Terminal Evaluation
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS)
Project
A GEF Grant to
Belize,
the Republic of Guatemala,
the Republic of Honduras
and
the United Mexican States
GEF GRANT NO. TF027739
Evaluation Team:
Claudia Alderman, Laurence Lechner and Karen Richardson
March 2007
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CCAD
Central American Commission on Environment and Development
GEF
Global Environmental Facility
GoM
Government of Mexico
ICRAN
International Coral Reef Action Network
IUCN
World Conservation Union
M&E Monitoring
and
Evaluation
MBC
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
MBRS
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System
MC Monitoring
Coordinators
MPA
Marine Protected Area
MTR Mid-Term
Review
NBRC
National Barrier Reef Committee
NC National
Coordinators
NGO Non-Governmental
Organization
PA Protected
Area
PACT
Protected Areas Conservation Trust
PAD
Project Appraisal Document
PCU
Project Coordinating Unit
PDF
Project Development Fund
REIS
Regional Environmental Information System
RSC
Regional Steering Committee
SA Supporting
Agencies
SAM
Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano
SICA
Sistema para la Integracion Centroamericana
SMA
Special Management Areas
SMP
Synoptic Monitoring Program
SPA Special
Management
Areas
SPAG
Fish spawning aggregation sites
TE Terminal
Evaluation
TNC The
Nature
Conservancy
TWG Technical
Working
Group
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WCS
Wildlife Conservation Society
WRI
World Resources Institute
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................5
Introduction......................................................................................................................5
Evaluation Methodology..................................................................................................5
Project Background .........................................................................................................6
PART II. EVALUATION RESULTS ...............................................................................8
Summary of MBRS Project Performance Ratings .......................................................8
Assessment of Development Objective and Quality at Entry ......................................9
Achievement of Objectives and Outputs by Project Components ............................10
Component 1. Marine Protected Areas .....................................................................11
Component 2. Regional Environmental Information System ..................................17
Component 3. Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS.........................................21
Component 4. Public Awareness and Environmental Education............................24
Achievement of Project Results ....................................................................................26
a. Relevance................................................................................................................26
b. Effectiveness...........................................................................................................26
c. Efficiency. ................................................................................................................26
Sustainability of Project Outcomes and Risks ............................................................27
a. Financial resources................................................................................................27
b. Sociopolitical. .........................................................................................................28
c. Institutional framework and governance. .............................................................28
d. Environmental........................................................................................................29
Catalytic Role of Project................................................................................................29
a. M&E design............................................................................................................30
b. M&E Plan implementation....................................................................................30
c. Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. ........................................................30
d. Monitoring of Long Term Changes. .....................................................................31
Processes that Affected Attainment of Project Results ..............................................31
a. Preparation and Readiness. ...................................................................................31
b. Country Ownership. ...............................................................................................31
c. Borrower Performance...........................................................................................32
c. Stakeholder Involvement........................................................................................35
d. Financial Planning. ...............................................................................................36
e. Implementing Agency/Executing Agency Supervision and Backstopping. .........36
f. Cofinancing and Project Outcomes and Sustainability. .......................................37
g. Delays and Project Outcomes and Sustainability. ................................................37
h. Relationship with other Actors and Projects in the Region. ................................38
Lessons Learned.............................................................................................................39
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................40
3
PART III. ANNEXES...................................................................................................45
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the Terminal Evaluation of the MBRS ....................45
Annex 2: GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria .................................................................52
Annex 3: Professional qualifications of the TE team ....................................................58
Annex 4: Sites visited and individuals interviewed .......................................................72
Annex 5: Project documents reviewed by the TE team .................................................75
Annex 6: Performance Indicators ..................................................................................78
Annex 7: Map of the MBRS Project area. .....................................................................89
Annex 8: Component 1. Marine Protected Areas .........................................................91
Annex 9: Component 2. Regional Environmental Information System .......................98
Annex 10: Component 3. Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS ..........................105
Annex 11: Component 4. Public Awareness and Environmental Education...............112
Annex 12: Joint Investments and Synergies .................................................................114
Annex 13: Photos of Visitor Centers ............................................................................117
4
Terminal Evaluation (TE)
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Project
PART I. BACKGROUND
Introduction
The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) requires that all World Bank-implemented projects
nearing completion undergo an independent Terminal Evaluation (TE) to determine the
degree of achievement of project goals and objectives, gaps in project execution, outcomes,
difficulties, sustainability and lessons learned.
To this end, an evaluation team comprised of Ms. Claudia Alderman, Mr. Lawrence Lechner
and Dr. Karen Richardson, hired under contract to the firm "Protected Area Management
Services" carried out the TE of the project named Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, referred hereafter as the MBRS Project. This report
summarizes the findings of the TE team.
Evaluation Methodology
The TE was conducted as per Terms of Reference issued by the Project Coordinating Unit
(PCU) of the MBRS Project on December 4, 2006, and in accordance with the guidelines set
forth by the Evaluation Office of the GEF (February, 2006) and the "Draft Guidelines for
Implementing and Executing Agencies to Conduct Terminal Evaluations" (as of November
26th, 2006). The Terms of Reference for this evaluation, and the GEF TE rating criteria are
found in Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively. The professional qualifications of the TE team
are found in Annex 3.
The TE team traveled to Belize from December 6-12, 2006, and subsequently visited each of
the four participating countries from February 11-23, 2007. The team visited selected project
sites and met with a broad array of project and government officials, representatives of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), project stakeholders and beneficiaries. The team
visited all sites where the project had made major infrastructure investments. A list of the
sites visited and the names of individuals interviewed is found in Annex 4. The list of
documents reviewed by the TE team is found in Annex 5. The TE team evaluated the
achievement of project objectives and outputs on the basis of the Key Performance Indicators
for the project agreed between the World Bank and the CCAD under the "Amendment to the
Grant Agreement" dated April 5, 2005. The Project's performance indicators are found in
Annex 6.
5
Project Background
The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS), extending from Isla Contoy on the north of the
Yucatan Peninsula to the Bay Islands of Honduras, includes the second longest barrier reef
system in the world. The MBRS contributes to the stabilization and protection of coastal
landscapes, maintenance of coastal water quality, and serves as breeding and feeding grounds for
marine mammals, reptiles, fish and invertebrates, many of which are of commercial importance.
The MBRS is also of immense socio-economic significance, providing employment and a source
of income to an estimated one million people living in the adjacent coastal areas.
The goal of the MBRS Project was to enhance protection of the unique and vulnerable marine
ecosystems comprising the MBRS, and to assist the countries of Belize, Guatemala, Honduras
and Mexico to strengthen and coordinate national policies, regulations, and institutional
arrangements for the conservation and sustainable use of this global public good. The MBRS
Project became effective on November 30, 2001, and has a revised closing date of June 30, 2007.
A map of the project area is found in Annex 7.
The Project is near completion of a first 5-year phase of a 15-year Program to safeguard the
integrity and continued productivity of the MBRS. The MBRS Project is executed by the
Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) on behalf of the four
participating countries. Day-to-day Project execution is the responsibility of the Project
Coordinating Unit (PCU), located in Belize City. The Project is implemented by the World
Bank on behalf of the Global Environmental Facility. GEF grant financing for this project was
US$11.0 million, with co-financing by participating countries of US$3.2 million, and US$0.5
million in-kind contribution from beneficiaries.
The MBRS Project aimed to:
· Strengthen Marine Protected Areas (MPAs);
· Develop and implement a regional ecosystem monitoring and information system to
provide a synoptic view of the health of the MBRS and facilitate dissemination of these
findings throughout the region;
· Promote measures which will serve to reduce non-sustainable patterns of economic
exploitation of MBRS, focusing initially on the fisheries and tourism sectors;
· Increase local and national capacity for environmental management through education,
information sharing and training; and
· Facilitate the strengthening and coordinating of national policies, regulations and
institutional arrangements for marine ecosystem conservation and sustainable use.
6
To achieve these goals, the Project consisted of four components:
1. Marine Protected Areas - Planning, management, and monitoring of Marine
Protected Areas and institutional strengthening.
2. Regional Environmental Information System - Creation and implementation of a
distributed, web-based Regional Environmental Information System (REIS) and the
establishment of a Synoptic Monitoring Program (SMP).
3. Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS - Promotion of sustainable fisheries
management and facilitation of low impact coastal and marine tourism.
4. Public Awareness & Environmental Education - Development of an
environmental awareness campaign and formal and informal education.
Activities under these components were implemented by experts from the four countries,
government agencies, collaborating partners, supporting agencies, other beneficiaries and NGOs.
The overall ratings of the project follow.
7
PART II. EVALUATION RESULTS
Summary of MBRS Project Performance Ratings1
Overall Project Rating/Outcome:
S-HS
Quality at Entry:
HS
Assessment of Project Results by Component
Component 1. Marine Protected Areas
S-HS
Component 2. Regional Environmental Information System
S-HS
Component 3. Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
MS
Component 4. Public Awareness & Environmental Education
HS
Assessment of Project Results GEF Criteria
Relevance: HS
Effectiveness: HS
Efficiency: S
Varies by
Assessment of Sustainability of Project Outcomes
outcome:
L to MU
Financial
Resources:
ML
Sociopolitical:
ML
Institutional
Framework
and
Governance:
L
Environmental:
MU
Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Systems
M&E
Design:
S
M&E Plan Implementation:
S
Budgeting and Funding of M&E Activities:
S
Monitoring of Long Term Changes:
S
Institutional Development Impact:
S
1 Ratings are as follows: HS=Highly Satisfactory; S=Satisfactory; MS=Moderately Satisfactory;
MU=Moderately Unsatisfactory; U=Unsatisfactory; HU=Highly Unsatisfactory;
L=Likely; ML=Moderately Likely; MU=Moderately Unlikely; U=Unlikely
8
Assessment of Development Objective and Quality at Entry
Rating: Satisfactory to Highly Satisfactory
The Development Objective of the MBRS Project was to assist the countries of Belize,
Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico to manage the MBRS as a shared regional ecosystem;
safeguard its biodiversity values and functional integrity; and create a framework for its
sustainable use.
While ambitious, this development objective clearly responded to the need for a holistic
approach to managing a shared coastal system. Although the multi-national nature of the project
added a substantial level of complexity to implementation, this regional approach was, and
continues to be, an appropriate and desirable strategy given the threats faced by the MBRS.
The MBRS Project was born amidst political support at the highest level and a formal strategy
for the management of the MBRS. In 1997, the leaders of the four countries convened in Tulum,
Mexico, and pledged their commitment to protecting the MBRS. A 15-year Action Plan aimed
at safeguarding the integrity and productivity of the MBRS was adopted in 1999. The project
was designed to help implement key aspects of this region-wide strategy. This connection to a
visible and highly credible political and technical effort meant that the project was launched
under highly favorable conditions.
Substantial effort was devoted to project preparation, which entailed 26 months of national and
regional coordination and consultations. Moreover, project design incorporated several
participatory mechanisms, aimed at providing technical input throughout the life of the project.
This preparation phase, amounting to US$1.2 million, was financed by several donors: The
Dutch Trust Fund I (US$360,000), The Canadian Government (US$150,000); FAO (who
financed a fisheries specialist); and GEF in the form of a PDF Block A grant (US$25,000), and
two Block B grants (totaling US$ 494,000).
As can be expected, some components were better designed than others. While the components
aimed at supporting key Marine Protected Areas and creating and implementing a Synoptic
Monitoring Program had a strong technical foundation and adequate funding, the component
aimed at providing "alternative livelihoods" and sustainable use of the MBRS was overly
ambitious and somewhat unrealistic, and the level of funding allocated was not adequate for
addressing such complex issues. In hindsight this component should have been an independent
Project with considerably more resources.
A shortfall in project design was not including some public sector entities responsible for tourism
and fisheries in the overall implementation of the project. These sectors have a substantial
impact on the MBRS, and a formal link to the project would have provided greater political
capital and improved the Project's ability to better coordinate key activities and outcomes.
It can be argued that the project should have focused more on addressing the root causes of the
problem facing the reefs. These include non-point source pollution, unsustainable tourism and
associated development. However, it is the opinion of the TE team that at the time of project
inception, such an approach would have exceeded the implementation capacity of almost any
project. The basis for regional cooperation, the data on reef health, the awareness of the
9
importance of the MBRS, and the capacity to manage such a complex task, were simply not in
place. The MBRS Project achievements and experience has only now established the basis to
make such an approach viable.
Given the high level of political support for the project, the soundness of the regional approach
to managing the shared resource, and the participative and extensive project preparation phase,
the Quality at Entry is rated Satisfactory to Highly Satisfactory.
Achievement of Objectives and Outputs by Project Components
The Global Objective of the MBRS Project was to enhance the protection of the ecologically
unique and vulnerable marine ecosystems comprising the MBRS, by assisting the littoral states
to strengthen and coordinate national policies, regulations and institutional arrangements for the
conservation and sustainable use of this global public good.
The project has been highly successful in achieving its Global Objective. The project catalyzed
international cooperation between Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico on a number of
significant conservation measures, regulations and cooperative agreements. Important baseline
data were established in a dynamic regional database for planning and management, and
protected areas throughout the region have new capacity to actively protect important cultural
and natural sites. Additionally, a highly developed and specifically targeted environmental
awareness program has brought new appreciation and understanding of the importance of the
reef at all regional levels, from school children and local fishers to ministers and policy makers.
Details and support for this assessment can be found throughout this report.
The MBRS Project is widely regarded as a model for unprecedented regional coordination and
joint management of a trans-boundary resource. Key achievements of the project are
summarized as follows:
1. Catalyzed the adoption of a common policy framework for sustainable management of
resources in the areas of fisheries, tourism and marine protected areas (MPAs) between three
of the four countries - Belize, Guatemala and Honduras, and adoption is pending in Mexico;
2. Fostered new mechanisms for coordination within the countries themselves via the National
Barrier Reef Committees (NBRCs), comprised of representatives from both the public and
private sectors. These committees provide a national-level mechanism for coordination on
coastal and marine related issues;
3. Established a regional monitoring system and a baseline for the status of key indicators for
tracking MPA management effectiveness, including biophysical and social indicators for
reporting on status, trends and progress in MPAs;
4. Established a comprehensive Synoptic Monitoring Program, including information on reef
health, seagrass and mangrove status, water quality and water contamination;
5. Developed and established a web-based Regional Environmental Information System with
over 20 institutions permanently contributing data to the system;
10
6. Strengthened management capacity in fifteen MPAs through the development and
implementation of numerous MPA training tools, the training of more than 200 park rangers,
infrastructure support and reporting on management effectiveness;
7. Harmonized primary and secondary school curricula in all four countries on the value of the
MBRS to the people of the region and to future generations, including training to over 2,000
teachers;
8. Organized the first ever Mesoamerican Fishers Congress to gain fishers' support for
harmonized policies and norms;
9. Formulated a Draft MBRS Cruise Ship Policy; and
10. Served as catalyst in achieving recognition of the MBRS as a region of global importance,
attracting attention and interest by numerous international actors.
Following below is a summary of the outputs, outcomes, sustainability and lessons learned for
each of the four Project components. Annexes 8 to 12 of this report contain detailed evaluations
of these components.
Component 1. Marine Protected Areas
(US$ 5.0 million; GEF funding US$ 2.5 million)
Component Rating: Satisfactory-Highly Satisfactory
Objective: Support immediate improvements in MPA protection and management while
increasing the sustainability of management efforts. Measure management effectiveness and
build capacity to manage through the development of management and operational plans,
trainings and infrastructure development. Improve regional conservation efforts through trans-
boundary cooperation.
Sub-component A. Planning, Management, and Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) played a significant role in the MBRS Project by protecting
important areas of recognized biodiversity significance from over use, degradation and
destruction. Additionally, the project built new constituencies for conservation around MPAs
through educational efforts, and promoted new opportunities for livelihoods that are compatible
with conservation objectives, principally through tourism.
The project successfully assisted in upgrading the operational plans of 11 MPA and in the
drafting of 4 new master plans. The project also produced a "Training Manual On Design And
Development of Management Plans For Marine Protected Areas" that can be used throughout the
region for new areas or for updating existing plans as necessary and carried out trainings for
management plan development, increasing MPA planning capacity throughout the MBRS.
11
The MBRS Project expended considerable time and effort reviewing existing systems for
measuring effectiveness and created a new hybrid system for use in MPAs, described in MBRS
Technical Document No. 5, "Recommendations for Monitoring Management Effectiveness in
Marine Protected Areas" (available in English and Spanish). The Project developed a suite of 11
biophysical and 8 socio-economic measures as well as an application methodology for measuring
management effectiveness. This is an explicit commitment to the adaptive management model
that seeks to achieve area objectives by responding to local conditions and changes in those
conditions as measured by agreed-upon measurements (standards). Identifying the relevant
indicators and then agreeing to standards has always presented a great challenge for PA
managers and planners. This was equally true for the MBRS team. Extensive review of many
effective management models led to the creation of a survey instrument that was distributed to
the target MPAs (Reserva Biosfera Banco Chinchorro, Arrecifés de Xcalac Reserve, Santuario
del Manati, Corazol Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, Bacalar Chico Marine Reserve and National Park,
South Water Caye Marine Reserve, Glovers Reef Marine Reserve, Gladden Spit, Sapodilla
Cayes Marine Reserve, Port Honduras-Deep River Forest Reserve, Sarstoon-Temash National
Park, Rio Sarstón Proposed National Park, Punta de Manabique Proposed Special Protection
Area, Omoa-Baracoa Proposed Marine Reserve, Turtle Harbor Wildlife Refuge and Marine
Reserve).
The documentation produced, and the process of developing a model for measuring effectiveness
in MPAs, are major accomplishments and represent significant project outcomes. However, they
do not necessarily translate to improved management effectiveness in the target MPAs and, as
noted in the document, neither the process proposed nor the measurement of effectiveness was
full achieved. It was only possible to make general assessments about the effectiveness of
specific areas and the state of MPAs in the region. Important information was gathered but at an
expense and effort that may not have been effective. The questions as to who should be
responsible for measuring effectiveness, at what cost and in what manner require further
investigation. The project did provide important insights and practical advice about measuring
management effectiveness for MPAs and terrestrial PAs. The report recognizes the high cost of
measuring effectiveness relative to scarce resources and staffing, "Given the average staffing
level of 3.9 persons in each of the 13 MPAs for which we have data (range of 0 to 7), and the
reports on their current responsibilities and funding (Section 4), it is clear that the human
resources are not in place to undertake even the basic monitoring protocol, much less the full
suite of 43 metrics recommended to be monitored. The managers are too busy managing to
evaluate their management effectiveness!" (p. 46) and suggests that establishing effectiveness
must be a long-term process that will involve greater cooperation of a variety of governmental
agencies, the private sector, NGOs and other conservationists.
It is important to emphasize that the entire concept of measuring management effectiveness is
unsettled among conservation scientists and practitioners. To say that we should measure
effectiveness implies that we can and this may not be possible due to the complexity of biotic
and cultural variables that influence natural systems. Equally important is the effectiveness of
measuring management effectiveness. As pointed out in the MBRS report even the most basic
efforts may not be merited within the constraints of extremely limited resources. It may be much
wiser to dedicate such resources to measuring the effectiveness of particular management actions
and using those results in the adaptive management framework. For example, if poaching
12
protected species on reefs is a major problem it may be worth measuring the effectiveness of
enforcement vs. education to determine which action merits resources or greater emphasis.
The construction of five multi-function buildings that serve as administration, visitor and
community centers as well as lodging for park personnel and researchers is one of the largest
investments of the project. Major investments were made in Bacalar Chico (Belize), Xcalak
(Mexico), Sapodilla Cayes (Belize), Rio Sarstún (Guatemala), and the Turtle Harbor Wildlife
Refuge and Marine Reserve (Honduras). See Annex 13 for photos of the 5 visitor centers built
under the project.
During the planning process it was decided that one basic design would be chosen and modified
as necessary for specific sites. This approach was intended to save design costs and standardize
construction details. Facilities included a multi-use room, offices, dormitories, bathrooms and
food preparation areas. Additionally, an interpretative trail was built in most areas so that
visitors could understand and experience the terrestrial environment. The project also supplied
significant amounts of furnishings, equipment such as computers, boats, scuba gear and
communication equipment. In all cases the management presence, capacity and effectiveness
were greatly augmented and strengthened by these investments.
The new infrastructure legitimized the MPA presence and has been a major factor in securing
grants, partners, and co-financing. There is strengthened governmental support for
interpretation, educational and enforcement activities as well as operational and maintenance
funding. Site examinations and interviews with staff at all of the MPAs that received
infrastructure indicated that the infrastructure was very helpful in maintaining management
presence, improving morale and providing the base for implementing management plans. This
was exactly what the PAD had envisioned.
It is notable that each MPA utilizes its facility differently. In Bacalar Chico the public area is
devoted to interpretation and has a strong tourism/education/visitor orientation. At Xcalak the
public area is more devoted to community involvement and public awareness, as is suited for this
site since it is located in the community. The center at Rio Sarstún provides a base of operations
for the managing NGO, a hub for patrolling and housing for staff, volunteers and university
researchers. In Sapodilla Cayes MPA the facility is jointly utilized by the Belize Fisheries and
TASTE NGO that co-manage the site. The Sapodilla Cayes facility is still awaiting educational
and interpretative materials.
At Utila, the Project provided a multi-use center based on the uniform design used in the other
sites. At present only a small part of the center is being used by the Bay Island Conservation
Association (BICA), the NGO in charge of the PA. The rest of the building is being used
temporarily as classroom facilities by the local school until May, 2007. Ostensibly this one-time
use will help build good community relations between the local community and BICA.
As is the case in most building endeavors, both the process and final product could have been
improved, resulting in a more efficient development process and a more functional final product.
A detailed analysis of the issues related to the construction, maintenance and use of the above
infrastructure is provided in Annex 8.
13
Sub-component outputs:
· Management and/or operational plans for 15 target areas;
· System for measuring MPA effectiveness;
· Target MPAs measured and rated as to their capacity for conservation activities;
· Significant equipment provided to regional protected areas for monitoring, operations,
environmental education and tourism management; and
· Major infrastructure investments at 5 protected areas.
Sub-component outcomes:
· Greatly increased capacity at national, regional and local levels for marine conservation;
· New constituencies to support conservation in the MBRS region;
· Greater NGO capacity and recognition locally and regionally;
· Major contributions to the protected area literature on the themes of MPA management,
community involvement and trans-boundary cooperation;
· Greatly improved morale and respect among rangers, managers and others involved in
MBRS conservation initiatives;
· Assistance with Belize National Protected Areas System Plan;
· Regional cooperation between protected areas; and
· Improved baseline data on protected area effectiveness.
Sub-component B. Institutional Strengthening of MPAs
The Project successfully carried out a series of regional training courses and workshops for
protected area directors, technical staff, rangers, and key collaborators from local and national
government agencies, collaborating NGOs, and local communities. One of the most significant
outputs was a series of bilingual manuals that will serve far beyond the life of the Project for
many aspects of MPA management. The Project, by undertaking these activities also developed
significant training and facilitation capacity for management planning, community involvement,
income generation and financial planning.
Examples include courses held early in the project in MPA Management Plan Development for
directors and administrators of MPAs, park management staff, governmental organizations,
NGOs and universities involved in management and co-management of MPAs within the MBRS
region. The training course covered zoning, environmental education, tourism, research,
monitoring, park protection and patrolling, and financial strategies, among others. A bilingual
manual "Training Manual on Design and Development of Management Plans for Marine
Protected Areas" was published and distributed throughout the region.
A Training Workshop on Income Generation for Protected Areas was held in Puerto Barrios,
Izabal, Guatemala in 2002. The workshop was a joint effort between the MBRS Project,
PROARCA/APM, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, WWF-Central America, and the
Nature Conservancy. Financial strategies were proposed for several MPAs as a direct result of
the workshop.
14
In order to promote greater regional MPA effectiveness, both a Southern and Northern Trans-
boundary Park Commissions were established. Commission meetings produced
recommendations on fisheries, tourism and Marine Protected Areas (MPA's) which were then
used to formulate regional policies.
The Project developed a wealth of training materials, technical manuals, environmental
educational materials and other books, pamphlets, curricula and co-management strategies to aid
MPAs carry out their activities. This body of material is one of the most important contributions
of the project and will serve the intended MPAs as well as the global conservation community.
The original objective was to have a standardized training library in each MPA headquarters and
ranger stations throughout the region. While the material does exist and most is available on the
Internet, not one of the MPAs visited had the library as described in the PAD. This is
unfortunate as the material could be quite helpful to managers, rangers, community members and
other MPA partners. Most of the MPAs visited do not have Internet access so the on-line
versions are of little use to them. Additionally, it would be quite costly and beyond the means of
the areas to reproduce the materials.
Sub-component outputs:
· High quality manuals and guides on MPA management techniques, training, community
conservation and involvement, and alternative livelihoods; and
· Trainings and workshops for rangers, fishers, community members and NGOs.
Sub-component outcomes:
· Regional cooperation between protected areas; and
· Increased capacity in multiple sectors to promote conservation in the MBRS region.
Sustainability:
Sustainability will be increased to the extent that management and operations are adequately
funded in the future. The plans and planning processes developed during the project should
improve the opportunities for conservation and future funding by demonstrating institutional
strength. Importantly, the infrastructure and equipment provided has elevated the status and
functionality of the MPAs qualitatively, in some cases increasing the likelihood of long-term
success. Several areas have leveraged their new status to attract new donors, volunteers, and
research partners.
15
Lessons learned:
· Determining management effectiveness is difficult, costly and time consuming;
· Models for determining management effectiveness developed for terrestrial protected
areas may not function for MPAs;
· Infrastructure and equipment investments not only build management capacity but also
build institutional recognition that can facilitate securing additional funding;
· Quality infrastructure (especially housing) can facilitate "buy in" to protected areas by
area personnel, locals, NGOs, researchers and ministries.
· "One size fits all" infrastructure design approaches may not be the best option, despite the
cost savings of making a single design for different sites; and
· Greater capacity to manage substantial infrastructure investments is needed than that
typically available in a small project management unit; short-term contracting of a
specialist with infrastructure experience may save time, money and produce a better final
product.
Refer to Annex 8 for a detailed assessment of this component.
16
Component 2. Regional Environmental Information System
(US$ 4.4 million; GEF funding US$ 2.3 million)
Component Rating: Satisfactory-Highly Satisfactory
Objective: Increase knowledge and dissemination of information relating to coastal and marine
ecosystem health in the MBRS.
Sub-component A. Creation of a Regional Environmental Information System (REIS)
The REIS was designed to consolidate and analyze data collected from various disparate sources,
including the synoptic monitoring program. The database was designed by national and
international experts as part of several consultancies and is well thought out, easy to understand
and is a good example of the high standards of project products. There is extensive
documentation on how to enter data, and attention has been paid to accommodate two languages,
different names for the same species across the region and different categories of species threats
across the region.
The oversight of not initially designing the database to be spatially explicit in a GIS format
possibly delayed the release of some of the spatial information relevant to the region. However,
the addition of GIS functionality in 2005-2006, greatly enhanced the future of the database and
its power to focus monitoring and management activities. The maps show key health indicators
such as seagrass biomass, disease coverage, presence of nutrients, and provide a snapshot of the
situation across the region. Data from the REIS will help provide status reports on the health of
the MBRS region to decision-makers and on-the-ground managers.
In addition, the website interface of the REIS serves as the gateway to all the MBRS documents
and technical reports. It is easy to use and is available in two languages with exceptional
transparency in terms of documentation. This is in itself a landmark for a large conservation
project.
Sub-component Outputs:
·
REIS designed and fully operational.
·
Web-based interface for data providers and users.
·
GIS-based dataset.
·
Public access to database;
·
Baseline and summary maps in JPEG format for 13 sites.
·
The Project has trained a total of 98 biologists to-date in the use of the REIS database.
·
Web-based, CD and printed format of all published material.
·
Documents:
User Manual for the REIS Volume 1-3 - June 2005
Database Design Documentation August 2005
Sub-component Outcomes:
·
First regional, public database on marine protected area information.
·
Essential tool to fill in information gaps needed for sound decision-making on natural
resources.
·
Greatly improved capacity to disseminate regional patterns and results.
17
·
Regional coordination of scientists and biologists.
·
Greatly improved transparency of data through public access to data
·
First steps to integrate data from the socio-economic monitoring program under
Component 4 (Public Awareness and Environmental Education) with REIS.
Sub-component B. Establishment of a Synoptic Monitoring Program (SMP)
The SMP was developed as a regional, multi-level methodology to monitor changes in
ecosystem health. It was designed to be comprehensive in terms of data collection, time frames
(short- medium-and long-term) and geographic coverage. The SMP methodology was developed
to be implemented by monitoring teams, consisting largely of a mixture of members from the
MBRS Support Agencies (SAs) (government, NGOs and fishers) in the four countries. A
Monitoring Coordinator (MC) in each country had the responsibility for supervising each
monitoring team. The MC then liaised with the PCU to update and verify data. The PCU
managed and maintained the database and created summary base maps.
For a decade prior to the MBRS Project, several attempts were made to establish a regional
monitoring program. When the project was designed, the goal was to streamline existing
methodologies and agree upon and adopt a region-wide program. The process for developing the
methodology appears to have been very consultative and assimilates most of the best practices in
comprehensive coral reef monitoring worldwide. It is tailored to meet the specific needs for
monitoring the health of the reef in the four countries involved. Four types of data are collected
at each site (site description, meta data, physical data and specific parameters) and the time
window (season) for each is well described. At each monitoring site, several locations are
included which contain different ecosystems so as to maximize the information collected. This
stratification is strategic and cost efficient and is based on best practice sampling methodologies.
The project also produced a well organized data entry system in two languages, with established
protocols for entering data for species that may have different names across the region. This is a
key accomplishment in itself. Lastly, the methodology covered both static and dynamic
measures of reef and ecosystem health.
The first summary of results, taken as the baseline for all future monitoring episodes, was
published in October 2006 in Linea Base del Estado del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano. The
report summarizes sites monitored and baseline data for each area of interest. The results for
coral reefs are comprehensive and clearly presented. Results for seagrass and mangroves are,
however, fairly sparse. Results for water contamination and water quality are preliminary and
not as robust in terms of temporal and spatial sampling. The lack of seagrass and mangrove data
is most notable in Belize, where only one site has been monitored. By 2006, 49 sites were
included, 13 of which received comprehensive assessments. Results for 2004 and 2005 are
posted on the MBRS website. Data for 2006 were released internally to users and will be made
public in early 2007. A full analysis of the SMP data is expected by March 2007, including an
executive summary for decision-makers.
Overall, the SMP would not have been achieved without the partnerships established with the
SAs, which, as mentioned earlier, included a mix of NGOs, fishers, and private partners, who
contributed generously to this effort. The SMP enabled synergies between disparate groups
monitoring different sections of the MBRS and supported the harmonization and standardization
18
of a monitoring methodology, which is, in itself, a considerable accomplishment. By producing
a simple method that was well documented, the SMP was made accessible to a large number of
people in the region and this enhanced its credibility. More data collection is needed for
seagrasses and mangroves, water quality and contamination data are needed also (as capacity is
built and effective partnerships for analysis are established). In the final analysis, the long term
usefulness of the SMP for management and decision-making will depend on continuing the
process of analyzing results on a regular basis and disseminating the information.
Sub-component Outputs:
·
SMP designed and under implementation;
·
Monitoring of 49 sites to date;
·
Comprehensive baseline data for 13 sites across region;
·
Results analyzed for 13 sites;
·
Basic field equipment provided to Support Agencies;
·
Training of monitoring personnel in Support Agencies;
·
Documents:
Manual Methods for the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program - April 2003
Linea Base del Estado del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano - October 2006
Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health September 2006.
Sub-component Outcomes:
· Increased capacity at national, regional and local levels for monitoring ecosystem health;
· Harmonized monitoring methodologies across the MBRS region;
· Increased Support Agency capacity to identify important indicators for coral reefs,
mangroves and seagrass beds, sources of marine pollution; and ocean circulation and
gyres patterns;
· Improved baseline and temporal data on key ecosystem indicators;
· Improved regional and inter-agency cooperation;
· Inclusion of baseline results in Belize's "State of the Reef" report; and
· Clear local ownership of the methodology.
Sustainability:
The REIS database is a `clearing house' for marine protected area data across the region. It is
well designed and comprehensive and with minimal financial support could deliver one the
project's biggest long-term successes. However, at near project end, there are no arrangements
in place to sustain the REIS if a second phase of project funding is not forthcoming. This
includes no arrangements for a permanent institution to house and maintain the database, and no
arrangements to continue the website that now provides an interface to data users. Additionally,
users of the REIS will require continued assistance over the next few years to ensure data quality
and entry into the system. Since there is a high turnover of trained monitors, training needs will
have to be addressed in the near to medium term. Part of this burden can be shifted to the SAs
over time, however this may be a gradual process. Lastly, the long term sustainability and
usefulness of the REIS will also rely on the uptake of data and clear strategies for data
transmission to decision-makers and on-the-ground managers.
19
The SMP has trained a large number of people in the SMP methodology. This is an important
outcome for long-term sustainability, as it has built capacity in the countries. The sustainability
of the program will rely largely on the SAs maintaining the standards they have adopted. The
local, regional and global benefits of the SMP are emerging as results demonstrate the variability
along the reef. These benefits will progressively increase if more data are collected.
The SAs have relied upon the MBRS Project to provide them with supplies and to store, manage
and consolidate data. The long term sustainability of the SMP is questionable without another
large contribution from either a follow-on project or another donor. Sites that are particularly at
risk are primarily the transnational ones that receive little or no support from other funding
sources. In the absence of a second phase of funding, monitoring of all reef variables is at risk of
being decreased or discontinued in all sites in Guatemala, and in Utila and Puerto Cortez in
Honduras. Monitoring mangrove and seagrass variables is at risk in all sites in Belize and in
many sites in Guatemala and Honduras. Most importantly, the monitoring of water pollution and
water quality, components that require a large amount of funding and analysis, will most likely
be seriously threatened. To date, Mexico is the only country that has benefited from a long-term
financial strategy to assist with monitoring. The Government of Mexico has committed a
significant amount of funding from its reef tax to the SMP program and recognizes the cost
effectiveness of monitoring in the wake of increasing threats including hurricanes and tourism
impact. The collapse of the regional monitoring program would undermine progress to date to
acquire a regional perspective of threats and recovery of the reef, and would hamper efforts to
target specific management actions to assist species and habitats facing serious threats, including
the Nassau grouper and critical mangroves and seagrass beds.
Lessons Learned:
· A clear plan to maintain and house data in the absence of long term funding must accompany
any program that gathers a large amount of data. Ownership and responsibility for
dissemination must be established prior to the completion of any project.
· Where it has been deemed that several different variables are critical to understanding threats
and patterns of decline or recovery, data collection efforts should ensure that whenever
possible, uniform effort is expended to collect data that are harder and more expensive to
acquire such as water quality and contamination.
· For projects that potentially collect a large amount of data, there needs to be a clear purpose for
the data and a seamless mechanism to transmit results to decision-makers and on-the-ground
managers.
· In regions where unanticipated events can occur rapidly, such as hurricanes or coral bleaching,
there needs to be local capacity (including emergency funding) built up during the project to
respond to these events and carry out rapid assessments of the situation.
Refer to Annex 9 for a detailed assessment of this component.
20
Component 3. Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
(US$ 1.9 million, GEF funding US$ 1.12 million)
Component Rating: Moderately Satisfactory
Objective: to support the introduction of new policy frameworks and management tools to
increase institutional capacity, disseminate key information and create the necessary
incentives for stakeholders to shift toward patterns of sustainable use of MBRS resources.
Sub-component A - Promotion of Sustainable Fisheries Management
Working with local fishers, researchers, and MPA personnel, the project identified
spawning aggregation sites (SPAWS) and established monitoring protocols for those areas.
Trainings and workshops, including the first regional workshop involving fishers,
community leaders, NGOs and agency personnel, moved the area toward consensus on
policy and best practice guidelines. Extensive trainings to promote alternative livelihoods,
principally carried out by local NGOs, built new constituencies and training capacity.
Sub-component outputs:
· Policy agreements and regulation standardization on gill net use as well as conch,
lobster and snapper takes;
· Agreement on seasons for lobster and queen conch;
· Four training manuals (themes: business management and tour guiding) that
contribute to sustainable tourism; and
· Training of over 300 individuals on various aspects of sustainable tourism
development and practices.
Sub-component outcomes:
· Groundbreaking regional cooperation on sustainable use of the MBRS;
· Policy dialogue between the four participating countries;
· New dialogue between fisherman and policy makers;
· Elevated profile of the importance of conservation of the Reef; and
· New constituencies for sustainable activities.
Sub-component B - Facilitation of Sustainable Coastal and Marine Tourism
This sub-component sponsored regional fora to establish baseline information and clarify
the current tourism landscape in the MBRS region. Several important policy guidelines
were developed including the Policy Proposal for Sustainable Cruise Tourism in the
MBRS Region and a Training Manual on Environmental Impacts Assessments. All
documents were produced in English and Spanish.
21
Sub-component outputs:
· Regional tourism fora that raised the profile of conservation and the environment
in regional tourism;
· "Training Manual on Environmental Impact Evaluations and Environmental
Auditing of Coastal Marine Tourism Operations and Infrastructure"
· A new policy proposal for cruise tourism in the MBRS region.
Sub-component outcomes:
· Elevated profile of the importance of conservation of the reef system;
· New constituencies for sustainable activities;
· Increasing involvement of the tourism sector in sustainability issues;
· Increasing interest of governmental ministries involved in tourism regulation
throughout the MBRS.
Sustainability:
The outputs from this component are sustainable if regional buy-in continues, and are in
turn translated into national regulations and policies that are enforced at the local level.
Because governments, regulatory agencies and private sector enterprises tend to be reactive
rather than proactive, policy and regulations that have been enacted under the Project have
been slow to show on-the-ground impacts. Nevertheless, these tools are likely to become
more relevant, especially in light of the alarming decrease of fish populations and the
increase of negative tourism impacts, both of which have direct links to economic
performance and public welfare.
The training manuals, policy statements and diagnostic methodologies prepared under the
Project will endure and make a significant contribution if used by those promoting
sustainable use of the MBRS. One area of concern will be leadership to promote dialogue
and cooperation after the MBRS Project terminates. Ideally, those trained, especially MPA
managers and agency personnel will fill this role. The outputs from this component are
sustainable if regional buy-in continues, and is translated in turn into national regulations
and policies that are enforced at the local level. Policy and regulations that have been
enacted under the project are likely to become more relevant, especially in light of
diminishing fish populations and the increase of tourism impacts, because these have a
direct impact on economic performance and public welfare.
Lessons Learned:
· Policy harmonization is complex, demanding and requires significant time and
resources to succeed;
· A thorough understanding of the labor and product markets, unemployment levels
and skills capacity is necessary for alternative livelihoods programs to be effective;
22
· Alternative livelihood promotion will succeed only in conjunction with limitations
on unsustainable livelihood activities (such a placing and enforcing limits on new
entrants to fisheries in depleted areas);
· Alternative livelihood programs will only succeed where there is political will and
adequate resources to enforce regulations on natural resource use, and violators are
consistently, visibly and fairly sanctioned;
· Alternative livelihood training is not likely to have the desired impact of reducing
pressure over a natural resource in areas of high unemployment because those
trained are readily replaced by others in the targeted activity and where large
numbers of persons are trained in a given area, that labor market quickly becomes
saturated;
· A wider array of livelihoods and skills sets must be considered to provide true
alternatives to unsustainable livelihoods and that may be beyond the scope/abilities
of conservation projects;
· Tourism management, as contemplated in the original project design, was overly
ambitious for this project;
· Involvement of the tourism sector is essential to tourism management but often
proves difficult as the private sector tends to be off-site, have little incentive to alter
profitable tourism practices and often possesses considerable political access;
· The tourism sector will need to be formally brought in to conservation and
sustainable development planning for the MBRS region--possibly with the help of
CCAD and the Regional Steering Group mandated under the Tulum +8
Declaration;
· Equally important for the success of tourism management is accountability on the
part of the public and private sectors engaged in tourism for negative impacts to a
common good, in this case the MBRS; and
· Involvement, support and promotion of NGOs can be a valuable tool for securing
public and private sector accountability for environmental services provided by the
natural resource base.
Refer to Annex 10 for a detailed assessment of this component.
23
Component 4. Public Awareness and Environmental Education
(US$ 1.5 million; GEF funding US$ 1.26 million)
Component Rating: Satisfactory-Highly Satisfactory.
Objective: To increase environmental awareness among a variety of stakeholders
and develop the human capital necessary to plan and manage the diverse resources of the MBRS
within a proven framework of conservation and sustainable use.
Sub-component A. Development of an Environmental Awareness Campaign
This sub-component created and fostered constituencies for sustainable reef use by working with
public and private sectors to increase recognition of the importance of the MBRS to the tourism
and fishing industries, as well as all those who benefit from the environmental services the reef
provides. The MBRS Project website is particularly notable as a high-quality source of
educational materials, scientific data, training and management manuals and Project information.
Sub-component outputs:
· Prepared and distributed more than 550 "Environmental Eco-tips" containing practical
advice for preventing pollution of coastal marine ecosystems;
· At least 1000 posters and 1200 brochures on cultures in the MBRS were distributed in
English, Spanish and Garifuna;
· Production of the Regional Strategy for Environmental Awareness and the Manual of
Graphic Standards for the institutional logo;
· Provided materials and support to other components of the project such as graphics,
socio-cultural data, and assisted in communication and outreach;
· Training for press chiefs in environmental ministries;
· Publicity spots on appropriate fishing techniques for radio;
· Numerous t-shirts, caps, posters and other promotional material to "brand" the MBRS
activities; local and regional TV and radio spots to promote environmental awareness;
· National Journalists Workshop to promote activities in Belize and Guatemala; and
· Innovative program to put conservation messages in utility bills.
Sub-component outcomes:
· Greatly elevated the profile of the MBRS at national, regional and institutional levels;
· Created new constituencies for MBRS conservation in institutions (government
ministries and educational institutions); and
· Wider distribution of MBRS materials.
Sub-component B. Formal and Informal Education
The project wisely invested in future generations by introducing educational curricula and
training methods that teach the value of the MBRS and its importance to the lives of all members
of the region. A leader in the development of school curricula in Belize said that the MBRS
24
Project not only helped revamp the entire natural history curricula regarding the environment,
but that it also brought a dynamic new methodology for curricula development that was now
being used country-wide. It should be noted that curricula uptake has been slower in Guatemala,
Mexico and Honduras where national curricula review is more complicated. It is expected that
the MBRS-developed curricula will be integrated into the schools as new curricula reviews are
undertaken in all four countries.
Sub-component outputs:
· Preparation and production of teachers' guides;
· Regional teachers workshops to promote environmental awareness in teaching activities
and demonstrate products available through the project;
· Training of teachers as trainers for promoting MBRS developed materials;
· National Workshops in Omoa and Utila in Honduras, Puerto Barrios in Guatemala, and 5
local workshops in Punta Gorda, Sarteneja, South Water Caye, Belize City and Dangriga
in Belize; two local workshops in Puerto Cortes and Cuyamel in Honduras; 657 teachers
trained; 5 teacher workshops in Mexico; and 514 teachers trained.
Sub-component outcomes:
· Created new constituencies for MBRS conservation in institutions (government
ministries and educational institutions); and
· New methods for curricula generation for public education.
Sustainability:
The activities and outputs from this component are highly sustainable. The curricula, when
adopted in regional school systems, will provide enduring benefits by educating primary and
secondary students in the importance of their natural resources. The documents and training
materials produced will also serve educational and interpretation activities not only in the MBRS
region but in marine environments world-wide.
Lessons learned:
· Carefully targeted environmental education campaigns can be highly effective in
garnering project support;
· Educational institutions are open to the idea of new curricula but slow to incorporate such
materials and require much effort to negotiate the institutional hurdles;
· Environmental awareness campaigns are especially challenging when more than one
country, culture or language is involved as cultural, linguistic and local variations require
different approaches, increasing costs and efforts.
Refer to Annex 11 for a detailed assessment of this component.
25
Achievement of Project Results
The GEF Operational Program Objective of the MBRS Project was to enhance protection of
ecologically unique and vulnerable marine ecosystems through introduction of an ecosystem
approach to conservation and sustainable use.
The MBRS Project is rated as follows along the GEF criteria:
a. Relevance.
Highly Satisfactory. The MBRS, the second longest barrier reef in the world, is of immense
ecological and socio-economic importance. As a marine trans-boundary resource, a regional-
level approach to its management and conservation is paramount. The project achieved an
unprecedented level of regional cooperation and coordination between the four participating
countries in the sustainable management of this globally significant ecosystem.
b. Effectiveness.
Satisfactory. The regional focus and involvement engendered in the project has demonstrated
the possibility of inter-governmental cooperation and agreement for trans-frontier natural
resource management. The synoptic monitoring program has created an initial regional baseline
and database which provides a foundation for future conservation activities. Additionally, the
reinforcement of existing marine protected areas (MPAs) and capacity building for managing
those areas has significantly improved the possibility of meaningful conservation throughout the
MBRS region. In a number of cases, the Project turned marine protected areas from marginally
functioning, well intentioned efforts into functional MPAs that were able to attract funding and
undertake meaningful management. The Project also brought public awareness of the value of
the reef to a much higher level throughout the region, from the elementary classroom to the
highest levels of government. The project was however, less successful in its attempts to
manage tourism impacts, promote sustainable tourism development or create alternative
livelihoods for those engaged in unsustainable natural resource extraction such as fisheries.
c. Efficiency.
Satisfactory. The GEF investment in this project was US$11 million for efforts in four separate
countries over a period of five years. With this funding, the project achieved substantial, concrete
results in terms of capacity building (technical and physical), policy reform, and collection of
baseline data on the reef system. Given these outcomes, the project was highly efficient in its
use of these limited resources (catalyzed investments)
26
Sustainability of Project Outcomes and Risks
Sustainability: Likely for some outcomes, Moderately Unlikely for others
Sustainability of a significant portion of the Project's outcomes is likely. These include:
· Adoption of common policy framework for sustainable management of resources in the
areas of fisheries, tourism and marine protected areas (MPAs);
· Benefits derived by MPAs from having adequate infrastructure and management tools;
· Methodologies developed for measuring MPAs management effectiveness;
· Increased local capacity to manage MPAs;
· Methodologies for synoptic monitoring of the reef system;
· A framework for region-wide database for storing and analyzing data;
· An extensive body of new conservation literature including policy documents, training
manuals and technical papers; and
· An institutionalized environmental education curriculum.
The sustainability of the achievements on reef monitoring are, however, moderately unlikely in
the absence of continued external support. No arrangements are currently in place to sustain the
REIS if a second phase of project funding is not forthcoming. This includes no arrangements for
a permanent institution to house and maintain the database, and no arrangements to continue
supporting the website that now provides an interface to data users. Additionally, users of the
REIS will require continued assistance over the next few years to ensure data quality and entry
into the system. Since there is a high turnover of trained monitors, training needs will have to be
addressed in the near to medium term. Likewise, the long-term sustainability of the SMP is
moderately unlikely without a large contribution from either a follow-on project or another
donor. Without it, monitoring of all reef variables is at risk of being decreased or discontinued in
all sites in Guatemala and Honduras. Monitoring mangrove and seagrass variables is at risk in
all sites in Belize and in many sites in Guatemala and Honduras. Most importantly, the
monitoring of water pollution and water quality, components that require a large amount of
funding and analysis, will most likely be seriously threatened.
The sustainability of MPA management is only moderately likely if long-term partners are not
forthcoming in the near future to assist the ministries in charge of MPAs with additional
financing and personnel. This is primarily because the MPAs in question only receive minimal
financial and personnel support from their respective governments.
The sustainability of the alternative livelihoods component is moderately unlikely without a
more targeted approach, broader partnerships with NGOs and other organizations, and more
comprehensive follow-up of needs and outcomes.
a. Financial resources.
Sustainability: Moderately Likely. At this point, the MBRS countries are looking to turn
their attention to the root causes of the problem facing the reefs. To this end, they are actively
seeking funding for a second phase of the Action Plan for the MBRS, as envisioned from the
inception of the Project.
27
The TE team is unable at this time to evaluate the prospects of securing this funding. However,
as discussed above, without external support, the countries are unlikely to have the resources
needed to adequately manage the MBRS, and deal with the land-based threats to the reef system.
While sound scientific data on reef health and trends is an essential tool for its successful
protection, the SMP is costly, and the countries are not likely to be able to support a systematic
reef monitoring program without substantial additional funding from the international
community. While all of the countries have instituted visitor fees for the MPAs, this income is
not sufficient to cover the costs of adequately managing the areas, dealing with land-based
threats, or maintaining a data collection program.
Unfortunately, the funding gap between the Project's end and the proposed second phase
threatens the capacity developed under the exiting project. This is particularly true for the PCU,
as one of the strongest assets of the MBRS Project is its highly experienced staff. This threat
also extends to some of the partnerships established by the Project, including those carrying out
analyses (e.g. water quality, contamination and GIS data processing) and based at universities or
other research-based institutions.
b. Sociopolitical.
Sustainability: Moderately Likely. The leaders of the four countries have reaffirmed their
committed to the protection of the reef, and are actively seeking financing for the second phase
of the MBRS 15-year Action Plan. Nevertheless, socio-economic risks to project outcomes stem
from immense economic and population pressures, leading to unsustainable development
practices. Thus, the progress made by the MBRS Project towards protection and management of
the reef can be undermined by short-term economic interests - notably in the areas of pesticide-
intensive agriculture, tourism development and fisheries over-exploitation - which do not align
with the goals of managing the ecological integrity of a reef system. More often than not, short-
term economic interests have had a higher priority and greater authority in the MBRS region
over those dealing with less tangible, but equally important issues of conservation and
sustainable management.
c. Institutional framework and governance.
Sustainability: Moderately Likely. The MBRS made substantial progress towards policy
harmonization between the participating countries. As previously discussed, conflicting agendas
and mandates between sectors will continue to pose a serious challenge to the sustainable
management of the MBRS. In the case of Mexico, additional difficulties are posed by the
overlap of natural resource management jurisdiction between Federal and State-level entities.
The involvement of CCAD elevated the profile of the MBRS as a system of regional importance
at the ministerial level which should produce continued institutional interest. The Project itself
maintained a very high level of transparency and demonstrated considerable competence in
managing complex transboundary projects.
28
d. Environmental.
Sustainability: Moderately Unlikely. There are serious environmental threats to the MBRS,
intrinsic to developing countries pervasive poverty and population pressures that are beyond
the scope of any single project. These threats include: a) declining water quality due to
sedimentation, pesticide and nutrient run-off, and municipal and industrial waste; b) unregulated
commercial development resulting in destruction of mangroves; c) mass tourism, particularly
from cruise ships; d) unsustainable fisheries due to lack of zonation, no-take zones and
enforcement; e) remaining un-harmonized policies; and f) climate change (severe weather
patterns and increased water temperatures).
Although many political leaders understand the need for stricter regulation and management of
natural resources they refuse to act because such policies are so politically charged. Supporting
such policies as no-take fishing zones, land use policies that prohibit development in sensitive
areas and stricter limits on fish take are examples of policies that are necessary for sustainability
but political suicide for politicians. Until the political landscape changes to the point that allows
for leadership on natural resource issues sustainability will always be subservient to policies that
promote more immediate gratification. The project significantly raised the profile of the MBRS
among governmental institutions. However, the degree to which this will translate into long-
term political capital is an open question.
Threats to the MBRS will not be addressed without a significant commitment from the
international community to assist the four countries to tackle some of these issues. These threats
will not be negated by a single project, and continued support will have to be sought from a
variety of sources to systematically address these threats. The strong foundation set by this
project, however, provides a sound framework for future investments.
Catalytic Role of Project
The MBRS Project played a significant catalytic role in fostering dialogue between the four
countries on the management of a shared natural resource. Prior to the Project, little discourse
existed between the four countries with regards to the joint management of the reef or
approaches to stem threats to this ecosystem. The Project laid the foundation for a systematic
and regional approach to managing the MBRS, enabling a number of conservation measures,
regulations and cooperative agreements. In particular, the Project was instrumental in fostering
unprecedented cooperation between the countries to harmonize policies for fisheries and
tourism.
The MBRS Project has an extensive track record of collaboration with other actors in the region.
Please refer to Annex. 12 for a complete list of the project's partnerships and relationships with
other projects and initiatives.
The infrastructure developed by the project at five marine parks has served to attract national and
international researchers and funding to the area. The new dormitory facilities at the visitor
centers have allowed dozens of scientists, volunteers and students to have access to the reef. The
data they are collecting will greatly improve the knowledge-base of reef ecology and
management. Through its Synoptic Monitoring Program, the Project mobilized a large number
29
of individuals and institutions to assist with methodical monitoring of the reef and associated
ecosystems. It has also established a dynamic regional database, providing access to key data for
decision makers, managers and researchers. Through its extensive training program, the project
has greatly improved regional capacity to actively protect and manage important cultural and
natural sites. Additionally, a highly developed and specifically targeted environmental
awareness program has brought new appreciation and understanding at the local level of the
importance of the reef.
Many of the Project's outputs such as training manuals, educational materials, methodologies,
and data, are freely available via the web at the MBRS website. These can readily serve the
needs of others around the world working on similar issues. Finally, the MBRS Project has been
a major catalyst in elevating the MBRS as a region of global importance, attracting attention and
interest by numerous international organizations and researchers.
Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
a. M&E design.
The design of the M&E plan was participatory in nature and sound in design. The original
plan was not extensive, but was concise and targeted. This plan was expanded around the
Mid-Term Evaluation to include a new set of Key Performance Indicators, which were
formally adopted by an amendment to the grant agreement in April 2005. The expanded
plan was fairly comprehensive and contained specific time frames for achieving targets and
outputs.
b. M&E Plan implementation.
The M&E plan was timely implemented and results and progress were tracked through
both a log frame matrix and through Annual Progress Reports. These reports were made
public via the Project's website and served to inform other partners and interested parties
of the MBRS Project's progress. The PCU carried out the majority of the M&E, with
input from Supporting Agencies and other partners.
One area where the M&E could have been stronger was in tracking the impact of training
of fishers in alternative livelihoods. No data were collected to document if the training to
fishers had resulted in the fishers shifting from unsustainable resource extraction to more
sustainable activities (in this case tourism), nor on the degree to which training in fisheries
co-management resulted in improved fishing practices.
Overall, however, the M&E plan was implemented as planned and served to track both
project outputs and outcomes. The Key Performance Indicators were for the most part
robust enough in nature to track progress towards achieving the project's goals. However,
they did not provide sufficient information to monitor the long-tern financial and technical
sustainability of the project. More attention could have been paid during project design to
include indicators that could have helped track progress towards achieving the Regional
15-year Action Plan- such as progress towards negotiating new sources of co-financing
and partnerships.
30
c. Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities.
It appears that the M&E plan received adequate financing, with data collection coming directly
from the various components. It is hard to separate money spent on M&E with the everyday
tasks of the PCU, however there is no evidence that M&E activities suffered from a lack of
financing.
d. Monitoring of Long Term Changes.
The Project is well poised to provide long-term data and play a significant role in using those
data to understand trends and threats to the reef through the SMP and REIS. However, this
accomplishment is at risk after 5 years of funding, because there is no permanent intuitional
arrangement to house the data or provide long-term analyses. This is in part because a second
phase of financing is anticipated and in part because there is yet no obvious institution that can
manage data from four countries. In theory, if additional funding is secured, the Project will be
able to provide a state-of-the art monitoring system of the reef and associate ecosystems' health
and changes over time.
Processes that Affected Attainment of Project Results
a.
Preparation
and
Readiness.
As discussed earlier, the project benefited from a strong preparation phase and strategic,
regional, and long-term approaches.
b. Country Ownership.
Throughout its life, the MBRS Project received political support at the highest levels. The roots
of the project date back to 1997, when the leaders of the four countries convened in Tulum,
Mexico, and pledged their commitment to protecting the Mesoamerican reef. The MBRS Project
is grounded in the resulting 15-year Action Plan, adopted in 1999.
In July 2006, the heads of state of the four countries reaffirmed their commitment to managing
and protecting the shared resource of the MBRS via a declaration termed "Tulum + 8". An
updated Action Plan is being finalized, and was presented to the countries' Environment
Ministers for endorsement. This continued, high-level political support has been key to securing
the cooperation of the state entities in the various countries, and to maintaining visibility and
credibility in the region.
The Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) received timely and sustained support from the
Government of Belize which provided office space and other needed logistic support for project
start-up.
At the operational level, the project has received extensive support from all of the four
participating countries. Over 100 individuals - government officials, NGO staff, university
students and teachers, scientists, as well as direct and indirect beneficiaries have devoted
countless hours to advancing the objectives of the MBRS. Activities included, among other:
31
participating in meetings and workshops to define priorities and action plans, reviewing drafts of
documents and studies, and carrying out monitoring activities.
In the end, measuring country ownership in terms of financial contribution alone is misleading.
As developing countries, the financial resources available to any sector are limited at best and
natural resource management is often a low priority. While Belize and Mexico, both more
prosperous countries were able to make a more substantial contribution, Honduras and
Guatemala were not in as advantageous position to contribute financially due to far more limited
financial resources. As discussed in the section below, weaknesses in project implementation
were related more to lack of resources and capacity than to a lack of project ownership.
c. Borrower Performance.
At the time of the TE evaluation over 90% of the funds allocated for the project had been
disbursed, and the project had met a substantial portion of its key output indicators. The
project's disbursement track-record was augmented by clean annual Independent Audit Reports,
indicators of sound financial management.
Given the project's regional approach involving four separate countries, implementation
arrangements were by necessity, complex and multi-layered. The main elements were as
follows:
· The Executing Agency for the project was the Central American Commission on
Environment and Development (CCAD).
· A Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), based in Belize City, was responsible for day-to-day
management of the project.
· A National Coordinator (NC), in each country was responsible for facilitating the activities
within their respective country.
· Four National Barrier Reef Committees (NBRC), comprised of representatives from both the
public and private sectors in each country, were created as mechanisms to promote
communication and coordination across sectors on a broad set of issues dealing with the
MBRS as a whole, not only those directly related to the MBRS Project.
· The Regional Steering Committee (RSC), was comprised by the four National Coordinators,
and was chaired by the Executive Secretary of CCAD. The role of the RCS was to provide
policy guidance, approve the annual work plans prepared by the PCU and the NBRCs, and
oversee overall program implementation.
· Technical Working Groups (TWG), one for each thematic area of the project provided
technical support to the project.
· A Consultative Group, comprised of representatives from donor organizations and partner
institutions working in the region, was established as a mechanism to facilitate coordination
between the project and other activities in the region, to identify synergies for program
development and to attract long-term co-financing.
The involvement of CCAD elevated the profile of the MBRS as a system of regional importance
at the ministerial level which should result in continued institutional interest.
32
The MBRS Project benefited from having a PCU with a strong technical team, representative of
all four participating countries. In particular, the PCU Executive Director, Mr. Noel Jacobs, was
both highly qualified and efficient, and provided strong leadership and direction to the Project.
National Coordinators were unanimous in expressing their satisfaction with the way the PCU
carried out its responsibilities. The feedback received from government officials interviewed in
all four counties indicated that the PCU was respectful of their countries sovereignty, receptive
to their input, and responsive to their needs. The National Coordinators told the TE team that
they felt that the project had been managed in a fair and transparent manner by the PCU.
Throughout the life of the project, one area of weakness of the PCU was procurement expertise.
While the Bank's supervision mission of June 2005 reported improved capacity over the
previous year, a May 2006 mission reported a decline in the quality of procurement processes,
likely resulting from the change of procurement specialist at the PCU. However, while there
were learning-curve issues, the procurement problems identified during the 2006 mission seem
minor, and do not appear to have seriously detracted from project implementation.
It is worth noting the excellent job by the PCU of making all the information related to project
activities available via its website. Any interested party can easily find all Annual Work
Programs, Annual Progress Reports and Auditors Reports on-line. This level of transparency
provides a high level of credibility to the project.
The Steering Committee provided an essential mechanism for coordination among the
participating countries and served as an effective tool for project implementation and regional-
level oversight of the PCU. A weakness noted by the TE team was that the RSC did not
perform annual performance evaluations of the PCU senior staff. Best practices suggest that
good management oversight includes periodic staff performance evaluations in order to provide
objective and systematic feedback to the staff member, and to improve accountability.
The funding of the NC was part of the country's counterpart contribution. In theory, the
financial support by the participating counties was meant to demonstrate the country's
commitment to the project. In reality, the ability of the NCs to adequately fulfill their roles was
constrained by limited human and financial resources intrinsic to their countries. As such,
performance was often correlated with the relative strength or weakness of the host institution
and/or the specific individual nominated to the NC position. In Honduras, for example, lack of
continuity was a problem, having had seven different NCs over the five years of the project. In
all four countries, NCs had extensive responsibilities besides those associated with their role in
the MBRS Project. Thus, the NC's ability to devote the required effort to the project, and their
ability to respond in a timely manner, varied by country and varied, within a given country, over
the life of the project. All the NCs mentioned that in retrospect, the lack of a dedicated person to
the MBRS Project hampered their country's ability to participate optimally in the project.
However, Bank funding of staff in the public sector is not permitted, and there are substantial
trade-offs in sustainability, capacity building, and authority if the NC positions were held by
consultants rather than public servants. Perhaps a middle ground arrangement can be considered
in the future, whereby the NC is provided some resources to employ help for specific project
related activities. While this means additional costs to the project, strengthening the capacity at
the national level may be a cost-effective investment.
33
At the field level, some personnel in the protected areas felt that the process to obtain resources
or equipment was overly bureaucratic and cumbersome. People in the field reported a circular
and time consuming effort to get basic support, and that responsiveness to their needs was highly
variable depending on the caliber of the NC at a given time. In one case the NC blocked or
attempted to divert resources intended for the MPA. To its credit, the PCU interceded on behalf
of the MPA involved, and the matter was resolved.
The NBRC committees were established by ministerial decree at the onset of the project. Their
degree of engagement varied from country to country (Belize for example has a strong and active
NBRC, while those in Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala meet less frequently). A concern raised
at the time of the MTR was that the NBRCs focused exclusively on issues related to the MBRS
Project and had thus not fulfilled their anticipated role to address issues at a broader context.
Nevertheless, they provide a potential tool to support the sustainable and participatory
management of the MBRS.
The Technical Committees met with various degrees of success. One limitation was that the
members in these committees served ad-honorem, and as such, were not always able or willing
to give the project the level of attention needed. Notwithstanding, as discussed below, members
of the Technical Committees participated in the development of the Annual Work Programs, and
many individuals generously gave many hours of their time and expertise at little or no cost to
the project.
The benefits envisioned in the PAD of the Consultative Groups were not fully realized. While
the group met in two occasions, these meetings did not lead to the anticipated coordination or
synergies. It appears that these shortcomings resulted from a combination of diverse agendas, a
lack of time or willingness to devote to coordination, and differences in personalities and
professional styles among the Consultative Group and other project stakeholders.
As mentioned earlier, the Heads of State of the four participating countries gave the project
political strong support. Unfortunately, conflicting missions within some of the ministries
charged with protected areas sometimes undermined the efficiency of attaining certain
objectives. This was most noticeable when fisheries and protected areas goals conflicted.
Similarly, tourism and development agendas with short-term economic interests did not also
align with the goals of the entities responsible for managing the ecological integrity of a reef
system. More often than not, economic interests had a higher priority and greater authority over
those dealing with less tangible but equally important issues of conservation and sustainable
management. As such, the project suffered at times from lack of support from ministries which
had direct impact on MBRS processes but which were not full partners to the project. In some
cases, the relevant ministry was not formally included as a partner in the project at inception,
while in other cases, a change of ministerial responsibilities rendered a given sector outside of
the project scope.
34
c.
Stakeholder
Involvement.
Given the project's objectives, the primary constituents of the project were the public sector
entities directly responsible for the management of the MBRS. As such, the project was
structured to be highly receptive to the needs of the partner governments, and to provide ample
mechanisms of participation and decision-making to the countries.
Specifically, the project's organization structure included a Regional Steering Committee, 7
Technical Working Groups (one for each thematic area of the project) and 4 National Barrier
Reef Committees. These entities provided the means for direct stakeholder participation.
Decisions on allocation of resources and programmatic priorities were made via a participatory
process involving the four countries. Each year the PCU prepared a draft Annual Work Program
(AWP), which was discussed and refined in a two-day workshop attended by representatives
from each country. Each delegation was comprised of the NC plus two individuals from each of
the seven Technical Working Group (one from the public and one from the private sectors), for a
total of 15 representatives per country. The completed AWP was then approved by the Regional
Steering Committee.
As previously highlighted, a limitation of the project, common to many environmental projects,
is that responsibility for natural resource management is often shared by several potentially
conflicting sectors. This problem was significantly exacerbated by having four participating
countries. It became a monumental task to involve all relevant ministries and entities. In this
respect, the MBRS achieved remarkable success in bringing together 3 of the four countries in
adopting a common policy framework for sustainable management in the areas of fisheries,
tourism and marine protected areas.
Throughout its life, the project sponsored numerous meetings and workshops to discuss diverse
aspects of MBRS conservation, management and use. A broad array of individuals and
institutions were invited to these meetings and given the opportunity to help shape the direction
and priorities of the project. As can be expected, different, and sometimes conflicting, agendas
among participants meant that not everyone involved felt that their areas of concern received
adequate consideration or that they w ere sufficiently involved in the implementation process.
Several local NGOs in each country participated in the project as beneficiaries, as partners or
under contract to execute various project activities. As such, these entities benefited from the
partnerships, equipment and or funding provided by the project. In most cases, the project
helped raise the profile of these NGOs allowing them access to a wider network of expertise and
funding.
Direct participation by local communities, other than as beneficiaries, was weaker. In fact, a
recommendation expressed by various individuals is that any follow-up projects be designed
with the explicit objective of working more directly with local communities. One such
experience, which received praise from several people interviewed, was the congress of fishers
organized by the MBRS Project. This event provided a first-time opportunity for fishers from
the four countries to come together to discuss their experiences and problems. The outcome of
this meeting was support on the part of the fishers for harmonized policies and norms in the
sector.
35
One set of stakeholders, however, consistently reported that the project failed to engage in
meaningful participation and collaboration. Some international NGOs and bilateral donors
expressed the view that while the MBRS Project purported to facilitate cooperation, this seldom
translated into fruitful partnerships.
d. Financial Planning.
Project effectiveness was initially delayed by the lack of an acceptable financial system in place
at the effectiveness date. The consultants hired to develop this system failed to deliver, and the
MBRS was forced to design their own "quick and dirty" system which in the end proved to be
fully adequate for the entirety of the project.
After this initial delay, however, the project quickly began project activities, and maintained a
disbursement profile consistent with the amounts programmed in the approved Annual Work
Plans. At the time of the TE evaluation over 90% of the funds allocated for the project had been
disbursed, and the Project had met a substantial portion of its key output indicators. The
Project's disbursement track-record was augmented by clean annual Independent Audit Reports,
indicators of sound financial planning and management.
e. Implementing Agency/Executing Agency Supervision and Backstopping.
The World Bank provided extensive technical support to the countries in the preparation of the
project, and demonstrated a high level of commitment to the project during its implementation.
Ms. Marea Hatziolos, the Bank's Task Team Leader has been with the project since its inception,
and contributed substantial technical expertise. The PCU and the countries reported that her
level of involvement and dedication to the project has been exemplary.
The project's Mid-Term Review (MTR), which took place in March 2004, provided extensive
guidance to the project. One problem is that it provided over fifty recommendations. These
included, among others: consultation with political partners outside the current cast of MBRS
ministries; coordination with bilateral donors and international NGOs; socio-economic studies to
identify alternative livelihood opportunities; directly engaging coastal communities in project
planning and execution; developing a plan for approaching the private sector to help set up an
endowment fund for coastal and marine resource conservation; and securing financing sources
via user fees. In the end, fewer, more targeted recommendations, and more systematic follow-up
would probably have been more effective.
Supervision missions by the Bank are frequently limited by financial resources, however, due to
the complexities and multi-national nature of this project, the Bank could have been more
strategic in bringing additional resources to trouble-shoot issues and provide support in areas
outside the expertise of the technical support team. This was particularly relevant for tourism
and alternative livelihoods components which showed weaker performance dating back to as
early as the MTR.
36
The PCU expressed their frustration with the effectiveness condition of developing the rigid
LACY financial management system, which in the end had to be abandoned by the project and
which the Bank later abandoned. The PCU also felt that the Bank should have done a better job
of communicating its requirements. Specifically, the PCU indicated that they had not been
informed early enough that they needed to have written no-objections to their Annual Work
Plans, approval of their Procurement Plan, or acceptance letters of their auditor's reports. The
PCU lamented that the Bank did not respond expediently to requests for training in procurement,
disbursement and Bank procedures. Training in these areas, they felt, was not offered frequently
enough to meet Project's needs. For its part, the Bank reported that they did offer sufficient
training, but that turn-over of PCU personnel set-back progress made towards building the
PCU's capacity in these areas.
The PCU also indicated that they felt that the Bank did not have good arrangements in place to
deal with absences of their disbursement officers - when this officer was on leave, the person
covering for them did not know the project well enough, creating disbursement delays and
imposing additional burdens on the PCU by requesting information and documentation already
provided.
Some of the National Coordinators expressed their frustration with the Bank's rigid procurement
rules, which proved to be a considerable hindrance at times. Illustrative of this was the need to
have a list of confirmed participants in a workshop prior to obtaining the Bank's no-objection.
This created a `chicken-and-egg" situation, because without the no-objection, the country could
not make the necessary financial and logistic commitments to secure the agreement of the
participants.
f. Cofinancing and Project Outcomes and Sustainability.
The PAD specified that the allocation of co-financing resources would be determined through
annual programming, and was not shown in project costs tables at the time. At the time of
appraisal, co-financing in the amount of $9.0 million was expected from the following sources:
WWF
US$
2.5
million
Government of Canada
US$ 0.5 million
Oak
Foundation US$
5.0
million
University of Miami
US$ 1.0 million
However, co-financing by these organizations is difficult to quantify. While it is clear that they
have made substantial investments in the region through local NGOs, the details of the amounts
are not public information. Unlike the MBRS Project, their annual work plans and budgets are
not readily-accessible. Rough estimates for their level of expenditures for 2001 to 2006 are:
WWF US$ 2 million, Oak Foundation US$ 1 million, The Summit Foundation US$2 million,
USAID US$1.5 million, UNF 1.5 million, and The Nature Conservancy US$ 2 million.
g. Delays and Project Outcomes and Sustainability.
There was a six month delay between Project approval and effectiveness, resulting from the need
to put in place a financial management system acceptable to the Bank. The project received a
one year extension, offsetting this delay and providing an additional six months for
37
implementation.
One problem, hardly unique to the MBRS Project, is the fact that a project extension means that
the operation of the PCU requires expenses not originally budgeted. In cases where the project
has under-performed, and disbursements are well behind, the cost of maintaining the PCU during
for the additional time is a small percentage relative to funds for project activities to be disbursed
during the extension period. However, in the case of the MBRS Project, disbursements were
well on-track. Thus, in order to finance the PCU for the additional 12 months (a cost of
approximately $400,000), some project activities had to be sacrificed. In the end, tourism and
alternative livelihood components lost substantial funding, which in turn may have diminished
their overall outcomes. However, it should be noted that these components were under
performing throughout the project, in part as a result of unrealistic expectations generated during
project design and thus the reallocation was completely justified.
The extension did not result in losses to Project sustainability. Rather, it has allowed the
participating countries additional time to seek funding and partnerships which could potentially
allow the project to move into a second phase, and develop more permanent and sustainable
long-term institutional arrangements.
h. Relationship with other Actors and Projects in the Region.
The MBRS project was pivotal in developing, amalgamating and harmonizing methodologies,
protocols and policies for the MBRS region. These activities attracted partners and co-sponsors.
Some of these were joint ventures and others were direct support to on-going activities, such as
the SMP. The list of the Project's partnerships and joint investments, provided by the PCU is
found in Annex 12.
Notwithstanding these achievements, as early as the Mid-Term Review there was recognition
that the MBRS project needed to more actively engage other actors in the region, and that
stronger networking was needed with other projects, such as ICRAN-MAR and PROARCA and
organizations such as PACT, WWF, and WCS. The existence of a Consultative Group had been
contemplated in the PAD, as it was recognized at the time of project design that donor
coordination would be essential. According to the MTR, "These coordination efforts should
dispel any concern voiced among some partner organizations that MBRS activities tend to be
insular."
While the Consultative Group met in two occasions, some individuals indicated that in their
minds, the MBRS project fell short in their efforts of coordinating with other actors in the region.
It appears that this resulted from a combination of diverse agendas, a lack of time or willingness
to devote to coordination, and differences in personalities and professional styles among the
Consultative Group members and other project stakeholders.
38
Compliance with Bank Safeguard Policies
The MBRS Project fully complied with all applicable Bank safeguard policies as listed below.
Applicable Policy
Rating
Environmental Assessment (OD 4.01)
S
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04)
S
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
S
Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12)
S
Ratings: HS=Highly Satisfactory; S=Satisfactory; MS=Moderately Satisfactory;
MU=Moderately Unsatisfactory; U=Unsatisfactory; HU=Highly Unsatisfactory
Lessons Learned
· Despite the added complexity to project preparation and implementation, it is key to include
all public sectors with management responsibility or a vested interest on the natural resource
the project is trying to protect/manage in order to ensure buy-in and collaboration;
· Quality infrastructure and equipment investments not only build management capacity but also
can facilitate "buy in" to protected areas by area personnel, locals, NGOs, researchers and
ministries;
· "One size fits all" design approaches may not be the best option, despite the cost savings of
having a single design for different sites;
· Greater capacity to manage infrastructure investments is needed when they are a significant
part of PA projects; inclusion of someone with infrastructure experience could save time,
money and produce a better final product;
· For projects that potentially collect a large amount of data, there needs to be a clear purpose
for the data and a seamless mechanism to transmit results to decision-makers and on-the-
ground managers.
· A clear plan to maintain and house data in the absence of long term funding must accompany
any program that gathers a large amount of data across multi-national region. Ownership and
responsibility for dissemination must be established prior to the completion of any project.
· In regions where unanticipated events can occur rapidly, such as hurricanes or coral bleaching,
there needs to be a local capacity (including emergency funding) built up during the project to
respond to these events and carry out a rapid assessment of the situation.
· A thorough understanding of the labor market, unemployment levels and skills capacity is
necessary for alternative livelihoods programs to be effective;
39
· Alternative livelihoods are not likely to succeed in areas of high unemployment where those
trained are readily replaced by others in the targeted activity. For this reason, alternative
livelihood promotion will succeed only in conjunction with limitations to new-entrants to
unsustainable livelihood activities;
· For tourism standards and regulation to succeed at the policy level, tourism ministries must be
involved in project design and implementation;
· Involvement of the private sector is essential to tourism management but often proves difficult
as the private sector tends to be off-site, have little incentive to alter tourism practices and
often possesses considerable political access.
· Carefully targeted environmental education campaigns aimed at policy makers, educators and
children can be highly effective in garnering support for conservation activities.
· Educational institutions are open to the idea of new curricula but slow to incorporate such
materials and require much effort to negotiate the institutional hurdles.
Recommendations
a. The GEF Project Cycle and Second Phase Funding.
From its inception, the MBRS Project was part of a long-term strategy (a 15-Year Action Plan) to
address the threats to a globally important, transboundary resource. For many valid reasons, the
GEF only committed to fund the first five years of this strategy. However, this time frame is
simply too short to consolidate project outcomes, particularly in light of an ecosystem approach.
For example, collection and analysis of reef data requires time series data of more than a couple
of years to distinguish trends from background noise and to translate findings into appropriate
policy measures and management tools. Likewise, effective management of the MBRS, which
spans four countries, will require continued coordination and cooperation between the four nations.
Transaction costs for such cooperation continue, and progress to date will quickly reverse if this
coordination is not actively supported and pursued.
The MBRS Project's track record makes it a strong candidate for second phase funding. Thus, the
PCU and CCAD have devoted substantial effort during the past six to eight months to seeking
funding for a second phase of the project. This has meant having to spend substantial time and
energy that could have been devoted to project implementation activities during the final months
of this phase. Yet, to date, while there are several promising partners, no funding has been secured
and prospects are likely to depend on commitment from a large donor such as the GEF. Even if
financing for a second phase is ultimately secured, a funding gap in an otherwise successful
project results in a loss of momentum and a high degree of uncertainty which can be costly in
terms of financial and human resources, and sustaining key processes which may bear fruit in the
future.
Recommendation: The GEF may reduce inefficiencies resulting from funding gaps by
allowing projects with a long term horizon and a clear performance track record to begin the
process of applying for subsequent funding at an earlier stage, rather than having to wait until
the project is almost ready to close.
40
b. Project Partnerships.
An important lesson of the MBRS project was the need to include all relevant ministries which
have direct impact on MBRS processes as full partners to the project.
Recommendation: A second phase of the project should be far more multi-sectoral its design and
implementation partners, to ensure buy-in from all the public entities with a stake or impact on
the MBRS.
c. Legal and Policy Framework
The first phase of the MBRS laid the foundation for a systematic and regional approach to
managing the MBRS region. Prior to the MBRS Project, little dialogue existed between the four
countries on the joint management of the reef or approaches to stem common threats to the reef.
One of the most significant outcomes of the project was the harmonization of policies and
protocols and the adoption of these by national governments. This outcome was not anticipated
in the initial development of the project, as the component to strengthen the policy framework
was not included in the original project design. However, early on, it became a strong focal point
and a component with excellent support from all four countries.
These achievements have instilled a sense of pride in the countries and a willingness to continue
with broader legal and policy reforms. These accomplishments have also been clearly recognized
as the first step for achieving improved capacity for public governance of environmental
resources. The expansion of these activities has been incorporated into a large component
proposed for a second project phase. The component includes strengthening the legal framework
and creating conditions for better enforcement of and compliance with environmental laws
governing MBRS resources in addition to continued harmonization of policies and regulations.
The inclusion of this component in a second phase is immensely important, as all four
governments recognize that the legal and policy framework forms the backbone to long-term
management of the reef.
Recommendation: A second phase of the project should continue to support harmonization
processes in using lessons learned from harmonizing policies within fisheries to include
watershed management, land base pollutants and tourism policies. In addition, it should
supplement said reforms with targeted training and capacity-building, especially with training
on the goods and service value of MPA and watershed protection.
d. Environmental Monitoring
The synoptic monitoring program has been heralded as a success both in terms of its protocol
and implementation. The protocol is a result of many years of dialogue and testing of
methodologies by experts in the region. It has been adopted widely across the region and has
been disseminated throughout Support Agencies; including being taken up in MPAs outside of
the MRBS project targeted-MPAs. Although there are several areas the SMP will have to focus
41
on in the next phase (in particular more data for sea grass beds and mangroves, water quality and
contamination), the initial baseline data collected via the MBRS Project is of high quality and
has provided a snapshot of regional patterns.
A large number of people were trained under this component and if they can be retained within
the project and/or at various MPAs, there is a high likelihood of sustainability for the monitoring
program. The shortcomings of the program under the current project have been identified and
include a lack of comprehensive spatial and temporal data for the above mentioned categories,
the lack of socio-economic and cultural indicators, and better links between data collection,
analysis and adaptive management based on results. Inclusion of these parameters in a second
project phase will assist with better informed management decision-making at a regional level.
The initial proposal for a second phase includes a comprehensive monitoring program with an
expanded protocol to correct the identified shortcomings. In order for the SMP to be effective in
a second phase however, emphasis will have to be placed on identifying the objectives of the
monitoring program, and how it can assist with management decisions. Regional priorities have
also shifted to include coral bleaching, connectivity between reefs, water pollution and
contamination, and sources of land based pollutants. These new priorities may overwhelm the
SMP and care will be needed to ensure that the project does not become overcommitted with the
monitoring program.
Recommendation: The environmental monitoring program should remain tightly focused and
should retain its centralization of data verification and dissemination. Partners for monitoring
variables additional to those linked directly to MPAs, the SMP, and pilot work in watersheds
should be sought. This should be accompanied by close collaboration on methodology and
implementation. Finally, Technical Working Groups and management authorities should be
enlisted to assist the project staff to identify adaptive management needs, data analysis needs
and avenues to apply results to on-the-ground management.
e. Regional Environmental Information System
The establishment of a REIS was a significant achievement of the current project. The REIS was
well designed, fairly comprehensive and easily accessible. To adapt to increased data from
monitoring, including socio-economic and cultural parameters, the REIS will have to be
enhanced in a second project phase. Moreover, its outputs need to be focused to better inform
management decisions.
Recommendation: Expand the REIS with stakeholder input and a careful consideration of the
need to monitor socio-economic and cultural variables, watersheds parameters, ecosystem good
and services capture and management effectiveness.
42
f. Marine Protected Areas and Special Management Areas.
The MPA component under the MBRS Project was seminal in supporting MPA management
efforts and improving the effectiveness of management. The investment in infrastructure was
critical for leveraging support and for establishing a significant presence in the 5 targeted MPAs.
The Project focused on creating a baseline database on management effectiveness and supporting
the completion or updating of management plans for many MPAs. All of the targeted MPAs in
the project now have management plans and a list of priority actions. The current preliminary
proposal for a second phase of the project appears to be shifting its focus to Special Management
Areas (SMAs) and watershed management. As such, it would pay special attention to the
integrated coastal zone management of two Special Management Areas-SMAs (Belize-Mexico
and Gulf of Honduras) by means of harmonized management regimes across the various MPAs
within these areas. These areas would also be the basis for generating best practices on linking
economic activity with biodiversity conservation. A partnership with MarViva, an organization
with a good deal of experience in such areas, has been proposed and this would enhance the
project's capacity to work on-the-ground in the transnational areas.
Recommendation: The project should focus on using the MPAs and associated watersheds in the
SMAs to demonstrate explicit links between biodiversity conservation, ecosystem goods and
services and linkages to various economic sectors at the regional-level.
g. Integrated Watershed and Coastal Zone Management
The proposal for a second phase of the project proposes to develop and implement high-impact
management interventions in nine transnational watersheds draining into the MBRS. This
approach is consistent with the Ridge-to-Reef approach and would be linked to other natural
resource management operations in the same watersheds. The shift towards watershed
management and away from core management of existing MPAs is ambitious and may only be
successful if true partnerships with other implementing agencies can be established very early
on. IUCN-Mesoamerica has indicated its willingness to partner with the project on this
component. This partnership will be critical for co-financing and technical support. It is
recognized that watershed management is critical for the long-term management of MPAs.
However, a future project needs to demonstrate clear project links between watershed protection
and MPA management in order to maintain the achievements gained in the first phase.
Recommendation: A second phase of the project should focus on 2-3 pilot watersheds to
demonstrate the integrated approach proposed by the project to manage watersheds and MPAs.
These showcase watersheds should be carefully selected and supported by complementary
projects being developed or underway.
h. Alternative Livelihoods
The alternative livelihood component in the MBRS project targeted primarily fishers. The
development of alternative livelihoods was aimed at transitioning fishers to tourism-based
activities. The MBRS project was successful in providing short-term training and directional
workshops, but failed to deliver a comprehensive program of alternative livelihoods. A second
phase of the project would target poor farmers in the watersheds and artisanal fishers whose
current livelihoods from fishing are increasingly unsustainable. The aim would be to relieve
43
pressure on fragile ecosystems within the MBRS region by introducing sustainable agricultural
techniques and viable economic alternatives to fishing that would help reduce fishing effort in
the sector. Experiences from the MBRS project indicate that the next phase of activities should
include wider consultation on appropriate alternative training, market demand analyses.
Moreover, targeted training needs and better follow through and quality control.
Recommendation: Alternative Livelihoods activities need to consider employment alternatives
other than tourism. Decisions on training offerings need to be based on widespread consultation
with potential beneficiaries and market demand. Trainings offered need to be comprehensive
enough to allow a reasonable probability that the training will be sufficient to make the
transition from the unsustainable activity to a different employment/income source.
Additionally, the opening of new opportunities has to go hand in hand with policy reforms to
prevent new entrants into the unsustainable activity.
44
PART III. ANNEXES
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the Terminal Evaluation of the MBRS
Annex 2: GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
Annex 3: Professional qualifications of the TE team
Annex 4: Sites visited and individuals interviewed
Annex 5: Project documents reviewed by the TE team
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Annex 7: Map of the MBRS Project area.
Annex 8: Component 1. Marine Protected Areas
Annex 9: Component 2. Regional Environmental Information System
Annex 10: Component 3. Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
Annex 11: Component 4. Public Awareness and Environmental Education
Annex 12: Joint Investments and Synergies
Annex 13: Photos of Visitor Centers
45
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for TE Evaluation
International Consultancy: Final Evaluation of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
Executing Agency:
SICA-CCAD/Project Coordinating Unit (PCU)
Funding Agency:
GEF/World Bank.
Countries:
Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico
Length of Consultancy:
68 person days
Period of Consultancy:
December 6, 2006 to March 20, 2007
Background
The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS), extending from Isla Contoy on the north of the
Yucatan Peninsula to the Bay Islands of Honduras, includes the second longest barrier reef in the world.
It is unique in the Western hemisphere due to its length, composition of reef types, and diverse
assemblage of corals and related species. The MBRS contributes to the stabilization and protection of
coastal landscapes, maintenance of coastal water quality, and serves as breeding and feeding grounds for
marine mammals, reptiles, fish and invertebrates, many of which are of commercial importance. The
MBRS is also of immense socio-economic significance providing employment and a source of income
to an estimated one million people living in adjacent coastal areas.
The goal of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Project is to enhance protection of the unique and
vulnerable marine ecosystems comprising the MBRS, and to assist the countries of Belize, Guatemala,
Honduras and Mexico to strengthen and coordinate national policies, regulations, and institutional
arrangements for the conservation and sustainable use of this global public good. The Project is the first
5-year phase of a 15-year Program to safeguard the integrity and continued productivity of the MBRS.
The MBRS initiative is being actively promoted by a variety of donors and partners in the region and
within the context of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Program.
The objectives of the GEF/Bank supported MBRS Program, agreed to by the four participating
countries, are to: (1) strengthen Marine Protected Areas (MPA's); (2) develop and implement a regional
ecosystem monitoring and information system that will provide a synoptic view of the health of the
MBRS and facilitate dissemination of these findings throughout the region; (3) promote measures which
will serve to reduce non-sustainable patterns of economic exploitation of MBRS, focusing initially on
the fisheries and tourism sectors; (4) increase local and national capacity for environmental management
through education, information sharing and training; and (5) facilitate the strengthening and
coordinating of national polices, regulations and institutional arrangements for marine ecosystem
conservation and sustainable use.
The MBRS Project was declared effective on November 30, 2001. It is executed by the Central
American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) on behalf of Belize, Guatemala,
Honduras and Mexico. Day-to-day Project execution is the responsibility of the Project Coordinating
- 47 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for TE Evaluation
Unit (PCU), located in Belize City, and is an operational arm of CCAD. The Project is implemented by
the World Bank on behalf of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF).
I. Scope of the Consultancy
The GEF requires that all World Bank-implemented Projects nearing completion undergo independent
Terminal Evaluations to determine level of achievements of Project goals and objectives, gaps in Project
execution, outcomes, difficulties, sustainability and lessons learned.
The consultant team will be responsible for carrying out the MBRS's Terminal Evaluation in accordance
with the guidelines set forth by the Evaluation Office of the GEF (February, 2006) and the "Draft
Guidelines for Implementing and Executing Agencies to conduct Terminal Evaluations" (as of
November 26th, 2006). These guidelines constitute an integral part of these TORs.
II. Objectives of the Evaluation and Guidelines
The objective of the evaluation is to fully review and critically assess the progress and accomplishments
in Project implementation, with respect to specific Project objectives 1-5 described above, and
consistent with the Project's Logical Framework Matrix and Process Framework. The evaluation should
specifically address:
a) Outputs achieved through the implementation of Project activities, based on key performance
indicators, such as the design of an Environmental Monitoring Program, the Regional
Environmental Information System, the strengthening of management capacity in MPAs, the
training of fishers and MPA staff, Alternative Livelihoods, Exemplary Practices in Tourism,
Fisheries Monitoring, Environmental Awareness and Education, and Project Management.
b) Achievements towards the global objectives of the Project;
c) Strengths and weaknesses in Project implementation;
d) Institutional and operational arrangements and the resulting implications on effective Project
execution and ownership;
e) Level of national and regional coordination as well as the level of public involvement in
Project's activities;
f) An assessment and differentiation of specific outputs and processes initiated as a result of Project
investments;
g) Level of ownership of the Project by the participating countries, as an indicator of their
commitment to the provision of counterpart contribution;
h) Assess compliance with the Process Framework and the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan
(IPDP) as appears in the Project Appraisal Document. Evaluate the practicality and validity of
this compliance as it relates to Project Design and the realities in the field;
i) Critically evaluate and highlight joint investments and relationships with other Projects and/or
institutions to achieve added value.
In keeping with GEF guidelines for Terminal Evaluations, the evaluation team should address the
following, and provide ratings as per guidelines:
- 48 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for TE Evaluation
a) Relevance: Were the project's outcomes consistent with the focal areas/operational program
strategies and country priorities?
b) Effectiveness: Are the project outcomes commensurable with the expected outcomes as
described in the project document and the problems the project was intended to address?
c) Efficiency: Was the project cost -effective and was the project the least cost option?
d) Likelihood of Sustainability: What is the likelihood that project outcomes will be sustainable,
and what risks are likely to affect the persistence of project outcomes during the next project
phase? Ratings should be provided for:
Financial resources: Are there any financial risks involved in sustaining the project
outcomes?
Sociopolitical: Are there any social or political risks that can undermine the longevity of
project outcomes?
Institutional framework and governance: Do the legal frameworks, policies and governance
structures and processes pose any threat to the continuation of project benefits?
Environmental: Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of
project environmental benefits?
e) Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems: This should include a review of the
following:
Did the project establish and use an adequate M&E system during implementation?
Was the M&E system sufficiently budgeted and funded?
Did this project contribute to the establishment of a long term monitoring system?
If it did not, should the project have included such a component?
What were the accomplishments and short comings in establishment of the system?
Is the system sustainable?
f) Assessment of Processes that Affected Attainment of Project Results: This should address
the following aspects:
Preparation and readiness.
Country ownership/Drivenness.
Stakeholder involvement.
Financial planning.
Implementing Agency/Executing Agency Supervision and backstopping.
Co-financing and Project Outcomes and Sustainability.
Delays and Project Outcomes & Sustainability.
- 49 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for TE Evaluation
g) Lessons and Recommendations: This entails an analysis of lessons learned and
recommendations on aspects related to factors that contributed or hindered the: a) attainment of
project objectives; b) sustainability of project benefits; c) innovation; d) catalytic effect and
replication; and e) project M &E.
III. Specific Tasks
Task 1. Prepare and submit to the Task Team Leader at the World Bank and the Project's Regional
Coordinator in the PCU no later than December 22, 2006, a Work Schedule that is consistent with the
dates defined in this Terms of Reference.
Task 2. Review the Project Appraisal Document, Project Work Plans, Project Progress Reports, Project
Technical Documents, and the Project's 5-year Implementation Video to be fully familiar with the
Project's design, objectives, scope, time-frame, outputs, institutional arrangements, and long-term vision.
Task 3. Conduct a series of interviews and meetings with the Project's key stakeholders and the general
public including, but not limited to: The Executive Secretary of the CCAD, Project Staff at the PCU in
Belize City, the National Coordinator in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, members of the
Regional Steering Committee, members of the National Barrier Reef Committees, members of the
Technical Working Groups, the World Bank, Marine Protected Areas Staff, Fishers, Tour Guides,
teachers, national and regional NGOs, etc.
Task 4. Conduct visits to at least two Project sites in order to confirm investments and outputs in the
field. These sites will be selected by the evaluation team in consultation with the MBRS Task Team
Leader and PIU.
Task 5. Provide preliminary indications as to the processes and activities that may need to be
continued/added in future phases of the Project in order to better address the conservation and
sustainable use of MBRS resources. Particular attention should be paid to the necessity/feasibility of
including land-based sources of pollution in future phases.
Task 6. Prepare draft and final Evaluation Reports, as per GEF/WB guidelines and schedule below.
IV. Methodology
The consultant team will work under the direct supervision of the Task Team Leader of the MBRS
Project at the World Bank, and will be required to begin work with an initial meeting with the Task
Team Leader and the MBRS Regional Coordinator, to finalize details of the methodology and schedule.
The evaluation will start with a review of all the relevant documentation and videos.
The team will make a short trip to Belize in December 2006 to meet with the PIU, government officials
and stakeholders, followed by a visit in February 2007 to each of the four project countries to collect the
information needed for the evaluation.
- 50 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 1: Terms of Reference for TE Evaluation
The team will interview key individuals within the project and Government, and with participating
agencies, NGOs and academia. These should include, but not limited to: the Executive Secretary of the
CCAD, staff of the MBRS Project, the MBRS National coordinators, the Regional Steering Committee,
Members of the National Barrier Reef Committees, Protected Areas Staff, fisheries personnel, fishers
trained in alternative livelihoods or fisheries co-management, tour guides, primary and secondary school
teachers, relevant personnel of the World Bank, participants and beneficiaries of the Synoptic
Monitoring Program and Regional Environmental Information Systems, NGO partners and other key
actors in the region, and other members of the communities bordering the MBRS.
The team will also visit some of the marine protected areas supported by the Project.
V. Deliverables
The consultants should deliver the following product(s):
1. A Draft Report of international standard and quality, submitted no later than March 5, 2007.
2. A Final Report of international standard and quality, submitted no later than March 20, 2007.
3. Both reports should be provided in hard copy and on CD in Microsoft Word, to the Executive
Secretary of CCAD, the Task Team Leader of the MBRS Project, in the World Bank, and the
Regional Coordinator of the MBRS Project.
VI. Profile of the Consultants
This consultancy is intended for team of consultants. The team should consist of experts in Monitoring
& Evaluation, and particularly in the evaluation of GEF and/or World Bank trans-national
multidisciplinary projects. Other specialties and discipline expected of the team include expertise in
Marine Protected Areas, Information Systems and Environmental Monitoring, Training, Infrastructure,
and Public Awareness and Education.
Members of the team must be fully bilingual in English and Spanish, and be prepared to travel to Belize,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador, and the U.S.A. Experience in the evaluation of trans-
national coastal projects will be a key asset.
VII. Length of Consultancy
The length of this consultancy should not exceed 68 person days, with the Final Report being submitted
no later than March 20th, 2007.
VIII. Location of Consultancy
The consultancy will be conducted in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and possibly El Salvador
and the U.S.A.
- 51 -
Annex 2: GEF MBRS Terminal Evaluation
GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
The following is the evaluation and rating criteria outlined in the "Draft Guidelines for Implementing
and Executing Agencies to Conduct Terminal Evaluations" (as of November 26th, 2006).
1. Assessment of Project Results
The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006, specifies that TEs will at the minimum assess
achievement of outputs and outcomes and will provide ratings for targeted objectives and
outcomes1. The assessment of project results seeks to determine the extent to which the project
objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, and assess if the project has led to any
other positive or negative consequences. While assessing a project's outcomes TEs will seek to
determine the extent of achievement and shortcomings in reaching project's objectives as stated
in the project document and also indicate if there were any changes and whether those changes
were approved. If the project did not establish a baseline (initial conditions), the evaluator should
seek to estimate the baseline condition so that achievements and results can be properly
established. Since most GEF projects can be expected to achieve the anticipated outcomes by
project closing, assessment of project outcomes should be a priority. Outcomes are the likely or
achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention's outputs. Examples of outcomes
could include but are not restricted to stronger institutional capacities, higher public awareness
(when leading to changes of behavior), and transformed policy frameworks or markets. For GEF
4 projects it is required, and for GEF 3 projects it is encouraged, that the evaluators assess the
project results using indicators and relevant tracking tools.
To determine the level of achievement of project results and objectives following three criteria
will be assessed in the TEs:
· Relevance: Were the project's outcomes consistent with the focal areas/operational program
strategies and country priorities? The evaluators should also assess the extent outcomes
specified in the project appraisal documents are actually outcomes and not outputs or inputs.
· Effectiveness: Are the project outcomes commensurable with the expected outcomes (as
described in the project document) and the problems the project was intended to address (i.e.
original or modified project objectives2)? In case in the original or modified expected
outcomes are merely outputs/inputs then the evaluators should assess if there were any real
outcomes of the project and if yes then whether these are commensurate with the realistic
expectations from such projects.
· Efficiency: Was the project cost effective? Was the project the least cost option? Was the
project implementation delayed and if it was then did that affect cost-effectiveness? Wherever
possible the evaluator should also compare the cost-time vs. outcomes relationship of the
project with that of other similar projects.
1 See page 21 Minimum requirement 3: Project Evaluation - in The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006.
2 The GEF Secretariat, IAs and EAs are currently seeking to better align the focal area program indicators and
tracking tools with focal area strategic priorities, and project objectives. This will enable the aggregation of
outcomes and impacts for each focal area to annually measure progress toward targets in the program indicators and
strategic priorities. Projects are expected to use GEF focal area program indicators and tracking tools to trace
progress towards project outcomes during implementation.
- 52 -
Annex 2: GEF MBRS Terminal Evaluation
GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation of relevancy, effectiveness and efficiency will be as objective as possible and will
include sufficient and convincing empirical evidence. Ideally the project monitoring system
should deliver quantifiable information that can lead to a robust assessment of project's
effectiveness and efficiency. Since projects have different objectives assessed results are not
comparable and cannot be aggregated. To track the health of the portfolio project outcomes will
be rated as follows:
Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Satisfactory (S): The project had minor shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in
terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project had moderate shortcomings in the achievement of
its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project had significant shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Unsatisfactory (U) The project had major shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives,
in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project had severe shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Relevance and effectiveness will be considered as critical criteria. The overall outcome rating of
the project may not be higher than the lowest rating on either of these two criteria. Thus, to have
an overall satisfactory rating for outcomes a project must have at least satisfactory ratings on both
relevance and effectiveness.
The evaluators will also assess positive and negative actual (or anticipated) impacts or emerging
long term effects of a project. Given the long term nature of impacts, it might not be possible for
the evaluators to identify or fully assess impacts. Evaluators will nonetheless indicate the steps
taken to assess project impacts, especially impacts on local populations3, local environment (e.g.
increase in the number of individuals of an endangered species, improved water quality, increase
in fish stocks, reduced greenhouse gas emissions) and wherever possible indicate how the
findings on impacts will be reported to the GEF in future.
3 Impacts are positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development
intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based
management. OECD, Development Assistance Committee. For the GEF, environmental impacts are the main focus.
- 53 -
Annex 2: GEF MBRS Terminal Evaluation
GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
2. Assessment of Sustainability of Project Outcomes
The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006, specifies that a TE will assess at the minimum
the "likelihood of sustainability4 of outcomes at project termination, and provide a rating for
this." The sustainability assessment will give special attention to analysis of the risks that are
likely to affect the persistence of project outcomes. The sustainability assessment should also
explain how other important contextual factors that are not outcomes of the project will affect
sustainability. Following four dimensions or aspects of sustainability will be addressed:
· Financial resources: Are there any financial risks involved in sustaining the project
outcomes? What is the likelihood that financial and economic resources will not be available
once the GEF assistance ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and
private sectors, income generating activities, and trends that may indicate that it is likely that
in future there will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project's outcomes)?
· Sociopolitical: Are there any social or political risks that can undermine the longevity of
project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership will be insufficient
to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders
see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient
public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project?
· Institutional framework and governance: Do the legal frameworks, policies and
governance structures and processes pose any threat to the continuation of project benefits?
While assessing on this parameter also consider if the required systems for accountability and
transparency, and the required technical know-how is in place.
· Environmental: Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of
project environmental benefits? The TE should assess whether certain activities in the project
area will pose a threat to the sustainability of the project outcomes. For example, construction
of dam in a protected area could inundate a sizable area and thereby neutralizing the
biodiversity related gains made by the project.
On each of the dimensions of sustainability of the project outcomes will be rated as follows.
Likely (L): There are no risks affecting this dimension of sustainability.
Moderately Likely (ML). There are moderate risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.
Moderately Unlikely (MU): There are significant risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability
Unlikely (U): There are severe risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.
All the risk dimensions of sustainability are critical. Therefore, overall rating for sustainability
will not be higher than the rating of the dimension with lowest ratings. For example, if a project
has an Unlikely rating in either of the dimensions then its overall rating cannot be higher than
Unlikely, regardless of whether higher ratings in other dimensions of sustainability produce a
higher average.
4 Sustainability will be understood as the likelihood of continued benefits after the GEF project ends.
- 54 -
Annex 2: GEF MBRS Terminal Evaluation
GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
3. Catalytic role
The terminal evaluation will also describe any catalytic or replication effect of the project. If no
effects are identified, the evaluation will describe the catalytic or replication actions that the
project carried out. No ratings are requested for the catalytic role.
4. Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems.
The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006, specifies that a TE will assess whether the
project met the minimum requirements for project design of M&E (minimum requirement 1) and
the application of the Project M&E plan (minimum requirement 2)5. GEF projects must budget
adequately for execution of the M&E plan, and provide adequate resources for during
implementation of the M&E plan. Project managers are also expected to use the information
generated by the M&E system during project implementation to improve and adapt the project.
Given the long duration of many GEF projects, projects are also encouraged to include long-term
monitoring plans to measure results (such as environmental results) after project completion. TE
reports will include separate assessments of the achievements and shortcomings of these two
types of M&E systems.
M&E during project implementation
M&E design. Project should have a sound M&E plan to monitor results and track progress
towards achieving project objectives. An M&E plan should include a baseline (including data,
methodology, etc.), SMART6 indicators and data analysis systems, and evaluation studies at
specific times to assess results. The time frame for various M&E activities and standards for
outputs should have been specified.
M&E plan implementation. An M&E system was in place and facilitated timely tracking of
results and progress towards projects objectives throughout the project implementation period.
Annual project reports were complete, accurate and with well justified ratings. The information
provided by the M&E system was used during the project to improve project performance and to
adapt to changing needs. Projects had an M&E system in place with proper training for parties
responsible for M&E activities to ensure data will continue to be collected and used after project
closure.
Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. M&E was sufficiently budgeted and was
adequately and timely funded during implementation.
Project monitoring and evaluation system will be rated as follows on each of the dimensions:
Highly Satisfactory (HS): There were no shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Satisfactory(S): There were minor shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): There were moderate shortcomings in the project M&E
system.
5 See page 21 Minimum requirement 3: Project Evaluation - in The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006.
6 SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely.
- 55 -
Annex 2: GEF MBRS Terminal Evaluation
GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): There were significant shortcomings in the project M&E
system.
Unsatisfactory (U): There were major shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The Project had no M&E system.
"M&E plan implementation" will be considered a critical parameter for the overall assessment of
the M&E system. The overall rating for the M&E systems will not be higher than the rating on
"M&E plan implementation."
Monitoring of long term changes
M&E of long term changes is often incorporated in the GEF supported projects as a separate
component and it may include determination of environmental base lines, specification of
indicators, provisioning of equipment and capacity building for data gathering, analysis and use.
This section of the TE will describe the actions and accomplishments of the project in the
establishment of a long term monitoring system. The review will address the following questions:
Did this project contributed to the establishment of a long term monitoring system?
If it did not, should the project have included such a component?
What were the accomplishments and short comings in establishment of the system?
Is the system sustainable, i.e. is it imbedded in a proper institutional structure and has
financing?
Is the information being generated by this M&E system being used as originally intended?
5. Assessment of processes that affected attainment of project results.
Among other factors, it is suggested that the evaluation team considers following issues affecting
project implementation and attainment of project results. However, evaluators are not expected to
provide ratings on these issues:
· Preparation and readiness. Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable
and feasible within its timeframe? Were capacities of executing institution and counterparts
properly considered when the project was designed? Were lessons from other relevant
projects properly incorporated in design? Were the partnership arrangements properly
identified and the roles and responsibilities negotiated prior to project entry? Was availability
of counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), passage of enabling legislation, and
adequate project management arrangements in place at project entry?
· Country ownership/Drivenness. Was the project concept in line with the national sectoral
and development priorities and plans? Are project outcomes contributing to national
development priorities and plans? Were the relevant country representatives, from
government and civil society, involved in the project? Did the recipient government maintain
its financial commitment to the project? Have the government approved policies or regulatory
frameworks been in line with the project's objectives?
- 56 -
Annex 2: GEF MBRS Terminal Evaluation
GEF Terminal Evaluation Criteria
· Stakeholder involvement. Did the project involve the relevant stakeholders through information
sharing, consultation and by seeking their participation in project's design, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation? For example, did the project implement appropriate outreach and
public awareness campaigns? Did the project consult and make use of the skills, experience and
knowledge of the appropriate government entities, NGOs, community groups, private sector,
local governments and academic institutions in the design, implementation and evaluation of
project activities? Were perspectives of those that would be affected by decisions, those that
could affect the outcomes and those that could contribute information or other resources to the
process taken into account while taking decisions? Were the relevant vulnerable groups and the
powerful, the supporters and the opponents, of the processes properly involved?
· Financial planning. Did the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting
and planning, that allowed management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and
allowed for timely flow of funds. Was there due diligence in the management of funds and
financial audits? Did promised co-financing materialize?
· IA/EA Supervision and backstopping. Did Implementing and Executing Agency staff identify
problems in a timely fashion and accurately estimate its seriousness? Did Implementing and
Executing Agency staff provide quality support and advice to the project, approved
modifications in time and restructured the project when needed? Did the Implementing and
Executing Agencies provide the right staffing levels, continuity, skill mix, frequency of field
visits?
· Co-financing and Project Outcomes & Sustainability. If there was a difference in the level of
expected co-financing and actual co-financing, then what were the reasons for it? Did the extent
of materialization of co-financing affect project's outcomes and/or sustainability, and if it did
affect outcomes and sustainability then in what ways and through what causal linkage did it
affect it?
· Delays and Project Outcomes & Sustainability. If there were delays in project implementation
and completion, then what were the reasons for it? Did the delay affect the project's outcomes
and/or sustainability, and if it did affect outcomes and sustainability then in what ways and
through what causal linkage did it affect it?
6. Lessons and recommendations.
The evaluators will present lessons and recommendations on all aspects of the project that they
consider relevant in the TE report. The evaluators will be expected to give special attention to
analyzing lessons and proposing recommendations on aspects related to factors that contributed or
hindered: attainment of project objectives, sustainability of project benefits, innovation, catalytic
effect and replication, and project monitoring and evaluation.
Evaluators should refrain from providing recommendations to improve the project. Instead they
should seek to provide a few well formulated lessons applicable to the type of project at hand or to
GEF's overall portfolio. TEs should not be done with the motive of appraisal, preparation, or
justification, for a follow-up phase. Wherever possible TE reports should include examples of good
practices for other projects in a focal area, country or region.
- 57 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
CLAUDIA L. ALDERMAN
3505 34th St, NW Washington, DC 20008
(202) 362-6979, (202) 250-0798
calderman2@verizon.net
EDUCATION
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Master of Environmental Studies, 1990
Thesis Topic: A Study of the Role of Privately-Owned Lands Used for Nature Tourism,
Education and Conservation.
George Washington University
Bachelor of Arts, Sociology, 1983
Special concentration: Third World Development Sociology.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Independent Consultant, December 2006 present
·
Team leader responsible for the Independent Evaluation of the Meso America
Barrier Reef Project. This evaluation was conducted using Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) guidelines for independent terminal evaluations.
Client: The MBRS project, Belize.
·
Responsible for evaluating the contribution of small grants to conservation
outcomes in World Bank/GEF Biodiversity projects. The study's goal is to
provide guidance in designing and implementing small grants programs. Client:
The World Bank, GEF Biodiversity Team.
THE WORLD BANK GROUP, January 1991- January 2005
Senior Environment Specialist
· Latin America and the Caribbean: Fifteen years experience as Task Team Leader
responsible for the preparation, appraisal, supervision and evaluation of over a
dozen environment projects (list of projects in page 2).
· Africa: While based at the South Africa Resident Mission for one year (1998-
1999).Team leader for the preparation of the Implementation Completion Report
for the Kenya Protected Areas Project; provided cross-support for the Malawi
Environment Project,
· Special assignment with the Department of Institutional Integrity, providing
support in the investigation of allegations of fraud and corruption in projects in
Bolivia, Venezuela and Colombia (2001-2004).
- 58 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
FRIENDS OF THE PERUVIAN RAINFOREST, July-September 1990
Consultant: Developed and implemented a plan to ensure that giant river otters are not
harmed by tourism in Manu National Park. Provided lectures to tourists on local
conservation work in the park. These lectures elicited donations for conservation from
over fifty percent of visitors.
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, May-August 1989
Summer Intern for the Science Program: Responsible for developing maps of protected
areas in Latin America.
SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Jan.-May 1986
Research Assistant, Barro Colorado Island: Surveyed experimental plot for the Forest
Dynamics Project.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT EXPERIENCE
· Peru: Trust Fund for Protected Areas, Team Leader for preparation, appraisal,
supervision and Implementation Completion Report.
· Caribbean (6 country project): OECS Solid Waste Management Project, Team Leader
during 2 year supervision.
· Guyana: Protected Areas System, Team Leader for preparation and appraisal.
· Caribbean (11 country project): Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change, Team
Leader for preparation, appraisal and supervision.
· Brazil: Extractive Reserves Project, Rain Forest Program, Team Leader for preparation
and appraisal.
· Brazil: National Forests Project, Rain Forest Program, Team Leader for preparation and
appraisal.
· Brazil: Natural Resources Management, Rain Forest Program, Team Leader for project
identification.
· Bolivia: Protected Areas System, Team Leader for preparation and appraisal.
· Kenya: Protected Areas System, Team Leader for the Implementation Completion Report.
· Malawi: Environment Project, Team member - supervision.
· Mexico: Environment Project, Team member - preparation and appraisal.
· St. Lucia: Protected Areas Project, Team member - project identification and preparation.
REFERENCES
The World Bank Group, 1818 H St. NW, Washington DC, 20433
Ms. Maria Donoso-Clark, Lead Social Development Specialist
(202) 473-9710
Dr.
George
Ledec,
Lead
Ecologist (202)
473-9267
Mr. Diomedes Berroa,
Senior Operations Officer
(202) 458-8907
Dr. Claudia Sobrevila,
Senior Biodiversity Specialist
(202) 473-5004
- 59 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
Lawrence Lechner
3817 N. Co. Rd. 25 E, Bellvue, CO 80512
970-484-7402 (phone)
970-484-0275 (fax)
mailto:larlec@frii.com
mailto:larry@manejodeap.com
http://www.manejodeap.com/
EDUCATION
M. S. Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, 1996
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
major: Park and Protected Area Management
minor: Ecotourism, Land-use Planning
Thesis topic: "Evaluating Infrastructure in Costa Rican Parks and Protected Areas: Lessons in
Comprehensive Infrastructure Planning and Evaluation"
B.A. Philosophy, 1971
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
major: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
minor:
English
Intensive Spanish language training:
Instituto Cultural de Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico
1993
Baden Powell Institute, Moralia,
Mexico
1994
Intensive Portuguese language training:
Universidad
de
Paraná
1999
SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE
· Extensive experience in protected area management, planning and training
· Ecotourism and tourism planning in protected areas; public use of protected areas
· Park and commercial infrastructure planning, evaluation, and design including
· environmental monitoring and environment, health and safety management on infrastructure development projects
· Environment, Health and Safety Management planning and monitoring
· On-site project management, evaluation and monitoring
· Ability to design monitoring programs, select indicators, and carry out program evaluation
· Natural resource site analysis
· Experience with Geographic Information Systems (ArcInfo, ArcView, Idrisi) and Global Positioning Systems
· Advanced computer skills in word processing, spread sheet, data base, statistical analysis (SPSS, SAS), GIS (Arcinfo,
ArcView, IDRISI), CAD (MiniCad, Vector Works), Access DB Certification, and estimating programs
· Visitor survey design and statistical analysis, database development
· Ability to plan, implement, and direct public involvement processes
· Advanced trail planning, design and construction skills
· Alternative energy design, evaluation and installation
· Drafting, design, and engineering skills
· Extensive experience in carpentry, cabinet making, metal fabrication, and concrete construction
- 60 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
· Personnel management, client relations, estimating and job scheduling skills
· Extensive training and teaching experience
· Advanced Spanish language skills, Portuguese language skills
· Advanced photography and digital processing
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (previous 10 years)
Affiliate
Faculty, College of Natural Resources, Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism
Center
Affiliate, Center for Protected Area Management and Training, Colorado State University
Poverty and the Environment, Capacity Building in Afghanistan
2006
· Carried out needs assessment and designed program for capacity building to manage
conservation areas, plan tourism and develop infrastructure for Ministry and field levels
· Worked informally with other professionals on PA planning and tourism potential
· Carried out 3 week course for Ministry, ADB, and other professionals involved in conservation planning
and program development with field components in two locations.
Signage and Infrastructure at Wadi Gemal National Park, Egypt (USAID/Chemonics)
2006
Work with LIFE: Red Sea Sustainable Economic Growth in the Red Sea Governorate
Assessed current situation regarding park signage
Surveyed and identified key locations in park where signage is needed
Developed simple but informative templates for sign design, in Arabic and English
Identified mechanisms for using local artisans, locally-procured and low-cost materials, to produce signs made
from a uniform, quality-controlled set of templates
Prepared an Action Plan for Signage in Wadi Gemal National Park that included immediate and longer term
priorities, steps, responsibilities, resource requirements, and critical assumptions
Worked with Rangers and other personnel to establish sign program and sign shop.
Infrastructure and Trail Training and Capacity building in Latin America
2000-2006
· Designed and implemented on the ground trainings for specific Protected Areas in Latin America
· Topics included infrastructure planning, design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance
· Cost, risk and needs analysis relating to infrastructure
· Trial planning, design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance
· Development of infrastructure and trails materials in Spanish and Portuguese
· Development of a "Train the Trainers" program for trails
· Micro enterprise development for trail construction and maintenance program (El Salvador)
· Sites included: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Brazil, Chile, Panamá, México
USAUD MIRA Trails and Infrastructure Training, Pico Bonito NP, Honduras
2005
· Work with IRG to provide on-site training for infrastructure and trails training
· Lead one week training in Pico Bonito NP
· Design and build, with participants, new trail sections in Pico Bonito NP
· Conducted and supervised field exercises
· All instruction and materials in Spanish
· Work with the Honduran Natural Resource Ministry (COHDAFOR) and the Tourism Ministry (IHT) to
develop standards for infrastructure throughout their NP system.
Meso American Tourism Association Infrastructure and Trails Training, Copan, Honduras
2005
- 61 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
· Capacity building for ecotourism infrastructure development
· Conducted training and field exercises
· Themes included private sector ecotourism development and its relation to conservation, protected areas,
concession management, zoning, interpretation, trail building and zoning.
Sabana Camagüey GEF Biodiversity Conservation Project / Centro Nacional de Areas Protegidas and Sociedad de
Espeleogica de Cuba, Cuba
2001-3
Workshop on Public Use in Karst Areas
· Provided training for infrastructure planning and development in caves and karst areas
· Worked with architects and planners and speleologists involved in conservation and cave and karst issues
throughout Cuba; Conducted and supervised field exercises
GEF / World Bank St. Lucia Coastal/Wetlands Conservation and Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Project 2001-2
· Project team leader for PAD preparation activities
· Protected Area Specialist responsible for Infrastructure Component, Information Management Component and
Environmental Education Component
· Responsible for coordination of 9 person consultant team; Responsible for reviewing consultant reports and
producing final Project Appraisal Document Proposal
Pro-Atlantica/GFA Terra, Curitibá, Brazil
2002
· Analyzed potential and prerequisites for tourism and public use of Parque Estatal Lauráceas in Paraná, Brazil
· Layout and evaluated trail and other infrastructure development
Sabana Camagüey GEF Biodiversity Conservation Project / Centro Nacional de Areas Protegidas, Cuba
2001
· Provided training for infrastructure planning and development; Worked with architects and planners involved
in conservation and protected areas throughout Cuba; Conducted and supervised all field exercises, including 5
workshops
FATAMA (Fundaçao do Meio Ambiente) and IPHAN (Instituto do Patrimonio Historico e Artistico Nacional) 2001
· Provided training for infrastructure and trails planning and development; Conducted and supervised field
exercises; All instruction and materials in Portuguese
AATA International
2000
· Developed data analysis and write up for the Flora / Fauna section of the Tanghuu Gas Pipeline Facility
· Developed Flora / Fauna sections for the Tanghuu section of the ANDAL (Indonesian EIA) assessment of
impacts; Developed soil erosion models for ANDA, and Access data base of photo archive for the Cuiab gas
pipeline project
World Bank/GEF OECS Solid Waste Management Project
2000
· Provided field support for missions to St. Lucia and St. Kitts & Neves
· Assessed problem and wrote annexes on bio medical waste disposal and incineration issues
· Consulted with various facility managers and government officials and provided information to mission team
· Evaluated current solid waste management practices on site and provided feedback to mission team
· Evaluated country requests for project extensions
· Wrote Block B project request for development of GEF/World Bank conservation project, later approved
AATA environmental consultant for Overseas Private Investment Corporation 18" Cuiabá gas pipeline
2000-1
project, Caceres, Brazil
· Field office manager for environmental management of the Brazil portion of 18" gas pipeline
- 62 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
· Acted as field environmental inspector for OPIC
· Developed database for field data collected in Bolivia and Brazil; Assessed operations for compliance with
OPIC charter; Identified and assessed potential environmental constraints and developed mitigation strategies
· Identified and assessed biodiversity threats, especially concerning bats and endemic species;
· Identified and reported on karst issues related to pipeline construction
World Bank/GEF Consultant to Trinidad and Tobago Protected Areas and Wildlife Mgmt. Project
1999
· Reviewed and adjusted technical and institutional design of the proposals for establishing three coastal/marine
sites as protected areas
· Examined proposed project plan in relation to current and proposed legislation, examined technical base with
relation to GEF Operational Strategy guidelines on biodiversity and Operation Program, reviewed investment
proposals and recurrent cost projections, commercial/management aspects, staffing and institutional structure,
buffer zone interventions, training, and monitoring and evaluation system
World Bank/GEF Consultant to Jamaica Cockpit Country Conservation Project
1999
· Team Protected Area Specialist; Assessed proposed biodiversity, land use, training, and infrastructure analysis
· Advised project preparation team on monitoring and evaluation indicators and outputs;
· Assessed information needs related to buffer zone management
World Bank Consultant to Malawi Environmental Management Project
1999
· Evaluated proposed infrastructure and prepared background papers on infrastructure component
· Reviewed EIA for infrastructure component
World Bank Consultant to provide implementation support to the National Trust Fund for Protected
1999
· Assisted PROFONANPE with the preparation of the 1999 Work Plan (WP) and with the 1998 Annual
Progress Report
World Bank Consultant for the Implementation Completion Review of the Kenya Protected Areas and 1999
Wildlife Services (PAWS) Project
· Contributed to the preparation of the Report, with a specific focus on evaluating achievement of the project
development objectives relating to: (i) rehabilitation of infrastructure in the National Parks and Reserves; (ii)
improving management of the National Parks and Reserves; (iii) strengthening the Wildlife Protection Service
of the Kenya Wildlife Service; and (iv) improving research and planning capacity of the KWS
Project Development Workshop: Integrating Biodiversity Information Management into the Curricula of Wildlife
Training Institutions, World Conservation Monitoring Center, London, England
1999
· Worked with 24 natural resource professionals from throughout the world to identify information management
needs, resources, and techniques appropriate to protected area management, biodiversity conservation and
monitoring
Owner and operator of Delphic Productions, a design/build company
1974-present
· Design, estimate costs, and construct numerous buildings and structures
· Responsible for customer and personnel relations, estimating, site analysis, structural design and construction
supervision
Technical Advisor, Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, Denver, CO
1993-present
· Plan, design and supervise the construction of a variety of outdoor facilities including: handicapped accessible
fishing docks at the Environmental Learning Center, Fort Collins, CO; covered picnic areas, Ridgeway, CO;
signage, Pine, CO; wilderness trail in the San Juan National Forest; accessible trail system at Easter Seals
Handicamp
- 63 -
Annex 3: MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Qualifications of TE Team
National Trails Surface Symposium, Santa Cruz, CA
1999
· Worked with a team of 12 natural resource professionals to develop standards for the evaluation of trail
surfaces suitable for use by disabled persons in recreational settings; and design best practice standards for
trails design intended for use by disabled persons in recreational settings
Colorado State Trails Seminar
1998
· Instructor for Trails Design seminar, a one day short course
Cuban Protected Area Management Training
1998
· Worked with the Cuban National Center for Protected Areas to design training program
· Visited several protected areas in Cuba, discussed management policies, needs, and problems
· Worked with others to develop a detailed design for a one month short course in Cuba
· Currently working on grant proposals for Cuban short course
Professor for Conservation Planning, Santa Teresa, Espirito Santo, Brazil
1998
· Lectured on trail construction, site analysis, infrastructure development, Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum planning, visitor management, conflict resolution, visitor studies, & concession
management
· Directed field training on trail construction, site analysis, and conducted planning exercises
· Supervised development of management plans for Ecological Reserve Museu de Biologia Prof. Mello
Leitao
Gary Carghill Memorial Trail, Empire, Colorado
1998
· Designed and supervised construction of a 3,500 foot trail designed to test new surface materials
· Designed guidelines for handicapped users
Reserva Natural Salto Morato, Parana, Brazil
1998-2001
· Designed 3 km. trail reroute
· Lectured on trail construction, site analysis, infrastructure development, Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum planning, visitor management
· Directed field training on trail construction, site analysis, campsite monitoring, and conducted
planning exercises
Consultant to the World Bank Guyana National Protected Areas System Project
1998
· Prepared Monitoring and Evaluation plan for Guyana Protected Area Management System
· Assisted in development and preparation of final negotiation documents for Guyana Protected Area
Management System
· Conducted site visits and area evaluations,
· Evaluated proposed infrastructure plans for pilot park at Kaieteur Falls, including potential trail
routes, building sites and developmental needs, including design, costs and feasibility
· Made recommendations for infrastructure development at Kaieteur Falls for recreational and
management use, including costs & feasibility
Consultant to WWF/Brazil Projeto de Desenvolvimento de Trilhas Interpretatives em F. de Noronha 1997
· Used Visitor Impact Management planning framework to evaluate, plan and design terrestrial and
marine trail system at Fernando de Noronha National Park, Brazil
· Developed and designed infrastructure
· Developed monitoring system for trails, interpretation and infrastructure
· Created long-term monitoring strategy for program evaluation and environmental impact
- 64 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
KAREN SUZANNE RICHARDSON
508 Prince Albert Av. Westmount, Quebec
H3Y 2P8, CANADA
Email: karen.richardson@mcgill.ca
Ph: Home: (514) 484-8381, cell (514) 206-8300, work (514) 398-4944
EDUCATION
2000
Ph.D. Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Thesis title:
Biodiversity Priorities and Conservation Decision-Making: The role of spatial scale,
irreplaceability and vulnerability in Guyana. Supervisor: Prof. Thom Meredith
1990
M.Sc. Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Thesis title: Space
Use by Vervet Monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) and its Consequences for the Genetic
Structure of the Barbados Population. Supervisor: Prof. Wayne Hunte
1986
B.Sc.(Hons) Department of Biology, Queens University, Kingston, Canada.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2005-2006
Research Associate: Department of Geography, McGill University
Lecturer: Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas Geography 370
2000-2005
Senior Research Fellow: Cooperative Research Centre on Tropical Rainforest Ecology
and Management, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia (60 %).
1992-present Consultant Biodiversity Specialist: World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA
1998 -1999
Research Officer: Cooperative Research Centre on Tropical Rainforest Ecology and
Management, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia.
1996 1999 Research Associate: Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia.
1991-1992
Long-term consultant to the West and Central Africa Agriculture Division: World Bank,
Washington, D.C. USA.
1991
Researcher: Biology Department, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
1990
Project Manager: Project on the ecology of howler monkeys in the dry forest of Costa
Rica funded by Duke University.
1986-1989
Teaching assistant: Biology Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
- 65 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
LANGUAGES
Native speaker of English and French, conversational Spanish.
COURSES TAUGHT
Winter 2006: McGill University. Protected Areas Geog. - 370. Third year course. Course description:
Discussion of the goals of protected areas, focusing on the potential conflict between biodiversity
conservation and use for recreation, education and sustainable extraction of resources. Principles and
current issues in protected area design and management are reviewed. Examples are taken from developed
and developing countries.
GUEST LECTURES
Fall 2005 McGill University. Geography of Development. Geog408
Fall 2004 University of Queensland. Conservation and Wildlife Biology. Cons-6009
Winter 2004 - University of Queensland. Ecology and Environment BIOL-1016
Fall 2003 University of Queensland. Conservation and Wildlife Biology. Cons-6009
Winter 2003 - University of Queensland. Ecology and Environment BIOL-1016
CONSULTANCIES AND RESEARCH GRANTS
2005-
2006
World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on a study assessing the linkages between biodiversity
conservation and poverty alleviation for World Bank GEF projects. Lead consultant on study for
Environment Department, World Bank (6 months).
2004 Cooperative Research Centre on Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management operating grant
($56,000).
2003 Cooperative Research Centre on Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management operating grant
($65,000).
2003 Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland - "A comparison of processes for assessing
relative values for biodiversity significance" with Prof. Hugh Possingham ($34,000).
2003 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Uganda ICB-PAMSU Project, World Bank.
Lead consultant on the Implementation Completion Report.
2002 Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland - "An evaluation of the Biodiversity Assessment
Methodology" with Prof. Hugh Possingham ($10,000).
2002 Cooperative Research Centre on Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management operating grant
($38,000)
- 66 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
2002 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on a study assessing the linkages between biodiversity
conservation and poverty alleviation for World Bank GEF projects. Lead consultant on study for
Environment Department, World Bank (4 months).
2001 World
Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Uganda Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable
Forest Conservation Trust GEF Project, World Bank. Lead consultant on the Implementation
Completion Report (2 months).
2000 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project, World Bank. Lead consultant on the Implementation Completion Report (2 months).
1996-1998
World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant and task manager for the Global Environment Facility
and AusAid funded Rapid Appraisal of Biodiversity in Papua New Guinea Project, World Bank.
Managed the several aspects of the project from Brisbane and travelled to Canberra and Papua
New Guinea (7 months).
1998 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the proposed Guyana Global Environment Facility
(GEF) National Protected Areas System Project in Guyana, World Bank (1 month in Guyana).
1997 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the proposed Guyana Global Environment Facility
(GEF) National Protected Areas System Project, World Bank. Project Appraisal mission (1 month
in Guyana).
1997 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the Global Environment Coordination Division,
World Bank. Assisted in organizing and participating in a workshop on monitoring and evaluation
of biodiversity projects in Bali, Indonesia (2 weeks).
1996
World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and
Management GEF Project Mid-term Evaluation Mission, World Bank (1 month in Congo).
1996 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the proposed Guyana Global Environment Facility
(GEF) National Protected Areas System Project, World Bank (6 weeks in Guyana).
1996 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for Global Environment Facility (GEF) and AusAid
Rapid Appraisal of Biodiversity in Papua New Guinea project, World Bank. Identification
mission (2 weeks in Australia).
1995- 1996
World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant and task manager for the proposed Guyana Global
Environment Facility (GEF) National Protected Areas System Project, World Bank (5 months in
Guyana and Washington, D.C).
1995-1996
World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the Global Environment Coordination Division,
World Bank. Assisted in project review and the development of a biodiversity strategy (4 months
in Washington, D.C).
1995 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project supervision mission, World Bank (1 month in Congo).
- 67 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
1995 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant, mission leader and task manager for the proposed
Guyana GEF National Protected Areas System Project, World Bank. Identification mission,
prepared PDF/PPA request, terms of reference and Project Identification Document (4 months in
Guyana and Washington, D.C.)
1995 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project supervision mission, World Bank (1 month in Congo).
1995 World Bank - Biodiversity consultant for the Global Environment Coordination Division, World
Bank. Assisted in project review and the development of a biodiversity strategy (1 month in
Washington , D.C).
1994 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project supervision mission, World Bank (5 weeks in Congo).
1994 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the proposed Guyana GEF National Protected
Areas System Project, World Bank. Project identification mission (1 month in Guyana).
1994 World Bank - Biodiversity consultant for the Global Environment Coordination Division, World
Bank. Supervised two summer interns, reviewed project concepts, managed several tasks of the
operation officer, assisted in the development of a biodiversity strategy and helped coordinate
several projects with other donors (3 months in Washington, D.C.).
1994 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project supervision mission, World Bank (1 month in Congo).
1993 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project supervision mission, World Bank (6 weeks in Congo).
1993 World Bank - Biodiversity consultant for the Global Environment Coordination Division, World
Bank. Reviewed technical and managerial components of all World Bank/GEF biodiversity
projects and collaborated on a paper that was presented at the first International Forum on
Biodiversity in Geneva, Switzerland (2 months in Washington).
1993 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project, project start-up mission and workshop, World Bank (1 month in Congo)
1992 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant on the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management
GEF Project, negotiation mission, World Bank (1 month in Congo).
1992 World Bank/GEF - Biodiversity consultant for the Global Environment Coordination Division,
World Bank. Prepared monitoring and evaluation guidelines for GEF biodiversity projects and
organized consultative meetings on guidelines (2 months in Washington, D.C.).
1991- 1992
World Bank/GEF - Assisted with the preparation of the Congo Wildlands Protection and
Management GEF Project, including five missions to Congo (18 months in Washington and
Congo).
- 68 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
1990 National Geographic Society Grant - "Population genetics and use of fragmented habitats by
howler and spider monkeys in northwest Costa Rica" with Dr. Colin Chapman and Dr. Ken
Glander ($15,000).
1989 EarthWatch and the Conservation Agency - "Research on the conservation of Chinese pangolins
and other mammals in southeast of China and Hong-Kong" ( 2 months in China)
1988 EarthWatch and the Conservation Agency - "Research on the conservation of Chinese pangolins
and other mammals in southeast of China and Hong-Kong" preliminary study (1 month)
PUBLICATIONS
Ferrier, S., G. Manion, J. Elith and K.S. Richardson. In press. Using generalised dissimilarity modelling to
analyse and predict patterns of beta-diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Diversity and
Distribution.
Guisan, A., C.H. Graham, J. Elith , F. Huettmann, R. Anderson, M. Dudik, S. Ferrier, R. Hijimans, J.
Leathwick, A. Lehmann, J. Li, B. Loiselle, G. Manion, C. Moritz, M. Nakamura, Y. Nakazawa,
J.Overton, A. T.Peterson, S. Phillips, K. Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R. Schapire, J. Soberón,
S. Williams, M. Wisz, N. E. Zimmerman. In press. Sensitivity of predictive species distribution
models to change in grain size: insights from a multi-models experiment across five continents.
Diversity and Distribution.
J. Carwardine, W.A. Rochester, K.S. Richardson, K.J. Williams, R.L. Pressey and H.P. Possingham. 2006.
Conservation planning with irrreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodiversity and Conservation.
Online First:1-14.
K.S. Richardson and V.A. Funk. Planning for persistence of biodiversity in Guyana. Submitted to Royal
Society of London Proceedings B.
E. Vázquez-Domínguez, C.Moritz, K.S.Richardson and S. Ferrier. Incorporating evolutionary
processes when prioritizing areas for conservation. Submitted to Molecular Ecology.
Elith, J., C.H. Graham, R.P. Anderson, M. Dudik, S. Ferrier, A. Guisan, R. Hijimans, F. Huettmann, J.R.
Leathwick, A. Lehmann, J. Li, L.G. Lohmann, B.A. Loiselle, G Manion, C. Moritz, M. Nakamura, Y.
Nakazawa, J.M. Overton, A.T. Peterson, S.J. Phillips, K. Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R.E.
Schapire, J. Soberon, S. Willimas, M.S. Wisz and N.E. Zimmermann. 2006. Novel methods improve
prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography. 29:129-151.
Funk, V.A., K.S. Richardson, S. Ferrier. 2005.Survey-gap analysis in expeditionary research: Where do we go
from here ? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 8:549-567.
Ferrier, S., George V.N. Powell, K.S. Richardson, G. Manion, J.M. Overton, T.F. Allnutt, S.E. Cameron, K.
Mantle, N.D. Burgess, D.P. Faith, J.F. Lamoreux, G. Kier, R.J. Hijmans, V.A. Funk, G.A. Cassis,
B.L. Fisher, P. Flemons, D. Lees, J.C. Lovett and R.S.A.R Van Rompaey. Mapping more of
- 69 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
terrestrial biodiversity for Global Conservation assessment: A new approach to integrating disparate
sources of biological and environmental data. 2004. BioScience 54 (12): 1101-1109.
Funk, V.A. and K.S. Richardson. 2002. Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it.
Syst. Biol. 51(2): 303-316.
Funk, V.A., A.K. Sakai and K.S. Richardson. 2002. Biodiversity: The interface between systematics and
conservation. Syst. Biol. 51(2): 2353-237.
Moritz, C., K.S. Richardson, S. Ferrier, G. B. Monteith, J. Stanisic, S.E. Williams and T. Whiffin. 2001.
Biogeographic concordance and efficiency of taxon indicators for establishing conservation
priority in a tropical rainforest biota. Proc. Roy Soc. Lond. B 268:1875-1881.
Dimitrakopoulos, R and K.S. Richardson 2000. Sustainable mineral development and environmental
conservation: A framework for decision-making. In: Singhal and Mehrotra (eds.) Environmental
Issues and Management of waste in energy and mineral production. pp. 29-34. Balkema,
Rotterdam
K.S. Richardson and V.A. Funk. 1999.An approach to designing a systematic protected area system in
Guyana. Parks. 9:7-16.
Newcombe, K. and K. S. Richardson. 1994. A Technical Review of the GEF's Pilot Phase Biodiversity
Investment Portfolio: Lessons for the Convention. In: A. Krattiger et al. Widening Perspectives on
Biodiversity. International Academy of the Environment.
Richardson, K.S. 1992. Monitoring and Evaluation of GEF Biodiversity Projects. Technical Paper, Global
Environment Facility, World Bank.
Grant, J.W.A., C.A. Chapman and K.S. Richardson 1992. Defended versus undefended home range size of
carnivores, ungulates and primates. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31:149-161.
Chapman, C.A., L.J. Chapman and K.S. Richardson. 1989. Sex-ratio in primates a test of the local resource
competition hypothesis. Oikos 56:132-134.
- 70 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3: Qualifications of TE Team
RECENT PAPER AND POSTERS PRESENTED
Ferrier, S., G. Manion, K. Mantle, G. Powell, T. Allnutt, N. Burgess, S. Palminteri, M. Dickerson, K.
Richardson, J. Overton, S. Cameron, G. Kier, W. Küper, J. Mutke, J. Lamoreux, D. Faith, J. Lovett,
M. Vargas, Q. Luke, R. van Rompeay, G. Schatz, B. Loiselle, V. Funk, D. Lees, C. Kremen, and B.
Fisher. 2003. A Methodology for Analyzing Gaps in the World's Protected Area System using
Environmental and Biogeographical Surrogates Calibrated with available Biodiversity Data. Vth
IUCN World Parks Congress, 8-17 September, Durban, South Africa.
Powell, G., T. Allnutt, N. Burgess, S. Palminteri, M. Dickerson, S. Ferrier, G. Manion, K. Mantle, K.
Richardson, M. Mcknight, J. Overton, S. Cameron, G. Kier, W. Küper, J. Mutke, J. Lamoreux, D.
Faith, J. Lovett, M. Vargas, Q. Luke, R. van Rompeay, G. Schatz, B. Loiselle, V. Funk, D. Lees, C.
Kremen, and B. Fisher. 2003. Addressing Data Needs and Data Gaps in an Assessment of the
Representativeness of the World's Protected Area System for Poorly-Known. Vth IUCN World
Parks Congress, 8-17 September, Durban, South Africa.
MacKinnon, K. and K.S. Richardson. 2003 Linkages: Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation-
Findings from World Bank/GEF Biodiversity projects. Vth IUCN World Parks Congress, 8-17
September, Durban, South Africa.
Hollowell, T., V. A. Funk, K. Richardson, and S. Ferrier. 2003. Using GIS to apply museum collections
data to biodiversity studies and conservation in Guyana. 23rd Annual ESRI International User
Conference, San Diego CA, 7-11 July. (poster).
Richardson, K.S., D. Faith, S. Ferrier and C. Margules. 2002. Beta diversity in the Wet Tropics: Bugs to
Birds. Ecological Society of Australia Meeting, Cairns, 11-14 Dec.
Ford, A. and K.S. Richardson 2002. Seeing the Gaps for the Trees, Where are the Species Hiding ?
Ecological Society of Australia Meeting, Cairns, 11-14 Dec. (poster)
Richardson, K. S.2002. Surrogates for biodiversity: A comparison between the Wet Tropics in Australia
and Guyana. Rainforest CRC meeting, Cairns 5-6 Dec.
- 71 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 4: Site Visits and Individuals Interviewed
1. The TE team visited the following MBRS offices and project sites:
· MBRS Project Coordinating Unit, Belize City
· Belize: National Coordinator, Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment
· Belize: Bacalar Chico Marine Reserve
· Mexico: Xcalak Marine Protected Area
· Guatemala: National Coordinator, Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
· Honduras: National Coordinator, Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente
· Mexico: National Coordinator, Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
· Mexico: Cancun Marine Protected Area
· Honduras: Utila, Turtle Harbor Wildlife Refuge
· Belize: Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve
· Guatemala: Sarstoon-Temash National Park Visitor Center
2. The TE team interviewed the following individuals:
Person/Position Institution/Relation to MBRS Project
Noel Jacobs, Regional Director
PCU, Belize City
Oscar Lara, NRM Specialist
PCU, Belize City
Tomas Camarena, EM Specialist
PCU, Belize City
Miguel Garcia, EM Specialist
PCU, Belize City
Marydelene Vasquez, IS Specialist
PCU, Belize City
Demetrio Martinez, Sociologist
PCU, Belize City
Delmar Lanza, Finance Director
PCU, Belize City
Humberto Paredes,
PCU, Belize City
Procurement & Disbursement Coordinator
Miguel Garcia, Proc. Specialist
PCU, Belize City
James Azueta,
Oversees Project activities in Belize; Chair of National Barrier Reef
Belize National Coordinator (Acting)
Committee; Member of Regional Steering Committee
Alicia Martinez, Manager
Bacalar Chico Marine Reserve. Received major infrastructural
support from MBRS
Wadu Hadad López, Coordinator Manager
Xcalak Marine Protected Area. Received major infrastructural
support from MBRS
Mito Paz, Executive Director
Green Reef. NGO that worked in MBRS Alternative Livelihood
Activities with fishers
- 72 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 4: Site Visits and Individuals Interviewed
Wil Maheia, Executive Director
Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE)NGO that
worked in MBRS Alternative Livelihood Activities with fishers
John Briceno, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Liaison Minister of the CCAD in Belize and Minister responsible for
Natural Resources and the Environment
the MBRS in Belize
Valdemar Andrade, Executive Director
Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) Strategic partner in the
planning of MBRS interventions in MPAs in Belize
Nelson Longsworth, Director
Ministry of Education, Quality Assurance Unit. Instrumental in the
development and adoption of MBRS Primary and Secondary School
Curricula in Belize
Alfonso Yah, Assistant Director
Ministry of Education. Instrumental in the development and adoption
of MBRS Primary and Secondary School Curricula in Belize
Melanie McField, Coordinator
Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative
Ryan Finchum
Emerald Planet
Jim Barbarak
Conservation International
Carlos Saavedra
Summit Foundation
Eloy Sosa
ECOSUR, Mexico. Consultant to MBRS regarding fisheries and
participant in technical meetings
Barbara Best, Policy Advisor
USAID
Anna Dominguez-Hoare, Executive Director
Belize Audubon Society
Mark Willuhn
Mesoamerican Ecotourism Alliance
Lauretta Burke
World Resources Institute
Brian Huse, Executive Director
Coral Reef Alliance
Alba Nydia Perez,
Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
Guatemala National Coordinator
Juan Pablo Suazo,
Direccion General de Biodiversidad, Secretaria de Recursos
Honduras National Coordinator
Naturales y Ambiente (SERNA)
Alfredo Arellano,
Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
Mexico National Coordinator
Juan Carlos Huitron Vaca,
Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
Sub Director Parque Nacional Costa Occidental
Alejandro Vega Zepeda,
Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
Monitoring Coordinator
Roberto Ibarra Navarro
Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
Reef Restoration
Jose Juan Dominguez, Sub Director Regional
Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
Tecnico, Coordinador Monitoreo Sinoptico
Jack Nightingale,
Toledo Association for Sustainable Tourism and Empowerment
Director
(TASTE)
Janet Gibson, Associate Conservation Scientist
Wildlife Conservation Society, Marine Program, Belize
- 73 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 4: Site Visits and Individuals Interviewed
Grant Galland, volunteer
Peace Corps
Lisa Agudelo, Project Coordinator
International Coral Reef Action Network
Marco Gonzales
Central American Commission on Environment and
Executive Director
Development
Calína Zepeda,
Bay Islands Conservation Association (BICA)
Executive Director
Lilian Morgan
Vice Alcalde, Utila
Mary Dueñas Martinez
Maestra, Utila
Danial Fabro, owner
Fabro Industries Ltd.
builder of Bacalar Chico Center
Jason Guy, manager
Sapodilla Cayes Marine Protected Area
Godwin Humes, biologist
Sapodilla Cayes Marine Protected Area
James D. Rosbborough
Earthwatch Volunteer, Sapodilla Cayes MPA
Jocelyn Rae Finch, science officer
Toledo Association for Sustainable Tourism and Empowerment
(TASTE), Sapodilla Cayes Marine Protected Area
Burton Shank, researcher
Biology Dept. Boston University
Oliver Carbutt, tour operator
Sapodilla Cayes Marine Protected Area
Silja Ramirez Yela, Asistente Technica
Río Sarstún MPA
Marcos F. Tiul, Technico de Campo y Guardaparque Rio Sarstún MPA
- 74 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 5: Documents Reviewed
The TE Team reviewed the following project documents:
Agreements on Common Enforcements in the MBRS Geographical Area. 8p.
Annual Work Plan, July 2001 - June 2002 41p.
Annual Work Plan, July 2002 - June 2003 47p
Annual Work Plan, July 2003 - June 2004 48p
Annual Work Plan, July 2004 - June 2005 54p.
Annual Work Plan, July 2005 - June 2006 56p.
Best Practices and Codes of Conduct for Cruise Tourism in the MBRS Region. July 2006. 30p.
Building Synergies in the Mesoamerican Reef Region: An Analysis of Conservation Investments to
Strengthen Collaboration and Partnerships - Phase 1. October 2005. 31p.
Database Design Documentation: Design and Implementation of a Regional Environmental Information
System (REIS) for the MBRS Project. August 2005. 60p.
Declaración de Chetumal. Resultados del Primer Congreso Mesoamericano de Pescadores. 6p.
Design and Implementation of the MBRS Sustainable Tourism Forum. March 2003. 84p.
Environmental Interpretation Manual for Protected Areas in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System
Region. December 2005. 53p.
Guidelines for Developing a Regional Monitoring and Environmental Information System 101p
Handbook - Standard Guide for the Assessment of Environmental Impact Studies
of Tourist Projects comprised in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Zone 97 p.
Linea Base del Estado del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano Version para revision. December 2006.
Manual for the Rapid Evaluation of Management Effectiveness in Marine Protected Areas of
Mesoamerica. December 2004 56p
Manual for Training Rangers of Marine Protected Areas in the MBRS Region. November 2004. 220p.
Manual of Methods for the Preparation of Public Use Programs in Protected Areas in the Region of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System. July 2005. 50p.
Manual of Methods for the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program. Selected Methods for Monitoring
Physical and Biological Parameters for Use in the Mesoamerican Region. P.C. Almada-Villela, P.F.
Sale, G. Gold-Bouchot y B. Kjerfve. April 2003. 155p
- 75 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 5: Documents Reviewed
MBRS Mid-Term Review Report March 9 - 21, 2004 24p.
Measuring coral reef ecosystem health: integrating societal dimensions, 2006 79p.
http://www.wordbank.org/icm
Policy Proposal for Sustainable Cruise Tourism in the MBRS Region. July 2006. 23p.
Progress Report No. 1 March 1 - December 31, 2001. 30p.
Progress Report No. 10 January - June, 2006. 31p
Progress Report No. 2 January 1 - June 30, 2002. 34p.
Progress Report No. 3 July 1 - December 31, 2002. 34p.
Progress Report No. 4 January 1 - June 30, 2003. 31p
Progress Report No. 5 July - December, 2003. 35p
Progress Report No. 6 January - June, 2004. 41p
Progress Report No. 7 July - December, 2004. 34p
Progress Report No. 8 January - June, 2005. 37p
Progress Report No. 9 July - December, 2005. 35p
Recommendations on Methodology for Monitoring the Effectiveness of MPA Management. April
2003. 59p.
Reef Fish Spawning Aggregation Monitoring Protocol for the Mesoamerican Reef and the Wider
Caribbean. July 2004 81p.
Regional Environmental Awareness Strategy. April 2003. 66p.
Regional Project for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System
(MBRS) Project Appraisal Document, 2001 176p.
Reporte de Avance No. 10 Enero - Junio, 2006. 31p.
Scaling up marine management - the role of marine protected areas, 2006, 120p.
http://www.worldbank.org/icm
Standard Guide for the Assessment of Environmental Impact Studies of Tourist Projects comprised in
the MBRS Zone. April 2005. 97p.
- 76 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 5: Documents Reviewed
Teacher's Guide for Primary Schools. Infusing the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Themes into the
Primary Schools Curricula. July 2004 159p.
Teacher's Guide for Secondary Schools. Infusing the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Themes into
the Secondary Schools Curricula. May 2004. 108p.
Threat and Root Cause Analysis. 22p
Training Manual on Design and Development of Management Plans for Marine Protected Areas. April
2003. 72p
Training Manual on Techniques for Fisheries Co-Management in the MBRS Region. April 2003. 49p.
Training Manual for Tour Guiding in Sport Fishing. December 2005. 72p.
Training Manual and Guide for Nature Interpretation. December 2005. 116p.
Training Manual for Tour Guiding in Kayaking and Snorkeling. December 2005. 44p.
Training Manual for Small Business Management. December 2005. 31p.
User Manual for the Regional Environmental Information System. Volume 1: Introduction, Volume 2:
Coral Reef Ecology and Volume 3: Mangrove & Seagrass Ecology. June 2005
- 77 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de Diciembre del 2006
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
vigencia del Proyecto
(diciembre del 2006)
1. Áreas Marinas
% Logros
Protegidas
a la
Logros a la Fecha
Fecha
A. Planeamiento,
Manejo, y Monitoreo
1. 8 AMP con línea base de Diseño de la línea base, publicación y
98%
Se ha generado con los Directores de las AMP la
datos establecida y programa distribución del documento completado. 20 AMP
línea base, completa para 20AMP's; 4 en
de monitoreo implementado con línea base, en proceso la edición del reporte
Honduras (Utila, Cayos Cochinos, Cuero y
para el año 4.
regional final..
Salado, Laguna Guaimoreto), 3 en Guatemala
(Manabique, Sarstún y Chocón Machacas), 6 en
Belice (Port Honduras, Cayos Zapotillos, Bacalar
Chico, Hol Chan, South Water Caye, Glovers's
Reef) 7 en México (Xcalak, Banco Chinchorro,
Santuario del Manatí, Punta Cancún, Sian Ka'an,
Isla Contoy y Yum Balam).
2. Planes Maestros para 10-
Planes Maestros para 3 AMPs completados; dos
90%
No se ha tenido avances para la consulta final en
años desarrollados para 4
consulta públicas se han desarrollado para el
Xcalak, sin embargo se han revisado los
AMP al año 3
cuarto plan; la tercera consulta se está
documentos de Uso Público y Plan Financiero,
planificando para concluir el cuarto plan.
que al ser aprobados por las Autoridades de
PNAX, procederán a la 3ra consulta.
3. Planes Operativos de 2-
Apoyo para desarrol ar el Plan de manejo de
90%
Indicador fue cambiado a un Programa de
años desarrollados para 15
OMOA completado. Entrenamiento a
intercambio de guardaparques y apoyo a la
AMPs en el año 4.
guardaparques de AMP de Belice realizado.
implementación de Planes de Manejo. La versión
Apoyo para el actualizar el Plan de Manejo de
ejecutiva del Plan de Manejo de Manabique fue
Sian Ka'an completado. Apoyo para Manabique
distribuida, el apoyo para Santuario del Manatí
completado.
está pendiente, por no depender de la CONANP,
la coordinación y comunicación no es efectiva. Se
ha ejecutado lo que se ha solicitado.
4. 160 personas capacitadas
169 personas capacitadas. En Enero del 2006
100%
Esta actividad está siendo implementada de
en manejo de AMP para el
se capacitaron 17 personas en interpretación
acuerdo a lo planificado. Los manuales ha sido
año 5 (FDP)
ambiental en AMP
distribuídos.
- 78 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de Diciembre del 2006
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
vigencia del Proyecto
(diciembre del 2006)
1. Áreas Marinas
% Logros
Protegidas
a la
Logros a la Fecha
Fecha
5. Comisiones de Parques
4 reuniones de la Comisión Transfronteriza se
100%
Primer grupo de recomendaciones para políticas
Transfronterizos establecidas han realizado y 2 reuniones del Grupo de
transfronterizas fueron desarrolladas por el Grupo
y recomendaciones para
Trabajo en Políticas
de Trabajo en Políticas, con la asistencia del
políticas transfronterizas
Centro de Legislación Ambiental de la UICN y
hechas para el final del
adoptadas en Belice, Guatemala y Honduras.
proyecto.
Adopción en México ha progresado más
lentamente que lo anticipado..
B. Fortalecimiento
Institucional
6. Infraestructura y equipo
Centros de Usos Múltiples han sido entregados
98%
El sendero de Bacalar Chico ha iniciado y se tiene
proveído en AMP de las
en Bacalar Chico, Utila, Xcalak, Sapodilla Caye y
la propuesta para completar el senderos para
regiones transfronterizas
Río Sarstún. Equipo fue entregado en Belice,
Sarstún.
para el final del proyecto.
Guatemala, Honduras & México, las
reparaciones para Sarstún fueron entregadas
satisfactoriamente, en Enero del 2006.
7. Equipo básico será
Equipo ha sido entregado en Belice, Guatemala,
98%
Será necesario que el Proyecto realice pequeñas
entregado en 11 AMPs para
Honduras & México, adicionalmente fue
inversiones adicionales en equipo para proveer
el final del Proyecto.
entregado a Chocón Machacas un Motor marino
unos pocos artículos críticos que han sido
y está en proceso la entrega de equipos de
identificados recientemente, y que no fueron
computo para las tres áreas en Honduras.
contemplados en las adquisiciones iniciales.
- 79 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Objectivos
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de diciembre del 2006
Observatiociones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
% Logro
s
2. Sistema Regional de
Aumentar el conocimiento y la
a la
Información Ambiental y
difusión de información relacionada
Fecha
Monitoreo
con la salud de los ecosistemas
costeros y marinos en el SAM y los
procesos en las cuencas que les
impactan para lograr un enfoque
integrado de manejo.
A. Creación e Implementación
de un Sistema Regional de
Información Ambiental (SRIA).
1. Entrenamiento de
1. Consolidar la capacidad nacional
1. Hay al menos una personaebn cada
60%
1 persona en Honduras y 1 en Mexico
entrenadores para incrementar
en el uso del SRIA.
país que es capaz de dar capacitación a
son capces de dar capacitacion y
las capacidades nacionales y la
usuarios nuevos y supervisar la captura de
supervision en el ingreso de datos.
supervisión de los usuarios.
datos.
Había 1 persona a este nivel en Belice
pero ha salido de su puesto. 1 persona
en Guatemala puede hacer capacitación
pero requiere de más capacitación.
2. Supervisión de la captura de
2. Asegurar la actualización
2. Todos los datos colectados hasta
60%
En Proceso
datos
continua de la base de datos con la
diciembre de 2006 han sido capturados y
información del monitoreo en el
estan en el SRIA
SRIA
3. Mantenimiento de SRIA y del
3. El sitio Web se mantiene actualizado y
75%
11 documentos nuevos añadidos
sitio WEB del SAM
ofrece todos los productos del proyecto
durante el periodo de extensión. Antes
SAM hasta junio de 2007.
de junio de 2007.
4. El SRIA funciona adecuadamente y es
75%
El SRIA ha sido funcionando y asequible
accisible para los usuarios hasta junio del
por los primeros 6 meses del periodo de
2007.
extensión.
- 80 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Objectivos
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de
%
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
diciembre del 2006
Logros a
la Fecha
3. Integrar actividades de monitoreo 5. Un Documento Conceptual y Términos
10%
El Monitoreo de Cuencas ha sido
de cuencas en la base de datos
de Referencia para para el módulo el
discutido. El diseño del módulo del SRIA
monitoreo de cuencas a ser incorporado en
depende totalmente del diseño de
el SRIA.
monitoreo que todavía está por definir.
4. Aumentar procesamiento y
6. Recomendaciones en el uso de
0%
A ser realizado en el periodo enero-junio
análisis espacial de la información
información geográfica y herramientas de
del 2007
en el SRIA.
SIG para apoyar el SRIA.
5. Implementar el monitoreo
7. Se incorpora un módulo
20%
Adquisición de los servicios de un
socioeconómico de largo plaze en el socioeconomico en el SRIA
programador ha empezado.
SRIA.
En proceso
0%
8. 8 personas capacitados en el uso del
A ser realizado en el periodo enero-junio
módulo socioeconómico.
del 2007
8. Generar mapas y otros
6. Apoyar actividades del SAM con
7. Equipo técnico obtienen mapas
100%
Mapas han sido producidos y
productos analíticos relacionados productos geográficos.
temáticas de cuencas, areas protegidas y
proporcionados al equipo técnico,
con las actividades del SAM.
salud Arrecifal para apoyar su trabajo.
cuando según se necesite.
7. Diseminar información geográfica 8. Por lo menos 5 mapas diseminados al
100%
21 mapas han sido publicados en el sitio
al público en general y a sus socios
público a través del sitio Web del Proyecto
Web y están asequibles por Internet.
para añadir una dimensión espacial
relacionados con salud Arrecifal, cuencas y
al entendimiento del SAM.
áreas protegidas.
9. Coordinar con los
8. Aumentar el entendimiento de la
9. Productos SIG preparados para
0%
A ser realizado en el periodo enero-junio
Especialistas en Monitoreo
salud del SAM a través de análisis
inclusión en un Informe de Análisis
del 2007
Ambiental para producir un
de tendencias temporales y
Comprensivo a ser disponible en junio de
análisis espacio-temporal ade
patrones espaciales notados en
2007 basados en todos los datos
todos los datos recopilados bajo
levantamientos consecutivos de
recopilados e ingresados en el SRIA hasta
el PMS.
monitoreo.
diciembre de 2006.
- 81 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Objectivos
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de
%
Observatiociones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
diciembre del 2006
Logros a
la Fecha
1. PMS diseñado e implementado Se elaboró el Manual de Monitoreo
100%
Se actualizará el manual del PMS en
durante el segundo año del
Sinóptico. 150 personas han sido
enero de 2007, con base en la
B. Establecimiento del programa
proyecto.
entrenadas en la implementación de los
experiencia adquirida durante su
de Monitoreo Sinóptico (PMS)
diferentes componentes del manual
implementación y con la actualización de
durante los programas de capacitación en
algunas técnicas y/o protocolos.
los cuatro países.
2. Al final de la primera fase del
La colecta de los datos se realizó de
95%
En diciembre de 2006 se finalizó la
Proyecto deberemos tener
acuerdo con el esquema propuesto para
versión en español del reporte de Línea
diseminar los reportes de la línea establecer la línea de base iniciando en
de Base y en enero de 2007 se realizará
de base sobre la salud de los
mayo de 2004. A la fecha se han
la traducción al Ingles. Una vez
ecosistemas del SAM.
establecido: Arrecifes: 13 localidades con
finalizada la traducción y revisión del
65 sitios. Pastos Marinos; 7 localidades
reporte, éste se pondrá en formato
con 32 sitios. Manglares; 8 localidades con
electrónico en el sitio Web del Proyecto.
12 sitios. Contaminación; 15 localidades
Se hará una impresión de reporte y será
con 18 sitios.
diseminado en papel en marzo de 2007.
3. Durante el segundo año del
Se concluyó el proceso de compra de
100%
Se encuentra en proceso de licitación el
Proyecto. Se hará entrega a las
bienes para Belice, Guatemala, Honduras
equipo menor que no estaba
organizaciones implementarias,
y México.
previamente identificado. La adquisición
equipo de campo básico.
de equipo se llevará a cabo durante el
periodo 2005-06.
- 82 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a vigencia del
Indicadores de Logros al 30 de Junio del 2006
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
Proyecto (diciembre del 2006)
3. Promoción & Uso Sostenible
% Logros a
del SAM
Logros a la Fecha
la Fecha
A. Promoción del Manejo de la
1. Formulación de un borrador de Completado el documento técnico sobre
90%
Entrenamiento adicional fue dado para
Pesca Sostenible
estrategia regional para el manejo de sitios de agregaciones de peces.
Honduras y Guatemala inició el
los sitios de agregaciones de peces Completado el protocolo de monitoreo y
monitoreo de "Manjúa", UNIPESCA en
completado para el final del Proyecto, un entrenamiento regional. Completado el
Guatemala adquirió compromisos de
año 5.
monitoreo en Belice, y México. Entregado
fondos de contraparte y garantía de
equipo en Belice, Guatemala, Honduras &
presentar los productos esperados. Se
México. Belice y México entregaron los
identificaron fondos para concluir los 12
reportes finales sobre los monitoreos de
meses de monitoreo de manjúa.
agregaciones. Se tienen 3 reportes de
avance sobre el monitoreo de manjúa.
2. 168 personas capacitadas en Entrenamientos en monitoreo de sitios de
100%
Adicionalmente, se realizó el Congreso
actividades de manejo de la pesca agregaciones y co-manejo de pesquerías
Regional de Pescadores con la
sostenible para final del Proyecto, año 5.
tanto a nivel regional como a nivel
participación de 80 delegados que fueron
nacional. Para un gran total de 377
capacitados y 80 delegados además,
personas capacitadas..
revisaron nuevos temas para ser
capacitados. Fueron publicados y
distribuídos 4 manuales sobre formas
alternativas de vida.
B. Facilitación del Turismo
3. Catalogo de prácticas ejemplares para
Las mejores prácticas fueron discutidas
90%
El manual de prácticas ejemplares
Costero Marino Sostenible
la industria del turismo costero marino fue
durante el forum de turismo y han sido
pretendía ser un documento en continua
propuesto en el Forum será desarrollado
compiladas y se publicaran en forma de
evolución; sin embargo se decidió que el
para el año 2.
Manual de Prácticas Ejemplares. Se tiene
Forum no debía continuar debido a que
una versión final del manual y una
no se obtiene suficiente valor en
segunda relativa a prácticas ejemplares
comparación con el dinero invertido en
en turismo de cruceros.
tal actividad. Se continuará con las
prácticas ejemplares recomendadas. A
la fecha se cuenta con el manual de
buenas prácticas para turismo de
cruceros.
- 83 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a vigencia
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de diciembre del 2005
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
del Proyecto (diciembre del 2006)
3. Promoción & Uso Sostenible
% Logros a
del SAM
Logros a la Fecha
la Fecha
4. Programa de Certificación
Consulta Regional en certificación fue
90%
Dado que el CST es especifico
Ambiental Regional diseñado e
conducida, con el Consejo
para hoteles e infraestructura, el
implementado para el año 5 (FDP)
Centroamericano de Turismo (CCT), las
Proyecto podría hacer
autoridades de turismo de los países del
inversiones en certificación de
SAM y socios del Proyecto. El Proyecto
otras actividades turísticas que
fue informado de la adopción por parte de
impactan directamente los
todos los países de Centro América de la
arrecifes. Sin embargo debido al
Certificación de Turismo Sostenible
costo y requerimientos
(CST). La consultoría sobre Códigos de
institucionales que requiere un
Conducta será en Marzo.
programa de certificación, fue
recomendado durante la consulta
que el Proyecto deberá
considerar promover y
desarrollar Códigos de Conducta
en lugar de la certificación. Esta
opción ha sido parcialmente
abordada en el desarrollo de las
políticas transfronterizas y en
colaboración con Coral Reef
Alliance los códigos de conducta
se encuentrán proceso. Sin
embargo se tienen los códigos
de conducta para turimso de
cruceros completado.
B. Facilitación del Turismo
5. Gira de estudio en Prácticas
Esta actividad está íntimamente
70%
A este nivel la actividad depende
Costero Marino Sostenible
Ejemplares de Turismo Marino
relacionada con el manual de práctica
de completar el manual de
diseñado y ejecutado para los
ejemplares, dado que las prácticas
prácticas ejemplares. Sin
operadores de turismo recién
ejemplares definidas en el manual
embargo explorará otras
iniciados, para el año 2.
deberán ser enfocadas en la gira, por
maneras de implementar la gira
ejemplo la intención es exponer a los
sin necesidad de esperar el
nuevos operadores turísticos que tengan
manual de prácticas ejemplares.
prácticas ejemplares dentro de la región y
Esto implica la identificación de
confirmar en el campo las prácticas que
entre 4 a 6 prácticas ejemplares
señala el manual.. Se han identificado
en la región, que puedan ser
cuatro sitios para realizar los programas
usadas como sitios de
piloto de turismo comunitario.
demostración para los
operadores turísticos que se
inician. Esta actividad se llevará
a cabo en el 2006, como
programas piloto de turismo
sostenible comunitario
- 84 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a vigencia
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de diciembre del 2005
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
del Proyecto (diciembre del 2006)
3. Promoción & Uso Sostenible
% Logros a
del SAM
Logros a la Fecha
la Fecha
6. Análisis de herramientas de
Las políticas transfronterizas 75%
Como fue decidido en los Grupos
cumplimiento voluntario con políticas
desarrolladas y el manual de prácticas
Técnicos de Trabajo, los códigos de
armonizadas relacionadas con los
ejemplares en proceso proveerán los
conducta se incluyan en el manual de
recursos del SAM, para el año 5
pasos iniciales para definir códigos de
prácticas ejemplares, dado que dos
(FDP)
conducta a ser adoptados. Sin embargo,
documentos separados no hacen mucho
esto requerirá de asistencia de expertos
sentido. El Proyecto está receptivo a la
para determinar la adopción voluntaria y
idea. Las políticas transfronterizas
los mecanismos de implementación..
proveen la estructura dentro de la cual
los códigos de conducta y las prácticas
ejemplares puedan ser adoptadas.
Mecanismos para su cumplimiento e
implementación deberán ser
identificados. Dependiendo del progreso
hecho por Coral Reef Alliance, esta
actividad deberá ser revisada. Sin
embargo se puede proceder con los
códigos de conducta voluntarios en
turismo de cruceros.
7. Desarrollo de una Estrategia
TdR han sido formulados para las
0%
De momento la actividad depende de la
Regional de Turismo para finales del
elaboración de la Estrategia Regional de
validación de la estrategia de turismo
Proyecto.
Turismo y presentada para su
formulada por CCT-SICA, quien cuenta
aprobación..
con una estrategia a nivel regional. Así
mismo los cuatro países tienen
estrategias propias ya formuladas o en
proceso de validación.
8. 236 personas capacitadas en
Capacitación en Auditorias y estudios de
100%
Durante el 2006 la gira de estudio de
actividades de turismo sostenible
impacto ambiental para actividades de
prácticas ejemplares se llevará a cabo
incluyendo formas de vida
turismo costero fue conducida. Para los
para los operadores de turismo recién
alternativas, para el año 5 (FDP)
propósitos de este indicador los forums se
iniciados, la cual será clasificada como
consideran actividades de entrenamiento.
entrenamiento. En adición todos los
El primer grupo de capacitación en formas
entrenamientos en formas alternativas
de vida alternativas se realizó. Un total de
de vida serán registrados baje este
259 personas han sido capacitadas a la
indicador..
fecha.
9. Propuesta de una política regional 4 trabajos de campo en cada país y
100%
de cruceros.
cuatro consultas publicas, en los cuatro
El reporte final está aprobado y estamos en proceso de
países fueron realizadas.. Se ha
su publicación, distribución, así como programar una
presentado el reporte final el cual ha sido
presentación a las autoridades de los cuatro países.
comentadado por la UCP y se está a la
espera de otros comentarios. Los
comentarios fueron incorporados y se
tienen la versión en español y en inglés
aprobada.
- 85 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Conservación y Uso Sostenible del
Proyecto Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano (SAM)
Identificación del Proyecto: GE-P053349; Donación GEF No. TF027739
(Vigencia del Proyecto: 30 de noviembre del 2001 al 31 de diciembre del 2006)
Informe de Indicadores de Logros del Proyecto SAM
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a vigencia del
Indicadores de Logros al 31 de diciembre del 2005
Observaciones / Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
Proyecto (diciembre del 2006)
4. Concientización Pública y
Educación Ambiental
% Logros a
Logros a la Fecha
la Fecha
A. Desarrollo de una Campaña de 1. En el año 2 del Proyecto se desarrollará Han sido conducidas he implementadas 17 de las actividades de la
100%
El primer programa radial infantil ha sido establecido en
Concientización Ambiental
una Campaña de Estrategia de
Estrategia de Concientización. A) Se esta monitoreando la reducción
coordinación con TIDE, el primer programa de
Concientización Publica.
de desechos sólidos en por lo menos 6 franjas de playa
B) Cuatro
temáticas del SAM fue en Octubre 2005. Dos
medios de comunicación mantienen interés permanente en las
programas mas serán establecidos en Honduras y
actividades del SAM.
México a inicios del 2006. Se ha firmado un contrato
con Canal 5 en Belice para la promoción del SAM, se
establecerán tres contratos mas en Honduras, México y
Guatemala para junio del 2006. Se han preparado
cuatro artículos de prensa para periódicos y revistas.
Adicionalmente se prepararon 10 mensajes cortos para
recibos de pagos en los países del SAM.
B. Educación Formal e Informal 2. Durante la vigencia del Proyecto se
860 maestros de primaria y secundaria capacitados en los conceptos del
100%
Belice y Honduras han producido un nuevo CD de la
capacitarán a 160 maestros, lideres
SAM. Elaboración de un documento de sugerencias para mejorar la
curricular nacional vigente, donde ambos países han
comunitarios, y empresarios sobre los
Guía, incluyendo aspectos del manejo de cuencas.
incluido los conceptos y temáticas del SAM como parte
conceptos del SAM.
de las materias oficiales. Hoy, maestros capacitados en
los conceptos del SAM México es parte del proceso de
entrenamiento (140 maestros han sido entrenados a la
fecha) La unidad de coordinación del SAM a
preparado una herramienta para monitorear el uso de la
guía y mejorarla.
3. Durante la vigencia del Proyecto será
Mas de 13,000 copias entre Boletines, manuales, afiches, carpetas,
100%
Una nueva serie de materiales con los conceptos del
distribuído en la región del SAM, 10,000
reglas, calcomanías y folletos han sido distribuídos en la región del SAM
SAM serán distribuídos en junio del 2006
copias de material para capacitación,
folletos, afiches, calcomanías, etc.
C. Implementación del Plan de
4. Asegurar la participación de gente
A la fecha 382 personas de las 1224 personas involucradas con las
31%
Los números representan la participación en los Comités
Desarrollo y Participación para
indígena y mujeres in las actividades del
actividades del SAM son indígena, y 316 son mujeres. indígenas
Nacionales Arrecifales, Grupos Técnicos de Trabajo,
Comunidades Indígenas
SAM.
4 organizaciones incrementan su capacidad de manejo a través de su
26% mujeres Comisiones Transfronterizas y Cursos de Capacitación.
participación en actividades del SAM.
1
- 86 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 6: Performance Indicators
Conservación y Uso Sostenible del
Proyecto Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano (SAM)
Identificación del Proyecto: GE-P053349; Donación GEF No. TF027739
(Vigencia del Proyecto: 30 de noviembre del 2001 al 31 de diciembre del 2006)
Informe de Indicadores de Logros del Proyecto SAM
Componentes del
Indicadores de Logros a vigencia del
Indicadores de Logros al 30 de junio del 2005
Observaciones/Comentarios
Proyecto/Actividades
Proyecto (diciembre 2006)
Logros a la Fecha
% Logros a
la Fecha
3. Serie de políticas por lo menos en tres
Se está dando seguimiento en esta etapa por
Se elaboró Políticas transfronterizas y fueron adoptadas
áreas críticas compartidas de los recursos de medio de las Comisiones Transfronterizas; se
por la CCAD. Queda pendiente la adopción de las
manejo del SAM (e.g., pesquerías, turismo, ha presentado la primera serie de
políticas en México. En el futuro vamos a explorar otras
ejecución de AMP, normas de calidad de
recomendaciones para políticas han sido
políticas adicionales. Se pondrá más atención para que se
agua, protocolos EIA, etc.) armonizados al
adoptadas en Belice, Guatemala y Honduras
adopte la política en México y seguido por la definición
fin del Proyecto.
por medio de la CCAD
de políticas específicas derivadas de las nuevos políticas
60%
producidas con el fin de definir mecanismos para su
implementación. Donde sea posible exploraremos
oportunidades de armonización de legislación. Se
suspenderá las reuniones de la Comisión Transfronteriza
Belice-México, pendiente ha la adopción de las políticas
en México.
B. CCAD efectivamente integra 4. CCAD repentinamente compromete a los Se llevaron a cabo reuniones multi-sectoriales
Todas las reuniones sostenidas han sido con los
los intereses ambientales y
ministerios de finanzas y otros sectores
y organizados por la CCAD.
Ministerios de Agricultura, Salud y Turismo.
regionales en la agenda
representados bajo el SICA in diálogos de
50%
económica del SICA.
desarrollo.
5. Intereses ambientales regionales están
Esta reflejado en PARCA y en los Planes
Este tema está apropiadamente abordada. Todas las
reflejados en la agenda económica del SICA. Operativos Anuales de la CCAD
80%
actividades del Proyecto SAM están incluídas en el Plan
Operativo Anual de la CCAD
Acrónimos: AMP = Áreas Marinas Protegidas; SRIA = Sistema Regional de Información Ambiental; POA = Plan Operativo Anual; SICA = Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana; CCAD =
Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo; PARCA = Programa Ambiental de Centroamérica; TDRs = Términos de Referencia
- 87 -
- 88 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 7: MBRS MAP
- 89 -
- 90 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
Evaluation of Component 1.
Marine Protected Areas (US$5.0 million)
Component Rating: Satisfactory-Highly Satisfactory
Sub-component A
Planning, Management, and Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) ($4.45 million)
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) played a significant role in MBRS Project by protecting
important areas of recognized biodiversity significance from over use, degradation and
destruction. Additionally the project built new constituencies for conservation around MPAs
through educational efforts and promoted new opportunities for livelihoods that are compatible
with conservation objectives, principally through tourism.
The MBRS successfully completed the operational and management planning activities
envisioned in the PAD and assisted other areas and NGOs with their planning activities by
providing expertise, model plans and guidance. These activities have strengthened the
institutional and operational aspects of the MPAs involved while providing models for other
MPAs worldwide. Sustainability will be increased to the extent that management and operations
are adequately funded and the plans and planning processes developed during the project should
improve the opportunities for future funding by demonstrating institutional strength. The
infrastructure and equipment provided has elevated the status and functionality of the MPAs
qualitatively, in most cases increasing the likelihood of long-term operational success. The
MBRS Project specific accomplishments are as follows.
1. Upgrading existing operational plans (11 MPAs) or drafting new master management plans
where none exist (4 MPAs)
The project was successful in upgrading the operational plans and assisting with new master
plans as programmed. The project also produced a "Training Manual On Design And
Development of Management Plans For Marine Protected Areas" that can be used throughout the
region for new areas or for updating existing plans as necessary and carried out trainings for
management plan development, increasing MPA planning capacity throughout the MBRS.
2. Establishment of data baselines and monitoring programs to assess MPA effectiveness (15
MPAs)
Developing a system to measure management effectiveness proved to be a challenging
undertaking. All good planning is data driven and this activity sought to establish data necessary
for a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of MPAs within the MBRS.
The MBRS Project expended considerable time and effort reviewing existing systems for
measuring effectiveness and created a new hybrid system for use in MPAs, described in MBRS
Technical Document No. 5, "Recommendations for Monitoring Management Effectiveness in
Marine Protected Areas" (available in English and Spanish). The Project developed a suite of 11
biophysical and 8 socio-economic measures as well as an application methodology for measuring
management effectiveness. This is an explicit commitment to the adaptive management model
- 91 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
that seeks to achieve area objectives by responding to local conditions and changes in those
conditions (based upon carefully chosen indicators) as measured by agreed-upon measurements
(standards). Identifying the relevant indicators and then agreeing to standards has always
presented a great challenge for PA managers and planners. This was equally true for the MBRS
team. Extensive review of many effective management models led to the creation of a survey
instrument that was distributed to the target MPAs (Reserva Biosfera Banco Chinchorro,
Arrecifés de Xcalac Reserve, Santuario del Manati, Corazol Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, Bacalar
Chico Marine Reserve and National Park, South Water Caye Marine Reserve, Glovers Reef
Marine Reserve, Gladden Spit, Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve, Port Honduras-Deep River
Forest Reserve, Sarstoon-Temash National Park, Rio Sarstón Proposed National Park, Punta de
Manabique Proposed Special Protection Area, Omoa-Baracoa Proposed Marine Reserve, Turtle
Harbor Wildlife Refuge and Marine Reserve).
The document produced, and the process of developing a model for measuring effectiveness in
MPAs, are major accomplishments and represent significant project outcomes. However, they do
not necessarily translate to improved management effectiveness in the target MPAs and, as noted
in the document, neither the process proposed nor the measurement of effectiveness was full
achieved. It was only possible to make general assessments about the effectiveness of specific
areas and the state of MPAs in the region. Important information was gathered but at an expense
and effort that may not have been effective. The questions as to who should be responsible for
measuring effectiveness, at what cost and in what manner require further investigation. The
project did provide important insights and practical advice about measuring management
effectiveness for MPAs and terrestrial PAs. The report recognizes the high cost of measuring
effectiveness relative to scarce resources and staffing, "Given the average staffing level of 3.9
persons in each of the 13 MPAs for which we have data (range of 0 to 7), and the reports on their
current responsibilities and funding (Section 4), it is clear that the human resources are not in
place to undertake even the basic monitoring protocol, much less the full suite of 43 metrics
recommended to be monitored. The managers are too busy managing to evaluate their
management effectiveness!" (p. 46) and suggests that establishing effectiveness must be a long-
term process that will involve greater cooperation of a variety of governmental agencies, the
private sector, NGOs and other conservationists.
It is important to emphasize that the entire concept of measuring management effectiveness is
unsettled among conservation scientists and practitioners. To say that we should measure
effectiveness implies that we can and this may not be possible due to the complexity of biotic and
cultural variables that influence natural systems. Equally important is the effectiveness of
measuring management effectiveness. As pointed out in the MBRS report even the most basic
efforts may not be merited within the constraints of extremely limited resources. It may be much
wiser to dedicate such resources to measuring the effectiveness of particular management actions
and using those results in the adaptive management framework. For example, if poaching
protected species on reefs is a major problem it may be worth measuring the effectiveness of
enforcement vs. education to determine which action merits resources or greater emphasis.
These simpler, more directly practical and measurable indicators may be of greater benefit to
conservation efforts in the long term. The project team recognizes both the difficulties involved
in measuring effectiveness and the need to do so within the framework of adaptive management
and is working to resolve these difficulties so as to improve measures of effectiveness but, more
importantly, to improve the protected areas themselves.
- 92 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
While not fully meeting original project objectives, the activities carried out in this
subcomponent did contribute greatly to the understanding of MPAs in the MBRS and produce
important practical insights into measuring effectiveness in MPAs that can be used world-wide.
The report and recommendations can help guide the process and further efforts in other areas as
well as prioritize future investments.
3. Provision of basic equipment, construction of guard houses and small visitor centers in 5
transboundary MPAs
The construction of five multi-function buildings that serve as administration, visitor and
community centers as well as lodging for park personnel and researchers is one of the largest
investments of the project. Major investments were made in Bacalar Chico (Belize), Xcalak
(Mexico), Sapodilla Cayes (Belize), Rio Sarstún (Guatemala), and the Turtle Harbor Wildlife
Refuge and Marine Reserve (Honduras). See Annex 13 for photos of the 5 visitor centers built
under the project.
The facilities were developed in consultation with local managers and user groups with planning,
design and construction supervised by MBRS personnel. During the planning process it was
decided that one basic design would be chosen and modified as necessary for specific sites. This
approach was intended to save design costs and standardize construction details. Facilities
included a multi-use room, offices, dormitories, bathrooms and food preparation areas.
Additionally, an interpretative trail was built in most areas so that visitors could understand and
experience the terrestrial environment. The project also supplied significant amounts of
furnishings, equipment such as computers, boats, scuba gear and communication equipment. In
all cases the management presence, capacity and effectiveness were greatly augmented and
strengthened by these investments.
Infrastructure legitimized the MPA presence and has been a major factor in securing grants,
partners, and co-financing. There is strengthened governmental support for interpretation,
educational and enforcement activities as well as operational and maintenance funding.
All infrastructure produces some local impacts. The degree, extent and severity of these impacts
are of special concern in PAs. To address this concern the PAD sought "To mitigate these risks,
environmental management guidelines for construction of minor civil works associated with
MPA infrastructure will be prepared by the Natural Resources Management Specialist within the
Regional PCU, and applied prior to the contracting of civil works. These guidelines will be
incorporated into the design specifications for the civil works. Their execution will be supervised
by MPA management staff and compliance monitored by the PCU." The PAD itself puts forth a
series of very basic guidelines for design and low impact infrastructure development.
Unfortunately, these guidelines were never fully developed or implemented and no special
training was given to MBRS PIU staff to oversee civil works nor were contractors given any
more than basic orientation about best practices for building in PAs. The guidelines that were
included in the building contracts were so general that they did not provide any meaningful
guidance. Such guidelines and training would have increased the capacity for construction
management.
- 93 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
Site examinations and interviews with staff at all of the MPAs that received infrastructure
indicated that the infrastructure was very helpful in maintaining management presence,
improving morale and providing the base for implementing management plans. This was exactly
what the PAD had envisioned. It is notable that each MPA utilizes its facility differently. In
Bacalar Chico the public area is devoted to interpretation and has a strong
tourism/education/visitor orientation. At Xcalak the public area is more devoted to community
involvement and public awareness, as is suited for this site since it is located in the community.
The center at Rio Sarstún provides a base of operations for the managing NGO, a hub for
patrolling and housing for staff, volunteers and university researchers. In Sapodilla Cayes MPA
the facility is jointly utilized by the Belize Fisheries and TASTE NGO that co-manage the site.
The Sapodilla Cayes facility is still awaiting educational and interpretative materials.
At Utila, the Project provided a multi-use center based on the uniform design used in the other
sites. At present only a small part of the center is being used by the Bay Island Conservation
Association (BICA), the NGO in charge of the PA. The rest of the building is being used
temporarily as classroom facilities by the local school until May, 2007. Ostensibly this one-time
use will help build good community relations between the local community and BICA.
However, caution must be exercised so that this type of activity does not become a precedent.
The relationship of the use of the facility and the conservation objectives of the Project are
tenuous at best. There are also some obvious maintenance and operational capacity issues at the
site as well. At present the current area manager is only one full-time BICA staff on site to
manage the building and the PA. The manager indicated that additional staff would be
forthcoming and that maintenance issues would be addressed after the school activities were
terminated.
The project also supplied some basic equipment for monitoring and a boat for patrolling to BICA.
However, the trail system envisioned in the Project Document was never built and other basic
equipment such as a much-needed laptop computer and other office equipment has not been
provided. Additionally, little in the way of environmental educational materials or training
materials have been provided to the site. In Honduras, as well as several other areas, materials,
equipment, educational materials and other project benefits often did not make it to the target
destinations but were diverted by the agencies responsible for distribution.
In spite of these shortcomings, the BICA manager indicated that the MBRS Project has taken
conservation to a new level on Utila. The building provided by the project has created a new
presence for the NGO, garnered considerable community respect, helped secure additional
government assistance for patrolling and enforcement and catalyzed new funding for
management activities. It is too early at the present time to evaluate long-term sustainability of
the investment; however, indications are that future conservation activities will have a much
greater probability of success as a direct result of the investments made.
As is the case in most building endeavors, both the process and final product could have been
improved, resulting in a more efficient development process and a more functional final product.
All facilities were modified or remodeled in some way after construction. The location of the
new facility at Bacalar Chico is open to some debate. A decision was made to locate the facility
near existing infrastructure on the property owned by the MPA on the landward side of the caye.
- 94 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
These considerations have merit; however, most of the visitor movement and traffic is on the
other side of the caye and this will negatively impact visitation levels to the site by tourists.
Additionally, in order to carry out SAP monitoring MPA personnel must travel approximately 45
minutes by boat, a costly and time consuming endeavor. Also, at Bacalar Chico there is no
secure storage area for equipment resulting in equipment being stored inside the main public area.
Small details like this should have been addressed during construction and final approval.
No major structural shortcomings were noted during site visits but some construction defects
were noted at all sites and, in most cases, these problems have been addressed. This is a good
indication of management demonstrating ownership of the centers. However, it is unclear who is
paying for these measures and if there is any warranty coverage. Typically a one year warranty
period that would address such defects is part of any construction contract however, in this case
the warranty appears to be for six months. The MPAs received no instruction as to building
operation procedures, existing warrantees, the need for maintenance on septic, solar and energy
systems, etc. This type of information contributes greatly to sustainability, reduced operating
costs, timely management and eliminates paying for remedial measures that should be covered
under warranty.
Trail development at both areas was included in project activities and trails were initiated at the
sites. However, no trail management training or equipment for trail maintenance has been
provided and the trails themselves were developed to minimal standards. At all of the sites
visited, personnel indicated that they received no instructions or training to operate and maintain
the trails. These trails represent important investments and maintenance will be key to their long
term sustainability. All future infrastructure developments should include an operations manual
and minimal maintenance training and orientation.
Sub-component B - Institutional Strengthening of MPAs ($.550 million)
1. Marine Park and Tourism Resource Development Program.
As envisioned in the PAD, the Project successfully carried out a "series of regional training
courses and workshops for protected area directors, technical staff, rangers, and key collaborators
from local and national government agencies, collaborating NGOs, and local communities, ..."
One of the most significant outputs was a series of bilingual manuals that will serve far beyond
the life of the Project for many aspects of MPA management. The Project, by undertaking these
activities also developed significant training and facilitation capacity for management planning,
community involvement, income generation and financial planning.
Examples include courses held early in the project in MPA Management Plan Development for
directors and administrators of MPAs, park management staff, governmental organizations,
NGOs and universities involved in management and co-management of MPAs within the MBRS
region. The training course covered zoning, environmental education, tourism, research,
monitoring, park protection and patrolling, and financial strategies, among others. A bilingual
manual "Training Manual on Design and Development of Management Plans for Marine
Protected Areas" was published and distributed throughout the region.
- 95 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
A Training Workshop on Income Generation for Protected Areas was held in Puerto Barrios,
Izabal, Guatemala in 2002. The workshop was a joint effort between the MBRS Project,
PROARCA/APM, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, WWF-Central America, and the
Nature Conservancy. Financial strategies were proposed for several MPAs as a direct result of
the workshop.
In order to promote greater regional MPA effectiveness, both a Southern and Northern Trans-
boundary Park Commissions were established. Commission meetings produced
recommendations on fisheries, tourism and Marine Protected Areas (MPA's) which were then
used to formulate regional policies.
2. Training Library Development.
The Project developed a wealth of training materials, technical manuals, environmental
educational materials and other books, pamphlets, curricula and co-management strategies to aid
MPAs carry out their activities. This body of material is one of the most important contributions
of the project and will serve the intended MPAs as well as the global conservation community.
The original objective was to have a standardized training library in each MPA headquarters and
ranger stations throughout the region. While the material does exist and most is available on the
Internet, not one of the MPAs visited had the library as described in the PAD. This is unfortunate
as the material could be quite helpful to managers, rangers, community members and other MPA
partners. Most of the MPAs visited do not have Internet access so the on-line versions are of
little use to them. Additionally, it would be quite costly and beyond the means of the areas to
reproduce the materials.
Component outputs:
· management and/or operational plans for 15 target areas;
· significant equipment provided to regional protected areas for monitoring, operations,
environmental education and tourism management;
· major infrastructure investments at 5 protected areas;
· more than 15 high quality manuals and guides on MPA management techniques, training,
community conservation and involvement and alternative livelihoods;
· trainings for rangers, fishers, community members and NGOs
Component outcomes:
· greatly increased capacity at national, regional and local levels for marine conservation;
· new constituencies to support conservation in the MBRS region;
· greater NGO capacity and recognition locally and regionally;
· major contributions to the protected area literature on the themes of MPA management,
community involvement and trans-boundary cooperation;
· greatly improved morale and respect among rangers, managers and others involved in
MBRS conservation initiatives;
· assistance with Belize National Protected Areas System Plan;
· regional cooperation between protected areas;
· improved baseline data on protected area effectiveness.
- 96 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 8: Marine Protected Areas
Sustainability.
Sustainability will be increased to the extent that management and operations are adequately
funded and the plans and planning processes developed during the project should improve the
opportunities for future funding by demonstrating institutional strength. Importantly, the
infrastructure and equipment provided has elevated the status and functionality of the MPAs
qualitatively, in some cases making the difference between long-term success or failure for the
areas. Several areas have leveraged their new status to attract new donor, volunteer, and research
partners.
Lessons learned:
· determining management effectiveness is difficult, costly and time consuming;
· models for determining management effectiveness developed for terrestrial PAs many not
function for MPAs;
· infrastructure and equipment investments not only build management capacity but also
build institutional recognition that facilitates funding efforts;
· "one size fits all" design approaches for visitor centers may not be the best option in the
diverse sites where MPAs exist;
· greater capacity to manage infrastructure investments is needed when they are a
significant part of PA projects; inclusion of someone with infrastructure experience would
save time, money and produce a better final product;
· quality infrastructure development can facilitate "buy in" to protected areas by area
personnel, locals, NGOs and ministries.
- 97 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
Evaluation of Component 2
Creation and Implementation of a Regional Environmental & Monitoring Information System
(US$4.4 million; GEF funding US$ 2.67)
Component Rating: Highly Satisfactory
This component had two sub-components:
· A Regional Environmental Information System (REIS); and
· A Synoptic Monitoring Program (SMP).
The main objective of this component was to develop a specific synoptic monitoring program to generate
information on the region's reefs and other critical ecosystems, including information on water quality
and oceanographic regimes. The sub-component was designed to feed into a Regional Environmental
Information System, a web-based framework designed to guide the collection, processing, distribution
and utilization of bio-physical and socio-economic data. The goal of the REIS sub-component was to
advance the understanding of ecological linkages between reefs and other marine environments, and
processes which influence reef integrity. The overall component was designed to allow broad access to
policy makers, scientists, technicians, and the public.
This component was originally allocated $US 4.4 million (GEF financing US$ 2.67 million). By
December 2006, 86% of this total had been disbursed. A large portion of the funding went to national
and international consultants to help design the SMP and the REIS. The component also funded a large
amount of equipment for monitoring, including boats and engines at various monitoring sites. The
amount of funding seemed to be sufficient to accomplish the intended objectives and goals of the sub-
component. The Project Appraisal Document identified substantial parallel co-financing from WWF, the
Government of Canada and University of Miami for investigators working in the region to expand the
scope of the research. Some parallel co-financing was secured, in particular from the Natural Science
and Engineering research Council of Canada's Collaborative Research Opportunities program and
Discovery program, University of Windsor, and National Geographic Society. No parallel financing was
forthcoming from the University of Miami for WWF for monitoring.
Sub-Component A - Regional Environmental Information System.
Highly Satisfactory
The Regional Environmental Information System (REIS) was designed to consolidate and analyze data
collected from various disparate sources, including the SMP. The goal of the REIS was to provide one
easily accessible database for the MBRS region. The REIS was launched in February 2004, with the
Regional Training of Trainers in the Use of the REIS. The user manual for the REIS, User Manual for
the Regional Environmental Information System Volume 1-3, was produced in June 2005 and
disseminated widely thereafter.
Process:
98
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
The database was designed by national and international experts as part of several consultancies. It was
designed to be stored on a powerful computer with an easy web-based interface. The philosophy was to
have an efficient, normalized database that allowed simple data entry and access, and was easy to
maintain and modify as needs change.
Design: The design of the REIS database was based on a consultative process. The structure is well
thought out, easy to understand and is a good example of the high standard of project products. There is
extensive documentation to explain how to enter data, especially for common tables (e.g. site, survey,
transect and person table). The database is grouped into several different data groups representative of
the groups monitored by the SMP, and the protected area monitoring program. Attention has been paid
to accommodate two languages, different names for the same species across the region and different
categories of species threat (levels of endangerment) across the region. The oversight of not initially
designing the database to be spatially explicit in a GIS format possibly delayed the release of some of the
spatial information relevant to the region. The addition of GIS functionality in 2005-2006, greatly
enhanced the future of the database and its power to focus monitoring and management activities.
The website interface of the REIS serves as the gateway to all the MBRS documents and reports. It is an
easy to use website, in two languages with exceptional transparency in terms of documentation. This is
itself a landmark for a large conservation project. The one oversight in the database is the integration of
socio-economic variables. There are already good data on socio-economic indicators from the
monitoring of management effectiveness (see MPA section) and from data collected for the Healthy Reef
initiative.
Implementation: The implementation of the REIS appears to be well underway. The first analytical
maps were produced by the PCU in September 2006. The maps show key health indicators such as
seagrass biomass, disease coverage, presence of nutrients, and provide a snapshot of the situation across
the region. It is hoped the PCU will continue to generate analytical results in the form of database
reports and biostatistical analyses and provide status reports on the health of the MBRS region to
decision-makers and on-the-ground managers.
Outputs:
· REIS designed and fully operational
· Web-based interface for data providers and users
· GIS-based dataset
· Public access to database
· Baseline and summary maps in JPEG format for 13 sites
· The Project has trained a total of 98 biologists to-date in the use of the REIS database
· Web-based, CD and printed format of all published material.
Documents:
User Manual for the Regional Environmental Information System Volume 1-3 - June 2005
Database Design Documentation August 2005
Outcomes:
· First regional, public database on marine protected area information.
99
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
· Essential tool to fill in information gaps needed for sound decision-making on natural resources.
· Greatly improved capacity to disseminate regional patterns and results.
· Regional coordination of scientists and biologists.
· Greatly improved transparency of data through public access to data
· First steps to integrate data from the socio-economic monitoring program under Component 4 (Public
Awareness and Environmental Education) with REIS.
Sub-Component A - Synoptic Monitoring Program.
Highly Satisfactory
The Synoptic Monitoring program (SMP) was developed as a regional, multi-level methodology to
monitor changes in ecosystem health. It was designed to be comprehensive in terms of data collection,
time frames (short- medium-and long-term) and geographic coverage. The design of the methodology
and database fields was initiated at a meeting of technical experts in 2001 and the final methodology
published in a handbook entitled: Manual Methods for the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program in April
2003.
Process: For a decade prior to the MBRS project, several attempts were made to establish a regional
monitoring program. Each country, and in some cases individual sites, adopted different methodologies.
When the project was designed, the goal was to streamline existing methodologies, agree upon and adopt
a region-wide program. The process for developing the methodology appears to have been very
consultative and included national experts from all four countries, international scientists and field
biologists with extensive knowledge of both the region and key methodologies. A Technical Working
Group (TWG) and specialized regional consultancies complemented the experts meetings. The final
methodology reflects the collective experience of the experts and the collaboration of the four countries.
Design: The methodology assimilates most of the best practices in comprehensive coral reef monitoring
worldwide, and is tailored to meet the specific needs for monitoring the health of the reef in the four
countries involved. Some of the specific needs of the MBRS include:
a. the inclusion of coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds in the monitoring program;
b. identification of land and marine sources of marine pollution; and
c. an understanding of the physical oceanography, including ocean circulation and gyres.
Each of these specific needs is addressed in separate monitoring methodologies. The methodologies are
well laid out with specific time-frames attached to the intervals for sampling (categories 1-3 and a rapid
assessment method for specific disturbances). Four types of data are collected at each site (site
description, meta data, physical data and specific parameters) and the time window (season) for each is
well described. At each monitoring site, several locations are included which contain different
ecosystems as to maximize the information collected. This stratification is very strategic and cost
efficient and is based on best practice sampling methodologies.
Clear rules and protocols were established for data collection, processing and validation and these should
be held up as exemplary practices. This included safety and processing instructions. In addition, the
100
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
project produced a well organized data entry system in two languages, with established protocols for
entering data for species that may have different names across the region. This is a key accomplishment
in itself.
The equipment required to carry out each sampling was well described and well thought through. It
included very inexpensive equipment for the most part (pollution assessment the exception) and was
low-tech enough to allow divers with little experience in sampling to assist with the monitoring. Lastly,
the methodology covered both static and dynamic measures of reef and ecosystem health.
Implementation: The methodology was developed to be implemented by SMP Monitoring Teams,
consisting largely of a mixture of members from the MBRS Support Agencies (SA) (government, NGOs
and fishers) in the four countries. A Monitoring Coordinator (MC) in each country had the responsibility
for supervising each monitoring team. The MC then liaised with PCU to update and verify data. The
PCU managed and maintained the database and created summary base maps.
The first summary of results, taken as the baseline for all future monitoring episodes, was published in
October 2006 in Linea Base del Estado del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano. The report summarizes
sites monitored and baseline data for each area of interest. The results for coral reefs are comprehensive
and clearly presented, while results for seagrass and mangroves are fairly sparse. Results for water
contamination and water quality are preliminary and not as robust in terms of temporal and spatial
sampling. The lack of seagrass and mangrove data is most notable in Belize, where only one site has
been monitored. This seems to be due to a lack of expertise in-country. The analyses of the data to date
are in the form of summary tables, graphs and maps, all are easy to interpret and are available or soon to
be available on the MBRS web site. A full analysis of the SMP data is expected by early March 2007
and it is expected that this document will be summarized in an executive summary format for decision-
makers.
The original methodology called for 25 sites to be included, 17 of these marine protected areas, 6 of
these strategic sites and 2 transboundary sites. In 2006, 49 sites were included, 13 of which received
comprehensive assessments. Results for 2004 and 2005 are posted on the MBRS website. Data for 2006
were released internally to users and will be made public in early 2007. One more SMP monitoring
regime will be included under Phase I.
Certain deviations from the original monitoring plans were necessary due to unforeseen circumstances.
The most important was the delay in monitoring several sites in Mexico due to efforts to restore several
reefs after Hurricane Wilma in 2005. For at least one site, Cozumel, pre- and post-hurricane data were
collected and these are being used in study to understand the impacts of the hurricane. The restoration
efforts methodologies, pioneered in large by the CONANP-SMP team, were groundbreaking themselves
and produced impressive results with a survival rate of over 80% for restored coral. In the case of
Belize, no expertise was available to monitor mangroves and seagrasses after the only in-country experts
left to go overseas. This has meant that no monitoring of mangroves or seagrasses has been carried out
in Belize.
Lastly, part of the SMP was to monitor oceanographic currents and gyres. This was supposed to happen
after a baseline 3-D model was established. A consultant was hired to produce the model and all efforts
were made to make it relevant to the monitoring program, however the consultant failed to produce an
adequate product and the component was never fully established.
101
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
One of the SMP components that was not addressed was the Rapid Assessment Methodology. In the
case of the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma and several bleaching incidents along the Belize coast, no
rapid assessments were carried out to measure the immediate impact of the damage.
Overall Comments
· The Synoptic Monitoring Program would not have been achieved without the partnerships
established with the Supporting Agencies, including government agencies, NGOs, fishers, and
private partners.
· The SMP enabled synergies between disparate groups monitoring different sections of the MBRS
and supported the harmonization and standardization of a monitoring methodology, which in itself a
huge accomplishment.
· The methods are simple and well laid out and are accessible to a large number of people in the
region.
· More data collection is needed for seagrasses and mangroves, water quality and contamination as
capacity is built and effective partnerships for analysis are established.
· The challenge will be to analyze the results on a regular basis and disseminate the information for it
to be useful for effective adaptive management and decision-making.
Sub-component Outputs:
· SMP designed and under implementation
· Monitoring of 49 sites to date
· Comprehensive baseline data for 13 sites across region
· Results analyzed for 13 sites
· Basic field equipment provided to Support Agencies
· Training of monitoring personnel in Support Agencies
Workshops:
Technical Working Group August 2001, June 2002
Expert Meeting May 2002
Training course November 2002
Monitoring Program- March 2005
Documents:
Manual Methods for the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program - April 2003
Linea Base del Estado del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano - October 2006
Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health September 2006
Sub-component Outcomes:
· Increased capacity at national, regional and local levels for monitoring ecosystem health.
· Harmonized monitoring methodologies across the MBRS region.
· Increased Support Agency capacity to identify important indicators for coral reefs, mangroves
and seagrass beds, sources of marine pollution; and ocean circulation and gyres patterns.
· Improved baseline and temporal data on key ecosystem indicators.
· Improved regional and inter-agency cooperation.
102
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
· Inclusion of baseline results in Belize's "State of the Reef" report
· Clear local ownership of the methodology.
Sustainability:
The REIS database is a `clearing house' for marine protected area data across the region. There has been
substantial buy-in from SAs that has accrued during the project. The system has the potential to be an
important resource for management and future assessments and actions. It is well designed and
comprehensive and with minimal financial support could deliver one the project's biggest long-term
successes. However, at near project end, there are no arrangements in place to sustain the REIS if a
second phase of project funding is not forthcoming. This includes no arrangements for a permanent
institution to house and maintain the database, and no arrangements to continue the website that now
provides an interface to data users. Additionally, users of the REIS will require continued assistance
over the next few years to ensure data quality and entry into the system. Since there is a high turnover of
trained monitors, training needs will have to be addressed in the near to medium term. Part of this
burden can be shifted to SAs over time, however this may be a gradual process. Lastly, the long term
sustainability and usefulness of the REIS will also rely on the uptake of data and clear strategies for data
transmission to decision-makers and on-the-ground managers.
The SMP trained a large number of people in the SMP methodology. This is an important outcome for
long-term sustainability, as it has built capacity in the countries. It also reflects the high turn over of
staff at several sites, especially those off-shore. The sustainability of the program will rely largely on the
Support Agencies maintaining the standards they have adopted. This may be difficult in Honduras and
Guatemala where there are fewer opportunities to partner with marine-based NGOs and private partners.
The local, regional and global benefits of the SMP are emerging as results demonstrate the variability
along the reef. These benefits will increase if more data are collected.
The SAs have relied upon the MBRS project to provide them with equipment, fuel (and boats in some
cases) and to store, manage and consolidate data. The long term sustainability of the SMP is
questionable without another large contribution from either a follow-on project or another donor. Sites
that are particularly at risk are primarily the transnational ones that receive little or no support from other
funding sources. In the absence of a Phase II project, monitoring of all reef variables is at risk of being
severely decreased or discontinued in all sites in Guatemala, Utila and Puerto Cortez in Honduras.
Monitoring mangrove and seagrass variables is at risk in all sites in Belize and in many sites in
Guatemala and Honduras. Most importantly, the monitoring components that require a large amount of
funding and analysis, water pollution and water quality, will most likely be seriously threatened. To
date, Mexico is the only country that has benefited from a long-term financial strategy to assist with
monitoring. The GoM has already committed a significant amount of funding from its reef tax to the
SMP program and recognizes the cost effectiveness of monitoring in the wake of increasing threats
including hurricanes and tourism impact. The collapse of the monitoring program would undermine
progress to date to acquire a regional perspective of threats and recovery of the reef, and would hamper
efforts to target specific management actions to assist species and habitats facing serious threats,
including the Nassau grouper and critical mangroves and seagrass beds.
103
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 9: Component 2 - Environmental and Monitoring Information System
Lessons Learned:
· A clear contingency plan to maintain and house data in the absence of long term funding must
accompany any program that gathers a large amount of data across multi-national region.
Ownership and responsibility for dissemination must be established prior to the completion of
any project.
· Where it has been deemed that several different variables are critical to understanding threats and
patterns of decline or recovery, data collection efforts should ensure that whenever possible,
uniform effort is expended to collect data that are harder and more expensive to acquire such as
water quality and contamination.
· For projects that potentially collect a large amount of data, there needs to be a clear purpose for
the data and a seamless mechanism to transmit results to decision-makers and on-the-ground
managers.
· In regions where unanticipated events can occur rapidly, such as hurricanes or coral bleaching,
there needs to be a local capacity (including emergency funding) built up during the project to
respond to these events and carry out a rapid assessment of the situation.
104
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
Evaluation of Component 3
Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
(US$1.9 million; GEF funding US$ 1.63 million)
Component Rating: Moderately Satisfactory
Considerable efforts were expended in this component with mixed results. Good regional
synergies were realized in both areas with new trans-boundary cooperation in the area of policy
proposals and general guidelines. Trainings involving fishers, community members, NGOs, PA
management and other stakeholders built considerable capacity. In addition, a considerable
amount of new training materials were developed and distributed.
Sub-component A - Promotion of Sustainable Fisheries Management
This sub-component sought to address some of the causes of over-fishing by supporting:
a. monitoring and management of spawning aggregation sites (SPAGS);
b. improving institutional capacity in sustainable fisheries management;
c. promoting alternative livelihood systems; and
d. supporting dialogue aimed at developing a Regional Fisheries Policy.
Monitoring and management of spawning aggregation sites
Working with local fishers, researchers, and MPA personnel the project identified spawning
aggregation sites and established monitoring protocols for those areas. A training course entitled
"Training in the Monitoring of Reef Fish Aggregation Sites" was held in 2002 at the Glover's
Reef Marine Reserve in Belize. Protocols included species identification, site determination,
estimation of capture rate and population density, and data collection and analysis, among others.
The Green Reef Environmental Institute and The Nature Conservancy provided technical
support. A similar training was held in 2004 for fishers from Honduras.
A consultant was hired in 2004 to help produce a reef fish spawning aggregation monitoring
protocol. The protocol was developed from several wider consultations with experts in the field
and the input of the PCU amongst others. The resulting document "Spawning Aggregation Sites
in the MBRS Region: Recommendations for monitoring and management" was adopted by the
project in July 2004.
Monitoring has continued throughout the project and the data collected are included in the
Project's web-based database.
Improving institutional capacity in sustainable fisheries management.
This activity was designed to implement regional cooperation to promote sustainable fisheries. A
central objective was harmonizing fisheries policy throughout the four participating countries,
based upon sound scientific principals and supported by data and research collected by the
MBRS Project. To this end, the Project created a Policy Working Group (PWG) consisting of
legal advisors from the Departments of Environment and Natural Resources from the
- 105 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
participating countries. The PWG met with a broad range of regional stakeholders from
government, NGOs, local fishers, MPA managers and staff. This group worked closely with the
IUCN Environmental Law Program. In 2003 a draft document entitled "Sustainable
Development Policy on Fisheries Resources, Tourism and Transboundary Marine Protected
Areas in the MBRS", was produced and submitted to the Council of the CCAD for endorsement.
The policy guidelines were endorsed by the CCAD and became the basis for new regional
standards and regulations. This was a major achievement of the project and is an excellent
example of cooperation between the four countries throughout this project.
In 2004, the MBRS Project fostered the "1st Ministerial Meeting for Cooperation in the Gulf of
Honduras" that resulted in groundbreaking regional accords between Honduras and Guatemala to
regulate sustainable fishing in the Gulf of Honduras. In the same year, the MBRS Project began
the process of regional policy harmonization among Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala with the
consolidation of the Southern Transboundary Commission in 2002. The agreements reached
address the physical planning, conservation and development of heavily used tourist areas in the
MBRS region. This includes the promotion of Marine Protected Areas that contribute to the
stabilization and protection of the coastal landscapes and maintain the marine coastal water
quality. The harmonization of policies related to the use and dimensions of gillnets, the use of
mooring buoys, dive equipment, carrying capacity, anchoring and legal aspects for service
providers was also achieved by the ministers.
Also in 2004 the Project, in conjunction with the ICRAN-MAR Project and the Comisión de
Áreas Protegidas de Yucatán (CONANP), sponsored the First Mesoamerican Fishermen
Congress in order to bring together policy makers and fishers and gain "buy-in" for sustainable
fisheries policy. The Congress was highly successful in promoting dialogue, creating formal and
informal channels of communication and securing stakeholder input on sustainable use of the
MBRS region.
Promoting Alternative Livelihoods
A key conservation strategy centered on training of fishers and others in alternative livelihoods in
an attempt to reduce reef pressures and to mitigate lost income in from limiting use or closing of
designated fishing areas in MPAs. Additional objectives of such trainings included achieving
broader stakeholder participation and creating new constituencies for MPAs and "strengthen the
involvement of civil society in conservation efforts" (PAD, p. 8). The PAD specifically calls for,
"training fishers in kayaking, catch and release fly-fishing, SCUBA and recreational water sports
and tour guide operations associated with Marine Protected Areas and other tourist destinations."
Training activities were to be supplemented by the provision of equipment such as fishing rods,
kayaks, etc. so that those trained could put their new skills into practice. Equipment was to be
stored and managed by local NGOs and rented or made available to locals who had been trained
but did not yet have their own equipment. In 2004, trainings including natural history tour
guiding, kayaking, snorkeling, sports diving and fly-fishing were carried out with 54 participants
from Belize, Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras.
This activity met with limited success and proved more difficult to implement than expected at
Project start-up. This is very much in line with similar GEF/WB conservation projects that
- 106 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
contain development components. Although there was widespread community support for project
activities logistics and post-training adaptation of alternative livelihoods were obstacles in many
areas. It was often difficult to locate and get fishers to completely commit to courses.
The equipment rental/supply scheme was never fully realized as well because of logistic and
management issues. While some NGOs are utilizing the equipment in their tourism programs,
there is no clear indication that those trained under the program have open access to the
equipment to promote their own livelihoods.
Successful implementation was hampered by a lack of understanding of the employment and
economic landscape throughout the area. No studies were made prior to trainings to determine the
actual needs and desires of communities relating to suitable alternatives. The Project provided
training only for tourism related activities that, in many cases, were simply not a good fit with the
local cultural conditions. The trainings were short, usually one-two weeks, and provided only the
most basic instruction necessary to carry out the new skills. There was little or no information
about how to attract clients, run a business, treat clients in the field, etc. which are fundamental to
the sustainability of any business, especially one that is so service oriented. In most cases locals
simply did not have the business wherewithal to establish themselves in the new livelihoods
without continued support and follow-up. Such support and follow-up never occurred within the
context of the project. Additionally, there has been no tracking of those trained to follow their
progress and use of the trainings of follow-up support activities to help the few who may have
adopted the new livelihoods.
In hindsight it is clear that without some sort of governmental regulation that either limits or
prohibits unsustainable target activities the opportunity to pursue such activities will always be
present. Those who leave an unsustainable livelihood to pursue new a livelihood, utilizing their
newly acquired skills, will likely be replaced by another member of the unemployment pool
engaging in the unsustainable activity. For every fisher who abandoned fishing there will be
many more moving into the vacated openings. Interviews with former fishermen at Sapodilla
Cayes MPA revealed that they abandoned fishing because the fish supply had become so
depleted that it was no longer profitable; however, they said that Guatemalan fisherman regularly
came to the area and are fishing the same areas they abandoned. The fishermen who changed
their livelihoods were in favor of no-take zones, stricter regulation and tighter management and
said that these actions must accompany any effort to convert fisherman to other livelihoods.
The evaluation team also found that few left fishing to pursue their new careers full time; rather,
many continued to fish when the opportunities arose, often more efficiently with new equipment
that their new livelihoods afforded them. Personnel from the NGO Green Reef who provided
training for diving, sport fishing, nature guiding and kayaking said that most of those trained still
engaged in fishing, especially during the profitable conch and lobster seasons. In Belize a license
is necessary for tour guiding and that was not included in the tour guiding trainings, a notable
shortcoming. Green Reef also indicated that their trainees were predominately men and more
women should have been involved.
Many aspects of the Alternative Livelihood activities were developed by an external consultant
with minimal local consultation. In many cases training and equipment for the designated
- 107 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
alternatives were costly and complex. Little emphasis was given to the broader livelihood context
in which alternatives could be implemented. There was little recognition that a livelihood is more
than just a job and that the entire cultural context must be addressed if such endeavors are to be
sustainable. Livelihoods and employment involve a complex social context that provides
necessary skills beyond those necessary for particular tasks. For example, a fisher grows up with
an understanding of the sea, the seasonality of fishing, marketing, and associated work patterns.
He/she has a network of social contacts for help and support. This is equally true for building
trades and lodging and restaurant workers in the tourism sector. The promotion of alternative
requires extensive support such as employment contacts, basic understanding of business matters,
client and time management skills, follow-up coaching and a clear picture as to how the
enterprise functions. Unfortunately none of these issues were adequately addressed in the project
design that proved to be overly ambitious and naive in its expectations.
On the positive side, there is some evidence that some fishers trained passed on their newly
gained skills to others. Also, since the project employed local trainers whenever possible, usually
by working through local NGOs, considerable new training capacity has been developed with
high quality manuals and materials to support future efforts. In Guatemala one of the local fisher
groups trained under the project has shown considerable initiative, including obtaining grants to
purchase equipment for tourism activities, building trails and creating new ecotourism
opportunities for both tourists and the community.
Many of the trainings did build local constituencies and the fishermen would like to see more of
these types of activities carried our in a more comprehensive manner. Although not all equipment
could be used as envisioned in the PAD it has benefited the areas through use in educational and
monitoring activates. If ecotourism is to take root on the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef and be a
viable alternative to traditional high-impact tourism then it will be necessary to develop capacity
and demonstrate opportunities. To a limited degree, the project did succeed in this area, in spite
of the fact that it is unclear to what extent real alternative livelihoods were established and
pursued by those trained.
Supporting dialogue aimed at developing a Regional Fisheries Policy
This activity is described in Improving institutional capacity in sustainable fisheries management
above and centered on a series of workshops involving stakeholders as described.
Sub-component B - Facilitation of Sustainable Coastal and Marine Tourism
The Project recognized the potential for significant negative impacts from tourism and the need
to promote sustainable use of the resource base. The PAD envisioned developing, "best practice
and regional environmental certification programs for sustainable tourism development." (p. 2,
PAD). This balance is also recognized in the promotion of tourism as a source of potential
income from ecotourism, "Project would promote region-wide adoption of best practice in
sustainable marine tourism through disseminating codes of conduct, providing training and
resources for their application and establishing regional environmental certification systems.
This, coupled with opportunities for coastal communities to engage in small and medium
- 108 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
enterprise and alternative livelihood schemes linked to ecotourism, should lead to higher
incomes, sustainable economic growth and reduction in rural povertyCAS goals in all four
countries." (p. 3, PAD)
The MBRS Sustainable Tourism Forum was one of the major accomplishments of this
subcomponent. The undertaking included an operational manual to guide Forum activities that
laid out a clear analysis of the current state of affairs, an analysis of options, limitations and
opportunities, a strategy to secure desired outcomes. The first Forum was held in Belize in 2002
and produced a wealth of information, initiatives, and analysis ( Design and Implementation of
the MBRS Sustainable Tourism Forum. March 2003. A second forum was held in San Pedro
Sula in 2003 and the Handbook was reviewed once again. Also, bilingual versions of the
"Training Manual on Environmental Impact Evaluations and Environmental Auditing of Coastal
Marine Tourism Operations and Infrastructure," were reviewed. These materials are important
outputs of this component and represent a contribution to the MPA knowledge base that has
world-wide applications.
The "Handbook - Standard Guide for the Assessment of Environmental Impact Studies of Tourist
Projects comprised in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Zone" is also a major output. The
97 page handbook lays out a clear analysis of the institutional, social, legal and environmental
landscape in the MBRS region relating to the regulation of tourism development and activities
and provides guidance for regional and local policy as well as site specific activities. The
handbook was written with extensive consultation from both private and governmental sector
input as well as a workshop of MBRS members' delegates. This document has the potential to
guide not only tourism development, but also to provide direction for next steps in regulating and
controlling urban, industrial and agricultural development if the document is kept "alive" and
updated in a timely fashion.
At the time of the Mid-Term Review this component was the least complete and the original idea
of Regional Certification Standards had been replaced by Codes of Conduct for Sustainable
Tourism. The 2003 Technical and Financial Progress Report attributed this lack of progress to,
"A lack of appropriation of tourism in the area by the countries and problems of a disagreement
in relation to the approach has led to a lack of important achievements in the sub-component of
tourism." This problem plagued the project throughout implementation and, in spite of many
successes in the area of Sustainable Tourism; the project was never able to completely resolve
these difficulties and several original component objectives such as Certification and Regional
Regulation of Tourism were not fully achieved.
Interviews with others working in the area on tourism, revealed a level of discontent with the
MBRS Project's unwillingness to work cooperatively on certain initiatives, especially tourism
regulation. Several individuals indicated that the PCU was sometimes incommunicative, failing
to respond to emails or phone calls, and when they did participate in project development they
sought to dominate or control the process rather than work in unison. While clashes of
personalities are common when project units from various institutions must work together, one of
the objectives of the MBRS project was to build greater cooperation between conservation
institutions. It should be noted that the exercise termed "Building Synergies in the Mesoamerican
Reef Region: An Analysis of Conservation Investments to Strengthen Collaboration and
- 109 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
Partnerships -- Phase I" was not initiated until late in the project (October, 2005) and it is clearly
stated in the document that, "Due to time and logistical limitations, key national and local
organizations in the four countries sharing the MBRS are not yet included in the analysis." The
project may have been more productive and sustainable in this area if those synergies occurred
earlier in the project so as to take advantage of the plethora of organizations working on reef
conservation, avoiding duplication and building good will for future actions.
In hindsight this component was overly ambitious and could have comprised an entire project in
and of itself. The main thrust of the MBRS Project was monitoring and establishing base-line
data, biodiversity conservation and MPA management. These fields tend to be scientifically
oriented and the bulk of the PCU had technical training in these areas. Tourism development and
management tend to be more socially and policy oriented and the PCU personnel may have
struggled to grasp a good handhold when dealing with the complexity of this component. Funds
were reallocated at times to other components when it became obvious that implementation of
some of the original project activities was either unfeasible or would be unproductive. These
reallocations seem to be justified and the alternative investments may assist future projects.
Component outputs:
· regional fisheries policy, regulations and standards on lobster, queen conch and snapper;
· regional regulations and standards on gill net use;
· regional tourism forums that raised the profile of conservation and the environment in
regional tourism;
· "Training Manual on Environmental Impact Evaluations and Environmental Auditing of
Coastal Marine Tourism Operations and Infrastructure"
· four training manuals (themes: business management and tour guiding) that contribute to
sustainable tourism;
· a series of cruise ship policy and regulations that is expected to be submitted to the
appropriate legislative bodies in the near future.
· training of over 300 individuals on various aspects of sustainable tourism development
and practices; and
· new cruise ship policy proposal for each country.
Component outcomes:
· groundbreaking regional cooperation on sustainable use of the MBRS;
· policy dialogue between the four participating countries;
· new space for dialogue between fishers and policy makers opened;
· elevated profile of the importance of conservation of the Reef; and
· new level of cooperation between governmental and regional agencies to promote
sustainable tourism.
- 110 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 10: Component 3 Promoting Sustainable Use of the MBRS
Sustainability:
The outputs from this component are sustainable if regional buy-in continues, and is translated in
turn into national regulations and policies that are enforced at the local level. Policy and
regulations that have been enacted under the project are likely to become more relevant,
especially in light of diminishing fish populations and the increase of tourism impacts, because
these have a direct impact on economic performance and public welfare. The documents created,
especially training manuals, policy statements and diagnostic tools will endure and make a
significant contribution if used by those promoting sustainable use of the MBRS. One area of
concern will be leadership to promote dialogue and cooperation after the MBRS Project
terminates. Ideally, those trained, especially MPA managers and agency personnel will fill this
role.
Lessons learned:
· Policy harmonization is complex, demanding and requires significant time and resources
to succeed.
· A thorough understanding of labor and product markets, unemployment levels and skills
capacity is necessary for alternative livelihoods programs to be sustainable.
· Potential alternative livelihoods must be assessed early in project design.
· Alternative livelihood promotion will succeed only in conjunction with constraints on
unsustainable livelihood activities.
· Alternative livelihoods are not likely to succeed in areas of high unemployment where
those trained are readily replaced by others in the targeted activity.
· Those who receive alternative livelihood training often use their new skills to supplement
their incomes, rather than substitute former unsustainable activities with more sustainable
alternatives.
· For tourism standards and regulation to succeed at the policy level, tourism ministries
must be involved in policy creation.
· Tourism management, as contemplated in the original project design, was overly
ambitious for this project.
· The tourism sector will need to be formally brought in to Conservation and Sustainable
Development planning for the MBRS region--possibley with the help of CCAD and the
Regional Steering Group mandated under the Tulum +8 Declaration
· Involvement of the private sector will be essential to tourism management but will prove
difficult as the private sector tends to be off-site, have little incentive to alter tourism
practices and often possesses considerable political access.
- 111 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 11: Component 4. Awareness and Environmental Education
Evaluation of Component 4. Public Awareness & Environmental Education (US$1.5 million)
Sub-component A. Development of an Environmental Awareness Campaign
Sub-component B. Formal and Informal Education
Component Rating: Highly Satisfactory
This component created and fostered constituencies for sustainable reef use by working with public
and private sectors to increase recognition of the importance of the MBRS to the tourism and fishing
industries as well as all those who benefit from the environmental services the reef provides. The
MBRS Project website is particularly notable as a high-quality source of educational materials,
scientific data, training and management manuals and Project information.
The Project mounted a full-scale environmental awareness campaign that included:
· a Data Base and Information Clearinghouse that located and catalogued relevant materials and
made them accessible through the project website;
· generation and dissemination of new printed and audio-visual materials;
· seminars with media and project members to disseminate and promote the material.
The formal and informal education subcomponent activities included:
· production and dissemination of educational materials to schools, local agencies, NGOs and
others in a position to utilize the materials;
· curricula development;
· teacher training workshops;
· student competitions, exhibitions and fairs;
· programs that sought to actively involve all levels of the region in consciousness raising
activities concerning the importance of the MBRS.
It is difficult to access the real, on-the-ground effects of this component without extensive research of
user populations using polling, testing and survey methodologies but it appears that this is one of the
most successful components of the project. Conversations and interviews, both formal and informal,
indicate a clear increase of awareness of the importance of the reef by a variety of interests. This is
due, at least in part, to the early start of component activities and the creativity of delivering the
information. One ministry official responsible for environmental policy said that the project had greatly
raised his awareness of the importance of reef conservation and that he was now acting with a new
sense of urgency to promote conservation and sustainable use. He went on to say that his associates
were now labeling him as "green" whereas he had formally not been known as a promoter of
conservation. A leader in the development of school curricula in Belize said that the MBRS Project not
only helped revamp the entire natural history curricula regarding the environment but that it also
brought a dynamic new methodology for curricula development that was now being used country-
wide. Informal interviews revealed a high level of awareness of the importance of the reef and MBRS
Project activities at all sites visited by the evaluation team. It should be noted that curricula uptake has
been slower in Guatemala and Honduras where national curricula review is more complicated. It is
expected that the MBRS developed curricula will be integrated into the schools as new curricula
reviews are undertaken.
- 112 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 11: Component 4. Awareness and Environmental Education
Component outputs:
· prepared and distributed more than 550 "Environmental Eco-tips" containing practical advice for
preventing pollution of coastal marine ecosystems;
· at least 1000 posters and 1200 brochures on cultures in the MBRS were distributed in English,
Spanish and Garifuna;
· production of the Regional Strategy for Environmental Awareness and the Manual of Graphic
Standards for the institutional logo;
· provided materials and support to other components of the project such as graphics, socio-cultural
data, etc. and assisted in communication and outreach;
· training for press chiefs in environmental ministries;
· publicity spots on appropriate fishing techniques for radio;
· numerous t-shirts, posters and other promotional material to "brand" the MBRS activities;
· preparation and production of teachers' guides;
· regional teachers workshops to promote environmental awareness in teaching activities and
demonstrate products available through the project;
· training of teachers as trainers for promoting MBRS developed materials;
· local and regional TV and radio spots to promote the MBRS and environmental awareness;
· national Journalists Workshop to promote activities in Belize and Guatamala;
· national Teacher Workshops in Omoa and Utila in Honduras, Puerto Barrios in Guatemala, and 5
local workshops in Punta Gorda, Sarteneja, South Water Caye, Belize City and Dangriga in Belize;
two local workshops in Puerto Cortes and Cuyamel in Honduras; 657 teachers trained.
· five local teacher workshops in Mexico; 514 teachers trained.
· innovative program to put conservation messages in utility bills;
Component outcomes:
· greatly elevated the profile of the MBRS at local, national, regional and institutional levels;
· created new constituencies for MBRS conservation in institutions (government ministries and
educational institutions);
· new methods for curricula generation for public education;
· wider distribution of MBRS materials;
Sustainability: The activities and outputs from this component are highly sustainable. The curricula,
when adopted in regional school systems, will provide enduring benefits by educating primary and
secondary students in the importance of their natural resources. The documents and training materials
produced will also serve educational and interpretation activities not only in the MBRS region but in
marine environments world-wide.
Lessons learned:
· carefully targeted environmental education campaigns can be highly effective in garnering
project support;
· educational institutions are open to the idea of new curricula but slow to incorporate such
materials and require much effort to negotiate the institutional hurdles;
· environmental awareness campaigns are especially challenging when more than one country or
culture is involved as cultural, linguistic and local variations require different approaches,
increasing costs and efforts.
- 113 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 12: Joint Investments and Synergies with the MBRS Project
Joint Investments and Synergies with the MBRS Project
This list of join investments was prepared by the MBRS's PCU.
Regional-Level
a. An updated Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Action Plan in conjunction with the Summit
Foundation, WWF-USA, TNC, Environmental Defense, CI, NOAA and IUCN. The Action Plan
was a result of the Tulum + 8 initiative and resulted in a list of priority actions for the
Mesoamerican Reef (MAR) region.
b. An Analysis of Conservation Investments to Strengthen Collaboration and Partnerships in
conjunction with WWF-USA, World Bank, TNC and the Summit Foundation (shared investment).
This analysis included a much wider group of international institutions working in the MBRS
region and focused on four types of collaboration occurring for conservation investments on the
MAR.
c. Healthy Mesoamerican Reef Initiative along with WWF-USA, the Summit Foundation and the
World Bank. This initiative focused on developing benchmarks for measuring the health of the
MAR from an ecological, social and economic perspective. The initiative resulted in a joint
publication entitled: Measuring coral reef ecosystem health: integrating societal dimensions the
first of its kind for coral reef ecosystems.
d. MBRS Institutional video developed with MarViva Foundation (shared investment).
e. Development of transboundary norms and policies in conjunction with IUCN Law Center. The
normalization of transboundary norms and policies was one of the most important project outcomes
for the promotion of sustainable fisheries management sub-component (shared investment).
f. Baseline assessment of nine transboundary MBRS watersheds in conjunction with Tufts
University, USA and NOAA (shared investment).
g. Regional workshops for the formulation and adoption of transboundary norms and policies
jointly funded by the U.S. State Department. These workshops helped bring policy makers from all
four countries together to try and harmonize norms and policies.
h. Supplement funding to the Synoptic Monitoring Program to assist with the program from the
Summit Foundation ($75,000). The SMP benefited from additional funding to carry out its
operations.
i. First Mesoamerican Fishermen Congress jointly funded and implemented with ICRAN-MAR
and WWF-USA. This congress was pivotal in securing local buy-in from fishermen in all four
countries. It was the first time fishermen were able to communicate to each other in a large group
setting the benefits of protecting fish stocks.
- 114 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 12: Joint Investments and Synergies with the MBRS Project
j. Development of protocol and laboratory analysis of marine pollution with Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudis Avanzados del Instituto Politecnico Nacional (CINVESTAV) (shared
investment).
k. Regional workshop for the development of harmonized protocols for monitoring MBRS
watersheds jointly funded and implemented with Proyecto de Manejo Ambiental para Islas de la
Bahia (PMAIB).
l. Regional training workshop for SMP jointly funded and implemented by PMAIB to increase the
SMP training of experts the Bay of Islands, Honduras.
m. Garifuna radio shows in collaboration with the Inter American Development Bank (shared
investment).
n. Training of journalists in collaboration with the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Program.
o. Administration of ICRAN-MAR Project on behalf UNEP/USAID/UNF.
p. Interdisciplinary research program to complement the MBRS monitoring program through
ECONAR (Ecological CONnections Among Reefs) implemented through the University of
Windsor, Canada, and the Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management
(CRTR) GEF project.
q. State of the Reef Report in conjunction with the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People projected
funded by the Summit Foundation. The State of the Reef report would use the baseline data and
subsequent years data from the MBRS project to report on the state of the reef.
r. Managing transnational watersheds in the MBRS joint proposal for the development and
implementation of integrated management interventions in the MBRS regions with IUCN
(Mesoamerica). This joint proposal is being put forward as the basis for Phase II of the MBRS
project.
s. Supplementary monitoring data collection for the SMP in the Southern Cayes of Belize in
conjunction with Boston University and Earthwatch. Researchers from Boston University and
Earthwatch are carrying out extensive monitoring of the southern cayes of Belize. It is anticipated
that results will be incorporated into the MBRS's monitoring program and results from the wider
monitoring will be used to assist with management in the Sapodilla Cayes.
- 115 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 12: Joint Investments and Synergies with the MBRS Project
Local Level
At the local level, most of the investments by the MBRS project resulted in leveraging or attracting
additional funding to the site. There are several sites that already received funding outside the project
from non-government sources, however some initiatives were established after sites received support
from the project. These are not necessary direct co-financing, but can be seen as synergies and
leveraged activities. The most notable include:
a. Monitoring and management assistance at Bacalar Chico from Peace Corps volunteers. Bacalar
Chico has secured a Peace Corps volunteer to assist the park manager with various tasks.
b. Research Station on Hunting Caye to be funded by the Oak Foundation for the University of
Belize and Earthwatch. The management of the park will hopefully benefit from on-site scientist
and a wet and dry lab.
c. Support for Utila from an IDB project to support the protected area.
- 116 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 13: Photos of Visitor Centers
Multi-use facility at Bacalar Chico, Belize.
Multi-use facility at Arrecifés de Xcalac Reserve, Mexico.
- 117 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 13: Photos of Visitor Centers
Community and training room at Arrecifés de Xcalac is used for community
conservation efforts and trainings for monitoring, sustainable use and other
management activities.
Multi-use facility at Turtle Harbor Marine Reserve, Utila, Honduras. This center is
currently being used part time by the local school district
- 118 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 13: Photos of Visitor Centers
Students at the Turtle Harbor multi-use center.
Maintenance and clean-up issues at Turtle Harbor Marine Reserve. The manager
indicated that such issues will be addressed in the near future when new funding
allows for additional staff and support.
- 119 -
MBRS Terminal Evaluation
Annex 13: Photos of Visitor Centers
Multi-use center at Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve, Belize.
This tower supports the solar panels and some
batteries. The tower appears to be constructed to
support the water tanks (below) but is being used for
the solar panels and some batteries used for the
radios. The set-up is of questionable durability and
the entire layout is faulty. The wind turbine (behind
tower, not visible in photo) is also not functioning
properly. This situation is illustrative of the need for
training in infrastructure operation and maintenance.
Managers indicated they received no information
about the solar or wind energy generation or,
perhaps more importantly, maintenance of key
components such as batteries and inverters.
- 120 -