Final Independent
Evaluation of SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
6/23/2010
The SINAP 2 Project’s global objective is to promote the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity in Mexico through the consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas,
ensuring core conservation activities in 12 globally important Protected Areas, building a long-term
endowment Fund for Natural Protected Areas, and launching sustainable development projects
with local communities while building co-responsibility for conservation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.0
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.0
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Background to the SINAP 2 Project .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2
Objectives of the Final Independent Evaluation ...................................................................................... 10
2.3 Methodology Used In the Final Independent Evaluation ...................................................................... 11
3.0
Expand the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP) ................................................................... 13
3.1 Major Findings......................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Secure Counterpart Funds for the FANP ...................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Private Foundation Commitment.......................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 GOM Commitment ......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 FMCN Reputation .......................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.4 CONANP Fundraising Capacity ............................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Administer the Natural Protected Area Fund ............................................................................................ 19
3.3.1 Fund Management ........................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.2 Administrative Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Disburse Interest Earned by the FANP Annually ........................................................................................ 23
3.4.1 Model 1: 2002-2008 .................................................................................................................................. 24
3.4.2 Model 2: 2008-2010 ................................................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................................................... 29
4.0
Conserve Globally Important Biodiversity ........................................................................................... 30
4.1 Major Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
4.2 Build the Capacity to Manage PAs for Conservation Values ................................................................ 32
4.3 Select SINAP 2 Protected Areas ....................................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Measure the Rate of Habitat Transformation ............................................................................................ 36
4.4.1 Fire ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40
4.4.2 Revegetation ................................................................................................................................................... 43
4.5 Note the Presence of Indicator Species ........................................................................................................ 43
4.6 Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................................................... 46
5.0
Promote Sustainability of Productive Activities in Select PAs .................................................. 47
5.1 Major Findings......................................................................................................................................................... 47
5.2 Preparation of Plans for Sustainable Activities ......................................................................................... 49
5.3 Sustainable Development Initiative (IDS) Projects.................................................................................. 50
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 1
5.4 Success of the Activities Undertaken ............................................................................................................. 53
5.5 Sustainable Activities and Community Relations ..................................................................................... 58
5.6 Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................................................................... 59
6.0
Promote Social Co-Responsibility For Conservation ...................................................................... 60
6.1 Major Findings......................................................................................................................................................... 60
6.2 Alignment With Indigenous People’s Policy Of The World Bank ....................................................... 61
6.3 IDS And PIE Projects ............................................................................................................................................. 62
6.4 Protected Area Advisory Councils................................................................................................................... 63
6.5 Harmonization of Land and Resource Use Policies ................................................................................. 64
6.6 Evaluation of Infrastructure Projects ............................................................................................................ 64
6.7 Regulation of Natural Resource Uses ............................................................................................................ 64
6.8 Environmental Education and Interpretation Projects ......................................................................... 65
6.9 Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................................................... 65
7.0
Promote Inclusion of Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Criteria In
Development Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 66
7.1 Major Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 66
7.2 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 66
7.3 Harmonization of Environmental Policies .................................................................................................. 67
7.4 Evaluation of Infrastructure Projects ............................................................................................................ 69
7.5 Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................................................... 69
8.0
Boost Institutional Capacity .......................................................................................................................... 70
8.1 Major Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 70
8.2 Central Coordination for FANP Funded Protected Areas ..................................................................... 71
8.3 CONANP Capacity .................................................................................................................................................. 73
8.3.1 CONANP Budget ............................................................................................................................................... 73
8.3.2 CONANP Staff..................................................................................................................................................... 75
8.3.3 CONANP Project Coordinating Unit .......................................................................................................... 76
8.4 Boosting Civil Society Organizations ............................................................................................................. 79
8.4.1 The IMAC Experience ...................................................................................................................................... 79
8.4.2 The FANP “Call For Proposals” Experience............................................................................................ 80
8.5 Lessons Learned..................................................................................................................................................... 81
9.0
Beyond World Bank Supervision ............................................................................................................... 82
9.1 Threats ....................................................................................................................................................................... 83
9.2 Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................................... 84
9.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 85
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 2
9.3.1 Disburse FANP Funds ................................................................................................................................ 85
9.3.2 Conserve Globally Important Biodiversity ..................................................................................... 87
9.3.3 Promote Sustainability Of Productive Activities In Select PAs ................................................... 88
9.3.4 Promote Social Co-Responsibility for Conservation .................................................................. 88
9.3.5 Promote Inclusion of Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Criteria in
Development Projects .................................................................................................................................. 88
9.3.6 Boost Institutional Capacity ...................................................................................................................... 89
9.4 Special Fund On Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 89
9.4.1 Climate Change Activity Within Mexico ............................................................................................... 89
9.4.2 Climate Change Special Fund Ideas ........................................................................................................ 90
Annex A: List of Participants Interviewed During the Independent Evaluation ......................................... 92
Annex B: Documents Referred to during the Independent Evaluation........................................................... 97
Annex C: GEF and Counterpart Funds for the FANP ............................................................................................ 102
Annex D: List of Sustainable Development Initiatives Supported by GEF Sinking Funds .................... 106
Annex E: Terms of Reference......................................................................................................................................... 127
Annex F: Paquita Bath CV ................................................................................................................................................ 139
Annex G : Allen Putney CV............................................................................................................................................... 143
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluators are grateful for the transparency and openness with which our colleagues at
CONANP, FMCN, and the World Bank treated their work, their data, and their dialogues with us. We
are grateful to all the people interviewed and listed in Annex A, especially the community members
who opened their homes and prepared meals for us. We are especially grateful to Alfredo Ávila
Martínez and Andrew Rhodes Espinoza who accompanied us in the field, fixed the flat tires,
answered hundreds of questions, and put in countless hours responding to our requests. The time
spent by the PA Directors – Roberto Escalante, López, Carlos Pizaña Soto, José R. Campoy F., Elvira
Rojero Díaz, and Federico Godínez Leal to show us around, reflect on the Project, and introduce us
to the CONANP staff and local community members in the PA’s is greatly appreciated. Finally, the
leadership of the Project - Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich and David Gutiérrez Carbonell for CONANP,
Adriana Moreira for the World Bank, Renée González Montagut and Lorenzo Rosenzweig for FMCN,
and the members of CTFANP – showcased what a great public-private partnership can look like.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 3
ACRONYMS

APFF
Area for the Protection of Flora and Fauna

CAMAFU
Fire Management Learning Network

CC
Central Coordination Unit of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas

CDI
Commission for Indigenous Development

CONABIO
Mexican National Council for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity

CONAFOR
Mexican National Forestry Commission

CONANP
Mexican National Commission for Natural Protected Areas

CONAP
National Council for Protected Areas (advisory body)

COPLADES
Development Planning Councils

CPR
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

CTFANP
Technical Committee of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas

DES
Direction of Monitoring and Evaluation within CONANP

ECCAP
Climate Change Strategy for Protected Areas

EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment

FANP
Fund for Natural Protected Areas

FMCN
Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature

GEF
Global Environmental Facility

GIS
Geographic Information System

GoM
Government of México

IDS
Sustainable Development Initiative (community –based projects)

IMAC
Mexican Conservation Learning Network

INE
National Institute of Ecology
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 4

INEGI
National Institute for Geographic and Data Statistics

IPDP
Indigenous Peoples Development Program

M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation

NAFIN
National Finance Administration

NGOs
Non-governmental Organizations

PAs
Protected Areas

PAD
Project Appraisal Document of the World Bank

PCU
Project Coordinating Unit – responsible for the sinking funds from SINAP 2
within CONANP

PDPI
Indigenous People’s Development Program

PET
Temporary Employment Program

PIE
Strategic Innovation Projects – based on a Call for Proposals for civil society
organizations to receive FANP grants

POA
Annual Operations Plan

PROCODES
Regional Sustainable Development Program

PROFEPA
Federal Agency for Environmental Protection (with law enforcement
powers)

RB
Biosphere Reserve

REDD
Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation

SEMARNAT
Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources

SHCP
Secretariat of the Treasury and Public Credit (also called Hacienda)

SIMEC
System of Information, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Conservation based in
the Monitoring and Evaluation unit of CONANP.

SINAP 1
Restructured GEF Project - (No. TF028678) to strengthen 10 PAs in the
national system of protected areas.

SINAP 2
Consolidation of Protected Areas System Project – based on GEF Trust Fund
Grant TF05311
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 5
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The evaluators firmly believe that the SINAP 2 Project is ready to move beyond World Bank
supervision as it is being well managed by the two principal partners, the National Commission of
Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) and the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN).
SINAP 2 is the best public-private partnership we have seen put into practice. The high
expectations set by the World Bank during its supervision of SINAP 1 and 2, including strong
international implementation standards, a long-term vision and focus on results, efficiency in
administration, and a respectful approach to partnering and capacity building, are values that have
been imbued in the projects. Building on this base, CONANP and FMCN have leaders and staff
members working hard to ensure that the Project is a success, that the institutions are aligned, and
that resources are effectively deployed to advance the conservation of biodiversity in Mexico in
consort with local communities.
The indicators of success for the key project results have been met and, in many cases, surpassed.
We describe major findings and lessons learned in each section. Drawing from our experience
however, we find the following three findings the most remarkable.
1. SINAP 2 has consistently adapted – staying the course with its ambitious agenda but
changing strategies in response to new conditions and big boosts in CONANP’s
institutional capacity. This level of thoughtful flexibility and adaptive management is, in
our experience, unusual in large multi-institutional projects. Some reasons why this project
may have been more successful in this respect are:
o The advisory structure built into the project design, particularly the authority held
by the Technical Committee for the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (CTFANP),
ensured regular opportunities to align the FANP with GoM priorities and to ensure
high level visionary reviews;
o World Bank supervision was consistently cited by interviewees for fomenting the
long-term capacity of the partners to effectively manage protected areas and work
together to leverage results and innovation in the field.
o The Central Coordination Unit of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (CC), housed
within CONANP, was highly effective in providing small amounts of funding to host
key meetings, engage a key consultant, or in other small ways help improve systems
in an ongoing way;
o A strong commitment to a logical framework and use of yearly operating plans for
each protected area (PA) helped to galvanize strategic approaches;
o Thoughtful leadership in the World Bank, CONANP, FMCN and the PA Directors –
the evaluators were struck by the impressive resumés and the long-term
commitment to conservation demonstrated by all the principal leaders in this
Project.
o As the CONANP operational budget increased both nationally and within each PA,
FANP funds served as a lubricant, adjusting to meet key needs and address funding
shortfalls, ensuring that more rigid line item budgets could work more effectively.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 6
2. The institutional capacity of both CONANP and FMCN has accelerated dramatically
over the eight years of this Project. A comparison of CONANP and the national system of
protected area system in 2002 and 2010 (See Section 8) shows huge jumps in budgets, staff,
number of PAs, monitoring capacity, and sustainable development activities in the field.
Similarly, the successful capitalization of the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP) has
catapulted FMCN to be the largest – and one of the most respected – environmental trust
funds in the developing world. The World Bank’s investment in the SINAP 2 project
included both the GEF funds and consistent ongoing coaching that have served as catalysts
for this huge growth in capacity. Some of the reasons noted in this evaluation include:
o Strong, steady leadership that has been maintained across multiple administrations.
CONANP has successfully developed a civil service of well-trained and highly
committed conservation leaders who have built careers with experience in both
governmental and civil society jobs in Mexico.
o The effective partnership and careful boosting of each other’s reputation has helped
capitalize the FANP by successfully engaging other bilateral and private donors;
o FANP funds simultaneously supported field projects while boosting institutional
capacity in the form of staff members and partnerships between CONANP and nongovernmental organizations. Sinking funds also boosted CONANP staff capacity and
leveraged funds from other Government agencies for field projects.
3. The most impressive sustainable development projects in the field are those that link
ecosystem services to quality of life investments.
o SINAP 2, like most sustainable development initiatives we have seen, struggled with
linking effective economic projects with conservation goals while addressing
numerous hurdles from community isolation and poor roads, lack of effective
marketing strategies, limited education and internet opportunities, and a long-term
history of government subsidies. Results in this area are variable and will require
ongoing investments and marketing efforts.
o Projects that are not cash oriented, but improve quality of life through home water
catchment systems, better crop production from terraced agriculture, upgraded
cooking facilities, and organizing projects around shared community goals such as
wildfire containment or poaching reduction, are well received, align with
conservation goals, and produce immediate benefits for community members.
o There is substantial opportunity for a greater analysis of lessons learned in the
training, supplying, and activation of local fire brigades and vigilance committees in
SINAP 2 PAs.
SINAP 2 has made an appreciable difference in the capacity of the GoM to dramatically improve its
management of the PAs of Mexico. There is no question that Mexico still faces enormous challenges
in its efforts to conserve the myriad species and ecological processes that it has been blessed with,
while managing the needs of a growing population and unprecedented threats such as climate
change. SINAP 2 has helped to position the Mexican government and civil society partners to better
face those challenges.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 7
2.0
2.1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND TO THE SINAP 2 PROJECT
For the past 20 years, the Government of Mexico (GoM) has invested heavily in building a protected
area system designed to conserve a large portion of Mexico’s unique biodiversity and critical
ecological processes. Mexico is a mega-diverse nation and critical to the efforts to conserve global
biodiversity and evolutionary processes. It has both a huge number of species found in the highly
diverse habitats throughout the country, as well as very high levels of habitat conversion. Efforts to
strengthen the protected area system to help conserve a large proportion of Mexico's rich and
unique biodiversity are inextricably linked to efforts to promote more sustainable livelihoods in the
rural and economically marginalized communities that exist in and around the protected areas.
The World Bank through the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) has made two grants to support the
full Mexican National System of Protected Areas (SINAP). The success of the first GEF grant –
SINAP 1 (1997-2003), was recognized by evaluators and implementers alike. Major SINAP 1
achievements directly affecting 10 protected areas included:


A public-private partnership to build and manage a National Fund for Protected Areas
(FANP) to finance core operating costs in selected protected areas;
Core staffing and participatory mechanisms in place to work with local communities on
long-term solutions to protected area conservation and sustainable livelihoods;
The desire to expand the successes of SINAP 1 to a larger number of protected areas as well as
strengthen the management of the full system of protected areas led to the design of SINAP 2. In
alignment with GOM priorities, the key goals of SINAP 2 were to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Further capitalize the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP);
Conserve globally important biodiversity in select protected areas;
Promote sustainability of productive activities in select protected areas;
Promote social co-responsibility for conservation;
Promote inclusion of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use criteria in development
projects.
To launch the Consolidation of Protected Areas System Project (SINAP 2), extensive agreements
were put in place between the World Bank as implementing agency of the Global Environmental
Facility, the GoM’s Nacional Financiera (NAFIN), and the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of
Nature (FMCN). The Grant Agreement for the new project (No. TF050311 of 13 February, 2002),
together with a Complementary Agreement between the National Commission for Protected Areas
(CONANP) and the FMCN, spell out the legal roles and responsibilities of the parties. In addition,
two Operations Manuals: 1) Guide to the management of the FANP and the interest of the
endowment administered by the FMCN; and 2) Guide to the project components managed by
CONANP and NAFIN; are both legally binding documents.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 8
The key implementing parties are:
1. The World Bank is the executing agency for the GEF funds and oversees the Project. It
provides supervision, reports on progress achieved, reviews requests for non-objection
to important project decisions, and input as needed to the project. It also ensures that
key safeguards are in place to ensure the Project is run with respect for local
participation and the rights of indigenous people. Its supervisory role concludes in June
of 2010.
2. The CONANP is the key implementing agency of the GOM responsible for the
management of all of the Protected Areas included in SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 as well as the
wider protected area system. It manages most of the sinking funds in the SINAP 2
Project.
3. The Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN) manages the FANP
conservation trust fund. It is a private, independent, not for profit organization whose
role is to raise and manage funds for the long-term benefit of conservation objectives in
Mexico.
This Project is designed as a public-private partnership, requiring very effective coordination and
trust between the parties (discussed further in Section 8). It also moves beyond the three key
parties to engage other agencies as well as advisory groups with strong representation from the
nonprofit community, academic institutions, private enterprise, and community organizations.
There is a strong emphasis on ensuring that the many sectors that make up Mexican society have a
voice in assuming responsibility and effective management of the country’s protected areas.
SINAP 2 was forged during a period of high expectations based in part on the success of SINAP 1
and a serious jump in the commitment to protected areas by the GOM. In 2002:







Mexico’s commitment to protected areas could be seen through legislation approving
regulations for the protected area system, including the LGEEPA (1996) and the Protected
Areas By-laws (2000) as well as two million additional hectares incorporated into protected
areas since 1994;
Protected Areas received more than a tenfold budgetary increase during the Zedillo
administration, which was maintained by the Fox administration. The GOM increased
annual fiscal support to the protected area system from US$360,000 in 1994 to US$5
million in 1999 and provided an “extraordinary” additional $9 million in 2000.
The institutional management of the protected area system was elevated within the GOM
with the creation of the National Commission for Protected Areas (CONANP).
Mexico had built a team of committed and professional protected area managers;
Longer-term strategies such as the “Program for Natural Protected Areas in Mexico 19952000” were being put into place;
The innovative public-private partnership between the Mexican Fund for the Conservation
of Nature (FMCN) and the GOM was generating high levels of private donations for the
protected area system – including over US$14 million during 2000 and 2001.
A 1998 global evaluation of national trust funds by the GEF was highly complementary of
the FMCN and its management of the FANP.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 9
Amid these portents of high achievement, SINAP 2 was launched in 2002. GEF funding was
allocated and conditioned upon raising matching funds and high levels of GoM financial
commitment to the PAs.
Table 2.1:
SINAP 2 Total Project Budget in US$ Millions
Component
GEF Funds
Required match
Endowment for the FANP
$22.50
$22.50
$45.00
Start up funds for 4 PAs
$ 1.90
$ 1.90
$ 3.80
Fundraising capacity
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 2.40
$35.15
$35.15
$ 5.20
$ 5.40
$ 2.50
$ 2.50
$20.95
PA Management
CC and Monitoring and Evaluation
$0.20
Institutional Strengthening
Mainstreaming conservation and
sustainable use policies
$5.30
$15.65
TOTAL
$31.10
$84.10
Total Project
Funds
$115.20
A mid-term evaluation in 2005 (Graf and Vreugdenhil) indicated that SINAP 2 Project execution
was off to a good start, commended the partnership, and described some of the main challenges
facing the PAs. Many of the issues raised in the mid-term review, such as fundraising potential,
inadequate staffing structures within CONANP, and the difficulty of aligning conservation and
poverty alleviation projects were priority goals for the 2005-2010 period of SINAP 2. This US$115
million dollar project is now nearing its conclusion. All of the partners are focused on lessons
learned and plans for continued cooperation. In June of 2010 the World Bank will step away from
its role as a supervisory agency, leaving ongoing operations in the hands of the GoM and its private
partner, FMCN.
2.2
OBJECTIVES OF THE FINAL INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
This final independent evaluation of the SINAP 2 project reviews project performance from 20022010 and attempts to identify key lessons learned that will be helpful to the implementers as well
as other nations and trust funds committed to strengthening national systems of protected areas.
The goal is to determine the effectiveness of the project in strengthening Mexico’s national system
of protected areas and provide recommendations for the future.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 10
The specific evaluation objectives specified in the TOR (see Annex E) are to address the questions:
1.
Are the institutional mechanisms for implementing this project functioning?
2.
Are these mechanisms the best way to continue meeting the goals of the project?
3.
Are the goals of the project still aligned with the mission and direction of the participating
institutions?
The independent evaluators are to gather the information and put together recommendations that
will be shared with all the key implementing partners. The achievement of these evaluation
objectives will enable the Project's partners to consider possible changes in ongoing roles and
responsibilities going forward as well as to start formulating longer-term plans to continue the path
of strengthening the national system of protected areas as well as the 173 federal protected areas in
Mexico.
2.3
METHODOLOGY USED IN THE FINAL INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
The independent evaluation team chosen for the project was put together by Aligning Visions LLC.
The team is made up of Paquita Bath and Allen Putney, both independent consultants. They were
chosen due to their:




Long experience working on protected area design and consolidation throughout
Latin America;
Strong Spanish and English language skills;
Proven capacity to manage an objective evaluation;
Lack of conflicts of interest.
The methodology approved by the key implementing partners provided the consultants with:
1. Full access to the documents and reports from throughout the SINAP2 project (see
Annex B: Documents Reviewed during the Independent Evaluation).
2. Visits to five protected areas that have received funding through the FANP. The
evaluators chose a mix of protected areas by geography and by number of years in
which the protected area received FANP funds under SINAP 2. The evaluators visited
the following five protected areas with representatives from the key partner institutions
in February and March of 2010.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 11
Table 2.3:
SINAP 2 Protected Areas Visited by Independent Evaluation Team
FANP funds
started
Independent
Evaluator
Baja California and
Sonora
2002
Allen Putney
Reserva de la Biosfera Tehuacán
– Cuicatlán
Puebla and Oaxaca
2002
Paquita Bath
Área de Protección de Flora y
Fauna Sierra de los Álamos
Sonora
2004
Allen Putney
Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate
y Gran Desierto de Altar
Sonora
2006
Allen Putney
Reserva de la Biosfera Selva el
Ocote
Chiapas
2008
Paquita Bath
Protected Area
State
Reserva de la Biosfera Alto Golfo
y Delta del Río Colorado
All protected area visits included:
a. Meetings with local community organizations;
b. Meetings with protected area Directors and field staff;
c. Meetings with nonprofits and community organizations engaged in
protected area activities
d. Travel through the protected area.
3. Meetings and interviews with key members of the major institutions implementing the
project included representatives of the World Bank, CONANP, NAFIN, FMCN, and
representatives of advisory bodies such as CTFANP (Technical Committee of the FANP).
In addition on field trips the evaluators had the chance to meet with members of
Advisory Councils, local communities and civil society organizations. See Annex A: List
of People Interviewed.
Finally, the independent evaluators put together and presented draft findings for review and
comment by the World Bank, CONANP, CTFANP and FMCN staff. Additional research then went
into strengthening this draft, addressing missing topics, and fine tuning recommendations before
submitting the Final Independent Evaluation in late March 2010.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 12
3.0
EXPAND THE FUND FOR NATURAL PROTECTED AR EAS (FANP)
The Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP) began in SINAP 1 with the decision to place Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) funds in a permanent endowment fund that would generate annual
interest targeted to conservation priorities in ten selected protected areas. To build on the success
of this project and extend the benefits to additional PAs, this objective was supported by the GEF
through SINAP 2 as follows:
1. Expand the endowment capital in the Fund for Natural Protected Areas (FANP)
(Endowment funds of US$22.5 million corresponding to 72% of the GEF donation).
2. Raise fundraising capacity for securing a 1:1 match for the GEF contribution to the FANP
(Operating funds of US$1.2 million, corresponding to 4 % of the GEF donation).
This component was designed to bolster the FANP to benefit an additional 12 PAs with predictable
and multi-year commitments of financial flows in perpetuity. A key assumption of this component is
that the endowment is housed within the FMCN to increase financial transparency and agility to
provide funds as needed in alignment with Protected Area priorities. Thus, the need for extensive
public-private cooperation is built into the design of the Project.
This objective comprises the following subcomponents:



3.1
Secure Counterpart Funds for the FANP (3.2)
Administer the FANP (3.3)
Disburse the Interests Earned by the FANP Annually (3.4)
MAJOR FINDINGS
At the conclusion of SINAP 1 in 2002 the Fund for Natural Protected Areas stood at US$16.48
million dollars from GEF and US$5 million in counterpart funds, leading to a total fund of
US$21,480,080. With the launch of the SINAP 2 project, substantial counterpart funds with a 1:1
match were built into the project design, requiring that funds be raised prior to GEF funds being
deposited.
As the conclusion of the SINAP 2 project:
1. The implementing partners have raised US$7 million MORE than the required amount
of counterpart funds – totaling US$29,746,834 in SINAP 2;
2. All GEF deposits have been made totaling US$22,564,377 in SINAP 2;
3. The final FANP endowment fund stands at US$75,691,291 including all GEF and
counterpart donations from SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 coupled with earnings over time.
4. The FANP continues to support 10 PAs from SINAP 1 funds and has incorporated 12
additional PAs with SINAP 2 funds.
5. The FANP annually generates over US$3.8 million in interest earnings for the 22 PAs in
addition to a 23rd PA that is covered by matching funds.
For a full breakdown of the donations to the FANP please see Annex C.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 13
Major findings from this successful effort to capitalize the FANP, and explored in further detail in
this section, include:
1. The FMCN’s commitment to manage the FANP fund in alignment with the national priorities
of the CONANP and with the approval of the Protected Areas Directors has been a critical
component for the strength and longevity of the public-private partnership.
2. The Government of Mexico through SEMARNAT made substantial deposits in the FANP.
This is a remarkable commitment to a long-term endowment managed by a private entity
outside of government control. The fact that a sovereign government committed
US$8,500,000 is a tribute to the GoM’s recognition of the value of conservation trust funds
and demonstrates the political will that was a key factor in the success of the public-private
partnership.
3. While the FANP in SINAP 2 supports 12 protected areas, the design approved for the
fundraising strategy included 34 protected areas, including the 10 from SINAP 1, 12 for
SINAP 2, and an additional 12 high priority protected areas. This approach, coupled with
greater flexibility in match spending guidelines, attracted private foundations to the FANP
for a highly successful fundraising campaign.
4. The FMCN manages a number of endowment funds, by far the largest being the FANP. The
growth of the FANP helped to catapult the FMCN to manage the largest conservation trust
fund portfolio in the world, valued at $106,105,381 in December 2009. The size of this fund
has enhanced FMCN’s reputation, brought more attention to the importance of Mexico’s
biodiversity, and most importantly provides annual payouts that make a real difference on
the ground in the protected areas.
5. The annual budget provided by interests from the FANP is now in the US$3.7 – 4.3 million
range, providing flexible, ongoing funding to critical protected areas throughout Mexico.
These funds will continue to flow annually after the end of World Bank supervision for the
project – a gift in perpetuity to the protected areas of Mexico.
6. The FANP has been well managed from an investment perspective, with a conservative
approach with 80% in fixed income assets to guarantee a reliable annual payout for the PAs.
7. Administrative costs are within the general limits set by other conservation trust funds and
within the rates negotiated with the World Bank.
8. Transparent disbursement procedures are in place with strong mechanisms to ensure funds
go to PA priorities. A major change in 2008 in increased GOM investments in PA staff led to
a new approach that is still being refined.
The evaluators feel that the capitalization and management of the FANP has been extremely
successful and very well executed. We do not feel that an extension of World Bank supervision is
necessary as transparent, inclusive, and well defined processes are in place for ongoing publicprivate coordination.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 14
3.2
SECURE COUNTERPART FUNDS FOR THE FANP
The World Bank in the negotiations for SINAP 2 set very high match standards to leverage the GEF
funding and provide strong incentives for private and public fundraising as seen in Table 1.1. The
FMCN was remarkably successful, raising more than the required counterpart in endowment funds
for the FANP. One clear advantage of this project was timing. There is no question that 2002-2006
was a good fundraising period. The FMCN acknowledges that in the current global economic
environment, raising this level of match would be far more challenging. Yet, there are important
lessons learned that underscore why FMCN was able to successfully expand the FANP with
counterpart funds.
3.2.1 PRIVATE FOUNDATION COMMITMENT
A high degree of commitment from a number of major US private foundations particularly the
David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Marisla Foundation and the Summit
Foundation; and a Mexican foundation, the Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte, is evident in the match
secured for SINAP 2. The GEF 1:1 match was definitely a leverage inducement. The key selling
point however was that private foundations were able to work with the FMCN to endow separate
funds within the FANP that would provide ongoing financial support to designated protected areas
(PAs) in perpetuity. While the GEF funds in the FANP in SINAP 2 were oriented towards 12
protected areas, the design approved for the fundraising strategy encompassed 34 protected areas.
These included ten areas from SINAP 1, twelve from SINAP 2 and an additional 12 PA of high
biodiversity importance. Endowments for any of these 34 areas would be considered match for the
GEF funds. As Carlos Saavedra, Executive Director of the Summit Foundation, said (personal
communication):
The Summit Foundation has a long-term commitment to the conservation of the Meso
American Reef. We were excited about the possibility for an endowment for Reserva
de la Biosfera Banco Chinchorro with the FMCN. The leverage factor of knowing that
our own commitment to this reef site was helping to secure a wider endowment for the
full Mexican National Park system was an additional great incentive.
Examples of the value of these types of investments and how foundations coordinated matching
funds to leverage ever greater endowments for specific PAs are included in Table 3.2.1. In addition,
even greater leverage was achieved with some private–public matches. For example, the
US$5,000,000 donation of the Packard Foundation for the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve
was matched by both GOM and State government investments for a total value of $7,000,000 as a
permanent endowment for the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve. It is clear from Table 3.2.1,
that foundations often worked together to leverage high levels of match for PAs that they were
particularly committed to. The fact that the FMCN already had transparent and reliable procedures
accepted by the World Bank increased the trust required for deposits by private foundations.
An additional contributor to fundraising success was that, in contrast to the GEF endowment funds,
matching funds did not have to be earmarked for basic operational expenses. As an example, the
US$7 million Monarch Fund makes direct payments to the owners of the core area of the Monarch
Butterfly Reserve as an incentive for them not to cut down their trees.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 15
Table 3.2.1: Examples of Donor Endowments for Specific Protected Areas
Donor
Protected Area
Packard Foundation
and Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte
El Triunfo
2,000,000
Packard Foundation
Monarch Butterfly
5,000,000
Packard Foundation
Bahía de los Angeles
250,000
Global Conservation Fund
Bahía de los Angeles
2,000,000
Marisla Foundation
Bahía de los Angeles
250,000
Ford Foundation
Río San Pedro
500,000
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
Río San Pedro
600,000
Summit Foundation
Río San Pedro
200,000
Marisla Foundation
Banco Chinchorro
50,000
Summit Foundation
Banco Chinchorro
1,400,000

Amount in US$
This Table is not complete. For a full review of the match funds please see Annex C.
3.2.2
GOM COMMITMENT
The close working relationship between the FMCN and the Government of Mexico has led to a
serious investment of US$8,500,000 from the GoM to the FANP endowment. What is even more
remarkable is that this strong level of public-private cooperation has survived across three
different administrations, including different political parties. The evaluators believe there are a
number of reasons for this success:





Strong encouragement from the World Bank through GEF for an independent fund that
would support the protected area system;
Long-term relationships of trust and confidence among the leaders of SEMARNAT,
CONANP and FMCN;
Stability in senior positions within the government civil service, particularly in CONANP,
as well as stability in the leadership of FMCN;
Highly respected FMCN Board members who are able to secure meetings at the
Ministerial level;
Representation of government officials in the public-private partnership in a way
guaranteed to ensure long-term alignment between the FANP and the GoM PA
priorities:
 An ex-officio representative of the government attends meetings of the Board of
FMCN;
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 16


A number of government officials are on the CTFANP – a technical committee that
reviews how the FANP is managed and how funds are disbursed. In addition,
agendas and timing are usually arranged to ensure the presence of the head of
CONANP.
PA Directors and Regional Directors have a strong voice in ensuring that PA
priorities are incorporated within all disbursements from the FANP to civil society
organizations.
In addition two state governments contributed funds to the FANP – the state of Mexico and the
state of Michoacán. Like the federal investment, this is remarkable evidence of the commitment to
their protected areas over the long-term and willingness to trust in a privately administered fund.
It also points out the real service performed by a Conservation Trust Fund in providing
transparency, alignment with government Protected Area priorities, and at the same time the
efficiency of private management that can avoid the political and bureaucratic disruptions that
often affect the best of government agencies. In both these cases, the matching contribution by a
large private entity (Packard Foundation), ability to create an endowment in support of a specific
protected area (Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve), and the need to coordinate activities given
many of the threats affecting that reserve, all helped contribute to this investment in the
endowment fund.
3.2.3
FMCN REPUTATION
The Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN) has done a remarkable job in building its
reputation nationally and internationally. The very favorable review of FMCN by the GEF in
January of 1999 in the publication Experiencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios para la Conservación,
brought the fund to greater international attention. In 2003 the World Bank distributed an English
version of the FANP Operational Manual at the Word Parks Congress meeting in South Africa. Since
then, it has ensured strong levels of transparency, provided yearly audits, invested conservatively,
and has succeeded in building the world’s largest private environmental trust fund in the
developing world (Spergel, 2008), valued at US$106,105,381 at the end of 2009.
At the same time, FMCN does more than manage money. It actively builds partnerships, launches
capacity-building programs, participates in the formulation of national policies and approaches,
and carefully provides coordination and program advice with its public and private partners.
Within Mexico, the FMCN is very well known within the conservation community in both public and
private circles. On the international front, FMCN has taken leadership in a number of areas,
bolstering its reputation with international donors:



A founder and leader in the creation and strengthening of RedLAC – the Latin American
and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds;
A leadership role in the creation of the MAR Fund to support the MesoAmerican Reef
that crosses four national boundaries; and
Membership and support of the Conservation Finance Alliance and the studies, and
surveys done to strengthen the capacity of conservation trust funds worldwide.
All of these investments have enhanced FMCN’s credibility in attracting the needed matching funds.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 17
3.2.4
CONANP FUNDRAISING CAPACITY
The SINAP 2 project provided operational funds for building capacity in both the public and private
partners for fundraising. The matching fundraising program was to be executed jointly by FMCN
and by CONANP. GEF contributed US$1.2m in operational funds and FMCN raised a match of $1.2m
which was audited by Castillo Miranda for FMCN. FMCN successfully raised the match for the
FANP endowment as discussed in Section 3.2.
The anomaly in this fundraising strategy was an allocation of the operating funds to the Mexican
Government to raise US$ 3 million in additional funds for the FANP. This aspect did not work out as
anticipated as no funds for the FANP were directly raised by the GoM. However, US$300,000 in GEF
funds was spent developing CONANP’s fundraising capacity.
The evaluators do not question the Government of Mexico’s or CONANP’s commitment to the FANP,
especially given their own capital investments and acknowledged referrals and support for FMCN’s
fundraising efforts. Nonetheless, the CONANP Department responsible for the fundraising felt that
their efforts would be better spent raising funds for a different Fund – the Fondo Verde, in part
because they expressed some difficulties in asking for funds for FMCN administrative costs. While
this evaluation team feels that the FMCN administrative overhead rate is satisfactory (see
Administration in 3.1.3) and clearly other private, government, and corporate donors do as well,
the decision was made to focus on building the Fondo Verde.
The GEF funds were thus used to develop CONANP’s fundraising capacity to develop new funds –
including the Fondo Verde – as well as a number of trusts (fideicomisos) that are managed by the
Asociación Civil EcoBanca and the Grupo Financiero Monex. The creation of new funds is an
unanticipated result of this Project. As the Mexican saying goes – “one should not put all of one’s
eggs in the same basket” – and that seems to be the thinking behind this approach. The evaluators
cannot assess the transparency or effectiveness of these funds from the materials received. They
are being promoted as having a very low administrative cost of approximately 5% and are
currently targeted at Mexican corporations, primarily to house mitigation and environmental
compensation funds. This is an area where FMCN has not been historically active, so to date there
does not appear to be any unnecessary competition. At the same time, it is clear that CONANP has
to be very careful not to be the lead promoter of these funds – as they are also managed privately,
and possible conflicts of interest could exist, especially when dealing with compensation fund
negotiations.
A number of lessons can be inferred from this experience and from the agency’s ongoing struggles
and internal debates about how best to raise funds in private hands for the PA system. Looking at
the successful ways in which CONANP has worked closely with FMCN to help raise FANP funds, the
evaluators see the following as lessons that are applicable to the wider issue of public-private
fundraising partnerships:
1. Public agencies are reluctant to directly raise money for privately managed funds – and
are often actively constrained by legal conflict of interest concerns;
2. Indirect methods such as public statements from the GoM that the FANP is aligned with
national priorities and highly transparent are very valuable for FMCN-driven
fundraising;
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 18
3. Government employees speaking highly of the results of FANP investments with private
foundation donors is of great value to fundraising strategies; and
4. SEMARNAT deposits in the FANP spoke more loudly about the GoM’s commitment to
the FANP and trust in FMCN management than any proposal or fundraising “ask”.
3.3
ADMINISTER THE NATURAL PROTECTED AREA FUND
3.3.1
FUND MANAGEMENT
FMCN is managed by an independent Board of Directors made up of representatives from the
business community, nonprofits, and one ex officio government representative. By design,
government representatives can never have over a 30% representation on the Board. For practical
purposes, given complex Mexican laws that apply with official government representation,
government representatives serve in an ex officio capacity. The Board has final decision-making
authority over the investment and use of all funds. The FANP is managed by the FMCN’s Board
Investment Committee made up of bankers and financial experts.
For managing the operational aspects of the FANP, the FMCN Board takes very seriously the
programmatic and technical recommendations made by the Technical Committee for the Natural
Protected Areas Fund (CTFANP). CTFANP is an advisory board made up of key government, private
sector, and civil society organizations. It is made up of seven members nominated by the National
Council for Protected Areas (CONAP), and ratified by the FMCN Board, to ensure a wide
representation of different parts of the wider Mexican society in the management of the FANP.
They are volunteers who meet four times a year and make recommendations to the FMCN Board
for FANP procedures, annual expenditures, inclusion/exclusion of specific PAs, and overall
reporting and management on the FANP. Decisions on the operational aspects of FANP
management, consistent with World Bank guidelines, are made by CTFANP and reported to both
CONAP and the FMCN Board. When CTFANP recommends changes that require modifications of
guidelines established with the World Bank, then both CONAP and the FMCN Board of Directors are
consulted. Ultimately, the FMCN Board has the responsibility for decisions made with regard to the
FANP, but the impressive way in which the CTFANP is engaged, and makes meaningful decisions
and recommendations, is another aspect of why this private-public partnership has worked so well.
FMCN uses an independent financial investment manager, currently Heyman y Asociados A.C., for
managing their portfolio. Current management fees are 0.02 % of the fund, much less than the
average 0.07-1.8% ranges for most conservation trust funds (Preston, 2009 p 16). Over the course
of this project FMCN has changed managers, worked to lower the management fee structure from
about 1% (included in the original design) to the current .02% and has evolved a conservative
investment strategy. A Board Policy is in place for managing the funds which takes a risk-averse
position, placing 80% of the FANP in fixed income instruments and only 20% set aside in equity for
growth. The primary investment goal is to produce stable funds for expenditures in support of the
protected areas and ensuring operations support for FMCN – while the secondary goal is to ensure
the real value of the endowment is maintained above the cost of inflation. This approach provides a
regular projection of approximately 6% a year for projects – providing a strong sense of stability to
PA Directors vs. a feast and famine approach which a less risk adverse, higher equity portfolio
might render. Projections are made in July for the following calendar year, providing time for
effective budgeting and proposal writing.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 19
Table 3.3: FANP Financial Returns 1997-2009
Financial returns
Year
% annual return
Year
% annual return
1997
9.64
2004
8.25
1998
11.84
2005
7.00
1999
8.60
2006
8.87
2000
1.64
2007
6.37
2001
10.20
2008
-16.33
2002
7.15
2009
21.7
2003
11.34
Average
7.44
As can be seen in Table 3.3, returns averaged 8.26% until the economic recession of 2007-2008
when the average return dropped to 6.21%. As Greg Alexander stated: “Holding 70%, 80%, even
100% of a portfolio in cash and bonds worked in 2008” and obviously limited losses to the FANP
(Preston, 2009 Foreword). Fortunately a strong rebound in 2009 raised overall return over the full
life of the FANP to 7.44%. Long-term the FMCN Investment Committee of the Board is committed
to continue to review their investment strategies and make adjustments every trimester with
comparative weighted indexes such as the S&P 500. Inflation in Mexico has been very low for the
past decade – under 6% and averaging about 5.1% in 2009 (indexmundi), nonetheless maintaining
the value of the FANP above the rate of inflation will continue to be an ongoing management issue
for the Investment Committee. A strategy on timing to transfer US dollars to Mexican pesos allows
for further offsetting erosion by inflation through favorable exchange rates. As an example, in 2008
the flow to the PAs was not affected due to a secured flow of funds derived from the fixed rent
portion of the portfolio and a favorable exchange rate. Overall, the Board’s conservative approach
has been beneficial for both the PAs and the FANP in this period of high market volatility.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 20
3.3.2
ADMINISTRATIVE RATES
There are three areas where the annual management of the FANP generates
administrative/operation fees:
1. The FANP project management unit of the FMCN – within the Conservation Department;
2. The Central Coordination Unit paid for by FMCN but housed in, and co-managed by,
CONANP;
3. The overhead rate of nonprofits that support PA operating plans (POAs) with FANP
annual budgets.
FMCN CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
The FMCN negotiated a management fee of 12% of the FANP in the PAD (World Bank, p 101). The
12% covers 7% in truly administrative costs (accountants and administration) and 5% in project
technical review and fundraising efforts. This includes the project director of the FANP, whose
roles include fundraising, coordinating the CTFANP, managing all reports to the parties, supervising
the CC, and technically ensuring the effectiveness of the FANP expenditures. These expenditures
are totally within the purview of the operating agreement with the GoM and the WB and well
within the range of administrative rates of most trust funds (10-20% of total annual budgets)
(Conservation Finance Alliance, p 12.).
The FANP has contributed directly to building the capacity of FMCN and vice versa. For example,
the FMCN Director plays a key role in fundraising for the FANP, albeit not paid for out of FANP or
GEF funds. In return however, the growth of the FANP has greatly enhanced FMCN’s reputation and
capacity. The growth of the FANP also led to an internal restructuring within FMCN wherein the
FANP Director assumed responsibility for all the matching funds as well, creating the Conservation
Department. By successfully operating programs from each of the PA endowments, the
Conservation Department is better able to attract additional operational project funds. As an
example, the Gulf of California Marine program, funded through a US$9.5 million endowment match
to SINAP 2, attracted an additional US$2 million in operational funds in 2009 to conserve the
vaquita (a rare whale species) refuge within the PA Alto Golfo y Delta del Río Colorado Biosphere
Reserve. The successful use of these operational funds, in turn builds the confidence of new donors
to later contribute to the array of PA endowment funds under the FANP.
The fundraising process, as indicated above, is greatly benefited from CONANP and SEMARNAT
endorsement of the project as a national priority. Within this context, the FMCN Director ensures
good public relations and detects fundraising opportunities while promoting the FMCN. The FANP
director approaches or responds to potential donors, works the institutional arrangements of the
projects with CONANP and other institutions, and then designs the projects with technical
information gathered by the Central Coordinating Unit (see below) from the different CONANP
regions and departments. Once the alignment with CONANP is ensured, then the proposals are
written, new projects are launched, and technical staff is trained to manage the projects going
forward. Additional administrative staff is in turn trained by the original FANP staff. This system
allows FMCN to constantly grow and respond to fundraising opportunities while strengthening
CONANP and the protected area system.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 21
CENTRAL COORDINATING UNIT
The Central Coordinating Unit (CC) can also spend up to 7% of the annual budget. However for
SINAP 2 these funds were used to pay for project priorities that cut across the PAs such as training
and monitoring and evaluation needs. The CC staff salaries were paid strictly out of SINAP 1 annual
budget disbursements through 2010. The actual project expenditures from SINAP 2 annual
disbursements averaged about 4% from 2002 to 2009 rather than the full 7%.
The CC provides oversight and coordination with all of the CONANP Protected Areas and central
departments. The CC unit is housed within CONANP to ensure greater levels of coordination, faster
communications, and higher levels of personal relationships and trust. Like the mid-term
evaluation (Graf and Vreugdenhil, p.16), this evaluation team clearly considers the expenditures by
the Central Coordinating (CC) unit as primarily program costs - designed to ensure project
alignment with GoM priorities and effective high leverage spending allocations. Specific
responsibilities of the CC include coordinating with CONANP to:
 Monitor the activities undertaken with FANP funds in the PAs and maintain appropriate
records;
 Develop training programs and special projects to address common problems across
multiple PAs;
 Technical review of the PA Annual Operating Plans with CONANP to ensure appropriate
resource distribution in support of these priorities;
 Support the PAs in strategic planning using a log frame approach. This has been so
successful that it has created a large demand for services from PAs outside of the SINAP
programs;
 Harvest learning from the strategic project reviews and partner presentations every year.
With the big change in project management in 2008, with the assumption of 900 new staff positions
by the GoM, the CC has changed roles (see disbursement models in 3.1.5 below). Now in addition to
review of the POAs, it is also responsible for managing the ‘Call for Proposal’ process for strategic
projects and working closely with the nonprofit grant recipients. This has increased their work
load and led to a recent change in structure including adding an additional staff person – now paid
for the first time by the SINAP 2 annual disbursement. Additionally, increased expenditures are
occurring with training and learning programs built into the strategic project grants to highlight
successful innovations and enhance the collaboration between the nonprofits and CONANP staff. It
is one of the ways in which the wider goal of enhancing the capacity of the key institutions and the
full PA system is being attained. Now, in the post 2009 period, the allotted 7% expense rate is close
to being reached.
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Finally, FANP funds cannot be given directly to the GoM so funding is channeled through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and local community organizations. During the 2002-2008
period they averaged the set 8.2% administrative rate primarily for hiring staff and assigning them
to work for the PA Directors – essentially as full-time staff in the PAs. The NGOs covered the
potential risks of labor disputes, social security and other benefit payments, as well as a
complicated tax payment process, in an effort to ensure these staff were working full time in the
PAs.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 22
In many cases, additional basic needs for the PA were also channeled through the NGOs enabling
investments such as vehicle repair, gasoline purchase etc. all of which required strong financial
accounting covered by this administrative rate. Although funds channeled to basic operation
averaged only one fourth of the allocation via salaries, these funds were considered critical to the
PA managers. Public funds for basic operations have increased over time, covering the vast
majority of the PA’s needs. Nonetheless, the small amount offered through FANP is still highly
valued in the field as the funds are more flexible and are also available in early January – whereas
public funds are often delayed in the first trimester. Hence, the small but agile FANP funds
complement the larger public funds to enable the PA to be managed effectively year round.
With the major change in the spending of FANP funds post 2008 the administrative charge for the
non profits who still provide POA basic needs was dropped to 6% in the 2009 FANP Operations
Manual. Under the new disbursement model, fewer funds (only 20%) are assigned based on the
POA process, staffing is no longer included, and the accounting burden on nonprofits is significantly
reduced. Experience to date indicates that administrative costs are currently being covered at less
than 6% (2.2% in 2009).
3.4
DISBURSE INTEREST EARNED BY THE FANP ANNUALLY
By law, the FMCN is unable to provide funds directly to government agencies. Thus, annual funds
generated from the endowment capital go to civil society organizations (NGOs). From 2002-2008,
these NGOs administratively supported the PA’s Annual Operating Plans (POA). As explained
below, since 2009, NGOs undertake projects in and around the designated protected areas in
collaboration with the PA Directors and staff. The FANP continues to provide funds via POA to the
10 PAs included in SINAP 1 and has added 12 new areas over the past 8 years as the endowments
raised for SINAP 2 have been established.
One of the prescient contributions from the GEF was to provide US$1.9 million in 2002 to jumpstart
immediate expenditures in four Protected Areas rather than waiting for the FANP endowment to
start providing income payouts. Thus, four protected areas were able to benefit in Year 1 of the
Project. FMCN raised a 1:1 match in endowment funds to the GEF US$1.9 million at the start of the
project allowing the WB to deposit its fund early, generating additional interests to benefit the
FANP endowment.
Table 3.4: Protected Areas Receiving FANP Support through SINAP 2
Protected Area
State
FANP
start
RB
Alto
Golfo
y
Delta
del
Río
Colorado
Cobio APFF Chichinautzin - PN el Tepozteco Lagunas de Zempoala
APFF Cuatrociénegas
RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán
APFF Sierra de Álamos
RB Banco Chinchorro – PN Arrecifes de Xcalak
RB La Encrucijada
RB El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar
Baja California y Sonora
2002
934,756
Morelos , México y Distrito Federal
2002
65,722
Coahuila de Zaragoza
Puebla, Oaxaca
Sonora
Quintana Roo
Chiapas
Sonora
2002
2002
2004
2006
2006
2006
84,347
490,186
92,890
144,360
144,868
714,557
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Total
hectares
Page 23
RB Sierra la Laguna
RB Mapimí
Baja California Sur
Coahuila de Zaragoza, Chihuahua y
Durango
Chiapas
Chiapas
RB la Sepultura
RB Selva el Ocote
2006
2008
112,437
342,388
2008
2008
167,310
101,288
At the PA level, activities to be covered by the income derived from the endowment include: basic
operation costs, basic equipment, basic conservation activities, basic community activities, and
basic capacity-building activities included in each PA’s Annual Operating Plan. At the start of the
SINAP-2 projects the funds from the FANP helped to cover approximately 30% of the annual basic
operations budgets of the PAs from SINAP 1 and the new PAs coming in with the funds from SINAP
2. However, as the commitment from the GOM grew and more resources were provided for basic
operations, the FANP support has made up a smaller proportion of the reserve budgets –
approximately 8% annually at the conclusion of this project. As Ernesto Enkerlin, Director of
CONANP puts it in discussing the evolution of the use of the FANP funds: “The FANP funds started
out helping to provide life support to the PAs, then they moved to support strategic priorities, and
now they can be truly catalytic.”
The FANP has had two major models for disbursement. The first from 2002-2008 had a primary
focus of providing additional basic operating support to the PAs, usually in the form of additional
staff. This model changed when CONANP assumed an additional 911 staff positions in 2008.
3.4.1 MODEL 1: 2002-2008
Interests generated from the FANP endowment were to be expended in support of “basic” PA needs
to complement GOM funds and ensure that the most basic protected area operations were in place.
A relatively complicated weighting system was put in place which gave different PAs different
levels of “basic” support based on the square root of their size, number of inhabitants in the PA,
number of communities, number of years of receiving FANP financing and other criteria to
encourage ever greater investment from sources other than FANP. Basic needs included items such
as office rent, basic equipment, office supplies – all of which required a proven government
counterpart. In addition, projects such as: monitoring and evaluation; fire suppression; outreach
work with local communities; restoration etc. could all be fully covered. In the majority of cases in
the 2002-2008 period the primary need identified in the Annual Operating Plans (POAs) was for
additional core staff to be able to implement projects within the PA. PAs had to have a minimum
presence of a Director, a Sub- Director and 2 technical staff paid for from government funds.
However, the FANP funds could be used to cover additional complimentary positions such as social
promoters, monitoring and evaluation personnel etc. through local nongovernmental organizations.
To access funds, every PA submitted a POA that clearly set out its basic operational priorities for the
year. The POAs are done in close consultation with the PA Advisory Council and in alignment with
the key WB policies and the participation of indigenous peoples, and action plans for sustainable
development. Furthermore, a detailed PA government budget is provided to ensure the GOM is
covering most of the basic operational costs and that FANP funds will be complimentary.
Clear procurement procedures were developed for ensuring that funds supported the PAs. Funds
were provided quarterly with regular reports and receipts showing expenditures prior to release of
the next round of funding. Furthermore, PA Directors also had to sign off on the expenditures to
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 24
ensure they were well aligned with PA priorities. A few nonprofits such as Espacios Naturales y
Desarrollo Sustentable, AC, became very adept at contracting staff for placement at PAs, creating
some economies of scale and simplifying contracting procedures.
Finally, an Emergency Fund was also set up, and amounted to 10% of the full disbursement to the
FANP PA’s. This fund could be accessed in case of natural disasters or fires by any of the
participating PAs. Funds were programmed for every protected area within SINAP 1 and SINAP 2
so all PAs benefitted. Finally, the emergency fund provided flexible immediate spending to
complement larger government funds being applied later to the disaster. Discussions in the field
indicated that PA Directors were very satisfied with this system.
3.4.2 MODEL 2: 2008-2010
In 2008 CONANP secured an additional 911 full-time equivalent jobs in the civil service supported
entirely by the GOM. This incredible jump in CONANP capacity to ensure basic PA operations is
another indicator of the strong commitment of the GoM to its protected areas. Of the 911 newly
created positions, 152 were personnel supported by the FANP in the PAs. A lot of work went into
effectively transitioning these employees from nonprofit payrolls to the government to ensure
greater long-term CONANP capacity.
The CONANP coup in acquiring so many new positions has greatly strengthened their ability to
provide basic core management support to these protected areas. With this big jump in capacity,
the basic operating budgets of the SINAP 1 and 2 PAs were truly being assumed to a very great
extent by CONANP. This led to a drop in the overall percentage value of the FANP funds per PA
from approximately 30% of the budget per PA to about 8% of the annual budget in 2008.
Discussions between CONANP, FMCN, CTFANP, the World Bank and many other interested parties
were held in the hope of allowing this smaller percentage of the annual PA budget to serve as a
catalysis for innovation.
Post 2008, the primary focus of FANP funds moved from basic PA needs to strengthening the longterm management of the areas by supporting innovative strategies managed by NGOs and local
community groups. The decision was made to put 80% of the FANP annual budget allocated to the
PAs into a “call for proposal process” to civil society organizations interested in developing projects
in the PAs in alignment with PA priorities. 20% of the FANP annual budget allocated to the PAs was
set aside for continued support for core operations and expenditures as indicated by the POAs.
This huge switch in focus created the hope that the civil society grants (80% of the FANP total
yearly expenditures) would jumpstart needed investments in underfinanced areas such as
monitoring and evaluation, sustainable development initiatives, and reforestation; engage
nonprofits over the long term in the PA; and be an inducement for additional fundraising for the
PAs.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 25
CIVIL SOCIETY GRANTS – 80% OF FANP ANNUAL BUDGET
In brief, the Call for Proposals of 2008 offered strategic grants of US$40,000 to $122,000 per year to
civil society organizations (NGOs) who had a letter of support from the PA Director and could show
other sources of funding, a history of conservation activity in the PA or surroundings, and ability to
comply with all Mexican laws and administrative responsibilities. The latter requirement actually
makes it very difficult for local community organizations to apply, so a hoped for strategy is that the
NGOs will collaborate with local community organizations and help build their capacity in the
process. If the project was to take place on privately owned land – or on ejido land – letters of
support from the affected owners were to be presented as well. An external group of experts
evaluated the proposals and sent their recommendations to the CTFANP. CTFANP chose the final
grantees, a decision which was then ratified by the FMCN Board in the annual budget approval
process. Of the 117 proposals received in 2008, 22 were funded in 2009.
A number of lessons emerged from this experience:
1.
As a whole NGOs all requested the higher end of the project money scale as there was
no counterpart required;
2. PA Directors were inundated with requests for letters of support – putting them in
difficult positions with organizations that they needed to work closely with, but which
had failed to develop strategic proposals.
3. Many organizations could not spend the money within the year and extensions had to
be granted.
4. Only two local community-based organizations received direct funding.
Both
community groups required substantial follow up for implementation support and
administration, though one has also turned out to be one of the most effective projects
to date.
A workshop was held that brought together all the FANP civil society grantees to reflect on the
2008 projects and learning. Based on this experience the groups provided some basic values
guidance for the rationale for PIE funds and the purpose of interagency cooperation: (FMCN,
Fortalecimiento…2.2.5)






To complement the capacities of each of the partners to achieve the common objective
of conservation or our natural resources;
To leverage activities and resources;
To avoid duplicating efforts;
To express and live up to commitments;
To guarantee continuity in important processes; and
To ensure efficiencies given the insufficient funds dedicated to conservation.
With this input, strong participation from CONANP, and additional input from the PA Directors, new
procedures were put in place for the 2009 Call for Proposals.
1. Grant range was lowered to $25,000 and maximums were based on counterpart
requirements;
2. Counterpart funds were required:
 For projects requesting $US 25,000-$40,000 a 20% cash match was required
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 26
 For projects between US$40,000 and $81,000 a 40% cash match was required
 For projects over US$81,000 a 60% cash match was required.
3. The letter from the PA Director had to directly link the proposal with national CONANP
priorities as well as specific PA priorities. Letters from Regional Directors were also
accepted;
4. Regional CONANP Directors were more engaged and were part of the external evaluator
team to ensure greater alignment with PA objectives.
Fewer proposals (61) were submitted, but they were uniformly seen as higher quality, with fewer
large proposals and a greater strategic alignment with PA priorities. 15 new projects were funded
and 10 exceptional projects from 2008 received additional funds. Many PA Directors were better
prepared for this round of proposals as well. In some cases PA Directors held meetings to ensure
that the NGOs worked together to submit proposals. Directors also clarified what types of
proposals they considered a priority and what themes would not merit a letter of support. Thus,
rather than giving out 7 or 8 letters of support, PA Directors were much more involved in ensuring
that only the most strategic proposals received their endorsement. This has led to a number of
models that are being reviewed for success over time including:



1 grant to 1 NGO for work in the PA; or
1 grant to 1 NGO to coordinate work of a number of different NGOs/community
groups in the PA; or
2 or more grants to separate NGOs to work in the PA but in a coordinated fashion.
The FANP Central Coordinating Unit is tracking which of these models provide better results over
time.
It is too early to determine the successes from this new approach to strategic grants for nonprofits.
However, both FMCN and CONANP are actively watching the trajectory of these grants and raising
long term questions as to how to proceed. Specific issues that are still being raised include:
1. By only having guaranteed funding for 1 year, NGOs tend to invest heavily in their
equipment, staffing etc. – none of which will benefit the PA over the long term unless
subsequent funding continues;
2. 1 year grants fail to provide predictable multi-year funding to either the PA or the
nonprofit. This results in inadequate lead time for raising matching funds, no long-term
commitment of the NGO to the PA, and an inability to measure conservation impacts;
3. Community-based organizations are still not benefitting in a major way – the hope is
that NGOs will begin to do more capacity-building to support their administrative and
implementation capacity – but again this is a hoped-for result, not yet a tested
hypothesis.
4. The current structure puts a lot of pressure and workload on PA Directors to manage
the process and diplomatically fend off the many calls for endorsements.
5. Some PAs did not receive any funding through this process as their civil society
counterparts did not submit winning proposals. This creates quite a bit of concern
among those PAs that feel they have lost ground in ensuring ongoing FANP support.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 27
CTFANP and FMCN, in close coordination with CONANP staff, are continuing to work through these
issues and strive to improve the leverage and innovation impact of the FANP funds. There is also
some pressure to reduce the 20% support for the Annual Operating Plans (POA) so that the GoM
has full responsibility for all basic operational needs and 100% of the FANP funds directed to PAs
can be used for strategic grants. This is an ongoing debate addressed below. Additional comments
about the opportunities for these grants to boost civil society capacity are covered in Section 8.4.2.
Annual Operating Needs – 20%
While prior to 2008, almost the full amount of the FANP funds was geared to support the basic
operations of the PA as determined by the Annual Operating Plan (POA), the amount of financing
for basic operations has dropped to 20% in the last two years. These funds are available to all the
PAs in SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 and provide greater flexibility in use of funds that are not as bound by
more rigid government budgets. Just like in Model 1 above, these funds can be used to support core
operating expenses as needed, but are no longer used for staffing expenses.
While there is no question that the GoM is assuming ever greater responsibility for core operating
budgets, one of the major rationales for continuing to keep this fund in place over the past few
years is to respond to the yearly slowdown in government funding from January to March. The
start of a new year, delays in legislative approval, bureaucratic blockages and many other reasons
all affect the ability of GoM funds to flow readily to all government agencies – not just CONANP.
This slowdown in government funding is particularly hard on the PAs as it coincides with the dry
season, higher incidents of fires, and peak migrations for important species. PA Directors also
report that illicit loggers, hunters etc. all know that park staff activity drops at this time of the year
as funds are unavailable for gasoline and other basic needs. PA Directors have vociferously voiced
their support for this 20% to ensure they have the funds they need at the start of the year. The
opposing argument is that the GoM should assume full responsibility for all core operating budgets
and work to ensure that this yearly fiscal inertia be eliminated, rather than continue dependency on
a private fund.
The evaluators feel the POA support funds, while only a very small percentage of the total budget
for the POAs, served as exceptionally high leverage funds. They are the only funds a PA Director
can access in response to the many unplanned problems, delays, equipment failures etc. that can
besiege a PA that has to comply with a set annual budget with little room for line item variations.
One of the rationales for conservation trust funds, and indeed for the public private partnership
encouraged by the GEF investment, is precisely this greater level of reliability and flexibility in
financial flows. The POA funds over the course of 2002-2010 have served this function proving to
be high leverage and belying the small percentage of the PA budget that they represent.
EMERGENCY FUND
Finally, an emergency fund is accessible from the FANP funds. Emergency funding can be drawn for
natural disasters in any of the FANP PAs and money can be moved extremely quickly to help get
equipment or personnel to the scene of a disaster or fire. This fund is greatly appreciated as it
allows for fast response in the hope of containing a fire or other disaster that could seriously
damage the ecological values of the PAs. The fund allows expenditures of up to 50% of the total
value of the funding for the POAs– so up to about US$ 200,000.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 28
While the evaluators provide our own recommendations in Section 9.3, we are impressed with the
efforts of all the parties to continue improving the procedures and transparency of the use of FANP
funds every year. When a major change in 2008 occurred with the increased CONANP capacity, the
parties conferred and have developed a new approach to try to ensure high levels of ongoing
effectiveness and leverage for the FANP funds. Yearly adjustments are being made to resolve
problems and attain greater impact on the ground in managing the PAs and strategically meeting
the priorities as set by the PA Directors in consultation with local advisory councils and
communities. The strength of this public-private dialogue and the commitment with which
CTFANP, FMCN, and CONANP work to ensure solid coordination and alignment is an excellent
harbinger for the continued success of FANP funds after World Bank supervision ends.
3.5
LESSONS LEARNED
Lessons learned were covered in each of the sub-sections but in summary the most important
lessons from this successful experience are:

Securing Endowment Counterpart Funds
1. Flexibility in allowing for a larger number of PAs to be considered within the match
was an important draw for private foundations;
2. The GoM investment in the FANP was an impressive endorsement of both political
will and of the strength of the public-private partnership;
3. Government agencies are not best suited for raising funds for private endowments
but their endorsement is critical;
4. FMCN’s investment in leading international networks and sharing its learning has
enhanced its stature among international donors;
5. Strong advisory body in CTFANP provides an important venue for ensuring ongoing
alignment between public and private partners while still recognizing FMCN
institutional autonomy.

Administering the FANP
1. A clear policy directive on fund management from the FMCN Board has been
critical;
2. Over the past decade a conservative management philosophy has paid well;
3. Investment committee Board members with serious banking and investment
profiles raise the stature of FMCN.

Disbursing the FANP
1. Clear transparent processes allow for yearly adjustments to take advantage of
learning from previous experience;
2. The flexibility of the FANP was demonstrated in 2008 when the funds shifted from
supporting core base operations to more strategic initiatives as CONANP took
greater responsibility for budget and staff;
3. Processes that engage PA Directors and Regional Directors have helped to ensure
ongoing alignment of PIE grants with CONANP priorities.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 29
4.0 CONSERVE GLOBALLY IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY
4.1
MAJOR FINDINGS
The leading project objective of SINAP 2 was to “conserve globally important biodiversity in selected
areas” of the Mexican national system of protected areas (WB, PAD p 2). This section reviews the strides
made in managing the PAs for conservation values and what biological indicators are available to help PA
Directors assess their management effectiveness. Social indicators are included in Section 5. Major
findings, discussed in depth within this section, include:
Build Capacity to Effectively Manage Protected Areas for Conservation Values (4.2)






The GoM has made a huge commitment to increase the capacity of CONANP over the past
decade, investing heavily in adding new PAs, greatly increasing staff, and providing regular
budget increases. (See Section 8.3)
The SINAP 2 PAs all have core staff in place, dependable annual budgets, and both five year
plans for management programs and logical frameworks, as well as yearly operating plans
(POAs) laying out strategic directions to enhance conservation effectiveness;
The lack of strong law enforcement capacity in the PAs (responsibility of PROFEPA)
continues to be a huge problem for PA Managers. Ultimately this problem threatens the
long-term ecological sustainability of some PAs where illicit activities are becoming more
prominent. (See Section 4.4.1)
A strategy for addressing climate change in protected areas was released in 2010. CONANP
now has a much greater capacity for addressing these global impacts on the PA system.
(See Section 9.4.1)
Fire Brigades and Committees for Environmental Vigilance formed in local communities
have been effective in reducing the number of wildfires originating in agricultural plots.
(See Section 4.4.1)
Many strategies are in place with local communities, as discussed in Sections 5 and 7 to help
low-income residents engage in more sustainable activities. From a conservation impact
perspective the evaluators were most impressed with the fire brigades and efforts to
improve soil retention with organic fertilizers and terraces. These strategies, promoted in
many different SINAP 2 PAs with use of the GEF sinking funds, can be most directly linked to
conservation goals.
Build CONANP Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluating Conservation Status (4.2)



CONANP established a senior office for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) reporting directly
to the Director in 2001 with 28 full-time staff;
The CONANP office of M&E has built a System for Information, Monitoring and Evaluation of
Conservation (SIMEC) to ensure that solid scientific data can help drive strategies and
projects and support the POAs. A GIS lab is part of this infrastructural investment.
Biological, geographical and socio-economic data are collected;
FANP funds have been used to help PA Directors engage staff and local communities in
building 5-year plans for management programs and logical frameworks. These
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 30
frameworks ensure that threats are identified and appropriate strategies are developed
with clear activity goals and conservation impact indicators. Once this 5 year framework is
in place, the yearly POAs include monitoring line items, many of which are financed by
FANP funds.
Select SINAP 2 PAs (4.3)

The Protected Areas chosen for SINAP 2 represent a diversity of ecoregions of regional and
global ecological significance.
Measure Rate of Habitat Transformation (4.4)




The rate of habitat transformation across the SINAP 2 PA’s has been unevenly measured
using GIS technology over the past decade, but marked improvements are noticeable since
2007.
A study by FMCN and CONANP, that used many different data sources, indicates that
deforestation is proceeding slower inside biosphere reserves than in their immediate
surroundings, and that deforestation rates decline following the establishment of staffing
structures and management in these reserves. (González Montagut et. al.)
During this Project the CC unit has assumed much of the responsibility for compiling the
available data on habitat transformation, species abundance, and sustainable use for the
annual reports to the World Bank. The hope going forward is that through improved interinstitutional agreements with institutions like CONABIO data could be easily accessed.
SIMEC could then assume more responsibility for ensuring the data is used more
systematically by PA managers and fully incorporated into a regular biennial M&E cycle
within CONANP.
Fire data has been a critically important source of information on habitat transformation for
PA Directors. The training, supplying, and activation of local fire brigades in a number of
SINAP 2 PAs is one of the most impressive community-level conservation achievements of
this Project, deserving greater analysis of lessons learned.
Presence of Indicator Species (4.5)




Population trends of key species, using a clear set of protocols, are being tracked in over 30
PAs including 10 PAs from SINAP 1 and 6 from SINAP 2 (CONANP, SIMEC 2005. p 17 and
CONANP-FMCN, Diagnostico p. 17);
Populations of 69 monitored indicator species were stable showing no significant upward or
downward trend (González Montagut et.al. p 13);
Species monitoring efforts to date have greatly enhanced data availability. More can be
done going forward to relate population changes (within a wider context) to human
activities and management effectiveness.
The FMCN and the CONANP M&E staff are working together through engaging staff,
training, and new networks to continue improving the link between species monitoring and
management decisions.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 31
In summary, the evaluators are impressed with CONANP’s efforts to protect the biodiversity in its
charge. The increase in both budgets for the PA system as well as staffing (see Section 8.3) is a key
measure of the commitment the GoM has made to conserving Mexican biological diversity. It has
invested in the SIMEC system, given a high status to the Director of M&E within CONANP, and
begun compiling M&E data with the intention of guiding ever more effective PA management
strategies. We do not feel that an extension of World Bank supervision is necessary given the
strides taken to date. We feel very substantial progress has been made in this arena over the course
of the past decade. Nonetheless, ongoing strides are needed – particularly in more consistently
analyzing habitat transformation and helping to better link biological monitoring indicators to
reviews of management effectiveness. We address long-term recommendations for addressing
threats as well as M&E in Section 9.3 given the complexity of the issues, the utility of watchdog
organizations, and the ongoing opportunities to continue strengthening management effectiveness
within Mexico.
4.2 BUILD THE CAPACITY TO MANAGE PAS FOR CONSERVATION VALUES
Over the past decade Mexico has made a huge jump in its commitment to effectively manage its
natural protected areas. The federal Protected Area system has increased remarkably over the past
few years to now encompass 173 federal PAs covering 24.4 million hectares, over 10% of the
national territory. What were paper parks are increasingly well-managed efforts to preserve very
complicated landscapes and marine areas that cover many ecoregions, multiple land owners,
economically marginalized - and often indigenous - rural populations, and are assailed by many
threats. As discussed in Section 8.3 on Institutional Capacity, the vast majority of these protected
areas have a core set of staff in place, annual budgets, and basic management infrastructure. While
the PAs still face many challenges and have many needs, the commitment and professionalism of
the CONANP personnel has clearly seen a huge jump in the past 10 years. As part of this capacity
increase, there has been increased attention to monitoring and evaluation to help drive increased
management effectiveness across the whole PA system.
The need to enhance monitoring and evaluation capacity to determine the effectiveness of
management strategies for conservation was recognized in the design of the SINAP 2 program.
Component 3, system-wide institutional strengthening, was supported by the GEF with sinking
funds of US$200,000 corresponding to less than 1% of the GEF donation (World Bank, PAD p.9)
which went to enhance the M&E work in CONANP. While the direct contribution from GEF was
relatively small, the government counterpart has been very high. In addition, annual funds
generated from the FANP endowment also went to support the M&E subcomponent in some of the
civil society grants provided since 2008. Finally, FMCN has also worked closely with CONANP to
pull together data sources for addressing the effectiveness of PAs and for providing yearly reports
to the World Bank (CONANP/FMCN 2008).
For the PAs selected for SINAP 2, four major evaluation indicators were identified:
1. Rate of habitat transformation;
2. Presence of indicator species;
3. Number of people involved in sustainable projects; and
4. The number of hectares being managed sustainably.
Sections 4.4 and 4.5 cover the first two indicators, while Section 5 discusses the latter.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 32
CONANP sets national priorities for conservation. In turn, each PA has a Plan for Management
Programs that sets the 5 year goals for that PA. These Plans are developed with input from local
communities and the advisory councils and have legal force. Within Mexico, the Plans for
Management Programs tend to be very data heavy publication products. So in addition to, or in
coordination with, these Plans, FANP has developed logical frameworks in SINAP sites to ensure an
agile outcome oriented document that directly addresses threats, strategies to contain them,
activity results, and most importantly, conservation outcomes. The annual operating plan (POA)
reconciles budgets with clear operational goals tied to these logical frameworks. New data from
M&E programs can influence management effectiveness by refining the POAs in each subsequent
year. With the emergence of the SIMEC system there is more capacity on the part of CONANP to
monitor these indicators. Additionally, the planning system has improved and is increasingly
systematized. POAs are now being completed on the internet in an effort to achieve greater
standardization of performance indicators and provide a clearer monitoring process for linking
budgets and performance goals.
4.3 SELECT SINAP 2 PROTECTED AREAS
The federal system of protected areas is meant to encompass ecologically significant sites of both
national and international biodiversity values within Mexico, aligning with Mexico’s commitment to
the Program of Work of the Convention of Biological Diversity. SINAP 2 PAs are meant to represent
the “jewels” within this system to ensure the conservation of species and ecoregions of global and
regional importance. To identify these areas, a process that engaged academics, nonprofits,
scientists, and different government agencies was initiated in 1998. They examined 114 PAs to
select PAs that would be of global or regional ecological significance, have high levels of ecological
integrity, and be prioritized for management support. The Dinerstein et al. model characterizing
terrestrial ecoregions was used along with information provided by CONANP/SEMARNAT to
narrow the list to 46 PAs based on 8 key criteria:
Environmental scores with regard to:
1) Species richness
2) Endemism content
3) Concentration of species at risk
4) Number and type of ecosystems (gradient)
5) Representation of ecoregions
Socio-economic scores with regard to:
6) Environmental services and functions
7) Socioeconomic feasibility for a conservation project
And finally a threat measure – providing higher points for PAs with higher levels of threat:
8) Type, dimension and velocity of threats
A final review by 34 experts provided a point classification of ecological importance. Finally, there
were also requirements on the GoM as part of the GEF counterpart conditions. CONANP had to
maintain a core set of personnel in the selected PAs, increasing amounts of basic yearly operating
funds over the course of the project, writing a 5-year plan for management programs for each PA as
well as yearly operational plans, in addition to ensuring participatory structures for local people.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 33
These factors were all considered in choosing the 12 areas that were ultimately incorporated in
SINAP 2.
Table 4.3 and Map 4.3 below provide an understanding of the effort made to incorporate ecoregions
with high and unique biodiversity values that cut across the length and breadth of Mexico.
Tab le 4 .3 :
E co log i ca l S ig n if i can ce of S I N AP 2 P rote ct ed A r eas
Major Terrestrial
Habitat Types 
Dominant
Ecoregion*
Ecological
Conservation
Significance
Status
Desert and Xeric
Shrublands
Sonoran
Desertand Gulf
of CA marine.
Regional
Stable
Cobio APFF Chichinautzin - PN
el Tepozteco - Lagunas de
Zempoala
Tropical and Subtropical
Coniferous Forests
Trans-Mexican
Volcanic Belt
pine-oak forests
Regional
Endangered
APFF Cuatrociénegas
Desert and Xeric
Shrublands
Chihuahuan
Desert with
marsh and
aquatic high
levels of
endemism
Global
Vulnerable
RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán
Tropical and Subtropical
Coniferous Forests
Sierra Madre de
Oaxaca pine-oak
forest
Regional
Endangered
APFF Sierra de Álamos
Desert and Xeric
Shrublands and Tropical
and Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forests
Sonoran Desert
and SonoranSinaloan
transition
subtropical dry
forest
Global
Stable
RB Banco Chinchorro – PN
Arrecifes de Xcalak
Coral reef system;
seagrass beds;
mangroves; arenales
sand dune systems;
Coastal dune vegetation
Coral reef
complex system
Bio-Regional
Stable
RB La Encrucijada
Tropical and Subtropical
Dry Broadleaf Forests
Central American
Dry Forest –
Mexican
Mangrove
Bio-Regional
Endangered
Sonoran Desert
Regional
Stable
SINAP 2 Protected Areas
RB Alto Golfo y Delta del
Río Colorado
Coastal/Marine
RB El Pinacate y Gran Desierto
de Altar
Desert and Xeric
Shrublands
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 34
RB Sierra la Laguna
Tropical and Subtropical
Dry Broadleaf Forests
Sierra La Laguna
Dry Forests and
Pine- Oak Forests
Global
Endangered
RB Mapimí 
Desert and Xeric
Shrublands
Chihuahuan
Desert
Local
Vulnerable
RB la Sepultura
Tropical & Subtropical
Moist Broadleaf
Sierra Madre de
Chiapas moist
forests
Global
Critical
RB Selva el Ocote
Tropical & Subtropical
Moist Broadleaf Forests
Chimalapas
Montane Forest
Regional
Endangered
 Classified using the Major Habitat Types and Ecoregions developed by Dinerstein – checked against National
Geographic/WWF site: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_nt.html
* Many of these PAs are based in transition zones between ecoregions, an explanation for t he high levels of species
richness and number and types of ecosystems.
The ecological significance and conservation status as indicated at the inception of the SINAP 2 project – these may
have changed over the past decade.
 Pantanos de Centla, originally on the SINAP 2 list, received funding from other sources thus opening a spac e for RB
Mapimí in 2008. Similarly Huautla on the original SINAP 2 list was passed to a local university for management,
opening up the opportunity for RB Selva el Ocote to join the SINAP 2 sites.
M ap 4. 3:
P rote cte d Ar eas w ith in S I N AP 1 An d 2
Protected Areas within SINAP 1 and 2
An additional 12 PAs were identified that can be substituted if, as happened in the case of Isla
Contoy and La Paz (in the Islas del Golfo), a PA in the SINAP 1 or 2 project receives enough funding
from other sources that it no longer requires funds through the FANP. These additional 12 PAs, and
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 35
the 10 PAs included in SINAP 1 were also instrumental in helping FMCN attract private funders
interested in individual PA endowments as matching funds for the FANP as noted in Section 3.2.1.
The selected SINAP 2 sites were of exceptionally high regional and global ecological significance.
RB Mapimí is of national significance, and is perhaps the highest biodiversity value site within the
Chihuahuan desert, with a high number of imperiled national species. These 12 PAs represent a
broad spread across the country and cover many different major habitat types. Three of the 12
have major marine components and the important freshwater values, including globally unique
ecosystems in places such as Cuatrocienegas cut across all the PAs. The project has enthusiastically
embraced highly threatened areas such as Selva El Ocote and RB Mapimí, and the very difficult
political and water use issues affecting PAs such as Delta del Río Colorado. By accepting PAs that
are experiencing high levels of pressure, the project took on some of the more difficult and
intractable issues affecting the long term health of ecosystem services and biodiversity values in
Mexico.
4.4
MEASURE THE RATE OF HABITAT TRANSFORMATION
Since 2004, CONANP has greatly enhanced its use of Global Information System technology. The
rate of habitat transformation is determined through the analysis of satellite images to detect areas
affected by human disturbance both within and around the PA. CONANP has a GIS office
established in the regional office based in Morelia, Michoacán. In addition, Mexico also has
sophisticated agencies such as CONABIO and the Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e
Informática (INEGI) which have land use/land cover maps at useful intervals and at scales such as
1:250,000 which are well suited for land cover analysis. Additionally, a 2002 study done on the
effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change provides a good
baseline for comparison for many of the SINAP 2 PAs, and their surrounding areas (SánchezCordero).
The evaluators recognize that these studies are useful primarily in the forested PAs where advances
in the agricultural frontier directly affect the ability to conserve ecosystem health and biodiversity.
Some areas such as the desert PAs and marine PAs do not merit annual reviews of this type as
indicated in Table 4.4. We were pleased to hear about a recent workshop in Palo Alto California,
attended by both the FANP Director and the CONANP M&E Director, which began exploring
appropriate ways to monitor marine environments – a new challenge globally.
Focusing therefore on forested ecoregions, the analysis of habitat change has been uneven over
time. However, it is clear that the capacity of the M&E program has grown dramatically over the
past few years. As can be seen in the chart below there has been a surge in the use of images since
2007 with more data available in the past few years. This is a good sign that we hope will lead to
regular biannual habitat transformation reviews. An additional study is underway, due by mid
2010, on management effectiveness in the SINAP 2 PAs as addressed by the comparison of natural
habitat transformation inside the PAs, as well as overall habitat transformation trends over time.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 36
Table 4.4: Rate of Habitat Transformation within Protected Areas (percentage)
SINAP II Protected Areas
Periods of Time* / % Annual Change Rate
RB Alto Golfo y Delta del Río
Colorado 1
Cobio APFF Chichinautzin - PN el
Tepozteco - Lagunas de
Zempoala
Desert ecosystem – this type of analysis is not
useful
197319892000200420071989
2000
2004
2007
2008
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.02
APFF Cuatrociénegas
19731986
0.05
RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán
Start Date of
Federal
Management
NA
1996
Yes
1998
Yes
1998
19861992
0.16
19922000
0.15
20002003
0.52
19892000
0.07
20002003
0.08
20032007
0.15
No
1999
19902000
0.16
20002005
0.12
20052008
0.01
Yes
2003
APFF Sierra de Álamos
19761990
0.01
RB Banco Chinchorro – PN
Arrecifes de Xcalak 1
Marine ecosystem – this type of analysis is not
useful
NA
1998
RB La Encrucijada
19751987
0
Yes
1997
RB El Pinacate y Gran Desierto
de Altar 1
RB Sierra la Laguna
Desert ecosystem – this type of analysis is not
useful
19731990200020051990
2000
2005
2008
0.0158 0.0012 0.0035 0.0005
NA
1996
Yes
2000
No
2000
RB Mapimí

20032007
0.06
Habitat
Transformation
Declining
19872000
0.36
20002005
0.94
20052008
-0.4
20002005
-0.027
20052009
0.03
RB la Sepultura
Joined SINAP 2 in 2008 data anticipated 6/10
NA
2000
RB Selva el Ocote
Joined SINAP 2 in 2008 data anticipated 6/10
NA
1994
Data obtained from the job "Estimation and Update of the Rate of Habitat Transformation of the Natural Protected
Areas SINAP I and II of FANP" coordinated by CONANP and FANP.
The many different time periods used above are due to the availability of adequate images, when
analysis took place, or follow up to major events such as a large fire, etc. The variability of the
results and multi-year time frames between images, coupled with the need for field corroboration
makes these results interesting, but not as useful as more systematic and regular reports would be
for management decisions. Nonetheless, field visits provided glimpses of how managers are using
this information. For example, in Tehuacan-Cuicatlán, the Director was able to use satellite imagery
to identify the areas most threatened by habitat transformation and allocate the majority of staff
time and resources for outreach in those communities. This type of analysis is critical to best
deploy the limited resources when dealing with large PAs and large numbers of communities both
in and around the PAs. More systematic biennial reviews will provide greater opportunities for PA
managers to identify, not just the priority areas for combating threats, but over time also provide
insights into the effectiveness of their strategies.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 37
An analysis by FMCN and CONANP, with available data from a range of sources, indicates that
transformation rates have slowed since the creation of the PAs, and deforestation rates are lower
inside the reserves than in their immediate surroundings (González Montagut et al. p 13). Table 4.4
points to similar conclusions with habitat transformation rates declining in the majority of SINAP 2
PAs. While this is good news, the evaluators caution that more rigorous analysis is needed to
corroborate this finding and take full advantage of this large-scale project experience.
An
additional analysis provided based on the data in Table 4.4 but aligned with the creation of the PA
and the actual start of federal management, indicates that deforestation rates can spike after a PA is
decreed and then come down dramatically once federal management and staffing is in place.
Finally, FANP has also funded more detailed local habitat transformation reviews in a few of the
PAs. In cases where more detailed data is available (see Mariposa Monarca or the Selva el Ocote
example in 4.4.1 Fire below), the evaluators see PA Directors have better tools for addressing PA
management effectiveness in responding to noted threats. An example of the type of reports that
the evaluators feel can be very helpful to PA Directors is this FANP funded assessment of the
Monarch Butterfly PA core area.
Chart 4.4: Vegetative Cover Comparison 2003 to 2009 in the RB Monarch Butterfly core area.
The early results of a 2010 study being undertaken by CONANP are presented in Image 4.4 below.
This analysis is being done to cover all of the SINAP 2 sites. Studies of this type are incredibly
useful for PA Directors and are indispensable for pinpointing areas for greater management
attention. The evaluators are pleased to see this effort underway.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 38
Image 4.4: Change in Land Use in APFF Sierra de los Alamos - Río Cuchujaqui and BR Sierra la Laguna.

Images from "Estimation and Update of the Rate of Habitat Transformation of the Natural Protected Areas
SINAP I and II of FANP" coordinated by CONANP and FANP.
The evaluators are very pleased that the capacity to do this type of study is clearly now available
within CONANP. We are also aware that initiatives such as the current 2010 study being
undertaken are proceeding with a high level of collaboration between SIMEC and the CC. There has
been substantial growth in the capacity to do a more in-depth reports and analysis on habitat
transformation as demonstrated over the past few years. Land use and land cover information is so
often an important indicator of ecological integrity, local community support for conservation
approaches, and the pressures on biodiversity in a given area. We include recommendations in
Section 9.3 to prioritize and systematize habitat transformation studies going forward. While we
recognize that habitat transformation alone is not a fully adequate measure of conservation
effectiveness (Redford 1992), we believe that it provides the best source of information available
on threats, connectivity, and ecological integrity in forest areas. If managed more systematically,
habitat transformation could be the most important source of feedback to PA Directors of forest
areas as well as provide increased transparency to donors who wish to support long-term
conservation efforts in Mexico.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 39
4.4.1 FIRE
Another effective measure of habitat transformation in many parts of Mexico is the presence
and extent of fire damage. Fire is consistently the biggest driver of land use change in Mexico
as local farmers use it to “clean” and/or expand their fields. (CONANP/FMCN 2008 p.7) The
vast majority of PAs manage fire education programs, fire brigade training, and increasingly
use PET (temporary labor project) funds to pay for local farmers engaging in effective fire
management programs. PET can pay for the reduction of wood and combustible materials
around established plots, creation of fire breaks, as well as the actual management and/or
fighting of fires.
Cha rt 4. 4 .1 . A: N umbe r of F ire s/ He ct are s B u rne d i n th e P A Syst em
60
14,000
50
Hectáreas
12,000
10,000
40
8,000
30
6,000
20
4,000
10
2,000
0
Número de Incendios
16,000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Año
Hectáreas

Número de Incendios
Chart developed by FMCN with data from CONANP (2002 data were not available).
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 40
A further breakdown of fire data is also increasingly available at the PA level.
Chart 4.4.1.B: Number of FIRES/Hectares Burned in SINAP I AND SINAP 2 PA within Chiapas
SINAP 1
SINAP 2
RB La Encrucijada
12
9
3,000
6
2,000
1,000
3
0
0
Año
Superficie afectada
4000
2000
0
Año
No. Incendios
15
10
600
300
5
0
0
Superficie Afectada (ha)
25000
Número de Incendios
Superficie Afectada (ha)


0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
RB Selva El Ocote
900
Año
10
1000
Superficie afectada
20
Superficie afectada
20
3000
RB El Triunfo
1200
30
5000
No. Incendios
1500
40
6000
50
20000
40
15000
30
10000
20
5000
10
0
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Número de Incendios
4,000
7000
Número de Incendios
15
5,000
Superficie Afectada (ha)
6,000
Número de Incendios
Superficie Afectada (ha)
RB Montes Azules
Año
No. Incendios
Superficie afectada
No. Incendios
Charts developed by FMCN with information from PA staff.
RB Selva el Ocote and Montes Azules have been supported more intensively with fire management projects
and by the organized network, CAMAFU, financed by FMCN.
This type of data can provide great feedback on the effectiveness of the log frames and goals set for
PA management in forested areas. For example in Selva el Ocote, the PA Director has placed a
major emphasis on fire as the biggest threat to the ecological integrity of the reserve. Table 4.4.1
provides a glimpse of the careful log frame planning that has taken place in many PAs to
address key threats to the PA - in this example a strategy to reduce fire.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 41
Tab le 4 .4 .1 :
F ir e M a na gemen t S t rat eg y f or R B Sel va E l O cot e 2 00 8 -2 0 1 3
Strategy
Indicator
Goal
Progress
Reduce the negative
impact of fire on the
tropical karst
(limestone)
ecosystem.
The area affected
by fire.
No more than
3000 hectares
affected.
An integrated fire management program
in place:
•
5 community plans.
•
15 community committees.
•
246 km. of fire breaks
• An average of 5 fires attended to
per year.
•
680 hectares is average yearly
loss to burns.
•
In 2009, 2,743 hectares were
burned due to 1 very large fire
(2,732 ha.) and the rest in very
small fires.
Number of fires
that impact more
than 100
hectares.
No more than 7
such fires.
Source: 2008 Management Plan for RB Selva el Ocote. PowerPoint provided by PA Director Roberto Escalante Lopez
In a field visit to RB Selva El Ocote solid advances had been made in working with local
communities to reduce wildfire. Using FANP funds, many communities have formed fire
brigades which worked to create fire breaks between agricultural areas and native vegetation,
reduce combustible materials. Additionally, all members of the community had been better
trained on how to manage small burns within their plots and community brigade members
were on hand to ensure the fires are contained. Given how extremely difficult it is to subdue
fires once they are out of control, communities have learned to do a better job of managing
controlled agricultural burns. There are many similar success stories that we heard from
other PAs such as Manantlán with impressive fire management strategies underway. FMCN
secured a US$4.5 million endowment fund devoted to his topic and that served as a match to
GEF capital and helps support the CAMAFU network. This fund works in alliance with the
United States Forest Service thus ensuring continued technological transfer. Independent
evaluations of this fire management program highlight the advances at the community level in
the PAs in professionalizing fire brigades over the last ten years. Effective community
mobilization for fire brigades is potentially one of the most impressive achievements within
SINAP 2, deserving a more in-depth analysis of lessons learned.
At the same time, the RB Selva el Ocote example also pointed out one of the biggest
weaknesses in the current PA management system – PROFEPA (Procuraduría Federal de
Protección al Ambiente or Federal Agency for Environmental Protection). The large fire in
2009 was not lit by local villagers. Rather it was ignited by a group of recent squatters who
had no ties to the area and are suspected of drug dealing and marijuana cultivation. This one
illegal settlement is responsible for the two biggest fires in the reserve over the last 5 years.
Yet, no one has taken the political leadership to have them removed. The PA staff has no legal
authority to make arrests, and can only denounce wrongdoings in the PA. PROFEPA is the
designated body to enforce the law, but they are terribly understaffed, underfunded, and
incapable of addressing threats of this size. The result is that PA Directors must engage in
long-term (often multi-year) negotiations with state and federal police to get help in
addressing what is arguably the biggest threat to the conservation of the reserve.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 42
Based on examples like the above, the evaluators are convinced that the CONANP PA staff is
doing an impressive job in developing appropriate strategies and, with the resources at their
disposal, making a real effort to reduce critical threats to the PAs for b iodiversity
conservation. At the same time with limited law enforcement, some of the biggest threats are
not being adequately addressed. Reversing this will require either a large investment in
PROFEPA or a new relationship between the PA Directors and key law-enforcement bodies as
crimes in PA need to be controlled. Allowing Mexico’s mega diversity to be threatened,
streams eroded, ecosystem services degraded, due to a small number of law breakers is a
critical political problem for the GoM and a major frustration for the PA Directors who are
managing so many effective projects.
4.4.2 REVEGETATION
Another effort underway, often aligned with the Mexican National Forestry Commission
(CONAFOR), is reforestation and revegetation of areas that were previously affected primarily by
fires, agricultural use, and extensive grazing. According to CONANP data, across the full system
58,333 ha had been revegetated by 2005.
The results, as seen through just a few field visits, have been mixed. On the positive side, very
impressive efforts to restore areas with local endemics using local seed, local nurseries, and local
labor are realized annually. The PET (Temporary Labor Program), discussed in Section 5 is often
used for this purpose. Restoration is a program greatly appreciated by local residents as it provides
needed income, while also raising environment awareness of local seed stocks, local species, and
the effort needed to recover from over grazing or devastating fires.
One very impressive effort in RB Selva el Ocote involved not only hand planting hillsides, but also
using military helicopters to drop native seed on high rocky peaks that had been burned the year
before. Revegetation results were very good! On the negative side, the area burned again a few
years later with no additional access to military helicopters for reseeding again. The long-term
needs of these areas unfortunately mean that one time efforts are often inadequate and that
budgets, partnerships, and plans need to have a multi-year perspective. The latest CONANP
Strategic Plan of 2007-2012 provides substantial attention to restoration efforts, particularly along
biological corridors.
4.5
NOTE THE PRESENCE OF INDICATOR SPECIES
The other main indicator of ecosystem health requested by the World Bank was the frequency of
observation of indicator species and, to the extent possible, indications of population growth or
decline. The SIMEC system has put in place a number of reports on chosen indicator species in the
PA system. The reports cited below (CONANP, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento) all provide
background on species taxonomy, biology, distribution, habitat, and behavior. They then lay out the
methodology used for tracking, and current assumptions about population presence. Table 4.5
provides a sample of the different types of species and methodologies being used in SINAP 2 PAs.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 43
Tab le 4 .5 :
E xam p les o f S pe ci es Pr esen ce Coun ts
Protected Area
Cobio APFF Chichinautzin
- PN el Tepozteco Lagunas de Zempoala
Selva El Ocote
La Encrucijada
Indicator Specie
Ambystoma
altamirani
Mountain stream
salamander
Bird populations
Crododylus acutus and
Caiman crocodilus fuscus
American Crocodile and
Brown Caiman
RB Alto Golfo y Delta del
Río
Colorado
Rallus longirostris
yumanensis
Methodology
Results
Yearly netting with
population surveys
from 2002-2008
Stable
Bird count/visual and
audio at set points in
10 min time periods
– species and
population
Base line now
available with 118
species including 22
considered to be at
risk.
2000-2008 night time
population
monitoring by
transect with
capture, tag, release
program. Nesting
area transects.
Stable. Nesting
areas of C acutus
under pressure
leading to new
outreach strategy
with cattle owners.
Shorebird monitoring
stations with vocal
call- response used.
Sharp decline in the
extent of wetlands
due to decline in
freshwater flows.
Population
improvements in
areas of restoration.
Strong PA
management
recommendations
for additional
restoration in key
areas.
Capture-elimination
effort counting
population and
weight.
Decline since 2006
thanks to
engagement of local
people in targeting
cichlids for capture
following education
campaign.
Yuma clapper rail and
other shore birds
APFF Cuatrociénegas
Hemichromis guttatus
Jewel Cichlid – an
invasive that can
outcompete endemics.

Information from booklets produced by CONANP, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de
Monitoreo and referenced in Annex B.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 44
Effective systematized monitoring at a local level has clearly been underway for years for some
species. A compilation of this data indicated that populations of 69 monitored indicator species
were stable showing no significant upward or downward trend (González Montagut et.al. p 13).
The evaluators note however, the need for caution in terms of inferring that changes in the
population levels of monitored species, either on the positive or negative side, are directly linked to
Project activities, or the lack thereof. Such determinations require more sophisticated analysis –
and looking at multiple species to avoid making inferences based on natural population cycles
(González Montagut et al. 2007). Population data is but one indicator of trends that should be taken
into account for management, together with a host of other sources of information. In sum,
population data can help partially inform management decisions, but is best when seen within a
wider set of indicators such as habitat connectivity and water quality. A critique provided by Diana
Montes Caballero (CONANP-FMCN Diagnostico…p 25) challenges SIMEC to also look at population
for some species at a wider regional or national level as there is no comparable data for a species
outside a particular PA to get a wider sense of population trends.
One of the global scientific debates – the selection of appropriate indicator species – also played out
in field visits. PA Directors recognized that they would get different types of feedback based on the
choice of umbrella species, keystone species, endangered species, and/or emblematic species. For
example, the main indicator species selected in Selva El Ocote were the Elegant Eagle and the
Jaguar. Given their large ranges, it was unclear whether sporadic sightings were of the same animal
or multiple individuals, leading to unclear data for management. Regular systematized population
studies across such a wide range proved too expensive and time-intensive. The PA Director in
retrospect felt that having a more cost-effective systematized approach to regularly monitor a more
localized species, such as amphibians, may in the long-run provide improved data on habitat
quality. The selection of appropriate indicator species is an ongoing, and healthy, debate globally –
not just within SINAP 2 sites. It reinforces the need to have habitat transformation data as well so
that multiple species trends can then be seen within the wider context.
An impressive part of the SINAP 2 experience has been the ongoing willingness of the publicprivate partners to work together to keep improving results. In 2009 a workshop was held to get
field feedback on the Monitoring and Evaluation efforts to date (CONANP-FMCN, Diagnostico). To
continue strengthening the ties between monitoring and POA management strategies to improve
the ability to assess management effectiveness, some of the recommendations were to:
1) Enhance capacity at the PA level for a dedicated and trained person to better manage
M&E activities;
2) Build greater linkages and networks for exchanging information on M&E efforts and
improving the capacity of all the participants (this is now a FANP priority for 2010);
3) Clarify monitoring protocols as part of an Operational Manual for the SIMEC;
4) Create greater synergies between the logical frameworks and biological indicators to
assist with management.
The evaluators applaud the ongoing efforts to enhance the utility of M&E data for managers. We
can see that CONANP, and its academic research partners, systematically monitor species in many
PAs, use a variety of scientifically valid methodologies, and are making an effort to connect the
surveys with feedback for protected area managers. The 2008 report from CONANP/FANP on the
biological indicators provides a sense of the huge variety of methods being undertaken and an
impressive array of species being tracked. These are all signs of a healthy M&E system being
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 45
aligned with efforts to increase management effectiveness. As a cautionary note however, it is not
always clear to date how much increased investment has resulted in improved management
effectiveness. As with any monitoring program, there is a danger of data collection becoming an
objective in its own right instead of being a tool for management. Thus, it is important going
forward to clearly articulate, at each stage of investment – and with the PA staff – on the uses that
will be made of the data collected. This is even more important as new types of monitoring are
increasing – such as sophisticated weather monitoring equipment in RB Pinacate – but with little
clarity on the ground of what additional data should be collected and how it will be used. What is
important going forward is that there be greater clarity on the costs and benefits of collecting ever
more species data, the uses being made of the data, and the value of that data for management.
4.6
LESSONS LEARNED
Lessons learned are detailed throughout this section. In summary, important lessons going forward
are:
1. A careful process went into the selection of SINAP 2 sites that is worth emulating for other
projects trying to conserve regionally and globally important biodiversity;
2. CONANP has recruited a core PA staff, developed management programs, undertaken
substantial outreach and has engaged with local communities in all PAs visited. The
evaluators believe this presence has been critically important in improving the
opportunities for PA biodiversity conservation;
3. Habitat transformation data is most useful as a management effectiveness indicator if
systematically provided on an annual or biannual basis;
4. Systematic fire data can prove remarkably useful for evolving management strategies in
forested systems, particularly when agricultural burns are one of the biggest threats to the
PA;
5. Community based fire brigades appeared to be very effective in reducing the threat of fire in
SINAP 2 PAs.
6. Species population surveys need to be more closely organized with PA Directors to help
improve their relevance for PA management strategies;
7. Some of the biggest threats affecting PA are due to illicit activities - activities that are not
being well policed by PROFEPA due to lack of staff and budget.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 46
5.0
PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY OF PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES IN
SELECT PAS
The second major Project result sought was the sustainability (economic, social and environmental)
of productive activities in selected protected areas. A full list of these activities is presented in
Annex D. The indicators for this result were: (1) “of the total area under productive use, the area of
sustainable use has doubled”, and (2) “of the total number of users, the number applying
sustainable practices has doubled” (FMCN, Manual de Operaciones, 2009, pg. 61).
5.1
MAJOR FINDINGS
Major findings are as follows:
1.
The indicators of success for this project result have been met and surpassed in all of
the PAs of the Project except one, Corredor Biologico Chichinautzin – PN el Tepozteco y
Lagunas de Zempoala.
2.
Sustainable productive activities, which CONANP termed “Sustainable Development
Initiatives” (the acronym in Spanish is IDSs) received about one-third of the GEF Project
funding. These funds were complemented by CONANP through its PROCODES
(Conservation Program for Sustainable Development), PET (Temporary Employment
Program) and native corn (maíz criollo) budget lines, and by other federal, state and
municipal agencies.
3.
The IDSs are managed by CONANP’s Project Coordination Unit through Project
Coordinators located in each of the SINAP 2 PAs. From 2004 to 2006, only the IDSs
funded by SINAP 2 were the responsibility of the Project Coordinators. However, since
2007, the Project Coordinators are in charge of all IDS Projects, regardless of the source
of funding. The one exception is the IDS type projects that are funded by PIE grants and
implemented by NGOs.
4.
The contribution of the Project to IDSs has increased during the last two years of the
Project through FANP funding for the Strategic Innovation Projects that often focus on
community development and are implemented by civil society organizations. As noted
above (Section 3.4.2) grant procedures for these projects are still being improved as
experience is gained. However, from 2010 onwards, the PAs have been discouraged
from proposing basic community activities as Strategic Innovation Projects since
funding for IDSs is available through CONANP’s PROCODES and PET budget lines, and
through other government agencies (2009 Operations Manual p 95).
5.
GEF sinking funds supported the creation of the PCU within CONANP (see Section 8.33)
and a Coordinator was assigned to each of the 12 PAs that are the focus of the SINAP 2
Project. The Coordinators guided and implemented all IDS Projects within their PA, and
also worked with other federal, state, and municipal agencies to seek out and harmonize
their inputs into the IDSs. Though the work of these Coordinators is in general highly
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 47
praised, they themselves realize that their focus has been more on social and economic
objectives, while less attention has been given to conservation objectives.
6.
Social and economic indicators on the success of IDSs were generally tracked, while
associated conservation indicators tended not to be.
7.
The quality of the IDSs varies considerably within and between PAs. The evaluators
saw projects that were excellent and effective in terms of social, economic, and
conservation objectives. Others were doing well in terms of conservation objectives,
but not so well in terms of social and economic objectives; the reverse is also found,
while still others seemed to be failing on all fronts.
8.
All available evidence suggests that the expenditures for the IDSs have been carefully
tracked and reported in a transparent manner. Irregularities that have been detected
have been resolved.
9.
In general, IDSs seem to have forged good relations with implementing civil society
organizations, and with local communities. In some instances, however, these projects
are used primarily as a subsidy for local communities, and seem to be generating
dependencies that are not healthy in the long run.
10.
In several cases, community members mentioned their disappointment with the low
level of economic returns generated by the IDSs, and were outspoken about their need
for greater investment from CONANP and FANP.
11.
A variety of government agencies at the federal and state levels (agricultural, forestry,
fisheries, tourism, rural development, and environmental agencies) also provide
funding to local communities for IDSs in and around the selected PAs. Several sources
indicated that there is significant potential to increase the level and diversity of these
sources of funding.
12.
The level of coordination with other government agencies with respect to projects in
support of IDSs in and around protected areas is highly variable depending on the area
and institutional and personal relations.
13.
Projects that improve the quality of life, such as home water cisterns, lorena stoves, and
agricultural terraces, were not designed for income-generation, but improved local
sufficiency and were highly regard by community members.
14.
The Project Coordinators, funded by the Project, helped coordinate IDS investments
from other federal, state, and municipal agencies thus multiplying the funding available
to communities.
15.
PAs tend to be located in areas with limited economic potential where agricultural and
livestock rearing activities are marginal at best, and some IDSs relating to these land
uses appear not to be viable in the long run. Indeed, IDS projects related to livestock
management may be propping up activities that seek to defy the limits of land use
capabilities. In the long run this is a disservice to local populations and a real threat to
conservation.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 48
5.2
16.
In several instances the evaluators noted that the ejidos or small land owners who were
involved in projects made their living outside of the PA and carried out productive
activities in the PA as a hobby or as an additional, but marginal, income source.
17.
Some of the IDSs, especially those related to tourism, do not appear to be economically
viable in the short run, though several have developed quality infrastructure that could
hold the potential for economic viability in the future.
18.
In almost all instances where tourism activities have been supported, marketing has not
been adequately taken into account.
19.
IDSs cover a broad range of themes (see Annex D), and CONANP staff cannot be
expected to be technically competent in all of them. Thus, easy access to qualified
technical backup is a prerequisite for successful outcomes. While the PCU attempted to
provide the necessary backup, this was not always effective and sometimes was not
requested when it should have been. Of the projects observed by the evaluators, those
that received inputs from Universities appeared to be the best designed from a technical
standpoint.
PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR SUSTAINABLE ACTIVITIES
Noting that over 80% of the lands within the national system of protected areas are communally
held by ejidos or individually held by small landowners, CONANP has from the beginning had the
policy to respect landownership and only regulate resource use within the protected areas. As a
consequence, resource management to a large extent depends on the development of sustainable
use patterns among the communities within and around protected areas.
Plans for sustainable activities (called Plans for Community Development Programs by CONANP)
were used to apply the general policy within individual protected areas. These plans are developed
based on the following principles:
1. The Plans should be developed through participatory processes without distinction as to
gender or ethnicity.
2. Biodiversity conservation and the development of local communities is a co-responsibility.
3. These ideals are pursued through productive projects that encourage both conservation and
sustainable development.
In developing these projects, CONANP sought to;
1.
2.
maximize synergies with other government agencies at the federal, state, and municipal levels;
focus on productive activities that provide a sustainable alternative to on-going nonsustainable activities; and
3. promote community participation and organization.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 49
The general policies outlined above were put into action through a process that began by
developing Plans for Community Development Programs, based on the following planning process:
1. Analysis of the environmental, social and economic conditions of the community;
2. Information on the current management and use of natural resources;
3. Identification of the impacts that are caused by restrictions imposed on communities by the
Protected Area Administration with respect to access to, and use of, natural resources;
4. Analysis of the threats and opportunities to sustainable development; and,
5. Identification of potential sustainable development investments that could be used to mitigate
threats and capitalize on opportunities.
As discussed in Section 6.4, every year the log frames, POAs, and plans for sustainable development
initiatives are presented to the PA Advisory Councils or subcouncils for feedback before final
approval.
Thus, the major output of the Plan was the identification of potential IDSs.
5.3
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (IDS) PROJECTS
IDS projects are the major tool used to implement CONANP’s Community Development Programs.
During the Project, roughly 58% of the funding for this was provided by GEF funding, 30% was
contributed by CONANP, and 12% was provided by other federal, state, and municipal agencies
(Sistematización Document, 2009). During the last two years of the project, additional funding for
productive activities was provided by the FANP component of the Project budget for Strategic
Innovation Projects (PIEs) through grants made to civil society organizations for Basic Community
Activities.
GEF funding for IDSs is called “mainstreaming funds” in the Project Document, but commonly called
“SINAP 2 funds” by Project participants. The SINAP 2 funds were spent as normal project
disbursements on a sinking fund basis, and were administered by NAFIN for CONANP. CONANP
funding came from their PROCODES, PET, and Maiz Criollo (native corn) budget lines and was
complemented by funding from other Federal, State, and Municipal agencies.
When the use of interest generated by the SINAP 2 FANP Endowment was shifted during the last
two years of the project so that 80% was assigned to Special Innovation Projects (hereafter
referred to as PIEs for the acronym in Spanish) and implemented through non-governmental
organizations, this resulted in an increased number of IDSs funded by the Project, which jumped
from an average of 11 per year to 16 per year. While technical studies, community projects, and
community capacity building are all eligible activities for funding as PIEs, during the past two years
77% of the PIE funds were spent on community projects. It is too early, however, to be able to
evaluate the PIE funded IDSs. From 2010 onward, the PAs are being discouraged from proposing
community projects for PIE funding since there are ample opportunities to finance these kinds of
projects CONAMP and other government agencies.
According to the PAD, it was expected that funding for the IDSs would be split between the GoM and
the SINAP 2 Project with about 75% funded by the GoM and 25% funded by SINAP 2. A PowerPoint
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 50
prepared for the last World Bank Supervision Mission by CONANP indicated that at the end of the
Project, the breakdown was roughly 70% funded by the GoM and 30% funded by SINAP2 as shown
in Chart 5.3 below.
Chart 5.3: Funding for Sustainable Development Initiatives (IDSs) in Mexican Pesos
PROYECTO SINAP II
FUENTES DE FINANCIAMIENTO DE IDS
OTRAS FUENTES DE
FINANCIAMIENTO,
$43,304,404.84, 69%
SINAP II,
$19,120,316.17, 31%

Source: CONANP PCU
Further details on these IDSs with respect to the annual amount financed, the number of projects,
and sources of funding is provided in Table 5.3.
Implementation of the IDS project concepts that were identified through the Plans for Community
Development and funded by SINAP 2 started with a rigorous planning process. IDS project concepts
were further analyzed by developing technical, financial and market analyses, and by weighing
potential operational and administrative structures. These analyses provided the basis for detailed
descriptions of the projects, the design of training plans, the development of contracts with the
community, and the development of work and disbursement schedules.
However, it should be noted that the inputs to the planning process were not always used to inform
implementation. This was especially true with respect to information on the use and management
of natural resources by the communities, the limitations that were imposed on resource use when
the protected areas was created, and the market analysis that was undertaken. As a result, there
was little recognition or use of traditional resource management by the community, the link
between limitations on resource caused by establishment of the PA and alternative projects was
lost, and marketing was largely ignored. Perhaps most critical of all was the lack of integration of
social, economic, and conservation objectives. This was exacerbated by the concentration on social
and economic indicators, while giving much less attention to conservation indicators.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 51
Table 5.3: Breakdown of Financial Contributions (Mexican pesos) to IDS Projects by Protected Area
ANP
ALTO GOLFO DE CALIFORNIA Y
DELTA DEL RÍO COLORADO
BANCO CHINCHORRO - PN
ARRECIFES DE XCALAK
CORREDOR BIOLÓGICO
CHICHINAÚTZIN; PARQUE
NACIONAL LAGUNAS DE ZEMPOALA
Y PARQUE NACIONAL EL TEPOZTECO
CUATROCIÉNEGAS
EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DE
ALTAR
LA ENCRUCIJADA
LA SEPULTURA
PANTANOS DE CENTLA
AÑO
PROYECTOS
AVANCES
AVANCES
FINANCIERO
FINANCIERO
SINAP II
OTRAS
APORTACIÓN SINAP
II (%)
2004
1
$269,576.75
$133,000.00
66.96
2005
1
$263,820.00
$1,004,900.00
20.79
2006
1
$195,470.00
$60,000.00
76.51
2007
1
$118,000.00
$24,000.00
83.10
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
2008
1
$250,550.00
$13,500.00
94.89
COMUNIDAD, PROCODES
2007
4
$842,857.00
$1,588,145.00
34.67
COMUNIDAD, PET, COOPERATIVAS PESQUERAS, PRODERS
2009
2
$450,000.00
$1,314,250.00
25.51
COMUNIDAD, PET, COOPERATIVAS PESQUERAS, PROCODES
2004
1
$298,627.00
$400,135.20
42.74
SIERRA LA LAGUNA
TEHUACÁN CUICATLÁN
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS, PET, CDI, CONAFOR,
AYUNTAMIENTO/MUNICIPIO
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, FANP, PET, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, FANP, AYUNTAMIENTO DE MORELOS, PET,
CONAFOR, CDI, NATURALIA, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, FANP, AYUNTAMIENTO DE MORELOS, PET,
CONAFOR, CDI, NATURALIA, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, FANP, PET, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, FANP, AYUNTAMIENTO DE MORELOS, PET,
CONAFOR, CDI, NATURALIA, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, FANP PET, PRODERS
2005
2
$421,101.09
$4,208,048.59
9.10
2006
3
$701,955.26
$4,285,250.20
14.08
2008
3
$732,000.00
$3,022,000.00
19.50
2009
3
$1,320,000.00
$3,232,018.00
29.00
2006
3
$529,548.80
$883,417.50
37.48
2009
2
$200,000.00
$300,000.00
40.00
COMUNIDAD,DIRECCION DEL ANP, PROCODES
2005
4
$714,084.00
$669,223.30
51.62
COMUNIDAD, PET, SECRETARIA AL SERVICIO ESTATAL DE
EMPLEO, TNC, SEETAP, PRODERS
2006
1
$250,000.00
$443,923.00
36.03
2008
3
$750,000.00
$1,027,254.00
42.20
2009
2
$500,000.00
$283,200.00
63.84
2005
2
$769,550.00
$372,740.00
67.37
2006
1
$250,000.00
$81,500.00
75.41
2007
1
$250,000.00
$97,000.00
72.05
2008
3
$500,000.00
$203,740.00
71.05
2009
1
$350,000.00
$370,000.00
48.61
2005
3
$579,272.00
$1,017,736.00
36.27
COMUNIDAD, PET, SECRETARIA AL SERVICIO ESTATAL DE
EMPLEO, TNC, SEETAP, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PET, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PET, CONAFOR, COPLANTA, PRONATURA,
PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PET, CONAFOR, COPLANTA, PRONATURA,
PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PET, CONAFOR, COPLANTA, PRONATURA,
PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PET, CONAFOR, COPLANTA, PRONATURA,
PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PET, CONAFOR, COPLANTA, PRONATURA,
PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
2006
1
$197,500.00
$682,000.00
22.46
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
2007
1
$268,950.00
$710,250.00
27.47
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
2008
1
$250,000.00
$1,084,700.00
18.73
COMUNIDAD, PROCODES
2009
1
$260,000.00
$650,000.00
28.57
2007
2
$498,210.00
$2,050,180.00
19.55
2008
3
$719,666.38
$1,263,200.00
36.29
2005
2
$518,764.00
$1,063,984.00
32.78
2005
1
$210,754.02
$187,780.00
52.88
2006
2
$407,313.38
$128,680.00
75.99
COMUNIDAD, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PRONATURA CHIAPAS, CDI, CONAFOR, AIRES DE
CAMBIO, MUN DE OCOZOCOAUTLA, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PRONATURA CHIAPAS, CDI, CONAFOR, AIRES DE
CAMBIO, MUN DE OCOZOCOAUTLA, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PET, COORD. DE TURISMO DEL EDO. DE SONORA,
PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, MUN. DE LA PAZ Y LOS CABOS, DIRECCIÓN ANP.,
PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
2007
1
$173,730.74
$52,649.05
76.74
2008
1
$1,480,137.00
$2,184,000.00
40.40
2004
1
$114,690.00
$892,750.00
11.38
2006
3
$523,702.75
$347,089.00
60.14
2007
1
$147,060.00
$124,800.00
54.09
2008
4
$1,103,426.00
$6,392,362.00
14.72
2009
3
$740,000.00
$19,120,316.17
$455,000.00
$43,304,404.84
61.92
30.63
SELVA EL OCOTE
SIERRA DE ALAMOS -RÍO
CUCHUJAQUI
OTRAS FUENTES DE FINANCIAMIENTO
TOTAL
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, MUN. DE LA PAZ Y LOS CABOS, DIRECCIÓN ANP.,
PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, FANP, ALIANZA PARA LA COOPERACIÓN
ESPÑOLA, PET, CONAFOR, SEDESOL, INDESOL, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, PRODERS
COMUNIDAD, FANP, ALIANZA PARA LA COOPERACIÓN
ESPÑOLA, PET, CONAFOR, SEDESOL, INDESOL, PROCODES
COMUNIDAD, PROCODES
Page 52
Most of the work on the IDSs was spearheaded by the Project Coordinators who were hired with
GEF sinking funds and assigned to each of the 12 SINAP 2 sites. The Coordinators were selected by
the Directors of these areas. Each used different selection criteria, so in the end the Coordinators
came from very different backgrounds. Yet through their determination and dedication, they were
able to overcome numerous difficulties to implement with success a good number of the projects
that they developed and guided. Indeed, there was remarkable agreement among those
interviewed that the Project Coordinators were a rather extraordinary group that had added a
whole new dimension to the PA staff. The PCU Unit in CONANP provided opportunities for the
Project Coordinators to share lessons learned and to access technical assistance and training
programs for local implementers. However, in some cases the technical assistance was ineffective,
and in others was not requested when it was needed.
IDS projects included a number of “quality of life” activities that were not designed for incomegeneration but improved local self-sufficiency. These included a number of villages that received
rain fed cisterns for home water consumption, lorena stoves to decrease the amount of fire wood
required for cooking and reduce smoke in cooking areas, and community museums that were
important in developing local pride. Another type of project where economic objectives are not
primary, but which have been quite successful, are those that target the development of community
fire brigades. The Project helped pay for tools and training, and the communities built fire breaks
around their agricultural fields to diminish combustible materials and help control agricultural
burns. These groups have also often received PET funding to assist with wildfire control or to
create fire breaks in key areas to protect PAs. This is a good example of different sources of funding
being used to create positive synergies.
Even though a good number of the IDS income generation projects were successful, especially some
of those related to tourism, they were all carried out in relative isolation. While the Project
Coordinators were good at sharing information and learning from each other, there was no attempt
to fit these projects into larger frameworks or to develop linkages with productive networks in the
region. Taken together, the IDS projects are rather miniscule in comparison to the overall resource
use picture, though actual statistics are not available. The impact on conservation of the IDS
Projects has never been evaluated in a systematic way, nor has there been much effort to fit the
projects into overall community resource use plans.
5.4
SUCCESS OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
Two verifiable indicators were chosen to measure the success of the “productive activities”
component of the project. These were: (1) within the total area under productive use, the
proportion under sustainable use has doubled; and (2) among resource users, the proportion that
applies sustainable practices has doubled. These indicators have been met and surpassed in all of
the Project areas except for one, Corredor Biologico Chichinautzin – PN el Tepozteco y Lagunas de
Zempoala. The actual increases in total area under productive use and the number of beneficiaries
by PA from the beginning to the end of the Project are presented in Table 5.4.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 53
Table 5.4: Increases in Land Area Under Sustainable Use and Number of Beneficiaries During the Life of the Project
ANP
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA ALTO
GOLFO DE
CALIFORNIA Y
DELTA DEL RÍO
COLORADO
SUPERFICIE
TOTAL (Ha.)
934,756.25
SUPERFICIE
ZONA
NÚCLEO
(Ha.)
SUPERFICIE ZONA DE
AMORTIGUAMIENTO
(Ha.)
164,779.75
769,976.50
POBLACIÓN
TOTAL
(Mx Pesos)
3,377
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA BANCO
CHINCHORRO - PN
ARRECIFES DE
XCALAK
162,309
11,493
151,217
335
SUBTOTAL
ÁREA DE
PROTECCIÓN DE
FLORA Y FAUNA
CORREDOR
BIOLÓGICO
CHICHINAUTZIN PN EL TEPOZTECO y
LAGUNAS DE
ZEMPOALA
65,722
NA
NA
53,865
SUBTOTAL
ÁREA DE
PROTECCIÓN DE
FLORA Y FAUNA
CUATROCIÉNEGAS
84,347
NA
SUBTOTAL
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
NA
AÑO
MONTO
FINANCIADO
13,465
SUPERFICIE
BAJO USO
SUSTENTABLE
(Ha.)
ACUMULADO
NÚMERO DE
BENEFICIARIOS
ACUMULADO
% POBLACIÓN
ANP
BENEFICIADA
% SUPERFICIE
BAJO USO
SUSTENTABLE
2002
$0.00
4500.00
25
0.74
0.58
2009
$5,927,167.63
159050.00
2810
83.21
20.66
2003
$237,245.00
0.00
50
14.93
0.00
2009
$7,087,214.29
144360.00
1960
585.07
95.47
2003
$140,000.00
200.00
310
0.58
0.30
2009
$8,198,221.09
290.00
2461
4.57
0.44
2002
$94,898.00
40.00
70
0.52
0.05
2009
$9,519,078.80
4088.58
7387
54.86
4.85
Page 54
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA EL
PINACATE Y GRAN
DESIERTO DE
ALTAR
714,557
269,505.25
445,051.25
200
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA LA
ENCRUCIJADA
144,868
36,216
108,652
26,992
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA LA
SEPULTURA
167,310
13759
153550
23,145
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA
PANTANOS DE
CENTLA
302,707
133,595
169,111
16,293
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA SELVA EL
OCOTE
101,288
40431.87
60,856.27
6,246
SUBTOTAL
ÁREA DE
PROTECCIÓN DE
FLORA Y FAUNA
SIERRA DE
ALAMOS RÍO
CUCHUJAQUI
92,890
NA
NA
402
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA SIERRA
112,437
32,519.82
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
79917.24
738
2005
$273,402.80
0.00
60
30.00
0.00
2009
$4,229,112.80
501.00
387
193.50
0.11
2002
$292,081.63
10.02
655
2.43
0.01
2009
$13,781,222.63
463.91
4029
14.93
0.43
2002
$210,188.00
20.01
79
0.34
0.01
2009
$10,674,368.00
7383.01
5059
21.86
4.81
2002
$168,887.05
162.58
390
2.39
0.10
2009
$32,968,263.55
1395.42
13321
81.76
0.83
2002
$157,356.00
36.00
536
8.58
0.06
2009
$13,713,467.38
1811.75
13730
219.82
2.98
2002
$915,929.68
30.00
425
105.72
0.03
2009
$9,679,292.53
3715.00
2655
658.81
4.00
2002
$445,912.00
0.00
188
25.47
0.00
Page 55
LA LAGUNA
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA
TEHUACÁN
CUICATLÁN
119,177
93,414
25,763
13,778
SUBTOTAL
RESERVA DE LA
BIOSFERA MAPIMÍ
342388.22
28532.77
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
313855.45
353
2009
$10,485,771.98
100.00
1577
213.66
0.13
2004
$114,690.00
1401.00
913
6.63
5.44
2009
$16,387,634.75
4872.90
11502
83.48
18.91
2002
$94,898.00
100.00
20
5.67
0.03
2009
$4,481,314.40
27869.56
1407
398.58
8.88
$142,650,815.43
472391.57
66878
Page 56
The evaluators found that the quality of the IDSs in general varies considerably within and between
PAs. This is certainly true for the IDSs supported by the SINAP 2 mainstreaming funds. The few
IDSs supported by PIE funding have only been in place for one year, so it is too early to evaluate
them.
Some of the IDS projects visited by the evaluators appeared to be well designed and implemented.
Preliminary outcomes seemed to be effective in terms of social, economic, and conservation
objectives. Other projects were doing well in terms of conservation objectives, but not so well in
terms of social and economic values, and the opposite was found as well. In yet other cases, the
projects appeared to be failing on all fronts, at least in the short run.
It needs to be remembered that PAs tend to be located in areas with limited economic potential
where agricultural and livestock rearing activities are marginal at best. Several supposedly
sustainable productive initiatives do not appear to be viable, at least in the short run. In a few
instances, the projects seem to be propping up activities that seek to defy the limits of land use
capabilities. In the long run, subsidizing such efforts is a disservice to local populations and a real
threat to conservation.
The tourism related IDS projects visited by the evaluators varied in quality, especially with regard
to the feasibility studies and infrastructure that has been developed, and the degree of community
organization, though the balance was on the positive side. In some instances, community members
had received substantial training in adventure tourism options (e.g. rappelling and cave rafting) as
well as in CPR and emergency services. However, the amount of time and effort required to
develop tourism infrastructure has taken a toll on some of the community organizations whose
membership has dropped over the years. The concern now is a coherent marketing strategy that
will increase levels of visitation. While a new effort is under way with the hiring of New Ventures to
promote a number of these tourism projects, the lack of marketing to date raises questions about
economic viability and the amount of time community members will continue to invest in these
facilities.
In several instances the evaluators noted that individuals from ejidos or small land owners who
were involved in projects made their livelihoods outside the PA and carried out productive
activities in the PA as a hobby or as an additional, but marginal, income source. This is not
necessarily bad if the project is instrumental in converting unsustainable activities into sustainable
ones, and serves as a positive demonstration that influences other landowners. It does raise the
question, however, of priorities. All things being equal, priority should be given to supporting
recipients who are less economically advantaged. In practice, though, things are never equal, and a
broad range of variables need to be taken into account.
IDSs cover a broad range of themes, and CONANP staff cannot be expected to be technically
competent in all of them. Thus, ready access to qualified technical backup is a prerequisite for
successful outcomes together with the recognition of the need to draw on this expertise at critical
junctures. Indeed, of the projects observed by the evaluators, those that received inputs from
Universities appeared to be the best designed from a technical standpoint.
All available evidence suggests that the expenditures for the IDSs have been carefully tracked and
reported in a transparent manner. Irregularities that have been detected have been resolved. This
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 57
finding is consistent with the findings of the mid-term and final independent evaluations of SINAP
1, and the midterm evaluation of SINAP 2.
5.5
SUSTAINABLE ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
In general, IDSs seem to have served to forge positive relations with implementing civil society
organizations, and with local communities. Interviews with local community members indicated
great appreciation for the projects and optimism and excitement about being able to submit
proposals for future ideas. In a few communities, the evaluators also saw the Project Coordinators,
make a special effort to engage local women in developing ideas for proposals. The breakdown of
beneficiaries by gender is included in Graph 5.5
Graph 5.5:
Participation by Gender in Sustainable Development Initiatives
INICIATIVAS DE DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE
PARTICIPACIÓN POR GÉNERO
MIXTO, 65, 78%
HOMBRES, 13, 16%
MUJERES, 5, 6%

CONANP. Misión de Supervisión del Banco Mundial al Proyecto Consolidación de Áreas Naturales Protegidas –
SINAP II. PowerPoint.
While the long-term prospects of many of these projects are positive, in some instances, these
projects seem to be generating dependencies that are not healthy in the long run. Indeed, in several
cases, community members mentioned their disappointment with the low level of economic returns
generated by the IDSs, and were outspoken about their need for greater investment from CONANP
and FANP.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 58
A variety of government agencies at the federal and state levels (agricultural, forestry, fisheries,
tourism, rural development, and environmental agencies) have also provided funding to local
communities for IDSs in and around the selected PAs. Several persons interviewed indicated that
there is significant potential to increase the level and diversity of these sources of funding. The
level of coordination with other government agencies with respect to projects in support of IDSs in
and around protected areas is highly variable depending on the area and institutional and personal
relations, though in general the importance of such coordination is recognized and pursued.
5.6
LESSONS LEARNED
1. Though it is too early to gauge the success of the PIE Projects themselves, some quick lessons
have been learned with respect to the grant-making process. From that standpoint, the PIEs are
most successful when:
a. they require counterpart funding from the implementing organization;
b. focus on critical management issues;
c. well functioning projects are extended over a number of years; and,
d. there is strong interaction between the PA management team and the implementing
organization.
2. The potential for increasing PA funding through alliances with other government agencies at
the federal, state, and municipal level would appear to be quite large, and is perhaps the largest
untapped source of funding.
3. The economic, social, and conservation objectives of IDS Projects are equally important, and the
processes for designing, monitoring and evaluating them must address each effectively.
4. IDS Project Coordinators can come from any number of backgrounds and still be successful.
What is critical is that they are well integrated into overall management of the PA, have
opportunities to share experience and learn from one another, have relatively easy access to
technical consultant and are well trained in their use.
5. One of the criteria for selecting IDS Projects should be the degree to which they fit into regional
networks that can provide support services, economies of scale, opportunities for collective
marketing, and integration into the local economy. This is especially true of projects related to
tourism.
6. “Quality of Life” projects can be effective in offsetting the resource use limitations imposed by
protected area status even though such projects may not generate cash income.
7. Universities can often play a key role in providing technical support for the design,
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of IDS and PIE projects.
8. Experience with the successful multi-year SINAP 2 funded IDS projects suggests that the
annually funded PROCODES, PET and Maiz Criollo Projects might also benefit from multi-year
project designs.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 59
6.0
PROMOTE SOCIAL CO-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSERVATION
Promoting social co-responsibility for conservation was the third major result of the Project
indicated in the Project POA (Manual de Operaciones, 2009, pg. 62-65). The verifiable indicator for
this objective was “at least 80% of conservation initiatives are the result of participatory processes
promoted by the Project (including the design and implementation of the initiatives).
6.1
MAJOR FINDINGS
Major findings are as follows:
1. Each year the Logical Frameworks, Annual Operations Plans (POAs), Annual Reports,
and productive activities (PROCODES, SINAP II, PET, and others) are reviewed by the
Advisory Councils and/or Sub-Councils that function at the PA level, and for the FANP as
a whole. Each of these entities is made up of stakeholder groups, and thus all
conservation initiatives are the result of participatory processes at the national level,
and all of those initiatives undertaken within PAs with functioning Advisory Councils
and/or Sub-Councils are reviewed at the site level as well.
2. The Project has had a catalyzing effect on the development of a conservation culture
amongst government agencies, civil society, visitors, users of natural resources,
students, and the private sector.
3.
The tools that can be used to promote co-responsibility for conservation are many, and
include, among others: (a) the IDS and PIE Projects; (b) local Advisory Councils; (c)
initiatives to harmonize environmental policies with other government agencies; (d) the
evaluation and verification of environmental impacts and changes in land use for
infrastructure projects in the PAs; (e) the inspection and regulation of natural resource
uses; and (f) environmental education and interpretation programs.
4. The Project has been implemented through processes which are in alignment with the
Indigenous People’s Policy of the World Bank.
5.
The IDS and PIE projects have provided a whole suite of opportunities to work with
local communities and the civil sector, and to formalize co-responsibility for
conservation through project agreements.
6.
The experience with Protected Area Councils has been quite varied and seems to
depend to a great extent on the interest of the PA Directors in engaging with, and
supporting, the Councils.
7.
Efforts to harmonize environmental policies with other federal, state, and municipal
agencies have provided excellent opportunities for promoting co-responsibility for
conservation, and for exploring opportunities for co-financing of conservation projects.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 60
8.
While few of the PAs are in areas where there is significant infrastructure development,
those that are have played a key role in reviewing environmental impact analyses, and
proposals for land use changes.
9.
The regulation of resource uses within the PAs has many times initiated conflicts with
local communities. However, over time, PA managers have often been able to smooth
those conflicts and find common objectives with resource users. IDSs and PIEs have
been important tools in finding ways to resolve resource use issues and encourage
sustainability.
10. Environmental education and interpretation projects have been instrumental in
promoting a culture of conservation among students living in and around PAs, and with
the public that visits PAs.
6.2
ALIGNMENT WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S POLICY OF THE WORLD BANK
Programs for the Development of Indigenous Communities (PDPI is the acronym in Spanish) are
the main tool that has been used to implement the Indigenous People’s Policy of the World Bank.
The PDPIs are a specific component of the social strategy that is required for each of the SINAP 2
PAs that have indigenous communities in or around them. The PDPIs seek to (a) strengthen
indigenous institutions, (b) provide support for participation in management of the PA, (c)
encourage sustainable development initiatives compatible with native culture, and (d) support
indigenous values and traditions. The PA administrations are authorized to develop activities
directly with indigenous communities or their authorities through the PDPI mechanism. The
Annual Operating Plans of the SINAP 2 PAs include a specific section on, and budgets for,
implementation of the PDPIs, and each has been approved by the World Bank. Implementation
agreements for the actions contained in the PDPIs is accomplished through the signing of MOUs
between the PA and indigenous groups or their authorities which lay out the terms of the activity,
and the way it will be funded, monitored, and evaluated.
It is interesting to note that 44% of the IDSs undertaken in the twelve SINAP 2 PAs were
implemented by indigenous groups. Thus the conclusions and lessons learned regarding the IDSs
apply fully to those implemented by indigenous groups. It is also impressive that many of the
complimentary funds obtained for IDS support have come from the Indigenous Development
Commission (CDI) with whom CONANP staff has developed a good ongoing working relationship.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 61
Graph 6.2:
Participation by Ethnicity in Sustainable Development Initiatives
INICIATIVAS DE DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE
PARTICIPACIÓN INDÍGENA
IDS EJECUTADAS
POR GRUPOS
INDÍGENAS
34
44%
IDS CON
PARTICIPACIÓN
MESTIZA
44
56%
Grupos Étnicos participantes: Popolaca, Nahuatl, Chontal, Mixteco, Tlacuila, Tzotzil y Tohonoo`Odham y Mazateco

6.3
CONANP. Misión de Supervisión del Banco Mundial al Proyecto Consolidación de Áreas Naturales Protegidas –
SINAP II. PowerPoint.
IDS AND PIE PROJECTS
Both the IDS and PIE Projects have enabled PA staff to interact on a regular basis with local
communities, building confidence and trust, while delivering the conservation message. The
evaluators were struck by the capacity of local communities to understand and discuss
conservation themes, and to advocate conservation measures. While some of this may be a case of
telling the evaluators what they want to hear, it at least indicates a solid familiarity with the themes.
There is also a self selection process involved here, because only community groups interested in
participation in the IDSs are selected, so there is already a predisposition to engage in sustainable
production activities. An evaluator also heard about cases where community groups were opposed
to the PA and its administration, and were not willing to consider conversion to sustainable use
practices. However, this appears to be the exception rather than the rule.
Training and organizational development activities are a regular component of the IDS Project and
can be part of PIE projects as well, and these activities have provided tools to communities that
allow them to generate the financial resources that allow them to put into practice the conservation
concepts that they learn. In addition, some of the IMAC supported training and networking projects
– particularly one on the effectiveness of Advisory Councils – have also been a key part of this
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 62
project (see Section 8.4.1). In addition, once community groups learn how to achieve their aims and
objectives, these skills can be applied to any number of endeavors.
The PIEs in particular have provided opportunities for the PA Administrations to develop true
partnerships with civil society organizations. This has the effect of not only multiplying
conservation activities in and around the PAs, but also supporting the development of institutional
capacities that will grow conservation work in the surrounding region.
6.4
PROTECTED AREA ADVISORY COUNCILS
While Advisory Councils are an excellent means for working on a regular basis with PA
stakeholders, and drawing them into the complexities of conservation practice, they have not been
successful in all PAs. From the discussions the evaluators had in the five SINAP 2 PAs visited, it
appears that the main ingredient that distinguishes between successful, less successful, and failed
Advisory Councils, is the interests of the PA Director. If the Director finds the Advisory Council
useful, he/she tends to make it work.
The PCU has given particular attention to the needs of the Advisory Councils, and has organized
training courses, provided facilitators when needed, and sought to develop learning networks. The
IMAC project (Section 8.4.1) also provided additional facilitation and best practices support to
Advisory Councils. PA Directors have also promoted Sub-Councils where needed to address gaps in
geographical or thematic coverage. The effect of these initiatives has been to make the successful
ones more successful, and to help develop the less successful ones. Still, managing Advisory
Councils across large distances, covering a number of indigenous languages, and major cultural
differences is a weighty task to take on. Even with PCU inputs, it was not hard to understand why
some PA Directors do not make regular meetings a priority.
One evaluator attended meetings of Advisory Councils in the PAs visited. In all cases, the Council
Meetings were long, rambling, and ambiguous in terms of decisions or agreements. This would lead
one to believe that busy people would tend to lose interest. This may be a culturally biased
observation, however. It was obvious that the Councils are perceived by many as an opportunity to
interact with a variety of important individuals with whom they would not normally interact. Thus
a Council meeting is at once a social event as well as an opportunity to promote individual agendas
with people who count. Because of this, a long rambling meeting might meet a number of
individual objectives without necessarily meeting PA objectives.
Some PA Directors are taking steps to try to make the Advisory Councils more focused. For
example, in Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, an exceptionally large PA crossing 2 states, 51 municipalities, and
many ethnic groups, three sub Advisory Groups have been created to work directly with subdirectors assigned to the 3 regions. These sub-groups are more homogenous. They are divided
along state boundaries and can do more useful work based on the different realities in the various
areas and the fact that PA management strategies can vary in how they impact local communities.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 63
6.5 HARMONIZATION OF LAND AND RESOURCE USE POLICIES
It is impressive to note the number of international, federal, state, and municipal agencies that
interact with a given PA. Thus, the potential exists everywhere to harness a variety of human and
financial resources, equipment, and infrastructure that belong to sister agencies. PA Directors have
found that harmonization of environmental policies is one of the most effective means for
harnessing the resources of other agencies and developing shared agendas.
Still, it was pointed out by several individuals at different levels within CONANP that they have only
begun to make use of sister agencies to further the PA agenda. Much more can be accomplished,
and the field is wide open for entrepreneurial staff. However, to make the most of this opportunity,
more work needs to be done to identify the most effective and efficient mechanisms for making this
happen. Harmonization of land and resource use policies is one such mechanism, but no doubt
there are many others that should be explored. Suggestions in this regard are included in Section
9.3 on recommendations.
6.6 EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
In several of the SINAP 2 PAs, infrastructure development is happening at an accelerating rate
while in others it is only incipient. No doubt, it will become important in almost all of the PAs in the
future. In many instances, the establishment and management of a PA is in itself a factor in
accelerating the demand for infrastructure development.
One tool that has proved useful is the development of an on-line tracking tool for all developments
that result in a change of land use within the PA system. This tool provides clear direction on the
process for carrying out environmental impact studies, lists all developments that have not yet had
an environmental impact assessment completed, and tracks the number of days between posting of
the development and completion of the impact assessment. Thus, at any given moment one can
determine the status of developments and their impact assessments for all PAs in the system.
Some of the PAs have a unique in-house capacity to evaluate the environmental impact studies that
are required for significant infrastructure projects. In other instances, consultants must be hired.
The evaluation provides an opportunity to dialog with the interested parties, and instances have
provided the framework within which biodiversity offsets can be explored and discussed. Thus, the
evaluation process for environmental impact assessments provides an important opportunity to
avoid confrontation, build confidence and mutual respect, and seek solutions that work for all
stakeholders.
For a few of the SINAP 2 PAs, the number of infrastructure projects is daunting. In these cases the
PA Administration has had to begin on a selective basis, but as capacities and experience have been
built, they have been able to steadily increase the percentage of EIAs that are evaluated.
6.7 REGULATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE USES
A few of the SINAP 2 PAs, especially the marine and forest PAs, have major resource uses that are
regulated by the PA itself, or because of national or state laws that are enforced by sister agencies.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 64
In either case, the regulation process provides an opportunity to interact on a regular basis with
sister agencies, and to draw on their resources and legal mandates for enforcement. CONANP does
not have a mandate for law enforcement nor the capacity. Thus, cooperation with federal and state
enforcement agencies is extremely important in some cases.
There is, however, one resource use that has defied enforcement, and that is the growth of plants
that feed the illegal drug market. Obviously this is a problem that plagues PAs around the world,
and for which few solutions have been found. The use of force can lead to wider social problems, so
creative solutions are required to deal with the problems that this kind of resource use creates.
Fires caused by land-clearing activities are a particular concern (See Section 4.4.1).
6.8
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION PROJECTS
Each of the SINAP 2 PAs has instituted environmental education programs and several that have
significant visitation have developed interpretive programs. The evaluators were impressed by the
interest in these programs that was displayed by the local schools and students, and the role this
plays in spreading a culture of conservation. In a number of cases PAs had collaborated with the
RARE Pride campaign and continued using many of the emblematic species and other educational
materials developed from that partnership.
One interpretation project that merits special mention is the Pinacate Visitor Center. The quality of
the landscape and architectural design, construction, and maintenance is superb. The nature trails
and the training of staff in attending the public are also excellent. But perhaps the most interesting
aspect of the Center is that it is self-sufficient in terms of energy use through solar and wind power.
This provides a powerful demonstration effect and is a good initial experience that could inform the
development of a wider process of developing zero emission PAs.
6.9
LESSONS LEARNED
1. Protected Area Councils are an important tool for developing the culture of conservation and
for stakeholder participation. The success of the Councils tends to depend to a large degree on
the interest and inputs of the PA Director. Thus, the training of PA Directors in the
establishment and nurturing of PA Councils is a key factor in improving their functioning and
output.
2. Federal, state, and municipal agencies are perhaps the largest untapped resource for improving
the management of PAs through the funding of IDSs, the harmonization of environmental
policies, law enforcement, etc., and creative ways need to be found to harness this potential.
3. The energy invested in the evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) not only
pays dividends in avoiding environmental impacts and sustainability issues, but also provides
early opportunities to encourage biodiversity offsets.
4. The development of zero green house gas PAs provides an opportunity not only to demonstrate
how infrastructure and transportation systems can be developed to minimize the emission of
green house gases, but could also be used as a means of generating funding for infrastructure
and transportation through carbon offsets.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 65
7.0
PROMOTE INCLUSION OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND
SUSTAINABLE USE CRITERIA IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The fourth major desired Project result, as reflected in the POA (FMCN, Manual de Operaciones,
2009, p. 61-62), focused on promoting inclusion of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
criteria in development projects. The outcome sought was “the inclusion of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use criteria in development projects and other practices affecting the
selected PAs.” The verifiable indicators for this objective were: (1) “at least 20% of the funds
invested in the PAs by non-environmental government agencies are compatible with conservation
and/or the sustainable use of biodiversity”; and (2) “at least 80% of the development initiatives
financed by governmental agencies do not have negative effects on biodiversity and include
mitigation measures.”
7.1
MAJOR FINDINGS
Major findings are as follows:
1. The indicators for this project result were met and surpassed.
2. Seven of the twelve SINAP 2 PAs give priority in their POAs to coordinating environmental
policies and agreements with other government agencies, but even in these PAs, progress was
slow and the harmonization of environmental policies was concluded with relatively few other
government agencies.
3. As noted in Section 6.6, the development of an on-line tracking tool for all developments that
result in a change of land use within the PA system has proven to be a very useful tool.
4. The evaluation and verification of environmental impacts and changes in land use associated
with infrastructure projects in the PAs was a priority activity in half of POAs of the SINAP 2 PAs
and led to the mitigation of some negative effects on biodiversity conservation.
7.2
OVERVIEW
This fourth desired project result was one that received the least attention, not because of
disinterest, but because it applies to only a relatively small number of developments in just a few of
the Project PAs. Because of this, there was little data on the indicators associated with this result,
and only about half of the SINAP 2 PAs needed to implement this by including specific activities in
their POAs. It should also be noted that this fourth result was considered related to the third in that
the activities required to achieve both objectives included harmonization of environmental policies
with other government agencies, and the evaluation of environmental impact statements for
infrastructure projects.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 66
Two observations are in order:
1. The number of SINAP 2 PAs that found this relevant to their situation and included activities in
their POAs to attain the fourth project result is strikingly low; and
2. Those PAs that did include activities in their POAs to attain this result made relatively little
progress, since the number of government agencies where progress was achieved in this regard
was relatively small.
Based on these two observations, the evaluators have to conclude that among the desired project
results, the fourth was irrelevant to at least half of the areas, and was a minor activity in many of
the rest.
7.3
HARMONIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
As pointed out in Section 6.5, the harmonization of environmental policies with other federal, state,
and municipal government agencies can multiply the resources available to the PA to achieve its
objectives, and cut down on projects with negative environment effects. Seven of the twelve SINAP
2 PAs have included harmonization of environmental policies with other government agencies as a
priority within their POAs, and the number of agencies where this exercise has been completed has
increased each year.
It is interesting to note, as shown in Table 7.3, that several of the Project PAs have been successful
in getting non-environmental agencies to support conservation projects. This is certainly a creative
mechanism for getting sister agencies to internalize conservation policies.
Strong alliances were noted between CONANP and CONAFOR as well as the Comisión de Desarrollo
Indígena (CDI). The SINAP 2 project provided the Project Coordinators in the PA’s which facilitated
coordination with CONAFOR and CDI offices (which lack field staff) to expend funds on projects
developed by local communities. A particularly interesting project that was gaining a lot of interest
on the part of local communities in Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, Selva el Ocote, and Los Alamos was a
“payment for environmental services” subsidy managed by CONAFOR, designed to benefit ejidos
and community members who could clearly document the forested lands, and hence watersheds,
they were conserving. Finally, PA Directors often worked closely with municipal authorities and
could point to advances in their collaborations at that level.
One of the most important government agencies with regard to subsidies in the Mexican country
side is the Agricultural Ministry (SAGARPA). The evaluators did not find any partnerships between
CONANP and SAGARPA which was disappointing given the number of agricultural projects
underway. SAGARPA has traditionally provided subsidies for agriculture on steep hillsides – an
area where a change of policy would help reduce deforestation, dramatically reduce erosion,
improve water supplies, and redirect campesino efforts into less vulnerable agricultural areas.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 67
Table 7.3: Contributions of Non-Environmental Entities to Conservation Projects in Mx Pesos
MONTOS
ANP
APORTACIÓN
SINAP II (%)
FINANCIEROS
AÑO
FONDOS NO AMBIENTALES
SINAP II
NO AMBIENTALES
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2007
2009
$269,576.75
$263,820.00
$195,470.00
$118,000.00
$250,550.00
$842,857.00
$450,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2004
$298,627.00
$0.00
100.00
2005
2006
2008
2009
2006
$421,101.09
$701,955.26
$732,000.00
$1,320,000.00
$529,548.80
$694,150.00
$425,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
37.76
62.29
100.00
100.00
100.00
2007
$200,000.00
$640,000.00
23.81
2008
2009
$714,084.00
$50,000.00
93.46
$250,000.00
$0.00
100.00
2005
2006
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
$750,000.00
$500,000.00
$769,550.00
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
$500,000.00
$350,000.00
$579,272.00
$197,500.00
$268,950.00
$250,000.00
$260,000.00
$498,210.00
$719,666.38
$0.00
$0.00
$132,150.00
$66,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100.00
100.00
85.34
79.11
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
SIERRA DE ALAMOS
2005
$518,764.00
$16,820.00
96.86
COORDINACIÓN DE TURISMO DE
SONORA
$210,754.02
$407,313.38
$173,730.74
$6,820.00
$12,050.00
$11,800.00
96.87
97.13
93.64
DIRECCIÓN ANP
SIERRA LA LAGUNA
2005
2006
2007
2008
$1,480,137.00
$320,200.00
82.21
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
$114,690.00
$523,702.75
$147,060.00
$1,103,426.00
$740,000.00
$19,120,316.17
$130,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,045,681.00
$0.00
$7,550,671.00
46.87
100.00
100.00
17.94
100.00
71.69
ALTO GOLFO DE CALIFORNIA Y
DELTA DEL RÍO COLORADO
BANCO CHINCHORRO
CORREDOR BIOLÓGICO
CHICHINAUTZIN
CUATROCIÉNEGAS
EL OCOTE
EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO
DE ALTAR
LA ENCRUCIJADA
LA SEPULTURA
PANTANOS DE CENTLA
TEHUACÁN CUICATLÁN
CDI, H AYUNTAMIENTO
CDI
CDI, MUNICIPIO DE
OCOZOCOAUTLA
MUNICIPIO DE OCOZOCOAUTLA
SUBSECRETARÍA DEL SERVICIO
SEETAP
MUNICIPIO DE LA PAZ Y LOS
CABOS, GOBIERNO DEL ESTADO
INDESOL
SEDESOL, CDI, AECI
Long-term it would be very exciting to see the CONAFOR “payment for environmental services” be
more important to family income than the subsidy for denuding hillsides in poor agricultural lands.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 68
7.4
EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
The on-line tracking tool for projects that require a change in land use in a protected area has been
an important mechanism for systemizing the approach to the evaluation of environment impacts in
development projects. It has also been important as a means of developing transparency for the
process and monitoring response times.
Half of the SINAP 2 PAs have included the evaluation of infrastructure projects, or the permitting
and regularization of settlement projects, as priorities in their POAs. In these cases, the number of
evaluations and review of environmental impact assessments of infrastructure projects has
increased, as has enforcement of permitting procedures for land settlement by colonists. As noted
in Section 6.6, these activities can have an important effect on mitigating negative impacts of
infrastructure developments, and reducing the number of unsustainable land use practices.
7.5
LESSONS LEARNED
1. Non-environmentally oriented development initiatives within the Project PAs are concentrated
in a relatively small number of the Project PAs, but can be expected to increase over time.
2. The on-line tracking tool for environmental impact assessments related to development
projects in PAs that result in land use changes has proven an effective instrument for improving
transparency and encouraging shorter response times.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 69
8.0
BOOST INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
One of the most important measures of the success of any project is a simple question: Are the
institutions better able to pursue their purpose at the conclusion of the project? This section
addresses system-wide Institutional Strengthening which was funded as a match to the GEF funds.
Total matching funds of $2.5m were required (see Section 2.1), albeit given the huge growth in
CONANP capacity far more was spent. In addition FMCN managed a long-term institutional
strengthening program for nonprofits (IMAC) that was also privately funded. The three target
areas for this component (World Bank, PAD p 9) were the:
1)
2)
3)
Central coordination sub-component to support activities involving the
endowment-supported PAs as a group;
Government Institutional Strengthening to support CONANP’s transition to an
effective conservation agency; and
Help establish and consolidate a Mexican Conservation Learning Network (IMAC)
for the sharing and adoption of knowledge on protected areas management,
benefitting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society
organizations (CSOs).
The evaluators also wish to highlight the important findings on the factors that contributed to the
success of the public-private relationship - covered primarily in Sections 3.2.2. and 3.2.3 - with
additional comments included in 8.2.
8.1
MAJOR FINDINGS
The findings here represent just the institutional capacity findings, not the programmatic findings
that are covered in the other sections.
1. The Central Coordination Unit (CC), responsible for managing FANP funds in
coordination with CONANP, has been very effective in ensuring the ongoing alignment
between the public and private partners.
a. It’s dual nature – paid for and reporting to FMCN but residing within CONANP –
has proven to be a good working model for daily coordination and the
development of strong personal and professional ties;
b. The CC is valued within CONANP for its transparency in managing funding
processes while also respecting lines of programmatic authority – not second
guessing the priorities set by the PA Directors.
2. CONANP has gone through a truly remarkable jump in capacity over the past decade.
a. It has dramatically increased staff and budget with numerous agreements to
greatly strengthen their presence throughout the PA system, and to assume ever
greater responsibility for core operations in all 22 PAs within SINAP 1 and 2.
b. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) within CONANP, responsible for expending
the sinking funds of SINAP 2, played an important role in building capacity for
work with social and economic development initiatives within the 12 SINAP 2
sites.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 70
3. The IMAC (Mexican Conservation Learning Network), managed by FMCN, helped to
initiate the excellent fire management learning network (CAMAFU) and supported
many solid training and facilitated processes. However, it has failed to become an
ongoing vehicle for learning and exchange for civil society groups within Mexico.
4. The FANP Call for Proposal process is now playing a role of boosting capacity in both
NGOs and community based organizations.
8.2
CENTRAL COORDINATION FOR FANP FUNDED PROTECTED AREAS
The Central Coordination (CC) unit was designed to be the link between FMCN and CONANP –
ensuring that FANP funds support the priority strategies of CONANP in the designated PAs as well
as strengthen CONANP’s capacity as a whole. Frankly, in the opinion of the evaluators, these types
of institutional coordination bodies usually sound good, but are rarely very effective in practice. In
this instance however, the CC unit has worked and been a critical component of the success of this
project. This subsection lays out the purposes and design and tries to distill the best practices from
this experience.
The CC staff is hired and managed by the FMCN and paid for primarily out of interests from the
SINAP 1 fund as discussed in Section 3.3.2. As just one example of the success of this team, a 4 th
person was recently added - paid for by CONANP. The CC key responsibilities are to:




Ensure FANP funding is linked to the POAs;
Provide capacity building training and networking opportunities to staff and NGOs working
on SINAP 1 and 2 sites;
Provide technical assistance to the PAs, most notably in promoting strategic planning
through 5 year log frames; and
Support part of the monitoring and evaluation of the Project (as indicated in Section 4).
In addition, the CC uses money that is allocated for administration, but not fully used, to help fund
additional strategic initiatives within CONANP such as support to GIS studies, extra training
opportunities, etc., as well as to make CC staff available to support CONANP wide events and
activities. This level of financial flexibility, with accountability, provides the CC with problemsolving capacities at short notice.
While the evaluators have opinions about how the FANP funds could be potentially used even more
effectively going forward (see Section 9.3), we are very impressed with the CC’s ability to build the
capacity to manage new open and transparent processes in full coordination with CONANP, and to
learn by doing. Areas of excellence from the 2002-2008 period were the training in the use of log
frames with ZOPP methodology, improvements in the POA process, and taking an early lead on
M&E work while the CONANP SIMEC system was established. Since 2008, the CC has developed a
new capacity to launch public calls for proposals with transparent review and decision making
processes. For example, much of last year was spent organizing workshops for NGOs and PA staff
on the “call for proposal” process in an effort to encourage ever great coordination between PA
Directors and local NGOs. The CC also hosted a “conservation knowledge week” bringing together
all of the recipients of the 2008 grants to share their results.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 71
Ideas of the best practices that underlie why this particular coordination unit has worked well, and
better than many we have seen in other countries, include:
1. The staff is hired and managed by FMCN, but is physically housed in CONANP reporting
to the CONANP Director of Conservation Programs;
2. The FMCN Director of the Area of Conservation is responsible for managing the FANP
funds and directly supervises the CC Unit;
3. The CONANP CPU, responsible for managing the sinking funds of SINAP 2 (see Section
8.3.3), has provided a clear and responsible partner for the CC with which to coordinate
activities while building synergies between the FANP and GEF sinking fund;
4. The CTFANP drives decisions for FANP expenditures. Given that key members of the
government and the head of CONANP serve on this committee, it is another means of
ensuring high levels of alignment and support;
5. Personalities – this is the “art” vs. the “science” of why relationships work well, but
clearly there have been instances where the partnership hasn’t been totally smooth. In
these cases, leaders in both CONANP and FMCN have had the political will and longrange vision to look above the immediate frictions to focus on the good of the project as
a whole, and move forward;
6. The FANP Operations Manual is very specific and well used. It provides clear guidelines
and transparencies about roles, processes, and how decisions will be made. Most
importantly it has been updated regularly as a way to ensure it stays relevant and
provides the flexibility needed for effective partnering and conservation.
7. Both CONANP and FMCN staff are very adept at recognizing each others’ contributions
and the need for both to be acknowledged for their deep commitment to conservation in
Mexico.
8. PA Directors love the FANP’s plasticity and ability to fill in key expenses when
government budgets prove inflexible. Their enthusiasm and appreciation of the FANP is
driven by the FMCN and CC’s successful mechanisms, but in turn also drives the
willingness to support each other and work productively together for ever more
efficient financing mechanisms.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 72
8.3
CONANP CAPACITY
CONANP has matured enormously over the past decade. It has dramatically increased its budget,
its personnel, its number of protected areas, and its ability to provide core operating support to
diminish threats and expand outreach to local communities in and around the PAs in its care. As
described in the PAD (World Bank, p 5), as of 2002, 56 PAs had dedicated staff paid by the GoM – a
huge advance from 1992 when no PA had permanent official staff. With the creation of CONANP in
June 2000 the ongoing professionalization has continued to advance quickly. As of the end of this
Project, CONANP has 1,762 staff (1,562 in the Human Resources system at CONANP and
approximately 200 more contracted through UNDP funds) working in 130 PAs with an additional
10 PAs under joint management agreements (private communication with CONANP HR Director).
8.3.1
Tab le 8 .3 .1
CONANP BUDGET
Ev ol ut ion o f C O N A NP ’s B udg et
47%
Annual increase (%)
13%
13%
4%
Projected 2010
1,200
1,134
1,180
1,008
1,000
892
Millions of
Pesos
800
600
606
400
Year
200
0
2006

2007
2008
2009
2010
Graphic provided by Rene Macias, CONANP 2010.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 73
Cha rt 8. 3 .1:
B rea kou t o f C O NA N P ’s B udget
TOTAL =
606
892
1,008
1,134
1,180
Projected 2010
450
424
425
400
371
350
PERSONAL
300
Millions of
Pesos
290
262
243
258
250
100
219
174
135
89
219
169
157
235
OPERACIÓN
(Contiene Donativos)
INCENTIVOS PARA LA
CONSERVACIÓN
OPERACIÓN E INCENTIVOS A
PROGRAMAS ESPECIALES
162
98
INVERSIÓN
52
50
0
230
212
200
150
259
33
42
2006
2007
31
31
2008
2009
2010
Year
While unfortunately, the global economic recession appears to be impacting the projected budget
for 2010, the growth over time is still remarkable. Chart 8.3.1 shows a breakdown of major line
items within CONANP, with the steady growth of staff and basic operating expenses over the past 5
years.
An additional major institutional gain was the transfer of the Regional Sustainable
Development Program (PRODERS – now called PROCODES) to CONANP – providing substantial
additional resources and improved integration of projects within the PAs as discussed in Section 5.
The budget reflects an ever growing commitment from the GoM towards its PA system. Funding is
derived primarily from national budget allocations through SHCP, the national treasury. Other
sources of funding include entrance fees and bilateral and private donors. A few PAs with unique
attributes have been able to succeed in collecting substantial revenue through entrance fees. This
has mainly occurred in island environments with international tourist visits such as Isla Contoy and
some of the Islas del Golfo. GEF has been a major contributor to the PA system both through the
SINAP 1 and 2 projects - and the FANP endowment, as well as projects managed through UNDP for
specific PAs. Other major international bilateral donors, private foundations as well as
international environmental nonprofits have been enormously generous given the mega diversity
of Mexico and the obvious commitment of their Mexican counterparts. They have made substantial
investments in projects as well as the FANP endowments with FMCN (Section 3.2.1). There are two
large and relatively untapped resources for the PAs. The first are other governmental agencies at
the federal, state, and municipal levels – discussed in Section 5 and 7. The second is Mexican
individual and corporate donors who FMCN and environmental nonprofits are increasingly
working to cultivate.
Given this major upswing in budgets and staff the comparative importance of SINAP 2 funds to the
targeted PAs actually dropped significantly over the course of the project. In 2002, a SINAP 2 PA
could rely on Project funds for up to 30% of its annual operating budget. At the conclusion of the
Project, funds amount to about 8% of most of the PA’s annual budget. This is a much desired
progression, indicating the GoM has increasingly stepped up its commitment, its financial
contribution, and its long-term ability to provide core support to the PAs.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 74
8.3.2
CONANP STAFF
With regard to staffing, the professionalization of CONANP within a relatively short period has been
remarkable for any agency, but particularly a government agency moving steadfastly forward over
three different administrations. In 1993 only 10 declared PAs had assigned staff. By 2002, 56 PAs
had staff, 80 PAs by 2006 and 130 PAs by 2010.
Graph 8.3.2:
CONANP Staff Growth
Plazas CONANP por Año
577
548
572
2004
2005
2006

1542
1562
2008
2009
1562
641
2007
2010
Numbers provided by Human Resources/CONANP. These numbers do not include an additional
approximately 200 staff positions paid for by UNDP funds and not on the HR books.
Between 2002 and 2008, a jumble of personnel was assigned to assist with PAs paid from, and
technically part of, a mix of nonprofits, GoM agencies, and donors. PA staff included consultants
with short-term, renewable assignments and longer-term staff attached to NGOs but reporting to
PA Directors. The evaluators were extremely impressed that from 2002-2008, the FANP was used
to “make this system work” (see Section 3.4.1), while at the same time FMCN and others continued
to make the case for a professional civil service staff with defined career paths and homogenous
benefits etc. When that political opportunity arose with the addition of 911 new positions to
CONANP in 2008, all the parties worked together to transfer 152 SINAP 2 assigned staff to positions
within CONANP – a huge undertaking.
While the Human Resources system within CONANP still shows a mix of different types of
employees, due to regulations set by the wider GoM system, huge strides have been made in
professionalizing the CONANP. An additional resource is a fund through UNDP which provides
some flexibility in managing additional needed staff. Within SINAP 2 one small, but highly valued,
group of employees – the 12 social promoters paid by the GEF sinking funds – will be transferred in
June 2010 to the UNDP funds and eventually become permanent CONANP staff. The evaluators are
pleased that SINAP 2 funds have contributed to helping build this permanent capacity as the social
promoters play a key role in the interface between CONANP and the local communities in SINAP 2
sites.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 75
The advantage of the huge growth in CONANP staff is not merely more core staff in each PA, but
also the institutional opportunity to build a professional cadre, address inequities in salaries and
benefits, and strengthen opportunities for training and promotion. CONANP has invested in staff
training and conferences that promote cross-PA learning. FANP funds have supported meetings
among the PA Directors and staff for SINAP 1 and 2 sites, and sinking funds have been used for
professional development among the 12 social promoters. One of the impressive institutional
development programs in place is a partnership between CONANP and CENEVAL (Centro Nacional
de Evaluación) which allows staff to get accredited for their years of experience by taking on-line
courses and tests to get the equivalent of a High School or University diploma, helping staff increase
their professional advancement opportunities while getting credit for their work and years of
experience. Separate central GoM funding is used for activities such as an annual conference of all
PA Directors that greatly enhance learning across the PAs. There are ongoing opportunities to
continue building the capacity of CONANP personnel both with FANP funds as well as significant
funding flowing to CONANP HR and Programmatic areas from the GoM.
Another noted institutional leap for CONANP has been decentralization through regionalization. In
the early years, all PA Directors reported directly to Mexico City. As the number of PAs and number
of staff grew, this quickly became an overwhelming reporting load. In response, CONANP was
divided into nine regions blanketing the country. The regions were not divided by state lines, but
rather drawn to capture large ecoregions which face similar threats and opportunities. Regional
Directors supervise the PA Directors and have a deeper understanding of the ongoing issues in the
area. SINAP 2 sites are represented in eight of the nine regions.
As with all institutional changes, decentralization has not been seamless. It creates an additional
level for coordination and has its share of administrative confusion given that administrative staff
has been pulled out of the individual PAs for greater budget coordination at the regional level.
Nonetheless, the evaluators feel that in its intention and long-term prospects, regionalization is a
necessity to more effectively distribute CONANP employees throughout the nation and ground
decisions in a greater understanding of the local context. It also provides a more direct ability to
coordinate with state government agencies and regional organizations and look at funding across
ecoregions as discussed in Section 9.3.
8.3.3 CONANP PROJECT COORDINATING UNIT
Within CONANP, the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) was developed to successfully expend the
$5.3 million in sinking funds provided through the GEF grant by integrating the SINAP 2 funds
directly with the PAs. The PCU is responsible for executing all the components administered by
NAFIN for CONANP (see Table 1.1). The PCU Director, reports to the Director of Conservation for
Development who also manages PROCODES, PET, and Maiz Criollo, enabling greater coordination of
these programs and allowing the SINAP 2 funded social promoters to help direct important sources
of funds for local communities (Section 5 and 7). Solid ongoing coordination exists between the
PCU and the CC as well as with the various directorates within CONANP to ensure that Project
moves forward smoothly.
With GEF sinking funds, the PCU Director has managed the coordination of the hiring of 12 social
promoters – one for each SINAP 2 site - with the PA Directors. This group of 12 staff has enjoyed
training opportunities, participated in field site visits, and built direct networking opportunities
with each other and the Director. Field site visits and interviews with these staff indicated an
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 76
impressive and motivated group that have been largely responsible for some of the effective
outreach with local communities as discussed in Sections 5-7. They describe their work as
“catalyzers” as their assignment is to ensure that effective sustainable development programs are
reaching local communities. In many cases, as discussed in Section 5, they help invest funds from
other agencies in the communities – most often CONAFOR and CDI (Indigenous Development
Commission) – as they are directly working with key communities, and the other agencies lack staff.
While the strength and weaknesses of the project work have been covered in Section 5-7, the
institutional capacity of CONANP has clearly been improved by this project. These individuals have
developed a substantial knowledge base for effectively working with local communities. In
addition, the central function has helped to promote greater use of feasibility studies prior to
launching economic development projects and is working to improve marketing efforts once the
infrastructure is in place. While these processes could still be improved (Section 5) the evaluators
recognize the important role the central unit has played in setting quality standards for consultant
selection, building economies of scale for marketing ecotourism efforts, and raising the capacity
within CONANP for managing economic development projects.
Another aspect of this project that has proven successful, albeit difficult, is the relationship with
NAFIN, SHCP, and the CONANP fund managers. A major function of the PCU Director is to ensure
that the GEF sinking funds are released from NAFIN to CONANP so they can get to the field. Table
8.3.3 explains the steps and time frames involved.
Table 8.3.3:
Financial Planning and Disbursement of GEF Sinking Funds
Step
Process Step
Responsible party
Average Turn Around Time
1
Annual Operating
Plan is done
PA Director and
PA staff
Done yearly as part of CONANP and
SINAP process – a requirement for
SINAP 2 sinking funds.
Contract signed with
community for
programs
Social promoter
and PA Director
and community
members
Takes time to define what projects
community wants to do and particularly
in ejidos – exactly which families will
engage.
Budget the expenses
for the project and
get quotes for
materials and
equipment
Social promoters
Takes time – once this is submitted then
the project and budgets are clear and
engagement with PCU begins for access
to the SINAP 2 sinking funds.
PA Director submits
itemized request to
PCU
Dir of PCU sends
to NAFIN who
checks for full WB
compliance
4 days – most projects are in the
US$25,000 range.
NAFIN sends
requests for no
objection to World
Bank
NAFIN
4 days
2
3
4
5
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 77
6
Bank provides no
objection
WB
Usually within 3 days
7
Request for money
goes to SHCP
SHCP – (Hacienda
or Treasury Dept)
6 months
8
SHCP sends money to PCU Dir sends
CONANP
money to PA Dir
4 days
9
PA Director approves
actual purchase of
equipment etc.
PA and social
promoters
This often takes a few weeks of rechecking price quotes etc. given the time
lag but moves forward quickly.
10
Equipment or
materials given to
local community for
project
Social promoters
and PA Directors
11
Full receipts, pictures
etc. sent to PCU
PA Directors and
social promoters
All funds must be accounted for prior to
submitting additional projects.
All aspects of this process appear to move promptly except the approval process within SHCP. This
slows down the work in the field, dampens the enthusiasm and excitement of local community
members, and diminishes the stature of the PA staff locally. However, that said, this is still a
relatively good turn around for Mexican financial agencies. The PCU, the World Bank, and NAFIN all
deserve credit for making the process move as quickly as possible. The evaluators understanding is
that efforts to have NAFIN be the sole manager of the project funds were overruled by SHCP,
creating the greater bureaucratic delays. As discussed in Section 5, the field visits by the evaluators
saw the funds were reaching the local communities, albeit with the delays indicated.
As a final note on this process, NAFIN reported that CONANP had little experience, prior to this
grant, in directly working with them in receiving multilateral funding. They gave CONANP high
praise for being organized, consistently sending the required forms and materials and felt that
CONANP was in good shape for managing future funds and requiring less supervision than was
provided for with this grant.
The evaluators are impressed with the number of projects that have taken place through the
sinking fund investment and the coordination efforts of the PCU (see Annex D). This unit has
enhanced CONANP’s reputation in the field while coordinating closely and leaving all field decisions
with the PA Directors. We are pleased that come June 2010 the social promoters who have played
such a key role in advancing quality of life and economic development projects, will be retained in
CONANP.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 78
8.4
BOOSTING CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
8.4.1 THE IMAC EXPERIENCE
FMCN formed a tripartite partnership with The Nature Conservancy and PACT to launch a matchsupported effort to create the Mexican Conservation Learning Network (IMAC) for the sharing and
adoption of knowledge on protected areas management. The target was non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in activities in and around the
SINAP 2 PAs but extending to the broader PA network. These organizations received direct
assistance, facilitation, scholarships for courses and workshops, access to information and
databases, and support for institutional development.
Hoped for results from this investment were a number of ongoing networks organized around key
geographies (e.g. the Gulf of California) or by theme (e.g. Fire Management, Cities and Watersheds,
Natural Protected Areas, Advisory Councils for PAs). The idea was to strengthen collaboration in
key areas as well as build increased capacity in the management of NGOs. In addition a lot of time
was put into developing an online resource on protected area knowledge. Today one wellorganized network is still functioning (CAMAFU), a few are still struggling to find their stride (e.g.
Watersheds and Cities), but the others have failed to thrive. Interviewees, reflecting on this reality,
point to the following lessons learned:
1. Successful networks had a committed individual who was exceptionally good at hitting
deadlines for follow up and instilling a sense of ongoing achievement and progress.
2. Successful networks had clear goals that determined who would participate, limiting the
size to a committed group. Explicit outcomes and benchmarks helped the group stay
focused and gain momentum through their collaboration and shared learning;
3. If there are too many problems that members are facing (e.g. big issues like managing
national parks), then it is harder for a group to have a shared understanding of a
problem, and to work on improved strategies and solutions.
4. Efforts to drive the network through web technologies failed due to:
a. Some members have poor access, so they dropped out;
b. Contributing written resources to an on-line site was not a priority for the NGOs
or academic partners.
c. CSO members don’t have a strong culture of writing and documenting their
experiences – so again they did not contribute much.
5. Organizations that put in counterpart funds for their training or participation tended to
work harder on encouraging the success of their networks.
6. A few highly regarded practitioners need to be closely engaged in the network to help
draw others and keep momentum going.
7. The ongoing work of CAMAFU has a full-time leader and an ongoing funding stream of
$80,000 per annum from the US Forest Service – ensuring accountability for results to
both members and donors.
There are times when network success should not be determined strictly by their ongoing utility.
Many networks are formed precisely to do one activity. An example from NW Mexico was a
coordinated lobbying effort by NGOs to pass a sustainable aquaculture law. IMAC support in
facilitating these meetings was an important contribution towards this larger goal.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 79
IMAC also provided the networks, and many individual NGOs, with training support, strong
facilitated meetings, and access to other workshops and courses. In one example a full-scale
learning study was done on the PA Community Advisory Councils, resulting in a guide and training
programs at the request of PA Directors. This was followed in a few places by facilitated meetings
to restructure a PA Advisory Council. However, while the individual activities were well received,
they were not enough to build an ongoing and engaged network that has continued to strive to
improve the Advisory Councils. In other areas the project offered substantial NGO management
support in improved governance and leadership. NGOs such as Pronatura NE reported that they
had gotten a lot out of the project support and felt the inputs had helped them mature as an
organization.
In conclusion, the IMAC experience was generally positive for those engaged and was a good
contribution to capacity building in Mexico. However, as a permanent process paralleling the
SINAP 2 initiative, it did not become self sustaining. FMCN stated they should have put in place a
plan during the start of the project to make the managers responsible for achieving greater
institutional independence and financial sustainability. Instead, staff focused on shorter-term goals
and successes, thus missing an opportunity to create longer-term vehicles for promoting ongoing
learning and networking within the NGO/CSO community.
8.4.2
THE FANP “CALL FOR PROPOSALS” EXPERIENCE
With the big change in the use of FANP funds in 2008 from supporting staff for the PAs to managing
“Calls for Proposals” for the NGO and CSO groups, a new opportunity emerged for boosting civil
society organizations. While the mechanics of this process and the issues to date in administration
were covered in Section 3.4.2, this section looks at the opportunities for using these funds for
boosting institutional capacity.
1. A marked improvement is already underway in ensuring dialogue between the PA Directors
and local NGOs and CSOs in an effort to have strategic funds benefit the conservation
objectives of the PA;
2. Three models are emerging as discussed in Section 3.4.2 – one of which has a focus on NGOCSO coordination and engagement. The model provides a real opportunity for NGOs to
invest heavily in helping build capacity in their local community counterparts;
3. One of the CSO’s funded in 2008 was so successful that it received funds again in 2009 – the
Consejo de los Recursos Naturales de la Región Cañada de Oaxaca, A. C. Working in the RB
Tehuacan-Cuicatlán, this group has organized over 10 local fire brigades/environmental
vigilance committees – and is rapidly expanding to another ten. This is a great example of
very fast growing networks that tap into local knowledge, trust and pride in their
environment. The example could help launch other successful CSO projects, hopefully with
equally high opportunities for replication and leverage.
4. NGOs have used the 1 year grant cycles to invest in equipment, staffing, etc. – raised as an
issue for long-term PA benefits – but from a civil society perspective, represented a great
opportunity.
Clearly the evolution of the FANP over the past decade to being used primarily for supporting civil
society engagement in and around the PAs has the potential for high leverage – a potential
discussed further in Section 9.3 Recommendations.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 80
8.5 LESSONS LEARNED
Lessons learned on institutional capacity have been included in each subsection. In summary, the
most important lessons include:

Public-Private Partnership
1. The evaluators are convinced this has been a very successful public-private
collaboration. In an effort to document many of the factors that contributed to the
success of the public-private relationship – we encourage readers to review Sections
3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 8.2.

Role of a Coordinating Unit in Public-Private Partnerships
1. A successful institutional alignment resulted from CC staff being hired and managed by
FMCN, but physically housed in CONANP, reporting to the CONANP Director of
Conservation Programs;
2. The Advisory Board (CTFANP) that drives decisions for FANP expenditures includes key
members of the government, the head of CONANP, and representatives of other key
sectors. CTFANP serves as another mechanism for ensuring high levels of alignment
and support between the partners;
3. The FANP Operations Manual is very specific and well used. It provides clear guidelines
about roles, processes, and how decisions will be made. Most importantly it has been
updated regularly as a way to ensure it stays relevant and provides the flexibility
needed for effective partnering and conservation.

CONANP Institutional Capacity
1. The Mexican Government has demonstrated high political will with the huge jump in
CONANP budget and staff over the past decade.
2. FMCN and civil society organizations all recognized that all PA staff should be based
within CONANP and made an impressive administrative process work to transfer staff
to CONANP in 2008.
3. The PCU successfully expended GEF sinking funds for SINAP 2 with impressive project
coordinators in the field managing a large number of sustainable development
initiatives.
4. Reinforcing the findings of the Mid-term Evaluation, the evaluators felt that the need to
disburse GEF grant funds through SCHP, rather than directly through NAFIN, resulted in
inefficiencies and delays.

Civil Society Capacity
1. Short-term capacity building funds have demonstrated positive results for
strengthening some local community groups;
2. The IMAC project did not become institutionalized over the long-term, but provided a
number of trainings, facilitations, and network opportunities that have resulted in
individual NGO capacity building and longer-term networks and relationships.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 81
9.0
BEYOND WORLD BANK SUPERVISION
The evaluators firmly believe that this Project is ready to move beyond World Bank supervision and
is being well managed by the two principal partners, FMCN and CONANP. However, prior to
jumping to the transition, we felt it important to reiterate from the findings discussed above, that
the Bank has played a key role in many of the successes. Reflecting on what has worked well can
help to drive ongoing future successes both in this project and in other World Bank supervision of
GEF projects.
The FANP fund, in addition to advancing the GOM and FMCN goals, is a mechanism for advancing
part of GEF’s mission – to finance the incremental costs of protecting globally significant
biodiversity resources. The World Bank, in its supervision capacity of these funds, has advanced
this mission through the following efforts:
1. Recognizing the opportunity with the restructuring of SINAP 1 to strengthen the
protected area system of Mexico with a capitalized trust fund (Section 2.1);
2. Developing strong relationships with the principal Mexican players through the design
and implementation process of SINAP 1 and 2 – spending extended time in ensuring
alignment and agreement among the key implementing agencies (Section 2.1);
3. Utilizing World Bank requirements in operational management, reporting, the
indigenous people’s policy etc to raise the standards for the project and ensure that
other donors would be impressed with the project design and implementation (Sections
2.1, 3.3.1 and 6.2);
4. Being flexible in the design of match funds requirement for successfully capitalizing the
fund (Section 3.2.1);
5. Reviewing Annual Operating Plans and providing an additional set of eyes and
recommendations for ongoing policies and strategies. This function was particularly
useful following the major change in FANP funding with the expansion of CONANPs staff
capacity in 2008. The World Bank has supported CONANP’s ever increased
commitment to assuming the core operating support for the PAs and utilizing the FANP
funding for more leveraged activities and innovation (Section 3.4.2);
6. Encouraging the use of FANP funds, match funds, and GEF sinking funds to build the
institutional capacity of both FMCN and CONANP; and
7. Responding quickly as the funding administrator for “no objection” approval of sinking
fund disbursements (Section 8.3.3), setting a standard for efficiency and continuing to
encourage the GOM to use efficient processes, such as those demonstrated by NAFIN, to
ensure effective projects in the field.
These investments from the World Bank – not just of GEF funds – but of the time, skills, and long
term vision to effectively guide the use of these funds, have been a critical input into the success of
this project. It is clear that this project is recognized internationally and has had a demonstration
effect in terms of best practices for environmental funds. The World Bank has also played a role in
multiplying this experience through other GEF Projects around the world. Finally, learning from
this experience also helped inspire the Natural Heritage Fund concept that is being promoted by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature/World Commission on Protected Areas
(IUCN/WCPA) to support globally significant protected areas.
As FMCN and CONANP move forward without World Bank supervision, it will help them to
remember the benefits of having applied these high standards, the leverage of having invested in
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 82
their own institutional capacity, and the need to hold themselves accountable for long-term
conservation results to the global community.
With regard to the key questions asked of the evaluators:
1.
Are the agreed upon instruments working? – In the vast majority, yes. We have provided
detailed descriptions in each Section on what is working.
2. Are the agreed upon instruments the most effective for reaching the goals of the project? We have
described the successes of many of the instruments, and more importantly described how the
partners have managed a transparent process for adapting instruments that need to be
tweaked. This ability to make changes and adapt as the project environment changes has
allowed the SINAP 2 Project to evolve and accompany the rapid maturation of the two primary
institutions. We provide our own ideas for additional tweaks below.
3. Are the project objectives still aligned with the missions of the key institutions? The project
objectives have been totally aligned with the missions of the key institutions throughout the
duration of SINAP 2. Even more importantly, the project activities have evolved as the capacity
of the institutions has evolved. As Ernesto Enkerlin, Director of CONANP, stated: “SINAP 2
began by responding to basic needs in the PAs, then it began investing in strategic projects, and
now it can become catalytic.”
The evaluators feel that the SINAP 2 project is a great example of adaptive management –
responding to and meeting different needs over time. We are confident the partners will continue
to show this flexibility going forward to meet the needs of the PAs. We are also delighted that so
much of the capacity developed during this project is continuing forward, both thanks to FMCN’s
effective fundraising and management of the FANP fund, and to CONANP for growing so effectively
in staff, budget and expertise over the past decade. That said, this section explores threats and
opportunities and how they could impact future ways in which FANP funds and CONANP priorities
can be directed in the future, as well as a more in-depth exploration of some of the big themes for a
potential larger investment in a special fund for climate change.
9.1 THREATS
The ending of a transformational Project, such as SINAP 2, provides an opportunity to identify the
lessons learned and consider how these and other insights gained from the project might be applied
to future projects or activities. In so doing, it useful to analyze the threats that can be perceived,
and the opportunities on which FMCN and CONANP might build.
The major threats that need be considered going forward, from the standpoint of the evaluators, are
as follow:
1.
Changes in government priorities that might lessen government commitment and budgets for
protected areas.
2. A change in leadership within CONANP and/or the FMCN that could alter the commitment to
the public-private partnership, or the priorities and processes that has been so critical to the
success of the SINAP 2 Project.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 83
3. The increasing number and severity of natural disasters due to climate change.
4. The possibility of accelerating climate change overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems and
human communities to adapt, both of which could lead to significant losses in biodiversity.
5. The economic downturn in North America could increase significantly the number of people in
the communities within and around the PAs, and augment pressures for the unsustainable use
of natural resources.
6. The steadily increasing size and complexity of CONANP could lead to decreases in effectiveness
due to bureaucratization, and less cooperation with the civil society organizations, other
government agencies, local communities, and the private sector.
7. The lack of effective law enforcement in the PAs, especially with respect to the production and
distribution of drugs, could result in significant biodiversity loss.
8. Invasive species continue to be introduced and become more widespread causing significant
loss of biodiversity.
9. The increase in adventure tourism overwhelms the management capacities of the APs where it
is concentrated.
9.2
OPPORTUNITIES
There are many opportunities for increased conservation effectiveness and greater synergies
across the PA system.
1. Creative fundraising for climate change projects could provide significant opportunities for
effective adaptation and mitigation measures. This idea is explored in more detail in Section 9.4
as it provides the strongest opportunity for considering a future GEF allocation or other large
investment.
2. The countless programs and projects funded by other international, federal, state, and
municipal agencies represent a huge untapped source of potential funding and in-kind services
that could be co-opted for more effective PA management.
3. There are numerous opportunities to work with existing academic institutions to enhance the
quality of preparation for, and in-service training of, CONANP staff at all levels.
4. PAs provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the public how infrastructure can be designed or
converted to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Pinacate Visitor Center is an
excellent example in this regard.
5. There appear to be important opportunities to grow the FANP endowment through greater
engagement with the private sector.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 84
6. Increasing visitation to PAs provide an opportunity to expand considerably the culture of
conservation, while strengthening public commitment to the preservation and expansion of the
PA System.
7. The large number of indigenous communities within and around PAs provides a unique
opportunity to harness their cultural belief systems to introduce new ways of thinking about
people’s relationship to nature, and to encourage individual responsibility for conservation.
8. An in-depth study on how to improve the capacity to prosecute environmental crimes within
PAs, analyzing alternative models such as strengthening PROFEPA, providing greater policing
authority to CONANP, or working in new partnerships.
9. The strong baseline for PA staffing in Mexico provides the opportunity to continue building the
institutional capacity for effective conservation with specific ideas such as:
a. A partnership between CONANP and academic centers to establish a Park
Guard/Ranger School that can cover basic to post-graduate levels of courses, including
tying sustainable development initiatives to conservation goals;
b. Professionalization of the CONANP civil service by creating more opportunities for
technical staff to move into management positions and preparing today’s junior
managers for PA Manager positions; and
c. Re-invest in learning networks, building from the IMAC experience, but with a longerterm commitment for supporting key geographic and thematic groups of Mexican
conservation professionals committed to abating key threats. Members should include
staff from CONANP and civil society organizations, and where possible the private
sector.
9.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given that the project is so transparent and the key actors are working hard to learn by doing and
find high levels of leverage, we feel that our recommendations are but one more input into a much
wider set of recommendations already coming from the CONANP staff, the CTFANP advisors, the
FMCN, the communities and the civil society groups all committed to the Mexican PA system. We
thus offer the following recommendations in the spirit of sharing ideas, recognizing that this Project
will continue forward with great input from many constituencies throughout Mexico.
9.3.1 DISBURSE FANP FUNDS
The high level of FMCN success in securing more than the required counterpart funds and
managing the endowment well leaves little room for any comments beyond kudos. In terms of
annually investing the interest from the FANP endowment in the PAs however, we submit our
recommendations:
1. Create a contingency fund that helps resolve the current tension between PA Directors
wanting to ensure flexible annual operating funds through ongoing use of the POA and the
GoM pride and motivation in working to secure basic operational funds in all PAs.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 85
a. The fund would be accessible only when there are documented problems in
ensuring funds are reaching the PAs and with a request from the Director of
CONANP.
b. 10% of the annual FANP interest is kept in reserve for contingencies.
c. At the start of the year the CTFANP has the opportunity to recommend higher levels
of contingency funding if there is a crisis in the Mexican Treasury or in CONANP
with regard to ensuring appropriate funding flow to the PAs.
d. FMCN would no longer require or manage a separate POA/Log frame system – but
in cases of contingency requests would use the POA submitted within CONANP. We
do suggest however a small fund dedicated to enabling PA Directors to revise their
Plans for Management Programs to make them more targeted and actionable, and
linked to threats to the PA and the gaps identified through an independent
evaluation of management effectiveness (see 3.c below).
2. The Emergency Fund should be maintained and continue operating as it is today;
3. The PIE funds for civil society organizations should continue to be viewed as learning
projects and adapted regularly. Our suggestions going forward are to:
a. Lower the maximum annual amount to any given NGO to US$80,000 with a match
requirement;
b. Clarify that funding can be multi-year provided the project is being implemented
very successfully and PA Directors feel it is responding effectively to key threats in
the PA;
c. Create a small (US$100,000 maximum) fund from the FANP disbursement to
annually address a key best practice and work to expand replication rates and
leverage so that benefits can accrue to the wider PA system.
d. Consider another major shift of FANP funding in a few years to follow a replication
strategy. For example – if the PIE process after a few years shows that by far the
best investment in social and conservation gains in local communities is the creation
of fire brigades – then move this project beyond the small number of communities it
is currently serving to try replicate across a majority of communities within and
around a PA.
On a different point the evaluators also want to raise the long-term issue of moving beyond the
current group of SINAP 2 sites. While the design of the Project is commendable and it has clearly
led to huge growth in capacity within these PAs, it is also the long-term goal of the Project to
support the full suite of PAs in Mexico. One way to consider having new PAs enter into the FANP
funding process after World Bank supervision ends is to:
4.
Take a small portion of FANP funds to assign an FMCN fundraiser to a Regional Office of
CONANP. This person’s role would be to:
a. Fundraise for FANP endowment funds for PAs and connector areas between PAs;
b. Coordinate alignment of international, federal, state, and municipal government
agency funds targeted to PAs – including CONAFOR, CDI, and SAGARPA at a
minimum.
5. If the trial assignment is successful and generates substantial funds for Regional PA’s then
duplicate the experiment with other Regional offices.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 86
a. Keep all the SINAP 1 and 2 and additional PAs connected through training and
capacity grants going forward.
b. As additional funds are assigned toward SINAP 2 PAs, allow them to “graduate from
SINAP 2” and assign FANP funds to a PA that has less capacity but continues to meet
the criteria of preserving globally and regionally important biodiversity.
9.3.2 CONSERVE GLOBALLY IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY
The commitment of the GoM to cover the basic operating expenses of the PAs is moving the full
system towards much higher levels of conservation. Additionally, increased efforts are being made
to improve both the timeliness of habitat transformation data as well as better link species
population data with management needs. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4, better methods of
tying threats to strategies and systematically reviewing habitat transformation will enhance
management effectiveness and funding efficiency.
1. CONANP should work directly with the Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la
Biodiversidad (CONABIO) to establish databases within CONABIO with metadata derived
from monitoring by OSC and CONANP using scientifically-rigorous protocols and linked to
clear management applications. CONANP would benefit from an institution like CONABIO
guaranteeing a more systematic review of habitat transformation in and around the PAs.
Having an institution other than CONANP report on the state of PA conservation and
provide open access to metadata also increases transparency. The funding and capacity is
there in both organizations, it is a matter of political will.
2. SIMEC system can then tie the POAs to results on habitat transformation to ensure PA
Directors are looking at the causes and threats behind habitat transformation figures.
3. A special purpose grant is encouraged from the PIE funds to provide ongoing support to PA
Directors who seek to update the Plans for Management Programs for their PA by looking
at threats, developing appropriate strategies, and acting on independent evaluation of
management effectiveness (as was previously provided by the CC using Zopp Logframe
methodology). While we do not see this as something that FMCN needs to own going
forward, we recognize its importance to the PA Directors and to effective planning and
conservation effectiveness in the field and hope that it becomes integrated into the ongoing
improvements in the CONANP POA system.
4. Ensure independent evaluations of management effectiveness every 5 years going forward
looking at management processes that move from central office to field operations to help
ensure the FANP continues to be used effectively.
5. Begin exploring alternatives to the dependency on PROFEPA for law enforcement activities
within PAs. While this is an overwhelming theme, there are examples of successes. As a
case in point, some PA Directors have had very good relationships with the Federal
Highway Patrol – calling when a poacher or logger is moving onto federal roads, etc.
Document what is working and explore longer term solutions – including higher levels of
political will from governors or other authorities that are slow to respond to incursions into
PAs.
6. Explore in greater depth the effectiveness of the community fire brigades, and the factors
for success, for greater replication both within Mexico and further afield.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 87
9.3.3
PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY OF PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES IN SELECT PAS
The work on IDSs during the SINAP 2 Project period has provided a number of insights that need to
be considered for future implementation.
1. Further work is needed to evaluate the IDSs in terms of their social, economic, and
conservation objectives. Which ones worked best and why?
2. The most successful IDSs should be used for training and replicated in appropriate
circumstances.
3. Consideration should be given to the development of umbrella initiatives into which discreet
IDSs can fit as franchises or branches of the larger business. Examples might include
concept such as “SINAP Artisans, Inc.”; “PA Organics, Inc.”, or “Conservation Eco-Lodges,
Inc.”
9.3.4 PROMOTE SOCIAL CO-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSERVATION
Recommendations for promoting social co-responsibility for conservation include:
1. Developing a national environmental education system for PAs that not only includes lesson
plans and activities, but encourages student research, publications, and national Congresses
(such as the one organized by CONANP in 2009 and that took place in San Luis Potosí)
where student research results are presented.
2. Expand public use facilities and information so that the public can know and appreciate the
country’s PAs, and develop deeper commitments to conservation.
3. Build on the Pinacate Visitor Center model to demonstrate to the public how facilitates can
be designed or retrofitted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Accelerate initiatives in each of the PAs to harmonize environmental policies and develop
shared agendas for the PAs.
9.3.5
PROMOTE INCLUSION OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE
CRITERIA IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Though a number of strategic alliances have been struck with other international, federal, state, and
municipal agencies, there is ample room to accelerate the development of such alliances through
the adoption of shared agendas. This would best be accomplished at the level of the Regional
Offices where dedicated staff could be made responsible for identifying potential partnerships and
negotiating new strategic alliances and shared agendas.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 88
9.3.6
BOOST INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
The evolution of both CONANP’s and FMCN’s institutional capacity over the course of this project
has been nothing short of superlative. A number of suggestions are made herein to continue
growing institutional capacity with funds that are currently available within the FANP and
CONANP. Additional suggestions are made in Section 9.3 on what larger scale ideas may be feasible
with additional sources of funding.
1. The evaluators support the ongoing use of FANP funds for meetings and learning among
PIE recipients and PA staff. We recommend doing more to make these sessions as
critically constructive as possible with clear ideas coming out for next steps in
advancing projects in the field;
2. The special fund recommended in 9.3.1 (#3c) could include the financing of learning
and capacity-building projects as determined by CONANP priorities;
3. The PIE call for proposal in PAs should encourage mechanisms for strong regional or
national NGOs to build the capacity of community-based groups and provide ever
greater opportunity for community-groups to apply directly for PIE funds;
4. Current funding available within CONANP Human Resources for professional
development could be better integrated with learning and dissemination of key SINAP 2
lessons and ongoing PIE and management effectiveness efforts.
5. Documenting the best practices within the IMAC networking experience would be
helpful prior to trying to replicate a similar project – which should be done. The
intention of the initiative, and some of the positive results, indicate that Mexico has the
conditions to host more effective conservation learning networks.
9.4
SPECIAL FUND ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Given the success of the SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 projects and the effectiveness of the public-private
partnership, the evaluators were also asked to provide their perspective on how a new possible
GEF allocation could be used. We have given this some thought and discussed ideas with CTFANP
members, resulting in this short exploration of a Special Fund on Climate Change – a proposal that
would take time to design, but for which there is substantial energy, commitment and enthusiasm
within Mexico.
9.4.1 CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVITY WITHIN MEXICO
Mexico has been engaged in climate change treaties and agreements since 1992 and the GoM
definitely perceives climate change as a growing threat to the natural and human capital of the
country. A number of federal agencies are particularly concerned about the magnitude of climate
change; the direct threats to the natural and human capital of the nation, and the capacity for
communities and ecosystem to adapt over time. They recognize that the high levels of habitat
transformation and fragmentation that Mexico’s natural communities have experienced over the
past decades increases the vulnerability of the natural communities and the human populations
that rely on those ecosystem services.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 89
While scientists are still struggling to determine when new data can be definitively linked to climate
change, rather than just be within a normal range of fluctuations or due to other phenomenon such
as El Niño, Mexico has started producing some sobering data. For example, the minimum
temperature along the Gulf Coast of Mexico and the Yucatán peninsula has been rising. With less
cold at night, they are seeing an increase in insect and virus infestations in trees (CONANP, ECCAP
p.8). Another cited example is a change in rainfall patterns with fewer but much more violent
precipitation events – resulting in greater runoff, higher levels of erosion, and less aquifer refill
capacity. There are enough indications of early climate change disruptions that the Mexican
government is taking this threat very seriously.
In March of 2010, CONANP, in collaboration with FMCN and many other academic, government, and
civil society partners, released the Strategy for Climate Change in Protected Areas (ECCAP). Part of
a wider commitment from the GoM to address climate change, ECCAP focuses on two key goals:
1. Increase the ability for ecosystems, and the populations they house, to adapt in the face
of climate change; and
2. Contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and strengthen the ability to store
carbon.
CONANP will address these goals going forward in an effort to best protect the PAs and human
communities from the threats of climate change.
9.4.2
CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIAL FUND IDEAS
Creative fundraising for climate change projects could provide significant opportunities for
effective adaptation and mitigation measures, consistent with the ECCAP priorities. Areas that
should be considered in investigating this proposal include:
1. Increasing the ability for ecosystems, and the populations they house, to adapt in the
face of climate change;
 Connector ecoregions become ever more important in adaptation and
allowing for species movement and evolution;
 Greater partnerships would be needed with the state PA systems and key
community and private lands;
 Improvements in management planning and core investments in the federal
PAs – beyond those included in SINAP 1 and 2;
 Expanding effective management programs in threat reductions in the PAs
o Focus on fire brigades and fire management in forested areas;
o Focus on water systems for local communities;
o Build on the lessons learned from the “payment for environmental
services fund” in CONAFOR to see how REDD or other funds could
further strengthen community resolve to be environmental
caretakers.
2. Contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and strengthen the ability to store
carbon.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 90





As mentioned in Section 6.8, there are wonderful examples of green
technologies being used in PA visitor centers and other infrastructure –
models that can be expanded to other PAs;
There are huge opportunities to provide solar and other technologies to
local communities to limit greenhouse gases;
Working with an established and effective fund like the FANP for effectively
managing carbon funding for Reduced Emissions from Degradation and
Deforestation (REDD) projects and future carbon funding opportunities;
Develop transparent disbursement procedures for ensuring that local
communities benefit through “payment for environmental services;”
Establish a policy, strategy, and action plan to achieve “zero emission PAs.”
Many of the key skills and competencies displayed by both CONANP and FMCN would be needed in
developing a strategic response to climate change and an applied use for carbon sequestration or
REDD funds.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 91
ANNEX A
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS INTERVIEWED DURING THE INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION
WORLD BANK
Adriana Moreira
María Elena Castro
Gerente del Proyecto SINAP 2
Senior Social Scientist, LCSEO
GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS (CONANP)
Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich
David Gutiérrez Carbonell
Adrián Méndez Barrera
Flavio Cházaro
Carlos Manterola Pina
Sergio Torres Morales
René Macías Romo
Alfredo Ávila Martínez
Rocío Esquivel Solís
Javier Jiménez González
Carlos Castillo
Angel Elechiguerra
Rubén Valdez Pino
Comisionado Nacional de CONANP
Director General de Operación General
Director de Fortalecimiento de Operación Regional
Director General de Desarrollo Institucional y Promoción
Director de Sostenibilidad Financiera y Procuración de Fondos
Subdirector de Procuración de Recursos Financieros
Director General de Conservación para el Desarrollo
Coordinador del Proyecto SINAP 2
Directora de Evaluación y Seguimiento
Director Regional Frontera Sur, Istmo y Pacífico Sur
Director Regional Noroeste y Alto Golfo de California
Director Recursos Humanos
Subdirector de Organización y Profesionalización
RESERVA BIOLÓGICA SELVA EL OCOTE
Roberto Escalante López
Román Pérez
José Rodríguez
Guadalupe Rodríguez
Héctor Sandoval
José Juan López Santiago
Director del Parque
Subdirector del Parque
Responsable para Incendios y Restauración
Directora de Planeación
Coordinador de Educación Ambiental
Responsable SINAP 2 en la RB Selva el Ocote
RESERVA BIOLÓGICA TEHUACAN CUICATLAN
José Carlos Pizaña Soto
Juan Manuel Salazar
Rafael Arzate
Juan Manuel Salazar Torres
Fernando Reyes Flores
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Director RB Tehuacán - Cuicatlán
Subdirector RB Tehuacán – Cuicatlán
Responsable SINAP II en la RB Tehuacan – Cuicatlán
Subdirector Operativo
Subdirector
Page 92
RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA ALTO GOLFO Y DELTA DEL RIO COLORADO
José R. Campoy F.
Martín Sau Cota
Alfredo Ornelas Cortés
Jesús Alberto Ruíz Ortega
Eduardo Soto Montoya
María Jesús Mtz. Contreras
Martha J. Román R.
Elda Gpe. Gaxiola G.
Director de la Reserva
Sub-Director de la Reserva
Coordinador de Participación Social
Jefe de Proyectos de PROCODES
Coordinador de Monitoreo Biológico
Jefe de Proyectos, Cultura Conservacionista
Coordinadora de Proyectos CEDES
Enlace Administrativo
RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DEL ALTAR
Federico Godínez Leal
José Antonio Dávila Paulín
Horacio Ortega Morales
Dayana Prunedaríos
Mariano Martínez Arballo
Héctor H. Munro
Víctor E. del Río Delgadillo
Félix Sotelo Jáquez
Director de la Reserva
Sub-Director de la Reserva
Supervisor
Educador Ambiental
Coordinador de Plantel
Educación Ambiental
Jefe de Proyectos, Estación Biológica
Coordinador, Estrategia Social
APFF SIERRA DE ÁLAMOS RÍO CUCHUJAQUI
Elvira Rojero Díaz
Alejandro Gómez Nísino
Pedro Acosta Aguilar
Noelia Micaela Meza Verdugo
Hernán Vega Lagarda
Vidal Félix Valenzuela
Ranil Campoy Favela
Isidoro Rodríguez Domínguez
Dulce Lucia Enríquez Burrola
Alfonso Prieto Tinoco
Alonzo Enríquez Rascón
Claudia Navarro Romeo
Lourdes Ma. Alcantar Robles
Almal Montaño Hernández
Claudia Noemi Moreno Arzate
Isidro Hurtado Montoya
Directora del APFF
Sub-Director del APFF
Promotor Comunitario
Promotora de Educación Ambiental
Jefe de Proyectos
Guardaparque
Asesor Proyectos
Guardaparque
Promotora de Educación para la Conservación
Técnico Operativo
Promotor de Educación para la Conservación
Técnico en Turismo
Asistente Técnico de Proyectos
Asistente de Monitoreo Biológico
Técnico Operativo
Promotor Comunitario
NACIONAL FINANCIERA (NAFIN)
Lourdes González Carmona
Enrique Alva
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 93
MEXICAN FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE (FMCN)
Lorenzo Rosenzweig
Renée González Montagut
Director Ejecutivo
Directora del Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas (Directora del
Área de Conservación after 2004)
Directora de Finanzas y Soporte Operativo
Directora de Administración de la Dirección de Conservación
Auxiliar Administrativo de la Dirección de Conservación
Asistente Administrativo de la Dirección de Conservación
Ximena Yañez Soto
Yarit León Reyes
Alejandra Mendez Torres
Karla Ayuso Espinosa
CENTRAL COORDINATION UNIT FOR FANP
Andrew Rhodes Espinoza
Ana Barillas Gómez
Eileen Müller Guerra
Director de la Coordinación Central
Asistente Técnica de la Coordinación Central
Asistente Técnica de la Coordinación Central
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE FUND FOR NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS (CTFANP)
Pedro Álvarez Icaza
Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich
Gabriela Anaya Reyna
Elías García Martínez
Víctor Sánchez Cordero
President
Comisionado Nacional de CONANP
CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES
Francisco Padrón Gil
María José Villanueva Noriega
Daniel Ramos
Acción Cultural Madre Tierra, A.C. and IMAC
Consultora Independiente
The Nature Conservancy of Mexico
SELVA EL OCOTE
Cooperativa Cascada del Aguacero, Ejido Lázaro Cárdenas
 María Eva Pérez Pérez
President, Cooperativa Cascada del Aguacero
 Carlos Díaz Pérez
Secretario, Cooperativa Cascada del Aguacero
Cooperativa Sima de los Catorros
 Judith Villanueva Cortez
 Chema
 Carlos
Presidente
Tesorero
Miembros del Ejido Emilio Rabasa
Miembros del Ejido San Juan Chamula
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 94




Andrés Jiménez Díaz
Mariano Jiménez Díaz
Don Gregorio
Manuel
Representante Sindicato de Café
Representante Apícola
Promotor de Café
Miembros del Ejido Armando Zabadua
 Dom Ranulfo
Promotor de Café
 Grupo de Mujeres de la Cooperativa Panificadora
Pronatura Sur
 Israel Amescua Torrijo
 Eduardo Rodríguez
Director de Programa en Selva el Ocote
Responsable para Reforestación
TEHUACAN-CUICATLAN
Representantes del Consejo de los Recursos Naturales de la Región Cañada de Oaxaca, A. C.
 Julio Sanchez Hernandez
Presidente
 Raul Reves Lopez
Promotor
 Antonio Hernández Martínez
 Gelacío Morga Cruz
Miembro de la Cooperativa Tepelmeme
 Jose Luis Mendoza García
Vivero de agave
Miembros de la Comunidad San Pedro Nodon
 Israel Méndez Sanchez
 Neptalí Sanchez
 Antonio Sanchez
Miembros de la Comunidad San Juan Raya y el Museo Paleontológico
 Alvaro Reyes Cortés
 Minerva Cruz
Encargada del Museo
 Silviano Reyes Hernández
 Juan Reyes Barragan
Presidente
 Cipriano Reyes Hernández
Miembros de la Comunidad Zapotitlán Salinas y el Museo Comunitario Martín Xopanatzil
 Gerardo Carillo Carillo
 Juan Pedro Hernández Mendoza
 Marco Antonio Parrilla
Encargado del Museo
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 95
RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA ALTO GOLFO Y DELTA DEL RIO COLORADO
Recorrido Ciénaga
 Juan Butrón Méndez
Presidenta del Ejido Luís Encinas Johnson
Recorrido Golfo de Santa Clara
 Procuso Aztorga
 Bernabe García
 Ma. Celia Cuellar Duran
 José Luis Gallardo
 Clemente Montes López
 Ricardo Sánchez Rocha
 Carlos Alberto Tirado Pineda
 Eduardo Ramírez Chávez
 Daniela Díaz García
 Mario A. Mora Rodríguez
 Iram García Bañez
 Jesús Ramírez García T.
 Mario Alberto Aguilar Rodríguez
 Ricardo Zazuerte Barnal
 José Luís Camilla
 José Luís Dueñas
 M. Aldama Rivera
RESERVA DE LA BIOSFERA EL PINACATE Y GRAN DESIERTO DEL ALTAR
Centro de Visitantes
 Izar Said Izaguirre Pompa
 Lorena Velásquez
 Víctor Delgado
Responsable de Monitoreo
Atención Visitantes
Jefe de Proyectos
Consejo Asesor
 Guillermo Munro
 José Alfredo Souza C.
 Carlos Bañez Treñado
 Amaranto Celes Aloya
Presidente Consejo Asesor
Representante de los Ejidos en la Reserva
Sub-Dirección Municipal de Ecología, Puerto Peñasco
Propietario Peñasco
APFF SIERRA DE ÁLAMOS RÍO CUCHUJAQUI
Recorrido Rancho La Sierrita
 Doña Conchita
Consejo Asesor
 Guadalupe Mendel Torres
 Sandra Martínez Contreras
 Yesenid Clark Mendivil
 Berta A. Leyva Osorio
 Carlos A. Jacobo Hernández
 Sergio Ochoa Jiménez
 Blanca Xochotl Acosta Rey
 René Caldera
 María Antonia Hurtado E.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Guía Turística
Red Fronteriza de Salud y Ambiente
Líder de Proyecto Corredores de Turismo Alternativo, ITSON
Apoyo en Proyectos ITSON
Profesor ITSON
Profesor ITSON
Asuntos Ambientales, Grupo México
RFSA, A.C.
Rancho Guadalupe
Page 96




Roberto Tituscio Martinez R .
Rubin Ahorez E.
Onofre Sacido Esquer
Carlos Valdés Casillas
Amenazadas, Pronatura Noroeste
Rancho El Divisadero
Rancho Santa Barbara
Ejido Cnoquincultvi
Director, Programa Regional de Conservación de Especies
Reunión con PRONATURA y Nature and Culture International
 Manuel de Jesús Montoya
Brigada Comunitaria
 Manuel de Jesús Valenzuela
Maestro
 Luís Morales Santini
Asesor NCI
 Stephanie H. Meyer
Administradora, KEMM y NCI
 Guillermo Amado Acostadinos
Club Ecológico
 Karla Salazar Arias
Club Ecológico
 José Luís Ortega Ramírez
Incendios Forestales
 Rafael Ángel Arenas Wong
Pronatura Noroeste
 Cayetano Aragón A.
Comisión Nacional Forestal
 Luz del Carmen Parra V.
Delegada de Turismo de Alamos
 José Luis Arredondo Z.
Maestro de Telesecundario
Recorrido La Aduana
 Doña Valentina
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 97
ANNEX B
DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO DURING THE
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

Bezuary Creel, Juan, El valor de los bienes y servicios que las áreas naturales protegidas
proveen a los mexicanos. The Nature Conservancy – Programa Mexico. 2009.

Conservation Finance Alliance, Rapid Review of Conservation Trust Funds May 2008 Second
Edition. Prepared for the CFA Working Group on Environmental Funds by Barry Spergel
and Philippe Taïeb. 2008. CONANP, Estrategía de Cambio Climatico para Areas Protegidas
(ECCAP). Released on March 3, 2010.

CONANP, Estrategia de Conservación para el Desarrollo. PowerPoint.

CONANP. Misión de Supervisión del Banco Mundial al Proyecto Consolidación de Áreas
Naturales Protegidas – SINAP II. PowerPoint.

CONANP, Monitoreo del Ajolote (Ambystoma Altamirani) en el Parque Nacional Lagunas de
Zempoala, Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, October
2009.

CONANP, Monitoreo de Aves en la Reserva de la Biosfera El Ocote, Dirección de Evaluación y
Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, December 2009

CONANP, Monitoreo Poblacional de Especies Clave: Cocodrilianos (crododylus acutus y
Caiman crocodilus fuscus). Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de
Monitoreo, October 2009.

CONANP, Monitoreo del Palmoteador de Yuma (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) en la Biosfera
Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Río Colorado. Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento,
Subdirección de Monitoreo, December 2009.

CONANP, Monitoreo del Pez Joya (Hemichromis guttatus) en el Area de Protección de Flora y
Fauna Cuatrociénegas. Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo,
December 2009.

CONANP, Programa de Conservación y Manejo, Reserva de La Biósfera Alto Golfo de California
y Delata del Río Colorado, México.2007.

CONANP, Programa Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas 2002-2007 and 20072012SEMARNAT/CONANP 2007.

CONANP. Proyecto de Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas (SINAP II). PowerPoint.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 98

CONANP, Resúmen de Applicación de La Estrategia de Conservación para El Desarrollo.
PowerPoint.

CONANP, Sistema de Información, Monitoreo y Evaluación para la Conservación - SIMEC.
Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, 2004.

CONANP, Sistema de Información, Monitoreo y Evaluación para la Conservación - SIMEC.
Dirección de Evaluación y Seguimiento, Subdirección de Monitoreo, 2005.

CONANP y FMCN, Diagnóstico de la Estrategia de Monitoreo Biológico en Áreas Protegidas
Federales en México. Diana Montes Caballero. May 2009

CONANP y FMCN, Sistema de Monitoreo y Evaluación del Fondo para Areas Naturales
Protegidas, Reporte Anual, 2008. Annual Report to the World Bank reporting on indicators
of FANP.

CONANP and FMCN, Annual Rate of Habitat Transformation, 1973-2008. Excel Spreadsheet.

CONANP and FMCN, The Fund for Protected Areas: an Effective Public-Private Partnership.
PowerPoint.

CTFANP, Minuta de la cuadragésima séptima reunión del Comité Técnico del Fondo para
Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CTFANP). March 3, 2010. Minutes taken by Renée Gonzalez in
the offices of the Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A. C. (FMCN)

Commission for Environmental Cooperation, North American Conservation Action Plan.
2008.

Dinerstein, E., D.M. Olson, D.J. Graham, A.L. Webster, S.A. Primm, M.P. Bookbinder, and G.
Ledec. 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and
the Caribbean. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 129 ppEnkerlin Hoeflich, Ernesto y
Patricio Robles Gil, Mexico’s Natural Wonders: Ensuring the Future Through Conservation.
Collection Voces de la Tierra, Sierra Madre. 2009. Mexico City.

FANP, Avance del Ejercicio de los PIE 2009. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de
la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Estado de Origen y Aplicación Histórico, 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion
de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Marcos Lógicos por ANP, SINAP II, 2009, 2010. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la
Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Manuales de Operaciones, 2000, 2008, 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion
de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN)

FANP, Númeralia del SINAP II. Excel Spreadsheet. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de
la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 99

FANP, PIE’s Finales 2010. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza,
A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, PIE’s Seleccionados para 2010. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la
Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Plan Anual de Gasto y Presupuesto Consolidado, 2005-2010.

FANP. Reporte Anual SINAP II 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza,
A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reportes de Monitoero del FANP, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Fondo Mexicano para
la Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reporte Técnico, CC II 2009. FANP, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la
Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reporte Técnico CC II, Texto Explicativo 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion
de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reporte Técnico de la Administración , SINAP II, 2009. Fondo Mexicano para la
Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN).

FANP, Reportes Técnicos Anuales por ANP, SINAP II, 2005-2010. Fondo Mexicano para la
Conservacion de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN) Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial,
Experiencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios para la Conservación. Informe de Evaluación
Resumido #1-99. Enero de 1999.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Borrador – Política de Inversión.
Comité de Inversiónes, Consejo Directivo de la FMCN.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Fortalecimiento en la participación
y cooperación de las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil y la Comisión de Áreas Naturales
Protegidas en pro de la Conservación - Memoria Técnica del Evento. Primer Semana de
Intercambio de Conocimientos para la Conservación. 27 y 28 de julio de 2009. Ciudad de
México.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Manual del Consejero Versión 20092010. Consejo Directivo de la FMCN.

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, FANP Manual de Operaciones.
Version 2009.

González Montagut, R, C. Molina Islas, A. Rhodes Espinoza, Biosphere Reserves: Do They
work? FMCN 2007.

Graf, Sergio And Daan Vreugdenhil, Evaluación de Termino Medio “Consolidation Of The
Protected Areas System Project” (050311TF050311-GEF2: MEXICO). Shepherdstown, W Va.
November, 2005.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 100

Olson, D. M, E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C.
Underwood, J.A. D'amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H.
Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W.Wettengel, P. Hedao, & K.R. Kassem. 2001. Terrestrial
Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51:933-938.

Preston, Marja and Ray Victurine, Conservation Trust Fund Investment Survey, For Financial
Years 2007 and 2008. Wildlife Conservation Society, Latin American and Caribbean
Network of Environmental Funds, Conservation Finance Alliance, Fondo Français por
Environnement Mondial. September 2009.

Redford, K. 1992. The empty forest. Bioscience, Vol. 42, No. 6: 412-422

Reserva de la Biosfera Selva El Ocote, Las Mejores Prácticas de Café de Conservación, Un
Manual.

Reserva de la Biósfera El Pinacate y el Gran Desierto de Altar. Programa Anual de Monitoreo
de Vida Silvestre.
Reserva de la Biósfera El Pinacate y el Gran Desierto de Altar. Suministro de Energía en
Centro de Visitantes del Pinacate.


Saccardi, Daniel, Conservation Trust Fund Investment Survey. Wildlife Conservation Society,
Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds, Conservation Finance
Alliance. September 2009.

Sánchez-Cordero, Víctor and Fernando Figueroa, Effectiveness of natural protected areas to
prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodiversity Conservation, 2008.
17:3223–3240.

SEMARNAT, Logros 2009, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. 2009.

SEMARNAT, Programa de Manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Selva El Ocote, Comisión Nacional
de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. 1a edición diciembre 2000.

Spergel, Barry, Protected Area Endowments: Donation and Board Seat Analysis.
10/14/2008.

Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas (UNICACH), Chamaedorea ernesti-augusti
(Palma Cola de Pescado) Colecta y Almacenamiento de Semillas. Facultad de Ciencias
Biologicós, PROMEP 103.5 (08/5190) junio de 2009.

World Bank, Mexico - Consolidation of the Protected Areas System Project (GEF) Project
Appraisal Document, Latin America and Caribbean Region, 2002.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 101
ANNEX C
GEF AND COUNTERPART FUNDS FOR THE FANP
Donations to the FANP Endowment
Project Donor
SINAP I
GEF
Triunfo,
Manantlán,
Montes Azules,
Vizcaíno, Isla
del Golfo,
Calakmul, Sian
Ka´an, Isla
Contoy, Ría
Lagartos,
Mariposa
Monarca
TOTAL
Project
Endowment Funds
GEF US$
PA
$
16,480,080.00
$
Donor
PA
SINAP 2
GEF
Alto Golfo,
Chichinautzi,
Tehuacan ,
Cuatrocienegas
, Sierra de
Alamos,
Encrucijada,
Sierra la
Laguna,
Pinacate,
Ocote,
Sepultura,
Mapimí, Banco
Chinchorro
Donor
Fundación
Gonzalo Río
Arronte
Fundación
Packard
Fundación
Ford
NFWF (lo dono
la Packard a
traves de
NFWF)
Cuencas
Prioritarias
Fondo de
Conservación el
Triunfo
7,564,377.00
2,210,000.00
US$
$ 3,000,000.00
$ 1,000,000.00
$
500,000.00
$
500,000.00
$
5,000,000.00
Iniciativa Río San
Pedro
Counterpart Funds
Donor
Fundación
Packard
Project
US$
Fondo Monarca
Fondo Monarca
$
5,000,000.00
SEMARNAT
$
1,000,000.00
SEMARNAT
SINAP I
$
1,500,000.00
Fundación
Homeland
Fundación
Summit
Fondo de
Conservación
Banco Chinchorro
$
50,000.00
NFWF
$
Project
16,480,080.00
Endowment Funds
GEF US$
$
Counterpart Funds
Wick
Estado de
México
Iniciativa Río San
Pedro
$
50,000.00
$
100,000.00
$
10,000.00
$
253,574.85
$
250,017.29
$
549,915.86
$
227,826.07
$
551,764.11
$
234,609.24
$
50,000.00
$
50,000.00
Fondo Monarca
Estado de
Michoacán
SEMARNAT
$
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
7,350,000.00
Fundación
Summit
SINAP II
Fondo de
Conservación
Page 102
Fundación
Packard y
Marisla
SEMARNAT
FMCN
SEMARNAT
Fundación
Summit
$
5,440,000.00
Estado de
México
Global
Conservation
Fund
Fundación
Packard
TOTAL
$
Endowment Donations
FANP TOTAL
$
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
22,564,377.00
39,044,457.00
Banco Chinchorro
$
200,000.00
Fondo de
Conservación
Bahía de los
Ángeles
$
375,000.00
$
710,217.16
$
175,617.29
$
348,668.96
$
175,390.90
$
602,820.64
$
147,230.64
SINAP II
Fondo para fuego,
restauración y
prevención
$
4,500,000.00
$
176,533.73
$
276,324.52
$
846,424.41
$
976,656.48
Fondo de
Conservación
Banco Chinchorro
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
Fondo Monarca
Fondo de
Conservación
Bahía de los
Ángeles
$
249,615.28
$
1,000,000.00
Fondo Marino
$
1,290,000.00
SINAP II
$
$
22,528,207.43
27,528,207.43
Page 103
DONATIONS TO SINKING FUNDS IN FANP
Project
Donor
Sinking Fund
USD
Counterpart Funds for the FANP Endowment
Donor
Project
US$
GEF
SINAP 2
Start up
funds
$ 200,000.00
Fundación Summit
Iniciativa del
Río San Pedro
$ 200,000.00
Fundación Packard
Fondo de
Conservación
Espíritu Santo
$ 1,500,000.00
$ 1,908,000.00
Fundraising
funds
$ 630,802.92
Fondo
Monarca
Movimient
o Azteca
$ 882,904.17
Desarrollo
sostenible en
la Reserva de
la Biósfera el
Vizcaíno
AECID
$ 300,000.00
Reservas
Marinas
Comunidad
Europea
$ 732,238.32
Fondo Río
San Pedro
Fundación
Ford
$ 100,000.00
TOTALES
Fundación Summit
Fondo de
Conservación
Banco
Chinchorro
$ 4,553,945.41
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
$ 1,900,000.00
Page 104
Endowment Donations Beyond the Required Counterpart for
SINAP 2
Counterpart Resources
Donor
Global
Conservation
Fund
Global
Conservation
Fund
Fundación
Packard
Fundación
Summit
International
Community
Foundation
Estado de
México
Project
Fondo de
Conservación
Bahía de los
Ángeles
$
1,000,000.00
Fondo Marino
$
1,000,000.00
Fondo Marino
Fondo de
Conservación
Banco
Chinchorro
Fondo de
Conservación
Bahía de los
Ángeles
Fondo
Monarca
$
4,710,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
125,000.00
$
183,627.26
TOTAL
Total Endowment Funds Raised
for the FANP

US$
$
7,218,627.26
$ 75,691,291.69
Supplied by FMCN
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 105
ANNEX D
LIST OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES SUPPORTED
BY GEF SINKING FUNDS
Agreement
PA
IDS/04/CON
ANP-01
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
IDS/04/CON
ANP-02
RB Alto Golfo
de California
y Delta del
Río Colorado
IDS/04/CON
ANP-03
IDS/05/CON
ANP-01
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Zapotitlán
de Salinas
Rehabilitación De
Un Museo
Comunitario En
Zapotitlán Salinas
Puebla (Segunda
Parte) Primera
Etapa
▪ Restricción del crecimiento
habitacional en zonas vecinas del jardín
botánico
▪ Restauración de los ecosistemas
prioritarios en el área
▪ Sensibilización respecto al manejo
sustentable de los recursos naturales en
la zona
Luis
Encinas
Jhonson
Proyecto
Ecoturístico
Ciénega De Santa
Clara (Primera
Parte)
▪ Protección de especies endémicas y
especies en peligro de extinción, p.e
cachorrito del desierto
▪ Conservación de los ecosistemas
prioritarios, p.e humedales y matorrales
xerófilos
Los
Laureles
Proyecto
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad San
José De Los
Laureles Del Apff
Cobio
Chichinautzin-Pn
Lagunas De
Zempoala
Amatlán
de
Quetzalcoa
tl
Proyecto
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad
Amatlán De
Quetzalcoatl Del
Apff Cobio
Chichinautzin-Pn
El Tepozteco
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Mantenimiento de los servicios
ambientales que proporcionan los
diferentes ecosistemas de la zona
▪ Recuperación de zonas arboladas por
medio de la restauración y reforestación
▪ Recuperación gradual de poblaciones
de flora y fauna silvestre
▪ Manejo sustentable de los recursos
forestales
▪ Restricción en el cambio del uso del
suelo
▪ Incremento de los niveles de
infiltración y escurrimientos
subterráneo de agua
▪ Incorporación de tierras ociosas al
proyecto para la generación de bienes y
servicios ambientales
▪ Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por
medio de la reforestación y restauración
de áreas impactadas
▪ Incremento de los niveles de
infiltración y escurrimientos
subterráneo de agua
▪ Conservación de suelos
▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en zonas
recuperadas
▪ Restricción en el cambio del uso del
suelo
Page 106
Agreement
PA
IDS/05/CON
ANP-02
IDS/05/CON
ANP-03
IDS/05/CON
ANP-04
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
RB Alto Golfo
de California
y Delta del
Río Colorado
APFF Sierra
de ÁlamosRío
Cuchujaqui
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Environmental Benefits
Nepupualc
o
▪ Restauración y conservación del
hábitat para el manejo sustentable de la
vida silvestre
Uma De Venado ▪ Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por
Cola Blanca Y
medio de la reforestación y restauración
Parque
de áreas impactadas.
Ecoturistico En La ▪ Incremento de los niveles de
Comunidad De
infiltración y escurrimientos
Nepopualco Del subterráneo de agua
Apffs Cobio
▪ Conservación de suelos
Chichinautzin
▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en zonas
recuperadas
▪ Restricción en el cambio del uso del
suelo
Salinas de
Gortari
▪ Conservación de áreas de anidación de
especies de aves playeras migratorias y
residentes endémicas o amenazadas
Proyecto Centro
▪ Conservación del germoplasma de
De Producción
diversas especies vegetales halófitas
Ostrícola "Estero
endémicas y de uso tradicional para la
San Judas"
etnía Tohono Odam
▪ Conservación de sitios de
reproducción de especies intermareales
Santa
Bárbara
▪ Conservar la diversidad de
ecosistemas como la selva baja
caducifolia y los bosques de pino-encino
y pino.
▪ Incremento poblacional de especies de
Proyecto De
distribución restringida, como el Agave
Producción De
bovicurnata
Mezcal Con Planta ▪ Protección y recuperación de suelos
De Agave Nativa por medio de técnicas agroecológicas
(Agave
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas de
Bovicornuta) En La distribución restringida (zona de
Comunidad De
transición de las regiones Neártica y
Santa Bárbara Del Neotropical
Apff Sierra De
▪ Conservación de la integridad
Álamos-Río
funcional de los ecosistemas y los
Cuchujaqui
servicios ambientales generados,
captación de agua, retención de suelo y
captura de CO2
▪ Disminución del sobrepastoreo
▪ Conservación de hábitat de especies
como el jaguar y la guacamaya verde
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 107
Agreement
PA
IDS/05/CON
ANP-05
IDS/05/CON
ANP-06
IDS/05/CON
ANP-07
IDS/05/CON
ANP-08
IDS/05/CON
ANP-09
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Adolfo
López
Mateos
Manejo
Silvopastoril De
Ganado Bovino En
El Ejido Adolfo
López Mateos
RB La
Sepultura
Sierra
Morena
Producción Y
Comercialización
De Palma Camedor
(Chamaedorea
Quezalteca) En El
Ejido Sierra
Morena, Municipio
De Villa Corzo,
Chiapas
RB La
Sepultura
UPROSIVI
(incluye 9
comunidad
es)
Proyecto De
Mejoramiento En
Las Prácticas Para
La Producción De
Café En La Sierra
De Villaflores
RB La
Sepultura
RB La
Encrucijada
RB La
Encrucijada
Coapa
Guanajuat
o
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Producción De
Abonos Orgánicos
Y Fomento De La
Horticultura
Orgánica En El
Ejido Coapa,
Municipio De
Pijijiapan, Chiapas
Proyecto De
Consolidación Del
Centro De
Producción De
Plantas Forestales
Tropicales,
Frutales Y
Ornamentales En
El Ejido
Guanajuato De La
Reserva De La
Environmental Benefits
▪ Recuperación de zonas desmontadas
▪ Disminución de zonas de potreros
evitando desmontes en selvas
▪ Recuperación de suelos al disminuir el
uso de fuego
▪ Recuperación de vegetación forestal al
disminuir la superficie de zonas de
forraje
▪ Repoblación de áreas silvestres de
palma comedor (especie en peligro de
extinción)
▪ Disminución de la extracción de la
palma silvestre
▪ Conservación asociaciones vegetales a
nivel dosel y sotobosque.
▪ Conservación de hábitat natural y de
transito de especies animales.
▪ Conservación de Bosque Mesófilo de
Montaña
▪ Conservación de suelos y recarga de
manto freáticos
▪ Disminución de presión a zona núcleo
▪ Conservación de hábitat de especies de
flora y fauna (avifauna y especies
endémicas)
▪ Conservación y recuperación de suelo
por medio de prácticas agroecológicas
▪ Disminución de presión y protección
de la zona núcleo
▪ Conservación de servicios
ambientales: infiltración de agua y
captura de CO2
▪ Reducción de la contaminación de
mantos freáticos por de productos
químicos agrícolas
▪ Incrementa de la cobertura vegetal
(diversificación de sistemas de
producción)
▪ Restauración del hábitat por medio de
especies endémicas
▪ Aumento de la superficie arbolada
▪ Conservación de niveles de humedad y
recuperación de suelo
▪ Reducción de la contaminación de
mantos freáticos por de productos
químicos agrícolas
▪ Conservación de la biodiversidad por
medio de manejo tradicional
▪ Conservación de especies prioritarias
Page 108
Agreement
PA
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Environmental Benefits
Biosfera “La
Encrucijada”.
IDS/05/CON
ANP-10
RB La
Encrucijada
IDS/05/CON
ANP-11
RB La
Encrucijada
IDS/05/CON
ANP-12
APFF Sierra
de ÁlamosRío
Cuchujaqui
IDS/05/CON
ANP-13
RB Sierra La
Laguna
El Castaño
Proyecto Para El
Fortalecimiento
De Las Actividades
De Ecoturísmo En
La Ranchería “El
Castaño” De La
Reserva De La
Biosfera La
Encrucijada
La Palma
Proyecto Para El
Fortalecimiento
De Las Actividades
De Ecoturísmo En
La Ranchería “La
Palma” De La
Reserva De La
Biosfera La
Encrucijada
La Aduana
Proyecto
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad La
Aduana Del Apff
Sierra De Álamos
Río Cuchujaqui
San
Antonio de
La Sierra
Proyecto Para La
Producción De
Lombricomposta
En San Antonio De
La Sierra En La Rb
Sierra La Laguna
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
▪ Conservación de la cobertura vegetal
en la zona
▪ Reforestación y restauración de zonas
impactadas por procesos productivos
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas de
humedales (maglares, tulares, popales,
esteros, lagunas y playa)
▪ Conservación de la biodiversidad de
los humedales por medio de prácticas de
manejo sustentable.
▪ Conservación de la cobertura vegetal
en la zona
▪ Reforestación y restauración de zonas
impactadas por procesos productivos
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas de
humedales (maglares, tulares, popales,
esteros, lagunas, dunas y playa)
▪ Conservación de la biodiversidad de
los humedales por medio de prácticas de
manejo sustentable.
▪ Conservación de la integridad
funcional de los ecosistemas de la zona:
selva baja caducifolia, bosque de pinoencino y bosques de pino
▪ Conservación y mantenimiento de los
servicios ambientales: producción de
agua, retención de suelo y captura de
carbono.
▪ Restauración natural de los
ecosistemas al disminuir el impacto de
la agricultura y la ganadería
▪ Recuperación de la fertilidad y
permeabilidad de lo suelos
▪ Reducción de la explotación de los
mantos acuíferos
▪ Reducción de los niveles de
contaminación por agroquímicos en
suelo y agua
▪ Reducción de los efectos del pastoreo
sobre la cubierta vegetal
Page 109
Agreement
PA
IDS/05/CON
ANP-14
RB Pantanos
de Centla
Ejido or
Communit
y
Rivera Alta
IDS/05/CON
ANP-16
RB Pantanos
de Centla
Tabasquill
o
IDS/05/CON
ANP-17
RB Pantanos
de Centla
El Bosque
IDS/06/CON
ANP-01
RB Sierra La
Laguna
San Simón
IDS/06/CON
ANP-02
APFF
Cuatrociéneg
as
IDS/06/CON
ANP-03
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
Cuatrocién
egas
San Juan
Atzingo
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Proyecto De Para
El Manejo
Sustentable De
Pejelagarto
(Atractosteus
Tropicus) En
Estanquería
Rústica
Aprovechamiento
De Especies De
Lirio (Euchornia
Crassipes) Y Guano
Redondo (Sabal
Mexicana) Para La
Elaboración De
Artesanías
Proyecto Para La
Elaboración De
Harina Y Machaca
De Pescado Para
Consumo Humano
(Primera Etapa)
Establecimiento Y
Manejo De Un
Apiario En El Ejido
San Simón De La
Rb Sierra La
Laguna.
Environmental Benefits
▪ Disminución de la presión sobre
especies silvestres
▪ Conservación ecosistemas de
humedales y su diversas biológica
▪ Protección de especies endémicas y/o
en riesgo (Pez cabeza de hueso y
Mojarra castarrica)
▪ Se conservan y mantienen ecosistemas
prioritarios
▪ Mantenimiento de cuerpos de agua
evitando la eutrofización
▪ Conservación del hábitat y zonas de
descanso y alimentación de especies
prioritarias como el venado cola blanca
y diversas especies de quelonios
▪ Protección de especies endémicas y/o
en riesgo
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios principalmente el manglar
▪ Conservación de sitios de incubación
de especies intermareales
▪ Conservación de los ecosistemas de la
zona
▪ Reducción de la presión antropogénica
sobre los ecosistemas
▪ Éxito reproductivo de la flora melífera
nativa
▪ Restricción del libre pastoreo caprino
en praderas naturales▪ Protección de
Establecimiento las especies endémicas, principalmente
De Una Planta
pastos y arbustos▪ Reducción del
Procesadora De sobrepastoreo en agostadero▪
Lácteos En El Ejido Recuperación de cobertura vegetal al
Cuatrociénegas establecer cercas vivas, plantaciones
Del Apff
mixtas de mesquite y especies forrajeras
Cuatrociénegas. nativas▪ Mejorar la estructura y
fertilidad del suelo por medio de
labranzas cero o de conservación
▪ Recuperación del hábitat para la fauna
silvestre
▪ Incremento de la masa forestal por
medio de la reforestación
▪ Mantenimiento y recarga de acuíferos
Proyecto
por infiltración resultado de la
Ecoturístico San
conservación y recuperación de suelo
Juan Atzingo
▪ Recuperación y conservación de los
Lagos Zempoala, regulación de
microclima
▪ Manejo sustentable de los recursos
naturales promoviendo el ordenamiento
Page 110
Agreement
PA
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Environmental Benefits
ecológico de la zona.
IDS/06/CON
ANP-04
RB Sierra La
Laguna
San
Antonio de
la Sierra
(Subcuenc
a
Potrerillos
)
IDS/06/CON
ANP-05
RB Pantanos
de Centla
Tabasquill
o
IDS/06/CON
ANP-07
APFF
Cuatrociéneg
as
San Juan
de
Boquillas
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
▪ Conservación y restauración de
ecosistemas prioritarios
▪ Diversificación de agrocultivos
▪ Conservación de la cobertura vegetal
Módulo
mediante reducción de la deforestación
Demostrativo De ▪ Recuperación del suelo e incremento
Manejo
de su fertilidad
Agrosilvopastoril ▪ Disminución de la frontera
En San Antonio De agropecuaría
La Sierra
▪ Reducción de los niveles de
contaminación de suelo y agua
▪ Reducción de la compactación de suelo
▪ Aumento de los niveles de captación
de agua
Proyecto Para El
Manejo Y
Aprovechamiento
▪ Protección de especies endémicas
A Través De La
▪ Protección de especies en estatus de
Construcción Y
peligro de extinción
Establecimiento
▪ Disminución del impacto en las
De Una Unidad De
sistemas lagunares
Manejo
▪ Disminución de la sobreexplotación de
Sustentable (Uma)
la tortugas y recuperación de sus
De Tortuga
poblaciones
Dulceacuícola
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
(Dermatemys
prioritarios principalmente acuáticos
Mawii Y
Trachemys Scripta
Venusta)
Establecimiento
De Un Taller Para ▪ Protección de las especies endémicas y
La Elaboración De en riesgo de extinción por medio de la
Artesanías De
conservación de ecosistemas sistémicos
Carrizo (Arundo terrestres y acuáticos (pozas).
Donax) En El Ejido ▪ Disminución de la cacería furtiva
San Juan De
principalmente de venado cola blanca.
Boquillas,
▪ Controlar la proliferación de especies
Municipio De
introducidas en ecosistemas prioritarios
Cuatro Ciénegas, (carrizo asiático)
Coahuila.
Page 111
Agreement
PA
IDS/06/CON
ANP-08
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
IDS/06/CON
ANP-09
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
IDS/06/CON
ANP-10
RB Alto Golfo
de California
y Delta del
Río Colorado
IDS/06/CON
ANP-11
RB La
Encrucijada
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Nepupualc
o
Uma De Venado
Cola Blanca Y
Parque
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad De
Nepopualco Del
Apffs Cobio
Chichinautzin
(Segunda Parte)
Amatlán
de
Quetzalcoa
tl
Proyecto
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad
Amatlán De
Quetzalcoatl Del
Apff Cobio
Chichinautzin-Pn
El Tepozteco
(Segunda Parte)
Salinas de
Gortari
Proyecto Centro
De Producción
Ostrícola “Estero
San Judas”
Segunda Parte
Salto del
Agua
Manejo De
Alimentos
Balanceados Para
Ganadería
Intensiva En El
Ejido Salto Del
Agua
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Restauración y conservación del
hábitat para el manejo sustentable de la
vida silvestre
▪ Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por
medio de la reforestación y restauración
de áreas impactadas.
▪ Incremento de los niveles de
infiltración y escurrimientos
subterráneo de agua
▪ Conservación de suelos
▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en zonas
recuperadas
▪ Restricción en el cambio del uso del
suelo
 ▪ ▪ ▪ Incorporación de tierras
ociosas al proyecto para la
generación de bienes y servicios
ambientales
▪ Incremento de la cubierta
vegetal por medio de la
reforestación y restauración de
áreas impactadas
▪ Incremento de los niveles de
infiltración y escurrimientos
subterráneo de agua
▪ Conservación de suelos
▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en
zonas recuperadas
▪ Restricción en el cambio del
uso del suelo
▪ Conservación de áreas de anidación de
especies de aves playeras migratorias y
residentes endémicas o amenazadas
▪ Conservación del germoplasma de
diversas especies vegetales halófitas
endémicas y de uso tradicional para la
etnía Tohono Odam
▪ Conservación de sitios de
reproducción de especies intermareales
▪ Diversificación de agrocultivos
▪ Ampliación de la masa forestal por
medio de establecimiento plantaciones
forestales, frutícolas y de ramoneo
▪ Recuperación del suelo e incremento
de su fertilidad
▪ Disminución de la frontera
agropecuaría
▪ Reducción de los niveles de
contaminación de suelo y agua
▪ Conservación y restauración de
ecosistemas prioritarios (selva alta y
Page 112
Agreement
PA
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Environmental Benefits
relictos de sabana)
IDS/06/CON
ANP-12
RB La
Sepultura
Rosendo
Salazar
IDS/06/CON
ANP-13
APFF
Cuatrociéneg
as
San
Lorenzo
IDS/06/CON
ANP-14
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
San Juan
Raya
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
▪ Reducción de la presión de apertura
de frontera agrícola hacia la zona núcleo
▪ Conservación de la vocación
paisajística de la zona
▪ Conservación de los ríos y cuerpos de
Turismo
agua (naturales y artificiales) que
Alternativo En El
confluyen en la zona
Ejido Rosendo
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
Salazar (Centro
prioritarios (selva baja caducifolia y
Turístico Tolán
bosque de pino)
Sociedad
▪ Conservación del hábitat de la
Cooperativa De R.
biodiversidad existente en la zona
L. De C.V.).
Conservación de especies emblemáticas,
endémicas y/o en peligro de extinción
(avifauna)
▪ Conservación de servicios ambientales
(producción de biomasa, agua y oxigeno)
APROVECHAMIEN
▪ Reducción de pérdida de cobertura
TO SUSTENTABLE
vegetal asegurando el abastecimiento de
DEL PALMITO
alimentación y refugio especies
(Yuca Spp.) POR
animales
MEDIO DEL
▪ Protección de especies endémicas y en
ESTABLECIMIENT
riesgo de extinción (principalmente
O DE UN VIVERO
reptiles)
EN EL EJIDO SAN
▪ Recuperación y conservación del
LORENZO,
ecosistemas prioritarios (Desierto
MUNICIPIO DE
Chihuahuense)
CUATRO
▪ Reducción de la extracción legal e
CIÉNEGAS,
ilegal de palmito
COAHUILA.
▪ Regulación el pastoreo de ganado
caprino
Museo
▪ Restricción del saqueo de flora
Paleontológico
silvestre (especies prioritarias)
Comunitario En
▪ Restauración de los ecosistemas
San Juan Raya,
prioritarios en el área
Municipio De
▪ Sensibilización respecto al manejo
Zapotitlán Salinas,
sustentable de los recursos naturales en
Puebla.
la zona
▪ Contención de la expansión de la
Page 113
Agreement
PA
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Environmental Benefits
frontera agrícola
IDS/06/CON
ANP-15
IDS/06/CON
ANP-16
IDS/07/CON
ANP-01
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
RB Banco
Chinchorro
San Juan
Bautista
Atatlahuca
Reconversión De
Tierras De Uso
Productivo A
Través Del Trato
Con Abonos
Orgánicos En La
Comunidad San
Juan Bautista
Atatlahuca.
San Juan
Tonaltepec
Estrategia De
Conservación De
Agua Y Suelos En
La Comunidad De
San Juan
Tonaltepec,
Oaxaca.
Xcalak
Proyecto Para El
Fortalecimiento
De La Actividad
Artesanal En
Mujeres De La
Comunidad De
Xcalak
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
▪ Recuperación y restauración de
suelos impactados, conservación de la
cobertura vegetal
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
del suelo
▪ Reducción de la deforestación
▪ Reincorporación de biomasa a la
constitución edáfica de suelo
recuperando y elevando los niveles de
nutrientes del suelo
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios (selva baja cadicifola,
bosque de pino-encino y bosque
mesófilo de montaña)
▪ Reducción de los niveles de
contaminación del suelo y agua a
través de la disminución del uso de
plaguicidas y fertilizantes
▪ Aumento de la captación de agua en
la localidad
▪ Reducción sedimentos en los ríos
durante la temporada de lluvia
▪ Conservación y mantenimiento de los
manantiales de la zona
▪ Reducción de la erosión eólica
conservando las masas forestales
▪ Administración eficiente del agua
captada
▪ Recuperación de cobertura vegetal al
establecer bordos con plantaciones de
especies típicas de la región, como el
mezquite, el guaje, el maguey o el nopal
tunero
▪ Recuperación gradual de la fertilidad
del suelo
▪ Protección de especies endémicas y/
en peligro de extinción
▪ Uso sustentable de caracol rosado y
otras especies de moluscos
Page 114
Agreement
PA
IDS/07/CON
ANP-02
IDS/07/CON
ANP-03
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
RB Banco
Chinchorro
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Zapotitlán
de Salinas
Rehabilitación De
Un Museo
Comunitario En
Zapotitlán Salinas
Puebla (Segunda
Parte) Segunda
Etapa
Xcalak
Proyecto Para El
Fomento Del
Manejo De
Residuos Sólidos
(Separación Y
Disposición) En La
Comunidad Xcalak.
IDS/07/CON
ANP-04
RB Banco
Chinchorro
Mahahual
Fortalecimiento
De La Actividad
Ecoturística En Las
Cooperativas
Pesquera De
Banco Chinchorro
IDS/07/CON
ANP-05
RB ALTO
GOLFO DE
CALIFORNIA
Y DELTA DEL
RÍO
COLORADO
EJIDO
MÉDICO
CIRUJANO
ALBERTO
OVIEDO
MOTA
Granja Acuícola
"Laguna Del Indio"
En El Ejido Médico
Cirujano Alberto
Oviedo Mota.
Xcalak
Fortalecimiento
De La Actividad
Ecoturística En La
Comunidad
Pesquera De
Arrecifes Xcalak
IDS/07/CON
ANP-06
RB BANCO
CHINCHORR
O
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Restricción del crecimiento
habitacional en zonas vecinas del
jardín botánico ▪ Restauración de los
ecosistemas prioritarios en el área▪
Sensibilización respecto al manejo
sustentable de los recursos naturales
en la zona
▪ Mermar los niveles de contaminantes
en suelo y cuerpos subterraneos de
agua mediante la reducción de
lixiviados en el suelo
▪ Erradicación de tiraderos de basura a
cielo abierto
▪ Conservación de especies
emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en
peligro de extinción mediante la
erradicación de fauna nociva
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios (selvas, lagunas costeras,
humedales y dunas costeras)
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios (barrera arrecifal, selvas,
lagunas costeras, humedales y dunas
costeras)
▪ Conservación de especies
emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en
peligro de extinción
▪ Restauración y conservación del
humedal “Laguna del Indio”
▪ Conservación de zonas de
alimentación y descanso
pertenecientes a la Ruta Migratoria del
Pacifico de aves playeras y anátidos
▪ Conservación del hábitat del
Palmoteador de Yuma (Rallus
longirostris yumanensis), especie
endémica.
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios (barrera arrecifal, selvas,
lagunas costeras, humedales y dunas
costeras)
▪ Conservación de especies
emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en
peligro de extinción
Page 115
Agreement
PA
IDS/07/CON
ANP-07
IDS/08/CON
ANP-06
IDS/07/CON
ANP-08
IDS/08/CON
ANP-10
IDS/07/CON
ANP-09
IDS/08/CON
ANP-14
IDS/07/CON
ANP-10
IDS/08/CON
ANP-07
RB SIERRA
LA LAGUNA
RB
PANTANOS
DE CENTLA
RB LA
SEPULTURA
RB EL OCOTE
Ejido or
Communit
y
SANTO
DOMINGO
HIDALGO
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Establecimiento Y
Manejo De Una
Plantación De Palo
De Arco Asociado
Con Chiltepín En
Santo Domingo,
Reserva De La
Biosfera Sierra La
Laguna.
Manejo Y
Aprovechamiento
A Través De La
Construcción,
Establecimiento Y
Equipamiento De
Una Unidad De
Manejo
Sustentable De
Tortugas
Dulceacuícolas.
EJDO
TIERRA Y
LIBERTAD
Forestería
Comunitaria En El
Ejido Tierra Y
Libertad,
Municipio De
Villaflores.
EJIDO
ADOLFO
LÓPEZ
MATEOS
Fortalecimiento
De La Actividad
Turística En La
Cascada El
Aguacero,
Municipio De
Ocozocoautla De
Espinosa, Chiapas.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Conversión del área bajo manejo
convencional a manejo sustentable
▪ Control de la erosión y recarga de
mantos acuíferos
▪ Estabilización microclimática y
captura de carbono atmosférico
▪ Preservación de la diversidad
biológica
▪ Generación de biomasa y nutrientes
▪ Protección de especies endémicas
▪ Protección de especies en estatus de
peligro de extinción
▪ Disminución del impacto en las
sistemas lagunares
▪ Disminución de la sobreexplotación
de la tortugas y recuperación de sus
poblaciones
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios principalmente acuáticos
▪ Regeneración natural de la masa
forestal mediante manejo del bosque
▪ Reducción de incendios forestales
mediante manejo de “combustible”
▪ Incremento de la superficie forestal
mediante reforestación
▪ Conservación y recuperación de
suelos
▪ Disminución de la presión a zona
núcleo (vigilancia y erradicación de
tala clandestina Limitación de la
frontera agropecuaría)
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios
▪ Conservación de la cobertura
forestal en el sitio y márgenes del río
garantizando la conservación y
recuperación de suelos, retención de
humedad, producción de oxigeno,
captación de carbono etc.
▪ Regulación de clima
▪ Infiltración de agua de lluvia y
recarga de acuíferos
▪ Conservación y recuperación del
hábitat para el desarrollo de la flora y
fauna silvestre
▪ Disminución de la presión hacia los
recursos forestales por cambio de uso
del suelo para actividades
agropecuarias.
▪ Reducción de incendios forestales
Page 116
Agreement
PA
IDS/07/CON
ANP-11
IDS/08/CON
ANP-07
IDS/08/CON
ANP-01
IDS/08/CON
ANP-02
RB EL OCOTE
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
EJIDO
EMILIANO
ZAPATA
Fortalecimiento
De La Cafeticultura
Orgánica:
Capacitación,
Infraestructura,
Certificación Y
Redes De
Comercialización
En El Ejido
Emiliano Zapata I
En La Rb El Ocote.
Amatlán
de
Quetzalcoa
tl
Proyecto
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad
Amatlán De
Quetzalcoatl Del
Apff
Chichinautzin-Pn
El Tepozteco
(Tercera Parte)
Nepupualc
o
Uma De Venado
Cola Blanca Y
Parque
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad De
Nepopualco Del
Apffs Cobio
Chichinautzin
(Tercera Parte)
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Conservación de áreas montañosas
por medio del desarrollo del cultivo de
café bajo sombra
▪ Se incrementa la cubertura vegetal de
la zona por medio de la reforestación y
restauración de terrenos ejidales
▪ Incremento poblacional de fauna
silvestre
▪ Conservación de un microclima
estable en áreas de cultivo de café
orgánico
▪ Diversificación de especies arbóreas
y el consecuente aumento de las
diversas poblaciones de aves en el área.
▪ Reducción de la apertura de la
frontera agropecuaria.
▪ Diversificación de cultivos de café
orgánico con la siembra de especies
maderables y frutales.
▪ Disminución de efectos fisicoquímicos sobre fuentes de agua y
mantos freáticos
▪ Incorporación de tierras ociosas al
proyecto para la generación de bienes y
servicios ambientales
▪ Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por
medio de la reforestación y
restauración de áreas impactadas
▪ Incremento de los niveles de
infiltración y escurrimientos
subterráneo de agua
▪ Conservación de suelos
▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en zonas
recuperadas
▪ Restricción en el cambio del uso del
suelo
▪ Restauración y conservación del
hábitat para el manejo sustentable de
la vida silvestre
▪ Incremento de la cubierta vegetal por
medio de la reforestación y
restauración de áreas impactadas.
▪ Incremento de los niveles de
infiltración y escurrimientos
subterráneo de agua
▪ Conservación de suelos
▪ Retorno de fauna silvestre en zonas
recuperadas
▪ Restricción en el cambio del uso del
suelo
Page 117
Agreement
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Luis
Encinas
Jhonson
Proyecto
Ecoturístico
Ciénega De Santa
Clara (Segunda
Parte)
San
Antonio de
la Sierra
Programa De
Mejoramiento De
La Calidad De Vida
Del Ranchero
Sudcaliforniano
(Primera Fase)
RB EL OCOTE
Juan de
grijalva II
Rehabilitación Y
Mejoramiento Del
Centro
Ecoturístico Juan
De Grijalva Ii
(Primera Etapa)
Municipio De
Ocozocoautla De
Espinoza, Chiapas
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
San Pedro
Nodón,
Santa
María
Ixcatlán,
Río Blanco,
Río
Poblano,
La Estancia
y Apoala
Agroforestería Y
Eficientización Del
Uso De La Leña En
Comunidades De
La Mixteca
Oaxaqueña
PA
IDS/08/CON
ANP-03
IDS/09/CON
ANP-12
IDS/08/CON
ANP-04
IDS/09/CON
ANP-01
IDS/08/CON
ANP-05
IDS/08/CON
ANP-09
RB Alto Golfo
de California
y Delta del
Río Colorado
RB Sierra La
Laguna
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Protección de especies endémicas y
especies en peligro de extinción, p.e
cachorrito del desierto
▪ Conservación de los ecosistemas
prioritarios, p.e humedales y
matorrales xerófilos
▪ Incremento del área bajo manejo
sustentable
▪ Reducción de la pérdida de la
diversidad biológica
▪ Reducción de la emisión de gases de
efecto invernadero
▪ Disminución de la contaminación de
mantos freáticos
▪ Disminución de la contaminación del
agua, el aire y el suelo
▪ Conservación de la cobertura
forestal en el sitio y márgenes del río
garantizando la conservación y
recuperación de suelos, retención de
humedad, producción de oxigeno,
captación de carbono etc.
▪ Aumento de la masa forestal por
medio de la reforestación y
restauración de parcelas
▪ Regulación de clima
▪ Infiltración de agua de lluvia y
recarga de acuíferos
▪ Conservación y recuperación del
hábitat para el desarrollo de la flora y
fauna silvestre
▪ Disminución de la presión hacia los
recursos forestales por cambio de uso
del suelo para actividades
agropecuarias.
▪ Reducción de incendios forestales
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
del suelo▪ Mejoramiento de la cubierta
forestal▪ Estabilización del microclima
local▪ Mayor infiltración de agua en el
manto freático.▪ Conservación de la
fauna local.▪ Mantenimiento de las
especies de bosques templados, de
selvas bajas, así como las especies que
se hospedan sobre estas, como algunos
agaves, lianas y epífitas en general.
Page 118
Agreement
PA
IDS/08/CON
ANP-11
IDS/08/CON
ANP-12
IDS/09/CON
ANP-05
IDS/08/CON
ANP-13
IDS/09/CON
ANP-09
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
RB La
Sepultura
RB La
Encrucijada
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
San Juan
Atzingo
Proyecto
Ecoturístico San
Juan Atzingo
(Segunda Parte)
UPROSIVI
(incluye 9
comunidad
es)
Proyecto De
Mejoramiento En
Las Prácticas Para
La Producción De
Café En La Sierra
De Villaflores
(Segunda Parte)
Salto del
Agua
Manejo De
Alimentos
Balanceados Para
Ganadería
Intensiva En El
Ejido Salto Del
Agua (Segunda
Parte).
IDS/08/CON
ANP-15
IDS/09/CON
ANP-04
RB La
Sepultura
Corazón
del Valle
IDS/08/CON
ANP-16
IDS/09/CON
ANP-06
RB Pantanos
de Centla
José María
Pino
Suarez
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Manejo Forestal
Comunitario En El
Ejido Corazón Del
Valle De La Rb La
Sepultura
Proyecto De
Consolidación Del
Centro De
Producción De
Especies Nativas
En El Poblado Pino
Suaréz De La Rb
Pantanos De
Centla
Environmental Benefits
▪ Recuperación del hábitat para la
fauna silvestre
▪ Incremento de la masa forestal por
medio de la reforestación
▪ Mantenimiento y recarga de acuíferos
por infiltración resultado de la
conservación y recuperación de suelo
▪ Recuperación y conservación de los
Lagos Zempoala, regulación de
microclima
▪ Manejo sustentable de los recursos
naturales promoviendo el
ordenamiento ecológico de la zona.
▪ Conservación de hábitat de especies
de flora y fauna (avifauna y especies
endémicas)
▪ Conservación y recuperación de suelo
por medio de prácticas agroecológicas
▪ Disminución de presión y protección
de la zona núcleo
▪ Conservación de servicios
ambientales: infiltración de agua y
captura de CO2
▪ Diversificación de agrocultivos
▪ Ampliación de la masa forestal por
medio de establecimiento plantaciones
forestales, frutícolas y de ramoneo
▪ Recuperación del suelo e incremento
de su fertilidad
▪ Disminución de la frontera
agropecuaría
▪ Reducción de los niveles de
contaminación de suelo y agua
▪ Conservación y restauración de
ecosistemas prioritarios (selva alta y
relictos de sabana)
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
del suelo
▪ Mejoramiento de la cubierta forestal.
▪ Manejo de Combustibles forestales
▪ Aclareo y saneamiento de los bosques
▪ Se protegen las especies endémicas
▪ Se protegen las especies en riesgo
▪ Se mantienen y conservan los
ecosistemas prioritarios
Page 119
Agreement
PA
IDS/08/CON
ANP-17
IDS/09/CON
ANP-02
RB EL OCOTE
Ejido or
Communit
y
Armando
Zabadua
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Fortalecimiento
De La Cafeticultura
Orgánica:
Capacitación,
Infraestructura,
Certificación Y
Redes De
Comercialización
En El Ejido Ing.
Armando Zebadua
En La Rb El Ocote
Environmental Benefits
▪ Se conservan las áreas montañosas
por medio del desarrollo del cultivo de
café bajo sombra y en base al proceso
de transcisión de manejo de café
convencional a café orgánico.
▪ Las actividades de reforestación en
los terrenos ejidales incrementan la
cubertura vegetal de la zona, lo que
propicia el incremento poblacional de
fauna silvestre.
▪ Se mantiene un microclima estable
en áreas de cultivo de café orgánico, lo
que genera la diversificación de
especies arbóreas y principlamente el
consecuente aumento de las diversas
poblaciones de aves en el área.
▪ Se incrementa por hectárea la
producción de café bajo sombra, por lo
que disminuye la apertura de la
frontera agropecuaria.
▪ Con acciones de restauración y
fororestación se recuperan áreas
impactadas.
▪ Se diversifica la superficie con el
cultivo de café orgánico con la siembra
de especies maderables y frutales.
▪ Disminuyen los efectos químicos y
fisico-químicos sobre fuentes de agua y
mantos freáticos producidos por la
utilización de productos químicos en el
desarrollo de prácticas de cultivo
convencionales.
Page 120
Agreement
PA
IDS/08/CON
ANP-18
IDS/09/CON
ANP-03
IDS/08/CON
ANP-19
IDS/09/CON
ANP-07
RB EL OCOTE
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Nuevo San
Juan
Chamula
Fortalecimiento
De La Cafeticultura
Orgánica:
Capacitación,
Infraestructura,
Certificación Y
Redes De
Comercialización
En El Ejido Nuevo
San Juan Chamula
En La Rb El Ocote
Tepelmem
e Villa de
Morelos
Establecimento De
Un Vivero
Comunitario En
Tepelmeme De
Villamorelos,
Oaxaca
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Se conservan las áreas montañosas
por medio del desarrollo del cultivo de
café bajo sombra y en base al proceso
de transcisión de manejo de café
convencional a café orgánico.
▪ Las actividades de reforestación en
los terrenos ejidales incrementan la
cubertura vegetal de la zona, lo que
propicia el incremento poblacional de
fauna silvestre.
▪ Se mantiene un microclima estable
en áreas de cultivo de café orgánico, lo
que genera la diversificación de
especies arbóreas y principlamente el
consecuente aumento de las diversas
poblaciones de aves en el área.
▪ Se incrementa por hectárea la
producción de café bajo sombra, por lo
que disminuye la apertura de la
frontera agropecuaria.
▪ Con acciones de restauración y
fororestación se recuperan áreas
impactadas.
▪ Se diversifica la superficie con el
cultivo de café orgánico con la siembra
de especies maderables y frutales.
▪ Disminuyen los efectos químicos y
fisico-químicos sobre fuentes de agua y
mantos freáticos producidos por la
utilización de productos químicos en el
desarrollo de prácticas de cultivo
convencionales.
▪ Disminuir la presión extractiva de
agave en los diferentes ecosistemas
donde se localiza la especie en forma
silvestre (selvas bajas y los matorrales
xerófitos)
▪ Reducir las tasas de extracción
selectiva (del agave) en el mediano
plazo
▪ Recuperar y/o mejorar las
condiciones fisicoquímicas de las
tierras de cultivo
▪ Reconvertir áreas agrícolas
abandonadas
▪ Reducir la erosión en áreas forestales
Page 121
Agreement
PA
IDS/08/CON
ANP-20
IDS/09/CON
ANP-13
IDS/08/CON
ANP-21
IDS/09/CON
ANP-08
IDS/08/CON
ANP-22
IDS/09/CON
ANP-10
IDS/08/CON
ANP-23
IDS/09/CON
ANP-11
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
RB La
Encrucijada
RB La
Encrucijada
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Los Reyes
Metzontla
y Coatepec
Establecimiento Y
Cercado De 80 Has
De Plantaciones
Agroforestales En
Santiago Coatepec
Y Los Reyes
Metzontla
San Juan
Raya
Museo
Paleontológico
Comunitario En
San Juan Raya,
Municipio De
Zapotitlán Salinas,
Puebla (Segunda
Etapa)
El Castaño
Proyecto Para El
Fortalecimiento
De Las Actividades
De Ecoturismo En
La Ranchería “El
Castaño” De La
Reserva De La
Biosfera La
Encrucijada
(Segunda Parte)
La Palma
Proyecto Para El
Fortalecimiento
De Las Actividades
De Ecoturismo En
La Ranchería “La
Palma” De La
Reserva De La
Biosfera La
Encrucijada
(Segunda Parte)
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Mejoramiento de la cubierta forestal.
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
del suelo
▪ Mayor infiltración de agua en el
manto freático.
▪ Mantenimiento del bosque de
cactáceas
▪ Mantenimiento de la fauna local.
▪ Regulación el pastoreo de ganado
caprino
▪ Restricción del saqueo de flora
silvestre (especies prioritarias)
▪ Restauración de los ecosistemas
prioritarios en el área
▪ Sensibilización respecto al manejo
sustentable de los recursos naturales
en la zona
▪ Contención de la expansión de la
frontera agrícola
▪ Conservación de la cobertura vegetal
en la zona
▪ Reforestación y restauración de
zonas impactadas por procesos
productivos
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas de
humedales (maglares, tulares, popales,
esteros, lagunas y playa)
▪ Conservación de la biodiversidad de
los humedales por medio de prácticas
de manejo sustentable.
▪ Conservación de la cobertura vegetal
en la zona
▪ Reforestación y restauración de
zonas impactadas por procesos
productivos
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas de
humedales (maglares, tulares, popales,
esteros, lagunas, dunas y playa)
▪ Conservación de la biodiversidad de
los humedales por medio de prácticas
de manejo sustentable.
Page 122
Agreement
PA
IDS/09/CON
ANP-14
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
IDS/09/CON
ANP-15
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
San Juan
Atzingo
Proyecto
Ecoturístico En La
Comunidad De San
Juan Atzingo Del
APFFS Cobio
Chichinautzin-PN
Lagunas De
Zempoala (Tercera
Parte).
Nepupualc
o
UMA De Jabalí En
El Ejido De
Nepopualco Del
APFFS Corredor
Biològico
Chichinautzin.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Recuperación del hábitat para la
fauna silvestre
▪ Incremento de la masa forestal por
medio de la reforestación
▪ Mantenimiento y recarga de acuíferos
por infiltración resultado de la
conservación y recuperación de suelo
▪ Recuperación y conservación de los
Lagos Zempoala, regulación de
microclima
▪ Manejo sustentable de los recursos
naturales promoviendo el
ordenamiento ecológico de la zona.
▪ Se incorporan tierra ociosas a la
conservación generando bienes
ambientales▪ El sustrato geológico del
área le confiere propiedades singulares
de una alta permeabilidad, con un
coheficiente de inflitración de 70%▪ El
predominio del relieve endógeno le
confiere al área propiedades
altimétricas que favorecen la
precipitación pluvial y por ende la
infiltración y el escurrimiento
subterráneo y su afloramiento
posterior cuenca abajo. ▪ Se promueve
la conservación, manejo, restauración
del hábitat y aprovechamiento
sustentable de la vida silvestre.Con
acciones de restauración se
recuperaran áreas impactadas.▪
Actividades de reforestación
incrementará la cubierta vegetal de la
zona, lo que propiciará el regreso de
fauna silvestre
Page 123
Agreement
PA
IDS/09/CON
ANP-16
IDS/09/CON
ANP-17
IDS/09/CON
ANP-18
IDS/09/CON
ANP-19
APFF
Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzi
n
RB Pantanos
de Centla
RB La
Encrucijada
RB La
Encrucijada
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Environmental Benefits
Tlayacapa
n
Jardin
Etnobotánico En
La Comunidad De
Tlayacapan Del
APFFS Corredor
Biológico
Chichinautzin.
▪ Se incorporan tierras consideradas
como ociosas a la conservación
generando bienes y servicios
ambientales de incalculable valor.
▪ El sustrato geológico del área le
confiere propiedades singulares de una
alta permeabilidad, con un coeficiente
de infiltración del 70 %.
▪ El predominio del relieve endógeno
le confiere al área propiedades
altimétricas que favorecen la
precipitación pluvial y por ende la
infiltración y el escurrimiento
subterráneo y su afloramiento
posterior cuenca abajo.
▪ Se promueve la conservación,
manejo, restauración del hábitat y
aprovechamiento sustentable de la
vida silvestre.
Con acciones de restauración se
recuperaran áreas impactadas.
▪ Actividades de reforestación
incrementará la cubierta vegetal de la
zona, lo que propiciará el regreso de
fauna silvestre
José María
Pino
Suarez
Proyecto De
Consolidación Del
Centro De
Producción De
Especies Nativas
En El Poblado Pino
Suaréz De La RB
Pantanos De
Centla (Segunda
Parte)
▪ Se protegen las especies endémicas
▪ Se protegen las especies en riesgo
▪ Se mantienen y conservan los
ecosistemas prioritarios
Las Lauras
Proyecto De
Producción Y
Engorda De Pez
Armado En La Rb
La Encrucijada
Roberto
Barrios
Implementación
De Técnicas
Amigables Al
Ambiente Para Dar
Valor Agregado A
Productos
Pecuarios En El
Ejido Roberto
Barrios De La Rb
La Encrucijada
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
▪ Incremento del área bajo manejo
sustentable
▪ Reducción de la pérdida de la
diversidad biológica
▪ Disminución de la contaminación del
agua, el aire y el suelo
▪ Incremento del área bajo manejo
sustentable
▪ Reducción de la pérdida de la
diversidad biológica
▪ Reducción de la emisión de gases de
efecto invernadero
▪ Disminución de la contaminación de
mantos freáticos
▪ Disminución de la contaminación del
agua, el aire y el suelo
Page 124
Agreement
PA
IDS/09/CON
ANP-20
IDS/09/CON
ANP-21
IDS/09/CON
ANP-22
IDS/09/CON
ANP-23
RB El
Pinacate y
Gran
Desierto de
Altar
RB El
Pinacate y
Gran
Desierto de
Altar
RB Banco
Chinchorro
RB Banco
Chinchorro
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
Villa Tres
Cruces
Desarrollo De La
Herbolaria En La
Comunidad Villa
Tres Cruces De La
Rb El Pinacate Y
Gran Desierto De
Altar
Quitovac
Proyecto Para La
Producción De
Artesanías En La
Comunidad
Indígena Quitovac
En La RB El
Pinacate Y Gran
Desierto De Altar
Xcalak
Fortalecimiento
De La Actividad
Pesquera En
Arrecifes De
Xcalak
Mahahual
Fortalecimiento
De La Actividad
Ecoturística En Las
Cooperativas
Pesqueras De
Banco Chinchorro
(Segunda Parte)
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Environmental Benefits
▪ Recuperación de áreas urbanas
impactadas
▪ Se evita por completo la producción
de carbón vegetal
▪ Se incrementa la masa vegetal
▪ Recuperación de suelos impactados al
utilizar terrenos de área urbana.
▪ Disminución de la frontera
agropecuaría.
▪ Manejo sustentable de biomasa.
▪ Conservación y recuperación del
hábitat para el desarrollo de la flora y
fauna silvestre
▪ Manejo y conservación de material
prima tradicional de la región.
▪ Se protegen las especies de :
Cocodrilo de río ( Crocodrylus acutus),
Cocodrilo de mar (Crocodrylus
moreletti), Manatí del caribe
(Trichechus manatus), Jaguar (Pantera
onca)
▪ Protección de las 3 especies de
mangle consideradas dentro de la NOM
054: Mangle rojo (Rhizophora mangle)
Mangle botoncillo (Conocarpus
erectus) mangle blanco (Laguncularia
racemosa); Corales pétreos formadores
de arrecife: Coral cuerno de alce
(Acropora palmata) y Coral cuerno de
ciervo (Acropora cervicornis)
▪ La importancia del sistema lagunar
Rio Huache como único afluente
superficial de la zona sur del Estado de
Quintana Roo que mantiene
comunicación superficial con el Caribe,
lo hace un importante sitio para de
refugio natural para el crecimiento de
juveniles de especies de importancia
comercial, sitio importante para la
anidación de aves migratorias.
La poza como estructura arrecifal única
en México
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios (barrera arrecifal, selvas,
lagunas costeras, humedales y dunas
costeras)
▪ Conservación de especies
emblemáticas, endémicas y/o en
peligro de extinción
Page 125
Agreement
PA
IDS/09/CON
ANP-24
IDS/09/CON
ANP-25
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
RB
TehuacánCuicatlán
Ejido or
Communit
y
Sustainable
Development
Initiative
San José
Miahuatlá
n
Establecimiento de
30 has de
plantaciones de
Guaje Blanco y
elaboración de
120 tons de abono
orgánico en San
José Miahuatlán
▪ Mejoramiento de la cubierta forestal.
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
del suelo
▪ Mayor infiltración de agua en el
manto freático.
▪ Estabilización del microclima local
Mantenimiento de la selva baja
caducifolia Mantenimiento de la fauna
local.
La Estancia
Construcción De
25 Sistemas
Familiares De
Captación De Agua
Pluvial En
Coixtlahuaca
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
▪ Reducción de la presión sobre los
recursos forestales
▪ Estabilización del microclima local
▪ Mayor retención del agua de lluvia
Environmental Benefits
▪ Reducción de los índices de erosión
en cárcavas
RB
▪ Mayor infiltración de agua en el
IDS/09/CON
San Perdo
Tehuacánmanto freático.
ANP-26
Nodón
Cuicatlán
▪ Estabilización del microclima local
▪ Mejoramiento de hábitats
▪ Mayor retención del agua de lluvia
▪ Regeneración natural de la masa
forestal mediante manejo del bosque
▪ Reducción de incendios forestales
mediante manejo de “combustible”
Forestería
▪ Incremento de la superficie forestal
comunitaria en el
mediante reforestación
Ejido Tierra y
IDS/09/CON
RB La
Tierra y
▪ Conservación y recuperación de
Libertad,
ANP-27
Sepultura
Libertad
suelos
Municipio de
▪ Disminución de la presión a zona
Villaflores
núcleo (vigilancia y erradicación de
(Segunda parte)
tala clandestina Limitación de la
frontera agropecuaría)
▪ Conservación de ecosistemas
prioritarios

List provided by CPU, CONANP of all Sinking Funds Projects in SINAP 2 sites.
Construccion De
Obras De
Retención De Agua
En San Pedro
Nodón, Oaxaca
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 126
ANNEX E
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Términos de Referencia
Evaluación Independiente Final del Proyecto
“Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Naturales Protegidas”
Identificación del sujeto de evaluación
El sujeto de evaluación es el Proyecto “Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas” de
acuerdo al Convenio de Donación TF050311 de fecha 13 de febrero de 2002 entre el Gobierno de
México, Nacional Financiera, S.N.C., el Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.
C. (FMCN), y el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo (Banco Mundial).
Antecedentes
En abril de 1992 se firmó un acuerdo por US$ 25 millones entre el Banco Mundial (como agencia
ejecutora del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (GEF)), el Banco Nacional de Obras y
Servicios Públicos, S. N. C. (BANOBRAS) y el Gobierno de México, a fin de apoyar la conservación
y uso sustentable de los recursos naturales de diez áreas naturales protegidas (AP) en México.
Como resultado de un proceso de reestructuración en 1996, se recomendó que del remanente de
los recursos se constituyera un fondo patrimonial, cuyo rendimiento sirviera de apoyo a largo plazo
a las AP incluidas en el proyecto. El Consejo Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas designó al
FMCN como el receptor y administrador de este Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas (FANP).
La reestructuración del proyecto incluyó el establecimiento del Comité Técnico del FANP y un
equipo de trabajo dentro del FMCN, así como una coordinación central dentro de la Comisión
Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) de la Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Este proceso culminó con la firma del Convenio de Donación
TF028678 entre el FMCN, el Gobierno de México y el Banco Mundial en junio de 1997, y el
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 127
posterior depósito de los recursos en julio del mismo año (US$ 16.48 millones) en una cuenta a
nombre del FMCN. La supervisión administrativa por parte del Banco Mundial terminó en
noviembre de 2003, después de una evaluación independiente de medio término en el año 2000 y
de una evaluación independiente final en junio del 2003.
Los avances en el primer proyecto de apoyo del GEF (denominado SINAP-1 por ser el primer
proyecto en apoyo al Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas) a las áreas naturales
protegidas de México permitieron gestionar una segunda aportación del GEF para apoyar a 12
áreas naturales protegidas más. Este segundo proyecto es denominado SINAP-2 y es el objeto de
la evaluación descrita en los presentes términos de referencia.
A diferencia del proyecto SINAP-1, en el cual el único administrador de los recursos es el FMCN,
en el proyecto SINAP-2 Nacional Financiera es la receptora de la mayor parte de los recursos no
patrimoniales ejercidos por la CONANP. Estos recursos no patrimoniales apoyan tres componentes
a cargo de la CONANP: fortalecimiento del sistema de áreas protegidas (monitoreo a través de
indicadores con una aportación de GEF), sinergias interinstitucionales y procuración de fondos.
Dentro de la CONANP la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto da seguimiento al ejercicio de estos
recursos. Adicionalmente, el FMCN es responsable del ejercicio de una parte de los recursos
extinguibles para procuración de fondos. Por otro lado, el FMCN administra la totalidad de los
recursos patrimoniales del proyecto, siguiendo las bases de colaboración establecidas en SINAP-1.
La aplicación en campo de los intereses del patrimonio es responsabilidad de la CONANP a través
de sus equipos de trabajo en las AP incluidas en el proyecto.
SINAP-2 es un proyecto de US$ 31.1 millones, de los cuales US$ 24.4 millones son recursos
patrimoniales y US$ 6.7 millones son extinguibles. Los recursos extinguibles han sido aprobados y
el Banco Mundial los desembolsa a medida que avanza el gasto. En diciembre de 2008, el Banco
Mundial llevó a cabo el último de cuatro depósitos de los recursos patrimoniales. Estos depósitos
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 128
tuvieron lugar a medida que el FMCN mostró que había obtenido una contrapartida de 1:1 en
recursos patrimoniales para las 34 áreas naturales protegidas reconocidas como prioritarias por las
partes.
El Convenio de Donación (TF050311) es el documento rector del proyecto SINAP-2 y establece los
compromisos legales adquiridos por las partes (Gobierno de México, NAFIN, FMCN, Banco
Mundial). De acuerdo a este Convenio el proyecto debe ser evaluado a medio término y al final de
la supervisión administrativa del Banco Mundial. En 2005 tuvo lugar la evaluación independiente
de medio término del proyecto SINAP-2, la cual fue concluida en octubre de ese año. El Convenio
establece que en junio de 2010 concluirá la supervisión administrativa del Banco Mundial siempre
y cuando una evaluación externa independiente y el Reporte de Término de Implementación del
Banco Mundial así lo indiquen.
En cuanto a la base legal del proyecto SINAP-2, además del Convenio de Donación, el FMCN y
CONANP firmaron un Convenio de Concertación Complementario el 14 de febrero de 2002, que
establece las responsabilidades de cada una de las dos instituciones. Los lineamientos para el
ejercicio de los recursos administrados por NAFIN están descritos en un Manual de Operaciones
preparado por la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto en CONANP, mientras que las reglas de
operación del patrimonio y sus intereses se encuentran en el Manual de Operaciones del FANP
elaborado por el FMCN. El Manual de Operaciones del FANP describe en detalle las actividades
de sus tres componentes: la administración del FANP dentro del FMCN, la coordinación central
dentro de la CONANP, que vincula a ambas instituciones, y las 22 AP incluidas en los proyectos
SINAP-1 y SINAP-2.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 129
Fuentes de información sobre el programa
Existen varios documentos de información sobre el programa, que incluyen compromisos legales,
instrumentos de operación, documentos de análisis. Los principales son:
1) los Convenios de Donación TF028678 (5 de junio de 1997) y TF050311 (13 de febrero de
2002),
2) el Convenio de Concertación Complementario del Segundo Acuerdo de Donación entre la
CONANP y el FMCN (14 de febrero de 2002),
3) el Plan Futuro de Operación de SINAP-1 (noviembre de 2003),
4) el Manual de Operaciones de FANP (versiones 1998 a 2005),
5) el Manual de Operaciones de la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto en CONANP,
6) l a “Carta e Implementación” enviada por la CONANP y el FMCN a Banco Mundial en
diciembre del 2001,
7) l a Directriz Operativa concerniente a los Pueblos Indígenas del Banco Mundial,
8) el Documento Proyecto (enero de 2002),
9) la publicación “Experiencia de los Fondos Fiduciarios para la Conservación” de GEF (1999),
10) los resultados de las auditorias administrativas y financieras del proyecto para los
ejercicios 2002 a 2008 en el caso del FANP y los resultados de las auditorias del 2003 a
2008 en CONANP. Los resultados de la auditoria 2009 de FANP estarán disponibles a partir
de junio del 2010,
11) la publicación “Notas sobre la Experiencia del FMAM 7” de GEF (abril 1999),
12) los resultados de la evaluación independiente de medio término del SINAP 1 del 2000,
13) los resultados de la evaluación independiente final del SINAP 1 del 2003;
14) los resultados de la evaluación independiente de medio término del SINAP-2 de 2005.
Las personas contacto se incluyen en la siguiente lista:
De parte de la Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas:

Ernesto Enkerlin

Alfredo Ávila (Coordinador del Proyecto)

David Gutiérrez
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 130

Jorge Carranza

Flavio Cházaro

Pia Gallina

Rocío Esquivel
De parte de la Coordinación Central del Proyecto FANP:

Andrew Rhodes

Ana Laura Barillas

Luz María Murillo
De parte de NAFIN:

Liliana Velásquez

Lourdes González

Enrique Alva
De parte del Banco Mundial:

Claudia Sobrevila

Adriana Moreira (Gerente del Proyecto)

María Elena Castro

Musa Asad

Víctor Ordóñez

Dmitri Gourfinkel

Gabriel Peñaloza

Juan Carlos Serrano
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 131
De parte del FMCN:

Lorenzo Rosenzweig

Renée González (Directora del Fondo para Áreas Naturales Protegidas)

Montserrat Díaz

Yarit León

Mireya Méndez

Ximena Yáñez
De parte del Comité Técnico del FANP:

Pedro Álvarez Icaza, Presidente

Gabriela Anaya

Javier de la Maza

Ernesto Enkerlin

Elías García Martínez

Víctor Sánchez Cordero
D. Preguntas clave sobre el propósito u objetivo de la evaluación:
¿Quiénes están interesados en los resultados de la evaluación independiente?
La Unidad de Evaluación y Monitoreo del Secretariado del GEF, la Unidad Administrativa para
México del Banco Mundial como agencia implementadora del GEF, la CONANP, NAFIN, el
Consejo Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, el Comité Técnico del FANP y el Consejo
Directivo del FMCN.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 132
¿Qué es lo que se desea saber?
Se requiere determinar la efectividad del proyecto de apoyo al programa de áreas naturales
protegidas (AP) en México. De acuerdo a la sección 3.09 (d) del Artículo III del Convenio de
Donación TF050311, la evaluación deberá ser realizada por consultores independientes aceptados
por el Banco Mundial y de acuerdo a términos de referencia aceptables para el Banco Mundial.
Dichos consultores deberán evaluar el desempeño del proyecto y presentar sus resultados al
Banco Mundial en la forma de un reporte final. Este reporte deberá contener recomendaciones,
cuando proceda, para ajustes a las reglas y procedimientos basados en los resultados de dicha
evaluación.
La evaluación del proyecto, que se encuentra en su séptimo año de operación, se centrará en tres
preguntas clave, considerando que el impacto en la conservación y uso sustentable de los recursos
naturales sólo puede medirse en el largo plazo:
1. ¿Se encuentran operando los instrumentos acordados?
2. ¿Son los instrumentos acordados los más adecuados para lograr los objetivos del proyecto?
3. ¿Corresponden los objetivos a los principios de las instituciones involucradas?
Los objetivos del proyecto son los siguientes (de acuerdo al Documento de Proyecto del 10 de
enero de 2002, página 2):
1. Conservar la biodiversidad de importancia global en áreas selectas del Sistema Nacional de
Áreas Naturales Protegidas;
2. Promover la sustentabilidad económica, social y ambiental de actividades productivas en áreas
protegidas selectas;
3. Promover la co-responsabilidad social para la conservación; y
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 133
4. Promover la inclusión de criterios para la conservación de la biodiversidad y el uso sustentable
en proyectos de desarrollo y otras prácticas afectando áreas protegidas selectas.
Estos objetivos y sus respectivos indicadores se encuentran en el Documento Proyecto (enero del
2002). Los reportes de marzo del 2003 al 2009 de la coordinación central presentan los resultados
anuales del sistema de monitoreo y seguimiento del proyecto en cuanto a la aplicación de los
intereses del patrimonio de SINAP 2 y los informes semestrales presentados por la CONANP en
febrero y agosto de 2004 a 2009.
E. Fechas de entrega
Un reporte intermedio avanzado debe estar disponible el 26 de febrero de 2010. El reporte final
debe estar disponible antes del 31 de marzo de 2005.
F. Metodología para la evaluación.
Como parte de la respuesta a la convocatoria los participantes interesados presentarán una
propuesta de trabajo que ilustre la metodología a seguir, en particular con respecto a los elementos
siguientes:
• Revisión de gabinete de la información;
• Elaboración de plan para a visita a las cinco AP apoyadas por el proyecto;
• Elaboración de guía para recabar información en campo: deberá incluir la forma de interacción
con los grupos sociales presentes en las AP, posibles subcontrataciones de expertos locales,
necesidades de apoyo institucional (acompañamiento, entrevistas, coordinación);
• Entrevistas con los miembros de la Unidad Coordinadora del Proyecto en CONANP,
funcionarios relacionados con el proyecto en CONANP, personal de la coordinación central y
de la administración dentro del FMCN y otros participantes del proyecto;
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 134
• Procesamiento, consolidación y sistematización de información de campo;
• Elaboración de reporte intermedio y presentación a FMCN, Banco Mundial y CONANP;
• Incorporación de cambios y ajustes al reporte intermedio;
• Presentación de informe final de evaluación.
Se pide que los candidatos desarrollen también un calendario de trabajo, y un presupuesto
desglosado.
G. Composición, características y tamaño del equipo de evaluación
Se recomienda integrar un equipo de dos a tres personas que tengan experiencia en recursos
naturales y manejo de AP, aspectos sociales, gestión, aspectos financieros y administrativos.
Los evaluadores deberán, de preferencia, contar con los siguientes atributos:
- Experiencia en trabajos con AP en América Latina en particular con la comunidad
conservacionista y las comunidades rurales vinculadas a éstas.
- Dominio de los idiomas español e inglés.
- Capacidad y liderazgo para desarrollar y aplicar una metodología de evaluación objetiva.
- Ausencia de potenciales conflictos de interés.
Las propuestas deberán indicar la persona responsable de la coordinación del equipo, el nombre
de los integrantes y sus respectivos campos de especialización.
H. Logística de la evaluación
Se estima invertir 90 días-consultor: 60 días-consultor visitando las cinco AP a razón de cuatro días
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 135
por cada área; y 30 días-consultor para el trabajo de gabinete (previo a las visitas de campo), la
elaboración del reporte y la presentación del mismo. La planeación de la visita a las áreas se
llevará a cabo conjuntamente con los integrantes del programa, de acuerdo a la metodología
propuesta, y con suficiente anticipación para planear el calendario y logística de la evaluación.
I. Presentación y formato de los avances de la evaluación
Se solicita la siguiente secuencia de actividades:
Secuencia
Actividad
Cuando
Observaciones
1 Presentación oral de los aspectos más relevantes de la evalución.
Al término de las visitas de campo.
La presentación se llevará a cabo en las oficinas de la CONANP o el FMCN junto con los
integrantes del programa.
2 Entrega de un reporte intermedio.
No más de dos semanas después de la presentación oral (fecha límite 26 de
febrero de 2010).
El reporte será entregado en forma electrónica (Word for
Windows) y en forma impresa (6 juegos).
3 Comentarios consensuados de las instituciones participantes al programa (CONANP, FMCN,
Banco Mundial) al reporte intermedio.
Una semana después de la entrega del reporte intermedio.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 136
4 Versión final del informe que tome en cuenta los comentarios de las
instituciones participantes al programa.
Antes del 31 de marzo de2010.
El reporte final deberá incluir:
1) resumen ejecutivo, 2) propósito u objetivo de la evaluación incluyendo preguntas clave, 3)
antecedentes del proyecto, 4) metodología de evaluación, 5) respuestas a preguntas clave y
hallazgos sobresalientes, 6) recomendaciones, 7) lecciones aprendidas. Se espera un reporte de
aproximadamente 50 páginas sin incluir anexos. La sección de anexos deberá incluir una copia de
los términos de referencia, el plan de trabajo, lista de contactos, bibliografía consultada y otros
elementos pertinentes a la evaluación.
Documentación requerida
Los consultores interesados deberán presentar lo siguiente:
•
•
•
•
Propuesta técnica de máximo cinco cuartillas que incluya metodología, actividades
previstas y cronograma.
Propuesta económica por un monto máximo de $400,000 (incluyendo viáticos e impuestos).
Curriculum vitae del consultor.
Tres referencias.
Recepción de documentación y plazos
La documentación requerida deberá ser recibida por el FMCN a más tardar el 13 de noviembre de
2009 por correo electrónico dirigido a Mireya Méndez, Oficial del Área de Conservación del FMCN,
mmendez@dcfmcn.org, y confirmar por correo electrónico o al teléfono al 01 22 88 13 60 58 al 60
ext 108.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 137
Proceso de selección y adjudicación
• El FMCN informará a los proponentes sobre la selección del Comité Técnico del Fondo para
Áreas Naturales Protegidas a más tardar el 27 de noviembre de 2009.
• El contrato será firmado entre el consultor y el FMCN. El consultor proporcionará la información
necesaria para el contrato, así como el comprobante fiscal por el monto acordado.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 138
ANNEX F
PAQUITA BATH CV
Paquita Bath
10450 Allenby Way
Truckee CA, 96161
530.587.3625
Paquita@aligningvisions.com
www.aligningvisions.com
Over 25 years of experience facilitating institutional capacity building, strategic planning, learning,
partnering, board development, and participatory evaluation services with mission-driven
organizations, with an emphasis on conservation organizations in the Americas.
PRINCIPAL
ALIGNING VISIONS, LLC
2005 …
Aligning Visions LLC is a consulting firm that facilitates and coaches clients on effective
conservation planning, learning, and institutional capacity-building strategies.
Recent projects include:
 Develop the content for a web-based learning center on effective approaches to partnering
for conservation outcomes based on case studies and examples of effective conservation
partnering efforts from around the globe.
 Facilitate an implementation plan for a regional leadership project along the MesoAmerican
Reef.
 Conduct an independent assessment of a large multi-partner project to create and manage
protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon (ARPA) with recommendations.
 Facilitate a strategic plan and focused proposal for agribusinesses expanding operations in
Brazil to “responsibly source” soy products to ensure environmental laws are respected.
 Coordinate a strategic planning process for 4 conservation organizations (WWF, TNC,
Foundations of Success, and Greening Australia) to increase the global use of a shared
conservation planning methodology resulting in Conservation Action Plans.
 Facilitate a 3-Year Business Plan for strategic investments in the Humboldt Coast and
Current in Peru and Chile for The Nature Conservancy.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 139
 Team member of a Global Environmental Facility Project Evaluation of a Mexican
sustainable use reserve.
 Facilitate board and staff retreats for strategic plans, operational work plans, and role
alignment with numerous clients including:
 Summit Foundation
 Lassen Land and Trails Trust (California);
 Central Savannas Program of The Nature Conservancy (Brazil).
EDUCATION
 Stanford Graduate Business School, Executive Education Program
 M.S. California Polytechnic State U., International Agricultural Development
 B.S. Georgetown University, School of Foreign Service
VICE PRESIDENT
SIERRA BUSINESS COUNCIL
2000
1986
1980
2002–2005
The Sierra Business Council is a regional nonprofit dedicated to a prosperous economy
and quality of life that respects the magnificent natural resources of the Sierra Nevada.
 Facilitated capacity-building sessions across the region including the acclaimed Sierra
Leadership Seminar, Annual Conference, and team community action plans.
 Co-author of Building Vibrant Sierra Communities – A Commercial and Mixed-Use
Handbook of tools to encourage more compact development and limit sprawl.
 Diversified funding with ‘fee for service” approaches, government grants, and many
successful proposals for programs such as redeveloping a brown field, limiting erosion
in ski areas, purchasing conservation easements, and supporting operations.
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
SENIOR DIRECTOR, STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND RECRUITING
2000–2002
Co-directed Human Resources for a 3,400 person high-growth international organization.
 Launched leadership development and executive education programs. Ensured
sustainability through a $4.5 million endowment.
 Built organization-wide recruiting function. Used competency-based hiring, values-based
advertising, and TNC’s top web page to attract over 600 new employees a year.
DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION LEARNING NETWORK
1997–2000
Developed organization-wide training priorities for staff, trustees, and partner organizations
including orientation program for over 400 new employees a year, thematic conferences, and
strategic workshops linked to new conservation approaches. Partnered with Universities and other
experts to develop tailored workshops and enhance knowledge-sharing tools.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 140
DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
1992–1997
Built and managed a 10-person team to strengthen the institutional capacity of over 20 Latin
American and Caribbean partner organizations implementing Parks in Peril – an international
program dedicated to turning “paper parks” into well-managed conservation units. We
implemented organizational assessments, leadership training, capacity-building interventions,
networking events such as the 400+ person Conservation Training Week bringing in practitioners
from over 22 countries, and documented best practices.
 Provided one-on-one mentoring, facilitation, and training in conservation strategies,
board development, strategic planning, participatory rural appraisal, gender in natural
resource management, leadership, and fundraising.
 Raised over $2 million in operating and program funds.
 Lead author of two books dedicated to the evolution of civic society in Latin America:
o Resources for Success for nonprofit organizations (English, Spanish and Port.)
o Rumbo al éxito for Boards of Directors (available in Spanish)
SCIENCE TRAINING COORDINATOR, SCIENCE DIVISION
1991–1992
 Co-authored the book, Rapid Ecological Assessment (English and Spanish) – a breakthrough
strategy for rapidly evaluating tropical landscapes for biodiversity values in situations
where biological data is scarce and enabling more timely conservation decisions. Provided
follow-up training programs throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
OTHER EMPLOYMENT
DIRECTOR, LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAMS, OEF INTERNATIONAL
1988–1991
 Managed AID-funded projects in Central America on micro-enterprise credit and training
programs for low-income rural women. Worked with local staff to institutionalize these
one-time projects into 3 Central American micro-enterprise organizations. Now over 20
years old, they have served tens of thousands of rural women.
CONSULTANT, INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION, GUATEMALA
1987–1988
 Evaluated and documented rural womens’ economic development projects.
 Thesis on “Gender Issues in Agricultural Extension in Central America”
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 141
PUBLICATIONS







Partnership Resource Center – a web site for conservation practitioners (TNC)
Building Vibrant Sierra Communities: A Commercial and Mixed-Use Handbook
Sediment Source Control Handbook (Editor), SBC
Hiring and Retention Guides, The Nature Conservancy
Rumbo al éxito on board development, Co-author, TNC
Resources for Success for conservation nonprofits, Editor, TNC
Evaluación ecológica rápida (Rapid Ecological Assessment) Co-author, TNC
2009
2005
2005
2000
1997
1993
1992
LANGUAGES
 English
 Spanish
 Portuguese
Native language
Fluent - over 9 years living in Spanish-speaking countries
Very Good - facilitate workshops and manage international teams
CITIZENSHIP
Dual National: USA and Great Britain.
RECENT VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE
 Board, Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation.
 Vice-Chair, High School Site Council, Truckee High School
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
2009
2008
Page 142
ANNEX G
ALLEN PUTNEY CV
ALLEN D. PUTNEY
P.O. Box 4046, Incline Village, NV 89450, USA
Tel. (001-775) 833-3627; Fax: (001-775) 833-3626; e-mail: putney.allen@att.net
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS: Four decades of international experience in the
management of natural resources working through government agencies, international
organizations, universities, and non-governmental organizations. Special expertise in
environmental funds; the planning, management and evaluation of protected areas;
conservation of biological diversity; and coastal zone management.
SPECIAL SKILLS:
 Program and project planning, management, and evaluation
 Leadership of project teams
 Strategic planning
 Organization and facilitation of meetings and workshops
 Technical writing
THEMATIC EXPERTISE:
 Natural resource management, especially protected areas and coastal zones
 Evaluation of Global Environment Facility projects
 National environmental and protected area funds
LICENSES:
 NAUI Certified SCUBA Diver
 Private pilot licensed for single engine airplanes (no longer current)
LANGUAGES:
 English (mother tongue)
 Spanish (fluent in both written and oral communication).

Portuguese (fair in written and basic in oral communication)
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 143
GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE:
 Central and South America (Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Chile, Argentina)
 Insular Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, British
Virgin Islands, Anguilla, St. Martin / Sint Maarten, St. Bartolemy, Saba, St. Eustatius, St.
Kitts – Nevis; Montserrat, Antigua & Barbuda, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique, St. Lucia,
St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba, Bonaire,
Curacao)
 Global Programs
 Turkey, Madagascar, Mozambique, and the Maldives Islands.
AFFILIATIONS AND AWARDS:

Member, IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas
-
Vice Chair for World Heritage, January 2006 to present.
-
Member, IUCN World Heritage Technical Advisory Group, 2000 to present ;
-
Leader, Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values, 1998-2006
-
Caribbean Regional Vice Chair, 1988-1992
 Recipient, 2004 Fred M. Packard International Parks Merit Award of the World Commission
on Protected Areas, IUCN – The World Conservation Union.
EDUCATION:
1970-1972: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, M. Sc. in Forestry.
1962-1966: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, B. Sc. in Forest Management.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 144
PRINCIPAL POSITIONS HELD:
'98 — Present: Independent Consultant

Consultant to the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States to develop a monitoring and
evaluation system for their Project on "Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods"
(OPAAL), with financial support from the World Bank/GEF. 4 weeks.

Consultant contracted by the U.S. Forest Service to lead a 3 person team in the
assessment of opportunities for the development of a biodiversity conservation program in
the lowlands of Bolivia. 6 weeks.

Consultant contracted by Chemonics International to serve as a Parks Management
Specialist for the USAID funded Caribbean Open Trade Support Program for Antigua and
Barbuda to assist in the development of a management plan for the Codrington Lagoon
National Park. 8 weeks.

Consultant contracted by the Environment Division of Antigua and Barbuda, with
Funding from the OAS and GEF, to develop a Sustainable Finance Plan for Codrington
Lagoon National Park, Barbuda. 6 weeks.

Contract with IUCN – The World Conservation Union to serve as Vice Chair for World
Heritage of the World Commission on Protected Areas. Activities include participation in
development of a New Agenda for Natural Heritage, a capacity building strategy for Natural
Heritage, a feasibility study for a Global Fund for Natural Heritage, and participation in
World Heritage Committee Meetings and the IUCN World Heritage Panel. 8 weeks.

Consultant contracted by Chemonics International to serve as a Parks Management
Specialist for the USAID funded Caribbean Open Trade Support Program for Dominica to
assist in the updating of a management plan for the Morne Diablotin National Park. 8
weeks.

International Consultant to WWF-US for development of a Feasibility Study for the
Development of a Conservation Trust Fund in Mozambique in collaboration with the
Government and interested parties, 4 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union, with funding from UNESCO, to
evaluate the nomination of Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, as a World
Heritage Site. 2 weeks.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 145

Team Leader, mid-term evaluation of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States
Project on "Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods" (OPAAL), with financial support
from the World Bank/GEF. 4 weeks.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) Fund for Peru
with financial support from U.S. AID. 5 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union for development of an Action Plan
for Fundraising for the Global Framework Program for Natural Heritage Training and
Capacity Building with financial support from the UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2
weeks.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Project. “Program for Consolidation of the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor”, Central American Council for Environment and Development with
financial support of UNDP/GEF. 3 weeks.

Consultant to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on the sustainable finance of Amazonian
protected areas, with emphasis on Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru, 2 months.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Project, “Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve”, Government of
Mexico with the financial support of UNDP/GEF. 3 weeks.

Consultant to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for the design of a national environmental
fund for Paraguay with funding from the InterAmerican Development Bank. 3 months
over a period of 1 year.

IUCN Representative at the World Heritage Meeting on “A New Look at the Authenticity and
Integrity of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Americas”, August 24-26, 2005, San
Miguel de Allende, Mexico.

Team Leader, evaluation of the Project. “Consolidation and Implementation of a Coastal
Zone Management Program for Biodiversity Conservation”, Government of Argentina with
financial support of UNDP/GEF. 3 weeks.

Guest Speaker for the launching of the Project, “The Sacred Dimension of Lanín and
Nahuel Huapi National Parks” of the National Parks Administration, Argentina. 1 week.

Consultant to the Madagascar Foundation for Protected Areas and Biodiversity to
assist in the development of a manual for grant-making; funded by WWF-US and WWF
International. 2 weeks.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 146

Project Director, “Support for the Participation of IUCN in the International Symposium on
the Conservation of Cultural and Biological Diversity: the Role of Sacred Natural Sites and
Cultural Landscapes” (Tokyo, Japan) organized by UNESCO and the United Nations
University, in collaboration with IUCN, the Secretariat of the the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the Secretariat of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and FAO. 3
months.

Consultant to IUCN, with financing from UNESCO, to assess whether Sangay National
Park, Ecuador, should be removed from the list of endangered World Heritage Sites. 2
weeks.

Consultant to UNDP/GEF for the final evaluation of the Conservation and Sustainable Use
of the Belize Barrier Reef Complex Project, Belize. 3 weeks.

Team Leader, final evaluation of the Sabana-Camagüey UNDP/GEF Biodiversity
Conservation Project, Cuba. 3 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN, with financing from UNESCO, to evaluate the nomination of Corcovado
National Park and Isla del Caño Biological Reserve, Costa Rica, as a World Heritage Site.
2 weeks.

Invited participant, Symposium V, “The Baltic Sea – A common Heritage; a Shared
Responsibility” of the Symposium Series on Religion, Science, and the Environment,
convened under the auspices of His All Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of the
Christian Orthodox Church, and His Excellency, Mr. Romano Prodi, President of the
European Commission. The Symposium was carried out on a cruise that visited Poland,
Russia, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. 1 week.
 Team Leader for an institutional evaluation of the Foundation for Development of the
National System of Protected Areas (FUNDESNAP), Bolivia, with financing from GTZ,
Germany, and the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bolivia. 3 weeks.
 Consultant contracted by GFA, a German consulting firm, to assist the Peruvian Fund for
Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) and the Peruvian General Directorate of Natural
Protected Areas and Wildlife in planning the expansion of the Protected Areas Project
funded by the German Development Bank (KfW). 3 weeks.
 Leader of a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Team for the evaluation of the Fund of the
Americas of Colombia (currently valued at about US$ 50 million) at the request of U.S.
AID. 6 weeks.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 147

Lecturer for a course on the Evaluation of Management Effectiveness undertaken by the
Orlrog Institute of Argentina (sponsored by the National Parks Administration and
University of Tucumán), in cooperation with the Argentinean Park Guards Association;
course held in Bariloche, Argentina, with attendees from Argentina, Bolivia, and Uruguay. 2
days.

Consultant to UNESCO and the Olrog Institute of Argentina (sponsored by the National
Parks Administration and University of Tucumán) to develop and present a course on the
Evaluation of Management Effectiveness for managers of World Heritage Sites in
Argentina, with attendees from southern Brazil and Paraguay as well; course held at the
Iguazú World Heritage Site, Argentina. 1 week.

Coordinator, Project on Sacred Natural Sites funded by the Ford Foundation and
implemented through the Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values, World Commission
on Protected Areas, IUCN – The World Conservation Union. 9 months over a period of 3
years.

Consultant to The Nature Conservancy (TNC), an international non-governmental
organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., to help determine the products, lessons
learned, and experiences from their Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the
Caribbean that would best contribute to the World Parks Congress; assist in identifying the
TNC and partner organization staff members who should be nominated to present this
material. 1 month.

Invited Participant, Symposium IV, “The Adriatic Sea – A Sea at Risk, A Unity of Purpose”,
of the Symposium Series on Religion, Science and the Environment, convened under
the auspices of His All Holiness The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and His Excellency
Mr. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission. 1 week.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union, with funding from UNESCO, to
evaluate the nomination of Del Este National Park, Dominican Republic, as a World
Heritage Site. 2 weeks.

IUCN designated Team Member for a UNESCO / IUCN / ICOMOS World Heritage
Monitoring Mission to the Machu Picchu World Heritage Site, Perú. 2 weeks.

Consultant to the St. Lucia National Trust to assist, as Institutional, Monitoring and
Evaluation Specialist, in the development of a project on Coastal / Wetland Ecosystem
Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods to be funded by the Global Environment
Facility through the World Bank. 4 weeks.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 148

Consultant to the Foundation for the Sustainable Development of the Chaco, Paraguay
to evaluate draft management, financial, and operational plans for the Defensores del
Chaco National Park. 1 week.

Consultant to the Peruvian Fund for Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) to review the
design of a project to support the conservation of 5 protected areas in Peru, which is being
proposed to the Global Environment Facility through The World Bank. 10 days.

Consultant to The Nature Conservancy, with funding from U.S. AID, to assist in the
development of a project to conserve the biodiversity of the Carrasco – Amboró National
Parks of Bolivia. 4 weeks.

Consultant to IUCN – The World Conservation Union, with funding from UNESCO, to
evaluate the nomination of Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park, Goiás State, Brazil,
as a World Heritage Site . 2 weeks.

Consultant contracted by GFA, a German consulting firm, to assist the Peruvian Fund for
Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) and the Peruvian General Directorate of Natural
Protected Areas and Wildlife in the planning, management, and development of 5
protected areas; funding provided by the German Development Bank (KfW). 4 weeks per
year for 5 years.

Consultant to the Secretaria do Planejamento e Meio Ambiente, Governo do Estado do
Tocantins, Brasil to assist in the development of a master plan for Cantão State Park being
funded by the Inter American Development Bank. 10 months.
 Consultant to the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature to lead a team to
evaluate the Mexican Protected Areas Fund Project, established through a grant of the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) and administered by the World Bank. The fund supports
the management of 10 priority protected areas managed by the National Institute of
Ecology. 2 months.
 Consultant to the Peruvian Fund for Protected Areas (PROFONANPE) to lead a team to
evaluate the Fund's performance and impact. The fund was established through a grant
from the GEF, which is administered by the World Bank. The fund supports the
management of Peru's protected areas, mainly through the Natural Resources Institute
(INRENA). 1 month.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 149
 Consultant contracted by GFA, a German Consulting Firm, to assist in the development of a
Project on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, Bolivia, financed by the German
Development Bank (KfW). Identification of investment priorities for the protection and
management of 6 protected areas, the review of management plans, and the design of an
integrated program for project implementation. 2 months.
 Consultant to the World Bank / PROFONANPE (the protected areas fund of Peru) to assist
in the design of a monitoring and evaluation system for the projects funded by
PROFONANPE. 4 days.
 Consultant to the Program for Machu Picchu, financed by a debt reduction agreement
between the Governments of Peru and Finland, to assist in the development of a
monitoring and evaluation system for the Program. 2 months.
 Consultant to UNDP / Government of Guatemala to assist the National Environmental
Commission in the development of a national biodiversity strategy and action plan financed
by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 2 weeks.
 Consultant to UNDP / Government of the Maldives to assist the Ministry of Planning in the
development of a national biodiversity strategy and action plan, a project funded by the
Global Environment Facilty (GEF). 1 month.
 Consultant to a World Bank / Government of Argentina Project on Native Forests and
National Parks to analyze the Administration of National Parks and recommend
modernization measures. 2 months.
 Consultant to FAO / Government of Turkey to assist the Ministry of Forestry of Turkey in
the development of its protected areas program, with emphasis on a participatory approach
to park planning; work with a planning team to identify and plan the development of a major
national park in the Black Sea Region. 2.5 months during two different missions.
 Protected Areas Management Specialist on a team formed by Tropical Research and
Development, Inc., to evaluate the Parks in Peril Program of The Nature Conservancy
(funded by U.S. AID). Visits to 7 protected areas in five countries (Mexico, Ecuador, Peru,
Costa Rica, and Guatemala). 3 months.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 150
 Consultant to UNDP / Government of the Dominican Republic to provide the conceptual
basis for the development of a Global Environment Facility (GEF) Project on in-situ
conservation of biological diversity. 2 weeks.
'92 — '97: IUCN — The World Conservation Union
 Program Officer for the Southern Cone, Regional Office for South America, resident in
Bariloche, Argentina (6.95 — 6.97):
-
responsible for representing the Secretariat of IUCN; assisted National Committees of
IUCN and national groupings of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas to
develop, fund, and implement national conservation action plans;
-
linked IUCN programs in southern South America with their counterparts in other
international organizations;
-
provided technical assistance to the Argentine National Parks Administration in
protected area planning and project development;
organized the technical contents, and served as Technical Secretary, of the First Latin
American Congress on National Parks and Other Protected Areas, Santa Marta,
Colombia.
-
 Director, Western Hemisphere Relations, U.S. Office of IUCN in Washington, D.C. (16.95):
-
responsible for working with the IUCN offices of the Western Hemisphere to coordinate
programming and collaboration on activities of common interest;
-
helped integrate programs in the Hemisphere with global IUCN programs;
-
coordinated with international programs of particular relevance to IUCN activities in the
Hemisphere;
-
served as relay point for communication between IUCN members in the Hemisphere,
and Washington-based constituents.
 Acting Executive Director, IUCN—US, and Representative of the IUCN Director
General in the U.S. (4-12.94)
-
provision of leadership in the development and implementation of the IUCN/US
programs as an integral part of the global IUCN program;
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 151
-
development of a U.S. National Committee of IUCN Members;
-
supervision of IUCN-US staff and budget;
-
collaboration with other national and international conservation organizations;
-
liaison with U.S.-based IUCN members and partner organizations; fundraising; lobbying
for IUCN programs with the US government, and other U.S.-based organizations.
 Director of Conservation Programs, U.S. Office, IUCN (1.92-3.94)
-
responsible for the development, supervision, and evaluation of conservation programs
and staff;
-
liaison with U.S.- based donor and technical assistance organizations to involve them in
programs of the Union, raise funds, and develop collaborative ventures;
support to IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) in the Western
-
Hemisphere by providing assistance to WCPA Vice Chairs, raising funds, and
providing technical supervision of staff in regional offices;
-
organizer and technical coordinator of global meeting in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, of national
environment funds from 22 countries;
-
drafting of the Caracas Action Plan, an output of the IV World Congress on National
Parks and Protected Areas.
'86-'92: Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, CANARI (originally the
Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Program, Inc.), resident in the U.S. Virgin Islands
 President and Director
-
founded the Institute and built it into the largest non-governmental environmental
organization in the insular Caribbean;
-
responsible for all aspects of the development, funding, and running of CANARI, with
15 full-time employees, numerous part-time consultants, and an annual budget of about
$500,000 from grants by foundations, universities, and bi- and multi-lateral aid programs;
-
offices located on St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands), St. Lucia, and Dominica;
-
the Institute's goal: to enhance local capacity to manage natural resources critical to
development;
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 152
-
program focus on in-situ conservation of biodiversity and community-based
management with projects in Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Barbuda, Dominica, Barbados, and St. Lucia;
-
CANARI served regional networking functions in its major program areas;
-
organized and presented regional workshops and short-courses on topics relating to the
major program areas;
-
taught graduate course on natural resource management at the University of the West
Indies, Cave Hill Campus (Barbados);
-
founded and developed the Caribbean Consortium of Universities for Natural Resource
Management.
-
served as Caribbean Regional Vice Chair of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected
Areas
'77-'85: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources
 Associate Research Scientist, and Principal Investigator, Eastern Caribbean Natural
Area Management Program (ECNAMP), resident in the U.S. Virgin Islands ('78-'85):
-
founded and developed ECNAMP as a cooperative program of the Caribbean
Conservation Association (headquartered in Barbados) and the University of Michigan;
-
program focus was on the assessment of resource management problems in the
Eastern Caribbean, and the design, funding, implementation, and evaluation of pilot
programs, especially in fisheries, forestry, coastal zone, and biodiversity management;
-
prepared and presented numerous lectures and workshops on natural resource
management at the University of Michigan and in the Caribbean;
 Consultant, resident in Dominica, West Indies ('77)
-
responsible for the development, funding, implementation, and evaluation of a wildland
management program for the island of Dominica;
-
program used as a demonstration site for resource management training in the Eastern
Caribbean.
-
prepared a major proposal to expand the program to the entire Lesser Antilles.
'72-'76: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 153
 Forestry Officer Assigned to Ecuador ('74-'76)
-
led a team to develop the concepts for a system of national parks and protected areas;
-
identified areas to be included in the system and priorities;
-
developed financial estimates and personnel requirements for the system;
-
recommendations for the system were accepted by the Government of Ecuador, and 7
new protected areas were legally established
 Forestry Officer Assigned to Costa Rica ('72-'74)
-
worked with counterparts to set up a national program of environmental education
and interpretation of the natural environment for national park visitors;
-
integrated the education and interpretation elements into park management plans;
-
at the request of the Government of Ecuador, participated in developing the first
management plan for Galápagos National Park and World Heritage Site.
'66-'70: U.S. Peace Corps
 Volunteer Assigned to Chile
-
developed a master plan for Puyehue National Park, Osorno Province ('68-'70);
-
provided technical assistance to reforestation and fire control programs in Cautín
and Malleco Provinces (66-'68);
SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS, 1978-1997:
 Consultant to The World Bank to provide technical assistance in the launching of
PROFONANPE, the protected areas fund of Perú, a project of the Global Environment
Facility (GEF); '95 (1 week).
 Consultant to the Regional Office of FAO for Latin America and the Caribbean to participate
in a workshop to design a proposal for a regional project on biodiversity and protected areas
to be submitted to the Global Environment Facility (GEF); '95 (4 days).
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 154
 Consultant to the National Parks Administration of Argentina to evaluate the impacts of
proposed infrastructure projects in Iguazú National Park and World Heritage Site, and the
review of new areas to be incorporated into the national park system; '94-'95 (5 weeks).
 IUCN — The World Conservation Union facilitator for a workshop in Perú to synthesize a
strategy for the development of a National Protected Areas Fund; '93 (1 week).
 Consultant to the UNEP Caribbean Environment Program to develop an integrated
regional program for specially protected areas and wildlife; '91 (1 week); '90 (2 weeks); '89
(2 weeks).
 Consultant to the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States to develop a project sketch
for establishment of a protected areas system and legislation for St. Vincent and the
Grenadines; '89 (4 days).
 Head, Project Design Team for U.S. AID to support the Government of Jamaica in the
development of a national parks and protected areas system; '88 (3 weeks).
 Consultant to the Government of Venezuela on priorities for national park development; '88
(3 weeks).
 Membership on two U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, advisory panels
(U.S. insular areas and tropical deforestation); '85 (2 weeks), and '82-'83 (2 weeks).
 Consultant on management of the Galápagos National Park and World Heritage Site to the
Government of Ecuador, '82 (1 month); '80 (2 weeks); the Darwin Research Station, '80
(2 weeks); and Unesco, '80 (2 weeks).
 Consultant to UNESCO to identify potential biosphere reserves and World Heritage Sites,
Guyana; '80 (6 weeks).
 Consultant to the World Wildlife Fund on wildland training requirements for the Caribbean;
'80 (6 weeks).
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 155
 Consultant to IUCN - The World Conservation Union, World Commission on Protected
Areas, to inventory the national parks and protected areas of the insular Caribbean; '79-'80
(6 weeks).
 Consultant to the Government of the Dominican Republic on priorities for national parks
development; '78 (1 week).
 Consultant to FAO in park interpretation assigned to the first Latin American Workshop on
National Park Planning; '72 (3 months).
PUBLICATIONS (Professional Reports and Papers Excluded):
Building Cultural Support for Protected Areas through Sacred Natural Sites. In Friends for
Life: New Partners in Support of Protected Areas. Jeffrey A. McNeely, Editor. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 2005.
Co-Editor, The Full Value of Parks and Protected Areas: From Economics to the
Intangible. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Lanham, Maryland. 2003.
Editor, issue on Non-Material Values of Protected Areas. PARKS. Vol. 10, No. 2. June 2000.
Editor, issue on Financing Protected Areas. PARKS. Vol. 4, No. 2. June 1994.
Caribbean. In Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 1994. p. 323-346.
A workbook of practical exercises in coastal zone management for tropical islands. (Coauthor). Commonwealth Science Council. London. 1988. 300 p.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 156
A conceptual framework for the management of the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve.
VIRMC I research series, subtask 1, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service and
Virgin Islands Natural Resource Management Cooperative. Atlanta. 1988. 44 p.
Data synthesis and development of a basis for zoning of the Virgin Islands Biosphere
Reserve. VIRMC I research series, sub 2.7 and 2.9. U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, and Virgin Island Resource Management Cooperative. Atlanta. 1986. 44 p.
Environmental guidelines for development in the Lesser Antilles (Co-author). Technical
Report No. 3, Caribbean Environment, Caribbean Conservation Association. St. Croix, U.S.
Virgin Islands, 1984. 44 p.
Survey of conservation priorities in the Lesser Antilles. Technical Report No. 1, Caribbean
Environment, Caribbean Conservation Association. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. October,
1982. 44 p.
Overview of conservation in the Caribbean region. In transactions of the 45th North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute.
Washington, D.C., 1980.
Towards a strategy for the management of living natural resources critical to
development in the Lesser Antilles. In Proceedings of the Conference on Environment
Management and Economic Growth in the Smaller Caribbean Islands, September 17-21, 1979.
Department of State 8996, International Organization and Conference Series 143. Washington,
D.C., 1979.
Estudio de las alternativas de manejo del área circundante a Machalilla - Pto. López.
Working Document No. 20, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador. August, 1976, 44
p.
Informe final sobre una estrategia para la conservación de las áreas silvestres
sobresalientes del Ecuador. Working Document No. 17, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527.
Quito, Ecuador, February, 1976. 61 p.
Informe sobre sesiones de trabajo para la planificación de áreas silvestres. Working
Document No. 15, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador. June 1975. 18 p.
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 157
Una estrategia preliminar para la conservación de las áreas naturales y culturales del
Ecuador. Working Document No. 12, PNUD/FAO Project ECU/71/527. Quito, Ecuador.
October 1974. 15 p.
Plan maestro para la protección y uso del Parque Nacional Galápagos (Co-author).
Working Document No. 1, UNDP/FAO Project ECU/71/022. Santiago, Chile. 1974. 91 p.
Planificación de programas interpretativos, guía para la preparación de programas
interpretativos para parques nacionales. (Co-author). Technical Working Document No. 18,
FAO/RLAT Project TF 199. Santiago, Chile. 1974. 21 p.
Plan de interpretación, Parque Nacional Volcán Poás. Technical Working Document No. 12,
FAO/RLAT Project, TF 199. Santiago, Chile. 1974. 83 p.
Objectives and evaluation in interpretive planning. (Co-author). Journal of Environmental
Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall 1973. p. 444-445.
Cost per visitor contact; a step towards cost-effectiveness in interpretive methods. (Coauthor). March, 1972.
Updated 8/08
Final Independent Evaluation SINAP 2
Paquita Bath and Allen Putney
Page 158