Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System
World Bank/GEF/CCAD

Mid-Term Review
March 9-21, 2004

MBRS Mid-Term Review Report


Introduction

Mission Objectives
1.
This MTR report presents the findings and recommendations of the Mid-Term
Review of the GEF Regional Project: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) P053349. The MTR was conducted in the
four participating countries in the project: Belize, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico
from March 9-21, 2004. In addition to this report, an Aide Memoire was prepared
summarizing the discussions and key outcomes of the MTR, and recommended follow-
up actions by the Project Team, the Central American Commission on Environment and
Development (CCAD, the Project Executing Agency), and the World Bank.

2.
The main Mission objective were to (i) assess the implementation performance of
the Project in relation to key monitoring and evaluation indicators (including those in the
Project Log Frame, as well as GEF indicators related to Country Ownership/Drivenness,
Public Involvement, Replication Approach, Financial Planning, Cost Effectiveness and
Sustainability); (ii) to evaluate Project outcomes and impacts related to assisting the four
countries to sustainably manage the transboundary resources of the Mesoamerican
Barrier Reef System through capacity building, ecosystem monitoring and harmonized
policies governing resource use; and (iii) to identify follow-up actions on the part of the
participating countries and the Bank that would enhance the Project's success in the
remaining years and justify a follow-on phase.

Mid-Term Review Process1
3.
The MTR was conducted by a World Bank Mission comprised of Ms. Marea
Hatziolos (Team Leader), Mr. Charles Di Leva (Lead Counsel) and Ms. Leah Bunce
(Sociologist). The Mission was joined in Belize by Mr. Noel Jacobs, Regional
Coordinator for the Project headquartered in Belize City, and representative of CCAD.
The Project was declared effective November 30, 2001, nearly 6 months after approval
by the Bank's Board. Thus, it was agreed to delay the Mid-Term Review (MTR) until
March 2004.

4.
The MTR involved a series of discussions and site visits in the four participating
countries: Belize, Guatemala and Honduras and Mexico. Discussions were held with

1 The Regional Coordination Unit, under the direction of the Project Steering Committee, commissioned an
upstream independent assessment of Project status in November, 2003. This review was undertaken by two
consultants drawn from the region, Alekcey Chuprine Valladares and Aldo Hernandez Portocarrero,
working over a period of two person months. The report was completed in February 2004, however, the
Steering Committee voted not to share the results of this evaluation with the Bank's Mid-Term Review
Team until after the MTR Mission, so as not to bias the findings of the Team.

1

key Project stakeholders, including national coordinators and government counterparts
in each country, partnering institutions, and key beneficiaries, including representatives
from research institutions and NGOs, park managers and fishermen. A list of these
individuals and institutions is included as an Annex (1). The site visits to the field were
particularly useful to see Project-supported operations first hand and to meet with
Project beneficiaries.

5.
These interactions afforded the opportunity to assess the Project's major
achievements to date, to identify bottlenecks or problem areas requiring follow-up, and
to generate new ideas for partnerships and ways to leverage project resources to
achieve greater impact. Meetings with the Ministers (or Vice Ministers) of Environment
and Tourism and their technical staff in each country allowed for an excellent exchange
regarding policies related to management of shared resources (e.g., in fisheries, coastal
water quality, tourism and marine protected areas), and progress toward harmonization
in each country. Discussions with stakeholders, including technical units and NGOs,
academic institutions and coastal communities, led to recommendations for scaling up
delivery of project benefits (e.g., to fishermen being trained in alternative livelihoods, or
to primary and secondary school teachers trained in new MBRS environmental
education guides), and enhancing financial and institutional sustainability. These
discussions provided valuable insight on successes, benefits, gaps and weaknesses in
project outputs and outcomes to date. The resulting recommendations are presented
here for consideration by the Project Management Team, the Project Steering
Committee and the Project's many executing partners.

6.
The Team would like to thank the Project Coordination Unit for its excellent
logistical support in organizing the Mission and facilitating interactions with key project
stakeholders. The Team is also grateful to the many people who contributed their time
and ideas during the myriad discussions held over the course of 10 days. Their input
was invaluable to the Mission's success. Finally, the Team would like to express its
thanks to the governments of Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico for their
cooperation and sustained commitment to the joint goals of this regional effort.

Summary Findings

Implementation Performance
7.
Based on feedback from stakeholders and the Team's first hand observations
and interactions in the field, the Mission concluded that Project Implementation
Performance is satisfactory with four of the five components at least 50% complete at
mid-term. A review of Project output indicators and achievement relative to benchmarks
indicates that the Project is squarely on track with only the Facilitation of Sustainable
Coastal and Marine Tourism component behind schedule. Project partners, including
UNDP, WWF, TNC and the Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority, commented
repeatedly on the many successes of the Project since its launch less than 2 ½ years
ago, and the high degree of ownership it has achieved among stakeholders with whom it
is directly engaged. This can be directly linked to the substantial investments during
project preparation in consultation, representative decision-making, and coordination
among the four countries. With a multi-national staff drawn from the four participating
countries and both gender and ethnic diversity well represented, the Project Regional
Coordination Unit is well vested in the region. Housed in new facilities in Belize City,
which also include the Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Belize Fisheries
Department, the Project has been able to coordinate effectively with both the Ministry of

2

Environment (as a member of CCAD) and the Ministry of Agriculture, whose Director of
Fisheries serves is the MBRS National Coordinator. The National Barrier Reef
Committees (NBRC), which provide input to the Project's annual work plans through
representation on the regional Technical Working Groups (comprised of NBRC members
according to their technical expertise) have also lent stability, credibility and a high
degree of local ownership to this regional initiative.

Key Achievements and Outcomes
8.
The Project has achieved significant results leading to outcomes in (at least)
three areas: (1) Capacity Building: through delivery of a series of training courses and
manuals related to: (i) development and launch of a region-wide Synoptic Monitoring
Program (SMP) to continuously assess MBR ecosystem health, (ii) MPA Management
training (in the design of MPA management master plans and operational plans, as well
through use of an MPA Scorecard and other tools to assess MPA management
effectiveness of priority project sites in the MBRS as well as throughout Central America;
(iii) Fisheries Co-mgt and Alternative Livelihoods to engage fishers actively in managing
the fisheries they exploit and to diversify their income base away from fishing; (2)
Knowledge Management: (i) a web-based Regional Environmental Information System
(REIS) to manage the data collected from the SMP and other sources, ensuring quality
control and access of regional data by all participating agencies, (ii) a newly revamped
project website http://www.mbrs.org.bz which contains up-to-date information on all
project activities, including a document library also available on CD ROM (over 400
copies distributed to date); and (3) Environmental Awareness: Development and
mainstreaming of MBRS environmental education material into the official curriculum for
primary and secondary schools in all four countries, with training of teachers already
underway in Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, and planned for Honduras.

The MBRS Project has also made some progress in terms of Process indicators related
to regional coordination and policy harmonization. There are a growing number of
initiatives in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef region, many fueled by the MBRS Project
and the critical mass of resources it has brought to the region. The MBRS Project has
taken steps to improve coordination with these initiatives to increase its own
effectiveness and to add value to these other efforts, where possible. The establishment
of the Project Consultative Group (CG) in October 2003, was a significant step in this
direction. The group systematically identified ongoing activities in support of the MBRS
Action Plan (an outcome of the Tulum Declaration adopted by CCAD in 2000), overlaps
and gaps in coverage and opportunities for joint future investments. It was
acknowledged by key actors in the region to be a much needed and valuable initiative.
The second meeting of the CG is planned for mid-April 2004, with expanded
representation from other key players in the MBRS region. This coordination can also
lead to more powerful alliances in support of environmentally sound policies and codes
of conduct that affect the MBRS.

Harmonization of policies governing shared resources use among the four countries
(Belize, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico) is proceeding incrementally through
adoption of a common policy framework which lays out a set of principles for
management of shared fish stocks, biodiversity, water quality, tourism, MPAs and other
resources requiring an ecosystem-based approach. With assistance from the Project's
Policy Working Group, recommendations emerging from Transboundary Commissions
established in the northern and southern Project transboundary areas are being

3

translated into policies and regulations for review by the four countries. If approved, they
will become legally binding instruments governing shared resource use in the MBRS.


Evaluation Based on GEF Project Review Criteria

Implementation Approach
9.
The MBRS Project is founded on regional and national coordination and strong
stakeholder engagement. The organizational structure, including a MBRS Regional
Steering Committee, 7 Technical Working Groups (TWG) and 4 National Barrier Reef
Committees (NBRC), provides direct means for stakeholder participation in the Project at
the regional and national levels. These Committee and Working Groups provide
important mechanisms for discussion of MBRS activities as well as non-Project activities
with implications for MBRS objectives. The meetings also serve to improve coordination
and information flow about Project activities and to ensure sustained participation by
stakeholders (e.g., fishermen and tour operators). A concern raised from the
discussions was that the National Barrier Reef Committees are strongest in Belize and
Mexico, where they meet as often as monthly; whereas the Guatemala and Honduras
National Barrier Reef Committees meet approximately once a year. Another issue of
concern was that the Committee members' have an unjust burden of covering their
travel expenses, especially as many must also forego a day of work to attend the
meetings.

Recommendations:
· The National Barrier Reef Committees in Honduras and Guatemala to establish
more effective means of coordination and discussion, including consideration of
more frequent meetings to ensure active participation of members and
discussion of MBRS and related activities.
· MBRS Project to support travel and lodging costs for members who must travel.

10. The Committees and Working Groups provide unique mechanisms for
collaboration not only related to MBRS, but also for partnerships on other activities of
mutual interest in the region. In discussions with the Bay Island Conservation
Association (BICA) in Honduras, the coordinator noted that the organization now has
much closer relations with the municipal government now that they are working together
on the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring. In the cases of both Honduras and Guatemala, the
National Barrier Reef Committees provide the first national-level mechanism for
coordination on coastal/marine-related issues. For example, the Belize National
Steering Committee is an important forum for discussion of the Belize Tourism Board's
recently drafted Cruise Ship Policy, which will soon go to Cabinet for consideration.
However, a concern identified from the discussions is that the National Barrier Reef
Committees, which were established to represent a wide array of interests in the coastal
zone, tend to focus only on MBRS Project specific activities, whereas there are many
other related issues and initiatives with potential bearing on the MBRS, which also need
to be addressed. A suggestion was to increase communication outside of the
designated meetings, as often issues arise that need immediate attention, discussion
over time and/or may not involve all of the members. Such discussions can occur
informally through one-on-one conversations or through broader e-mail communication.

Recommendations:

4

· National Barrier Reef Committees and TWGs to look at areas of collaboration
outside MBRS planned activities. For example, a formal review of the BTB Cruise
Ship Policy before it is presented to Cabinet for approval.
· Committee and Work Group members to keep other members informed of
relevant non-Project activities to ensure multi-stakeholder participation in issues
of concern to MBRS.
· The Technical Working Groups to nominate chairs from within their ranks,
replacing Project Staff who currently carry out this task, to institutionalize this
function and to encourage communication among TWG members outside the
MBRS specified meetings on a wider range of issues which may relate to the
MBRS.

11.
The complexity and scope of economic development activities emerging within
the MBRS region and externalities related to trade, tourism and other policies,
emphasize the need for broader consultation with political players outside the current
cast of MBRS partners. A larger policy and stakeholder group will need to be engaged
by the MBRS Project and the National Coordinators and their host ministries. The latter,
primarily environmental institutions can play a greater coordination role at the national
level, liaising with ministries of Tourism, Agriculture and Fisheries, Water and Sanitation,
and Maritime (Coast Guard) Authorities. Opportunities for such multi-sectoral planning
and policy harmonization are emerging within the four countries, e.g., in Guatemala with
a newly formed roundtable for environmental policy sponsored by the Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources to bring together representatives from key
productive sectors to bring policies in alignment with sustainable uses and to minimize
their impact on the environment; and in Mexico with the establishment under the Bank-
financed Sectoral Adjustment Loan to the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT), of
various sectoral working groups, comprised of key representatives of the industry along
with members of SEMARNAT, to mainstream environmental sustainability principles into
Industry practice. The MBRS Project should engage with these groups to ensure that
the objectives enshrined under the Tulum Declaration adopted by the heads of state of
the four countries to conserve and sustainably manage the MBRS--are not undermined
by short-term sectoral interests or mis-aligned policies with adverse impacts on
ecosystem goods and services of the MBRS. At the regional level, CCAD also has an
important role to play by elevating concerns about the future health and productivity of
the MBRS as a regional public good to counterparts in SICA in concerned ministries
such as Tourism, Fisheries, Forestry, Water, Public Health and Infrastructure. Alignment
of regional economic development and trade plans now under review by SICA members
with the sustainability principles outlined in the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC)
Business Plan adopted by CCAD and partners at the Paris Conference in December
2002, should be a high priority for CCAD. The joint Agriculture and Environment
regional plan, recently adopted by CCAD and the Consejo de Ministros de Agricultura,
may serve as a model.

Recommendations:
· MBRS to forge closer links to political decision-making bodies through the
National Coordinators and other project stakeholders. For example, the MBRS
National Coordinator in Mexico (head of the National Commission of Protected
Areas within SEMARNAT) could be invited to joint the Working Group on
Tourism in Mexico, to bring concerns about the rapid pace of tourism
development along the fragile Riviera Maya to the attention of decision-makers);

5

in Guatemala, the Bank could try to assist the Ministry of Environment to get an
Institutional Development Facility (IDF) grant to help establish the Policy
Roundtable, its modus operandi and the basis for its sustainability; in Honduras,
SERNA's commitment to working closer with the Ministry of Tourism at the
technical level and the policy level should be supported and expanded to include
other ministries, including Education, Agriculture (COHDEFOR and DIGEPESCA
in Protected Areas and Fisheries, respectively), and Local Government on issues
related to the sustainability of the MBRS and its contribution to social and
economic development in the region.
· MBRS Project to move forward quickly on plans to prepare an economic
valuation of MBRS resources and economic development scenarios with
implications for the sustainability and continued productivity of the MBRS.

12.
Given the strength of evidence that adverse impacts on the reef from a range of
development activities are continuing, it is important that the MBRS Project carefully
target where it's response to this impact is likely to be most cost-effective, in light of the
limited resources to address these issues relative to their severity.

13.
The MBRS Project has recognized the need for coordination with other projects
in the region. Better networking between the MBRS and other projects, such as the
UNDP/GEF Belize Barrier Reef Project (about to end), ICRAN, PROARCA, WWF, WCS,
PACT, is being promoted through the establishment of a Consultative Group of key
partners in the region. The group met in Belize in October 2003, with a second meeting
planned in Mexico in mid-April. This networking will consolidate efforts on the ground to
deliver benefits to target groups and fill in gaps in areas identified in the MBRS Action
Plan adopted in 2000 by the Council of Ministers of CCAD. These coordination efforts
should dispel any concerns voiced among some partner organizations that MBRS
activities tend to be insular. While there was a request for greater communication,
transparency and flow of information regarding MBRS activities to other stakeholders,
the MBRS Project has been exceptional in posting project information on its website
(including Auditor's Reports and Approved Annual Workplans) and recently distributed
over 400 CDs of its document library to interested parties. The PCU will also provide
institutional support to the ICRAN MAR Project coordinator by hosting office space and
providing day to day supervision of the coordinator.

Recommendation:
· PCU to continue to strengthen reciprocal efforts at coordination of activities,
resource sharing, and communication with partners and other stakeholder groups
through the Consultative Group. PCU to add new indicator: Development of two
regional activities in collaboration with other MesoAmerica Barrer Reef players
(e.g. WWF, TNC, Summit Foundation) such that resources, capacity and skills
are drawn from all partners to strengthen the activities.

14.
Critical to stakeholder engagement is an understanding of who the stakeholders
are, their priority interests and their perceptions of coastal resources and management
efforts. The importance of understanding socioeconomic aspects of marine
conservation was noted throughout the discussions. The Belize Protected Area
Conservation Trust, for example, noted that incorporating socioeconomics into their
plans was a requirement for their establishment. Many sites have conducted, or are
planning to conduct, socioeconomic monitoring for their area, yet these efforts are not
coordinated or comparable. If a socioeconomic survey was agreed region-wide, then

6

the results could be comparable over time and between sites. Coordination would also
avoid the risk of communities being interviewed multiple times resulting in interview
fatigue and reduced trust in the management authorities. The socioeconomic study
could also be an opportunity to address the key issue of alternative livelihood
opportunities in the region.

Recommendations:
· PCU Sociologist to work with partners to conduct socioeconomic studies (one for
each country) of coastal communities with emphasis on alternative livelihood
opportunities (see discussion below regarding alternative livelihoods). PCU to
coordinate national-level workshops among social scientists and coastal
managers to agree on the objectives of the socioeconomic study (e.g. assess
national as well as site-level influences, alternative livelihood opportunities,
resource values, community dependency on resources, and/or impacts of coastal
management on local communities, etc.). During the workshop the group needs
to determine what has already been collected, where and what needs to be
collected. Based on this gap analysis the group can then determine the most
appropriate approach to address the gaps.
· PCU to add new indicator under "Increased knowledge and dissemination of
information" objective to track the establishment of socioeconomic monitoring
programs in each country. New Indicator: National socioeconomic monitoring
programs established in each country as complement to biophysical synoptic
monitoring.
· Based on outcomes of the socioeconomic studies, PCU to jointly hire (with other
partners) an extension agent/ outreach/ sociologist for each country to
complement work of the MBRS staff sociologist, to coordinate each country's
socioeconomic assessment, to liaison with communities regarding MesoAmerica
conservation initiatives (MBRS, MesoAmerica Reef Alliance & TNC
MesoAmerican Initiative); and to develop partnerships specifically with
stakeholder groups (e.g. MesoAmerica Reef Regional Fishermen's Congress).
World Bank Sociologist and MBRS Sociologist to develop TOR with partners.
The responsibilities/tasks of the sociologists will depend in part on the outcomes
of the socioeconomic studies.

15.
During the Review it also became clear that there are a number of relevant
initiatives supported by IFC, the Inter-American Development Bank and others which
need to be monitored to ensure that these are consistent with MBRS Objectives or to
promote synergies.

Recommendations:
· World Bank to inquire about IFC aquaculture investments in Belize. Of particular
concern are reports of effluent and nutrient enrichment in shrimp ponds in the
area north of Port Honduras. The ponds also need to be monitored over the
long-term, the results of which would be useful to include in the REIS.
· World Bank Task Manager to follow up with the IDB on the status of the IDB/GEF
Marine Pollution Control Project (e.g., progress on plans for port waste reception
facilities, cruise ship tourism impact and carrying capacity studies).

16.
Policy coordination and harmonization among the 4 countries is also a priority
aspect of the MBRS Project. Progress continues on the formulation and harmonization

7

of a regulatory framework for the use of shared resources and coastal governance within
the MBRS region; however, supervision and follow up by the National Coordinators and
the CCAD Executive Secretariat will be required to take this agenda to the next level. A
Sustainable Development Policy Framework for Fisheries Resources, Tourism, Water
Quality and Transboundary Marine Protected Areas has been drafted with the objective
of trying to harmonize policies and environmental management systems in the region,
promoting common positions which reflect principles already agreed to under
international conventions and instruments, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, the
Cartagena Convention, the FAO Code of Conduct for Straddling and Migratory Fish
Stocks, etc. This common framework was adopted by CCAD member states in the Gulf
of Honduras (Belize, Guatemala and Honduras), and is currently being considered for
adoption by Mexico.

Recommendations:
· CCAD to follow through with plans to harmonize legal and policy frameworks
among four countries governing shared resource use within the MBRS, and
engage members to promulgate appropriate regulations at national and local
levels to implement the adopted framework.
· National Coordinators, PCU and CCAD Executive Secretariat to pursue 4 country
adoption of the Sustainable Development Policy Framework for Fisheries
Resources, Tourism, Water Quality and Transboundary Marine Protected Areas
(The Policy Framework has already been adopted by Belize, Honduras and
Guatemala through CCAD). Regarding Mexico, it was agreed that SEMARNAT
(the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources) will organize a legal review
of the proposed framework with the participation of concerned ministries, and
provide an opinion on its adoption as soon as possible. Also agreed during the
mission, the Regional Coordinator will use the good offices of the Mexican
Ambassador to Belize to facilitate a timely decision. No further meetings of the
transboundary commission between Mexico and Belize, whose mission is to
achieve greater harmonization of policies and regulatory frameworks at the
national level, will be convened until a decision is made by Mexico whether or not
it will adopt the framework policies.
· National Coordinators and PCU to pursue agenda for trans-boundary
cooperation in Gulf of Honduras by pursuing joint regional fisheries management
and enforcement. Collaboration may involve joint naval operations involving
Sapodilla Cayes and a permanent presence on Nicholas Caye.
· National Coordinators and PCU to work with the Bank's Resident Mission in
Mexico to pursue agenda for transboundary cooperation at Mexico/Belize border
via the transboundary Policy Framework for shared fisheries management, which
includes tourism, fisheries, water quality and other sectoral policy harmonization.
Will include legal advisors of other ministries to engage in the work of the
Transboundary Commissions.
· The Transboundary Commission for the Gulf of Honduras, with support from
TRIGOH, will meet to begin drafting regulations to operationalize framework
policies on tourism, fisheries, MPA enforcement and water quality at the national
level.

Country Ownership/Driveness
17.
At the same time that the countries have made progress toward a shared policy
framework, they recognize that they need to constantly review and where necessary

8

amend existing national legal framework or promulgate new legal measures. They
recognize that there is shifting illegal use along the reef and that each government
should seek to help the others to combat this illegal activity. As a result, each of the
countries is considering certain national measures for adoption. To provide cost
efficiency to these actions, the MBRS can develop template or model laws or regulations
that can be considered by each of the governments and tailored to their needs. As an
example, several of the countries have weak specific legislation pertaining to national
marine protected areas, but all were interested in being sure that their laws and
regulations were up to date.

18.
Having noted their national policy and legal initiatives, all governments agree that
where there are issues in common, they should seek to identify where they can
harmonize their approaches. Thus, the governments agreed that migratory species
should be the beneficiaries of harmonized regulations, and that governments should
begin to discuss how they might assist each other in carrying out enforcement of such
harmonized regulations, while respecting the national sovereignty of each country. A
similar approach can be anticipated for mitigating tourism impacts, and maintaining
agreed minimum standards of water quality for various uses (e.g., bathing, fisheries
habitat, conservation, mariculture/'aquaculture. In all such areas, there may be
economic and policy incentives to harmonize along the MBRS.

19.
Country ownership may also be furthered by developing financial instruments
such as trust funds that can cover sustainability issues. (See discussion on financial
issues below).

Recommendation:
· World Bank Legal Counsel to work with PCU to assist Policy Working Group
on regional policy harmonization. Counsel and PCU to identify specific
aspects of the MBRS where there are benefits to harmonize. Where such
aspects are specifically identified, provide resources to develop legal
instruments that can support the four countries at both the regional and
national levels to adopt such instruments. Provide alternatives to be
considered depending upon at what level the decision is made to pursue
such matter. For example, if there is need to develop MPA regulations,
MBRS can develop model that can be circulated among the national
committees for further submission to government.


Public Involvement
20.
As noted under Implementation Approach, the MBRS organizational structure
includes a Regional Steering Committee, 7 Technical Working Groups and 4 National
Committees. These entities provides means for direct stakeholder participation in the
Project at the regional and national levels. In contrast, the engagement of site-based
stakeholders in Project coordination is more limited. Community members in marine
protected areas, including fishermen and tourism operators, can participate in
management decisions through their representatives to the MPA Local Advisory
Committees. More broadly they participate in training workshops and receive
awareness information. However, there appears to be limited involvement of coastal,
community-based organizations in MBRS planning and execution, including determining
training needs. There is a need for the Project to have more direct interaction with

9

community-based organizations to enable them to benefit from, participate in, and
provide feedback regarding Project activities.


Recommendations:
· MBRS Steering Committee and PCU to explore opportunities and mechanisms to
more directly engage coastal, community-based organizations in Project planning
and execution.
· As discussed above in Implementation Approach, PCU to jointly hire (with other
partners) an extension agent/ outreach/ sociologist for each country. Extension
agent will serve key role as liaison with communities regarding MesoAmerica
conservation initiatives (MBRS, MesoAmerica Reef Alliance & TNC
MesoAmerican Initiative) and will develop partnerships specifically with
stakeholder groups (e.g. MesoAmerica Reef Regional Fishermen's Congress,
activities specific to local dive operators). The responsibilities/tasks of the
sociologists will depend in part on the outcomes of the socioeconomic studies.
· During development of Phase 2, World Bank will incorporate a coastal
management component. This component will be designed to engage and build
capacity at the municipal level (e.g. mayor's office and community-based
organizations).
· PCU to add following new indicators related to the community outreach positions
(relevant objectives noted in parentheses): 1) increased community-level
information sharing regarding MesoAmerica Barrier Reef programs, including the
MBRS Project, the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN)
MesoAmerica Reef Alliance, the TNC MesoAmerica Initiative, the IDB Bay
Islands Natural Resource Management Project and other donor activities (Public
Awareness); 2) establishment of partnership activities specifically with user
groups whose activities may be threatening the reefs, such as fishers, tour
operators and hotel developers, to mitigate these threats (Increased
Opportunities for Sustainable Use); 3) community outreach sociologist providing
additional mechanism for stakeholder input to the MBRS Project by providing
feedback to the MBRS Project in order to enable local stakeholder ideas and
concerns to feed into planning and execution and, as a result, interests are heard
in the PCU, the National Barrier Reef Committees, the MBRS Steering
Committee and Technical Working Groups and by other relevant partners
(Increased Public Awareness); 4) objectives and operation of the National Barrier
Reef Committees strengthened to serve as platforms for interest groups to be
represented (Increased Public Awareness); and, 5) MBRS awareness of local
activities relevant to MBR program goals increased in order to help ensure MBR
programs are responsive to the local situation and needs (Increased Public
Awareness).

21.
Although community-based organizations' participation in Project coordination is
limited, the Project activities are benefiting coastal management programs. For
example, the national fisheries co-management workshops are designed to develop site
managers' and fishers' capacity to address co-management issues and to adopt
sustainable use patterns. Similarly, the bi-lateral fishers exchanges (e.g., between
Mexico and Belize) directly benefit those sites by sharing good practices. PCU is
working directly with site-based organizations to implement these activities. For

10

example, the Toledo Institute of Development and Environment in Punta Gorda, Belize is
contracted to organize the alternative livelihood training in southern Belize.

22.
There was, however, interest in having an even stronger emphasis on bringing
resources (e.g. guidebooks, training) to the coastal management sites. There were also
several identified opportunities for stronger partnerships directly with the stakeholder
groups (e.g. Regional Fisheries Congress, environmental training for dive operators).
There were also several comments on the need to have even more activities at the site
level, particularly to bring the training to the sites. The Belize Ministry of Education in
particular asked for support for train the trainers on the education curricula.

Recommendations:
· PCU to improve flow of information, resource sharing, and two-way
communication with national and site-level partners and stakeholder
organizations.
· MBRS PCU staff to establish communication between the National
Coordinators, counterparts in the Ministry of Education and the MBRS PCU
staff in charge of education and outreach to accelerate the training of
teachers in the new curriculum and optimize the number of classrooms and
children in each country exposed to information about the value and
importance of the MBRS.
· MBRS to ensure greater outreach and dissemination of knowledge products
(e.g. synoptic monitoring guidelines, management effectiveness guidelines,
etc.) with site-based partners.
· PCU to develop MBRS Radio shows for kids, which may include a quiz
question of the week (scale up TIDE model) and may involve videos for
distance learning (tele-secondaria in Belize).

23.
Another concern voiced was determining how the project's environmental
messages are influencing people's attitudes and behavior.

Recommendation:
· PCU to develop a new indicator for environmental awareness that measures
changes in attitude as well as in human behavior (process indicator) as a result
of environmental education campaigns in formal and informal education center.
This indicator could be evaluated based on surveys at different intervals over the
course of the Project.

24.
Participation of the indigenous communities is an important issue to MBRS so
much so that an Indigenous Peoples Development Matrix was developed to monitor and
ensure that ethnic groups were adequately involved in the project. The PCU is currently
working with 43 indigenous organizations in the region, which represent approximately
960 people. A more regular monitoring and reporting system on the progress of
implementation of this plan is indicated.

Replication Approach
25.
The MBRS Project has been successful in providing tools and training that have
been adopted by partner organizations throughout the region. For example, in February
a joint MBRS/PROARCA MPA management effectiveness indicators workshop was
held with participants of not only the 4 MBRS countries, but also managers from El

11

Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. Together the participants developed
indicators that will be used not only by MBRS but the neighboring nations as well
illustrating the region-wide influence that the Project is having in terms of standardizing
and scaling up data collection for management decision-making. The training of
trainers workshops enable participants to adopt the tools to their own needs and conduct
training with their colleagues. The Belize Department of Agriculture noted that fisheries
cooperatives are now conducting their own co-management training as follow-up to the
training they received from MBRS. Similarly teachers in Belize have asked for
assistance to conduct their own localized training using the education materials.

26.
More broadly the MBRS Project has brought the region's coral reef conservation
issues to global attention and has succeeded in implementing a number of much-needed
interventions. This success has helped leverage additional investments from Oak
Foundation, Summit Foundation, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the
United Nations Foundation. As a result, these groups and partners in the International
Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN), including CORAL, The Nature Conservancy, World
Wide Fund for Nature and UNEP, have developed their own MesoAmerican Reef
Initiative to complement MBRS activities and help take some of them to scale.

Recommendation
· MBRS Project to liaise closely with MAR initiative and other investors in the
region to consolidate and replicate alternative livelihood training to fishers
(e.g., in sustainable tourism in and around MPAs; reef ranching of coral reef
species, etc.), undertake social and environmental carrying capacity studies
for cruise ship tourism, and refine and replicate hydrodynamic modeling from
ridge to reef to assess land based impacts on MBRS ecosystem health.

Financial Planning
27.
Despite a nearly 6 month delay in Project effectiveness, disbursements are
nearly at the mid-way point, with approximately 44% of the funds disbursed. UNDP/El
Salvador, serving as the Project's Financial Management and Procurement agent, has
initiated electronic disbursement, which will accelerate disbursements from the Project's
Special Account and further streamline flow of funds.

Cost-effectiveness
28.
As indicated above, the MBRS Project has been exceptionally successful in
leveraging new sources of funding and consolidating action around key themes among
various old and new partners in the region. The GEF investment has been catalytic in
this respect and the funds allocated to various Project activities have been spent
effectively in terms of outputs and potential impacts (the latter remain to be measured,
as the project matures).

Sustainability - Financial & Institutional
29.
The MBRS Project was specifically designed to build long-term institutional
capacity after the completion of the Project. The MBRS PCU provides the coordinating
role, but does not execute activities; instead, the PCU depends on partner institutions
within government, NGOs or the research community, to execute activities, thereby
providing a foundation for post-Project sustainability. MBRS has established a strong
foundation for institutional stability by involving a wide variety of players in overall project
planning and implementation (e.g. annual work plans are reviewed each year by the
Technical Working Groups, which are drawn from the National Barrier Reef

12

Committees). The synoptic monitoring component involves research institutions,
government agencies and NGOs; the MPA management component involves Ministries,
fishers, and NGOs; and the co-management arrangements engage fishers,
municipalities, and national governments. This diversification has been critical to
dispersing burden and risk. However, the long-term commitment of these partners is
not ensured given the uncertainties of public sector budget allocations. Steps, therefore,
need to be taken to ensure that efforts to mainstream Project activities into the
institutional mandate of existing organizations at the national and regional level are
reinforced by strategies for financial sustainability (see paragraph 30 below).

Recommendations:
· Government counterparts and Consultative Group should consider developing a
Sustainability Plan for investments, capacity building, MPA management, etc. in
the region.
· Relatedly, government counterparts and the MBRS Consultative Group may wish
to develop an Action Plan, owned by all partners, to address continued support
for beyond the life of the Project. As part of these discussions, MBRS Steering
Committee with PCU need to assess the future structure of the Project and
determine the commitment levels of the relevant partners. Technical Working
Groups could be charged with coming up with sustainability plans for each
project activity and National Barrier Reef Committees might also consider the
question of personnel and resources required to sustain the involvement of each
country in regional activities.
· The Steering Committee to address the sustainability of the PCU as a CCAD
Regional Center of Excellence for Coastal and Marine Resources Management.
Attention needs to be paid to the location of the PCU to ensure future leadership
in this initiative. Consideration also needs to be given to prospects for
maintaining this Center in the absence of a Phase 2 Project.
· For each country the sectors (represented on the national committee) need to
identify areas of synergy for future coordination related to the Mesoamerican
Barrier Reef System (e.g. in Honduras = MBRS, Bay Islands Honduras, IHT,
IDB) for inclusion in follow-on activities.

30.
Regarding financial sustainability, it is important to consider diverse sources of
financing to cover costs of maintaining activities beyond the life of the Project,. Possible
funding sources for MBRS to explore include: user fees, trust funds (e.g. MAR, PACT
endowment), grants, green taxes (e.g. 1% environment tax in Belize on purchases),
pollution fees and private sector contributions (into specific activity, trust fund, grants).
Discussions with the Belize Protected Areas Conservation Trust and WWF in Belize,
identified efforts to develop a regional fund for the Meso-American Reef (MAR Fund), to
help sustain activities and benefits after Project funding ends. The MAR Fund would
draw upon a network of national level Trust Funds in each country (Protected Areas
Conservation Trust (PACT) in Belize, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la
Naturaleza in Mexico, Fundacion Biosfera in Honduras and Fundacion para la
Conservacion de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente in Guatemala), capitalized by user
fees (e.g., from the Cruise Ship Industry), tourism taxes, environmental taxes, corporate
contributions and grant funds. In addition to Trust Funds, the Project partners have
agreed to explore scholarships to support student involvement in monitoring efforts.
Better networking between projects in the region can also result in cross subsidies and

13

synergies which can help sustain individual initiatives long after external funding
disappears.

Recommendations:
· MBRS Regional Coordinator to develop a plan for approaching the private sector
to help set up an endowment for the coastal and marine resources conservation
and management in the MBRS region.
· MBRS PCU and MBRS Steering Committee to evaluate long-term financial
sustainability options, including those noted above.
· PCU to develop scholarship program for graduate students to conduct research
at MBRS sites as part of the students' training.

Monitoring & Evaluation
31.
The MBRS Project has a log framework to direct the long-term project plans with
specific outputs. Project Status Reports are conducted every 6 months to ensure the
project is on track and to address problems as they arise. Following is the evaluation of
the status of the project components: (See updated log frame indicators, attached as
Annex 2.).


Evaluation Based on Project Component Indicators

32.
The project has performed very well in achieving the indicators with four of the
five components at least 50% complete (see Annex 2).

Marine Protected Areas
33.
Six of the seven MPA sub-components are at least 50% complete. As part of the
Planning, Management and Monitoring activities, the data baseline and monitoring
program has been designed, public consultations have been held to develop
management plans in two of the four MPAs, support has been provided for development
of the management plan for OMOA, 86 people have been trained in MPA management,
and the Transboundary Commission and Policy Working Group meetings have been
held to address transboundary policies. As part of the Institutional Strengthening
activities, equipment has been provided to MPAs in Belize, Guatemala and Mexico and
multi-purpose visitor centers have been built in two MPAs.

Regional Environmental Monitoring and Information System
34.
The REIS sub-components range in completion from 10% to 100% complete.
The web-based REIS has been designed, installed and is functioning. The Synoptic
Monitoring Manual is complete, 30 persons have been trained in its use, the first set of
data was collected during the training, and monitoring equipment has been delivered to
Belize, Guatemala and Mexico.

Promotion of Sustainable Use of MBRS
35.
This component is the least complete. The Promoting Sustainable Fisheries
Management activities are on schedule with the completion of the technical document of
Spawning Aggregation Sites, monitoring protocols and one regional training workshop.
In addition, 377 people have been training in fisheries co-management at the regional
and national levels, which is over twice the target amount. The Facilitation of Sustainable
Coastal and Marine Tourism activities are behind schedule with only 1 of the 5 sub-
components 50% complete; however a Sustainable Tourism expert has been hired to

14

address this gap. A Best Practices Manual is being published; Codes of Conduct are
being considered instead of certification; the marine tourism study tour is planned in
coordination with the Best Practices Manual; and two tourism fora have been held in lieu
of training.

Public Awareness and Environmental Education
36.
This component is the most complete with indicators reported as 100%, 70% and
100% complete. The Environmental Awareness Campaign strategy has been
completed and is under implementation. In addition 80 teachers and 13 journalists have
been trained in environmental and MBRS concepts and more than 10,000 posters,
folders, stickers, rulers and brochures have been distributed in the region. Furthermore,
over one third of the participants have been indigenous and over one third have been
women, which is in line with the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan, which promotes
participation of indigenous people and women as much as possible.


Regional Coordination and Project Management
37.
All except one of the sub-components are 50% or more complete. All of the
committees and working groups have been established and are operational, efforts are
underway to conduct the economic development scenarios in the region, and the
Transboundary Commissions are pursuing a subset of policies in areas of shared MBRS
resource management. With regards to CCAD, multi-sectoral meetings have been
coordinated by CCAD and regional environmental concerns have been reflected in
PARCA and CCAD Annual Work Plans.


Major Issues Raised During MTR

39.
In addition to the issues related to the GEF Evaluation Criteria, the MTR Team
noted a number of issues specific to the MBRS Project, which are discussed below.

Alternative Livelihood Program
40.
Alternative livelihood training will begin in the second half of the MBRS Project. It
is worth nothing that the training that has been conducted by other organizations was
noted as highly successful. In Punta Gorda between 20% to 50% of the trained fishers
were noted to have switched into tourism. Now people are asking for training and it is
influencing their conservation ethic. One of the local Punta Gorda conservation
organizations noted that fishermen have actually asked for quotas and moratorium on
fishing in certain areas.

41. One of the recurring issues during the meetings was the need to
comprehensively address how to deliver on the goal of alternative livelihoods, beyond
providing training. As the TIDE Director noted, there must be follow-up to ensure
equipment is available and to address any infrastructure, capital investment, or
marketing limitations. Community members indicated that they already have enough
trained tour operators and instead need loans for equipment, internet access to markets,
and small business training in such topics as accounting and bookkeeping.

Recommendations:
· In the development and implementation of the MBRS alternative livelihood
component, PCU and national coordinators to first ensure an understanding of

15

previous alternative livelihood projects in the area. The results and lessons
learned from these previous projects need to provide the basis for future MBRS
activities. Discussions with the community groups will be critical for determining
how the MBRS livelihood activities can build upon the previous livelihood
activities. For example, in Punta Gorda discussions indicated that instead of
more training, focus may need to be on developing a revolving fund and
providing small business training.
· As discussed above, PCU Sociologist to work with partners (e.g., WWF, TNC
and USAID/Proarca) to conduct socioeconomic studies (one for each country) of
coastal communities with emphasis on alternative livelihood opportunities.
Alternative livelihood study may involve market evaluation to consider value
added potential for investments in alternative livelihoods for fishers (e.g., small
business incubation and training). Study to be conducted to consider site,
national and regional-level influences. For Belize, consult Belize Tourist Board
Statistics on what tourist activities people engaged in, where and plans for the
future. In Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico, need to do more ground work,
especially in association with MPAs. Also look at non-tourism alternatives, such
as aquaculture (reef fish ornamentals, coral farming, mangrove oysters, etc.)
(see World Fish Center ­ Johann Bell).
· PCU to explore revolving fund for fishermen trained in alternative livelihoods.
Explore funding possibilities with WWF, USAID, TNC or MBRS Project. Discuss
at Consultative Group Meetings in April.
· PCU to add new indicator to track number of fishermen trained who actually
reduce their effort and switch to tourism (50%). Better reporting is required as
well (base line surveys and tracking systems need to be in place). Belize
Fisheries Department needs to work with TIDE and Fishing Cooperatives (and
other training efforts). New Indicator: 35% of fishermen trained in alternative
livelihoods derive at least 50% of their income from an alternative, assuming
there is a market for this kind of tourism.
· PCU to discuss with partners need to ensure alternative livelihoods are
alternative not supplemental by establishing permanent limitations on new entries
to fishing.

Co-Management & Site Exchanges
42.
Two of the most successful activities noted in the region were the fisheries co-
management workshop and the site exchanges between fishermen. During the
exchange from Punta Allen, Mexico, to Placencia, Belize, the fishers discussed their
respective fishing and management regimes. As a result of these discussions the
Placenia fishers are now placing fishing limits on the lobster fishery similar to those in
place in Punta Allen. The Punta Allen gained a greater appreciation for their
relationships with the park managers and relatively fewer conflicts and management
problems. Similarly, as a result of the fishermen exchange from Cayos Cachinos,
Honduras, to Banco Chincorro, Mexico, the Honduran fishers decided to prohibit use of
SCUBA for lobster fishing. The fisheries co-management workshop in Honduras, which
brought together fishers from Cayos Cachinos and OMOA, resulted in the OMOA fishers
deciding to ban coral extraction for jewelry. Similarly the Guatemalan fisheries co-
management workshop, which involved 56 fishers, resulted in the fishers meeting with
Fisheries Department officials to discuss stronger regulations and enforcement. Finally,
the President of the Fishermen's Association for Quintana Roo, has proposed a
Fishermen's Congress for the region, which would bring together fishers from throughout

16

the MBRS region to discuss these issues. His impetus for such a congress was his
experience in exchanges with Belize fishers.

Recommendation:
· MBRS Project to support request by Fishing Cooperative in Mexico to host a
(MBRS) regional Symposium for Artisanal Fishers, to establish good practice
guidelines and codes of conduct for sustainable fishing in the MBRS

These activities have focused on fishermen; however there was interest expressed in
supporting exchanges of the MPA Steering Committee members with their colleagues,
at each site.

Recommendation:
· PCU to explore support for exchange of MPA Steering Committee members
between sites.

Booming Tourism Industry Region-Wide
43.
There is growing concern over (i) exponential growth of tourism in the region:
e.g., Cruise Ship Industry in the region has grown by over 500% between 2002-2003 in
Belize; and in Mexico, growth projections for Riviera Maya include a nearly 3 fold
increase from 1.2 Million in the Cancun metro area to over 3 Million along the Riviera
Maya between Cancun and Chetumal. In the Bay Islands, cruise ship tourism is also
growing rapidly. This growth, along with development investments and resulting
migration from the mainland is putting unsustainable pressure on the islands' fragile
ecosystems. Efforts to deal with pollution from waste water and solid waste are
inadequate, and coastal environments are becoming degraded. There is concern that
investments in infrastructure to support accelerated tourism development in the fragile
Riviera Maya, which include several MPAs and a Biosphere Reserve, may proceed
without adequate environmental planning (e.g., Strategic EAs), enforcement of existing
regulations or adequate licensing or pollution fees. These trends could undermine what
the MBRS Project and its partners in the region are doing to conserve the MBRS and to
deliver benefits from its sustainable use to a wide array of stakeholders. In addition,
recognition of the recently completed Central American Free Trade Agreement with the
United Sates, which includes Guatemala and Honduras, increases the likelihood of
economic and agricultural activity in the region. Such increases could lead to greater
pressure on environmental and natural resources. In all, these threats highlight the need
for good governance and transparent policies in the region that are consistent with
principles of sustainable use and the conservation of ecosystem goods and services that
tourism, fisheries, maritime transport and other sectors in the coastal zone rely on.

44.
The environmental and social impacts specifically of the cruise ship industry was
also raised as a concern. While the importance of the Cruise Ship Industry to the region
as a significant source of new revenue is recognized, concerns were raised in
discussions with stakeholders about the need for a sustainable Cruise Ship Policy which
is supported by reliable science and which captures resources rents locally for the
benefit of affected communities. In Belize, a new Cruise Ship Policy was circulated,
which increases the number of allowable daily visitors from cruise ships by 100%, from
4,000/day to 8,000. At these levels, the number of tourists visiting for the day during
peak season, would double the resident population of Belize City [Check Belize City
population]. Despite the anticipated environmental and social impacts that such a sharp
increase in tourism are likely to generate, there was no evidence that this new policy had

17

been informed by any carrying capacity studies or levels of acceptable change. Nor was
there any evidence of systematic consultation with stakeholders. Also lacking was any
reference to industry standards or good practice in other parts of the region, or
remedies/compensation in the case of an accident or spill.

45. The importance of this sector notwithstanding, tourism activities under
Component 3 remain behind. This sub-component need strengthening and actions have
been taken to hire a tourism advisor, whose job will be to revamp and revitalize the suite
of activities that comprise this increasingly important sub-component of the Project.
Discussions with Honduras Institute of Tourism staff reinforced the need to get the
tourism component back on track. This includes publication and dissemination of a
manual distilling good practice in coastal and marine tourism from case studies
presented at the last Tourism Forum sponsored by the Project, held in San Pedro Sula,
Honduras, and the launch of the Exemplary Practices Study Tour(s). The latter will bring
tour operators from the region in contact with outstanding examples of sustainable
tourism ranging from adventure and ecotourism (including recreational diving, catch and
release sports fishing, and sea kayaking) to cruise ship and beach tourism. The question
of certification of tour operations outside of the hotel industry is currently on hold,
pending further studies of consumer demand for such certification (e.g., demand for a
Blue Flag program of beach certification in the region) and the feasibility of implementing
such certification programs region-wide. In the meantime, the project is seeking to
promote voluntary adoption of codes of conduct in line with international best practice
through the Exemplary Practices Study Tour and dissemination of the Good Practices
manual.

Recommendations:
· CCAD to elevate development of a sustainable Tourism Strategy for MBRS
region to the highest levels.
· CCAD to intercede with SICA to request engagement of Tourism Ministries in
further elaboration of the MBC Strategy as it has with Agriculture Ministries in
their own Commissions
· PCU to pursue partnerships with CORAL/ICRAN/UNEP regarding codes of
conduct publications to ensure they compliment each other rather than are
duplicative.
· PCU to conduct feasibility study to determine if Blue Flag Program is appropriate
for region based on consumer demand for such certification (e.g., demand for a
Blue Flag program of beach certification in the region) and the feasibility of
implementing such certification programs region-wide.
· PCU to work with SEMARNAT and officials at the State level to engage Quintana
Roo State Government as a new partner in implementation of MBRS activities in
tourism, fisheries, ecosystem monitoring and environmental awareness
campaigns in Mexico.
· World Bank to pursue possible partnership with Bonaire as location for site
exchange.
· World Bank to facilitate discussion among NGOs, government and private sector
organizations regarding the environmental sustainability of the cruise ship
industry.
· Belize National Coordinator and Belize National Reef Committee to investigate
plans for tourism development in Puinta Gorda. Determine what environmental
impact/carrying capacity studies are planned. Determine how MBRS can engage

18

with the Belize Tourism Board more closely to monitor plans for tourism
development. Also assess threats of forestry activities on reefs.


Harmonization of Fisheries Regulations
46.
Illegal fishing is another concern raised by fishermen in the trans-boundary areas
(e.g., between Belize and Mexico and in the Gulf of Honduras). This illicit activity is
primarily done by independent boats, which are not registered with cooperatives, and
which take advantage of the closed seasons in neighboring countries, where resident
fishing fleets are in moratorium and patrols are inadequate to ensure compliance all
along the coast. Such poaching has raised the need for harmonized fishing regulations
at least for transboundary stocks among neighboring countries, and the need for joint
enforcement of these regulations to level the playing field and ensure compliance with
needed closed seasons or no take zones. There needs to be strong coordination
region-wide as well as across-sectors, particularly between fisheries and tourism. This
demonstrates the need to align and harmonize sectoral policies affecting the MBRS with
the need for ecosystem-based management and no regret options for sustainable
development. As described elsewhere, during the Mission, the President of the
Fishermen's Association for Qunitana Roo, Mexico proposed holding a Fisheries
Congress for the region in which the fisheries cooperatives from all 4 countries would
participate to discuss current region-wide issues and agree on Codes of Conduct in line
with sustainable fishing.

Recommendation:
· MBRS PCU to support and help coordinate a Fisheries Congress in
collaboration with fisheries cooperatives and conservation organizations in all 4
countries as well as partner organizations.
· PCU to table enforcement at next Consultative Group meeting as subject of
potential joint investment in the near future

Additional Follow-Up Actions
The following recommendations are included for consideration by the Project Team, as
resources and time permit.

Recommendations:
· Preparation of draft model laws and regulations to implement framework policy
on MPAs, fisheries, sustainable tourism (with a special emphasis on cruise ship
and governance policies) developed by Transboundary Commissions and
adopted by each country. Introduce the set of model regulations to each
government for their review and adoption by each Ministry (either through
statutory decree or passage in Congress)
· Explore procurement options for Ecosur Lab to provide water quality testing at
least for Mexico if not entire MBRS, as a means of capacity building in the region.
· PCU to consider establishing a green award program to recognize outstanding
government, private sector and/or NGO environmental leadership in the region.
· Re-examine Sustainability strategy: In addition to ensuring counterpart
contribution of human resources and gasoline during project to carry out
essential monitoring and MPA management activities work with regional MAR
Fund to establish endowment for sustained MBRS actions.

19

· Follow up with TIDE to expand training to Honduran Garifuna fishing
communities under the Bank's Sustainable Coastal Tourism Project
· Port Honduras Advisory Council to advise similar councils for other MPAs.
(Advisory Council Exchange); set up a small fund for MPA Advisory council to
meet periodically; include in MPA management plans.
· Engage the private sector (environmental patrons) (e.g., IT hardware for REIS)
· Add line item in Goods category for purchase and deployment of a CREWS
Station for Belize with NOAA assistance as part of SMP.

Annex 1: List of Contacts

Annex 2 Logframe Indicators Status (see separate file)






20
Mid-Term Evaluation
List of Participants
10 ­ 19 March 2004

BELIZE
#
NAME
POST
INSTITUTION
TELEPHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
1
Dylan Vernon
Resident Representative
United Nations Development Programme
(501) 822-2688
undp.bze@btl.net
2
Eden García
Director of Marine Studies
University of Belize
(501) 223-2732 xt. 157 egarcia@ub.edu.bz
3
Godsman Ellis
President
Belize Tourism Association (501)
804-3264
piache.hot@btl.net
4
Guillermo Paz
Director
Green Reef
(501) 610-2779
greenreef@btl.net
5
Icilda Humes
Environmental Officer
Department of the Environment
(501) 822-2542
envirodept@btl.net
6
Imani Morrison
Chief Executive Officer
Coastal Zone Management Authority & Institute (501) 223-2616
ifmorrison@btl.net
7
Jack Nightingale
Director
TASTE
(501) 722-0191
watertaxi@btl.net
8
James Azueta
Assistant Fisheries Administrator
Fisheries Department
(501) 224-4552
species@btl.net
9
Janet Gibson
Marine Coordinator
Wildlife Conservation Society
(501) 223-3271
jgibson@btl.net
John Briceño
Minister of Natural Resources, Environment, Industry & Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment,
(501) 822-3286
jbriceno@btl.net
10
Trade
Industry & Trade
José Cardona
José Cardona
Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment,
(501) 822-2249
joseamir@hotmail.com
11
Industry & Trade
12
Leandra Cho-Ricketts Director
Coastal Zone Management Authority & Institute (501) 223-2616
lcricketts@btl.net
13
Mustafa Toure
Development Advisor
Belize Fishermen Cooperative Association
(501) 223-4650 mustafa@belizei t.bz
14
Nelson Longsworth
Acting Director
Quality Assurance and Development Service
(501) 223-6970
nelsonl@btl.net
15
Raymond Mossiah

Belize Tourism Board (501) 223-1913


raymond@travelbelize.org
16
Roy Jones
Meteorologist
National Meteorological Department
(501) 225-2054
hydro@hydromet.gov.bz
17
Sérvulo Baeza
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Cooperatives
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Cooperatives (501) 822-2330 sbaeza@hotmail.com
18
Sharon Ramclam
Biologist
Belize Audubon Society (501) 223-4987



base@btl.net
19
Tracy Taeger
Director of Tourism
Belize Tourism Board
(501) 223-1913
tracy@travelbelize.org
20
Valerie Woods
Executive Director
Protected Areas Conservation Trust (501)


822-0642
info@pactbelize.org
21
Wil Maheia
Director
Toledo Institute for Development & Environment (501) 722-2431
pgwil@btl.net
GUATEMALA
#
NAME
POST
INSTITUTION
TELEPHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
22
Antonio Salaverría
Coordinador de Monitoreo UNIPESCA
(502)
630-5883


unipesca@c.net.gt
23
Carlos Baldetti
Coordinador Nacional del SAM en Guatemala
Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano (502)


414-9692
cbmcarlos@latinmail.com
24
Edgar Rolando Alfaro Asesor Juridico
Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(502) 248-3614 ext. 18 marngt@hotmail.com
25
Edwin Josué
Director, Centro de Estudios Ambientales
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala
(502) 364-0336 xt. 596 ecastell@uvg.edu.gt
26
Fernando Castro
Director
Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas
(502) 238-1188
ducconap@hotmail.com
27
Jean Luc Betule
Director Ejecutivo
FUNDARY
(502) 232-3230

28
Jorge Samayoa
Jefe Sección de Patrimonio Cultural y Ecoturismo
Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (502)
238-1188 seconap@guate.net
29
Marco Cerezo
Director
FUNDAECO
(502) 440-4615
fundaeco@quetzal.net
30
Sergio Veliz
Vice Ministro de Ambiente
Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(502) 248-3601
ministro@marn.gob.gt

21
Mid-Term Evaluation
List of Participants
10 ­ 19 March 2004

HONDURAS
#
NAME
POST
INSTITUTION
TELEPHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
31
Adrian Oviedo
Director
Cayos Cochinos (504)
443-4075


aeoviedo@caribe.hn
32
Amaro García
Director Jurídico
Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (504) 232-1386
not available
33
Calina Zepeda
Bióloga
BIICA-Utila
(504) 425-3260
calinazepeda@yahoo.com
34
Elda Maldonado
Coordinadora Nacional del SAM en Honduras
Dirección de Biodiversidad
(504) 235-4895
hyeronima@yahoo.com.mx
Emelie Weitnauer
Jefe de Gestión Ambiental
Instituto Hondureño de Turismo
(504) 222-2124 ext. 219 emweiz@iht.hn
35
36
Gustavo Cabrera
Director
Cuerpos de Conservación OMOA
(504) 235-6187
gustavocm@honduras.com
37
José Antonio Fuentes Director
PROLANSATE (504) 448-1686


jfuentes67@hotmail.com
38
José Flores Rodas
Director
PMAIB (504) 455-5559


maib1@sdnhon.org.hn
39
Luis Morales
Director de Ingestigación
DIGEPESCA
(504) 239-1987
not available
40
Patricia Panting
Ministra de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente
Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (504) 235-7833
sdespacho@serna.gob.hn
41
Will Renán Díaz
Coordinador Programa de Educación Ambiental
Secretaría de Educación (504) 222-1114


wr-diaz@yahoo.com
MEXICO
#
NAME
POST
INSTITUTION
TELEPHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
Alfredo Arrellano
Director Region X1
Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales
(52) 998-849-7554
arellano@conanp.gob.mx
42
Protegidas
43
Antonio Iturbe
Jefe del Laboratorio de Información Geográfica
Universidad de Quintana Roo
(52) 983-83-50374
cig_@correo.uqroo.mx
Benjamín Morales
Director
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
(52) 983-83-50440 ext. benjamin@ecosur-qroo.mx
44
205
45
Carlos López
Biólogo
Amigos de Sian Ka'an
(52) 983-83-71637
sian@cancun.com.mx
46
Jaime González Cano Director
Parque Nacional (52)
998-891-4623
jgonzalez@conanp.gob.mx
47
Jose Alonso Ovando Subsecretario de Desarrollo Turísmo
Secretaría de Turismo
(52) 983-83-50860 jalonso@qroo.gob.mx
Mara Murillo
Directora General Adjunta de Acuerdos Ambientales
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
(52) 555-490-2118
mara.murillo@semarnat.gob.mx
48
Multilaterales
Naturales
49
Marco Lazcano
Director Ejecutivo
Amigos de Sian Ka'an
(52) 998-848-1593 mlazcano@cancun.com.mx
Miguel Angel
Jefe de Investigación y Monitoreo Región XI Peninsula Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales
(52) 998-891-4623 y 36 magarcia@conanp.gob.mx
50
de Yucatán
Protegidas
Oscar Alvarez Gil
Coordinador Nacional del SAM en Mexico
Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales
(52) 998-849-7554
oalvarez@conanp.gob.mx
51
Protegidas
52
Oscar Torres Lara
Laboratorio de Información Geográfica
Universidad de Quintana Roo
(52) 983-83-50374 cig_@correo.uqroo.mx
53
Pablo Ramos
Asistente del Componente de Turismo
MBRS (52) 998-886-9892



paramos12@yahoo.com.mx
54
Victor Hernández
Director
Amigos del Manatí (52)
983-83-22646
santmanati@hotmail.com
MBRS TEAM
#
NAME
POST
INSTITUTION
TELEPHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
55
Noel Jacobs
Regional Director
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 jacobs_nd@yahoo.com

22
Mid-Term Evaluation
List of Participants
10 ­ 19 March 2004

56
Delmar Lanza
Finance Director
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 dlanza@mbrs.org.bz
57
Francisco Salazar
Procurement Specialist
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 fjsalazar@mbrs.org.bz
58
Alejandro Arrivillaga
Environmental Monitoring Specialist
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 aarrivillaga@mbrs.org.bz
59
Marydelene Vasquez Environmental Information Systems Specialist
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 queenconch@mbrs.org.bz
60
Oscar Lara
Natural Resources Management Specialist
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 oflara@mbrs.org.bz
61
Omar Martinez
Sociologist
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 odmartinez@mbrs.org.bz
62
Alberto Urbina
Driver / Office Assistant
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 aurbina@mbrs.org.bz
63
Karina Johnson
Administrative Assistant
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems Project
(501) 223-3895 / 4561 kjohnson@mbrs.org.bz


23



24

Document Outline