Regional experiences with management effectiveness evaluation Using different tools in Central America Durban, South Africa 8-17 Sep 2003 Alberto Salas IUCN-Mesoamerica

Central America context and the Protected Areas (richness and poverty) l Seven countries in small extention (half a millon Km 2) : Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panamá. l A population of 34 millions inhabitants (estimation for 2025 of 59 millions people). l Right now an indigenous population of 6.7 millions. l 20 millions of Central Americam people live under poverty conditions and 14 millions in extreme poverty. l 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) l Two regional conventions: the Forest and Biodiversity and PA´s. l 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). l Higth participation of civil society. l Strategic Program of CCAD: The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) and the Mesoamerican Reef System. l Different regional strategies related to Protected Areas: Central America Forestry Strategy, Central America Biodiversity Strategy (running) l Central America Enviromental Plan (PARCA)

l Seven countries with National Protected Areas System. CAPAS is composed by the seven NPAS: Presently CAPAS has 554 declared PAs and 200 proposed. l PAs cover 25% ( Has) of the Central America territories. l Privated PA´s are incresing; Belize is almost 5% of the national territory, Costa Rica has more than 100 private PA´s. l There is also a growing number of municipal PA´s (15 PA´s) l 43 internationally designated protected areas: 27 Ramsar sites; 8 World Heritage Sites and 8 Biosphere Reserves. l 69% of the PAs are less than 10,000 has (thats the main reason for the MBC) l 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. Fuente: J.C. Godoy, 1997, SICAP, UICN/ORMA, 1997 Elaborado por: R. Mc Carthy, A. Salas, UICN/ORMA, 1997

l Only 18.7% (104 PA´s) have management plan and only 53% PA´s have annual operational plan. l Near 40% of the PA´s has permanent personnel. Sometimes the each PA has only 2 or 3 people. l Initiatives to manage PA´s with coordination of 2 and even 3 countries are in place l We have communities living in the PA´s and around (buffer zones). l More than 120 PA´s have co-management processes l So many different management categories (36 at regional level). l 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 l Increasing ecosystemic representation. l Existing strategic and legal frameworks. l Wide participation of stakeholders l Participatory planning and M&E processes.

Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS): main threats l Insufficient economic resources (more responsabilities, less money) l Little personnel in the PAs and little continuity of the same one. l Low institutional capacity. l Little advantage of the ecoturísm potential. l Gap of monitoring on biological and socioeconomical issues.

Management effectiveness evaluation in LA l Evolution of the concept of management of PA´s l Necesity of mesure improvement in PA´s management. Bali, 1982 Caracas, 1992 l Lack of systematic tools to mesure Evaluation of treats. Strategy for National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador. (Cifuentes,et.al.) Desing methodology and aplication in N.P. Corcovado and N.P. Manuel Antonio; Costa Rica (P.Ortiz) Scorecards, TNC. Parks in Peril Numerical Evaluation of National Parks System in Venezuela (Rivero y Gabaldón) Review methodology and aplication en B. R. Carara and N. M. Guayabo, Costa Rica. (H. de Faria) PROARCA/CAPAS (J. Courrau et.al.) IUCN-WCPA (M. Hockings)

Management effectiveness in Central America l TNC´s Scorecard development by the Parks in Peril Project (1990) l A CATIE thesis development by de Faria (1993) l PROARCA/CAPAS Project (1997) l WWF/CATIE-IUCN-GTZ, Forest Innovation Project (1998) l Enhancing our Heritage – UNESCO/WCPA-IUCN (2000)

First steps l Pilot protected areas in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panamá. l Different areas through thesis (CR, Osa, Gua, PNT, Pan LA) l TNC´s PiP Sites in Honduras (RP), Costa Rica (PILA) and Panamá (Chagres) Putting the Pieces Together

Countries official adoption process: PROARCA/CAPAS model l Started with 5 pilot sites in CR, 1997 l Trained CA protected areas professionals, 1997 l CR decided to officialize the tool for all the state protected areas, l Pilot sites in Panamá, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras. l Panama decided to officialize the use of the tool for all the PA´s, l Costa Rica and Panamá start providing staff training on their own. l Honduras officialized the use of the tool, 2000 l The project continued providing training and technical assistance over 4 years 5 Ranges, 43 indicators Pieces Together

Looking for a Regional Framework l The adoption of the tool at the country level led to the development of a regional system wide database. l Country specific versions of the database were developed for all countries l 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. l Pilot sites, NP´s Corcovado and Manuel Antonio, 1991 (P Ortíz) – BR Carara and NM Guayabo, 1993 (de Faria) l Review methodology, CA Osa and adyacent áreas, 1997 (Izurrieta) 10 ranges, 63 indicators, l PROARCA/CAPAS, 1997 (Courrau) l Official adoption, 1999 l Policy and strategies for management effectiveness, 2003 (Mena y Artavia) 8 principles, 5 ranges, 19 factors, 31 criteria and 37 indicators.

Lessons learned l Our countries has not development alredy a monitoring culture. It take time and it´s a processes. l M&E must to development as a tool for decision makers. l M&E system has a lack of social and economics indicators. l There was a need for M&E tools in the region. l Some contries and PA´s (sites) have demonstrated willigness and commitment to implement M&E. l The introdution of M&E in CA has led to new management of PA´s l M&E in order to work (follow up) and be sustainable requires regular training of PA´s staff and technical assistance.

Thanks/Gracias