Regional experiences with management effectiveness

evaluation

Using different tools in

Central AmericaDurban, South Africa

8-17 Sep 2003

Alberto Salas

IUCN-Mesoamerica

Central America context and the Protected Areas (richness and poverty)

Seven countries in small extention (half a millon Km2): Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panamá.

A population of 34 millions inhabitants (estimation for 2025 of 59 millions people).

Right now an indigenous population of 6.7 millions.

20 millions of Central Americam people live under poverty conditions and 14 millions in extreme poverty.

It is estimated that the region contains 7% of the global biodiversity, 22 ecoregions and 17 life zones.

Central America context and the Protected Areas (regional integration)

Two regional conventions: the Forest and Biodiversity and PA´s.

One Ministerial Forum: Central America Comission on Environmenta and Development (CCAD) and 13 different technical commitees one of them Central America Council on Protected Areas (CCAP).

Higth participation of civil society. Strategic Program of CCAD: The

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) and the Mesoamerican Reef System.

Different regional strategies related to Protected Areas: Central America Forestry Strategy, Central America Biodiversity Strategy (running)

Central America Enviromental Plan (PARCA)

Seven countries with National Protected Areas System. CAPAS is composed by the seven NPAS: Presently CAPAS has 554 declared PAs and 200 proposed.

PAs cover 25% (12.964.026 Has) of the Central America territories.

Privated PA´s are incresing; Belize is almost 5% of the national territory, Costa Rica has more than 100 private PA´s.

There is also a growing number of municipal PA´s (15 PA´s) 43 internationally designated protected areas: 27 Ramsar

sites; 8 World Heritage Sites and 8 Biosphere Reserves. 69% of the PAs are less than 10,000 has (thats the main

reason for the MBC) 51 PA´s are in country boundaries and 23 are

transboundaries.

Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS)

CAPAS growth from 1969 to 2002: Number of declared PAs, hectares protected and the percentage they represent of CA territory.

554

391

149

25 227 2241,9

6,15,5

8,8

12,5

3,7

11,910,8

17,2

25

9,5

18,6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1969 1981 1987 1992 1996 2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Declared PA´s

Hectares

Percentage of CA territory

Fuente: J.C. Godoy, 1997, SICAP, UICN/ORMA, 1997Elaborado por: R. Mc Carthy, A. Salas, UICN/ORMA, 1997

Only 18.7% (104 PA´s) have management plan and only 53% PA´s have annual operational plan.

Near 40% of the PA´s has permanent personnel. Sometimes the each PA has only 2 or 3 people.

Initiatives to manage PA´s with coordination of 2 and even 3 countries are in place

We have communities living in the PA´s and around (buffer zones).

More than 120 PA´s have co-management processes

So many different management categories (36 at regional level).

All countries have adopted M&E systems using different approaches and adapting tools to national priorities.

Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS): status of management.

Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS):main outputs

Increasing ecosystemic representation.

Existing strategic and legal frameworks.

Wide participation of stakeholders

Participatory planning and M&E processes.

Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS): main threats

Insufficient economic resources (more responsabilities, less money)

Little personnel in the PAs and little continuity of the same one.

Low institutional capacity. Little advantage of the

ecoturísm potential. Gap of monitoring on

biological and socioeconomical issues.

Management effectiveness evaluation in LA

Evolution of the concept of management of PA´s

Necesity of mesure improvement in PA´s management.• Bali, 1982• Caracas, 1992

Lack of systematic tools to mesure

• 1989. Evaluation of treats. Strategy for National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador. (Cifuentes,et.al.)

• 1990. Desing methodology and aplication in N.P. Corcovado and N.P. Manuel Antonio; Costa Rica (P.Ortiz)

• 1990. Scorecards, TNC. Parks in Peril.• 1992. Numerical Evaluation of National

Parks System in Venezuela (Rivero y Gabaldón)

• 1993. Review methodology and aplication en B. R. Carara and N. M. Guayabo, Costa Rica. (H. de Faria).

• 1997. PROARCA/CAPAS (J. Courrau et.al.)

• 1997. IUCN-WCPA (M. Hockings)

Management effectiveness in Central America

TNC´s Scorecard development by the Parks in Peril Project (1990)

A CATIE thesis development by de Faria (1993)

PROARCA/CAPAS Project (1997)

WWF/CATIE-IUCN-GTZ, Forest Innovation Project (1998)

Enhancing our Heritage – UNESCO/WCPA-IUCN (2000)

First steps

Pilot protected areas in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panamá.

Different areas through thesis (CR, Osa, Gua, PNT, Pan LA)

TNC´s PiP Sites in Honduras (RP), Costa Rica (PILA) and Panamá (Chagres)

Putting the Pieces TogetherPutting the Pieces Together

Countries official adoption process: PROARCA/CAPAS model

Started with 5 pilot sites in CR, 1997 Trained CA protected areas professionals,

1997 CR decided to officialize the tool for all the

state protected areas, 1999. Pilot sites in Panamá, Guatemala, Belize

and Honduras. Panama decided to officialize the use of the

tool for all the PA´s, 2002. Costa Rica and Panamá start providing staff

training on their own. Honduras officialized the use of the tool,

2000 The project continued providing training and

technical assistance over 4 years• 5 Ranges, 43 indicators

Pieces TogetherPieces Together

Looking for a Regional Framework

The adoption of the tool at the country level led to the development of a regional system wide database.

Country specific versions of the database were developed for all countries

Some countries started “feeding” the database with data from the sites.

From the official adoption to the policy, ten years later: the case of CR.

Pilot sites, NP´s Corcovado and Manuel Antonio, 1991 (P Ortíz) – BR Carara and NM Guayabo, 1993 (de Faria)

Review methodology, CA Osa and adyacent áreas, 1997 (Izurrieta)• 10 ranges, 63 indicators,

PROARCA/CAPAS, 1997 (Courrau) Official adoption, 1999 Policy and strategies for

management effectiveness, 2003 (Mena y Artavia)• 8 principles, 5 ranges, 19 factors, 31

criteria and 37 indicators.

Lessons learned

Our countries has not development alredy a monitoring culture. It take time and it´s a processes.

M&E must to development as a tool for decision makers. M&E system has a lack of social and economics

indicators. There was a need for M&E tools in the region. Some contries and PA´s (sites) have demonstrated

willigness and commitment to implement M&E. The introdution of M&E in CA has led to new management

of PA´s M&E in order to work (follow up) and be sustainable

requires regular training of PA´s staff and technical assistance.

Thanks/Gracias