USAID/El Salvador Performance Evaluation 
Regional Program for the Management of Aquatic 
 
 December 17, 2014
This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared 
by International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) under Contract No.: AID-596-O-14-000006
USAID/CENTRAL AMERICA
REGIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT 
OF AQUATIC RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC 
ALTERNATIVES (MAREA)
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FINAL REPORT
USAID/CENTRAL AMERICA 
REGIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF 
AQUATIC RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC 
ALTERNATIVES (MAREA) 
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FINAL REPORT 
AID-596-O-14-00006 
December 17, 2014 
This report was prepared by Bruce Kernan, Team Leader; Robin Rackowe, Fisheries Expert; Julio Guzman, 
Environmental Market Economist; Virginia Reyes, Technical Logistics Coordinator; and Elif Senvardarli, 
Evaluation Coordinator 
DISCLAIMER 
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ACRONYM LIST ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 
EVALUATION PURPOSE and QUESTIONS 1 
PROGRAM BACKBROUND 1 
METHODOLOGY and LIMITATIONS 3 
FINDINGS 5 
CONCLUSIONS 24
RECOMMENDATIONS 32
APPENDIX 1: Endnotes and Bibliography 36
APPENDIX 2: MAREA Program Evaluation Statement of Work 42
APPENDIX 3: Evaluation Design and Methods 51
APPENDIX 4: MAREA Expenditures by Country 55
APPENDIX 5 MAREA’s Results Framework 56
APPENDIX 6: Data Collection Tools and Survey Protocol 57
APPENDIX 7: Results, Sustainability and Benefits Analytic Tables 65
APPENDIX 8: Tool to Analyze MAREA’s Assumptions 69
APPENDIX 9: Analysis of Strategic Objectives 71
APPENDIX 10: Sources of Information 74
APPENDIX 11: Team Field Itinerary 79
APPENDIX 12: Document Review Matrix 80
APPENDIX 13: Disclosure of Conflict of Interest 86
Tables
Table 1 Policies and Laws – Activities 65
Table 2 Policies and Laws - Performance Indicators 65
Table 3 Fishing - Activities 66
Table 4 Fishing – Performance Indicators 67
Table 5 Economic Alternatives - Activities 67
Table 6 Economic Alternatives – Performance Indicators 68
Table 7 Species and Ecosystems - Activities 68
Table 8 Species and Ecosystems – Performance Indicators 69
Table 9 Communications - Activities 69
Table 10 Counts of original Data Collected, by Country 75
Table 11 Informants Disaggregated by Sex and Country 75
Figures 
Figure 1. Map of MAREA Intervention Areas 2 
Figure 2 Gender Composition of Local Surveys 4 
Figure 3 Role of women in the activity supported by MAREA 22
Figure 4 What women need in order to increase their participation 31
ii
ACRONYMS 
AGGRA Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment
ARAP Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá (Aquatic Resources Authority of 
Panama)
ASPESCU Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales de la Playa El Cuco (Association of Artisinal 
Fishermen of El Cuco Beach)
ASPROTOGOLVE Asociación para la Protección de la Tortuga Delfina (Association for the Protection 
of Turtles and Dolphins)
BCIE Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (Central American Bank for 
Economic Integration)
BFP Best Fisheries Practices
CAPENIC Cámara de la Pesca de Nicaragua (Chamber of Fisheries of Nicaragua)
CARICOMP Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program
CCAD Central America Commission for Environment and Development
CCAW Conservation of Central American Watersheds
CENDEPESCA Dirección General de Desarrollo de la Pesca y Acuicultura (Directorate General for 
Development of Fisheries and Aquaculture)
CENPROMYPE Regional Center for Micro, Small and Medium Businesses
CI Conservation International
CIF Cost Insurance and Freight
CONAP Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (National Council of Protected Areas)
COP
CPACC
Chief-of-Party
Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change
CWIP Coastal Water Quality Improvement Project
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FUNDAECO Fundación para el Ecodesarrollo y La Conservación (Foundation for Eco￾Development and Conservation)
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
FY Fiscal Year
GCRMN Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
GEF Global Environment Fund
ICAPO Eastern Pacific Hawksbill Initiative 
ICT Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (Costa Rica Institute of Tourism)
INCOPESCA Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (Costa Rica Institute of Fish and 
Aquaculture)
IRBIO Instituto Regional de Biodiversidad (Institute for Regional Biodiversity)
ITQ Individual Transferable Quotas
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
iii
KII Key Informant Interview
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MACC Mainstreaming Adaptation to Global Change
MAREA Management of Aquatic Resources and Economic Alternatives
MARN Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Ministry of Environment and 
Natural Resources)
MIDA Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario (Ministry of Agricultural Development)
MINEA Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Mares (Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Seas)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
OSPESCA Organización del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola del Istmo Centroamericano (Organization 
of Fishing and Aquaculture in Central America)
PHMR Personal Healthcare Monitoring Report
PI Performance Indicator
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
PMP Performance Management Plan
PROARCA
PRONEGOCIOS
Central American Regional Environmental Program
Rural Business Development Program
RENARM Regional Natural Resources Management Project
SICA Central American Integration System
SINAC Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (System of National Conservation Areas)
SO Strategic Objective
SOW Scope of Work
STC The Sea Turtle Conservancy
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TOR Terms of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UPESABO Unión de Pescadores Artesanales Bocatoreños (Union of Artisan Fishermen of Bocas 
del Toro)
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID/ECAM 
USAID/G-CAP
WCS
USAID Regional Program for Central America and Mexico
USAID/Guatemala-Central America Program
Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wildlife Fund
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Background 
The objectives of the evaluation were to: “(i) analyze the quality of the Management of Aquatic Resources 
and Economic Alternatives (MAREA) program’s initial design, especially the validity of its assumptions; (ii) 
identify and analyze challenges and results, including those related to gender considerations, at the local, 
national, and regional levels of implementation; and (iii) identify methodological considerations for future 
regional biodiversity project design” (USAID 2014).
MAREA’s development hypothesis is: “If USAID invests in sound coastal and marine management 
practices and market solutions in the region that are tailored to guarantee sustainability at the local level, 
then coastal communities will have alternative income opportunities that can lead to greater food security 
and marine biodiversity” (USAID 2014).
The MAREA program started in January 2010 and was originally scheduled to end in September 30, 2014, 
but was extended to March 31, 2015. Its total budget is US$13,888,734, of which US$819,083 comes 
from a Congressional earmark for labor activities and US$13,069,651 from an earmark for biodiversity. 
USAID’s Biodiversity Code requires that funds earmarked for biodiversity conservation: (i) have an 
explicit biodiversity objective; (ii) be used for activities that have been identified based on an analysis of 
threats to biodiversity; (iii) monitor associated biodiversity conservation indicators; and (iv) implement 
site-based projects in biologically significant areas to positively impact biodiversity. 
MAREA has implemented projects in four coastal areas: 1) the Gulf of Fonseca in El Salvador, Honduras 
and Nicaragua; 2) the Miskito Coast along the Honduras and Nicaragua Caribbean coasts; 3) the Gulf of 
Honduras in Belize, Guatemala and Honduras; and 4) the Cahuita-Bocas del Toro area on the Caribbean 
coasts of Costa Rica and Panama. 
USAID’s evaluation statement of work set forth the following evaluation questions:
 To what extent did MAREA’s design and resources help or hinder the Program’s ability to 
achieve its objectives and measurable results within the proposed scope and established time￾frame? 
 To what extent did the assumptions of the Program hold true during implementation, influencing 
the achievement of MAREA’s objectives, and should be considered for future programs?
 What implementation challenges faced MAREA at regional, national, local and transnational levels 
of the Program? 
 Which activities showed the fewest results and should be discontinued or approached 
differently? Explain why. What activities and methodologies have the potential to be sustainable 
by the end of MAREA? What tangible, sustainable benefits have resulted from MAREA? 
 Based on USAID’s experience with the Central American Commission for Environment and 
Development (CCAD), the Conservation of Central American Watersheds Program (CCAW) 
and MAREA, as well as current regional biodiversity challenges, where should USAID invest 
biodiversity resources/funding in the future? 
 How could MAREA have improved its integration of gender equality in the production, 
processing and marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value chain so as to 
maximize the impact of women in those areas? 
ii
Evaluation Methodology 
A team of four professionals in the conservation of natural resources gathered quantitative and 
qualitative data from September through October 2014. The Team Leader, with professional experience 
in the evaluation of natural resource management and conservation projects, provided overall direction 
to the team and was the principal writer of the report. The Fisheries Expert examined the feasibility of 
using market forces to increase the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. The Environmental 
Economist conducted key informant interviews in Costa Rica and validation workshops in Panama and 
Costa Rica. The Technical Logistic Coordinator made appointments with key informants, organized 
focus group discussions, and coordinated and analyzed the results of six quantitative surveys. 
Qualitative data about MAREA came from over 60 documents, interviews with 85 key informants (KI), 
discussions with eight focus groups (FG), field observations (FO) at 11 field sites, and comments at seven 
validation workshops (VW). Six surveys provided quantitative data. The qualitative data were used to 
identify patterns, themes and categories that were relevant to the formulation of findings related to the 
evaluation questions. 
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 
Question 1 - Design and Resources 
MAREA’s design and resources in some ways helped it to achieve its objectives and measurable results. 
Rapid, widespread degradation and destruction of marine and coastal biodiversity severely threatens the 
economic welfare of the Central American countries. The focus of MAREA’s design on its management 
and conservation was thus well justified. MAREA’s design of concentrating its activities in four coastal 
areas that contain lagoons, mangroves and reefs, with high importance for the conservation of marine 
and coastal biodiversity, also helped it to achieve its objectives and measurable results. Finally, the 
emphasis that MAREA’s design put on introducing best management practices and improved technologies 
for commercially valuable marine and coastal species helped MAREA to achieve its objectives and 
measurable results. 
In several ways, however, MAREA’s design hindered the achievement of its objectives and results. First, 
the results framework and development hypotheses that underlie MAREA’s design have not clearly 
indicated the cause-and-effect between MAREA’s actions and the achievement of its two strategic 
objectives. The wording of the original, two strategic objectives were weakly articulated from the 
outset, and proved difficult to measure. The SOs were articulated not as outcomes, but as processes. 
Similarly, MAREA’s development hypothesis does not clearly establish a link between market forces and 
increased conservation of biodiversity. The evaluation team found no evidence that MAREA was able to 
increase the conservation of biodiversity sustainably and on a significant scale through the use of market 
forces. Second, MAREA’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan, considered as part of MAREA’s design, 
does not provide a sufficiently clear mechanism for continuous monitoring of MAREA’s effectiveness in 
achieving increased conservation of biodiversity and thereby the basis for adjusting its activities so that 
they could become increasingly more effective. Third, MAREA’s implementation mechanisms were often 
cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming and thus sometimes interfered with the efficient and effective 
flow of its field activities. Specifically, the contract mechanism under which MAREA was implemented 
put excessive emphasis on meeting those quantitative targets that had been defined as formal 
Performance Indicators, tending to make the meeting of these quantitative targets a principal 
preoccupation of MAREA’s management, rather than the results which the quantitative targets were 
established to measure. Fourth, the process by which MAREA was designed was insufficiently 
participatory to stimulate the level of support during its implementation from institutions whose 
increased collaboration could have increased the effectiveness and sustainability of its actions. Fifth, 
MAREA’s budget was small relative to any opportunity to scale up or achieve trans-national results and 
this budget limit pulled the program into adapting to other programs rather than fully concentrating on 
bringing its own conservation goals to scale. Sixth, MAREA’s timeframe was shorter than needed to 
iii
establish the sustainability of its results and to achieve its strategic objectives at a significant scale. 
Seventh, MAREA’s design did not fully exploit the potential for combining the actions required to 
conserve marine and coastal biodiversity with those required to strengthen resilience and adaptation to 
climate change. Finally, the geographic areas upon which MAREA focused were too large to establish the 
strong, long-term alliances between local government, private sector, NGOs and research institutions 
that are required to formulate and implement actions that combine conservation of biodiversity with 
sustainable economic development. 
Based on these findings and conclusions, this evaluation recommends that a future regional biodiversity 
conservation program: (1) focus on the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity within the same 
four geographic areas where MAREA has implemented its activities; (2) establish a results framework for 
the program that defines a clear strategic objective for the conservation of marine and coastal 
biodiversity to which other objectives, such as gender equity or economic development, contribute and 
which clearly indicates the cause-and-effect relationships between proposed actions and the achievement 
of that strategic objective; (3) concentrate its attention on the introduction and wide-spread adoption of 
improved management practices for the use of coastal and marine natural resources; (4) establish useful, 
systematic monitoring and evaluation processes that can be used for adaptive management of the 
program; (5) implement the program through a flexible, simple implementation mechanism that does not 
give excessive emphasis to meeting quantitative targets; (6) make the design process fully participatory by 
supporting the formation of local coalitions that can formulate and implement long-term plans that 
encompass both conservation and development; (7) combine activities to conserve marine and coastal 
biodiversity with those to increase adaptation and resilience to climate change; (8) match the available 
budget and time frame with the scale of the proposed activities so that sufficient funding and time is 
available to achieve the proposed results and strategic objective; and (9) maintain the regional character 
of the biodiversity conservation program by systematically sharing local experiences within Central 
America and Mexico. 
Question 2 – Assumptions 
Of MAREA’s nine design assumptions, as articulated by Chemonics in its 2010 Performance Monitoring 
Plan (see page 2 and Appendix 8) one proved to be largely true, six proved to be partially true, and the 
remaining two were seen to be largely untrue. Assumption 8, although not really an assumption since it 
was an output of MAREA itself, proved true -- a regional common agenda of fisheries and environmental 
issues and a regional research agenda were produced and approved, although it was not possible to 
determine the extent to which the agenda has led to implementation follow-up. Assumptions 1, 2, 4, 6, 
7 and 9 were seen to be partially true. Although El Salvador and Honduras have high rates of violent 
crime, and the other countries are not completely socio-economically stable, generally there was an 
absence of an unstable socio-political environment in Central America as a whole during the time 
MAREA has been implemented. Fiscal and monetary policies were generally stable in most of the 
Central American countries, although never entirely so and more in some countries than others. Some 
regional binding agreements were reached under Central American Integration System (SICA), although 
they were not always fully implemented. There was an absence of internationally imposed measures, 
although a ban of U.S. aid to Nicaraguan central government institutions did somewhat restrict MAREA 
activities in Nicaragua. Assumptions 3, and 5 were primarily untrue. National governments, although 
perhaps not unwilling, were rarely able fully to effect much change and reform to establish rights based 
mechanisms. The regional structure of such institutions as the Organization of Fishing and Aquaculture 
in Central America (OSPESCA) and the Central American Commission for Environment and 
Development (CCAD) made it unlikely that they would be able to participate fully in a USAID project 
which sought relatively rapid results rather than full consensus between the countries. Shocks did occur 
in supply and demand, although it was not possible for the evaluation team to study them in detail. Rises 
in fuel costs, for example, probably affected fishing practices and the prices for seafood are always 
subject to fluctuations. National public institutions that are responsible for the planning, management 
iv
and regulation of marine and coastal resources generally lacked sufficient staff and budget to carry out 
fully their responsibilities. 
These assumptions did influence MAREA’s design and therefore its implementation. If, for example, the 
feasibility of establishing rights-based mechanisms had not been an assumption, then perhaps MAREA’s 
design would have included more effective and feasible actions to establish such rights-based 
mechanisms. Similarly, if MAREA’s design had not assumed the full support of regional organizations it 
might have incorporated specific measures to obtain such support. Had MAREA’s design assumed that 
there would be increases in the price of the fuel fishermen use, perhaps it would have factored such 
increases into its design and been more helpful to fishermen for adopting sustainable fishing practices. 
Based on these findings and conclusions about the assumptions, the evaluation team recommends that in 
its future programming for regional biodiversity conservation USAID: (1) consider the eight assumptions 
(eliminating Assumption 8) in future programing for a USAID regional biodiversity conservation program; 
(2) be fully realistic about the current situation of each of these assumptions; (3) not expect that the 
situation with respect to these assumption will improve and be prepared that their situation may 
worsen; (4) clearly differentiate the situation of these assumptions in the different Central American 
countries, and design the program to take into account and respond to these differences; (5) substitute 
commitments for assumptions by using a process for designing the program that achieves commitments 
of local organizations and institutions to implement the specific actions that are required in specific sites 
to reconcile sustainable economic growth and conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. 
Question 3 -- Implementation Challenges 
At the regional level, MAREA’s main implementation challenges involved the lack of full collaboration 
with the regional institutions CCAD and OSPESCA and territorial disputes between Central American 
countries that share marine areas. At the national level, the principal implementation challenges involved 
budgetary and institutional weaknesses in national and local public institutions, lack of funds for 
investments in improved equipment for capturing commercial marine species, and the remoteness of 
some field sites. At the local level, the main implementation challenges were corruption and violence in 
some geographic areas, lack of adequate scientific data and inequitable control over and sharing of the 
benefits from coastal and marine resources. 
To respond to these implementation challenges in a future regional biodiversity conservation program, 
the evaluation team recommends that USAID (1) design the program with the full participation of CCAD 
and OSPESCA; (2) confine its field activities to sites that do not involve international boundaries but that 
encompass specific, circumscribed areas that contain the reef-sea grass-beach continuums where 
biodiversity is both most concentrated and most threatened; (3) include an activity that is specifically 
designed to demonstrate to banks the financial feasibility of investing in improved equipment for the 
capture of commercial marine and coastal species; (4) choose field sites where operations are not 
excessively expensive and time-consuming; (5) avoid geographic areas and institutions where corruption 
and violence are likely to affect program implementation; (6) finance the applied scientific research that is 
required to develop and adapt best management practices for specific marine and costal natural 
resources; (7) emphasize equity in the use of coastal and marine resources among different social groups 
and between men and women. 
Question 4 -- Results, Benefits and Sustainability 
MAREA implemented five categories of activities: (i) policies and laws; (ii) fishing; (iii) economic 
alternatives; (iv) species and ecosystems; and (v) communications. Interventions associated with 
alternative economic opportunities for coastal workers provided the least tangible results for marine 
biodiversity. Although the activities involving policies and laws were necessary and useful at one time, 
probably by now sufficient policies and laws have been drafted or approved, and they now need to be 
implemented effectively and consistently, a responsibility not of USAID but of national and local 
governments. The categories of activities that showed the greatest, most sustainable and most beneficial 
v
results for the conservation of biodiversity were those that have or could lead to improved management 
of marine and coastal natural commercially valuable resources. The introduction and adoption of fishing 
gear that prevents the capture and death of under-size marine organisms and the establishment of 
exclusion zones where commercial marine organisms can reproduce successfully are examples of the 
type of improved management practices for that are required to achieve conservation of marine and 
coastal biodiversity. The categories of applied scientific research and communication were minor in 
MAREA. Scientific research, however, provides the essential base of knowledge for developing and 
applying improved management practices. Likewise, an effective, targeted communication program 
permits successful management experiences to expand in scale to make a significant improvement in the 
conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity and increase understanding and support for the policies, 
laws and regulations the implementation of which are required to achieve such conservation. 
Based on these findings and conclusions, this evaluation recommends that a future USAID biodiversity 
conservation project focus on (1) the introduction and widespread adoption of effective management 
and conservation practices for marine and coastal biodiversity, in particular species that have commercial 
value; (2) support to applied scientific research that will provide a sound basis for effective management 
and protection of marine and coastal biodiversity; (3) finance of systematic, targeted communication of 
improved management practices and conservation policies, laws and regulations. 
Question 5 -- Experiences in Regional Biodiversity Conservation 
Since the late 1980’s USAID has financed and implemented the Regional Natural Resources Management 
Project (RENARM), the Central American Regional Environment Program (PROARCA), the 
Conservation of Central America Watersheds Program (CCAW), and MAREA itself. During the 
implementation of these projects it has supported the Central American Integration System (SICA), and 
its implementing institutions, such as CCAD and OSPESCA. Each of the prior programs has been 
evaluated and important lessons that have been learned from them have been noted. The principal 
lessons learned were that a regional biodiversity program should (1) focus on synergies for common 
objectives by using participation to build inter-organizational coalitions at the local level; (2) concentrate 
policy on mitigating threats to defined geographic areas; (3) ensure research is directly pertinent to 
problems; (4) emphasize environmentally sound productive activities using best practices; (5) create 
precedents with wide-spread application throughout Central America; (6) incorporate markets for 
commercial products from marine and coastal natural resources into program design and 
implementation; and (7) work closely with SICA in the design and implementation of the program to 
support its principal purpose of furthering the integration of the Central American countries. This 
evaluation recommends that USAID incorporate a number of these valuable lessons learned into a future 
regional biodiversity conservation program. 
Question 6 -- Women’s Participation
MAREA implemented many activities that benefited women and increased their role in the conservation 
of coastal and marine resources. It did not, however, base its activities on a systematic analysis of 
women’s roles and how to give women a greater role in decision making about the use and conservation 
of coastal and marine resources. The evidence from MAREA’s experiences confirms that in order to 
achieve the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity women must have a role equal to that of 
men in their use and management. 
Consequently, this evaluation recommends that in a future program to conserve Central America’s 
marine and coastal biodiversity USAID: (1) establish specific objectives for including women in the design 
of the program; (2) establish specific objectives in the program itself for empowering women in the 
decision-making processes for the management and conservation of marine and coastal resources; (3) 
include systematic measurement of women’s participation in program activities, especially in relation to 
decision-making processes; (4) provide for adjustment of program activities on the basis of the results of 
such systematic measurement so as to achieve the objective of involving women fully in decision-making 
related to the use and management of marine and coastal natural resources.
1
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 
Objectives of the Evaluation 
The objectives of the evaluation, as stated in its Statement of Work (SOW), were to: (i) analyze the 
quality of the Management of Aquatic Resources and Economic Alternatives (MAREA) program’s initial 
design, including the validity of its assumptions; (ii) identify and analyze challenges and results, including 
those related to gender considerations, at the local, national and regional levels of implementation; and 
(iii) identify methodological considerations for future regional biodiversity project design (USAID 20141). 
The main audience for the evaluation is USAID’s Regional Program for Central America and Mexico 
(USAID/ECAM) and other USAID offices that may use its recommendations in their design of future 
biodiversity activities (see Appendix 2 SOW MAREA Evaluation). 
Evaluation Questions 
Based on its Statement of Work (SOW) this evaluation explored answers to the following questions: 
1. To what extent did MAREA’s design and resources help or hinder the Program’s ability to achieve 
its objectives and measurable results within the proposed scope and established time-frame? 
2. To what extent did the assumptions identified by USAID hold true during implementation, 
influencing the achievement (or non-achievement) of MAREA’s objectives, and should be 
considered for potential future programming? 
3. What implementation challenges did MAREA face at each level of the Program (regional, national, 
local, and transnational)? 
4. Which activities showed the fewest results and should be discontinued or approached differently? 
Explain why. What activities and methodologies have the potential to be sustainable by the end of 
MAREA? What tangible, sustainable benefits have resulted from MAREA? 
5. Based on USAID’s experience with the Central American Commission for Environment and 
Development (CCAD), CCAW and MAREA, as well as current regional biodiversity challenges, 
where should USAID invest biodiversity funding in the future? 
6. How could MAREA have improved its integration of gender equality in the production, processing 
and marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value chain so as to maximize the 
impact of women in those areas? 
PROGRAM BACKGROUND 
Overview of the MAREA Program 
The MAREA program started in January 2010 and was originally scheduled to end in September 30, 
2014, but was extended to March 31, 2015. Its total budget is US$13,888,734 of which US$819,083 
comes from a Congressional earmark for labor activities and US$13,069,651 from an earmark for 
biodiversity. 
USAID’s Biodiversity Code requires that funds earmarked for biodiversity conservation: (i) have an 
explicit biodiversity objective; (ii) be used for activities that have been identified based on an analysis of 
threats to biodiversity; (iii) monitor associated biodiversity conservation indicators; and (iv) implement 
site-based projects in biologically significant areas to positively impact biodiversity. 
MAREA has implemented field activities in four marine and coastal areas, shown on Figure 1. The area 
of the Gulf of Fonseca includes parts of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, extending from Jiquilisco 
Bay, El Salvador, across the Honduras Pacific Coast to Padre Ramos, Nicaragua. The Miskito Coast area 
2
extends along the Honduras and Nicaragua Caribbean Coasts. The Gulf of Honduras area extends from 
Placencia, in mid-Belize through coastal Guatemala almost to La Ceiba on and the Bay Islands off the 
northern coast of Honduras. The Cahuita-Bocas del Toro area extends from the outlet of the River La 
Estrella, in Costa Rica, to the outlet of the River Calovebora, in Panama and a sector of the Barra del 
Colorado in northern Costa Rica. 
Key Assumptions in MAREA’s Original Design 
MAREA’s design was based on the following assumptions: 
1. Absence of an unstable socio-political environment such as armed or violent regional and/or local 
conflicts; 
2. Generally stable fiscal and monetary policies and macro-economic environments; 
3. Willingness of local and national governments to effect change and reform, in particular to rights 
based mechanisms; 
4. Full support of regional organizations, Central American Integration System (SICA), Organization 
of Fishing and Aquaculture in Central America (OSPESCA), and the Central American 
Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD); 
5. Absence of any sudden supply or demand shocks such as energy price shocks that would 
interrupt coastal and marine activities; 
Figure 1. MAREA Intervention Areas
3
6. Accomplishment and enforcement of regional binding agreements under SICA; 
7. Absence of internationally imposed measures that would have detrimental effect on the general 
political and economic stability in Central American countries such as internationally imposed 
sanctions; 
8. That the Program will encourage shared agendas by adding to existing regional processes; and 
9. The Ministries of Environment and Agriculture in the region support the Program and provide 
required information (USAID 2014). 
Levels of Coordination 
MAREA interacted with regional, national and local institutions in the Central American Countries. The 
principal organizations at the regional level were the SICA and two of its operational institutions, the 
CCAD and the OSPESCA. At the national level MAREA interacted with national ministries for 
environment, natural resources, fishing, tourism and foreign relations and with national environmental 
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). At the local level, MAREA interacted with local governments, 
cooperatives and associations. MAREA had sub-contacts with five NGOs: the Nature Conservancy 
(TNC), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Solimar 
International and Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC).
METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS 
The methodology (detailed in Appendices) followed USAID’s SOW (Appendix 2) and benefited 
enormously from support from the MAREA implementing agencies and from the regional USAID staff 
who provided key guidance at every step. 
Evaluation Schedule 
The Performance Evaluation was conducted in the field in September-October 2014 by a team of two 
U.S. (a Team Leader and a Fisheries Expert) and two Regional Specialists (an Environmental Market 
Economist and a Technical Logistics Coordinator), with the support of IBTCI home office staff, and 
evaluated the effectiveness of the MAREA Program from its start in January 2010 through September 
2014. The four-person evaluation team split into groups to cover all Central American countries and 
MAREA sites. The field implementation schedule can be found in Appendix 11. 
Data Sources 
The evaluation is based on a sample of qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data were collected 
from five categories of sources: (i) documents; (ii) key informant interviews (KIIs); (iii) focus group 
discussions (FGDs); (iv) field observations (FOs); and (v) validation workshops (VWs). 
Because time limitations did not permit the review of every available document, documents that appeared 
to be more likely to have more significant and representative data were selected. The bibliography 
(Appendix 1) lists the documents that were reviewed. Potential key informants were selected from a list 
of contacts and participants provided by MAREA, and those who were available when team members 
were able to meet with them. Invitations to participant in focus group discussions were extended, mostly 
by telephone, to a wide range of local people, including political and business leaders, who had 
participated directly or tangentially in a MAREA activity, but generally those who actually attended the 
discussions were those who had participated directly. Field observations were made in all the seven 
Central American countries where MAREA operated, except Guatemala, where time limitations 
prevented travel to field sites, but only at a few of the many sites where MAREA carried out activities. 
Invitations to the validation workshops were extended to a wide range of people in government, NGO 
and private sector organizations and were conducted with those few who decided to participate. In sum, 
the selection of qualitative data sources was largely random. 
4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Roatán Bocas del Toro Golfo de
Fonseca
Puerto Cabezas Puerto Lempira
Percentage (%)
Sites
Sex Composision of Evaluation Surveys 
Men
Women
Quantitative data were obtained by administering surveys to 243 beneficiaries of MAREA activities who 
are members of fishing cooperatives. The actually interviewees were randomly chosen from those people 
who were available when the surveys were being administered. As depicted in Figure 2 below, the 
majority of respondents were male, though in some cases the percentage of females rose to 35%. 
Figure 2. Sex composition of local surveys carried out in evaluation.
Appendix 10 indicates the number of KIs, FG, FO, VW and surveys by country. Seventy-seven interviews 
were conducted with 85 key informants. Female participation was included wherever possible, including 
focus groups, validation workshops and the surveys implemented in coastal communities. Fifty-five, or 
65% of the key informants were men, and 30, or 35% of the key informants, were women. Eight focus 
group discussions were held. Although the participants in the focus group discussions were generally a 
mixture of project beneficiaries and project administrators, and therefore not too different from most of 
the key informants, the dynamics of the focus group discussion were different from an interview and thus 
permitted additional insights into MAREA’s operations. Field observations were made at 11 sites where 
MAREA had implemented some type of activity. Seven validation workshops were held, with the 
limitations described in the limitations section. Six field surveys were conducted in the four areas with 
243 direct beneficiaries of MAREA, mostly members of fishing cooperatives that MAREA has supported in 
some way. Appendix 4 contains the protocols and templates for collecting these data. 
Data Analysis 
Qualitative analysis was used to identify patterns, themes and categories that emerged from the 
qualitative data relevant to the six evaluation questions.2 Deductive analyses were then used to test and 
affirm the authenticity and appropriateness of these findings to the evaluation question. Qualitative data 
were not consolidated and quantified. There was no attempt, for example, to calculate the number or 
percentage of key informants who responded similarly to the same questions; rather, the comments of 
key informants were considered individually for their value in providing responding useful answers to the 
evaluation questions. Quantitative analysis was used to analyze the survey data. Each team member was 
involved in collecting data to be used to address the evaluation questions. Findings were also compared 
against international lessons in marine conservation, drawing on scientific and programmatic literature as 
recommended by experts. 
5
Limitations 
The time available to analyze the large-sample size datasets that the evaluation team collected as the 
basis for formulating evidence-based answers to the evaluation questions was severely limited. 
As the evaluation team operated under a short time-frame, the team made the decision to devote more 
time to interviewing key informants, holding focus group discussions and making observations at MAREA 
field sites than to interview government officials in the country capitals, thereby somewhat limiting the 
evaluation’s inclusion of official government viewpoints. The team’s final itinerary was in flux for much of 
the period of the field research. The purpose of the Validation Workshops (VW) was to check the 
evaluation team’s preliminary conclusions and recommendations with knowledgeable people. However, 
it was not fully possible to invite people to the VWs with sufficient lead time and it was not possible to 
present preliminary conclusions and recommendations immediately after collecting data, because the 
data were not yet analyzed. Consequently, participation at these VWs was limited and the discussions 
were not informed by all the findings that would be eventually drawn during the analysis of the data. 
Sufficient quantitative data were not available on the budgets of national public and private institutions to 
permit an analysis of the effect that the budget levels of national ministries may have had on MAREA’s 
ability to achieve its intended objectives.
FINDINGS 
Question 1 - Design and Resources 
To what extent did MAREA’s design and resources help or hinder the Program’s ability to 
achieve its objectives and measurable results within the proposed scope and established 
time-frame? 
Biodiversity in the Four MAREA Field Sites Helped MAREA 
Each of the four project site areas where MAREA financed activities has a concentration of biodiversity, 
at the levels of genes, species and ecosystems, and they provide habitats for important phases of the life 
cycles of numerous species of marine organisms. The 2006 USAID report, which underlay MAREA’s 
design, identified these areas as particularly important for the conservation of marine and coastal 
biodiversity (USAID 2006). Prior USAID’s initiative, other regional projects had also identified these 
areas as particularly important for the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. 
MAREA’s Results Framework
According to USAID, a Results Framework (RF) represents a strategy to achieve specific objectives. It 
makes clear the cause-and-effect logic about how intended change will occur. Taken as a group the 
achievement of the lower level results should result in the achievement of the next higher objective 
(Strategic Objectives - SOs). It is expected that results are necessary and sufficient to achieve the SO. 
The RF should, moreover, help a program manager to design an effective monitoring and evaluation 
system and to focus on key objectives within a complex development environment (USAID TIPS). 
MAREA’s RF, shown in Appendix 5, shows how MAREA was intended to contribute to the achievement 
of the USAID SO for Central America and Mexico of “economic freedom: open, diversified, expanding 
economies” through the achievement of two SOs: (1) “promote effective monitoring and enforcement of 
coastal and marine resources policies and legislation with an emphasis on compliance;” and (2) “foster 
rights-based and market-based mechanisms and management incentives for the conservation and 
sustainable use of coastal and marine fisheries resources and ecosystems, with an emphasis on 
ecosystem-based approaches to management.” Two of MAREA’s 11 results are intended to achieve SO 
1 and nine are intended to achieve SO 2.
6
Several aspects of MAREA’s RF have hindered its usefulness. Their use of the words “promote” and 
“foster” convert SOs 1 and 2 into statements of processes rather than of objectives.3 It is confusing that 
Results 1 and 6 both refer to “harmonized policies”, although the first contributes to SO 1 while the 
second contributes to SO 2. It is unclear how Result 34 can contribute to the achievement of SO 2.5 
Result 6 refers to policies so it fits better under SO 1 than SO 2. Result 8 states several results rather 
than only one. Direct causal links are difficult to discern between the two SOs and the USAID/ECAM SO, 
or between the 11 results and the two SOs. Results 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 set quantitative targets that 
duplicate MAREA’s Performance Indicators. Result 10 concerns only funding for but not actual 
implementation of successful projects. Finally, eight of the result statements state “outcomes” and 12 
state “outputs” but none of them, or the strategic objectives, states “an explicit biodiversity objective,” as 
required by the USAID Biodiversity Code. 
MAREA’s RF orients MAREA primarily toward the fishing sector. Nine of the eleven results (I, 2, 4, 5, 7, 
8, 9, 10, II) concern fisheries. By contrast, part of Result 11 concerns tourism, Result 3 concerns marine 
turtles, and Result 6 combines the issues of coral reefs, mangroves and climate change. Although 
MAREA’s documents frequently refer to its concern with “ecosystem approaches,” and although SO 2 
states that MAREA has “an emphasis on ecosystem-based approaches to management,” the term 
“ecosystem” is used only in one of the 11 results (Result 6). 
The MAREA Program’s Development Hypothesis 
MAREA’s development hypothesis posits: “If USAID invests in sound coastal and marine management practices 
and market solutions in the region that are tailored to guarantee sustainability at the local level, then coastal 
communities will have alternative income opportunities that can lead to greater food security and marine 
biodiversity” (USAID 2014). MAREA’s theory of change therefore includes both management practices and 
market solutions. 
Sound management practices are the most standard, versatile and proven method for maintaining 
production from natural resources while also conserving their biodiversity.6 Data from documents, KIs, 
FGs, and FOs indicate that MAREA’s promotion of improved management practices is likely to help 
conserve marine and coastal biodiversity. Field observations, for example, in the Bay of Jiquilisco, El 
Salvador; and El Venado, Honduras, indicate that MAREA has financed the collection of turtle eggs from 
vulnerable nests, raised turtle hatchlings and released them into the ocean. Furthermore, MAREA has 
assisted, replanted or helped to conserve mangrove forests and reduce fishing on reefs and has 
introduced fishing techniques or equipment, such as nets with larger mesh and lobster traps, whose 
widespread adoption could lead to more conservation of some marine species and has financed the 
preparation of management plans for some species, such as the Nassau grouper and Queen Conch. 
If implemented widely, experience in other parts of the world as well as in Central America itself indicates 
that these techniques would be likely to improve the conservation status of these species. Similarly, 
MAREA has helped to establish no-catch zones within the Port Honduras Marine Park, the Isla de Bahia 
Marine Park and other areas, and such areas offer a way to increase the rate of reproduction and survival 
rate of some marine species. Some of these management actions, such as the management plans for 
commercial species of fish, have so far remained as plans, so their conservation effects have not occurred 
and cannot be measured. Others of these management actions, such as the collection of turtle eggs and 
release of hatchlings or the protection of mangroves and reefs have been implemented. MAREA, 
however, has not collected biological data that would reflect the conservation results of such actions, so it 
is not possible to determine their location, degree or sustainability of its conservation actions. 
Markets are an integral part of the management of renewable natural resources, since they frame the 
incentives, linkages, alliances and income streams that contribute to the costs of conservation practices. 
The greatest depth of experience in the developed and developing world are with mainland forests. 
Forest management is the classic example of the link between management of a renewable natural 
resource and markets: forests are managed to produce a sustained flow of products to markets and the 
7
income from the sale of forest products is used to finance forest management, including the preservation 
of the forest’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Fisheries management, similarly, aims to sustain the stocks of 
commercial species of fish while harvesting them to supply markets. The products and services provided 
by the renewable natural resources, such as fish and wood, contribute to economic activity and growth 
and therefore to household incomes and welfare. Ecosystems themselves also have economic value, as 
witnessed by the tourists who pay to see and walk in forests or scuba dive in reefs. The products and 
services of renewable natural resources play an important role in Central American economies. 
Market approaches are being invented and tested more and more and, like regulation, often are 
contingent upon how enforceable are community or personal property regimes and access to natural 
products.7 The MAREA approach has been to explore promotional initiatives that would achieve higher 
prices for sustainably-harvested catch, which in turn would reward sustainable practices, and thereby 
increase their abundance of threatened species.8 MAREA was supposed to increase demand for 
sustainably harvested products through campaigns to increase public awareness of sustainably produced 
fish products9 (USAID 2014). 
No data from MAREA’s activities conclusively demonstrate whether MAREA successfully used the first 
market mechanism to increase the supply of sustainably harvested marine products. Indeed, some of the 
evidence MAREA itself produced indicate that this market mechanism is unlikely to work at least at a scale 
that would stimulate wide-spread adoption of best management practices for marine products. MAREA, for 
example, financed a study of the lobster value chain that indicated that U.S. consumers are unwilling to pay a 
higher price for sustainably harvested lobster (MAREA 2012).10 Likewise, a KI commented that U.S. buyers 
of lobster would not pay more for sustainably harvested lobster (KIH2211). Although KIs representing a 
large buyer of fish products indicated their interest in obtaining fresh, sanitary, high-quality supplies from a 
fishing cooperative whose processing operations MAREA had assisted it to improve, they did not indicate 
the buyer would pay more than market prices if the fish were to be produced through best management 
practices (KIES17). During the course of this evaluation, no evidence from documents, KIs, FGs, and VWs 
indicated that MAREA has yet implemented a significant public education campaign on a scale that might 
increase the demand for sustainably harvested marine products. 
KIs mentioned two other possibilities though which they thought market mechanisms could be used to 
increase the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. One KI suggested that by adding value to their 
products, fishermen would reduce the intensity of their catch, leaving more fish in the ocean and thereby 
conserving biodiversity (KIES14).12 Another KI suggested that when fishermen receive assistance in adding 
value to their products they become more willing to learn and adopt best management practices for fishing 
(KIES17). No data, however, were found in MAREA documentation that demonstrates the success of either 
of these potential mechanisms.13 In theory, value-added products, enhanced by processing, can create new 
markets or demand, and feedback to incentivize producers. However the MAREA program does not 
prevent other fishermen from catching and selling the smaller fish that they leave behind. The second relies 
on education of fishermen, but the evidence is inconclusive whether it would affect their behavior. 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
MAREA’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan (MAREA 2014g) has 20 Performance Indicators (PI) for 
MAREA’s 11 Results (see Appendix 9). Each PI has its respective Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 
(PIRS). The PIRS were completed in considerable detail, but suffer from some weaknesses. For example, 
Result 314 sets a quantitative target, appropriate for a PI but not for a result. It is, moreover almost identical 
to PI 1215. Result five and PI 1316 express roughly the same thing. Result 817 refers specifically to scuba 
divers and the number of productive projects but its implementation is to be measured by PI 1718 which 
makes no reference to either scuba divers or pilot projects. Result 9’s statement is not stated clearly and 
precisely,19 and PI 18,20 which is associated with Result 9, measures only the number of people trained not 
the only significant purpose of that training, increased income for disabled SCUBA divers from activities 
other than SCUBA diving. Result 1121 and PI 20 22 refer to gross sales rather than net profit although what 
8
matters in relation to an improved standard of living is the latter. The parts of the PIRS that refer to 
“Project, Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition,” indicate that two of the sheets were to be updated 
yearly, 16 quarterly and two monthly, and that the updates were to be presented to USAID through 
quarterly and annual reports. Time limitations prevented the evaluation team from ascertaining the extent 
to which these updates were reported in the quarterly and annual reports, although they presumably were 
since USAID approved these reports. Nonetheless, the evaluation team found the lack of updates of the 
PIRS themselves to make it more difficult to evaluate the extent to which these updates were made and 
therefore to form an opinion about the effectiveness of the M&E Plan as a means to manage MAREA. 
Baseline Data 
The basis for the design of MAREA, a 2006 USAID report, emphasized that inadequate baseline data limited 
the understanding of trends for biodiversity conservation in many Latin American and Caribbean countries 
(USAID 2006 – see: Appendix I/Bibliography).23 Nonetheless, the MAREA M&E Plan simply says, “For the 
majority of indicators in the M&E Plan the baseline is zero” and, in fact, the baseline noted on the PIRS is 
0 for all 20 indicators. Baseline information, however, did exist in 2010 for some of the indicators in 
documents that existed before 2010. Such possible sources of baseline data include the 2006 report on 
Latin America coastal and marine biodiversity, the various USAID country reports on biodiversity and 
tropical forests and reports such as the World Wildlife Fund’s Global 2000 report and Conservation 
International’s Marine Hotspots analysis (USAID 2006). For example, the 2006 USAID report provides 
baseline data on the threats to marine and coastal biodiversity of the Central American countries and on 
their institutional capacity to respond to those threats (USAID 2006). If these baseline data had been 
used in the preparation of the PIRS, they could have provided a baseline against which to measure 
MAREA’s accomplishments. 
Participation in MAREA’s Design Process
Evidence from documents, KIs, FGs, and VWs indicate that MAREA’s original design was not prepared 
with sufficient participation of Central American regional, national or local public or private institutions. 
One informant noted that some countries did not feel sufficiently consulted about the design and 
operations of MAREA (KIES1), and another KI recommended that USAID develop its next projects 
concerned with fishing in consultation with the fishing authorities (KICR4), while a third KI expressed the 
opinion that “a project could be more effective and spend less on administration and more in implementation if it 
promotes more participation” (KICR7). The general manager of a fish processing and exporting plant, 
suggested that MAREA should have accepted guidance from those people involved in fish commerce 
(KIH13). In one workshop a participant of the country’s fisheries department, ostensibly involved in the 
design of MAREA described their role as follows: “The department was not involved in the initial design of the 
project, so when we heard of it they already had their activities planned. For Nassau grouper they wanted to 
monitor and formulate regional policies to protect this species, but we were ahead of all this, we had size limits, 
monitoring, seasons. So when it came to a lot of their activities we were ahead of them. We contributed to the 
other countries with our information to the consultants who came here to see how they could apply our experience 
to other countries. We were never consulted during the design so a lot of the design was done in house among 
their team. We wanted to make it beneficial to Belize but they told us that we could not put in new activities 
because the design was already done” (VWB1). Another KI made a pertinent comment: “If they are really 
promoting conservation I would want to believe they should have approached every country and site to ask, do you 
have anything in mind that matches our purpose?”
By contrast, however, the data do indicate that during the implementation of MAREA its administration 
took some pains to respond to local needs, priorities and opportunities. For example, a KI said, “Because 
MAREA allowed us to implement our ‘tried and true’ strategies for hawksbill research and conservation 
that we developed in conjunction with local community members over multiple years—instead of 
imposing other approaches on us—all of ICAPO’s project activities supported by MAREA were highly 
successful” (KIES15). Another KI described in detail how MAREA’s assistance had responded to the 
9
priorities of the fishermen’s cooperative to which he belonged, saying “They did a lot of consultation with 
us and we had regular meetings and we went through what we needed and what they could do” (KIB3).
Implementation Mechanisms 
Several KIs noted that MAREA’s implementation mechanisms were often overly cumbersome. For 
example, several different informants observed that obtaining USAID concurrence to undertake 
proposed activities was a slow process that inhibited implementation and that USAID’s branding process 
also retarded implementation. A KI also noted that sometimes MAREA’s procurement procedures were 
slow: “Things arrived very late for MAREA due to administration problems. The system that USAID 
uses for getting quotations takes a long time, three or four months. Our project had a life of 11 months, 
so we had built the infrastructure but did not have the glass windows, which held up the whole project.” 
Concerns were expressed about the planning and support provided by the El Salvador hub of MAREA, 
including failure to anticipate import taxes, to provide shipping information and failure to compensate for 
transport costs. Some KIs expressed concern that the decision to implement MAREA through a 
contract negatively forced its contractor to concentrate on attaining the quantitative targets established 
in its contract. 
Budget 
Appendix 4 catalogues the MAREA project’s expenditures by country. The total expenditures for all the 
countries were $12,474,921 through August 2014. Among these, El Salvador had the highest 
expenditure (US$3,871,880), followed by Honduras (US$2,687,169), Nicaragua (US$1,601,974), Panama 
(US$1,508,156), Belize (US$1,275,871), Guatemala (US$779,810) and Costa Rica (US$750,061). 
MAREA’s original design did not define how strategic objectives and results would map against the 
budget. Nor did the budget documents from MAREA show how the total budget of the program was 
distributed per year, by objectives, activities, and results. Although MAREA’s work plans and quarterly 
reports show an estimated budget by activities, its quarterly reports only provide evidence on 
expenditures by variables (labor, other direct costs, indirect costs, and fixed fee). Furthermore, there 
was no provision of information on actual expenditures in these categories. It was not possible, 
therefore, to analyze how the available funds were converted into products or what category of activity 
produced the greatest cost/benefit ratio of expenditures vs. conservation of biodiversity itself, or the 
creation of the conditions required to conserve biodiversity. Several KIs indicated that they thought that 
MAREA’s funds alone were insufficient to accomplish the programs strategic objectives. One KI, for 
example, said “MAREA could finance studies as one option, but not much more” and suggested that 
perhaps MAREA had had to tie in with other programs to be able to achieve the targets set for it in its 
contract with USAID (KIH18). 
USAID’s support to MAREA in turn leveraged inputs from other sources. These non-USG co-financing 
resources also supported conservation efforts as well as the related fisheries, handicrafts and tourism. 
This amounted to $8,369,421 of leveraged funds from the beginning of MAREA through the third quarter 
of 2014, exceeding the original MAREA target by close to 37%. Sales by the target populations also 
generated income, roughly $9.8 million as of late 2014 over the life of MAREA. Sales revenue gave a 
boost to those fisherpersons using improved fisheries practices, rights-based mechanisms. 
Attribution becomes difficult, however, when recognizing MAREA’s leveraging of activities (and 
beneficiary income) in ways that also depend on other efforts. MAREA takes credit for the income that 
the KAUMA cooperative is making from selling salted jellyfish, based on the US$10,000 or so it spent to 
hire a consultant to prepare a business plan for KAUMA. Taking credit for the results of “leveraging” of 
funds beyond a certain point begins to make it difficult to distinguish what would have been achieved 
absent MAREA’s influence.
Timeframe 
The 2006 report the recommendations of which underlay MAREA’s design noted “Given the range of 
10
stakeholders involved (particularly in the coastal zone), the incentives and actions required to maintain 
commitment, and the inevitable changes during project execution, significant time is required to plan, 
execute, and adaptively manage regional trans-boundary coastal and marine programs. This far exceeds a 
two-year and possibly even a five-year investment horizon. A total time investment ranging from 8 to 15 
years from project planning to execution to projected outcomes has been required in other regional 
environmental programs” (USAID 2006). Nonetheless, MAREA was designed to last for only five years. 
KIs commented on the shortness of this timeframe given the complexity of the problems MAREA set 
itself to solve and noted that MAREA could have been more effective had it continued longer and thus 
been able to complete or carry further some of its activities (KIES4). One KI, for example, said “What I 
saw there was very limited time to execute some of these things. We got from April 2012 and 
completed by June 2012 and implementation in January 2013 to September 2013. I know of other 
projects that simply needed more time. There was only a little window of four or five months” (KIB5).
Question 2 - Assumptions 
To what extent did the assumptions identified by USAID hold true during 
implementation, influencing the achievement (or non-achievement) of MAREA’s 
objectives, and should be considered for potential future programming? 
Assumption 1: Stable Socio-political Environment 
Some territorial disputes created an unstable socio-political environment for MAREA activities. Since El 
Salvador and Honduras have not reached an agreement about Conejo Island in the Gulf of Fonseca, 
Honduras and El Salvador have not been able to implement joint actions to protect the Gulf of Fonseca. 
Honduras claims the Belizean-administered Sapodilla Cays off the coast of Belize in its constitution, but 
agreed to a joint ecological park around the cays, should Guatemala consent to a maritime corridor in 
the Caribbean under the 2002 Belize-Guatemala agreement sponsored by the Organization of American 
States. The historically tense relations between Guatemala and Belize have improved somewhat.24
Although difficult to document, drug trafficking and illegal fishing, aided by corruption may have 
complicated the achievement of some of MAREA objectives. The Miskito Coast area, as observations in 
Puerto Lempira clearly indicated is a center for drug trafficking (FOH3). The park rangers of the Port 
Honduras Marine Reserve commented that many fishermen from Guatemala have used corruption to 
obtain legal papers so “unless you catch them doing an illegal activity you cannot prove anything on 
them” (KIB5). In El Salvador, a KI commented that criminal activity, especially gang presence, is 
increasing in many coastal communities, which increases the difficulty of carrying out conservation 
activities and increases the likelihood that illicit activities relating to marine resource use, such as blast 
fishing in the Bahia de Jiquilisco, will occur (KIES8). 
Assumption 2: Stable Fiscal, Monetary and Economic Environment 
One indication that a stable fiscal, monetary and economic environment exists is the provision of 
adequate budgets to the public regional, national and local institutions, such as environment and fisheries 
ministries, the responsibilities of which include enforcing regulations governing the management and 
exploitation of marine and coastal resources. Budget data was not available for review, however several 
informants noted that the government ministries concerned with the environment and management of 
natural resources are under-funded in relation to other ministries and in relation to their needs. 
Assumption 3: Willingness of Governments to Effect Change 
Quantitative data, such as the size or trends in the budgets for ministries of environment, renewable 
natural resources or fisheries, were not available as the basis for evaluating the willingness of 
governments to take the actions required to increase the conservation of renewable natural resources 
and biodiversity. Common sense suggests, however, that the willingness of the Central American 
governments would probably vary between countries, between national and local governments, and 
11
between different specific issues related to renewable natural resources and biodiversity. Willingness of 
governments to effect change would also probably vary over time, as the elected and appointed 
government officials with responsibilities for renewable natural resources, such as fish, change. One KI, 
for example, commented “The government of Guatemala has helped in an excellent way as has 
Nicaragua in their Fisheries and Environment Ministries. In Panama, the Authority of Aquatic Resources 
and the Fisheries authority also have provided support. The other four countries have been very weak 
in their support…MAREA had made an official presentation of documents about fishing to Costa Rica 
and received no response after three months” (KIES1). Other KIs, however, noted how governments 
can give priority to politics and border conflicts rather than to conservation (KIES14; KIES4). 
Assumption 4: Full Support of Regional Organizations 
The Secretary of OSPESCA summed up the difficulty of obtaining the full support of the SICA 
organizations, such as OSPESCA, as follows: “In synthesis there are two different methods that of SICA 
and that of USAID. Yet, in the end, it is the countries’ program, not SICA’s. If we were to give them a 
pre-made project they [the countries] would not participate. I think the method of formulation of the 
project should be more participative through SICA and the countries” and expressed concern that 
MAREA had become a group of national projects rather than a regional project as defined by SICA, 
(KIES4). The same informant noted that CCAD has often not had any secretary during the period 
MAREA has been implemented (KIES4). The current Secretary confirmed this observation saying: “I am 
new in this post, and they were finishing the project [MAREA] when I came. I have just participated in a 
meeting. I understand that we were on a board but we do not have records here that CCAD…was 
really involved [in MAREA]” (KIES16). The MAREA draft 2014 Annual Report also conveys a sense that 
CCAD has been unable to provide full support to MAREA: “Although the governments of Panama, 
Honduras, and Guatemala expressed interest and submitted letters, the Chief of Party (COP) requested 
that this be done through CCAD rather than separately by each country. The Regional Program 
presented the idea to CCAD’s Executive Secretariat but received no answer, neither verbal nor written, 
despite repeated notes and telephone calls” (MAREA 2014b). Knowledgeable KIs expressed similar 
assessments of the capabilities of the regional organizations to support MAREA. One said “We have not 
seen much help from any of the regional organisms except for a minor follow up on the work plans and 
reports. They contributed little to the budget”. SICA is ruled by what the ministries say; they have to do 
without any quality control about those decisions” (KIES1). Another said “I have 25 years working with 
SICA…They [the ministers] used to be more committed to regionalization, and now they only care about 
their own countries and try to use SICA…obtain benefits for their own country rather than [to 
implement] a coherent plan for any topic in the region (KIES15). 
Assumption 5: Absence of Supply and Demand Shocks 
Qualitative evidence suggests that the forces of supply and demand greatly affect the exploitation, 
management and regulation of marine products and, therefore, the possibilities for their conservation 
through the adoption of best management practices. Supply and demand shocks did, therefore, affect 
MAREA. Participants in a FG with a fishing cooperative, for example, noted that higher cost for electricity 
had driven up the cost of operating an ice machine that MAREA had donated to them, thereby reducing 
their net profits. Limitations on net profits would reduce the ability of cooperative members to invest in 
the improved fishing gear, such as new nets, that fishing best management practices require. Similarly, a KI 
commented that fuel costs are the largest cost for most fishing operations and fishermen tend to exploit 
those species that require less fuel to catch, an indication that fuel costs would affect management of the 
fish stocks. Control over exploitation of the fish resource is an important part of applying best 
management practices, making a comment from another KI pertinent: “I talked to the navy…and asked 
them to patrol. They said it costs $6,000 to patrol for 72 hours. CENDEPESCA says they have no funds 
to send out a boat.”
12
Assumption 6: Accomplishment and Enforcement of Regional Agreements 
OSPESCA members have officially approved nine regional agreements related to fishing, which shows that 
such agreements can be accomplished. OSPESCA’s Secretary described these agreements as “integration 
in practical terms” and noting that such agreements provide a powerful tool for conservation: “with this 
regulation a country can be accused of non-compliance and classified as ‘non-cooperative,’ which could 
cause its markets for those products to be closed for those products, since it they would be illegal.” He 
did note, however, that “like all regulations, some countries comply and some do not” (KIES4).
Without effective regulations, there is sometimes little incentive to improve on current harvesting 
practices for fish products. One KI described the difficulties in implementing the ban on using scuba gear 
to catch lobsters: “There was supposed to be a law to stop the scuba diving but its implementation…has 
been delayed three times for more than seven years” and mentioned that this lack of implementation has 
reduced the incentive for lobster boats to change their gear from scuba diving to lobster traps” (KIES15). 
Assumption 7: Absence of Imposed Measures 
Although data were unavailable on their exact origin and nature, imposed measures appear to have 
affected MAREA’s implementation in Nicaragua, as indicated by the comment of a key informant that 
“USAID does not authorize any benefits for the government [of Nicaragua]” (KIES1). Another KI noted 
that poor United States relations with the Government of Nicaragua affected MAREA’s implementation 
there (KIH2) and another said, “We wanted to have regional events financed by MAREA but they have 
not happened because the requirements were too complicated, and because Nicaragua did not want to 
participate. Prerequisites of USAID required certifications that were too complicated to comply with and 
we couldn’t comply because we cannot exclude a country such as Nicaragua” (KIES4).
Assumption 8: Shared Regional Agendas 
According to the draft 2014 Annual Report, MAREA “promoted and facilitated the drafting of nine 
legislative and policy instruments related to coastal and marine resource management.” These 
instruments included a National Fisheries-Environment Agendas for Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, 
Honduras, El Salvador, and Belize as well as a report on the process for development of an agenda in 
Nicaragua. The result of the analysis of the six National Agendas was the development of the proposed 
Regional Fisheries-Environment Agenda which in FY 2014 was submitted to SICA, CCAD, and OSPESCA 
(MAREA 2014b). 
Assumption 9: Support of National Ministries 
The extent of the support of national ministries for MAREA is difficult to gauge. The term “support” has 
a nebulous meaning. Also, the staff of the ministries in most of the Central American countries changes 
frequently which makes them unlikely to know much about MAREA. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that 
some people who should have known about MAREA knew little about it. Both the Costa Rica Minister of 
the Environment, Energy and Seas (MINEA) and the director of the Costa Rica System of National 
Conservation Areas (SINAC), for example, said they knew nothing about MAREA. It is possible, however, 
that MAREA may have worked with the Minister’s designated technician or officer without knowledge of 
the work being conveyed to these higher levels within the institutions. Due to the cool diplomatic 
relations between the U.S. and Nicaragua, there was little contact between MAREA and the ministries of 
environment or fisheries in Nicaragua (KIES4). By contrast, the Coordinator of Mesoamerican Biological 
Corridor and the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System of Ministry of Environment of Guatemala described 
an excellent working relationship and collaboration with MAREA. 
Question 3 - Implementation Challenges 
What implementation challenges did MAREA face at each level of the Program (regional, 
national, local, and transnational)? 
13
Regional Level 
The Secretary of OSPESCA provided useful data on the implementation problems at the regional level 
MAREA experienced. “In our case in OSPESCA we have a commitment to integrate the eight 
countries…Our objective is to determine common solutions to common problems. It is not enough that 
we just sit together – we have to work together too…If we think of the future we should think of 
working in this method of work of SICA… There are other projects that are regional in the sense of 
something in each of the countries without the purpose of working together… We use binding 
agreements that require countries to comply simultaneously… There are nine such regional agreements” 
(KIES4).
The Secretary noted that disputes over boundaries have affected the implementation of MAREA at the 
regional level, using the situation in the Gulf of Fonseca as an example: “Other entities have other criteria 
and make it complicated. For example it is necessary to harmonize methods of fishing used in Fonseca. 
The technical part was great but when the decisions and joint work have to be done then it is much more 
difficult because other entities have other criteria. Fonseca has three countries. The boundaries are not 
defined. For some countries it is more important to have the theme of boundaries than to form a 
common system. The solution is to divide up the disputed area equally. But we look at the Fonseca as 
one ecosystem and work in a coordinated way without worrying about boundaries until we have 
harmonious protocols for what people do in each country for those actions that will affect the other 
countries. The contamination of the Gulf for example is affecting all the countries. We are looking for 
harmonizing the policy to control these effects. But the technical issues are ignored by the Ministries of 
Foreign Relations, so MAREA made a proposal that is being analyzed by each country, not by all the 
countries jointly” (KIES4).
The MAREA project’s draft Fifth Annual Report, by contrast, presents the viewpoint of the administrators 
of MAREA on the difficulty of working with the regional organizations: “Although in the past two years 
the Regional Program has repeatedly requested that the Executive Committee create an opportunity to 
present the Program’s progress and results to national and regional authorities, it has yet to do so.”
National Level 
MAREA’s draft Fifth Annual Report refers to implementation problems at the national level: “The main 
challenges were associated with activities that relied on the timing of government responses and other 
organizations’ review and approval processes, which were sometimes beyond the control of the Program 
team and implementing partners”.
Qualitative data indicate that national ministries also may generally lack sufficient funds to implement their 
regulatory responsibilities. Participants in the Guatemala VW, for example, indicated that the National 
Council of Protected Areas (CONAP) has produced many reports and studies but, for lack of sufficient 
public funding, depends on NGOs for implementing field actions (VWG1). Likewise, qualitative data 
suggest that capital sometimes has been lacking at national levels to finance the improvements in 
equipment that are required to achieve improved management of marine and coastal resources (KIN1, 
KIN2, KIN3), KIN5). For example, a KI said “Another thing that did not work out was fishing with the 
new suripera nets. Training was initiated in Nicaragua and the fishermen expected they would sell the 
product and make a profit. We taught them how to do it, but there were limitations of equipment so the 
people did not put what they learned into practice. Only one association has put it into practice because 
it had the boat that is required (KIN1).”
The relative remoteness of some of MAREA’s field sites may have sometimes increased the difficulty, 
expense and time required to implement MAREA (KIN7). Evaluation team members experienced these 
difficulties themselves to a degree. A team member took an entire day to reach Puerto Cabezas from 
Managua (301 miles), travelling by plane, vehicles and motor boats, at considerable expense. Likewise, to 
travel from Tegucigalpa to the beaches west of Puerto Lempira (the site of jelly fish exploitation) took 
14
members of the evaluation team a day with considerable expense (244 miles), and the trip from Belize 
City to Port Honduras Marine Reserve required travel by plane and boat, costing several hundred dollars. 
Sometimes lack of clear assignment of responsibilities between public national institutions may complicate 
implementation (KIB9), but no specific effect of this problem on MAREA’s implementation was identified. 
Local Level 
In all of the countries KIs and FG mentioned that insufficient patrolling, supervision, and compliance with 
regulations and laws is common. Fishermen said they rarely see action by government agencies 
responsible for enforcing regulations. Some KIs and FGs noted that government enforcement agencies 
often lack sufficient fuel to operate their boats and that cooperation and coordination between public 
agencies is often lacking. Sometimes local organizations do not cooperate: a KI in Belize observed “If the 
NGOs, coast guard and fisheries would work together it would be helpful. If they don’t work together 
then it doesn’t work out well. It is not being done now. You have the fisheries department and the 
forestry department. They don’t work hand-in-hand” (KIB5). Similar observations were made in other 
countries. At least once, a national government agency acted directly contrary to the aims of MAREA, 
when in Rio Cruta in Honduras, naval vessels destroyed about 100 nets that MAREA had provided 
(KIH4). 
Conflict between different users of marine resources emerged from the qualitative data as a common, 
serious impediment to the adoption of best management practices. A typical comment for example, is 
from the focus group discussion in La Union, El Salvador: “We are talking about the artisan fishermen but 
what about the industrial fishermen? It is they who are destroying the larvae” (FGES1). Similar tensions 
emerged from focus group discussions in Puerto Lempira, Roatan, and Santa Elena in Honduras (FGH1, 
FGH2, FGH3) and from KIs in Belize (KIB5, KIB7).
In some countries, corruption within public local institutions may complicate the enforcement of 
regulations and implementation of sound management practices. Key informants in a number of countries 
mentioned cases of corruption, bribery, illegal registrations and sale of fishing licenses. An informant in 
Honduras, for example, said “The fishing sector does not have a good reputation, as some boats have 
been found to be engaged in illegal activities” (KIH4). In Belize, informants also referred to corruption as 
a limitation on the control of illegal fishing in the Port Honduras Marine Reserve (KIB5). 
Crime and violence are associated with drug trafficking and lack of enforcement at the local level. They 
may have thereby complicated MAREA’s implementation in some field areas. A KI in El Salvador, for 
example, identified insecurity as a principal problem for some places where turtle hatchling projects are 
being implemented (KIES11). Participants in the VW in Guatemala noted that drug traffickers prohibit 
patrols on some beaches of Punta de Manabique National Marine Park (VWG1). KIs in Belize noted that 
the transport of drugs may be occurring on fishing boats passing through the Port Honduras Marine Park 
(KIB7). Referring to beaches in Costa Rica and Panama, the draft MAREA 2014 Annual Report says “Due 
to security incidents, the following season the work was confined to Pacuare and Cahuita beaches, since it 
was impossible to obtain police protection to ensure the safety of WIDECAST’s staff and volunteers” 
(MAREA 2014b). 
Insufficient scientific data about local sites has sometimes complicated MAREA’s intent to improve the 
management of marine and coastal resources. One respondent, for example, noted that while detailed 
data are available for snails and lobsters in Bocas del Toro, no data exists in respect of commercial fish 
species (KICR1). Participants in the Guatemala VW mentioned another aspect of local scientific 
information: “You cannot govern without information but also you cannot have governance without 
involving the users of the resource. It will not work. People think that information is for the purpose of 
regulation. You have to accompany requests for information with activities that benefit the people too 
and solve their problems” (VWG1).
Inadequate funding created problems in several ways. According to one MAREA administrator, banks, 
15
particularly in Honduras and Nicaragua are extremely risk averse, requiring land as collateral and relying 
on credit history, and these requirements eliminated most fishing business from access to credit. They 
could not, therefore, buy fishing equipment, such as lobster traps, that is required to improve 
management of the natural resource they exploit. 
Artisanal fishermen expressed frustration in their focus groups about being excluded from the use of 
marine and coastal resources. Participants in both FGs in Roatan, for example, expressed their frustration 
with the Roatan Marine Park’s prohibition on fishing over the reefs (FGH2, FGH3). An informant in 
Puerto Lempira noted that industrial fishermen could exploit marine resources that local, artisan 
fishermen could not, due to lack of the necessary equipment (KIH5). A KI noted that 22 years after local 
fishermen were excluded from participation in the planning of the Cayos Marine Park in Honduras, they 
still feel antagonistic towards the park (KIH9).25
Transnational Level 
“Transnational level” and “regional levels” intermixed with regard to recognition that target aquatic 
species are mobile across maritime boundaries and solutions, similarly were meant to be harmonized 
across the countries. Regional entities such as OSPESCA and international entities such as the IUCN 
certainly addressed trans-boundary issues during MAREA’s program performance, as did each of the 
smaller actors who communicated and coordinated among themselves, or across country offices (such as 
World Wildlife Fund, or Chemonics). But MAREA found little direct success at getting governments to 
work toward new regimes on specific transnational issues.
Question 4 - Results, Benefits and Sustainability 
a. What activities and methodologies have the potential to be sustainable by the end of MAREA? 
b. Which activities showed the fewest results and should be discontinued or approached 
differently? Explain why. c. What tangible, sustainable benefits have resulted from MAREA? 
The findings for Question 4 are organized by the five categories of activities MAREA implemented: (i) 
policies and laws; (ii) fishing; (iii) economic alternatives; (iv) species and ecosystems; and (v) communications. 
Policies and Laws 
Table 1 in Appendix 7 indicates that MAREA implemented activities related to policies and laws in all 
seven Central American countries. It prepared inter-sectorial agendas for fisheries and environment in 
Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama; updated fisheries acts in Belize and Honduras; 
prepared guidelines for research on marine resources in Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and 
Panama; and prepared a policy for closed season for the Nassau grouper in Belize, Guatemala, and 
Honduras. MAREA prepared a strategy for sea turtles in Guatemala and a conservation strategy for 
hawksbill turtles in El Salvador. It prepared protocols for damage to coastal resources in El Salvador and 
Honduras, management plans in Nicaragua and Panama, regulations for fishing in Panama and Nicaragua. 
Assessments of cockles harvesting and long-line fishing, a plan for cockles and harmonization of fishery 
management were implemented in Honduras. In El Salvador, MAREA prepared policies for fishing gears in 
the Gulf of Fonseca and a national policy for coastal resources, and in Nicaragua it prepared a policy for 
lobster diving closure and an agreement on closed season. Codes for labor conduct were prepared for 
the Miskito fisheries in Honduras and Nicaragua. 
Table 2 in Appendix 7 indicates that, as of September 30, 2014 MAREA had met or exceeded its 
quantitative targets for all of the PIs. PIs 2, 8 and 14, however, refer to both the drafting and the 
implementing stages of policy and law activities, and the former is easier to accomplish than the latter, and 
the MAREA FY 2014 Annual Report does not provide data on degree of implementation. A number of KIs, 
however, commented how difficult it is to enforce laws governing the use of marine and coastal resources 
(e.g. KIES4, KIGU01, KIB7, KIB5, KIB2, KIES14) with observations similar to “The other problem for 
conservation is the lack of control on the resources since there is no patrolling, supervision, limited follow 
16
up on the regulations and laws” (KIES15). Participants in FGs expressed similar frustration at the difficulty 
of enforcing laws (e.g. FGES1, FGH2, FGH3, FGP3). For example, participants in one focus group 
commented “Enforcement by government agencies is critical. Here we have laws and institutions but they 
do not function well” (FGES1). Field observations in the Port Honduras Marine Reserve confirmed how 
difficult it is to enforce regulations governing fishing (FOB2). Moreover, that 85% of the respondents to 
the surveys said that more regulations are beneficial may indicate that regulations are not being 
consistently implemented in at least some of the Central American countries. 
Fishing 
As seen in Table 3 of Appendix 7, MAREA has implemented activities related to fishing in all the Central 
American countries. Activities about access rights have been implemented in Belize, Guatemala, 
Nicaragua, and Honduras. MAREA prepared a plan for Nassau groupers in Belize and Guatemala, 
management plans for Queen Conch in Belize and Honduras; management plans for cockles in El Salvador, 
Honduras, and Nicaragua; and quota systems or management plans for spiny lobster in Belize and 
Nicaragua. In Nicaragua and Panama it has promoted suripera nets for catching shrimp. MAREA has 
supported the preparation of data bases for artisanal fisheries and the establishment of no-take zones in 
Belize. In Belize it has assessed fishing in the Port Honduras Marine Reserve and in Honduras it has 
assessed mangrove cockles and long-line fishing. In Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama MAREA 
has promoted new technologies, such as gill nets and traps for lobster fishing and suripera nets for catching 
shrimp. In Nicaragua it has promoted diversification of catch to fin fish catch and medusa jelly fish. 
Artisanal lobster fishing for retired divers, a traceability system for lobsters and harmonization of fishing 
management have been MAREA’s additional activities in Honduras, and the regulation of catch size for 
shrimp and fish, the regulation of mesh size, harmonization of fishing gear and protocols for damage to the 
coastline have been its additional activities in Nicaragua. In Belize and Honduras MAREA undertook 
activities related to the grouper. 
Six performance indicators, shown in Table 4 in Appendix 7, relate to MAREA’s influence on fishing 
activities, and that it has met or exceeded its quantitative targets for all of them. PI 10 refers to Individual 
Transferable Quotas (ITQs) “established” and to ITQs “implemented”, although the draft FY 2014 MAREA 
Annual Report notes that since ITQs are rarely used in Central America, MAREA focused on other rights￾based mechanisms.26 In any case, data were not available to evaluate the degree to which the rights-based 
mechanisms have been “implemented” as opposed to “established.”
Comments from KIs and FGs attested favorably to many of the fishing activities MAREA promoted (e.g. 
KIES11, KIB5). Other fishing activities did not work so well; for example, a KI in Nicaragua said “One thing 
that did not work was the suriperas, because they made test but in the end they could not make them work 
well” (KIN8). 
About 76% of the respondents to the survey said MAREA had given them some type of assistance: 56% 
mentioned training, 47% equipment, 15% financial support (funds provided for operational costs, such as 
fuel, feed, meetings, electricity, etc.27), 15% technical assistance; and 13% some other type of support. Of 
the respondents, 61% indicated that MAREA had not influenced their fishing practices, 18% that it had 
influenced their fishing gear, 10% their processing practices and 7% their establishment of no-take zones. 
Thirty-seven percent identified lack of equipment, 33% insufficient financing, 25% lack of training, 22 % said 
there were no impediments. Fifty percent said their gross income had not changed, 34% said it had 
decreased and 16% said it had increased. 
Market-based mechanisms for conservation of open-ocean fishes have been considered in many parts of 
the world, but rely on some form of enforceable property rights.28
MAREA signed several memorandums to promote marine conservation, including Marinos Pescaderia￾NETUNO, where funds raised from the sale of Spiny Lobster would feedback to conservation. The 
market concept was that “Better Fishing Practices” would create demand for this specific – the Caribbean 
Spiny Lobster in Honduras - product stimulating a positive-feedback loop of participation. Preference was 
17
to be given to the product caught under Better Fishing Practices and processed by the packing plant 
Marinos Pescaderia, and human and economic resources for documentation and implementation of the 
Better Fishing Practices in the boats that supply the packing plant Marinos Pescaderia, and to human and 
economic resources were allocated for the conversion of the boats that supply the packing plant Marinos 
Pescaderia from diving to traps gear, and to support and implement a traceability system for the Caribbean 
Spiny Lobster in Honduras. 
Similarly, ASPESCU and Walmart established a relationship to promote compliance with good harvesting 
practices in El Salvador to purchase negotiated species. MAREA facilitated that these products caught 
should come from improve fishing practices, be processed in facilities that possess the required conditions 
and permits by the governmental institutions and Walmart standards to be marketed under the concept of 
Responsible Consumption of Seafood. Under this memorandum of understanding ASPESCU obtained nets 
to comply with current fishing legal regulations, resources for a stepwise process to transitions toward 
sustainable fishing gear, and ensure selling of sustainable caught fishing products. 
MAREA promoted effectively at least two market-based mechanisms, which are based on ensuring 
selling29 of products that use “good fishing practices,” which in turn, foster conservation of marine 
resources. According to the evidence from interviews, United States and European markets prefer 
products, which respect and protect biodiversity and in the near future will require sustainable 
certifications. 
Juvenile lobsters are very important to maintaining robust lobster stocks. The program expectation was 
that with the elimination of scuba diving from the fisheries (using traps (nasas) as improved fishing gear 
technique), many juveniles will not be harvested and will grow to maturity to repopulate dwindling 
lobster stocks. The reasons are that scuba divers have to catch quickly, sometimes with not much 
visibility, and are paid based on the catches (weight), not on the correct size (from 5 inches). 
Furthermore, divers catch them with harpoon, which kills and destroys the lobster. Then juveniles 
cannot be in any case returned to the sea alive. 
Field data reviewed about former lobster divers and collected by MAREA’s team on the Miskito Coast of 
Honduras and Nicaragua from January 2012 to the present indicates that as a result of program activities, 
391 divers in the Miskito Coast had either retired or switched to one of the economic alternatives 
promoted by the Program, resulting in a total of 201,650 juvenile lobsters not harvested during the 
lobster season. This figure surpasses the life of project target of 164,102. 
Economic Alternative Activities 
As seen in Table 530 in Appendix 7, MAREA has implemented activities related to economic alternatives in 
all the Central American countries. It has strengthened fisher’s cooperatives in Belize, Guatemala, and 
Honduras; given training in processing practices in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua; and improved 
market links in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. In Belize it tracked lobster sales, 
MAREA assisted in the improvement of fishing gear in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. In 
Panama, El Salvador, and Honduras MAREA promoted scientific tourism involving sea turtles; and in 
Panama and Honduras it promoted the National Geographic Geo-tourism platform. The production 
activities MAREA supported include fish culture in cages in Panama, sea bass and shrimp fishing and 
construction of boats for retired lobster divers in Honduras, cockle cocktails in Honduras, and improved 
fishing practices in the Carataska Lagoon in Honduras. The association between wealth-creation, local 
economic opportunities and conservation of nature has been increasingly researched via USAID 
initiatives.31 As seen in Table 6 in Appendix 7, PIs 16 through 20 were associated with the economic 
alternative activities MAREA supported and all their quantitative targets have been achieved or exceeded. 
A range of informants expressed considerable satisfaction with the economic alternatives assistance 
MAREA had generated for them. Members of fishing cooperatives particularly appreciated the provision 
of ice machines and administrative training (e.g. FGES1, FGES2, KIH5). One informant involved with 
conserving sea turtles was very satisfied with MAREA’s assistance (KIES15). Some comments, however, 
18
Case: Poultry Production in Punta Gorda, Belize 
MAREA assisted in the development of chicken production in Punta Gorda, Belize, as an economic 
alternative for fishermen. The two fishermen interviewed, discouraged by what they term the depletion of 
some resources, declining catch rates, restrictions on fishing in the protected area (Port Honduras Marine 
Reserve) and competition from Guatemalan fishermen, attended training sessions for poultry production in 
a pilot project to raise broiler chickens. The objective was to produce broiler chickens for meat in 6-8 
weeks and layers in 3 months. 
A number of challenges led the venture to falter and caused the fishermen to change to the production of 
free-range chickens, which do not require prepared feeds and are sold at six months. The chicken coops 
were provided with wire netting which rusted very quickly when close to the sea and even further inland did 
not last more than one year; sturdier material would have lasted longer. Storage was inadequate for the 
feed, some of which became hard. MAREA provided free feed for the initial production cycles, which were 
profitable. Farmers raising broilers found it hard to generate a profit after paying for the feed. There was 
less demand for broilers which sell for BZ$2.75/pound, than there was for larger size local chickens which 
sell for BZ$6/lb. The economic feasibility of raising chickens is very different when raising local chickens, as 
compared to broilers, since, although the sales price is substantially higher and the feed cost much less (it 
was said the local chickens can be fed with practically anything), the growing time is about three times longer.
indicated that not all MAREA support to existing fishing enterprises was effective: one KI said “Although 
much of MAREA’s assistance was effective, the alternatives that are suggested are not actually profitable. I 
think that the countries created too many expectations for this idea of alternative economics” (KIES4). 
Another said that their attempt to sell live lobster failed. Participants in another FG said “Things have been 
presented to us but we have not learned how to do it…We need training” (FGH3). 
Evidence suggests that MAREA had limited ability to discern economic alternatives to fishing that would 
prove competitive and sustainable. Interviews with KIs who had implemented a poultry project in Punta 
Gorda in Belize, for example, clearly indicated its rudimentary financial and technical basis (KIB7): see the 
case below. Similarly, the economic alternative project on the Miskito coast involving boat building did 
not succeed (FGH1, KIHl18). By contrast, an interviewed entrepreneur on the Miskito coast involved 
with the exploitation of jellyfish reaffirmed the general experience that successful entrepreneurs take 
risks, act quickly and respond flexibly to market opportunities (KIH16). These interviews suggest that 
MAREA was generally unable to match these characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. 
Ecosystems and Species
Table 7 in Appendix 7 indicates that MAREA has implemented species and ecosystems activities in all the 
Central American countries. These activities include the preparation of climate change plans in Belize, 
Guatemala, and Honduras and protected area or species management plans in Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, and Panama. It has prepared assessments or plans for marine turtles in Guatemala, El Salvador, 
and Panama and has financed turtle hatchlings release programs in Costa Rica and El Salvador. Other 
activities at this level have been specific to one country: Nassau grouper and conch plans in Guatemala, a 
cockle management plan in El Salvador, and a critical habitat for lobster study in Nicaragua. In Belize it has 
promoted no-take zones in the Port Honduras Marine Reserve.
PIs seven and 12 (see Table 8) are related to ecosystem and species activities; PI 7 has a “drafted or 
updated” part and an “implemented” part. Several stakeholders interviewed believed climate change 
activities to be particularly sustainable and useful for programming. For example, a KI commented: “As 
coastal populations have increased the potential for increased conflict in access rights and resource use 
has increased accordingly. This is especially evident among community-based fishing interests and the 
tourism industry (USAID 2006). An interviewee, however, questioned the accuracy of the data and utility 
of a climate change plan for a specific site, stating that they were too generalized and the analysis too 
superficial as they were regional data, not specific to communities (KIB9). 
19
Communications 
Table 9 in Appendix 7 indicates MAREA supported communication activities in all the Central American 
countries. In Belize, El Salvador, and Honduras they concerned shark fisheries. In Costa Rica and Panama 
they concerned the conduct of tourists on turtle nesting beaches. In Nicaragua they concerned plans for 
the management of the Nassau grouper, conch and lobster plans, fishing gear, and fisheries measures in 
the Gulf of Fonseca. In Panama the communication activities were also concerned with seafood 
consumption, the National Geographic tourism program and workshops for tour guides and craftsmen. 
None of the performance indicators were associated with the communication activities. A number of KIs 
expressed their opinion that communication about conservation is important. A Salvadorian KI, for 
example, noted that participants in the turtle nursery programs tend to have been educated to not 
participate in illegal fishing with explosives: “the people who are involved in conserving turtle eggs do not 
use dynamite to fish. We have seen how people change their attitude when they become involved with 
turtle nurseries” (KIES11). Fishermen KIs said “we have changed our mindset because of the assistance 
we have received from USAID…we will do our part to show that we mean to protect the resources” 
(KIB3). Another KI said that creating a social conscience is the only way to get future generations is to 
take care of natural resources (KIH13). 
Question 5 - Experiences in Regional Biodiversity Conservation 
Based on USAID’s experience with the Central American Commission for Environment and 
Development (CCAD), CCAW and MAREA, as well as current regional biodiversity 
challenges, where should USAID invest biodiversity funding in the future? 
USAID has been financing regional natural resource management projects for over 25 years. The last four 
regional projects have been the Regional Natural Resources Management Project (RENARM), the Central 
American Regional Environmental Program (PROARCA), the CCAW and, most lately, the subject of this 
evaluation, MAREA. The CCAD and the OSPESCA have been involved in one or more of these projects. 
Regional Natural Resources Management Project 
The Regional Natural Resources Management Project (RENARM) started in 1989 and ended in 1995 and 
had a budget of $60 million. It had three components: (i) policy and technical support; (ii) environmental 
education and awareness and biodiversity conservation; and (iii) sustainable agriculture & forestry. The 
principal lessons learned from RENARM were to: (i) disaggregate effects & interactions of policies; (ii) 
focus on synergies for common objectives; (iii) focus conservation on critical pristine sites; (iv) focus 
sustainable use on ameliorating threats to those sites; (v) concentrate policy on mitigating threats to 
defined areas; (vi) ensure research is directly pertinent to problems; and (vii) team with US NGOs to 
obtain technical skills. 
Central America Regional Environment Program 
MAREA’s predecessor, the Central America Regional Environment Program (PROARCA) operated from 
1989 to 1995 with a budget of $6 million. It was designed to: (i) adopt a single strategy with the objective 
of biodiversity conservation in critical ecological systems and to aim efforts at reducing the possible and 
evident threats to the sites selected; (ii) structure activities by geographic areas; and (iii) invite different 
interest groups to form confederations with the purpose of working together in identifying and solving 
problems of common interest. Its Coastal Zone Management Component, Costas, was established to 
promote integrated coastal management in Central America by strengthening local capacity for the 
conservation and effective management of coastal and marine resources. The project focused 
geographically on the (i) Gulf of Honduras (Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras); (ii) the Miskito Coast 
(Honduras and Nicaragua); (iii) the Gulf of Fonseca (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador); and (iv) the 
Gandoca/Bocas del Toro (Costa Rica and Panama). 
The final evaluation of PROARCA made the following recommendations for future USAID regional 
20
natural resource conservation programs: “(i) coalition building at a site is a successful model for 
strengthening local participation and should be continued, expanded and replicated; (ii) concentrate all 
activities both thematically and geographically within four to six trans-boundary sub-regions…including 
adjacent watersheds; (iii) focus on selected areas and/or sub-regions; (iv) promote participatory models 
involving inter-organizational coalitions; (iv) emphasize environmentally-sound productive activities using 
best practices; (v) apply efforts in living-laboratory conditions within sub-regions including legislative and 
enforcement issues to create precedents with universal application throughout the region; (vi) use two or 
three contracting modalities to increase operating efficiencies and reduce administrative costs; (vii) 
establish social, economic and technical (biophysical) baselines to permit monitoring of project progress 
and impacts (viii) USAID/G-CAP and CCAD should not micro-manage project activities, rather act as 
advocates of regional and institutional policies and forces of integration; (ix) clearly define the relationship 
and participation of the project with the governments of the various countries including other than 
environment ministries, and define coordination mechanisms with NGOs, governments, and regional 
organizations.” (USAID)
Conservation of Central America Watersheds Program 
The Conservation of Central American Watersheds Program (CCAW) operated from 2007 to 2009. Its 
budget was not determined. The project had the following components: (i) Sustainable finance for areas 
of critical biodiversity importance; (ii) more consistent implementation of existing management plans for 
areas of critical biodiversity importance; (iii) private sector management and participation to enhance 
biodiversity conservation, natural resource protection, and sustainable economic growth. According to 
its final report the lessons learned from CCAW were: (i) address trans-boundary threats at the regional 
level; (ii) access large numbers of stakeholders by supporting cooperatives; (iii) communicate how the 
projects’ local activities were tied to the regional threats; (iv) demonstrate a practice or process that 
could be replicated on a regional scale; (v) build on local initiatives and capacity to achieve rapid results; 
(vi) allow time for change within governments; (vii) take a market-based, private sector approach to 
obtain local stakeholder buy-in of conservation efforts; (viii) use revenue-generating business models; and 
(ix) act as a catalyst with local partners. 
Central America Commission for Environment and Development 
The secretariat of the CCAD has a predominantly policy-setting and coordination, rather than an 
implementation role. As expressed by its secretary, one of its main objectives is to transmit successful 
conservation experiences throughout Central America: “Regional for us can be the eight countries or two 
of them. We can have two or three countries and it is regional. We also promote activities at the sub￾country level – then we learn lessons and try to look for successful experiences to build capacities in 
other countries” (KIES16). The Secretary also emphasized that CCAD works “for the ministries of 
environment in every country, so when you want a program to be successful you have to involve the 
technical people from these ministries to build their capacities and make them part of the program”
(ESKI16). According to a KI, CCAD did not have a secretariat for a long time which weakened its ability 
to work with MAREA (KIES4). 
Organization of Fishing and Aquaculture in Central America 
The OSPESCA aimed “to encourage the development and the coordinated management of regional 
fisheries and aquaculture activities, helping to strengthen the Central American integration process.” 
According to its secretary it has had a more stable leadership than CCAD and has been able to 
communicate more effectively with MAREA (KIES4). The secretary emphasized that OSPESCA has a 
commitment to integrate the eight countries.32 He said “Our objective is to determine common solutions 
to common problems. It is not enough that we just sit together – we have to work together too” 
(KIES4). The secretary said that OSPESCA has had more stable, long-term leadership than CCAD. As it 
is concerned with such an important economic sector for many of the Central American countries 
perhaps OSPESCA is given more attention by SICA than CCAD. 
21
Question 6 - Women’s Participation
How could MAREA have improved its integration of gender equality in the production, 
processing and marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value chain so as 
to maximize the impact of women in those areas? 
Role of Women in Fishing 
Women have been active participants in fishing activities, historically working in processing plants but 
today also working in research boats and directing public institutions such as ministries of fishing. Some 
fishing cooperatives have only female members, including those assisted by MAREA in Puerto Libertad, El 
Salvador and Roatan, Honduras. Women can also be in associations as boat owners, even if they do not 
directly fish themselves. In one artisanal fishermen’s association in Playa El Cuco (Asociación de Pescadores 
Artesanales de la Playa El Cuco, ASPESCU), for example, 10 out of 45 members are female (KIES5). 
Although women tend to be less numerous than men in the activity of fishing on the high seas, they tend 
to be more numerous in harvesting, processing and other types of marine and coastal resources. In the 
Gulf of Fonseca, for example, women harvest mangrove cockles in El Rosario, Nicaragua and replant 
mangroves (KIES2). In Puerto Cabezas, women commercialize lobster. Women appear to do most of 
the drying and salting of fish in the Central American countries the team visited (FOES1, FOES2, FOH2). 
Often, however, women are not as involved as men in making decisions related to the management and 
use of marine and coastal commercial natural resources. The more general situation of women in 
fishing, for example, appears to be that expressed in a focus group in Honduras: “Most of the time the 
men are on the sea and then the women have to do everything. We men feed our family from the sea. 
The ladies are home and the guys are working.” The comments of a woman KI regarding decision￾making in a Salvadorian fishing cooperative expresses what may be a common situation in fishing 
cooperatives where there are fewer women than men members: “Men make the decisions and always 
use the money for their priorities not for the priorities of women (KIES7).”
Gender Approaches under MAREA 
The evidence indicates that MAREA did not have a defined plan or systematic program for addressing 
gender issues related to the use, management or conservation of marine and coastal resources. It did not, 
however, exclude women from any activity and did implement some activities that involved only women, 
such as the trash collection program in Puerto Lempira, Honduras and the mangrove cockle harvesting an 
management project in Rosario, Nicaragua. 
The most common ways in which women participated in MAREA’s activities were in training courses and 
in the organization of fishing cooperatives. The MAREA M&E Plan disaggregated data by sex in four of its 
20 PIs. As of September 2014, of 6,984 fishermen provided training under PI 9, 2,488 were women and 
4,496 were men; under PI 18 of a total of 1,031 trainees, 230 were women and 801 were men. 
The respondents to the quantitative surveys generally agreed that women participated in MAREA to some 
extent even though fishing, MAREA’s main focus, is more a male than a female occupation. One 
informant observed that half of the members of the local fishing cooperative are women and that a 
woman is the leader of the cooperative. There are groups of women who have participated strongly as 
for example Miskitu Indiang Mairin Asia Takanka (MIMAT, on the Atlantic Coast of Honduras) and the 
Business plan for Women Processors of Fish (BUCARIMA), in Barabacuta where MAREA supported 
women to obtain legal status and training for operating community businesses. Adaptation and resilience 
to climate change are issues that concern women and men equally, and one KI noted that the discussions 
have included women as well as men in the adoption of plans for resource management (KIH9). 
The evaluation team’s local quantitative surveys captured 243 persons, 30 (12%) of whom were female 
and 213 (88%) male. Of the 243 men and women surveyed who were direct beneficiaries of MAREA, 
32.8% have determined that women mostly work with the sea, for example in Puerto Cabezas, they are 
22
“pickineras” which comes from the English word “pick” and they buy from fishermen and resell (fish, 
lobster, and others). Twenty-nine percent indicated that women work in marketing of the products, 
including selling fillets which have a higher value added. Almost 19 percent worked in processing of 
product, their sale and distribution. Nearly eight percent are boat owners, for example in the Gulf of 
Fonseca; 6% run businesses and 1% are captains. Of the women who were surveyed, nineteen percent 
not have any type of participation (Figure 3). Women who were not employed in fish processing plants 
(“processing worker”), but caught fish or were otherwise employed in fall into the category “worker 
women”, who do not have permanent contracts but are involved somehow with fishing. 
Women who worked in processing plants are defined as such in this figure, whereas other workers, in the 
supply chain, cleaning, trade and harvesting of sea-foods are listed as “daily worker”.
Figure 3. Role of women in the activity supported by MAREA 
When asked about the needs and requirements of women to increase their participation in the value 
chain, 55% of the respondents said training, 36% said financing, 35% equipment, 19% technical assistance, 
and 11% availability of time. Slightly more than two percent indicated that they did not need any help. 
MAREA could have improved its integration of gender equality in the production, processing and 
marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value chain, so as to maximize the impact of 
women in those areas by: (i) including evaluations of women’s roles in the specific value chains that it was 
intending to assist; (ii) based on the results of those evaluations define specific activities to increase the 
integration of women into the value chain; (iii) monitor and evaluate systematically the effects of these 
specific actions on the role of women in the value chain; (iv) adjust the activities to improve the 
integration of women according to the M&E findings. 
This evaluation suggests that future regional biodiversity conservation programs focus on the management 
of renewable marine and coastal resources (i.e. biological) segments of value chains rather than on the 
processing and marketing segments. 
Women are less involved in the management or direct harvesting of renewable resources such as fish. 
Nonetheless, there are opportunities for women to become more integrated into the production and 
management segments of value chains, especially when they would not have to leave their homes. The 
experience of women in El Rosario, Nicaragua, where they have been given a concession in the 
mangroves for their exclusive use to harvest mangrove cockles and use them for the preparation of 
cocktails for tourists is an example that could be replicated elsewhere in Central America. Another 
7.6%
0.8%
32.8%
18.9%
29.0%
5.9%
18.5%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
23
example of the type of productive activity involving the protection of the environment, if not renewable 
natural resources as such, is the success of women in starting a trash collection business in Puerto 
Lempira, Honduras on the Miskito Coast. Property rights, including marine resources, land-use and water 
supply, has been well studied via USAID with regard to resource conservation.33
Perhaps more important to women than becoming involved directly in the management and production of 
renewable natural resources, however, is their becoming involved in the decision-making that is required 
to conserve and manage those resources. There are at least two strong arguments for increasing the 
participation of women in making the decisions that affect the use of renewable marine and coastal natural 
resources. Sound management of local resources requires an increasing inclusion of female stakeholders 
in decision-making. Second, women often have a direct stake in the sustainable use of renewable marine 
and coastal resources since they themselves, and their children, so frequently depend on those resources 
for their food and/or income. They should be involved in making the decisions that will be likely to affect 
their welfare. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The MAREA program has addressed an ongoing threat that is only growing worse. Coastal human 
populations have continued to increase across the Central American region, while construction of 
shrimp ponds and hotels close to beaches and reefs has accelerated. The effects of climate change have 
augmented threats to infrastructure – and there is not only more infrastructure but the infrastructure is 
more economically valuable. The economic contribution of coastal and marine resources has grown in 
many Central American countries, as fishing has increased while hotels have been built along beaches, 
attracting more tourists. Furthermore, due to MAREA’s experiences, USAID/ECAM now has 
accumulated solid, empirical experience upon which to draw for the design of a regional biodiversity 
conservation project focused on marine and coastal resources as well as more links to local 
organizations which have capabilities to implement successfully at the local levels.
Question 1 - Effect of Design and Resources 
To what extent did MAREA’s design and resources help or hinder the Program’s ability to 
achieve its objectives and measurable results within its scope and established time-frame? 
Selection of Field Sites Benefited the MAREA Program 
The evidence indicates that the four general geographic areas and the specific sites where MAREA has 
been implementing field activities are extremely important for the conservation of Central America’s 
marine biodiversity. That these field sites were selected, therefore, helped the Program to achieve its 
objectives and measurable results. 
MAREA’s Development Hypothesis Incorporated Notable Flaws 
Evidence from MAREA experiences supports the element in MAREA’s development hypotheses that 
“sound coastal and marine management practices…can lead to greater food security and marine 
biodiversity.” Moreover, the natural resource management professions (forestry, soil conservation, 
fisheries, etc.) have been using sound management practices for a long time to provide sustained 
provision of products, including food, and services, including the conservation of biodiversity. This part 
of MAREA’s development hypothesis, therefore, helped MAREA to achieve its objectives and results. In 
general, the “market solutions” part of MAREA’s development hypothesis also is sound. Markets 
provide revenue for financing the management and protection of renewable natural resources. 
Data from field research (KIs, FGs, VWs), and from document review, however, do not suggest positive 
evidence about MAREA having leveraged “market-based mechanisms” including increased or higher sales 
24
prices or new or increased public demand for sustainably produced marine products effectively to 
increase the conservation of coastal and marine resources. The evaluation team should have found such 
data were they available, given the prominence of the market mechanism in MAREA’s development 
hypothesis. No such data, however, were made available to, or could be located by the evaluation team.
Moreover, the team expert in markets for marine products has over fifty years of experience with the 
functioning of markets for fish. His experience has led him to conclude that markets are fundamentally 
unsustainable and are constantly changing to meet changes in demand, in competition and in other 
factors and that sustainable harvesting of fish is not an argument for a buyer to pay a higher price, since 
there would be no perceived increase in the value of the fish products themselves. The customers for a 
seller of lobster tails, for example, would undoubtedly want to buy lobster tails at their current market 
prices since, if they paid more their customers would not be able to pay them more without pricing 
themselves out of the market. In sum, both evidence from MAREA itself and evidence from the many 
other situations that the fisheries expert has encountered indicate that the part of MAREA’s 
development hypothesis that posits market mechanisms as a way to increase conservation of marine 
biodiversity hindered rather than helped MAREA to achieve its objectives. It diverted attention away 
from the standard, proven rationale for adopting best management practices for the exploitation of 
renewable natural marine resources such as fish: well-managed renewable natural resources are more 
likely to produce a sustainable flow of raw materials that will contribute to economic prosperity and 
growth, in general, and specific improved livelihoods, specifically. 
MAREA Could Have Been More Participatory 
USAID’s own background document for MAREA’s design states “participatory planning is key” to design 
an effective biodiversity conservation program (USAID 2006). Although the evidence indicates that 
many personnel and institutions collaborated fruitfully and effectively with MAREA during its 
implementation phase, it also indicates that there was insufficient participation during MAREA’s initial 
design phase. Consequently, MAREA’s design process did little to build on or take advantage of the 
experiences, ideas, concerns and strengths of the professionals who were working in regional, national 
and local institutions that affect the conservation of biodiversity. MAREA’s design would have been 
sounder and its implementation more effective and efficient if it had been designed with more 
participation of Central American regional, national and local public and private institutions. 
MAREA’s Results Framework Was Broad and Ambitious 
MAREA’s Results Framework (RF) did not offer a sufficiently clear, robust conceptual structure upon 
which to base the design and implementation of specific MAREA activities. Consequently, MAREA’s 
implementers, participants, and beneficiaries did not always have a common, clear understanding of its 
intended results and objectives. Unclear logical links in MAREA’s RF reduced its administrator’s ability to 
focus its activities on those of them that would most efficiently and effectively contribute to it achieving 
its objectives. This problem was compounded by the large number of the results statements and their 
imbalance in numbers between the two SOs. The weak RF, in turn, made it difficult to formulate a 
straightforward, intelligible M&E Plan that could guide the management and program updates, based upon 
reliable data. MAREA’s RF hindered the Program’s ability to achieve its objectives and results.
Monitoring and Performance Indicators Were a Weak Link in Adaptive Learning 
MAREA’s M&E Plan did not adequately serve as a sound basis for monitoring and evaluating MAREA’s 
progress and accomplishments. That its PIRS, were not updated between June 2013 and June 2014 
indicates that neither USAID nor MAREA used them for program management. Nor did the evaluation 
team find that MAREA M&E Plan provided data that was especially useful for this final performance 
evaluation. MAREA’s M&E Plan was designed to measure compliance of the contractor with its contract 
quantitative targets rather than the progress of MAREA towards its SOs. The M&E Plan hindered rather 
than helped MAREA’s achievement of its objectives and results. 
25
Baseline Data was Inadequate for MAREA’s M&E Needs
MAREA’s M&E Plan did not have baseline information but used a baseline of zero for all of its 
performance indicators. The M&E Plan, therefore, was not particularly useful for determining what 
difference MAREA activities to the conservation of marine and coastal resources in Central America. As 
the adage says, “If you do not know where you are, you cannot know where you are going.” The M&E 
Plan did not establish what the conservation situation was with respect to its different activities when 
MAREA started. A simple calculation conveys the usefulness of baseline information: by training about 
10,000 fishermen, MAREA has improved the knowledge of about 2.5% of all the fishermen in Central 
America (about 400,000). USAID regulations may not require a baseline other than zero for program 
outputs. Baseline information would have been extremely useful for determining MAREA’s effectiveness, 
and its lack hindered MAREA’s ability to achieve its objectives and results. 
Implementation Mechanisms Partially Hindered MAREA 
The evidence collected by the evaluation team indicates that MAREA was administered with great 
professional ability (KIES1, KIES4, KIES14, KIH4). Nonetheless, administrative costs usually increase, 
with the increased administrative complexity of a program, and MAREA had complicated implementation 
mechanisms. Although the required financial information to compare costs with results was not available 
for the evaluation, given its complexity MAREA’s administrative costs, were probably higher than if its 
implementation mechanisms had been simpler. Difficult implementation mechanisms, furthermore, tend 
to distract attention from technical issues, reducing the time that can be devoted to them and thereby 
reducing the effectiveness of a program. MAREA’s implementation mechanisms hindered rather than 
helped its ability to achieve its objectives and results. 
Budget Partially Hindered MAREA 
MAREA’s budget was realistic to fulfill its outputs and quantitative targets since, according to MAREA’s 
draft FY 2014 Annual Report, Chemonics has achieved all the quantitative targets in its contract with 
USAID. Qualitative evidence suggests, however, that MAREA was probably under-budgeted in relation 
to its objectives and results. It achieved some of its results only because it was able to count its 
relatively small contributions to an overall activity or to an institution as the catalysis for other activities 
that it did not finance. 
The Range of Activities Required Longer Time Frames 
MAREA piloted a wide range of important experiments, each needing time to unfurl. Qualitative 
evidence from key informants, focus groups, and validation workshops clearly indicate that MAREA is 
leaving uncompleted processes that it began because it lacked time to complete fully. Benchmarks were 
all met, but represent a step in a longer effort. The FY 2014 MAREA Annual Report indicates that 
MAREA’s two SOs have been accomplished but MAREA’s time-frame was too short for it to 
demonstrate sustainable success in the supply chains, transnational collaborations and integrated 
ecological strategies.
Question 2 - Effect of Assumptions 
To what extent did the assumptions identified by USAID hold true during 
implementation, influencing the achievement (or non-achievement) of MAREA’s 
objectives, and should be considered for potential future programming? 
The table in Appendix 7 summarizes the conclusions about the extent to which the assumptions 
identified by USAID held true during implementation, influenced the achievement of MAREA’s objectives 
and should be considered for potential future programming. 
26
Assumption 1: Socio-political Environment Not Always Stable 
Unstable socio-political environments have affected the implementation of MAREA in some of the 
Central American countries. Territorial conflicts can affect the willingness of governments to work 
together to conserve the resources of shared marine waters. Drug trafficking and criminal activities 
have created an increasingly unfavorable sociopolitical and economic environment in many areas where 
MAREA has worked, Honduras in particular. Assumption 1 was pertinent to MAREA, was held to be 
partially true and therefore should be considered in future programming. 
Assumption 2: Fiscal, Monetary and Economic Environment Not Always Stable 
The fiscal, monetary and economic environment within which MAREA has operated has not been stable 
and the instability has affected its implementation, distracting and limiting the scope of Central American 
governments and potential co-funders. Assumption 2 was pertinent to MAREA, proves to be only 
partially true, and should be considered in future programming. 
Assumption 3: Willingness but Partial Inability of Governments to Effect Change 
More than willingness, the seven different Central American national governments have varied in their 
ability to effect change related to the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. MAREA’s 
experience reinforces the importance of strong support from local governments for effective planning 
and implementation of conservation measures for marine and coastal resources. Several of its 
experiences indicate that it is at the local level that governments can become more effective if they work 
towards conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity by participating effectively in coalitions that 
include private sector, research and NGO institutions. The assumption that governments would be 
willing to effect change was pertinent, but the assumption was found to be not true, yet can be 
considered in future programming. 
Assumption 4: Partial Support of Regional Organizations 
Regional organizations, such as SICA, OSPESCA, and CCAD, have partially but not completely supported 
MAREA. Although not essential for planning and implementing effective conservation activities within 
one country, these institutions were established in part precisely to encourage the sharing of effective 
conservation practices across national boundaries. The assumption that they would support MAREA’s 
objectives was therefore pertinent and partially true only, and should be considered in future 
programming. 
Assumption 5: Shocks Occur 
The definition of the term “shock” could be variable, depending on one’s perspective. What could be a 
“shock” to one person or business could be inconsequential to another person or business. Although 
no global economic “shock” appears to have occurred during the time of MAREA’s implementation, a 
rise in the price of fuel and electricity in some of the Central America countries did affect the use of its 
marine and coastal resources, by affecting the costs of their exploitation, and, therefore, its biodiversity. 
The assumption that no shocks would occur was, therefore, pertinent, it was not true and it should be 
considered in future programming.
Assumption 6: Some Regional Agreements Lacking 
MAREA was involved in drafting some binding regional agreements so this “assumption” was more a 
result than an assumption. Nonetheless, the assumption that regional agreements would be made and 
enforced was important to some of the other results that MAREA was expected to accomplish, such as 
the harmonization of fishing policies, laws and regulations. Not all the regional agreements, however, 
have been enforced, perhaps most notably the agreement to ban the use of scuba diving to catch lobster. 
Without such a ban lobster producers were unwilling to invest in alternative techniques to catch 
lobsters, such as the use of lobster traps. This assumption was pertinent, did not hold true fully, though 
partially and should be considered in future programming. 
27
Assumption 7: Imposed Measures Affected Nicaragua 
The assumption as stated was that there would be an absence of policy measures such as sanctions. This 
was not the case for Nicaragua. Implementation of MAREA in Nicaragua was hindered by restrictions 
imposed by the U.S. government on the use of USAID funds for activities with the Government of 
Nicaragua. Therefore, this assumption was pertinent, was only partially true, but should be considered for 
future programming. 
Assumption 8: Shared Regional Agendas Partially Implemented 
This statement also does not really qualify as an assumption since it is stated as an action that was under 
the control of MAREA itself. Nonetheless, the issue of shared agendas is pertinent, did prove to be true
to some extent and should be considered in future programming. 
Assumption 9: Support of National Ministries including Information 
None of the national ministries disagreed with or opposed MAREA, though some supported it more 
than others, as Guatemala supported it more than others including Costa Rica. The extent that the 
ministries supported MAREA was influenced by how much they participated in the selection, design and 
implementation of its activities and how pertinent these activities were to their priorities. This 
assumption was pertinent, and partially true and should be considered in future programming. 
Question 3 - Effect of Implementation Challenges at Different Levels 
What implementation challenges did MAREA face at each level of the Program (regional, 
national, local, and transnational)? 
Regional Level 
At the regional level of Central America an implementation challenge was to identify activities and modes 
of operation that involved working towards the resolution of specific conservation problems at the local 
level while still giving the project regional significance for the conservation of marine and coastal 
resources. A related challenge was to work with and through SICA and its organizations OSPESCA and 
CCAD. Both OSPESCA and CCAD have their own, established, deliberate, participatory and consensus 
building modes of operation that do not always square completely with the operating mode of USAID 
projects, particularly when they have been contracted to consulting firms. A third challenge was to work 
to conserve species and ecosystems that cross national boundary lines, especially when there are 
boundary disputes pending between the countries. A fourth challenge was to involve OSPESCA and 
CCAD in MAREA when they had not been fully involved in MAREA’s planning and design so that their 
personnel did not feel any commitment to its successful implementation because its activities were not 
exactly aligned with their priorities. Finally, it was a challenge to work with CCAD when it did not have 
a secretary for some part of the MAREA’s period of operations. CCAD and OSPESCA should be 
involved in the design of any regional conservation project from its conception, through its design, 
implementation and evaluation. 
National Level 
At the national level, a principal implementation challenge was to implement activities that depended on 
government actions. A second problem was to interest ministries and local governments in MAREA’s 
activities when they had not been sufficiently involved in their prior planning and design. National and 
local governments often lacked sufficient financing to follow through on the implementation of the 
actions that are required to conserve marine and coastal biodiversity. A fourth challenge resulted from 
inflated expectations for financial resources that the words “economic alternatives” in MAREAs name
sometimes created. At the national level different, conflicting priorities among different ministries or 
within ministries hindered the fulfillment of MAREA’s policy efforts. The design of a future regional 
marine and coastal conservation program should ensure that no false expectations should be raised 
28
about a possible flow of funds into national ministries from USAID, that the environment and fisheries 
ministries should be formally and closely involved in the design process for the program and that the 
design should not expect that the national ministries will be able to contribute financial resources or 
personnel to the implementation of the program’s activities.
Local Level 
At the local level, the principal problems MAREA faced in its implementation were local conflicts, crime 
and violence, conflicts between users of renewable marine natural resources, lack of institutional capacity 
in local public and private institutions, the absence of local representatives of national institutions, and 
lack of funding in public institutions. The conclusions to be drawn from these challenges are that the 
design process for a regional marine and coastal resource conservation program should recognize that 
some of these challenges are not going to disappear from where they now occur and may begin to occur 
where they do not now occur. The program must find ways, as MAREA did, to implement its activities 
regardless of these types of challenges. Others of these local challenges, however, such as funding, could 
be alleviated by choosing local sites, such as places where there have been large investments in beachside 
hotels, where large financial interests are at risk from a deterioration in natural resources such as reefs, 
mangroves and fish stocks. People with large financial interests in the success of conservation must 
finance local conservaton activities as part of their business costs if conservation is to be successful at 
such sites. 
Question 4 – Results, Benefits and Sustainability 
Which activities showed the fewest results and should be discontinued or approached 
differently? Explain why. 
Policies and Laws 
The policies and laws activities showed results in their aspects that concerned drafting and presenting 
policies and laws. The activities showed fewer results in their aspects that concerned the 
implementation of the policies and laws. The implementation of policies and laws by its nature is the 
responsibility of governments not of development programs such as MAREA. MAREA did about all it 
could do to assist the Central American countries and SICA institutions to prepare policies and laws. It 
is now up to the countries and SICA to implement these policies and laws. A future USAID regional 
biodiversity conservation project is unlikely to be able to assist them much in this task. 
What activities and methodologies have the potential to be sustainable by the end of 
MAREA? 
Fisheries and Species and Ecosystems 
MAREA’s fisheries and species and ecosystems activities were intended to introduce and promote sound 
management marine and coastal natural resources. Evidence from MAREA’s experiences indicates that 
its activities to increase the sound management of coastal and marine resources have produced the most 
results and have the greatest chance of being sustainable. Its introduction of technologies and practices, 
such as no-catch zones and improved nets, are likely to assist the people who use renewable natural 
marine resources to conserve and preserve them. Evidence from many parts of the world, moreover, 
indicates that management of renewable natural resources is a principal way to conserve their market 
and non-market values. MAREA’s fisheries and the species and ecosystem activities, therefore, have the 
potential to be sustainable by the end of MAREA. MAREA did, however, relatively little to incorporate 
applied scientific research into these activities. Its own experiences, with the hawksbill turtle being a 
prime example, as well as experiences from many other parts of the world, indicate that applied scientific 
research underlies sound management of renewable natural resources and the preservation of 
biodiversity. MAREA’s scientific activities are not only sustainable, but are essential for the sustainability 
of its management activities. 
29
EcoTourism 
Among MAREA’s various experiments in market and economic approaches, eco-tourism was among the 
most visible and potent, as is common in much of the developing world where enforcement, compliance 
and attention are greatest in areas drawing the most international attention.34 Belize in particular has 
demonstrated the benefits and pitfalls of ecotourism on coral reef and species protection. The links 
between global tourism, conservation, development (with support from USAID’s Global Development 
Alliance), though so far the experiences of MAREA mirror global experience which is that the local 
economic benefits of eco-tourism do not generate many jobs and have only marginal impact on reducing 
stress on fragile environments, while protection of biodiversity is circumscribed.35
Economic Alternatives 
The economic alternatives category of MAREA activities showed the fewest results for conservation of 
biodiversity. Although market demand is central to the sustainable management of renewable natural 
resources, no data were found that indicated MAREA had successfully used specific “market 
mechanisms” to increase conservation of either specific species or biodiversity in general. Evidence does 
not indicate that MAREA was able to identify and develop enterprises that would provide sufficient 
reliable income to fishermen so they would exploit less fish, thereby conserving fish stocks. There are 
many instances of how market demand has driven the degradation of renewable natural resources – the 
deforestation of vast areas of Latin America to produce cattle, cacao, coffee, and other crops is one 
example of the degradation of natural resources that market demand can cause. MAREA’s experience 
indicates that sound management of renewable natural resources promotes economic benefits. 
Communications 
The USAID 2006 background report on the situation of marine and coastal biodiversity in Central 
America said, “Public awareness and education programs are essential in building support for major 
changes within the community, and are relatively inexpensive methods for inducing significant change in 
community behavior.” MAREA did not implement a systematic, regional or national program of 
environmental communication; its experiences with communication provide relatively few data on the 
contribution environmental communication can make to sustainability of renewable natural marine and 
costal resources. The limited qualitative data from MAREA itself, however, suggest that effective public 
education about conservation also underlies sustainability of programs to increase conservation of 
biodiversity and renewable natural marine and coastal resources. Conservation experience from 
elsewhere supports the USAID 2006 report’s that public awareness and education programs are often 
required Public education about conservation in Central America’s marine and coastal resources should 
be a more important component of future natural resource programming. 
What tangible, sustainable benefits have resulted from MAREA? 
Policies and Laws 
MAREA has produced numerous policies and laws. Speculation suggests that this activity of MAREA has 
resulted in two types of tangible, sustainable benefits. First, the process of preparing the policies and 
laws is likely to have increased the level of comprehension among policy-makers and regulators about 
the policies and laws required to achieve conservation of marine and coastal resources and biodiversity; 
the preparation of the policies and laws was probably in itself an educational process. Certainly 
education is a tangible and sustainable benefit. Second, to the extent that the policies and laws have been 
well-prepared and have been implemented they are likely to produce tangible, sustainable benefits for 
both human populations and for the conservation of biodiversity and marine and coastal resources. 
Fisheries and Species and Ecosystems 
MAREA’s fisheries and species and ecosystems activities were intended to improve the management of 
certain Central American marine and coastal resources. As discussed previously, management of 
30
renewable natural resources is intended to maintain a steady flow of tangible, sustainable benefits to 
humans, through the production of market and non-market goods and services while at the same time 
preserving biodiversity. MAREA supported a wide range of management interventions, some of which 
worked and some which did not. Even those that did not succeed, however, did provide additional 
experiences in the management of Central America’s marine and coastal resources. If those experiences 
are used in the future, then they themselves could be considered tangible, sustainable benefits. 
Economic Alternatives 
In general terms, MAREA’s activities have been intended to combine with contextual, sustainable 
production of economic goods and services from marine and coastal resources. It is difficult to quantify 
the extent to which its activities succeeded in that endeavor, but certainly the attempt to do so can be 
considered a substantial contribution to the eventual conservation of Central America’s renewable 
marine and coastal natural resources and biodiversity. 
Some of MAREA’s specific economic alternative activities have yielded tangible, sustainable benefits. For 
example, its support for some fishing cooperatives has raised their ability to maintain competitive levels 
of sanitation in their processing plants, thereby opening markets for their products that formerly were 
closed. The markets could eventually provide increased and more reliable income that will benefit the 
livelihoods of the families of the members of the cooperative. The educational process itself also is a 
tangible, sustainable benefit from the training aspects of MAREA’s economic alternatives activities. 
Communication 
Evidnece was insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the tangible, sustainable benefits that MAREA’s 
communication activities may have produced. 
Question 5 - Lessons for Achieving Regional Biodiversity Conservation 
Based on USAID’s experience with the Central American Commission for Environment 
and Development (CCAD), CCAW and MAREA, as well as current regional biodiversity 
challenges, where should USAID invest biodiversity funding in the future? 
Several lessons emerge from a review of USAID’s experience with its prior regional conservation projects 
(RENARM, PROARCA, CCAW). First, scientific research and baseline information combined with a 
useful, accurate system for measuring and monitoring biophysical parameters of specific sites is a 
necessary condition for a successful conservation activity. Second, production of the products of 
renewable natural resources can also contribute to conservation of biodiversity through the adoption of 
best management practices, while at the same time involving people in conservation through giving them a 
financial interest in conserving the natural resources upon which their livelihoods depend. Third, 
coalitions of public and private organizations give promise of being able to achieve conservation of 
renewable natural resources and biodiversity at local levels even without strong support from national 
public institutions. Fourth, regional conservation programs should provide for flexibility so that they can 
be adapted based on local conditions and on learning experiences during their implementation. Fifth, local 
conservation successes can be used as examples for initiating local conservation successes in other 
geographic areas – conservation successes can not only stimulate other conservation successes but are 
required to create confidence about how to go about achieving conservation successes. Finally, 25 years 
of USAID experience with regional conservation projects clearly indicate that regional conservation 
projects do not simply duplicate bilateral conservation projects in Central America but add an important, 
perhaps vital, regional element that can contribute to more effective conservation of renewable natural 
resources and biodiversity for the entire region. 
USAID’s experience with SICA, CCAD, and OSPESCA indicate that these institutions ought to be 
involved in any USAID-supported regional conservation programs from their design through their 
implementation and evaluation. These are the official organizations that the Central American countries 
31
34.7%
55.0%
19.4%
36.4%
11.2%
2.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Survey results: To increase their participation, women need:
have set up in part to coordinate regional efforts to conserve renewable natural resources and 
biodiversity. To be successful in its own efforts to conserve Central America’s renewable natural 
resources and biodiversity, USAID has to work with these institutions. Nonetheless, USAID’s experience 
with CCAD and OSPESCA suggest that their roles within USAID programs are best restricted to 
coordination, consultation and sharing of best practices lessons from successful local level experiences. 
Question 6 - Effects of Women’s Participation
How could MAREA have improved its integration of gender equality in the production, 
processing and marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value chain so as 
to maximize the impact of women in those areas? 
The evidence from MAREA’s experiences indicates that women and men generally have differentiated, 
although equally important, roles in the management, use and conservation of natural resources. 
MAREA has no specific plan for achieving improved integration of gender equality in the production, 
processing, and marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value chain so as to maximize 
the impact of women in those areas. Only in this way could MAREA have been able to identify the 
specific needs of women that if resolved would permit them to participate more fully and effectively in 
these value chains. 
Figure 4. What women need in order to increase their participation
32
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Question 1 -- Design and Resources 
 1) Focus on the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity 
The rationale set out in the USAID 2006 report for focusing USAID biodiversity resources on coastal 
and marine resources remains as valid now as it was eight years ago. Indeed, field observations, 
interviews, and focus group discussions indicate that coastal and marine resources are probably more 
threatened now than they were eight years ago. There is little rationale for shifting USAID’s regional 
biodiversity focus to the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity and strong reasons to continue and 
expand on MAREA’s experiences in a future regional biodiversity conservation program. 
 2) Establish a results framework for the program that defines a clear strategic objective 
for the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity 
The conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity is a valid economic objective in and of itself, given its 
substantial economic value. It does not need to be justified economically by subsuming it within some 
other economic objective. USAID/ECAM, therefore, should formulate a sound Development Hypothesis 
and Results Framework to underlie the design of a future regional biodiversity conservation program 
based on biodiversity conservation Strategic Objective. Other USAID/ECAM objectives, such as 
economic growth or gender equality, should be tied to the Results Framework for the conservation of 
biodiversity Strategic Objective. Benefits will include: First, it will permit the preparation and use of a 
monitoring and evaluation system that can be used for adaptive management of the program. Second, it 
will permit the purpose and content of the project to be designed with effective participation of Central 
American public and private institutions at regional, national and local levels. Third, the budget can be 
formulated so that funds are assigned to achieve maximum possible effectiveness and efficiency. 
 3) Establish useful, systematic monitoring and evaluation processes that can be used for 
adaptive management of the program 
Renewable marine and coastal natural resources are subject to fluctuations in populations due to 
naturally occurring population cycles and to the effects of weather patterns and ocean currents. Markets 
for associated products also fluctuate. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation processes are vital to keep 
track of these variations and their potential inter-relationships. M&E provides data for both the 
management of renewable natural resources and for adjusting program activities to make them more 
effective and efficient. The M&E system for any future regional conservation activities should constantly 
evaluate the empirical data about its effectiveness, while tracking new circumstances and opportunities. 
 4) Implement the program through flexible, simple mechanisms 
USAID/ECAM should use an implementation mechanism, perhaps a cooperative agreement, that permits 
flexible, adaptive management that gives local governments, private enterprises, producer cooperatives 
and conservation NGOs the maximum possibility to coordinate and collaborate to achieve together 
conservation objectives which they establish themselves through inclusive, participatory negotiations for 
the geographical circumscribed areas. 
 5) The design process should be more participatory by supporting engagement of local 
coalitions that can formulate joint conservation and development plans 
USAID/ECAM should recognize that the process used to choose, design, and implement activities which 
have the objective of conserving biodiversity through management of natural resources will greatly affect 
the degree of success in permanently establishing those management actions. SICA, CCAD, and 
OSPESCA, should be considered full partners in design processes. Institutions that represent private 
sector, for-profit organizations, experienced environmental NGOs and research institutions should also 
be more closely involved. USAID/ECAM should aim from the start of the design process that its next 
regional conservation program is understood, accepted and owned by Central American institutions. 
33
Local peoples tend to care about the renewable natural resources that surround them more than non￾local people because they often derive their livelihood from them. Local organizations, including 
governments, NGOs, research institutions, and private sector enterprises, provide the means to 
translate this concern of local people into effective conservation actions. USAID/ECAM may therefore 
design its future regional conservation program in collaboration with local coalitions of organizations, 
funding them and linking them to technical assistance to permit them to set long-term local conservation 
goals for circumscribed geographic areas, make commitments and take the initial actions to work 
towards those goals. USAID/ECAM should consider future interventions in terms of the initial phase of 
a long-term program that will be planned, agreed upon, and implemented by local organizations whose 
activities occur with a circumscribed geographic area that crosses the continuum from sea to land and 
includes biodiversity rich reefs. In this regard, biodiversity programming can benefit from USAID’s 
evolving experience and policy about Adaptive Learning for nimble and responsive learning and 
modification within programs.36
 6) Combine activities to conserve marine and coastal biodiversity with those to increase 
adaptation and resilience to climate change 
Reefs, mangroves, sea grass beds and beaches constitute the first defense against the effects of climate 
change, such as rising sea levels and stronger storm surges. Measures to protect them will also protect 
marine and coastal biodiversity. USAID/ECAM should, therefore, design a future regional biodiversity 
conservation program to take full advantage of its synergies with activities to adapt to climate change and 
to increase the quality, quantity and sustainability of production of marine and coastal resources. 
 7) Match the available budget and time frame with the scale of the proposed activities 
USAID/ECAM should, therefore, design future regional biodiversity conservation programs at a scale 
that is feasible given its planned financial resources and timeframe. 
 8) Maintain the regional character of the biodiversity conservation program by 
systematically sharing local experiences within Central America and Mexico 
USAID has financed regional conservation programs in Central America for over 25 years, as have a 
number of other regional and international institutions. Yet there is not a sense that the trends for 
conservation of marine and coastal resources are positive. Models of success are urgently required in 
the region to avoid yet more years of isolated, sporadic, seemingly essentially ineffectual attempts to 
reverse the degradation of marine and costal resources. The local models within circumscribed areas 
could provide the impetus for achieving such a reversal. These models can be shared across Central 
America. Mexico has successful examples of local conservation successes that ought to be circulated. 
USAID/ECAM should negotiate with SICA during the design of a future regional conservation program 
so that the overall purpose of the program becomes a regional, inclusive of Central America and Mexico. 
Question 2 – Assumptions 
 1) Consider the eight assumptions in future programing for a USAID regional biodiversity 
conservation program 
USAID/ECAM should consider MAREA’s eight assumption eliminating Assumption 8 which was not really 
an assumption and be fully realistic about the current situation of each of these assumptions. It should 
not expect that the situation with respect to these assumptions will improve. Rather it should be design 
the regional biodiversity conservation program so that it will be able to attain results and objectives even 
if the situation becomes more rather than less difficult. 
 2) Clearly differentiate the situation of these assumptions in the different Central 
American countries 
Each of the Central American countries has different situations related to MAREA’s eight assumptions. 
Therefore, USAID/ECAM should design whichever future regional biodiversity conservation program 
based on assumptions that take into account these differences. 
34
 3) Substitute commitments for assumptions 
When designing a future regional biodiversity conservation program USAID/ECAM should aim to 
minimize as many assumptions as possible by obtaining commitments from local organizations and 
institutions to carry out specific actions that are required to improve the conservation of biodiversity. In 
other words, USAID/ECAM should try to convert assumptions into commitments on the part of local 
institutions and organizations. 
Question 3 -- Implementation Challenges 
 1) Design the program with the full participation of SICA 
SICA is Central America’s lead institution for regional integration. USAID/ECAM, therefore, should 
design any forthcoming regional conservation initiatives with the full participation of SICA. When the 
program succeeds in producing local successes in the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity, 
then SICA, and its specialized institutions, such as CCAD and OSPESCA, will be able to transfer these 
successes between countries, thus giving circumscribed conservation activities regional significance. 
 2) Confine field activities circumscribed sites with reef-sea grass-beach continuums 
Although USAID/ECAM should locate its activities within the Gulf of Fonseca, the Gulf of Honduras, the 
Miskito Coast of Honduras and Nicaragua, and Cahuita-Boca del Toro, where USAID already has 
experience and institutional relationships upon which to build, within those general areas it should focus 
its activities on circumscribed sites that encompass a continuum of open water, reefs, and sea grass, 
beach and near-beach developments. These continuums are where marine and coastal biodiversity is 
concentrated and fostered so they are far more important for the conservation of biodiversity than open 
seas. The boundaries of the circumscribed sites should correspond to the boundaries of one or more 
local governments and, if possible, overlap with existing or potential marine and coastal protected areas. 
 3) Choose field sites where operations are not excessively difficult, expensive and time￾consuming 
USAID/ECAM should choose field sites where operations will not be excessively expensive and time￾consuming. The purpose of the field demonstrations is to achieve demonstrations of how successful, 
permanent conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity can be achieved. There is no reason to make 
this objective more difficult than necessary by adding difficult logistical problems or by increasing the 
costs of implementing the demonstrations. Similarly, USAID/ECAM should avoid geographic areas and 
institutions where corruption and violence are likely to affect program implementation. 
4) Emphasize equity in the use of coastal and marine resources among different social 
groups 
There is enough experience to date so that the economic benefits of MAREA-associated interventions 
can be scaled up to benefit a greater span of local communities. Meanwhile, the skills and knowledge of 
all of the social groups that depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their welfare are required to 
achieve the conservation of this biodiversity. Traditional fishermen are an untapped source of 
knowledge about past and current condition of reefs, needed to complement scientific reef monitoring. 
Question 4 – Results, Benefits and Sustainability 
 1) Support the introduction and widespread adoption of effective management and 
conservation practices for marine and coastal biodiversity, in particular species that have 
commercial value 
USAID/ECAM should concentrate its efforts on the introduction and adoption of improved management 
and conservation practices for marine and coastal natural resources. Activities to supply markets and to 
adapt to climate change can be used to increase conservation or marine and coastal biodiversity. 
Improved management of renewable natural resources offers an immediate way to increase the quantity, 
quality and reliability of marine products and services, thereby contributing to economic growth while 
also preserving biodiversity and ecosystem processes. 
35
 2) Support applied scientific research that will provide a sound basis for effective 
management and protection of marine and coastal biodiversity 
Central America’s marine and coastal renewable natural resources and biodiversity can continue to 
produce enormous economic benefits if they are managed rather than degraded. Inevitably, however, 
most attention and funds go into extracting and marketing the products of marine and coastal renewable 
natural resources rather than into their management for sustainable production. Entrepreneurs are 
almost certain to invest and extract when opportunities to gain from the exploitation of renewable 
marine and coastal resources appears. By contrast, the financial and human resources needed to 
establish the sustainable management of these resources are rarely adequate. Almost always sufficient 
funds are lacking to finance the applied research upon which their sound management must be based. 
 3) Finance systematic, targeted communication of improved management practices and 
conservation policies, laws and regulations 
Field demonstration conservation projects are unlikely to attain a scale that will result in large-scale, 
permanent conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity. Field projects, therefore, should provide 
examples of successful conservation practices that can be replicated and adapted to other coastal 
locations in Central America. A well-financed, systematic communication program, therefore, is a much￾needed component of a successful regional biodiversity conservation program. 
Question 5 – Experience in Regional Biodiversity Conservation 
 1) Incorporate lessons learned in prior regional conservation programs into a future 
regional conservation program 
As noted earlier, since the late 1980’s USAID has financed and implemented the Regional Natural 
Resources Management Project (RENARM), the Central American Regional Environment Program 
(PROARCA), the Conservation of Central America Watersheds Program (CCAW), and MAREA itself. 
During the implementation of these projects it has supported the Central American Integration System 
(SICA), and its implementing institutions, such as CCAD and OSPESCA. Each of these prior programs 
has been evaluated and important lessons have been learned from each, including: (1) focus on synergies 
for common objectives by using participation to build inter-organizational coalitions at the local level; 
(2) concentrate policy on mitigating threats to defined geographic areas; (3) ensure research is directly 
pertinent to problems; (4) emphasize environmental sound productive activities using best practices; (5) 
create precedents with wide-spread application throughout Central America; (6) incorporate markets 
for commercial products from marine and coastal natural resources into program design and 
implementation; (7) work closely with SICA in the design and implementation of the program to support 
its principal purpose of furthering the integration of the Central American countries. USAID should 
heed and incorporate these lessons learned in future conservation programming. 
Question 6 – Women’s Participation
 1) Establish specific objectives for including women in the design of the program 
Otherwise, it may be unlikely that they will benefit from being more involved in the exploitation of 
marine and coastal resources, which often requires long periods away from home or difficult physical 
labor. They should, however, play an equal role with men in taking the decisions that will determine the 
sustainability of the production of these resources. A future USAID regional conservation program, 
therefore, should be designed to incorporate women more often and fully into decision-making 
processes related to the use and protection of renewable marine and coastal resources. In tandem, 
include systematic measurement of women’s participation in program activities, especially in relation to 
decision-making processes. 
36
APPENDIX 1 – END-NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 
ENDNOTES
 
1
 MAREA, USAID and other in-text citations are below in the second part of Appendix 1, the Bibliography.
2
 Findings thus “grounded” in and “emerged from the evaluators’ interaction with the qualitative data” (Patton 
2001). 
3
 USAID TIP # 13, Building Results Statements says “AOs and IRs should express an outcome, in other 
words, the results of actions, not the actions or processes themselves. For example, the statement 
―increased economic growth in targets sectors‖ is a result, while the statement ―increased promotion of 
market-oriented policies‖ is more process oriented.”
4
 “At least 1.5 million sea turtle hatchlings are protected using public-private alliances and best management 
practices in select areas throughout Central America.”
5
 Moreover the sea turtle hatchlings program occurred not all over Central America but only on a few 
beaches in El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama. 
6
 The professions of forestry, soil conservation, and fish and wildlife management, among others, are based on the 
use of scientific information to develop and apply management practices that will sustain the production of goods 
and services for economic benefits from natural resources while also conserving biodiversity. 
7
 Matti Salo et al in their 2014 Diagnosing Wild Species Harvest: Resource Us and Conservation, Elsevier publications 
Amsterdam, after reviewing many cases in the tropics, distinguish between the degree of species being harvested 
as being intrinsically excludable or substitutable, among competing fisherpersons. 
8
 “Market – based mechanisms are ways to match up buyers and sellers, and are generally driven by supply and 
demand. In this program, market – based mechanisms shall foster best management practices. Lobster fishermen, 
for example, would have a greater incentive to comply with best management practices if they could secure access 
to markets which would pay greater value for their sustainable harvested products (USAID 2010 p.6). 
9
 “This program will promote, through market – based mechanisms, a demand on products and/or services provided 
through best fisheries/management practices. To achieve this, Contractor will provide, through sub-contracts, strategic public 
awareness efforts. Contractor will focus its efforts in the target species. Public awareness efforts will be implemented at 
strategic moments during the various phases of project execution considering law enforcement, seasonal restrictions and 
best fisheries practices implementation. Contractor will design and implement regional public awareness efforts to change 
people’s attitudes towards the consumption and unsustainable use of endangered species” (USAID 2014 p.21). 
10
 Regulations in the countries where the catch takes place also prohibit the taking of undersized lobster and 
gravid females. If the fisherperson catches either of these and the authorities find him with them, then he is 
subject to the penalties prescribed by law/regulation. If he thinks that he can get away with breaking the 
regulations, and is not caught by the local authorities, then he has to be able to sell the product in alternative non￾U.S. markets, which may be a local market or another export market, such as Japan, if the volume is sufficient to 
justify the cost of the shipment. The fisherperson would normally know before making the decision to keep or 
not to keep the prohibited product. Price and payment arrangements would also be factors in making the 
decision whether or not to take the risk of keeping prohibited lobster. The higher the price and the quicker the 
payment the more likely the fisherman is to consider it a risk worth taking. 
11
 Throughout the document, sources are cited in data collection tool, country, number of interviewee format. 
For example the twenty-second key informant in Honduras is cited as “KIH22.” The data sources cited are key 
informants (KI), focus group discussions (FG), validation workshops (VW), and field observations (FO) in the 
following countries: Belize (B), Nicaragua (NI), Honduras (HO), El Salvador (ES), Guatemala (GU), Costa Rica 
(CR), and Panama (P). For a list data sources, see Appendix 10 Sources of Information. 
12
 Market value could be added by catching larger sizes, using ice to keep the fish fresh, and processing, storing 
37
 
and transporting the fish to higher standards of preparation and hygiene. 
13
 The addition of value is not generally done by the fishermen at sea, but in the processing plant where fish may 
be filleted or otherwise transformed. The fishermen still sell the whole fish to the plant, which then adds value 
(and cost) and sells at a price which should give the plant a better return. How much, if any, of the additional 
value (if, after additional costs have been taken into account, there is a positive margin) flows back to the 
fishermen depends on the competitive position of the fishermen in selling their catches. The exception to this 
general rule is where the fishermen are also members of a cooperative, which undertakes processing of the catch, 
and so share in any profits which the cooperative may generate. The women’s mangrove cockle cooperative in 
Nicaragua is an example of a success in adding value, by preparing and selling the catch in the form of cocktails 
(Historia de Exito – Derechos y Valor Agregados al Curil, Cocteles). The Placencia Fishermen Cooperative, on 
the other hand, is unable to cover its overhead and operation costs and so would not be able to generate any 
additional income for its members (FOB3, Placencia Producers Cooperative Society Limited). Experience with 
fishermen leads to the belief that there is no reason to suppose that fishermen stop catching when they have 
enough fish to reach a certain level of income (although this might be so in the case of fishermen fishing only for 
their own consumption, who might stop fishing when they have enough to feed the family on a given day). 
Normally, fishermen try to maximize their catches and income, since they have the view that what they do not 
catch today may be caught by other fishermen or simply not be available tomorrow. A key informant made clear 
that he intended to catch as much fish as possible. In the so-called good season, the boat spent more days at sea 
and was operated by the owner himself, as compared to the poor season when the boat only went out when 
other boats had identified that there were good prospects (Indicative Profitability of a Fishing Vessel owned by a 
member of ACOPACIFICO). 
14
 Result 3: “At least 1.5 million sea turtle hatchlings are protected using public-private alliances and best 
management practices in selected areas throughout Central America.”
15 Indicator 12: “Number of sea turtle hatchlings protected and released.”
16 Result 5 is “Decreased landings of juvenile lobster in at least two select marine sites of regional 
importance”. PI 13: “Decrease in the number of Juvenile Lobsters Harvested as the Result of Program 
Interventions.”
17
 Result 8: Sustainable and productive pilot projects formulated and implemented in Honduran and 
Nicaraguan Miskito Coast, which allow active lobster scuba divers, to move on to appropriate new jobs, with 
improved labor conditions and earnings, in substitution to the SCUBA lobster fishery.
18 Indicator 17. “Number of families benefitting from productive pilot projects in the Miskito Coast of 
Honduras and Nicaragua.”
19
 Result 9: “At least nine hundred disabled Scuba fishermen or family members trained in new skills and 
abilities to start their own businesses or gain employment through alternate economic activities, earning higher 
revenues in Gracias a Dios Department, Honduras and the North Atlantic Autonomous Region in Nicaragua.”
20
 Indicator 18: “Number of disabled fishermen or household members of disabled fishermen in the Miskito 
Coast trained in business or productive skills.”
21 Result 11: “No less than US$8 million in additional sales of products and services generated as a result of 
the implementation of the productive projects and business plans on sustainable fisheries, sustainable tourism 
and arts and crafts, implemented with associations and cooperatives in the Program’s sites.”
22
 PI 20: Value (USD) of additional sales of products or services that can be directly attributed to the activity 
interventions and which support conservation and/or sustainable use efforts.
23 The report did note, however, that five monitoring programs were underway in the Caribbean basin, 
including CARICOMP, CPACC (MACC), GCRMN, AGGRA, CWIP and ReefCheck. It says, however, that 
these programs are generally not integrated with one another, do not readily share data for region wide 
comparison or for the assessment of status or trends and “were designed to meet specific purposes, and do 
not necessarily meet the needs of individual countries” (USAID 2006).
38
 
24
 One reason that the UK held on to Belize for so long as a colony or protectorate was because of Belize’s 
own recognition that Guatemala was explicit, even in its constitution, in its desire to annex Belize. 
25
 Although MAREA was not involved in the planning of the Cayos Marine Park, evidence indicates that the 
conflict is difficult to overcome once it has arisen due to gaps in participation. 
26 These other mechanisms include: 1) limited entry or access rights (e.g. concessions, licensing, limited entry 
licensing); 2) quotas or catch shares; 3) closed areas or “no-take zones;” and 4) input rights (e.g. time fished, 
gear restrictions, size requirements). 
27
 MAREA, for example, bought the feed for the poultry project in Punta Gorda in Belize. 
28
 The “problem of the commons” plagues marine fisheries managers since no-one conserves a resource that 
belongs to everyone. Management program designed to control inputs in the harvesting process have generally 
been unsuccessful if property rights for the in situ resource do not exist. In recent years, rights-based 
management measures have been developed to give fishermen partial property rights or access rights to fish-in￾the-sea as an alternative approach to achieving fisheries rationalization. However, this alternative approach has 
also been criticized for its shortcomings. Copes (1986) presents many sound arguments against the use of 
individual transferable quotas (ITQs) as a fishery management instrument citing the results of actual 
applications. These include quota-busting, data-fouling, residual catch management, unstable stocks, short lived 
species, flash fisheries, real-time management, high-grading, multi-species fisheries, seasonal variations, spatial 
distribution of effort, TAC-setting, transitional gains trap, and lack of industry acceptance. In addition, impacts 
of transferability of individual quotas on allocation of income and equity have been identified. Finally, the 
question of whether ITQs are preferable to the common property or open access fishery scenario remains 
unanswered. See: www.FAO.org/docrep/003/x8985e/x8985e08/htm
29 A market-based mechanism toward conservation of marine resources is not only the one, the effect of 
which is a higher price, but for example one that through consumption foster conservation. 
30 MAREA provided Table 5, and the other tables of MAREA activities found in Appendix 7, to the evaluation 
team. Their data are presented as they were received, although some activities, such as the economic 
alternatives MAREA financed in Belize of poultry and pigs, are missing. Limitations of time prevented the 
evaluation team itself from revising these tables. 
31
 See: James Morton and IBTCI 2014 Promoting Transformations by Linking Nature, Wealth and Power, a Final 
Performance Evaluation of the TRANSLINKS Program, Development Experience Clearinghouse. 
32
 SICA and OSPESCA also include the Dominican Republic as well as the other seven Central American 
countries. 
33
 See: IBTCI 2014 Property Rights and Resource Governance Program Performance Evaluation Final Report
USAID: Development Experience Clearinghouse.
34
 The general power of ecotourism, alongside threats is made in OECD 2001 Harnessing Markets for 
Biodiversity: Towards Conservation and Sustainable Use Paris: OECD; “Not all biodiversity elements are 
amenable to market protection. The most successful and extensive existing markets for biodiversity are in 
eco-tourism, which is both a public sector and private sector activity.”
35
 See: IBTCI, April 2014 Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance Performance Evaluation Final Report USAID: DEC 
36 The complex dynamic between human poverty reduction and environmental conservation requires 
iterative, adaptive learning. See: Robert Fisher et al 2008 Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: 
Landscapes, People and Power Earthscan UK. This book examines various cases where locally initiated natural 
resource restoration coincides with intentional poverty reduction, where biodiversity outcomes can be better 
than from a heavy-handed government approach. 
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Arenas Granados, Pedro; Huberto Garces B, 2009. Diagnóstico de la Gestión del Litoral en la 
República de Panamá. Red IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz. pp 72-90 
Barragan Munoz, J M (coord.), 2012. Manejo Costero Integrado en Iberoamérica: Diagnóstico y 
Propuestas para una nueva Política Pública. Red IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz. 52 p 
BIOMARCC-USAID, 2013. Vulnerabilidad y Escenarios Bioclimáticos de los Sistemas Marino￾Costeros a nivel del Caribe Centroamericano. San José, Costa Rica. 80 p
Cortés, Jorge and Ingo S. Wehrtmann, 2009. Marine Biodiversity of Central America, Costa Rica, 
Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 500 pp 
Domínguez, J. P., 2011. Caracterización biofísica del área marina frente a Playa Las Tunas, Playas 
Negras, Playas Blancas, Playa Maculís, y las Mueludas, Municipio de Conchagua, Departamento de La 
Unión, El Salvador. USAID/IMCCW, San Salvador, El Salvador. 
Eckert, K. L., K. A. Bjorndal, F. A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly (Editors), 1999. Research 
and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group 
Publication No. 4
Fondo de la Iniciativa para las Américas, 2012. Proyectos de Cooperación en el Golfo de 
Fonseca. 39 p
Gaos, Alexander R. et al. Signs of hope in the eastern Pacific: international collaboration reveals 
encouraging status for a severely depleted population of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata 
Inter-American Development Bank, 2006. Documento del Proyecto. Gestión integrada de los 
ecosistemas del Golfo de Fonseca BID-RS-X1015
Liles Michael J. Hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata in El Salvador: nesting distribution and mortality 
at the largest remaining nesting aggregation in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Endangered species research 
Vol. 14: 23–30, 2011 doi: 10.3354/esr00338 
MAREA 2011a. Diagnóstico sobre el Estado de Aprovechamiento del Recurso Conchas Negras 
(Anadara tuberculosa y Anadara similis) en la Costa Pacífica de Nicaragua. 45 p 
MAREA, 2011b. La Propuesta del Plan de Manejo de la Langosta Espinosa del Caribe 
Centroamericano (Panulirus argus). 47 p 
MAREA, 2011c. Plan para la Recuperación y Manejo del Caracol Gigante (Strombus gigas) en el 
Golfo de Honduras y las Islas de la Bahía. 38 p 
MAREA, 2012a. Caracterización General de Siete Especies Marino-costeras de Importancia 
Estratégica en Centro América. 37 p 
MAREA, 2012b. Manual de Buenas Prácticas Pesqueras para la Langosta Espinosa (Panulirus argus). 
55 p 
MAREA, 2014a. Perfil de Sitio Cauita-Bocas del Toro, Costa Rica-Panamá. 6 p 
MAREA, 2014b. Perfil de Sitio Costa Miskita, Nicaragua. 7 p 
MAREA, 2014c. Perfil de Sitio Costa Miskitos e Islas de la Bahía, Honduras. 8 p 
MAREA, 2014d. Perfil de Sitio Golfo de Fonseca, El Salvador - Honduras - Nicaragua. 6 p 
MAREA, 2014e. Perfil de Sitio Golfo de Honduras, Belice - Guatemala - Honduras. 6 p 
40
MAREA, un-dated, Plataforma Virtual de Geo Turismo: Go Blue Central America. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Balance de los Mares - El Magnífico Tiburón está Amenazado. 1 p 
MAREA, 2014f. Cifras que Hablan: Principales Resultados del Programa Regional de USAID a Marzo 
2014, in English and Spanish. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Estrategia del Comprador. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Estrategia Integral y Herramientas de Intervención. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Historia de Éxito: Cadena de Frio, el Eslabón que Faltaba… 2 p
MAREA, un-dated. Historia de Éxito: Derecho a Cultivar el Mar, Granjas de Pargos. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Historia de Éxito: Derechos y Valor Agregados al Curil: Cocteles. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Historia de Éxito: Pesca Sostenible en el Golfo de Fonseca. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Historia de Éxito: Transformando Pesca de Langosta por Buceo. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Historia de Éxito: Turistas Pagan por Tortugas en El Venado. 2 p
MAREA, un-dated. Management Measures for Best Fishing Practices of Grouper in the Caribbean 
Sea, and the Pacific Ocean, in Central America. 2 p
MAREA, un-dated. Medidas de Ordenación para Buenas Prácticas en la Pesquería en Centroamérica 
de: Tiburones 2 p – Langosta Espinosa 2 p – Pargos 2 p – Caracol Reina 2 p – Meros 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Medidas de Ordenación para Buenas Prácticas en la Extracción de Curiles en el 
Golfo de Fonseca, Centroamérica. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Pesca de Camarón por Suriperas: Promoción de una Pesquería Mejorada en 
Centroamérica. 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Programa Regional para el Manejo de Recursos Acuáticos y Alternativas 
Económicas. 4 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Promoción de Mejores Prácticas de Pesca en Centroamérica: Alternativas 
Económicas. 2 p
MAREA, un-dated. Summary of Programmed and Implemented Activities up to January 2014, in 
English and Spanish: Guatemala 2 p – Belice 2 p – Nicaragua 2 p – Costa Rica 2 p – Honduras 2 p –
Panama 2 p – El Salvador 2 p 
MAREA, un-dated. Transformación de la flota industrial de la pesca de la langosta por buceo a pesca 
con nasas en la Costa de Misquitos de Honduras y Nicaragua. 2 p
MAREA, 2014g. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, updated Version June 2014
Morales Ramírez, Álvaro; Margarita Silva Benavides: Carmen González Gairaud, 2009. La 
Gestión Integrada de la Zona Costera en Costa Rica: Experiencia y Perspectivas. Manejo Costero 
Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio. Red IBERMAR 
(CYTED), Cádiz. pp 42-70 
Neischmann, Bernard, 1997. “Protecting indigenous coral reefs and sea territories, Miskito Coast 
RAAN, Nicaragua” IN Stans, Stevern Ed. Conservation through cultural survival; Indigenous peoples and 
protected areas, Cultural Survival, Island Press, 242 pp
NOAA, 2001. The Fisheries for Mangrove Cockles, Andara spp, fom Mexico to Peru, with 
Descriptions of their Habitats and Biology, the Fishermen’s Lives, and the Effects of Shrimp Farming. 
Marine Fisheries Review. Mfr6311 Mangrove Cockles.pdf 39 p 
41
NOAA, 2012. Casitas in Florida Keys Sanctuary Endanger Lobsters and their Habitat. 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/07/07_30_12casitas.html
OSPESCA, 2005. Fisheries and Aquaculture Integration Policy for the Central American Isthmus. 27 
pages
OSPESCA, 2009. Propuesta Plan de Acción de las Mujeres de la Pesca Artesanal del Istmo 
Centroamericano. 18 p 
OSPESCA, 2009. Reglamento OSP-01-09 del Sistema Integrado de Registro Pesquero y Acuicola 
Centroamericano (SIRPAC). 31 p 
OSPESCA, 2011. Adenda al Reglamento OSP-02-09 para el Ordenamiento Regional de la (Panulirus 
argus). 25 p 
OSPESCA, 2013. Reglamento OSPESCA/OIRSA No. 001-2013, Para la Prevención, Control y 
Erradicación de Enfermedades en el Camarón de Cultivo en los Países del SICA y OIRSA. 14 p. 
OSPESCA, 2014. Reglamento Regional OSP-08-2014, Para Prevenir, Desalentar y Eliminar la Pesca 
Ilegal, No Declarada y No Reglamentada en los Países Miembros del SICA. 11 p. 
OSPESCA, undated. Integración Regional, Responsabilidad y Sostenibilidad de la Pesca y la 
acuicultura. 7 p
Patten, Michael Quiin, 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Sage Publications – 3rd
Edition, Thousand Oaks, California 
Rivas, Carlos, et al.. 2000. Evaluation: Central American Regional Environmental Program 73 pp
Smithsonian, 2009. Bocas del Toro Research Station FY08-FY09 Biennial Report 
https://www.stri.si.edu/english/PDFs/bocas_br_08-09.pdf 60 pp 
Toledo Institute, 2014. http://www.tidebelize.org/page/port-honduras-marine-reserve
USAID, 2006. Coastal and Marine Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evaluation of 
Opportunities and Challenges for USAID 
USAID, 2014. Scope of Work, Final Performance Evaluation for the Management of Marine Resources 
and Economic Alternatives Program 
42
I
APPENDIX 2 – MAREA PROGRAM EVALUATION 
STATEMENT OF WORK 
(Source: AID-596-O-14-00006) 
A. Purpose of the Evaluation
The purpose of this final performance evaluation (as defined in USAID's Evaluation Policy) on the 
USAID Regional Program for the Management of Aquatic Resources and Economic Alternatives 
(MAREA) is to ascertain the value and impact of USAID's regional biodiversity funding investments 
in the coastal marine environment, and to use this information to guide the design of a new 
biodiversity activity. The evaluation covers implementation from the start of the Program in January 
2010 through March 2014 (six months prior to the September 2014 project completion date).
The objectives of the evaluation are: 
1) analyze and question the initial design of MAREA;
2) identify and analyze challenges at each level (local, national, regional) of MAREA's
implementation; and
3) identify methodological considerations for future regional biodiversity project design.
The main participants in the evaluation will be the Program's subcontractors: The Sea Turtle 
Conservancy (STC), Solimar International Sustainable Tourism, The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF); Program partners, 
including the General Secretariat of the Central American Commission for Environment and 
Development (CCAD), the General Secretariat of the Central American Integration System, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Regional Center for Micro, Small 
and Medium Businesses (CENPROMYPE), and the Organization of Fishing and Aquaculture in
Central America; (OSPESCA); the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Small Grants Program with the 
United Nations (particularly in Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama); private sector partners involved 
in the Program; national governments of the countries involved; Program beneficiaries in the local 
communities; the implementing partner Chemonics International, Inc.; USAID/Central America and 
Mexico (ECAM) office and USAID offices in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. The principal 
audience of this evaluation internally will be USAID/ECAM and other USAID offices that are 
expected to use the results to make decisions about future activity design.
B. Background Information About the Program 
Project Name: USAID Regional Program for the Management of Aquatic
Resources and Economic Alternatives (MAREA)
Contract Number: IQC No. EPP-1-00-04-00020-00 Task Order No.5, with 
modifications EPP-I-05-04-00020-00
Implementing Partner: Chemonics International, Inc. with
Subcontractors:
• The Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC)
• Solimar International: Sustainable Tourism
• The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
• Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
• World Wildlife Fund WWF
Award Dates: January 2010- September 2014
Funding: Initially $11,679,861 increased by $919,431 to $12,599,292, including
Biodiversity earmarked funding and Labor earmarked funding
43
The USAID Regional Program for the Management of Aquatic Resources and Economic Alternatives 
(MAREA) in Central America, under Contract EPP-I-00-04-00020-00 Task Order No. 5 with 
Chemonics International, Inc. (Chemonics) is a $12.5 million program focusing on protecting 
important coastal resources in Central America. Implementation began in January 2010 and is
scheduled to end in September 2014. The evaluation will cover Project implementation from 
January 2010 to approximately March 2014.
The focus of MAREA is to target both fisheries and the conservation of important species, as well
as promote viable opportunities and best management practices in four marine-coastal sites that 
cross the boundaries between CAFTA-DR member countries: Gulf of Honduras (Belize, Guatemala, 
Honduras); Mosquito Coast (Honduras, Nicaragua); Cahuita-Bocas del Toro (Costa Rica, Panama); 
and Gulf of Fonseca (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua) (see H.l). In order to accomplish these 
goals, MAREA promotes the effective enforcement, compliance, and monitoring of policies and 
legislation regarding marine-coastal resources, as well as ways of managing marine-coastal resources 
that encourage their conservation and sustainable use.
Within USAID's Regional Strategic Objective "Economic Freedom: Open, diversified, and expanding 
economies," MAREA, in particular, contributes to Intermediate Result No.4 "Improved Management 
and Conservation of Critical Watersheds," and specifically to Sub I.R 4.1 "Improved end use 
management of critical watersheds" and Sub I.R. 4.3 "Increased harmonization and enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations." The Program was designed based on a 2006 USAID 
assessment of the opportunities and challenges in coastal and marine conservation in Latin America 
and the Caribbean (see H.2).
MAREA followed USAID's 2007-2009 Conservation of Central American Watersheds Program 
(CCAW) whose purpose was to improve the management of two of Central America's most 
important watersheds-the Gulf of Honduras in Guatemala, Honduras, and Belize and the Bocas del 
Toro watershed in Panama and Costa Rica. USAID worked to protect their unique biodiversity by 
supporting the application of sustainable finance solutions for protected areas, providing assistance 
in the implementation of existing management plans for critical biodiversity areas, and engaging the 
private sector in economically viable activities. CCAW followed three prior regional programs 
promoting environmental protection and improved management of natural resources in Central 
America: PROARCA II 2001-2006, PROARCA I 1996-200 I and RENARM 1990-1995 (see H.3). 
This MAREA evaluation follows a Regional Office of Inspector General’s (RIG) July 2013 performance 
audit. The RIG audit focused on whether MAREA and Chemonics complied with results, particularly 
highlighting issues on: 1) monitoring policies and legislation, 2) data quality, 3) consistency between 
indicators and results, and 4) a connection between regional commitments and participation. 
This evaluation will closely examine MAREA to: 1) analyze and question the initial design of 
MAREA; 2) identify and analyze challenges at each level (local, national, regional) of MAREA's 
implementation; and 3) identify methodological considerations for future regional biodiversity project 
design. USAID closed the audit findings in a September 2013 memo. Answers to the evaluation 
questions will give USAID new information not available from the RIG audit, and will help USAID to 
determine the strategic focus of future biodiversity investments in the Central America/Mexico 
region.
Due to the regional nature of MAREA and its design, the Program has required many levels of 
coordination across different local, national and international actors. The following table shows 
these levels of interaction and can be used to further define the evaluation approach:
44
Levels Actors
Regional decision￾making
USAID, SICA
Regional coordination USAID, CCAD, OSPESCA
Cross-border
operations
USAID, STC, Solimar International, TNC, WCS, WWF
National decision￾making
Related authorities (environment, fishing, tourism, foreign relations)
National operations Technical contacts named by related authorities and regional
Organizations
Local community level 
decision-making
Civil society organizations, local governments, cooperatives and 
committees
In addition, the following definitions are important to the evaluation objectives:
Rights- based mechanisms: In fisheries, two kinds of rights are important: "management" rights
which deal with those who have the right to be involved in managing the fishery and "use" rights 
which deal with those who have the right to use the fishery or to go fishing. From this perspective, 
the concept of a right in fisheries can be thought of as a privilege and not necessarily as a property 
right involving exclusive ownership. User rights address such issues as who has access, how much 
fishing etlo11will be allowed and how much catch can be landed. In tum, this entitlement to use a 
fishery can be allocated to a variety of entities including groups, individuals, communities, 
corporations, and cooperatives, and may, in some circumstances, be place-based. Management 
rights and who holds them may depend on the type of the fishery management decisions being 
made. Broad policy issues involving, for example, the management approaches that will be allowed 
or the general guidelines for determining who has access, usually involve government managers and 
a wide range of interest groups. More specific regulatory decisions involving how the fishery will be 
fished may be more likely to involve just those who are directly engaged in fishery. 
Market-based mechanism: Market-based mechanisms include, among other things, campaigns that match 
buyers and seller, relying on patterns of demand for consumption. Market-based mechanisms foster 
best management practices. Lobster fishermen, for example, would have a greater incentive to 
comply with best management practices if they could secure access to markets which would pay 
greater value for their sustainable harvested products. 
In relation to the topic of gender, the initial MAREA Contract indicated that: "Gender issues should 
be considered as a critical criterion for site and activity selection."
Technical Approach
MAREA has two main objectives: 1) Promote effective monitoring and enforcement of coastal and 
marine resources, policies and legislation with an emphasis on compliance, and 2) Foster rights￾based and market-based mechanisms and management incentives for the conservation and 
sustainable use of coastal and marine resources and ecosystems with an emphasis on ecosystem￾based approaches to management.
The initial expected results were: 
1. All Central American countries will adopt and implement harmonized policies on 
sustainable shark fisheries.
2. All Central American countries will adopt and implement harmonized best management 
practices for the sustainable use of target coastal and marine resources.
45
3. All Central American countries will adopt and implement harmonized policies for coral 
reef and mangrove management as critical ecosystems to adapt and build resilience to 
climate change.
4. At least 25% of fishing products sold of target species will be harvested under rights-based 
management regimes and best fisheries practices, from a 2009 baseline.
5. At least 250,000 sea turtle nests are protected using public-private alliances and best 
management practices in select areas throughout Central America.
6. The lobster population will increase by at least 20% in at least two select marine sites of 
regional importance.
However, these results were later modified to replace #5 with "At least 1,500,000 sea turtle 
hatchlings will be protected using public-private alliances and best management practices." and #6
with "Decrease in the number of juvenile lobsters harvested by at least 164, I 00 as the result of
program interventions to improve fishing practices." In addition, the contract was modified and 
expanded to improve labor conditions, standards and livelihoods of fishermen to contribute to the 
sustainable management of coastal and marine resources. The specific objectives of that 
modification were: 
1. Promote the substitution of traditional fishing practices through the implementation of 
pilot projects geared toward the improvement of the current labor conditions and health 
of local fishermen, as well as the establishment of productive, more sustainable 
alternatives.
2. Provide the required training to support Mosquito fishermen to develop new productive 
activities, especially to those whom have become disabled by the scuba diving for lobsters 
fisheries.
3. Improve local capacity to participate and implement projects and programs to improve labor 
standards, livelihoods and environmental management.
These objectives corresponded to five new results to be delivered, including:
1. At least two labor standard manuals, codes or guidelines drafted and validated with local 
communities, the private sector and government officials.
2. Sustainable and productive pilot projects formulated and implemented in Honduran and 
Nicaraguan Mosquito Coast, which allow lobster scuba divers to move on to appropriate 
new jobs with improved labor conditions and earnings in substitution to the Scuba lobster 
fishery. These should benefit more than 750 families in Gracias a Dios Department, 
Honduras and more than 500 families in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) in
Nicaragua.
3. At least 900 disabled scuba fisherpersons or members of their families trained in new 
skills and abilities to start their own business or gain employment through alternative 
economic activities, earning higher revenues in Gracias a Dios Department, Honduras and 
in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) in Nicaragua.
4. No less than $1 million leveraged to co-finance productive project proposals from sustainable 
fisheries, sustainable tourism and arts and crafts in alliance and coordination with other financial 
institutions and the private sector.
5. No less than $1 million in additional sales of products and services generated as a result of the 
implementation of productive projects and business plans on sustainable fisheries, sustainable 
tourism and arts and crafts implemented with associations and cooperatives at the Program's 
sites.
USAID has used a number of indicators to monitor progress of the Project, as well as regular 
meetings with Chemonics, site visits and other means of communications (See H.4 and H.5). The 
46
evaluation team will be responsible for collecting all monitoring data on Program indicators from 
Chemonics, analyzing it using cross tabulations and triangulation (or cross examinations from several 
data sets collected using different methods) and reporting on it in as much as it relates to the 
evaluation questions stated in this Statement of Work and in the Final Evaluation Report. Most
Program indicators had a baseline of zero (0). The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan listed here was 
updated in August 2013 to reflect current Program implementation.
The development hypothesis of MAREA is: if USAID invests in sound coastal and marine 
management practices and market solutions in the region that are tailored to guarantee 
sustainability at the local level, then coastal communities will have alternative income 
opportunities that can lead to greater food security and marine biodiversity. 
While the Program was not initially designed with a logical framework model, USAID/ECAM 
subsequently identified critical assumptions related to the development hypothesis and this 
evaluation. They include:
1. Absence of an unstable socio-political environment such as armed or violent regional and/or 
local conflicts. 
2. Generally stable fiscal and monetary policies and macro-economic environments. 
3. Willingness of local national governments to affect change and reform, in particular to rights￾based mechanisms. 
4. Full support of regional organizations, Central American Integration System (SICA), Regional 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization (OSPESCA), and the Central American Commission 
tor Environment and Development (CCAD).
5. Absence of any sudden supply or demand shocks such as energy price shocks that would 
interrupt coastal and marine activities.
6. Accomplishment and enforcement of regional binding agreements under SICA.
7. Absence of internationally imposed measures that would have detrimental effect on the 
general political and economic stability in Central American countries, such as 
internationally imposed sanctions. 
8. That the Program will encourage shared agendas by adding to existing regional 
processes. 
9. The Ministries of Environment and Agriculture in the region support the Program and 
provide required information.
C. Evaluation Questions
For the Evaluation of MAREA, the Evaluator must comply with USAID's Evaluation Policy. (online 
at: http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/policy.)
The following evaluation questions, in priority order, have been identified by USAID. They 
should be answered by the evaluation team and clearly presented in the Final Report in terms of 
how they relate to the evaluation purpose. 
 Quality of design: To what extent did MAREA's design and resources help or hinder the 
Program's ability to achieve its objectives and measurable results within the proposed 
scope and established time-frame?
 Validity of assumptions: To what extent did the assumptions identified1 by USAID hold 
 
1 This evaluation focuses on 4, 6 and 9 identified in the SOW, as are for USAID: 3) of local national 
governments to affect and in particular to mechanisms; 4) Full support of regional organizations, Central 
American Integration System (SICA), Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization (OSPESCA), and the 
47
true during implementation, influencing the achievement (or non-achievement) of 
MAREA's objectives, and should be considered for potential future programming?
 Implementation challenges: What implementation challenges did MAREA face at each level 
of the Program (regional, national, local and transnational)?
 Results: What activities and methodologies have the potential to be sustainable2 by the end of
MAREA?
 Which activities showed the fewest results and should be discontinued or approached 
differently? Explain why.
 What tangible, sustainable benefits have resulted from MAREA? 
 Future biodiversity investment: Based on USAID's experience with the Central American 
Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD), CCAW and MAREA, as well as 
current regional biodiversity challenges, where should USAID invest biodiversity funding in
the future?
 Gender: How could MAREA have improved its integration of gender equality in the 
production, processing and marketing/sales phases of the fishery and coastal/marine value 
chain so as to maximize the impact of women in those areas? 
D. Data Collection, Analysis and Methodology
The data collection plan for this evaluation will include at a minimum: a desk review of relevant 
documents; interviews and/or focus groups; and direct observation through site visits to at least 
two of the four Program implementation sites. USAID/ECAM expects both qualitative and 
quantitative data to be collected; and the results of this data collection will be analyzed for content 
on both a qualitative and quantitative basis. The evaluation team may propose additional data 
collection methodologies in the Evaluation Plan; all methodologies should be presented by 
evaluation question in the proposal.
• Desk review of relevant documents 
USAID/ECAM will provide the evaluation team with all relevant program specific documents, such as 
statements of work, reports, prior assessments, etc. The evaluation team should review the documents 
before meeting with local stakeholders for interviews. The evaluation team is expected to review these 
and create a Document Review Matrix to be delivered to USAID/ECAM using the following illustrative 
format, which may be improved by the Evaluator:
Document Review Matrix (Sample Table)
Document Name Evaluation
Question 1
Evaluation
Question 2
Evaluation
Question 3...
Comments
Quarterly Report #1 X X
 
Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD); 6) Accomplishment and 
enforcement of regional binding agreements under SICA; 9). The Ministries of Environment and Agriculture in
the region support the Program and provide required information. 
2
 “Sustainable” in this question for the purpose of the evaluation means a MAREA activity, result or approach 
that has either been completed or taken over by a local, national or regional entity to continue in the future 
or one that would a small short-term additional investment from USAID or another entity to reach that 
point.
48
o USAID or Chemonics will provide monitoring data on indicators.
o USAID can provide the documentation listed in Section Has data sources for this evaluation. 
Consulting stakeholders 
o Key Informant Interviews, Group Interviews, Focus Groups, Short Surveys. The Evaluator 
will interview people, through informant interviews, group interviews, surveys and/or focus 
groups, from the institutions listed below, as well as any from others deemed relevant to
this evaluation. The Evaluator will ensure access to both men and women to participate 
in the stakeholder consultation processes. In addition, the Evaluator will ensure a good 
mix of types of institutions, participants and beneficiaries. USAID/ECAM will provide the 
list of contact information to facilitate selection once the contract is awarded. The 
selection methodology should be recorded in the Evaluation Plan. The Evaluator may 
propose additional contacts. 
 List of contacts:
1. USAID/ECAM (including Contracting Officer Representative)
2. Chemonics
3. The Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC)
4. Solimar International; Sustainable Tourism 
5. The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
6. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
7. World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
8. General Secretariat of the Central American Commission for Environment and 
 Development (CCAD)
9. Central American Integration System (SO-SICA)
10. INational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
11. Organization of Fishing and Aquaculture in Central America; (OSPESCA)
12. The Regional Center for Micro, Small and Medium Businesses (CENPROMYPE)
13. The GEF Small Grants Programme with the United Nations (particularly in Honduras, 
 Nicaragua and Panama)
14. Private sector partners involved in the Program 
15. Local and national governmental entities related to Program Implementation
16. Ministries of Agriculture/Fisheries in Central America
17. Ministries of Environment in Central America 
18. Ministry of Tourism in Honduras
19. People directly involved in Program implementation in local communities 
20. USAID Mission offices in Guatemala, Honduras and/or Nicaragua
Specific interview, survey and/or focus group questions will be prepared in advance and finalized 
with approval from USAID/ ECAM; the questions should be suggested by the Evaluator with the 
specific purpose of answering the evaluation questions listed in this Statement of Work and must 
be limited in number. A sampling plan for who is selected for interviews, and their sex, must be 
developed and summarized in the Evaluation Plan and Final Evaluation Report, whether purposeful 
sampling, random or a combination of approaches is used for selecting institutions and beneficiaries 
to respond. 
Site visits to at least two of the four participating coastal communities: 
• Gulf of Honduras (Belize, Guatemala, Honduras)
• Mosquito Coast (Honduras, Nicaragua)
• Cahuita-Bocas del Toro (Costa Rica, Panama), and
• Gulf of Fonseca (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua).
49
USAID recommends that the evaluation team focus its data collection in the field at two 
implementation sites to review the listed activities that were carried out there since they 
composed a majority of Program focus and activities:
1. Gulf of Fonseca (from Jiquilisco Bay, El Salvador to Padre Ramos, Nicaragua)- best 
fisheries management through a market-based approach, sea turtle conservation and 
improved livelihoods, mangrove cockle management and rights based management.
2. Mosquito Coast (Honduras and Nicaragua)- transformation of current spiny lobster 
fishery to a sustainable fishery including economic alternatives and labor issues and 
National Geographic ecotourism platform and protected area management in the 
Honduran Bay Islands.
• Team planning meetings
o An initial team planning meeting will be held between USAID/ECAM and the Evaluator 
before the evaluation begins so that USAID can clarify any questions from the 
Evaluators, expectations and guidelines. The expected result of this meeting is to:
 Clarify each team member's role and responsibilities
 Confirm the anticipated timeline and deliverables
 Discuss data collection tools and methodologies by evaluation question to be 
presented in the Evaluation Plan 
 Identify communications logistics and how the Evaluator, USAID/ECAM and the 
Contractor will communicate with each other
o A second team planning meeting will be held among USAID/ECAM, the Evaluator and 
Chemonics in El Salvador before the evaluation begins so that the Evaluator can
clarify the evaluation methodology and initiate contact with the Contractor.
MAREA was designed to focus on coastal and marine biodiversity, specifically. However, for 
purposes of the evaluation, the evaluation team may consider other key areas related to 
biodiversity and natural resource management, for example, inland river management or others. 
In addition, the design differentiated market-based and rights-based approaches for 
implementation; as such, the evaluation must differentiate between these approaches when 
answering the evaluation questions, when applicable and possible.
The analysis of the data collected is just as important as the actual collection. The Evaluator must 
triangulate data collected in order to have sound evidence for the findings and conclusions in the 
final evaluation report based on the data presented. In both the Evaluation Plan and the Final 
Report, the Evaluator should list any biases or limitations that exist for both data collection and 
analysis. In addition, all real or possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed by each member of the 
evaluation team in writing (Disclosure of Conflict of interest Form).
All data must be disaggregated and analyzed by sex. All data reported by Chemonics for its indicator 
reports is sex disaggregated. All data analyzed in response to the evaluation questions must be 
disaggregated by geographic location for the coastal communities visited and included in the 
evaluation data collection. 
50
E. Deliverables
The contractor shall submit the following deliverables:
1. Timeline and/or Milestone Plan in Word or Excel to be finalized after the Team Planning 
Meetings no later than 14 calendar days after the award.
2. An Evaluation Design and Work Plan in Word with the suggested methodology per 
evaluation question, sampling plan and limitations to be finalized after the Team 
Planning Meetings no later than 14 calendar days after the award. 
3. Weekly bullet reports of activities in Word, particularly for Weeks 1-9 (7 to 63 calendar 
days after the award), due every Monday by the close of business. 
4. A Validation workshop held with the Project's main stakeholders before the evaluation 
team leaves each country in approximately 28 and 35 calendar days after the award. 
5. Document review matrix in Word or Excel (see format above) to be completed no later 
than 49 calendar days after the award.
6. A draft of the Final Report for review due no later than 49 calendar days after the award. 
USAID/ECAM will provide comments within one week. The draft report should be 
submitted in English. It should include an Executive Summary no longer than 4 pages, stating 
the methodologies, limitations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation. 
(The final Executive Summary will be presented in both English and Spanish with the Final 
Reports.)
7. A Final Report in Word and PDF, in the USAID Evaluation Report format provided by 
USAID/ECAM, no longer than 35 pages excluding annexes, identifying methodologies, 
limitations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Final Report should be 
presented in English and Spanish and have incorporated USAID's comments, as appropriate. 
USAID/ECAM and/or the Contractor may attach a Statement of Differences as an annex to
the Final Report if any differences remain in the final version. The Evaluator should tum in
two copies in print in each language and 1 copy in electronic version with both languages 
(DVD or flash drive). The Final Report will be due to USAID/ECAM one week after the 
Evaluator receives comments on the draft and no later than 63 calendar days after the award. 
USAID/ECAM will review and then approve the Final Report if comments have been 
incorporated satisfactorily. 
8. Any raw data (qualitative or quantitative) collected in electronic form (DVD or flash drive, 
in original format of Word, Excel, etc.) due no later than 63 calendar days after the award. 
9. A Final Presentation with Powerpoint slides to USAID and Chemonics as the Final Report is
being finalized no later than 63 calendar days after the award. Only the Team Leader needs 
to be present for the Final Presentation; however, local/regional evaluation team members 
may also attend. 
13. Other deliverables as identified during the Team Meeting and agreed to by USAID and the 
contractor.
All reports and papers will be considered draft versions until they are approved by USAID/ECAM.
51
APPENDIX 3 – EVALUATION DESIGN AND 
METHODS 
(Source: USAID/Central America Regional Program for The Management of Aquatic Resources and 
Economic Alternatives (MAREA) Final Performance Evaluation Methodology and Work Plan, revised 
October 1, 2014) 
Note: not all of these methods were pursued as per the original plan, as this set of methods preceded 
receipt from USAID of program documents that described MAREA’s activities in depth, who were the 
key stakeholders, and benchmarks. 
Evaluation 
Question
Type of Answer/ 
Evidence 
Required
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Sources Sampling/ 
Selection
Data Analysis 
Methods
1. Quality of 
design: To what 
extent did 
MAREA’s design 
and resources 
help or hinder the 
Program’s ability 
to achieve its 
objectives and 
measurable results 
within the 
proposed scope 
and established 
time-frame?
Was $1 million 
leveraged to co￾finance productive 
project proposals
from sustainable 
fisheries, 
sustainable tourism 
and arts and crafts 
in alliance and 
coordination with 
other financial 
institutions and the 
private sector?
Document review; 
Interviews with
partners (KIIs); 
Field interviews 
and Focus Group 
Discussions 
(FGDs)
MAREA budget, 
resource levels 
from other 
(including 
leveraged) inputs. 
Sources of 
leveraged income. 
Ministry and 
regional budgets; 
KII responses, 
and others to be 
determined
This will be 
investigated based 
on USAID 
documents for all 
activities in each 
country and 
regionally; 
Identification of 
key enabling 
factors and 
perceptions
Synthesis of 
qualitative 
information, 
comparing 
expectations 
against resource 
allocations; 
Comparison of 
design features 
with alternatives;
Determine 
attribution of 
leveraging from 
nongovernmental 
groups
2. Validity of 
assumptions: To 
what extent did 
the assumptions 
identified by 
USAID hold true 
during 
implementation, 
influencing the 
achievement (or 
non-achievement) 
of MAREA’s 
objectives, and 
should be 
considered for 
potential future 
programming?
Were local and 
national 
governments 
willing to effect 
reform of rights￾based mechanisms? 
Did Ministries of 
Ag and 
Environment 
support the 
program & its 
goals?
Achievements and 
results attributable 
to project 
mechanism and 
design
Document review;
Interviews with 
partners (KIIs); 
Field interviews & 
FGDs; 
Comparison of 
targets with 
results, with 
respect to 
leveraged funds
USAID, 
implementing 
agencies, local 
partner 
organizations.
USAID strategic 
plans, project 
plans; 
amendments, and 
M&E Plan, and 
others to be 
determined
KIIs selected 
among project 
staff, local and 
national 
stakeholders and 
independent 
experts in each 
area of activity, 
seeking diversity 
to cross-check 
one another
Narrative of 
program 
development 
supported by 
timeline of key 
events, 
deliverables and 
other milestones;
Qualitative 
description with 
some tabulation 
for frequency of 
how case studies 
were used and 
under what 
circumstances
3. 
Implementation 
challenges:
What 
implementation 
challenges did 
MAREA face at 
each level of the 
Compilation of 
project reports and 
special studies; key 
informant 
interviews
Document review; 
Interviews with 
partners (KIIs); 
Field interviews & 
discussions with 
project 
participants at 4
Program field sites 
Program 
documents, 
SOW, TORs, 
Chemonics 
proposal, revised 
TOR, USAID 
revised 
assumptions. KIIs 
Focus groups and 
KIIs selected to 
capture range of 
opinion from 
implementers, 
partners, donors, 
Ministries, pan￾regional bodies
Qualitative 
description taking 
into account scale 
of activities (local, 
regional) and the 
distinct 
stakeholder and 
gatekeeper 
52
Evaluation 
Question
Type of Answer/ 
Evidence 
Required
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Sources Sampling/ 
Selection
Data Analysis 
Methods
Program (regional, 
national, local and 
transnational)?
and direct 
observation
from 
implementing 
staff, associated 
stakeholders and 
gatekeepers, and 
others to be 
determined
entities at 
community, 
national, trans￾boundary, 
oceanic and 
Central American 
scales
3A. What
independent 
political trends 
influenced 
performance?
Degree of program 
effectiveness 
determined by 
unforeseen, 
external factors out 
of USAID control
Cross check 
results from KIIs; 
Document review
KIIs, broad 
literature review, 
and others to be 
determined
Per country and 
regionally
Synthesis to 
understand inter￾governmental 
changes in 
cooperation and 
outside influence
4. Results: What 
activities and 
methodologies 
have the potential 
to be sustainable 
by the end of 
MAREA?
Which activities 
showed the fewest 
results and should 
be discontinued or 
approached 
differently? 
Explain why. 
What tangible, 
sustainable benefits 
have resulted from 
MAREA?
Change in target 
biodiversity levels; 
and accessibility 
and use of marine 
resources by 
dependent coastal 
human populations. 
Systematic data on 
biodiversity in the 
targeted areas & 
changes in 
biodiversity. Based 
on evidence from 
USAID documents 
and from interview 
information. Also 
based on evidence 
about reduced 
threats to 
biodiversity
Document review;
Interviews with 
partners (KIIs); 
Field interviews & 
discussions with 
project 
participants at 4 
Program field sites
Compilation of 
project reports 
and special 
studies, M&E Plan
& evaluations
Inputs from 
contacts provided 
by USAID and 
Chemonics, and 
others to be 
determined
Evidence should 
be available from 
USAID documents 
and field 
discussions. If 
systematic data on 
biodiversity (and 
changes in 
biodiversity) are 
available from 
other sources, 
they will be used
Analysis of 
attribution (i.e., 
project role in 
intended change)
4A. Turtle 
population
At least 1.5 million 
sea turtle hatchlings 
protected using 
alliances and best 
practices
Distill from 
databases local 
populations around 
program sites.
KIIs and FGDs; 
direct observation
Ministries, STC, 
TNC, WCS, 
CCAD, WWF, 
CI, IUCN, GEF, 
SWOT, NMFS, 
FWS, Dutch 
Caribbean Nature 
Alliance, and 
others to be 
determined
Comparison of 
global and regional 
databases
Consider 
progress against 
long-term goals in 
determining 
conclusions
4B. Lobster 
population
Increased by at 
least 20% in two 
select sites, while a 
decrease of juvenile 
hatchlings 
harvested by 
164,000
Distill from 
databases local 
populations around 
program sites.
KIIs and FGDs; 
direct observation
Ministries, TNC, 
UNDP, CME, 
Monterey Bay 
Aquarium, 
Reeflink Database 
(EPA), Spiny 
Lobster Init., 
PRONEGOCIOS, 
and others to be 
determined
Comparison of 
global and regional 
databases
Gauge MAREA’s 
contribution to 
knowledge about 
lobster 
demographics
53
Evaluation 
Question
Type of Answer/ 
Evidence 
Required
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Sources Sampling/ 
Selection
Data Analysis 
Methods
4C. Enforcement 
regimes 
strengthened
At least 25% of 
fishing products 
sold of target 
species harvested 
under rights-based 
regimes & best 
fisheries practices
Distill from 
databases local 
populations around 
program sites.
KIIs and FGDs; 
direct observation
Government 
policies, regional 
regulatory 
mechanisms.
KIIs and FGDs 
about compliance 
and enforcement, 
and others to be 
determined
KIIs with 
stakeholders at 
each level.
Discussions with 
local cooperatives 
and societies
Analyze which 
enforcement 
mechanisms have 
seemed to be 
effective
4D. National 
policies 
harmonized 
across region
Are policies 
promoting 
conservation and 
sustainable usage 
more harmonized 
now than before?
KIIs with key 
USAID, project 
implementer, and 
Mission staff; 
relevant national 
government 
agencies
CCAD; General
Secretariat of
the Central
American 
Integration
System; GEF; 
USAID/ECAM, 
and others to be 
determined
KIIs with 
stakeholders at 
each level. 
Discussions with 
local cooperatives 
and societies
Narrative review 
and 
interpretation 
against annual 
timeframes
4E. Fishers 
trained
Changes in 
beneficiary skills, 
knowledge, and 
productivity
FGDs; Household 
surveys; direct 
observation
Project and 
thematic reports; 
key informants; 
survey of training 
participants. 
CENPROMYPE, 
and others to be 
determined
Random sampling 
of target 
beneficiaries at 2 
Program field sites
Calculation of 
change in 
knowledge and 
awareness among 
targeted 
audiences
4F. Fishing 
regimes affected
Have significant 
changes in usage 
regimes occurred 
and how many 
people affected? At 
least 900 disabled 
scuba fisherman 
trained in new skills
KIIs; Community 
FGDs; Short 
Survey; direct 
observation
CENPROMYPE, 
and others to be 
determined
By species, and / 
or by coastal 
communities with 
MAREA activities
Sifting evidence of 
any attribution
5. Future 
biodiversity 
investment:
Based on USAID’s 
experience with 
the Central 
American 
Commission for 
Environment and 
Development 
(CCAD), CCAW 
and MAREA, as 
well as current 
regional 
biodiversity 
challenges, where 
should USAID 
invest biodiversity 
funding in the 
How can USAID 
get best value for 
money in 
protecting marine 
biodiversity, using 
tourism, managed 
fishing and 
government 
policies? What 
options are most 
feasible for reviving 
threatened species 
and preserving 
marshlands, 
mangroves, and 
coral?
Document review
Interviews with 
partners (KIIs)
Field interviews & 
discussions with 
project 
participants at 4
Program field sites 
and direct 
observation
Inter-regional 
laws, regulations, 
treaties, policies. 
CCAD and 
CCAW policies 
compared, and 
others to be 
determined
Per advice of 
experts in each 
country.
Comparison of 
evaluation results 
against emerging 
issues in the 
region, including, 
for example, role 
of China, 
Nicaragua Canal, 
new Climate 
Change threats, 
markets for fish 
catch, ocean 
circulations, 
ocean 
acidification, coral 
bleaching
54
Evaluation 
Question
Type of Answer/ 
Evidence 
Required
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Sources Sampling/ 
Selection
Data Analysis 
Methods
future?
6. Gender: How 
could MAREA 
have improved its 
integration of 
gender equality in 
the production, 
processing and 
marketing/sales 
phases of the 
fishery and 
coastal/marine 
value chain so as 
to maximize the 
impact of women 
in those areas?
Women’s roles 
before and after, 
incomes before and 
after, decision 
making before and 
after
Document review
Interviews with 
partners (KIIs)
Field interviews & 
discussions with 
project 
participants at 4
Program field sites 
and direct 
observation 
Review of program 
design and 
implementation 
(including partner 
patterns of 
community 
engagement)
M&E Plan, USAID 
monitoring, 
stakeholder 
FGDs, KIIs; 
community user 
groups (Program 
activities), and 
others to be 
determined
Minimum of 30 
women asked in 
each project site 
visited
Lessons and 
recommendations 
about gender 
inclusion in 
regional, national 
and local 
technical 
interventions and 
barrier analysis 
that elucidates 
limits to female 
engagement
6A. Balanced and 
appropriate 
engagement of 
women in skills 
training and 
market regime 
outreach
Extent to which 
women are 
targeted by or 
participating in 
project activities. 
Differences in 
impacts between 
men and women; 
gender
Surveys and 
observations about
factors associated 
with women’s 
involvement with 
markets, 
incentives, rights, 
and legal use 
regimes
Focus group 
discussions, 
household 
surveys at coastal 
community level
FGDs by fishing 
cooperative, by 
location, by catch, 
comparing 
intervention vs. 
non-intervention 
populations
Comparison of 
program results 
in light of USAID 
policies and 
program goals
6B. Gender 
equality in 
program plans and 
stakeholder inputs 
to key decisions 
taken
Women have 
balanced voice with 
men in program 
design and 
unfolding
Compilation of 
relevant reports; 
key informant 
interviews with 
gender specialists; 
survey of training 
participants; 
compilation of 
existing survey 
results relating to 
knowledge 
management 
outreach impacts
Program 
documents and 
KIIs, and others 
to be determined
Raise issue in all 
KIIs.
Content analysis 
of reports, as 
carried out 
wherever 
possible
6C. Gender 
captured in M&E 
Plan indicators
Disaggregated data 
from reports, data 
collection
M&E Plan Chemonics, 
USAID
Comprehensive 
look at all 
performance 
management 
metrics
Content analysis 
of reports
6D. Broad 
recommendations
Options for USAID 
action for coastal 
resource 
management in 
Central America in 
short and medium 
term future
All the above, plus 
recommendations 
articulated in the 
course of 
interviews (KIIs)
Culled from KIIs, 
experts, and 
officials. 
Documentation
At local level: 
FGDs, at national 
level, KIIs. At 
regional level, 
USAID, 
intergovernmental 
agencies
Synthesis after 
weighting 
feasibility of 
suggestions. 
Original 
distillation by 
team
55
APPENDIX 4 – MAREA EXPENDITURES BY COUNTRY 
 Total expenditures of MAREA over life of project, as captured through August, 2014. 
County Amount Spent
El Salvador $3,871,880
Guatemala $779,810
Nicaragua $1,601,974
Costa Rica $750,061
Belize $1,275,871
Panama $1,508,156
Honduras $2,687,169
TOTAL $12,474,921
56
APPENDIX 5 – MAREA’S RESULTS FRAMEWORK
57
APPENDIX 6 – DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND 
SURVEY PROTOCOL 
Data Collection Form – Documents 
 Team Member(s) Collecting Data: 
 Date: 
 Document Reference: 
Evaluation Questions 
EQ4 
1. What type of achievements of MAREA can be identified? 
2. What quantity of achievements can be identified? 
3. What is the quality of the achievements that can be observed? 
4. Do the results appear to be sustainable? Does it appear that they can be scaled-up? 
EQ3 
5. What problems with the implementation of MAREA activities appear to have been 
encountered? 
6. How does it appear that these problems were addressed? 
7. Does it appear that the problems were successfully resolved? 
EQ2 
8. What assumptions would have to be valid for MAREA activities at this site to be successful? 
9. What biological characteristics at this site would have to be considered to be successful? 
EQ6 
10. Can roles for women be identified at this site? 
11. Do the activities observed at this site appear to have benefited women in particular? 
EQ1 
12. Is there some aspect of the site that would have to be considered to achieve success? 
EQ5 
13. Would this be an activity that USAID could usefully finance in the future? Why? 
14. Would this be an appropriate location for future USAID activities? 
58
Data Collection Form – Field Observations 
Team Member(s) Collecting Data: 
Date: 
County: 
Location: 
Category of MAREA Activity: 
Field Observation Number: 
Background Questions 
1. What did MAREA implement at this field site? 
2. When did MAREA implement activities at this field site? 
3. Who or what group participated in MAREA activities at this field site? 
Evaluation Questions 
EQ4 
4. What type of achievements of MAREA can be identified? 
5. What quantity of achievements can be identified? 
6. What is the quality of the achievements that can be observed? 
7. Do the results appear to be sustainable? Does it appear that they can be scaled-up? 
EQ3 
8. What problems with the implementation of MAREA activities appear to have been 
encountered? 
9. How does it appear that these problems were addressed? 
10. Does it appear that the problems were successfully resolved? 
EQ2 
11. What assumptions would have to be valid for MAREA activities at this site to be successful? 
12. What biological characteristics at this site would have to be considered to be successful? 
EQ6 
13. Can roles for women be identified at this site? 
14. Do the activities observed at this site appear to have benefited women in particular? 
EQ1 
15. Is there some aspect of the site that would have to be considered to achieve success? 
EQ5 
16. Would this be an activity that USAID could usefully finance in the future? Why? 
17. Would this be an appropriate location for future USAID activities? 
59
Data Collection Form – Focus Groups 
Names/Organizations/Telephones/emails of Participants (attached) 
Team Member(s) Collecting Data: 
Date: 
County: 
Location: 
Focus Group Number: 
Purpose of the Focus Group Discussions: Muchas gracias por darnos su tiempo. Estamos haciendo 
una evaluación del Proyecto MAREA con el propósito de identificar qué resultados y beneficios este 
proyecto ha logrado. Con la información que recogemos vamos a hacer recomendaciones a USAID para 
mejorar las actividades que implemente relacionadas al manejo y conservación de los recursos marinos￾costeros. Para este propósito sus opiniones y experiencias relacionadas a MAREA sería para nosotros de 
mucha utilidad. Hemos formulado las preguntas siguientes y vamos a escribir sus comentarios y 
opiniones cuidadosamente. Cualquier comentario será tratado en forma de absoluta confidencialidad.
Background Questions: 
1. ¿Qué actividades suyas tiene que ver con los recursos marinos y costeros? 
2. ¿Cuáles son los problemas principales para lograr la conservación de estos recursos? 
3. ¿Uds. han participado en alguna manera en el proyecto MAREA? 
Evaluation Questions 
EQ4 
4. ¿Qué beneficios ha logrado MAREA? 
5. ¿Cree que estos beneficios van a durar? ¿Por qué?
6. ¿Cuánto y cómo se sabe del estado biológico del recurso marino? 
7. ¿Qué actividades de MAREA no ha dado resultados? ¿Por qué?
EQ3 
8. ¿Qué problemas fueron encontrados al ejecutar las actividades de MAREA? 
9. ¿Cómo podría evitar o resolver estos problemas? 
EQ2 
10. ¿Había factores que Ud. cree que MAREA no ha tomado en cuenta? 
11. ¿Qué características biológicas debe tomarse en cuenta en el manejo del recurso marino￾costero? 
EQ6 
12. ¿Cuáles fueron los roles de mujeres en las actividades de MAREA? ¿Han participado?
13. ¿Las actividades de MAREA han apoyado a las mujeres? ¿En qué manera?
EQ1 
14. ¿MAREA ha funcionado en una manera que permita lograr resultados importantes? 
15. ¿Habría cómo mejorar su manera de llevar a cabo sus actividades? 
EQ5 
16. ¿Qué actividades debe USAID apoyar en el futuro? ¿Por qué?
17. ¿En cuáles lugares debe USAID concentrar su apoyo futuro? ¿Por qué?
60
Data Collection Form – Key Informant Interview 
Name of Key Informant: 
Organization: 
Position: 
Telephone: 
Email: 
Team Member(s) Collecting Data: 
Date: 
County: 
Location: 
Interview Number: 
Background Questions 
1. ¿Qué actividades suyas tiene que ver con los recursos marinos y costeros? 
2. ¿Cuáles son los problemas principales con lograr la conservación de estos recursos? 
3. ¿Ud. ha participado en alguna manera en el proyecto MAREA? 
Evaluation Questions 
EQ4 
4. ¿Qué beneficios ha logrado MAREA? 
5. ¿Cree que estos beneficios van a durar? ¿Por qué?
6. ¿Cuánto y cómo se sabe del estado biológico del recurso marino? 
7. ¿Qué actividades de MAREA no han dado resultados? ¿Por qué?
EQ3 
8. ¿Qué problemas fueron encontrados en ejecutar las actividades de MAREA? 
9. ¿Cómo podría evitar o resolver estos problemas? 
EQ2 
10. ¿Había factores que Ud. cree que MAREA no ha tomado en cuenta? 
11. ¿Qué características biológicas debe tomarse en cuenta en el manejo del recurso marino-costero? 
EQ6 
12. ¿Qué fueron los roles de mujeres en las actividades de MAREA? ¿Han participado?
13. ¿Las actividades de MAREA han apoyado a las mujeres? ¿En qué manera?
EQ1 
14. ¿MAREA ha funcionado en una manera que permita lograr resultados importantes? 
15. ¿Habría cómo mejorar su manera de llevar a cabo sus actividades? 
EQ5 
16. ¿Qué actividades debe USAID apoyar en el futuro? ¿Por qué?
17. ¿En cuáles lugares debe USAID concentrar su apoyo futuro? ¿Por qué?
61
Local Survey Protocol 
USAID está llevando a cabo la evaluación final del Programa Regional para el Manejo de los Recursos 
Acuáticos Alternativas Económicas (MAREA). La evaluación tiene el propósito de analizar el diseño 
original del programa, identificar y analizar retos al nivel local, nacional y regional e identificar 
recomendaciones para proyectos futuros. El propósito de esta encuesta es recolectar datos de campo 
para complementar esta evaluación. La información entregada por Ud. será completamente confidencial. 
Muchas gracias. 
PERFIL DEL ENCUESTADOR 
1. Debe tener conocimiento del entorno local. 
2. Son responsables de su rendimiento y sus productos. Son responsables de la presentación clara, 
precisa y justa, de manera escrita, de las respuestas a las preguntas del cuestionario. 
3. Debe presentar información detallada, completa y justa de cada pregunta del cuestionario, para que 
las decisiones o medidas que se tomen con esta información tengan un buen fundamento. 
4. Deben proteger el anonimato y la confidencialidad de los informantes individuales. Deben 
minimizar las demandas de tiempo, y respetar el derecho de las personas de no participar. Los 
encuestadores deben respetar el derecho de las personas a suministrar información de forma 
confidencial y deben garantizar que la información confidencial no pueda rastrearse hasta su fuente. 
5. Deben ser sensibles a las creencias, maneras y costumbres, y actuar con integridad y honestidad en 
las relaciones con todos los interesados. Deben ser sensibles a las cuestiones de discriminación e 
igualdad de género, y abordar tales cuestiones. Deben evitar ofender la dignidad y autoestima de 
aquellas personas con las que están en contacto en el transcurso de las entrevistas. Gracias a que 
saben que las respuestas de los beneficiarios podría afectar negativamente los intereses de otros, 
los encuestadores deben realizarlas y comunicar el propósito de manera que respete claramente la 
dignidad y el valor propio de los interesados. 
6. Deben ser prudentes en el uso de los recursos de la evaluación. 
7. El mismo día que realizan las entrevistas deben: i) digitar las respuestas por entrevistado, en el 
programa que se les indique, para ser verificadas en línea. ii) escanear y enviar las encuestas 
originales. 
GUÍA PARA EL LLENADO DE LAS PREGUNTAS 
1. Escribir su nombre y fecha de la entrevista. 
2. Nombre completo del entrevistado. 
3. Lugar donde se lleva a cabo la entrevista con detalle de caserío, área, región, provincia y país. 
4. Número de personas que viven en la misma casa. 
5. Número de miembros de la familia que trabajan con el entrevistado. 
6. Pueden ser respuestas múltiples, ya que se pueden dedicar a varias actividades. 
7. Pueden ser respuestas múltiples, ya que se pueden desempeñar a varios niveles de actividad. 
8. Nombre completo de la organización y a qué se dedica dicha organización. 
9. Especificar cuántos días se dedica a la actividad y marcar con X si el dato brindado es por semana o 
mes. 
10. Responder si las actividades a las que se dedica actualmente (preguntas 6 y 7) son las mismas a las 
que se dedicaba anteriormente o ha cambiado de actividad. 
11. Año en que cambió a la actividad actual. 
12. Se refiere a que si ha recibido alguna ayuda directa del Proyecto MAREA. 
13. Se refiere a si ha habido cambios en los últimos 3 años. 
14. Se refiere a que se sus prácticas de manejo han cambiado debido a las ayudas de MAREA 
(preguntas 12 y 13). 
15. Se refiere a que si los cambios han traído mejoras para ellos o su entorno. 
62
16. Se refiere a problemas que han encontrado para realizar las mejores prácticas. 
17. Se refiere a que si sus ingresos se han incrementado debido a la adopción de las mejores prácticas 
descritas anteriormente y a la ayuda brindada por el proyecto MAREA. 
18. Es una estimación de cómo se han incrementado los ingresos, no debe ser un dato exacto, pero sí 
insistir en estimarlo (también especificar si más bien se ha disminuido su ingreso). 
19. Se refiere a qué actividades un nuevo proyecto podría apoyar con el fin de apoyar en la 
conservación de la biodiversidad (especialmente marina y costera). Podrían también incluirse 
actividades que los beneficie directa o indirectamente y que redunden en lograr el objetivo de 
conservación de la biodiversidad. 
Local Survey Instrument 
ENCUESTA PROYECTO MAREA 
Entrevistador ___________________ Fecha__________________ 
Lugar____________________ 
Nombre_____________________________ 
Cooperativa______________________________________ 
1. ¿Cuántos años ha vivido en este lugar? 
a) Menos de 1 año b) 5 a 10 años c) 10 a 30 años d) todo la vida 
2. ¿Cuántos son los miembros de familia que viven con Ud? _____ 
3. ¿Cuántos de estos tienen un ingreso? _____ 
4. ¿Cuántos miembros de su familia trabajan con usted? _________ 
5. ¿A cuál(es) actividad(es) se dedica Ud. ahora? 
a) Pesca de pargos/ meros/tiburón/langosta/conchas/caracoles b) Agricultura c) Jornalero 
d) Artesanal e) Profesional f) Manufactura g) Construcción h) Otra ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ ______ 
6. ¿A cuál(es) actividad(es) se dedicaba Ud. antes? 
a) Pesca de pargos/ meros/tiburón/langosta/conchas/caracoles b) Agricultura c) Jornalero 
d) Artesanal e) Profesional f) Manufactura g) Construcción h) Otra _______ 
7. ¿A qué nivele(s) de la(s) actividad(es) se encuentra? 
a) Dueño de barco b) Capitán c) Pescador bajo el mando del capitán 
d) Procesamiento e) Comercialización j) Otra _________ 
8. ¿Cuántas semanas al mes se dedica a esta(s) actividad(es)? 
a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 
9. ¿Durante cuántos años se ha dedicaba a esta actividad? 
a) Menos de 1 año b) 1 a 5 años c) más de 5 años 
10. ¿Ha cambiado su actividad en los últimos dos años? 
a) Sí b) No 
63
11. Si su respuesta es afirmativa, ¿por qué cambió de actividad? 
a) Para ganar más b) Ya no había el trabajo c) No le gustó el trabajo d) Se enfermó 
12. ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo trabaja en la nueva actividad? 
a) Menos de 1 año b) 1 a 5 años c) más de 5 años 
13. ¿Ha recibido alguna ayuda directa de MAREA? 
a) Sí b) No 
14. Si su respuesta es afirmativa, la ayuda de MAREA ha sido en: 
a) Equipo b) Capacitación c) Asistencia técnica d) Financiamiento e) Otra _________ 
15. ¿Los mercados para su producto han cambiado en los últimos dos años? 
a) Aumentado c) Disminuido c) Ningún cambio 
16. ¿Las regulaciones para su producto han cambiado en los últimos dos años? 
a) Aumentado c) Disminuido c) Ningún cambio 
17. ¿Cree Ud. que MAREA ha influenciado en estos cambios? 
a) Nada b) Poco c) Moderado d) Mucho 
18. En su opinión, los cambios en las regulaciones son: 
a) Innecesarios b) Necesarios c) Irrelevantes 
19. ¿MAREA ha afectado la cantidad de su producción? 
a) Ningún cambio b) Aumentado c) Disminuido 
20. ¿MAREA ha afectado la calidad de su producción?: 
a) Mejorar calidad b) Menor calidad c) Ninguno cambio 
21. ¿De qué manera MAREA ha afectado sus prácticas? 
a) Artes de pesca b) Zonas c) Profundidades d) Prácticas sanitarias e) Ninguna f) Otro _____________ 
22. ¿Qué dificultades ha encontrado para efectuar estas mejores prácticas? 
a) Equipo b) Capacitación c) Asistencia técnica d) Financiamiento e) Ninguno 
23. ¿En los últimos dos años sus ingresos se han: 
a) Reducido c) Mantenido c) Aumentado 
24. En los últimos dos años sus costos se han: 
a) Reducido c) Mantenido c) Aumentado 
25. ¿Mujeres participan en esta actividad cómo?: 
a) Dueña b) Capitán c) Trabajadora f) Procesadora g) Comercializadora h) Administradora i) Ninguna 
26. Para participar más en la actividad las mujeres necesitan: 
a) Equipo b) Capacitación c) Asistencia técnica d) Financiamiento e) Tiempo f) Otra______________ 
27. ¿Ud. tiene una manera de saber si la cantidad del recurso marino cambia? 
a) Sí b) No. Si sí, cuál es la manera: 
_____________________________________________________ 
28. ¿Cuáles de los siguientes cree Ud. que se requiere para conservar los recursos marino-costeros? 
a) Cambios en las prácticas b) Capacitación c) Cumplimiento de regulaciones d) Mejores ingresos f) 
Voluntad g) Otro _______________________________________________________ 
64
APPENDIX 7 – RESULTS, SUSTAINABILITY AND 
BENEFITS - ANALYTICAL TABLES 
Table 1 Policies and Laws – Activities 
Source: compiled from MAREA Activity Summary Sheets by Country 
Table 2 Policies and Laws - Performance Indicators 
No Statement of Performance Indicator Quantitative
(Planned
Actual
% of 
Planned)
1 Number of coastal and marine resources conservation and sustainable use policies and 
legislation drafted and presented
20
23
115%
2a Number of coastal and marine resources law monitoring and enforcement strategies 
drafted
5
5
100%
Country Policies and Laws Activities
Regional/Caribbean National/Pacific
Belize (1) Fisheries Act updated
(2) Inter-Sectorial Agenda for Fisheries/Envir.
(3) Guidelines research marine resources
(4) Closed season Nassau grouper
None
Guatemala (5) Closed season Nassau grouper
(6) Inter-Sectorial Agenda for Fisheries/Envir.
(7) National research strategy
(8) Strategy for sea turtles
(9) Regional Agenda for Fisheries/Envir
(10)Regional research strategy marine resource.
None
El Salvador (11) Fishing gears Gulf of Fonseca
(12) Protocols damage La Union coast. Res.
(13)Nat. policy for coastal resources
(14)Inter-Sectorial fisheries/environ. Agenda
(15) Coastal marine research strategy
(16) Conservation hawksbill turtle
(17)Access rights cockles
Honduras (18) Fisheries Act
(19)Regional ban Nassau grouper fishing
(20) Code of labor conduct Miskito fisheries
(21) Protocol for damage to coastal resources
(22) Harmonize fishery management
(23) Plan for cockles
(24)Assessment of cockles harvesting
(25)Assessment long line fishing
(26) Protocol damage coastal resource
Nicaragua (27)Management plan Cayos Miskitos
(28) Lobster diving closure
(29) Codes of labor conduct Miskito coast
(30)Regulation size cockle
(31)Regulation fish size
(32)Regulation mesh size
(33)Agreement closed seasons
Costa Rica (34)Inter-Sectorial agenda fisheries/envir.
(35)National research strategy marine resource
None
Panama (36)Management plan Damani Guanviara site
(37)Regulations for fishing
(38)Inter-Sectorial agenda for fisheries/environ
(39)National research strategy
None
65
No Statement of Performance Indicator Quantitative
(Planned
Actual
% of 
Planned)
2b Number of coastal and marine resources law monitoring and enforcement strategies 
implemented
No data
3 Number of countries implementing harmonized fisheries violation reporting system 3
3
100%
4 Number of people from fisheries and environment governmental and non-governmental 
institutions trained
1500
2,406
160%
5 Number of regional mechanisms implemented to foster research, providing peer 
reviewed information to sustainably manage coastal and
marine resources
1
2
200%
6 Number of technical/scientific articles on marine and coastal resource management 
developed with program support
30
51
170%
8a Number of countries adopting harmonized policies or best practices in sustainable 
shark fisheries
6
6
100%
8b Indicator 8. Number of countries implementing harmonized policies and best practices 
in sustainable shark fisheries
Same as 8a
14a Number of policies for coral reef and mangrove management to adapt and build 
resilience to climate change drafted, adopted
10
14
140%
14b Number of policies for coral reef and mangrove management to adapt and build 
resilience to climate implemented
No data
Source: compiled from MAREA M&E Plan and MAREA FY 2014 Draft Annual Report 
Table 3 Fishing - Activities 
Country Fishing Activities
Regional/Caribbean National/Pacific
Belize Training on access rights
Implement Nassau grouper plan
Licensing under access right mechanisms
Quota system for spiny lobster
Assessment of fishing in PHMR
Queen conch management plan
Nassau grouper management plan
Data base for artisanal fishery
Promoting access right mechanism for artisanal fisheries 
in PHMR
No-take zones in PHMR
Guatemala None Workshop on access rights
Implement Nassau grouper plan
El Salvador Management plan for mangrove cockle
Workshop in best practices/access rights
Implement mangrove cockle plan
Honduras Artisan lobster fishing for retired divers
Queen conch management plan
Grouper artisanal fishing
Robalo sustainable fishing
Access rights in Cayo Cochinos
Traceability system for lobster
Harmonization fishing management
Plan for mangrove cockles
Assessment of mangrove cockles
Assessment of long lines fishing
Nicaragua Management plan for lobster
Workshop on access rights
Fin fish diversification
Regulation catch size (shrimp/fish)
Regulation mesh size
Plan for cockles
66
Country Fishing Activities
Regional/Caribbean National/Pacific
Suripera nets for shrimp
Medusa fishing3
Harmonization fishing gear
Protocols for damage to coast
Costa Rica Gill nets for lobster fishing None
Panama Promote lobster fishing with traps
Promote suripera nets for shrimp
None
Source: compiled from MAREA Activity Summary Sheets by Country 
Table 4 Fishing – Performance Indicators 
No Performance Indicator Statement Quantitative
(Planned
Actual
% of 
Planned)
9 Number of artisan & industrial fisherpersons trained about best fisheries practices, with 
emphasis on rights- and/or market-based mechanisms
5,000
6,984
140%
10a Number of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), catch-shares, or rights-based mechanisms 
established for strengthened best fisheries practices on target species
10
12
120%
10b Number of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), catch-shares, or rights-based mechanisms 
implemented for strengthened best fisheries practices on target species
unknown
11 Percentage of total harvest of target species under rights-based Mechanisms 25%
39%
157%
13 Percent decrease in the volume of juvenile lobsters harvested as the result of program 
interventions at two program sites
164,102
201,650
123%
Source: compiled from MAREA M&E Plan and MAREA FY 2014 Draft Annual Report 
Table 5 Economic Alternatives - Activities 
Country Economic Alternatives Activities
Regional/Caribbean National/Pacific
Belize None Strengthen Placencia Prod. Coop
Pig prod. Sarteneja Fish. Ass.
Track lobster sales Glover’s Reef
Guatemala Strengthen fishermen Ass. Barra Sarstun
Training production practices
None
El 
Salvador
Legal gears Gulf of Fonseca
Sale from responsible fishing
Business plans ACOPACIFICO, Bocana 
Lempa
Link ASPESCU w Walmart
Scientific tourism
Honduras Online marketing platform
Management practices w. National Geogr.
Fishing practices in Karataska lagoon
Sea bass fishing for retired scuba divers
Tourism with ridley turtle
Improved fishing practices
Strengthen Coyolito fish center
Training in processing fish
 
3
 The evaluation team visited jellyfish which had landed on beaches and the KAUMA plant where they were being 
processed where jellyfish were identified for potential export to China, though MAREA had said that the target 
market as Japan. 
67
Country Economic Alternatives Activities
Regional/Caribbean National/Pacific
Shrimp for retired lobster divers
Boat manufacturing retired lobster divers
Strengthen fishing cooperatives
Nicaragua Lobster traps
Conversion of Copescharly lobster fleets
Improve cold chain Wawa Bar & Krukira
Foster artisanal-commerce link
Cockle cocktails El Rosario
Commercial links/best practices
Costa 
Rica
Handmade traps artisanal lobster fishing
Artisanal suriperas for shrimp nets
Commercial links
None
Panama Fish culture in cages
Geoturism platform
Turtle tourism
Artisanal shrimp suriperas
None
Source: compiled from MAREA Activity Summary Sheets by Country 
Table 6 Economic Alternatives – Performance Indicators 
No Performance Indicator Statement Quantitative
(Planned
Actual
% of 
Planned)
16 Number of labor standards, manuals, codes, or guidelines drafted and validated with local 
communities, the private sector, and governmental officials in the Miskito Coast of Honduras 
and Nicaragua
2
2
100%
17 Number of households benefitting from productive pilot projects in the Miskito Coast of 
Honduras and Nicaragua
1,250
1,780
142%
18 Number of disabled fishermen or household members of disabled fishermen in the Miskito 
Coast trained in business or productive skill
900
1,512
168%
19 Value (in USD) of non-US government funds leveraged to co-finance conservation efforts or 
productive projects in sustainable fisheries, sustainable tourism, and arts and crafts
6,000,000
8,369,420
139%
20 Value (in USD) of additional sales of products or services that can be directly attributed to the 
activity interventions and which support conservation and/or sustainable use efforts
8,000,000
9,999,762
125%
Source: compiled from MAREA M&E Plan and MAREA FY 2014 Draft Annual Report 
Table 7 Species and Ecosystems - Activities 
Country Species and Ecosystems Activities
Regional/Caribbean Pacific/Gulfs
Belize Adaptation plan for climate change
Vulnerability analysis for climate change
Adaptation plan for climate 
change
No take zones in PHMR
Guatemala Assessment marine turtles
Climate Change (CC) plans Sarstun, Punta de Manabique
Vulnerability analysis Gulf Honduras
Adaptation strategy Gulf Honduras
None
68
Source: compiled from MAREA Activity Summary Sheets by Country 
Table 8 Species and Ecosystems – Performance Indicators 
# Performance Indicator Statement Quantitative
(Planned
Actual
% of Planned)
7a Number of plans drafted or updated for management of target species 5
8
160%
7b Number of plans implemented for management of target species No data
12 Number of sea turtle hatchlings protected and released 1,500,000
1,606,565
107%
Table 9 Communications - Activities 
Country Communication Activities
Regional/Caribbean Gulf
Belize None Awareness shark fisheries
Guatemala None Awareness seafood Izabal
El Salvador Awareness shark fisheries Diffusion cockle plan
Diffusion local plan oysters
Honduras Awareness shark fisheries Diffusion cockle plan
Diffusion hawksbill proposal
Nicaragua Diffusion plan, N. grouper, conch, lobster Campaign fisheries measures Gulf of 
Fonseca (GOF)
Diffusion fishing gear GOF
Costa Rica Tourism conduct turtle beaches None
Panama Tourist conduct Isla Bastimentos designed
Tourism conduct codes turtle beaches
Awareness seafood consumption
Awareness National Geographic Geo-tourism
Workshops tour guides & craftsmen
None
Source: compiled from MAREA Activity Summary Sheets by Country
Nassau grouper management plan
Queen Conch management plan
CC adaptation plan
El Salvador Management plan cockle G Fonseca
Conservation plan hawksbill turtle
Conservation hawksbill turtle
Conservation hawksbill turtle
Honduras CC adaptation plan
CC adaptation plan national authorities
Management PA: Bay Island, Cayos Cochinos
Cayos Cochinos Management Plan
Co-management Bay Islands fishermen
Marine turtles strategy
National Turtle Strategy
Recovery plan hawksbill turtle
Nicaragua Management plan Cayos Miskitos
Critical habitat lobster
Mangrove restoration
Communication sharks
Costa Rica 89,437 turtle hatchlings released None
Panama 1.3 million turtle hatchlings released
Comange. Mech. Damani Guariviara
Ngobe-Bugle turtle management plan
None
69
APPENDIX 8 – TOOL TO ANALYZE MAREA’s ASSUMPTIONS
Assumption Held 
true
Influ￾ence
Future 
Program
Comments
1. Absence of an unstable 
socio-political environment 
such as armed or violent 
regional and/or local conflicts
Partially Yes Yes There has been an unstable socio-political 
environment, associated largely with illegal 
migration, drug trafficking and criminal gangs in 
all or some of several of the Central American 
countries. Lobster divers use marijuana to 
dampen pain from the bends and Pt. Lempira 
is a center for drug trafficking. Drugs are 
transported from Guatemala through Belize 
coastal waters.
2. Generally stable fiscal 
and monetary policies and 
macro-economic environments
Partially No Yes Prices for seafood vary considerably and 
unpredictably affecting the profit margin of 
enterprises based on the capture, processing 
and export of sea food.
3. Willingness of local 
and national governments to 
effect change and reform, in 
particular to rights based 
mechanisms
No Yes Yes Some parts of local and national governments 
may be will while other parts may not be 
wiling. Even if willing, many local and national 
governments lack the capacity to effect change 
and reform in terms of personnel, technical 
skills, and budget. Political and financial 
interests frequently block attempts by parts of 
local and national governments to effect 
change and reform.
4. Full support of regional 
organizations, Central American 
Integration System (SICA), 
Regional Fisheries and 
Aquaculture Organization 
(OSPESCA), and the Central 
American Commission for 
Environment and Development 
(CCAD)
Partially Yes Yes Decisions made by SICA, OSPESCA and 
CCAD are made by the respective ministers 
of each member country not by the staff of 
these organizations. Ministers almost always 
represent the specific interests of their own 
countries not the common interests of all the 
member countries. Therefore, the interests 
of the member countries have to coincide 
closely for these organizations to fully support 
conservation actions. It is not frequent that 
the ministers place conservation interests 
before other of their country’s interests so it 
is difficult for policies, laws and regulations for 
all of the members to be approved.
5. Absence of any sudden 
supply or demand shocks such 
as energy price shocks that 
would interrupt coastal and 
marine activities
No Yes Yes Fuel costs are generally the largest expense 
for fishing enterprises so a rise in the price of 
fuel will generally greatly affect activities that 
require the operation of fishing boats. When 
the cost of fuel goes up it is likely that the 
pressure on more distant sources of fish will 
decrease while the pressure on less distant 
sources of fish will increase. Therefore, higher 
fuel prices are likely to increase the 
exploitation of coastal fisheries. Increased 
conflict between industrial and artisanal fishers 
is therefore more likely when fuel prices rise.
70
Assumption Held 
true
Influ￾ence
Future 
Program
Comments
6. Accomplishment and 
enforcement of regional binding 
agreements under SICA
Partially Yes Yes See comment under (4).
7. Absence of 
internationally imposed 
measures that would have 
detrimental effect on the 
general political and economic 
stability in Central American 
countries such as internationally 
imposed sanctions
Partially Yes Yes Internationally imposed measures affected 
implementation of MAREA in Honduras and 
would affect any future project as well.
8. That the Program will 
encourage shared agendas by 
adding to existing regional 
processes
Yes Yes Yes This is not an assumption but a statement of 
how the program should operate. MAREA 
did succeed in establishing shared agendas and 
adding to existing regional processes.
9. The Ministries of 
Environment and Agriculture in 
the region support the Program 
and provide required 
information
Partially Yes Yes The ministries with responsibility for fishing 
have tended to more involved with MAREA 
than the ministries of environment or 
agriculture. The metrics for determining the 
degree of support of ministries for the 
Program are difficult to determine so there 
are few objective data upon which to evaluate 
this MAREA assumption.
71
APPENDIX 9 – ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 
Strategic Objective 1: Promote effective monitoring and enforcement of coastal and 
marine resources policies and legislation with an emphasis on compliance
Analysis and Comments
Result 1. All Central American 
Countries Adopt and Implement 
Harmonized Best Management 
Practices for the Sustainable Use of 
Target Coastal and Marine 
Resources (Grouper, Spiny 
Lobster, Queen Conch, Mangrove 
Cockle)
1. Number of coastal and marine resources conservation and 
sustainable use policies and legislation drafted and 
presented*
2. Number of coastal and marine resources law monitoring 
and enforcement strategies drafted and implemented
3. Number of countries implementing harmonized fisheries 
violation reporting system
4. Number of people from fisheries and environment 
governmental and non-governmental institutions trained*
5. Number of regional mechanisms implemented to foster 
research, providing peer reviewed information to sustainably 
manage coastal and marine resources
6. Number of technical/scientific articles on marine and 
coastal resource management developed with program 
support
7. Number of plans drafted or updated and implemented for 
management of target species
1. “Policies and Legislation” do not usually and should not go 
into detail about “Best Management Practices”
2. “Drafted” and “implemented” are quite different. The first 
is much easier to measure than the second
3. It is unclear how “number of countries implementing 
harmonized fisheries violation reporting system is defined”
4. Not clear what “number of people trained” has to do with 
the Result 1
5. Not clear what “regional mechanisms” to foster research 
has to do with Result 1
6. Not clear what “number of technical/scientific” articles has 
to do with Result 1
7. Number of plans drafted or updated is very different than 
“number of plans implemented”
Result 4. All Central American 
countries adopt and implement 
harmonized policies on sustainable 
shark fisheries
8. Number of countries adopting and implementing 
harmonized policies and best practices in sustainable shark 
fisheries
1. No PI
Strategic Objective 2: Foster rights-based and market-based mechanisms and management 
incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine fisheries resources 
and ecosystems, with an emphasis on ecosystem-based approaches to management
Result 2. From a 2009 baseline value 
in US$, at least 25% of product sold of 
combined target species is harvested 
under rights-based management 
regimes and best fisheries
9. Number of artisan and industrial fishermen trained on 
best fisheries practices, with emphasis on rights and/or 
market based mechanisms*
1. The baseline value in US$ is not provided and its potential
source is not indicated
2. The number of fishermen trained does not indicate much 
about the result
3. Measuring the implementation of best fisheries practices 
accurately must be very difficult
72
10. Number of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), 
catch-shares, or rights-based mechanisms, established and 
implemented for strengthened best fisheries practices on 
target species
11. Percentage of sales of harvest of target species under 
rights-based mechanisms and /or best fisheries practices*
Result 3. At least 1.5 million sea 
turtle hatchlings are protected using 
public-private alliances and best 
management practices in select areas 
throughout Central America
12. Number of sea turtle hatchlings protected and 
released
1. Result 3 is stated as a PI, is difficult to differentiate from PI 
12, and is not obviously linked to SO 2
Result 5. Decreased landings of 
juvenile lobsters due to the 
implementation of improve fishing 
practices as result of program 
interventions
13. Decrease in the Number of Juvenile Lobsters 
Harvested as the Result of Program Interventions at Two 
Program Sites
1. Result and PI say the same thing
Result 6. All Central American 
countries adopt and implement 
harmonized policies for coral reef and 
mangrove management as critical 
ecosystems to adapt and build 
resilience to climate change
14. Number of policies or plans for coral reef and 
mangrove management to adapt and build resilience to 
climate change drafted, adopted, or implemented
1. Refers to policies so would be better placed under SO 1
15. Number of hectares of biological significance and/or 
natural resources under improved natural resource 
management as a result of USG assistance (USAID 
Standard Indicator 4.8.1-26)*
Result 7. At least two (2) labor 
standard manuals, codes, or 
guidelines drafted and validated with 
local communities, the private sector, 
and governmental officials
16. Number of labor standard, manuals, codes, or 
guidelines drafted and validated
1. Result and PI say about the same thing
Result 8. Sustainable and productive 
pilot projects formulated and 
implemented in Honduran and 
Nicaraguan Miskito Coast, which 
allow active lobster scuba divers, to 
move on to appropriate new jobs, 
with improved labor conditions and 
earnings, in substitution to the 
SCUBA lobster fishery
17. Number of families benefitting from productive pilot 
projects in the Miskito Coast of Honduras and Nicaragua
1. Result 8 refers specifically to scuba divers and number of 
productive projects while PI 17 refers to number of 
families without reference to scuba divers or pilot projects
73
Result 9. At least nine hundred (900) 
disabled SCUBA fishermen or 
members of their families trained on 
new skills and abilities to start their 
own businesses or gain employment 
through alternative economic 
activities, earning higher revenues in 
Gracias a Dios Department, 
Honduras and in the North Atlantic 
Autonomous Region (RAAN) in 
Nicaragua
18. Number of disabled fishermen or family members of 
disabled fishermen trained in business or productive skills*
1. Result statement has two different results
2. PI does not measure result in terms of new businesses 
started or higher revenues
Result 10. No less than US$6 million 
leveraged to co finance productive 
projects proposals from sustainable 
fisheries, sustainable tourism, and 
arts and crafts; in alliance and 
coordination with other financial 
institutions and the private sector
19. Value (USD) of non-USG financed conservation efforts 
leveraged, payment for environmental services, or 
additional revenues provided for conservation by 
governments and the private sector*
Result 11. No less than US$8 million 
in additional sales of products and 
services generated as a result of the 
implementation of the productive 
projects and business plans on 
sustainable fisheries, sustainable 
tourism and arts and crafts; 
implemented with associations and 
cooperatives in the Program's sites
20. Value (USD) of additional sales of products or services 
that can be directly attributed to the activity interventions 
and which support conservation and/or sustainable use 
efforts*
1. The amount of sales does not equal the amount of profit 
for target population
74
APPENDIX 10 – SOURCES OF INFORMATION 
Table 10: Counts of Original Data by Type and Country 
Country Key 
Informant 
Interviews
(KII)
Focus Groups
Discussions 
(FGD)
Field 
Observations
(FO)
Validation 
Workshops 
(VW)
Surveys
Belize 10 0 3 1 0
Guatemala 10 0 0 1 0
El Salvador 17 1 3 1 2
Honduras 9 3 2 1* 1
Nicaragua 21 1 2 1 1
Costa Rica 9 1 0 1 1
Panama 1 2 1 1* 1
TOTAL 77 8 11 7 6
* Validation Workshops were organized and held in Honduras and Panama but no invitees were able to attend. 
Acronyms regarding sources of information 
Throughout the document, sources are cited in data collection tool, country, number of interviewee 
format. For example the twenty-second key informant in Honduras would be cited as “KIH22.” The 
data sources cited are key informants (KI), focus group discussions (FG), validation workshops (VW), 
and field observations (FO) in the following countries: Belize (B), Nicaragua (NI), Honduras (HO), El 
Salvador (ES), Guatemala (GU), Costa Rica (CR), and Panama (PA). Transcripts of all data sources 
are submitted to USAID separately. 
Table 11. Informants Disaggregated by 
Sex and by Country
Country Men Women Total
Belize 6 5 11
Costa Rica 7 4 11
El Salvador 14 7 21
Guatemala 6 2 8
Honduras 16 5 21
Nicaragua 5 7 12
Panama 1 0 1
Total 55 30 85
Percentage 65% 35% 100%
75
Key Informants 
Belize 
Name Affiliation
1. Lynette Williams The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
2. Vicent Gilert Coastal Resource Management
3. Chantelle Clarke-Samuels Coastal Resource Management
4. Justino Méndez Palencia Producers Cooperative
5. Lowell Godfrey Palencia Producers Cooperative
6. Armando Ramírez Rio Grande Fisherman’s Cooperative
7. Narcisio Martínez Port Honduras Marine Park
8. Erin Garbult Port Honduras Marine Park
9. Allan Holiday Port Honduras Marine Park
10.Martin Reyes (fisherman)
11. Luis Valencia (fisherman)
12. Hannah Martínez Government of Belize, Forest Department
13. Resheda García Government of Belize, Forest Department
14. Julio Maaz Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Costa Rica 
Name Affiliation
1.Ana Ramírez Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICT)
2.Greimer Ramos-Loría Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA)
3.Édgar Gutiérrez Ministry of Environment, Energy and Seas (MINAE)
4.Jenny Ash Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC)
5.Ivo Orellana
Alianza Trinacional para la Conservación del Golfo de Honduras
(TRIGOH)/MAREA
6.Didier Chacón Wide Cast
7.Andreas Lehnhoff WWF
8.Maria Amalia Porta WWF
El Salvador 
Name Organization
1.Zulma Ricord de Mendoza MAREA
2.Sergio Martínez MAREA
3.Augusto Rosales MAREA
4.Mario González
Organización del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola de del Istom 
Centroamericano (OSPESCA)
5.José Francisco Pone Bonilla Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales de la Playa El Cuco
6.Santos Arias Fuentes Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales de la Playa El Cuco
7.Rafael Fernández Marinex Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales de la Playa El Cuco
8.William Alexander Melgar Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales de la Playa El Cuco
9.Héctor Fuentes MAREA
10.Gertrude Molina EcoPacifico
11.Mike Liles Eastern Pacific Hawksbill Initiative (ICAPO)
12.Emilio Armando Chavarea ICAPO
76
13.José Ovideo Perdomo Nieto ICAPO
14.Daniel Antonio Merlo ICAPO
15.Annie Henríquez ICAPO
16.María Leonor Batres Cooperativa Las Aguilas
17.Neptoli Sánchez ICAPO
18.Luis Ramos USAID
19.Néstor Windevoxhel Chemonics/MAREA
20.Chista Castro
Central American Commission for Environment and Development 
(CCAD)
21. Claudia de Ibanez Walmart 
Guatemala 
Name Affiliation
1.Colum Muccio ARCAS
2.Juan Carlos Villagrán MAREA
3.Silja Ramírez Fundación para el Ecodesarrollo y la Conservación (FUNDAECO)
4.Manuel Cifuentes DIGIPESCA
5.Mario Díaz Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN)
6.Andreas Lehnhoff WWF
7.María Amalia Porta WWF
8.Ivo Orellana TRIGOH/MAREA
Honduras 
Name Affiliation
1.Harry Davis (independent volunteer)
2.Neris Meptali Zelaya Habila Asociación para la Protección de la Tortuga Delfina (ASPROTOGOLVE)
3.Gabriala Ochoa UNDP
4.Augusto Rosales MAREA
5.Abetnico Waldan Dakni Tak Aslika
6.Geraldo Ambrosio Trino Asociación Miskitos Hondureños Buzos Lisiados
7.Juan Molinox Dias Sabino Asociación Miskitos Hondureños Buzos Lisiados
8.Anna Innes Osorio MIMAT
9.Sayri Molina GOAL
10.Celina Zepeda TNC
11.Marsio Aronne Fundación Cayos Cochinos
12.Ian Drysdale Healthy Reefs
13.Perla Quezada (previously with MAREA)
14.Roosevelt F. Terry Laing Perlas de Mar
15.Sotero Medina Solitur
16.Henry Haylock KAUMA
17.Geovanni Lee (entrepreneur)
18.Giacomo Palavicini Roatan Marine Park
19.Rodolfo Alvarez PRONEGOCIOS
20.Peter Hearne United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
21.Miguel Angel Suazo DIGEPESCA
77
Nicaragua 
Name Organization
1.Jaxier Sánchez Cámara de la Pesca de Nicaragua (CAPENIC)
2.Armando Segura CAPENIC
3.Milton Castrillo MAREA
4.Angel Montenegro Bancentro
5.Liza González Paso Pacífico
6.María Engracia de Trinidad Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE)
7.Dana Padilla Morales INATEC
8.José Antonio Curvina Olivas INATEC
9.Nelda Sánchez MAREA
10.Carlos Goff Coopecharly
11.Nytzae Dixon Webb SERENA
12.Roger Rocha SERENA
13.Patricia Martínez SERENA
14.Ana Isabel Morales Solórzano SERENA
Panama 
Name Organization
1.Javier Machazeck Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá(ARAP)
78
Organizations Represented at Validation Workshops 
City Name Organization
Belize City, Belize George Myvett Fisheries Department
Belize City, Belize Adriel Castaneda Fisheries Department
Belize City, Belize Isaías Majil Fisheries Department
Belize City, Belize Jamal Galves Fisheries Department
Belize City, Belize Kleon Coleman Coastal Zone Management
Belize City, Belize Roberto Pott Healthy Reef for Healthy People
Belize City, Belize Madi Bood World Wildlife Fund
Guatemala City, Guatemala Colum Muccio ARCAS
Guatemala City, Guatemala María Amalia Dorta WWF
Guatemala City, Guatemala Marco Tax Marroquin CONAP
Guatemala City, Guatemala Vanessa Dávila CONAP
Managua, Nicaragua Ángela Cárdenas USAID/Nicaragua
Managua, Nicaragua Annie de Valencia USAID/El Salvador
Managua, Nicaragua Sergio Martínez MAREA
Panama City, Panama Amada Noriega Ministerio de Desarrollo 
Agropecuario (MIDA)
Panama City, Panama Kate Skasten US State Department
San Jose, Costa Rica David Martínez FECOP (Costa Rican Fishing 
Federation)
San Jose, Costa Rica Jacklyn Rivera Wong Ministerio del Ambiente, Energía y 
Telecomunicaciones (VAM-MINAET)
San Jose, Costa Rica Ricardo Meneses SINAC (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de 
Conservación)
San Jose, Costa Rica Diego Acosta US Embassy
San Jose, Costa Rica Carolina Ovares CEDARENA
San Salvador, El Salvador Mike Liles ICAPO
San Salvador, El Salvador Luis Ramos USAID
San Salvador, El Salvador Mario González OSPESCA
San Salvador, El Salvador Reynaldo Morales OSPESCA
San Salvador, El Salvador Mariano Paca FIAES (Fondo Iniciativa para las 
Américas)
San Salvador, El Salvador Néstor Windelvoxhen MAREA
San Salvador, El Salvador Zulma de Mendoza MAREA
Tegucigalpa, Honduras N/A N/A
79
APPENDIX 11 – TEAM’s FIELD TRAVEL ITINERARY 
BK: Bruce Kernan (Team Leader); RR: Robin Rackowe (Fisheries Expert); JG: Julio Guzman (Environmental 
Market Economist); VR: Virginia Reyes (Technical Logistics Coordinator/Economist) 
Date Location Activity
September 2, 2014 El Salvador BK: Arrival in San Salvador
September 2-5, 2014 El Salvador BK: Kick off meeting with USAID, start of document 
review, Chemonics
September 5, 2014 El Salvador RR: Arrival in San Salvador
September 5-8, 2014 El Salvador BK and RR document review
September 8, 2014 El Salvador JG and VR arrival in San Salvador
September 8-11, 2014 El Salvador BK, RR, JG, RR draft Methodology and Work Plan
JG: Arrival in Costa Rica
September 11, 2014 El Salvador Submission of Methodology and Work Plan
September 12, 2014 Costa Rica VR: Arrival in Costa Rica
September 15-19, 2014 El Salvador, 
Honduras, Nicaragua
BK, RR: Travel to Gulf of Fonseca; Survey in Jiquilisco 
Bay
September 19-21, 2014 San Salvador BK, RR: Edits to Methodology and Work Plan
September 21, 2014 Honduras BK, RR: Arrival in Tegucigalpa
September 22, 2014 Honduras, Nicaragua BK, RR: Arrival in Puerto Lempira
VR: Arrival in Managua
September 22-24, 2014 Honduras, Nicaragua BK, RR: Survey in Puerto Lempira
VR: Survey in Puerto Cabezas
September 25-27, 2014 Honduras BK, RR: Travel to Roatan; Conduct Surveys
September 28, 2014 Honduras BK, RR: Roatan to Tegucigalpa
September 29, 2014 Honduras BK: Validation Workshop in Tegucigalpa
September 30, 2014 Belize, Costa Rica, 
Panama
BK and RR: Arrival in Belmopan
VR: Arrival in Bocas del Toro
September 30 –
October 3, 2014
Costa Rica, Panama VR: Survey in Bocas del Toro
October 1, 2014 Belize BK and RR: Validation Workshop in Belize
October 3-6, 2014 Belize BK and RR: Survey in Punta Gorda
October 6, 2014 El Salvador BK and RR: Return to El Salvador; Draft Final Report
October 8, 2014 Panama JG: Travel to Panama City to host Validation 
Workshop; return the same day
October 9, 2014 Costa Rica, 
Guatemala, Nicaragua 
BK: Travel to Guatemala City to host Validation 
Workshop; return the same day; RR: Travel to 
Managua to host Validation Workshop; return the same 
day; JG: Hosts Validation Workshop in San Jose
October 10, 2014 US RR: Return to US
October 10-13, 2014 El Salvador, Costa 
Rica
BK, RR, JG, VR conduct data analysis, draft findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations
October 13, 2014 El Salvador VR: Arrival in San Salvador
BK and VR host Validation Workshop in San Salvador
October 14, 2014 El Salvador BK and VR debrief USAID; both travel back to home 
countries
80
APPENDIX 12 – DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX 
Document
Evaluation Question 1 Design
EQ
2
Assumptions
Hold true?
EQ
3 implementation
Challenges and local vs. National 
levels
EQ
4
Sustainable benefits
EQ
5
CCAW CCAD
Future investment?
EQ
6
Gender
Notes
Arenas Granados, Pedro; Humberto Garcés B, 
2009. Diagnóstico de la Gestión del Litoral en la República de 
Panamá. Red IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz. pp 72-90
X X X X
Reviews institutions, laws, regulations in Panama
Barragan Munoz, J M (coord.), 2012. Manejo Costero 
Integrado en Iberoamérica: Diagnóstico y Propuestas 
para una nueva Política Pública. Red IBERMAR 
(CYTED), Cádiz. 152 p
X X X
Examination of government capabilities
BIOMARCC-USAID, 2013. Vulnerabilidad y Escenarios 
Bioclimaticos de los Sistemas Marino-Costeros a nivel del 
Caribe Centroamericano. San José, Costa Rica. 80 p
X
Regional, intergovernmental perspectives on 
climate change
Cortés, Jorge and Ingo S. Wehrtmann 2009 Marine 
Biodiversity of Central America, Costa Rica, Springer 
Science + Business Media B.V. 500 pp
X
Detailed lists of native aquatic life of Central 
America
Dominguez, J. P. 2011. Caracterización biofísica del área 
marina frente a Playa Las Tunas, Playas Negras, Playas 
Blancas, Playa Maculís, y las Mueludas, Municipio de 
Conchagua, Departamento de La Unión, El Salvador. 
X
Includes geologic, topographic, biological and 
chemical understandings of coastal areas of El 
Salvador
81
USAID/IMCCW, San Salvador, El Salvador
Eckert, K. L., K. A. Bjorndal, F. A. Abreu-Grobois, 
and M. Donnelly (Editors). 1999. Research and 
Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. 
IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Pub. No. 4
X
Comprehensive guidance on development of 
conservation programs for sea turtles, numerous 
authors
Fondo de la Iniciativa para las Américas, 2012. 
Proyectos de Cooperación en el Golfo de Fonseca. 39 p X X
General policy views on shared programming in 
Fonseca
Gaos, Alexander R. et al. Signs of hope in the eastern Pacific: 
international collaboration reveals encouraging status for a 
severely depleted population of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys 
imbricate
X
Inter-American Development Bank. 2006. 
Documento del Proyecto. Gestión integrada de los 
ecosistemas del Golfo de Fonseca BID-RS-X1015
X
Liles Michael J. Hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata in El 
Salvador: nesting distribution and mortality at the largest 
remaining nesting aggregation in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 
Endangered species research Vol. 14: 23–30, 2011 doi: 
10.3354/esr00338
X X
MAREA 2011a. Diagnóstico sobre el Estado de 
Aprovechamiento del Recurso Conchas Negras(Anadara 
tuberculosa y Anadara similis) en la Costa Pacífica de 
Nicaragua. 45 p
X X X
Mechanisms to improve community participation 
in processes of use and management
MAREA, 2011b. La Propuesta del Plan de Manejo de la 
Langosta Espinosa del Caribe Centroamericano (Panulirus 
argus). 47 p
X X X
Detailed analysis of the lobster fishery and the 
proposed Management Plan
MAREA, 2011c. Plan para la Recuperación y Manejo del 
Caracol Gigante (Strombus gigas) en el Golfo de Honduras 
y las Islas de la Bahía. 38 p
X
MAREA, 2012a. Caracterización General de Siete 
Especies Marino-costeras de Importancia Estratégica en 
Centro América. 37 p
MAREA, 2012b. Manual de Buenas Practicas Pesqueras 
para la Langosta Espinosa (Panulirus argus). 55 p
X
82
MAREA, 2014a. Perfil de Sitio Cauita-Bocas del Toro, 
Costa Rica-Panamá. 6 p X X X X X
MAREA, 2014b. Perfil de Sitio Costa Miskita, Nicaragua. 
7 p X
MAREA, 2014c. Perfil de Sitio Costa Miskitos e Islas de la 
Bahía, Honduras. 8 p X X x
Increased the income of more than 1,024 
fishermen and their families by the sale of lobster, 
shrimp, finfish and jellyfish as part of the 
alternatives to diving in Honduras
MAREA, 2014d. Perfil de Sitio Golfo de Fonseca, El 
Salvador - Honduras - Nicaragua. 6 p X X X X
Walmart and Super Selectos generated $1.5 
million revenue for communities
MAREA, 2014e. Perfil de Sitio Golfo de Honduras, Belice 
- Guatemala - Honduras. 6 p X X X X X
Details pigs, production chickens to benefit 10 
fishermen. Legal and policy training of govt 
officials
MAREA, undated, Plataforma Virtual de Geo Turismo: 
Go Blue Central America. 2 p. 
http://www.gobluecentralamerica.org/
X X X
Promotes tourism or understanding of protected 
areas that have international observation
MAREA, undated. Balance de los Mares - El Magnífico 
Tiburón está Amenazado. 1 p X X X
MAREA, 2014f. Cifras que Hablan: Principales Resultados 
del Programa Regional de USAID a Marzo 2014, in English 
and Spanish. 2 p
X X
MAREA, undated. Estrategia del Comprador. 2 p X X X
MAREA, undated. Estrategia Integral y Herramientas de 
Intervencion. 2 p
X
MAREA, undated. Historia de Éxito: Cadena de Frío, el 
Eslabón que Faltaba… 2 p
X X X X Refrigeration benefits for supply chain in local 
community
MAREA, undated. Historia de Éxito: Derecho a Cultivar 
el Mar, Granjas de Pargos. 2 p
X X X X X Floating fish cages. Production chickens to 
benefit 10 fishermen. More than half cooperative 
are women
MAREA, undated. Historia de Éxito: Derechos y Valor 
Agregados al Curil : Cocteles. 2 p
X X X Mangrove cockles processed in the form of 
cocktails, the income achieved was reportedly 
1,050% greater per dozen
MAREA, undated. Historia de Éxito: Pesca Sostenible en 
el Golfo de Fonseca. 2 p
X X X X More than 12,000 fishermen are implementing 
improved fishing practices
MAREA, undated. Historia de Éxito: Transformando 
Pesca de Langosta por Buceo. 2 p
X X
83
MAREA, undated. Historia de Éxito: Turistas Pagan por 
Tortugas en El Venado. 2 p
X X
MAREA, undated. Management Measures for Best Fishing 
Practices of Grouper in the Caribbean Sea, and the Pacific 
Ocean, in Central America. 2 p
X X
MAREA, undated. Medidas de Ordenación para Buenas 
Practicas en la Pesquería en Centroamérica de: Tiburones 2 
p – Langosta Espinosa 2 p – Pargos 2 p – Caracol Reina 2 p –
Meros 2 p
X X X X
MAREA, undated. Medidas de Ordenación para Buenas 
Practicas en la Extracción de Curiles en el Golfo de Fonseca, 
Centroamérica. 2 p
X X
MAREA, 2010 Regional Plan for the Conservation and 
Management of the Nassau Grouper X X X
Nassau Grouper traditional sites disappearing, 
lives in Caribbean shallow coral reefs. New 
regulations and monitoring progress in Gulf of 
Honduras including spawning sites as marine 
reserves
MAREA, undated. Pesca de Camarón por Suriperas: 
Promoción de una Pesquería Mejorada en Centroamérica 2 p X
MAREA, undated. Programa Regional para el Manejo de 
Recursos Acuáticos y Alternativas Económicas. 4 p X
MAREA, undated. Promoción de Mejores Prácticas de 
Pesca en Centroamérica: Alternativas Económicas. 2 p. X
MAREA, 2013 Proposal for an Intersectorial Agenda for 
Fisheries and Environment in Belize Chemonics X X X
Working group review of legal co-management 
setting in Belize. “Belize has 10 marine protected 
areas which are administered by the Fisheries 
Department and the Forest Department, in 
partnership with a number of NGOs, including 
the Southern Environmental Association, Toledo 
Institute for Development and Environment 
(TIDE), the Belize Audubon Society, as well as 
with smaller community-based organizations such 
as Sarteneja Alliance for Conservation and 
Development, Forest and Marine Reserve 
Association of Caye Caulker and Friends of 
Swallow Caye” “Government should also invest 
in capacity building of personnel to ensure 
84
compliance and adherence to international 
environmental standards”
MAREA, undated. Summary of Programmed and 
Implemented Activities up to January 2014, Guatemala 2 p –
Belice 2 p – Nicaragua 2 p – Costa Rica 2 p – Honduras 2 p 
– Panama 2 p – El Salvador 2 p
X X X
MAREA, undated. Transformación de la flota industrial de la 
pesca de la langosta por buceo a pesca con nasas en la Costa de 
Misquitos de Honduras y Nicaragua. 2 p
X X X
MAREA. 2014g. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, updated 
Version June 2014 X X X
Critical for evaluation report
Morales Ramírez, Álvaro; Margarita Silva Benavides: 
Carmen González Gairaud, 2009. La Gestión Integrada 
de la Zona Costera en Costa Rica: Experiencia y Perspectivas. 
Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en 
Iberoamérica: un Diagnóstico. Necesidad de Cambio. Red 
IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz. pp 42-70
X X X
Covers geography, tourism, law, coastal use 
management. Examines the history of zonal 
planning commission and inter-disciplinary use of 
data for coastal management.
Neischmann, Bernard. 1997. “Protecting indigenous 
coral reefs and sea territories, Miskito Coast RAAN, 
Nicaragua” In Stans, Stevern Ed. Conservation through cultural 
survival; Indigenous peoples and protected areas, Cultural 
Survival, Island Press, 242 pp
X
Early study about enlisting local knowledge and 
buying for property resource management 
including coastal Honduras
NOAA, 2001. The Fisheries for Mangrove Cockles, 
Andara spp, fom Mexico to Peru, with Descriptions of their 
Habitats and Biology, the Fishermen’s Lives, and the Effects 
of Shrimp Farming. Marine Fisheries Review. Mfr6311 
Mangrove Cockles.pdf 39 p
X
Life cycle and ecology of cockle fisheries. 
Mangrove cockles (also called arkshells) of the 
genus Anadara are harvested for food by large 
numbers of artisanal fishermen in the Pacific coast 
lagoons of 10 countries from Mexico through 
Central America to Peru
NOAA, 2012. Casitas in Florida Keys Sanctuary Endanger 
Lobsters and their Habitat. 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/07/07_30_12casitas.html
X
In addition to concentrating lobsters and 
enabling the overharvesting of lobster, the 
casitas, averaging 25 square feet, also destroy the 
natural habitat—productive seagrass beds or 
hardbottom habitat. Seagrasses provide many 
benefits, including unique habitat for aquatic life, 
playing a major role in the reproductive cycles of 
many recreationally and commercially important 
species
85
OSPESCA, 2005. Fisheries and Aquaculture Integration 
Policy for the Central American Isthmus. 27 p X X
OSPESCA, 2009. Propuesta Plan de Acción de las 
Mujeres de la Pesca Artesanal del Istmo Centroamericano. 
18 p
X X
OSPESCA, 2009. Reglamento OSP-01-09 del Sistema 
Integrado de Registro Pesquero y Acuícola Centroamericano 
(SIRPAC). 31 p
X
Definitions of data for tracking, commitments for 
cooperating on fish and aquaculture
OSPESCA, 2011. Adenda al Reglamento OSP-02-09 para 
el Ordenamiento Regional de la (Panulirus argus). 25 p. X X X
OSPESCA, 2013. Reglamento OSPESCA/OIRSA No. 001-
2013, Para la Prevención, Control y Erradicación de 
Enfermedades en el Camarón de Cultivo en los Países del 
SICA y OIRSA. 14 p
X
Progress in regional commitments, related to 
shrimp morbidity
OSPESCA, 2014. Reglamento Regional OSP-08-2014, 
Para Prevenir, Desalentar y Eliminar la Pesca Ilegal, No 
Declarada y No Reglamentada en los Países Miembros del 
SICA. 11 p
X X
Progress in regional commitments
OSPESCA, undated. Integración Regional, 
Responsabilidad y Sostenibilidad de la Pesca y la acuicultura. 
7 p
X X
Progress in regional commitments
Smithsonian 2009 Bocas del Toro Research Station FY08-
FY09 Biennial Report 
https://www.stri.si.edu/english/PDFs/bocas_br_08-09.pdf 60 
pp
X X
Increase in scientific visitors and fellows, helps 
provide extensive monitoring. Mangrove-fringed 
mainland peninsulas and islands, sea grass beds, 
and patch reefs delimit two distinct bays: the 
Bahía Almirante and the Laguna de Chiriquí
Toledo Institute, 2014. 
http://www.tidebelize.org/page/port-honduras-marine￾reserve
X X
The use of long-lines, gill nets and beach traps is 
prohibited throughout the reserve. A team of 
TIDE rangers based at the newly refurbished 
ranger station at Abalone Caye 
enforcement throughout the reserve. TIDE 
introduced Managed Access Fisheries 2011 in 
response to increasing fishing pressure
USAID, 2006. Coastal and Marine Conservation in Latin 
America and the Caribbean: Evaluation of Opportunities and 
Challenges for USAID
X X
86
APPENDIX 13 – DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
Each team member signed a two-page disclosure form. Page one appears on this page. Each signature 
page (page 2) follows. 
Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of 
biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest.
4 For external evaluations, all evaluation team 
members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict 
of interest relative to the project being evaluated.5
Evaluators of USAID projects have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, 
conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third 
parties. Evaluators and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or 
potential conflicts of interest that could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant 
facts and circumstances to conclude that the evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to 
maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all 
issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit leadership, in close 
consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict of 
interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that 
individual from evaluating certain aspects of the project(s). 
In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to proprietary information of other companies in the 
process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with the other companies to protect their 
information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from 
using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. 6
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 
1. Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit 
managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are 
being evaluated. 
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 
3. Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the project(s) 
being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 
4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated. 
5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 
 
4
 USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 8); USAID Contract Information Bulletin 99-17; and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 
9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. 
5
 USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 11) 
6
 FAR 9.505-4(b)
87
88
89
90
2"
"
Disclosure"of"Conflict"of"Interest"for"USAID"Evaluation"Team"Members"
Name* Virginia"Reyes"Gatjens"
Title* Logistic"Coordinator"
Organization* IBCTI"
Evaluation*Position?* """"""Team"Leader""""""""""x"Team"member"
Evaluation*Award*Number"(contract+
or+other+instrument)"
"
USAID*Project(s)*Evaluated"(Include+
project+name(s),+implementer+
name(s)+and+award+number(s),+if+
applicable)"
MAREA"Program"
I*have*real*or*potential*conflicts*of*
interest*to*disclose.*
""""""Yes""""""""""xNo""
If*yes*answered*above,*I*disclose*the*
following*facts:*
Real+or+potential+conflicts+of+interest+may+include,+
but+are+not+limited+to:+
1. Close+family+member+who+is+an+employee+of+the+
USAID+operating+unit+managing+the+project(s)+
being+evaluated+or+the+implementing+
organization(s)+whose+project(s)+are+being+
evaluated.+
2. Financial+interest+that+is+direct,+or+is+significant+
though+indirect,+in+the+implementing+
organization(s)+whose+projects+are+being+
evaluated+or+in+the+outcome+of+the+evaluation.+
3. Current+or+previous+direct+or+significant+though+
indirect+experience+with+the+project(s)+being+
evaluated,+including+involvement+in+the+project+
design+or+previous+iterations+of+the+project.+
4. Current+or+previous+work+experience+or+seeking+
employment+with+the+USAID+operating+unit+
managing+the+evaluation+or+the+implementing+
organization(s)+whose+project(s)+are+being+
evaluated.+
5. Current+or+previous+work+experience+with+an+
organization+that+may+be+seen+as+an+industry+
competitor+with+the+implementing+
organization(s)+whose+project(s)+are+being+
evaluated.+
6. Preconceived+ideas+toward+individuals,+groups,+
organizations,+or+objectives+of+the+particular+
projects+and+organizations+being+evaluated+that+
could+bias+the+evaluation.++
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
I"certify"(1)"that"I"have"completed"this"disclosure"form"fully"and"to"the"best"of"my"ability"and"(2)"that"I"will"update"this"
disclosure"form"promptly"if"relevant"circumstances"change."If"I"gain"access"to"proprietary"information"of"other"companies,"
then"I"agree"to"protect"their"information"from"unauthorized"use"or"disclosure"for"as"long"as"it"remains"proprietary"and"
refrain"from"using"the"information"for"any"purpose"other"than"that"for"which"it"was"furnished."
Signature*
"
x
x"
91