Docstoc

PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM

Document Sample
PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM Powered By Docstoc
					   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: rpgs@prodigy.net.mx
                     perezgil@laneta.apc.org
                              CURRICULUM VITAE

Name:         Karla Ceciliano P.

Language:     Spanish (mother tongue) and English

Email:        kcecilan@ns.minae.go.cr

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::                       rodolfo_roldan@hotmail.com


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.

				
DOCUMENT INFO