PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM

GOVERNMENT OF MÉXICO

MEXICAN FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE

THE WORLD BANK

INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

Allen Putney

Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido

Karla Ceciliano

MÉXICO, D.F., MÉXICO

March 2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The consultants wish to acknowledge with gratitude the many people who made this evaluation possible. Given the short period of time available to carry out the mission, we put heavy demands on the different people with whom we had the fortune of working. We would like to sincerely thank them for the excellent cooperation, patience, and kindness we were afforded throughout the exercise. We especially want to thank the people who helped us during our field visits, and who kindly answered our many questions even though they probably have answered the same questions on previous occasions.

We learned much from this work and are grateful for having had the opportunity. We want to particularly thank the staff of the Protected Areas Fund (FANP), the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN), the Coordinating Unit for Protected Areas of the National Institute of Ecology (UCANP-INE), the World Bank, and the Directors of the Protected Areas for their support and trust. We particularly want to thank Lorenzo Rosenzweig, Javier de la Maza, Adolfo Brizzi, Renée González, David Gutiérrez, Rafaello Cervigni, Liliana Urbina, Celia Piguerón, Lisette Benavides, Concepción Molina, Ricardo Hernández, Sergio Graf, Alejandro López, José Ramiro, Victor Sánchez, Fernando Durand, Gabriela López, Ximena Yañez, Jonathan Ryan, and José Warman.

Finally, the team members want to acknowledge the value we attached to having the company of Lilia (from the Caribbeanisland of Guadeloupe) throughout our work. She made our efforts that much more complete and enriched our field visits enormously by adding a dimension that the people we visited especially valued.

To all, many thanks.

Sincerely,

Allen D. Putney

Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido

Karla Ceciliano

Rodolfo Roldán

ACRONYMS

AOP. Annual Operations Plan

BR. Biosphere Reserve

CAF. Administration and Finance Committee, FMCN

CC. Central Coordination Unit of the Protected Areas Program

CONABIO. National Council for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity

CONANP. National Council for Protected Areas

COPLADES. Development Planning Councils

CTFANP. Technical Committee of the Protected Areas Fund

DFANP. Management of the National Fund for Protected Areas

FANP. National Fund for Protected Areas

FMCN. Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature

GEF. Global Environment Facility

GOM. Government of México

INE. National Institute of Ecology

IPDP. Indigenous Peoples Development Program

LGEEPA. Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection

NGOs. Non-governmental Organizations

NSPA. National System of Protected Areas

PAs. Legally Protected Areas

PRODERS. Regional Sustainable Development Program

PROFEPA. Federal Agency for Environmental Protection

RDs. Directors of the Reserves Participating in the Project

SEMARNAP. Department of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries

SHCP. Department of Treasury and Public Credit

TACs. Technical Advisory Councils

UCANP. Protected Areas Coordinating Unit

WB. The World Bank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ACRONYMS ii

TABLE OF CONTENTSiii

  1. EXECTUIVE SUMMARY 1
  1. INTRODUCUTION 3
  1. Background 3
  2. Protected Areas Program 4
  3. Objective of the evaluation 4
  4. Methods 5
  5. That which is seldom mentioned 6
  1. LEGAL AND NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK 8
  1. National and international context 8
  2. Project context 8
  1. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK10
  1. PROJECT ANALYSIS11
  1. National Fund for Protected Areas11
  2. Central Coordination Unit for the Project12
  3. Management of the 10 participating PAs13
  1. The most important resource13
  2. Management programs15
  3. Annual operations plans16
  4. Community participation16
  1. Analysis of the TACs17
  2. PA / Community partnerships19
  3. Indigenous People Development 21

Programs

  1. Inter-institutional cooperation 22
  1. PERFORMANCE23
  1. General considerations23
  1. Key questions23
  2. Financial viability and stability24
  1. Alterations in the original design24
  2. Administrative and financial management25
  1. Financial management, PA level25
  2. Financial management, FMCN level26
  3. FMCN accounting and auditing systems28
  1. Fundraising and revenue generation29
  1. PAs 29
  2. FANP 30
  3. INE 31
  1. PROJECT ASSESSMENT32
  1. Project supervision32
  1. Technical supervision32
  2. Administrative supervision34
  3. Financial supervision34
  1. Monitoring34
  2. Independent evaluations35
  1. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS36
  1. Principle strengths and impacts36
  2. Aspects that could be improved40
  3. Lessons learned42
  4. Looking toward the future43
  1. Political change43
  2. FANP 43
  1. PRIORITIES46
  1. Short term46
  2. Medium and long term46

ANNEXES47

  1. Terms of reference48
  2. References54
  3. Schedules58
  4. Interviews60
  5. Resumes of the Evaluation Team64
  6. FMCN Organigram81
  7. FANP - Detail of Expenditures82
  8. FANP - Asset Management83
  9. FANP - Detail of Revenues and Expenditures85
  1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an independent evaluation of the Protected Areas Program of Mexico. This Project is the result of Loan Agreement TF028678 of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) dated 5 June, 1997. The Government of Mexico (GOB), the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN), and The World Bank (WB) are signatories to the Agreement. The WB participates in the Project as the implementing agency for the GEF.

The objective of this mid-term evaluation is to analyze Project performance and impact, and to outline recommendations for improvement. The evaluation was carried out by a consultant team during a period of 5 weeks in Mexico (5 January - 1 February, 2000) and subsequent office work for writing, revising, and correcting the report (2 February - 6 March, 2000). The consult team consisted of Allen D. Putney (Coordinator), Ramón Pérez Gil Salcido, Karla Ceciliano, and Rodolfo Roldán. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are based on a review of more than 40 documents, interviews with more than 150 individuals, and field visits to 4 of the 10 PAs that are the focus of the Project (Sierra de Manantlán, Montes Azules, Ria Lagartos, and the VizcainoDesert).

In the opinion of the evaluation team, this Project is the most successful observed during their 75 years of collective experience. The information collected, including on-site observations, indicate that the Project, which was restructured in 1997, has turned out to be a highly successful one, and that the three participating institutions (INE, for the Government of Mexico, the FMCN, and the World Bank) are implementing the project effectively and efficiently. As far as can be determined, it would seem that the Project's objectives will either be met or surpassed during the project period. Seen as a whole, the successes of the Project represent a milestone of excellence, not only at the national, but at the international level as well.

The Terms of Reference for the Project specified three key questions, which are presented below. These questions are answered succinctly in Chapter 6, Section A. Reference is made in parenthesis to the sections of the report where these questions are answered in greater detail.

  1. Are the various project agreements and memoranda of understanding being implemented? (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5)
  2. Are these agreements and understandings the appropriate ones for obtaining the Project's objectives? (see Chapter 6 and 7)
  3. Do the Project objectives reflect the policies of the participating institutions? (see Chapter 8).

Six key strengths have contributed to the success of the Project to date and are presented below. However, it should be emphasized that permanent changes in many ecological and social processes, which may turn out to be critical to the Project, can only be observed over longer periods of time.

The six current key strengths of the Project are:

  • A creative Project design which includes: a basic staff paid by the GOM in each of the participating PAs, and seed capital, administered by the FMCN, which generates interest that covers the yearly basic operational costs for management of the PAs over the long term.
  • The vision, leadership, talents, constant support, and cooperation among the managers of the participating institutions.
  • The quality, dedication, creativity, and technical know-how of the staff of the participating PAs, especially their Directors.
  • Diverse and creative interactive processes at the local level which have achieved a high level of community participation and inter-institutional cooperation.
  • The attitude of solidarity that the PA Managers have demonstrated to the communities in and around the Reserves, by working with them to find lasting solutions to their basic unmet needs.
  • The excellent budgetary and fiscal control systems in place for the Project.

As with all projects, this one has aspects that could benefit from improvement. However, it is emphasized that these aspects are far outweighed by the Project's strengths.

The Project elements which could benefit from improvement are as follows:

  • definition with greater precision of national norms, criteria, and standards of "best practice", and related verifiable indicators, for PA management;
  • fine-tuning of Project supervision processes with an eye to achieving greater continuity and relevance, and maintaining attitudes of mutual respect;
  • adjustment of financial mechanisms to achieve greater stability by (1) recalculating Project costs based on experience, (2) increasing diversification of the investment portfolio, and (3) improving mechanisms at the level of each PA for capturing and managing local sources of funding;
  • unification of processes for hiring and managing PA personnel, who are currently hired under different arrangements (through governments, NGOs, donors, etc.), so that fairness and stability can be achieved, and career paths developed;
  • broadening and improvement of collective learning opportunities for PA management.
  • the need to change the perception of PA managers, and provide them with the tools, to transform growing public visitation from a worrisome problem into a strategic opportunity;
  • enhancement of the currently rudimentary PA infrastructure in order to provide better support to field staff;
  • diversification of the mechanisms available to certify compliance with WB requirements regarding community participation and inclusion of indigenous peoples; and,
  • enhancement of fiscal and economic incentives for landowners (ejidos, communities, and private individuals) to conserve natural ecosystems, especially in PA core zones.

Again, it is imperative to emphasize that the Project's strengths far surpass its weaknesses, and in our opinion, the Project can be held up as a model of global significance. Thus, the Evaluation Team can, without hesitation or reserve, recommend that the project be extended and broadened. Further, the Team recommends that the current process of designing a follow-up project be carried forward with full confidence based on the positive conclusions and recommendations of this Evaluation.

  1. INTRODUCTION

The independent mid-term evaluation of the Natural Areas Program of Mexico was requested by the participating institutions. The purpose is to analyze the activities carried out by the Project to date (see ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference). The evaluation is a tool to review project performance, and to identify needed adjustments for improving attainment of project objectives.

  1. Background

In response to the growing deterioration of the nation's natural ecosystems, the Mexican Government developed, at the end of the '80s, a strategy to protect critical habitats. The National System of Protected Areas (NSPA) was one of the instruments created as part of that strategy. At the beginning of the '90s, the GOM and The World Bank (WB) began exploring ways to financially support the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to meet its conservation objectives. This dialogue culminated in 1992 with the approval of a grant of US$30 million from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for support to the Program for Protected Areas.

At the end of 1992 the agency responsible for the Program, the Department of Urban Development and Ecology, was reorganized into two autonomous institutions, one of which was the National Institute of Ecology, which became responsible for the NSPA. As part of this reorganization, it was agreed to reduce the number of PAs to be supported by the GEF grant which, in turn was cut back to US$25 million. In 1994, the devaluation of the peso resulted in the cut-back of the government budget for 1995. At the same time, responsibility for management of the PAs was shifted to the newly created Department of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries (SEMARNAP). INE was included in the new Department and retained management responsibility for the NSPA. In mid-1995, the GOM and the WB agreed to carry out an independent analysis of GEF Project performance, and identify problems and possible solutions.

In the meantime, the GOM took steps to improve the financial, operational, and political framework for managing the NSPA. As part of this strategy, the National Council for Protected Areas (CONANP) was established with representation from organizations from different sectors. These included environmental NGOs, the academic community, the private sector, and social groupings, including indigenous peoples. CONANP began operating in 1996 as an advisory body to government and produced a "Program for Protected Areas, 1995-2000".

In 1996, when US$7.47 million of the GEF donation had already been spent, CONANP named a Design Committee to evaluate the options for establishing a trust fund. The idea was to mobilize the remaining grant funds for long-term support to the management of 10 of Mexico's most important PAs. CONANP adopted the recommendations of the Design Committee to establish a National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP) within the structure of the existing Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN).

As proposed, the GEF funds support the operation of the 10 selected PAs in order to enhance:

  • protection of biodiversity and the management of natural resources;
  • community participation, including indigenous peoples, in PA `management through the development of management and operations plans; and,
  • long-term financing to cover the costs of basic conservation activities and to facilitate the raising of complementary funding.
  1. Protected Areas Program

The Protected Areas Program resulted from a formal agreement between the GOM (represented by SEMARNAP), the FMCN, and the World Bank to restructure the GEF Grant awarded in 1992. In this Project, The World Bank is the executing agency for the GEF.

The Grant Agreement for the Restructured Project (No. TF028678 of 5 June, 1997), together with a Complementary Agreement between SEMARNAP and the FMCN, are the legal instruments that lay out the responsibilities of the parties. They are the guiding documents for the Project. Precise arrangements for project implementation are spelled out in the Operations Manual under three major headings:

  • administration of the National Fund for Protected Areas (FANP) as a program of the FMCN;
  • project coordination through the National Institute of Ecology (INE) of SEMARNAP; and,
  • field management activities in the 10 participating PAs.

In 1998, the Project was selected for analysis as part of the international effort to evaluate experience with conservation trust funds (GEF, 1998). The evaluation pointed to the successes of the National Fund for Protected Areas as part of the FMCN. Among the successes, the evaluation specifically noted use of the "logical framework" method for planning and evaluation, the dissemination of "best practices" as a means of promoting improved project performance, the promotion of community participation, and the establishment of links between the FMCN's different grant programs.

  1. Objective of the Evaluation

The principle objective of this independent mid-term evaluation is to analyze Project performance and impact, and present recommendations for improvement. The specific evaluation objectives are as follows:

  1. Evaluate the performance of the Project in terms of the agreements entered into by the participating organizations.
  2. Determine the balance between the positive and negative outcomes of Project interventions.
  3. Identify, analyze, and outline the principle successes achieved to date and future challenges.
  4. Based on a critical analysis of the information gathered, present the participating organizations with specific recommendations for Project improvement.

The achievement of these evaluation objectives will enable the Project's diverse stakeholders to gain an overall perspective of the Project as it operates today and how it might be improved.

  1. Methods

The Evaluation Team carried out on-site activities in Mexico during a period of 5 weeks (5 January to 1 February, 2000) which was complemented by a further period of 5 weeks of office work to write, revise, and correct the report. Conventional evaluation methods were used which consisted of the following;

  1. Interchange of information between the consultants and FANP in order to develop a detailed program of activities and agree on a work schedule.
  2. Planning of field visits in order to harvest the experience that has been gained in managing the PAs, and to interview representatives of the diverse stakeholder groups.
  3. Review of the documentation available, particularly that in the FANP Project files (see ANNEX 2: Literature Reviewed).
  4. Field visits to 4 selected PAs (Sierra de Manantlán, Montes Azules, Ría Lagartos, and the VizcaínoDesert) (see ANNEX 3: Schedules) to:
  1. interview field staff;
  2. observe close up the different Project interventions and interview the people involved with them;
  3. discuss the Project with representatives of local communities and other groups represented in the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) of each PA; and,
  4. evaluate Project-financed infrastructure, including both that designed to support management of the PA, and that constructed as part of community development projects.

The criteria for selecting the areas to be visited were balance in terms of geography, ecosystems, and social situation; the time required to visit the area and interview the various stakeholders; and the suggestions of FANP and INE staff

  1. Interviews with more that 150 people from a variety of sectors (see ANNEX 4: People Interviewed) both at the head offices and during field visits. Those interviewed included:
  1. members of the TACs;
  2. field staff of the PAs;
  3. staff of SEMARNAP, INE (UCANP), and PROFEPA;
  4. staff of the FMCN-FANP and the World Bank;
  5. NGOs;
  6. researchers and academics; and,
  7. consultants.
  1. Processing and analysis of the information gathered.
  2. Comparison of the results of this Project with that of similar projects in other countries.
  3. Presentation and discussion of the preliminary findings of the evaluation at a seminar which took place on 31 January, 2000, with the participation of 20 people representing UCANP-INE, FMCN, FANP, SEMARNAP, WB, and CTFANP.
  4. Writing of preliminary report drafts that were circulated to the participating organizations for review.
  5. Drafting of the final report taking into account the comments received from the participating institutions.

However, as with all methods, this one has its limitations. Much reliance was placed on indirect information sources such as documents and interviews. There was not time, nor was it contemplated in the terms of reference, to use direct and quantifiable methods of observation. In addition, the findings of the report are based on a sample of 4 of the 10 PAs participating in the Project. Several of those interviewed assured the Evaluation Team that our findings are valid for the group of areas included in the Project. However, if the areas visited are not representative of the entire group, then our findings could be somewhat skewed.