 134,883 9.57% 154,220 9.21% NGOs 52,623 3.73% 143,693 8.59% Total 1,409,384 100.00% 1,673,600 100.00% 1 PAs 1,221,878 86.70% 1,375,687 82.20% 1 Administration 187,506 13.30% 297,913 17.80% Total 1,409,384 100.00% 1,673,600 100.00% 1 ANNEX 8 - FANP ASSET MANAGEM ENT 1997 - 1999 (US%) MODEL 1 - - INCLUYE INCLUDES FONDO DE EMERGEN EMERGEN CY FUND CIAS 1997 1998 1999 Total 713 1,395 1,402 3,51 RequIreime nt according to Project Document(1 ) Amounts 3,96 generated by Salomon, Smith Barney Gain (or 45 loss) (1) Does not include national interest MODEL 2 - DOES NOT INCLUDE EMERGEN CY FUND 1997 1998 1999 Total 632 1,235 1,242 3,10 Requiremen ts according to the Project Document (1) Amounts 3,96 generated por Salomon Smith Barney Gain (loss) 86 (1) Does not include national interest MODEL 3 - INCLUDES EMERGEN CY FUND AND NATIONAL INTEREST 1997 1998 1999 Total 805 1,505 1,512 3,82 Requiremen ts according to the Project Document Amounts 3,96 generated by Salomon, Smith Barney Gain (loss) 14 MODEL 4 - DOES NOT INCLUDE EMERGEN CY FUND, INCLUDES NATIONAL INTEREST 1997 1998 1999 Total 724 1,345 1,352 3,42 Requiremen ts according to Project Document Amounts 3,96 generated Salomon, Smith Barney Gain (loss) 54 FONDO DE AREAS NATURA LES PROTEG IDAS MANEJO DE INVERSI ONES 1997 - 1999 (montos expresa dos en miles de dòlares) MODEL O 1 - INCLUY E FONDO DE EMERG ENCIAS 1997 1998 1999 Total 713 1,395 1,402 3,51 Requerimie ntos según documento de proyecto (1) Montos 3,96 generados por Salomon Smith Barney Exceso 45 (faltante) (1) No incluye intereses nacionales MODEL O 2 - NO INCLUY E FONDO DE EMERG ENCIAS 1997 1998 1999 Total 632 1,235 1,242 3,10 Requerimie ntos según documento de proyecto (1) Montos 3,96 generados por Salomon Smith Barney Exceso 86 (faltante) (1) No incluye intereses nacionales MODEL O 3 - INCLUY E FONDO DE EMERG ENCIAS E INT. NACION ALES 1997 1998 1999 Total 805 1,505 1,512 3,82 Requerimie ntos según documento de proyecto Montos 3,96 generados por Salomon Smith Barney Exceso 14 (faltante) MODEL O 4 - NO INCLUY E FONDO DE EMERG ENCIAS Y SI INCLUY E INTERE SES NACION ALES 1997 1998 1999 Total 724 1,345 1,352 3,42 Requerimie ntos según documento de proyecto Montos 3,96 generados por Salomon Smith Barney Exceso 54 (faltante) ANNEXO 9: FANP DETAIL OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURES, 1998-2000 (US$) 1998 1999 2000 Total Sources: Disbursement of investment, 587,208 0 1,310,797 (*) 1,898,005 Salomon, Smith Barney Interests, local accounts (7%) 0 0 91,756 91,756 Debt Swap 157,372 0 157,372 FMCN bridging loan 822,176 1,673,600 357,070 2,852,846 Total income (a) 1,566,756 1,673,600 1,759,623 4,999,979 Expenditures: Protected Areas 1,126,200 1,039,450 1,286,686 3,452,336 Central Coordination 95,678 66,121 126,180 287,980 FANP 134,883 167,27 198,788 500,942 NGOs 52,623 121,396 147,969 321,988 FMCN interest 0 0 783,234.73 783,234 Total expenditures (b) 1,409,385 1,394,239 2542857.73 5,346,482 Other expenditures: Emergency Fund 63,642 11,515 0 75,158 Labor Contigency 0 1,593 0 1,593 Total Expenditures ( c ) 63,642 13,109 0 76,751 Provisions: Emergeny Fund 0 0 161,000 161,000 Labor Contigency 0 0 96,986 96,986 Total of provisions (d) 0 0 257,986 257,986 Gains (losses) a-b-c-d 93,728 266,252 (1,041,221) (681,241) (*) It is assumed the in May 2000 this amount will be withdrawn for the investment which will produce an additional 7% in local accounts and that debt swaps will not resume.