EVALUATION:
CENTRAL AMERICA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
(PROARCA)
Implemented by:
ASSOCIATES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Contract No.: LAG-I-00-99-00013-00
Task Order No.: 520-99-P-034
January 15, 2000
Prepared by:
Carlos Rivas (Team Leader)
Paul Dulin
Sergio Zelaya
Jurij Homziak
Submitted by:
Associates in Rural Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 1397
Burlington, VT 05402
Tel: (802) 658-3890
Fax: (802) 658-4247
Contact: Rebecca Butterfield
Contact E-mail: rbutterfield@ardinc.com
1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................6
1.1 PROARCA Achievements ............................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Opportunities for Improvement and Recommendations Relevant to PROARCA II......................... 8
1.3 Recommendations with Relevance to the Design Phase of PROARCA II.................................... 11
1.4 Observations and Recommendations Concerning the Transition from PROARCA to PROARCA II
....................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.0 Background and Context ..........................................................................................................13
2.1 Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD)................................. 13
2.2 System of Central American Integration (SICA)............................................................................ 14
2.3 Regional Environmental and Natural Resources Management Project (RENARM)..................... 15
3.0 Description of the PROARCA Project ......................................................................................15
3.1 Central American Protected Areas System (CAPAS) ................................................................... 15
3.2 Costas........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Environmental Protection and Legislation Component.................................................................. 17
3.4 Management and Administration of the Project............................................................................. 19
4.0 Evaluation Methodology ...........................................................................................................19
4.1 Strategic Focus of the Evaluation.................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Evaluation Methodologies.............................................................................................................. 20
5.0 PROARCA Project: General Findings and Conclusions.........................................................21
5.1 Context of PROARCA Within the Definition of Regionality............................................................ 21
5.2 Integration of Project Components ................................................................................................ 23
5.3 Project Management and Administration....................................................................................... 23
5.4 Distribution of CAPAS and Costas Financial Resources .............................................................. 24
5.5 Participation of Civil Society and Development of Human Resources .......................................... 27
5.6 Counterpart Organizational and Financial Sustainability............................................................... 28
5.7 Information for Project Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................... 28
5.8 The USAID - CCAD Relationship and the Present State of CONCAUSA..................................... 29
6.0 CAPAS Component: Findings and Conclusions.....................................................................32
6.1 Achievements and Strengths......................................................................................................... 32
6.2 Opportunities for Improvement ...................................................................................................... 34
7.0 Costas Component: Findings and Conclusions......................................................................35
7.1 Successes and Strengths .............................................................................................................. 35
7.2 Opportunities for Improvement ..................................................................................................... 39
8.0 Environmental Protection and Legislation Component: Findings and Conclusions............43
8.1 Successes and Strengths .............................................................................................................. 43
8.2 Opportunities for Improvement ...................................................................................................... 46
9.0 Evaluation Questions Set Forth in the Terms of Reference of the Evaluation Contract and
their Responses by the Evaluation Team ................................................................................50
9.1 Specific questions related to CAPAS............................................................................................. 50
9.2 Specific Questions Related to Costas ........................................................................................... 52
9.3 Specific Questions for the Environmental Protection and Legislation Component. ...................... 54
9.4 Specific Questions Related to the Environmental Protection and Legislation Component and the
Protection of Biodiversity Activities Managed by CCAD................................................................ 55
9.5 Specific Questions for Activities Carried Out by EPA Under the PASA Mechanism..................... 56
9.6 Specific Questions on the Partnership between CCAD and PROARCA....................................... 57
9.7 Questions Related to the Collaboration and Working Relationship Between the Components of
PROARCA. .................................................................................................................................... 57
10.0 Recommendations of the Evaluation Team.............................................................................58
10.1 Recommendations of General Nature ........................................................................................... 58
10.2 Recommendations for CAPAS Component................................................................................... 64
10.3 Recommendations for the Costas Component.............................................................................. 66
10.4 Recommendations for the Environmental Protection and Legislation Component ....................... 69
10.5 Recommendations with Direct Relevance to PROARCA II Design and Initiation. ........................ 73
2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Participants in Courses and Workshops ..........................................................................25
Figure 2: CAPAS Component Small Grants Distributed by Country ..............................................26
Figure 3: Distribution of Expenditures by Site Under Costas .........................................................27
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Workplan..................................................................................................................A1-1
APPENDIX 2: Interview Guides .....................................................................................................A2-1
APPENDIX 3: Contacts...................................................................................................................A3-1
APPENDIX 4: Documents Consulted ............................................................................................A4-1
APPENDIX 5: Workshop Minutes ..................................................................................................A5-1
APPENDIX 6: Terms of Reference.................................................................................................A6-1
3
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
ACRONYMS
AID Agency for International Development
ALIDES Alianza para el Desarrollo Sostenible
ANDAH Asociación Nacional de Acuicultores Hondureños (Honduran Association of
Shrimp Farmers)
ARD Associates in Rural Development, Inc.
AT Asistencia Técnia
BM Banco Mundial (World Bank)
BMP Best Management Practices
BSP Biodiversity Support Program
CAMTUR-FEDECATUR Camara de Turismo de Guatemala-Federación de Camaras de Turismo
CAPAS PROARCA Component (Central American Protected Area System)
CARICOMP Caribbean Common Market Programme
CCAD Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo
CCAD/DGMA CCAD/ Dirección General de Medio Ambiente
CHF Cooperative Housing Foundation
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora & Fauna
COCATRAM Comisión Centroamericana de Autoridades Marítimas
CODDEFFAGOLF Comité para la Defensa y Desarrollo de la Flora y Fauna del Golfo de Honduras
CONCAUSA Declaración Conjunta Centroamérica-USA
Costas PROARCA Component (Coastal Zone Management)
CWIP Coastal Water Quality Improvement Project (USAID/Jamaica)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FUNDAECO Fundación para el Ecodesarrollo y la Conservación
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIS Geographic Information System
IDEADS Instituto de Derecho Ambiental y Desarrollo Sostenible
INAB Instituto Nacional de Bosques – Guatemala (Guatemalan National Forestry
Institute) 
IOCARIBE International Oceanographic Commission/Caribbean Region
IRG International Resources Group
LEPPI Local Environmental Policy and Programs Initiative
MARPOL International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
PASA Project Assistance Service Agreement
PCU Project Coordinating Unit
PROARCA Proyecto Ambiental Regional Centroamericano
PROBIO Programa de Biodiversidad
PROGOLFO Proyecto de Planificación y Manejo Inte
PROLEGIS Programa de Armonización y Aplicación de Legislación
PROMAR Fundación para la Protección del Mar
PVO Private Voluntary Organization
Ramsar International Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
REA Rapid Ecological Assessments
RENARM Regional Natural Resource Managment Project
RSMAS Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
RSTA Regional Site Technical Advisor
SAM Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano
SE-CCAD Secretaria Ejecutiva, Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo
4
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
SICA Sistema de Integración Centroamericano
SO Strategic Objective
TIDE Toledo Institute for Development and Environment
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UICN Unión Internacional para la Conservación para la Naturaleza
UNEP-CEP U.N. Environmental Program-Caribbean Environmental Programme
URI-CRC University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center
USAID/G-CAP Regional Program of the U.S. Agency for International Development in Central
America and Panama
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature 
5
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In submitting this report the ARD Evaluation Team (Associates in Rural Development) wants, in this manner, to
express its most sincere thanks to the officers of the USAID/G-CAP Mission and to the CCAD for their
invaluable aid and support during the evaluation process. This work would not have been possible without the
support of the person responsible for Strategic Objective 2, Phil Jones, and the Executive Director of the
Executive Secretariat of the CCAD, Mauricio Castro. We especially want to recognize the effort and dedication
provided to the process by Carmen Aída González, the Project Officer of USAID/G-CAP and the valuable liaison
between the Mission and the Evaluation Team. We also are deeply grateful to the other persons responsible for
the various components within the Mission, Joao de Queiroz, the CAPAS official, and Roberto Morales, official
for the Environmental Protection and Legislation component.
We wish to make special recognition of the chiefs of the Implementing agencies of CAPAS (Jan Laarman,
IRG/TNC), and Costas (Nestor Windevoxhel TNC/WWF/URI) components, and of the subcomponents LEPPI
(Arturo Villalobos), PROLEGIS (Marco González), PROBIO (Bruno Bustos) and the Technical-Administrative
Liaison between CCAD and USAID/G-CAP (Martin Schwarz). We know, of course, that behind every one of
these leaders there is a technical and administrative team without which all the actions that enhanced the process
would not have been possible; to them our deepest thanks.
Our profound thanks go also to all the non-governmental and governmental organizations, associations of
resource producers and users and members of the communities visited, the consultants and private businesses and
research institutions which patiently provided us the information we needed in order to do a more complete job.
Finally, the Evaluation Team expresses its thanks to Ana Raquel Romero, our Administrative Assistant, for her
unconditional and unfailing support of the task undertaken.
LIMITATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Our hope is that this report would serve as an instrument to strengthen the current PROARCA and that it would
contribute ideas for successful work and effective efforts to facilitate environmental protection and biodiversity,
and to promote conservation and sustainable use of the renewable natural resources of the region. Nonetheless, it
is important to state that the opinions given in this document represent only the opinion of the Evaluation Team
and in no way represent the opinion of the consulting firm Associates in Rural Development Inc., the opinion of
USAID/G-CAP in Guatemala, CCAD, or the implementing agencies of the respective component of the
PROARCA Project.
6
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
1.0 Executive Summary
PROARCA is a five-year effort (1995-2000) completing a ten-year initiative begun with RENARM in 1990.
Design of PROARCA was influenced both by the RENARM evaluation and CONCAUSA agreement signed by
U.S. and Central American presidents to implement actions proposed in the Central American Alliance for
Sustainable Development (ALIDES). PROARCA is the main vehicle for meeting the U.S. Government's
commitments under CONCAUSA. USAID/G-CAP's regional counterpart for implementation of PROARCA is
CCAD.
USAID's Regional Strategic Objective (SO), to which PROARCA also directly responds, seeks improved regional
stewardship of key natural resources, focusing on consolidating the Central American Protected Areas System,
especially the Meso-American Biological Corridor, and improved regulatory frameworks and enforcement for
environmental protection at a regional level. Specifically, the SO proposes that three intermediate results be
attained under PROARCA: (a) improved consolidation of the Central American Protected Areas System; (b)
increased local empowerment for stewardship of environment and natural resources in targeted areas; and (c)
Central American environmental policy frameworks harmonized and strengthened.
These are to be facilitated respectively under the following PROARCA components, managed under a series of
contracts and agreements with the following partners:
· Central American Protected Areas System (CAPAS), managed under an institutional contract by the
consortium of International Resources Group (lead) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC);
· Coastal Zone Management (Costas), managed under a cooperative agreement by the consortium of TNC
(lead), Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the University of Rhode Island/Coastal Resources Center
(URI-CRC); and
· Environmental Protection and Legislation, implemented under three subcomponents as indicated below:
- Environmental Risk Assessment and Prioritization, which was completed by Chemonics
International under a buy-in with the centrally-funded PRIDE Project;
- Local Environmental Policy and Program Initiative (LEPPI), a community action planning effort
managed under a cooperative agreement with the Cooperative Housing Foundation with technical
assistance provided by U.S. EPA;
- Upward Environmental Legislative Harmonization and Enforcement, managed under a Handbook
3 Agreement by CCAD under two initiatives: the Legislation Program (PROLEGIS) with
technical assistance from U.S. EPA and the Biodiversity Protection Program (PROBIO); and
- Pollution Prevention, being managed under a PASA with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and providing on-demand services through the LEPPI and PROLEGIS subcomponents.
PROARCA also provides additional resources under the Handbook 3 Agreement to strengthen CCAD and its
Executive Secretariat
1.1 PROARCA Achievements
A broad number of activities have been carried under PROARCA. It is not the purpose of this evaluation to list all
the activities, however, it is pertinent to highlight important achievements from various dimensions and levels.
Among the most important project achievements at the highest level, as a result of the efforts of all the
components, one can cite; CCAD has been strengthened and is recognized by authorities from countries in the
region as responsible for organizing regional environmental protection and sustainable resources management.
Numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private voluntary organizations (PVOs), and governmental
organizations have been technically and organizationally strengthened to confront environmental issues at a
national level with a regional vision. PROARCA's support has contributed to reducing the existing gap between
managing terrestrial and coastal marine natural resources, a condition that had been unnoticed in the region and
requires highly technical and organizational skills with evident regional impact. PROARCA has put in action a
series of project implementation processes (e.g., small grants, coalitions) for the implementation of projects that
should yield important results for the region and for the achievement of USAID's regional strategic objective. A
7
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
summary of these general achievements, according to the Evaluation Team criteria, follows for each major
component.
1.1.1 CAPAS Achievements
CAPAS provides multifaceted technical assistance across a broad array of topics related to conservation and
sustainable resource use. It has produced high-quality technical studies and training to 1,500 professionals,
contributing to: improved resource conservation strategies and coalitions, and a larger and more capable group of
managers associated with protected areas management; broader, more technical approaches for conservation of
the region's threatened and endangered species; improved marketing strategies and approaches for
environmentally-friendly productive activities, especially forest management, organic coffee and
environmentally-sound tourism; and support to carbon sequestration initiatives to control climate change. CAPAS
manages a regional web page and disseminates numerous reports and information produced under the project.
Many of these documents are used as technical manuals and best-practice guides.
CAPAS' widely inclusive small-grants and genius-grants programs offer financial resources traditionally not
available to NGOs and individual scientists, thus promoting local research and management initiatives for
protected areas, natural resources conservation and environmental protection. CAPAS has cooperated with CCAD
in biodiversity protection including CITES and climate change control initiatives, and in policy research on
transboundary resource conservation. Under CAPAS, a protected areas monitoring system was developed that is
gaining wide popularity, and is currently considered for official adoption at national levels in several countries.
1.1.2 Costas Achievements
The Costas approach of building coalitions as a basis for participation of stakeholders, although still incipient, is
yielding positive results in its four sites. This brings together stakeholders of varying interests, government, non￾government and community, in order to find common ground for conserving coastal resources. The establishment
and support of Trinational Alliances in the Gulf of Honduras and Gulf of Fonseca, although fledgling, are seen as
promising coalitions for meeting transboundary natural resource management challenges.
The project has been pivotal in facilitating the declaration of new marine-coastal protected areas, including
reserves for fisheries management and strengthening management in those already declared. Among other
initiatives promoted through its counterpart organizations are ecotourism development, marine port contingency
planning, support of community vigilance committees for environmental protection and conservation of lobster
fisheries through reserve management with community organizations. Costas has cooperated with CCAD in
development of the Meso-American Barrier Reef Initiative and in aspects of policy analysis for fisheries and
coastal resources use.
1.1.3 Environmental Protection and Legislation Achievements
CCAD's PROLEGIS and PROBIO Programs represent the principal programmatic outreach activities of SE￾CCAD. With EPA assistance, CCAD/PROLEGIS contributed to the process of elaboration and promulgation of
environmental framework laws in five countries. This activity has been followed up with a series of training
events and technical information dissemination to key mid-level professionals in all seven countries, including:
training in environmental law enforcement; training and distribution of manuals in principles of environmental
impact assessment, including preparation of Central American professionals to carry out training courses without
EPA assistance; training and information dissemination to government and private industry in responsible
pesticide importation, management and disposal; and to industry and government officials in the advantages of
clean technology. These activities have led to the establishment of networks of professionals with connections to
EPA, to continue information and technical assistance exchanges. Under PROBIO, CCAD has advanced the
regional agenda in biodiversity protection. PROBIO has collaborated with CAPAS and Costas, as well as with
other international agencies in efforts to instrument international conventions to which most Central American
countries are signatory, including CITES, Ramsar, Climate Change and MARPOL. PROBIO has promoted
establishment and strengthening of regional biodiversity conservation networks with CCAD's constituency.
8
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Under LEPPI, CHF, with EPA assistance, has facilitated the prioritization, design and pilot projects for
environmental sanitation in selected municipalities through a highly participatory process. These efforts in solid
waste management and sewage treatment are bringing environmental health solutions to smaller communities.
The subcomponent assisted in the creation of steering committees of municipal employees and community
members to facilitate all aspects of project design and development. LEPPI is also assisting in the elaboration of
municipal codes to provide a legal basis establishing community and municipal responsibilities in managing the
projects, including payments for sanitary services. Several of the projects will be analyzed for "packaging" as
pilots replicable in other communities in the region.
1.2 Opportunities for Improvement and Recommendations Relevant to PROARCA II
While PROARCA has made important advances in its first phase, there are a number of opportunities to enhance
the effectiveness and impact of activities applicable to Phase II, cited below.
1.2.1 Regionality and Integration of Project Activities
USAID/G-CAP and its partners have different conceptions of regionality that complicate strategic approaches.
Activities within and among different components are implemented thematically and/or geographically in
isolation of each other. Costas is working in four mostly transboundary sites with established geographical
boundaries. However, CAPAS, CCAD/PROLEGIS and CCAD/PROBIO are working ubiquitously throughout the
region on a variety of technical themes. LEPPI is working with 18 municipalities, but only five of these are in
proximity to Costas sites and the others are not programmatically tied to other components. Further, the
components are not implemented under a unified strategic plan, nor is there an effort to integrate annual planning,
monitoring and evaluation of activities. Lack of integration has resulted in reduced implementation efficiencies
and effectiveness, with some duplication of efforts and loss of opportunities for synergy.
Consequently, the Evaluation Team recommends that USAID/G-CAP and CCAD adopt a concept of regionality
that promotes the thematic and geographic concentration of project activities in carefully selected transboundary
subregions. These should be selected based on rigorous analysis of environmental, socio-cultural and economic
opportunities and vulnerabilities in the region. The Project should capitalize on the strengths of a regional project
seeking to add value to ongoing or new initiatives at the national and local levels with relevance to these
subregions, including those activities supported by USAID bilaterals and other donor agencies. Integration can
only come from a concerted effort on the part of USAID/G-CAP and CCAD management to facilitate strategic
planning, and annual planning and evaluation among their institutions and within each and all project
components, engendering the same of Component Implementers. Thus, frequent planning and coordination
meetings, open communication and information exchanges, and coordination and collaborative participation in
the implementation of activities should be encouraged. This integration should lead to more synergy among
Implementers and activities, greater implementation and administrative efficiencies, an improved cost/benefit
ratio and increased impact across technical themes in geographically-focused areas.
1.2.2 Human Resources Development, and Organizational and Financial Sustainability of
Counterpart Organizations
An important part of PROARCA resources is being directed to training in technical areas and in improving
resource management capabilities at selected sites. However, limited emphasis has been placed on true
organizational development. Costas, CAPAS, and LEPPI have not yet developed strategies aimed at ensuring
organizational and financial sustainability of its counterparts. This leaves organizations at risk of deserting their
activities as soon as PROARCA assistance is terminated -- many have become dependent on such assistance
provided "free-of-charge" by PROARCA. Also, the training events are not linked to programmatic activities
managed by PROARCA, especially under CAPAS and PROLEGIS. Unless there is a linking of training to such
activities, and this is reinforced with follow-up in-service training, the value of such efforts will be lost.
PROARCA should have a strategic focus on organizational development, especially for NGOs and CBOs, that
will engender self-sufficiency. Consequently, Component Implementers should include the following themes in
their training regimens for counterpart organizations: (a) strategic planning by objectives, and annual planning,
monitoring and evaluation of activities and their impact; (b) strengthening and specialization of boards of
9
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
directors; (c) effective organizational, human resource and team management; (d) recruitment and maintenance of
volunteers; fundraising from various sources, including project preparation and financial proposals; and (e) public
relations, conflict resolution and communications. Financial sustainability of counterpart organizations and their
activities will require innovative strategies for obtaining resources from a series of, as yet, untapped sources, as is
described in the following section.
1.2.3 National Mechanisms for Financing Project Activities and Co-financing with other
Agencies within the Region
PROARCA has not focused enough on researching the technical, social and economic advantages of
incorporating costs of environmental services into local, national and regional accounts. While CAPAS and
CCAD/PROBIO have been active in advancing carbon sequestration initiatives to take advantage of such credits
on the international market, similar local and national mechanisms have gone without research. LEPPI is initiating
efforts, albeit late in the project cycle, to incorporate self-financing mechanisms into environmental sanitation
projects through payment of collection and disposal services. While PROARCA Component Implementers have
fostered some collaboration with projects and programs financed by international development and conservation
organizations at both regional and national levels, these have been infrequent, non-programmatic and short lived.
Attention should be focused on development of mechanisms to finance, or co-finance, project activities based on
charging the costs of environmental services provided by natural resources under management within the
PROARCA II subregions. Such mechanisms can include: (a) a portion of fees paid for waters consumed for
domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes and hydroelectricity to be directed to watershed management; (b)
permits/charges for discharge of untreated domestic and industrial waste water; (c) sale of special permits for
tourism operations, entrances to parks and archaeological sites; (d) sale of green stamps and eco-certifications for
productive activities; (e) a portion of airport taxes paid by tourists to go to conservation, taxes on gasoline, wood
exports, etc. and (f) charges on utility and communication rights-of-ways that cross protected areas. Similarly,
many national environmental funds that are underutilized or stagnated in finance ministries can be tapped. Many
of these will require substantive changes in current rules of government so that resources become available to
organizations at project sites, thus necessitating assistance under CCAD policy and legislation initiatives.
As there are numerous local, national and regional conservation initiatives being funded by the USAID bilateral
missions, World Bank, IDB, and many others, PROARCA should actively pursue co-financing and co￾management of activities of similar themes in coinciding geographic areas. Limited funds available under
PROARCA can be leveraged to a scale wherein more comprehensive work can be carried out with a larger
number of counterparts, including aspects of training, monitoring and evaluation, integrated information systems
and GIS. This diversification will also reduce the financial risks to cooperating organizations. The joint World
Bank/IDB Regional Unit for Technical Assistance (RUTA) is preparing an inventory of all national, regional and
international environmental and natural resources projects currently active or proposed in the region. This would
be a good starting point for facilitating strategic alliances.
1.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
Although explicit in the original PROARCA design, little biophysical data has been collected and analyzed during
implementation. This lack of hard data restricts the ability of Component Implementers, counterparts and USAID
to assess the impact of project interventions and progress. Costas is using its Monitoring and Evaluation
Scorecard to track a series of project management processes, but this system is not linked to the collection of
biophysical data. Other Component Implementers are taking few data that can be linked to indicators of
environmental impact from project activities. The lack of such data can affect sustainability of interventions as
impacts are unknown (or unrealized). The failure to collect biophysical data also is in conflict with PROARCA’s
Environmental Threshold Decision and Conditional Negative Determination of Impact that requires that
promotion of productive activities should require separate but succinct environmental assessments based on
biophysical data.
The Evaluation Team strongly suggests that PROARCA initiate the establishment of appropriate baselines and
implement monitoring of specific biophysical indicators related to respective component activities. Data from
these monitoring programs should be integrated into a single PROARCA management information system
10
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
(including GIS) for all components, continually updated and periodic reports of data tendencies made available to
all interested parties. Parameters that could be considered for monitoring include: water quality (Costas, LEPPI);
fisheries landings by species, place of capture, weight and equipment used (Costas); composition, population of
threatened and key indicator species (CAPAS, Costas, PROBIO); vegetative cover, intactness and composition
through monitoring by remote sensors and ground truthing (CAPAS, Costas, PROBIO); incidence of incursions
and illicit extraction of resources, traffic of illegal species, and number of judicial processes for these activities
(CAPAS, Costas, PROLEGIS); number of traditional resources users vocationally converted to environmentally￾sound practices (CAPAS, Costas); and number of projects sustainably financed with local resources.
The Evaluation Team understands the complexity and cost of monitoring and recommends that monitoring go
beyond the measurement of parameters, per se. It is essential that the importance of a monitoring system is
promoted within the decision-making circles of the countries in the region as the best instrument for decision
making and the management of regional environmental capital. In this sense, PROARCA should promote the
necessary case studies to demonstrate the value of using databases to generate information for decision-making.
Additionally, it should not fall into the tendency to design a monitoring system of academic, scientific research,
but rather to design a practical and functional system that can be applied by the resource users and managers with
the intent that the users can collect the data and do preliminary analysis.
1.2.5 Relationship between USAID/G-CAP and CCAD, and Current Status of CONCAUSA
PROARCA's original design treated CCAD as less than a full partner, a situation that is now causing problems.
The Executive Secretariat has only one member in the Project Implementation Unit, which is subordinate to the
all-USAID Steering Committee. Currently, SE-CCAD is not participating in project management at any level
other than execution of PROLEGIS and PROBIO programs. Different components have made efforts to
strengthen ties with CCAD but with little success. CCAD is also in the process of integrating with the Secretariat
for Integration of Central America/SICA, and it is not yet clear what will be the new technical and political
paradigms for CCAD. Additionally, the CCAD base has moved to El Salvador and has a very small staff. This
complicates efforts to define the relationship and role of CCAD under PROARCA II. Also, it is unclear if
CONCAUSA is still to be the political and technical basis for implementation of the second phase of PROARCA.
While some important progress in relation to obligations of both the U.S. and Central American Governments has
been achieved, there are still numerous issue areas that have received only limited attention.
If CCAD is to be USAID’s principal regional counterpart for PROARCA II implementation, then efforts should
be made to make it an equal partner with tasks and responsibilities not subject to assistance. CCAD should
participate as counterpart at the highest project management and supervision level on the steering committee and
participate in approval of the design, strategic plan, annual work plans and evaluations. At the operational level,
CCAD should participate in regional policy initiatives oriented to achievement of concrete solutions based on
work at PROARCA II sites. USAID/G-CAP and SE-CCAD should investigate with other donors core funding
options for CCAD. This would allow CCAD to concentrate on its role as advocate for regional environmental
protection and sustainable use of resources as stipulated in the ALIDES and CONCAUSA accords, without
having to seek project funding opportunities that could lead to confusion of priorities and dilution of CCAD’s
overall policy focus. Finally, USAID/G-CAP, in consultation with the State Department, CCAD, and
environmental ministers, should revisit the CONCAUSA accord, analyze progress made to date, and decide
whether the accord should be updated to reflect the last six years of experience or should be replaced with a new
accord and directives. Once decided, the updated or new instrument should be considered in PROARCA II’s
design.
REBECCA, THIS SECTION ABOVE 1.2.5 NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN’T
HARM OUR ACTIVITY AND LEAVE THE WRONG IMPRESSION.FOR; EXAMPLE, “a situation that is
now causing problems” AND “Currently , SE-CCAD is not participating in project management at any level other
than excecution of PROLEGIS and PROBIO programs.” BOTH OF THESE STATEMENTS CAN EASILY
MISLEAD SOMEONE THAT DOESN’T KNOW THE DAY TO DAY WORKINGS OF USAID/G-CAP AND
CCAD. PLEASE REWRITE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ,SO THAT READERS DON’T THINK THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND CCAD IS NOT WORKING, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE CASE, IT
11
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
CAN WORK BETTER, BUT THAT IS TRUE OF MOST THINGS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SECOND
PARARGRAPH
I THINK THE MAIN POINT IS THAT IN THE NEXT PHASE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF ROLES
AND REPONSIBILITIES OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USAID/G-CAP AND CCAD SHOULD BE
DEVELOPED IN THE DESIGN STAGE,WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER DONE IN THE DESIGN
OF PROARCA. The rest of the ex summary looks fine except for what I mention in the e-mail. Phil
1.3 Recommendations with Relevance to the Design Phase of PROARCA II
1.3.1 Design Criteria for PROARCA II
The following are suggested as design criteria for PROARCA II. These are intended as a design proposal to be
analyzed along with other alternatives that USAID and CCAD may consider.
a. PROARCA II should concentrate all activities both thematically and geographically within four to six
transboundary subregions rigorously selected based on environmental, social, cultural and economic
criteria (further developed in the body of the report). The current Costas Gulf of Honduras, Gulf of
Fonseca and Gandoca—Bocas del Toro should be included among these subregions. Subregions should
include both coastal zones and their immediate watersheds.
b. The activities currently implemented under CAPAS, LEPPI, PROLEGIS, and PROBIO should be
reoriented geographically and integrally to these subregions and reconfigured based on protected areas
and buffer zone management, biodiversity conservation, environmental sanitation, and environmental
legislation and enforcement priorities of these subregions, in order to capitalize on strategic, technical,
operational, administrative and economic (cost/benefit) efficiencies. It is evident that this does not imply
that actions outside the region shouldn't be done, especially in the areas of policy and legislation. What
should be defined is a larger portion of activities focused on the selected areas and/or subregions.
c. The participatory models advanced at current Costas sites, involving inter-organizational coalitions
should be promoted in all subregions, incorporating appropriate lessons learned under CAPAS and LEPPI
activities. All training activities should be oriented to personnel of counterpart organizations actively
participating in one or more PROARCA activities, and follow-up in-service training should be used to
reinforce and add value so as to truly develop the human resource potential in these areas. Greater
emphasis should be placed on promotion of environmentally-sound productive activities using best
practices, especially in watersheds and buffer zones around protected areas, including coastal zones.
d. CCAD’s PROLEGIS and PROBIO activities should be reoriented geographically and thematically to
achieve results by employing a more efficient approach by applying efforts in living-laboratory conditions
within subregions. The legislative and enforcement issues in these subregions should be handled
creatively with local, national and regional input to create precedents with universal application
throughout the region. These subregions should be used as a proving ground for testing operational
strategies and instruments with the development of specific policy and legislation cases that respond to
concrete situations in the selected areas, such as: (a) land-use planning and zoning; (b) environmental
impact assessment and auditing; (c) improved pesticide management; (d) promotion of clean technology;
and (e) applying stipulations and protocols found in regional and international conventions and accords.
The solution of these cases can establish legal and policy precedents that later could be applied in other
12
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
areas that are ecologically or socio-economically similar. An additional benefit of this recommendation is
the contribution to the decentralization of the legal aspects and the empowerment of communities.
e. PROARCA II should be implemented under two or three contracting modalities to increase operating
efficiencies and reduce administrative costs (one contract or agreement per modality). This should include
at least one institutional contracting mechanism to facilitate rapid access to high-quality technical
assistance and one cooperative agreement due to its comparative programmatic advantages and linkages
to other ongoing sibling programs implemented by the same NGOs. If a PASA-type mechanism is used,
the servicing agency should assign an appropriately-qualified professional full time to the region.
f. During PROARCA II, component implementers should immediately establish their social, economic and
technical (biophysical) baseline on which they will monitor project progress and impacts. A single
PROARCA II management information system should be developed for all baseline and monitoring
information. PROARCA II should develop a web-based metadata site on the Internet, managed in
coordination with CCAD, with hyperlinks to other web sites. PROARCA II should assume its role as a
clearinghouse of scientific information and practical guides on environmental protection and sustainable
natural resources use. These should include reports, data, manuals and best-practices guides produced
under PROARCA II components, as well as those produced by related projects.
g. Management and supervision of PROARCA II by USAID/G-CAP should be continuous and proactive,
with an eye to thematic and geographic integration of all component activities. USAID/G-CAP’s current
“round-up” meetings should be used for participatory and integrated planning, evaluation and
coordination of activities among all component implementers, CCAD and bilateral missions. Other donor
agencies can be invited as guests as appropriate. USAID/G-CAP and CCAD should not micro-manage
project activities, rather act as advocates of regional and institutional policies and forces of integration.
h. It will be necessary in designing PROARCA II to clearly define the relationship and participation of the
project with the governments of the various countries. Additionally, an investigation should be made of
agencies, other than environment ministries, that have authority or mandates over resources to be
protected. During this process, it is imperative to define the coordination mechanisms with NGOs,
goverments, and regional organizations.
1.4 Observations and Recommendations Concerning the Transition from PROARCA to
PROARCA II
The Evaluation Team detected that the process required for designing the follow-on project will require
approximately one year, when calculating in required internal approvals and budget appropriations. This implies
that PROARCA will end approximately six to eight months before the second phase would be initiated. Should
USAID/G-CAP be of mind to retain any or all of the current Component Implementers, then some mechanism
will need to be put into motion as soon as possible to avoid a lapse in field activities.
It should be pointed out that field activities at the four Costas sites will most probably be curtailed or adversely
impacted should the project cease operations there, albeit for six to eight months. Management processes and
technical activities initiated with numerous partners are still incipient and would probably be interrupted with the
risk of losing impetus and resulting in difficulties to “restart” activities. The Evaluation Team doubts that NGO
partners would retain the Regional Site Technical Advisers, as they have not initiated any fundraising for such a
contingency. Similarly, if no funds are available to retain CAPAS or LEPPI Component Implementers and
CCAD, PROLEGIS and PROBIO staff, then activities under these components will be terminated. Financing for
CCAD meetings and communications will also be subject to hiatus, unless funds are secured from other donors.
Depending on USAID/G-CAP’s current plans for PROARCA II, and if indeed there is an intention to retain one
or more of the current Component Implementers, then it may be necessary to investigate some type of bridge
financing or pass-through mechanism, wherein a minimum of activities can be maintained and the costs of
demobilizing and re-mobilizing be avoided. On the other hand, without this financing or should USAID/G-CAP
13
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
decide to change the orientation and/or component implementers, then it should be understood that continuity in
current activities and processes will be broken, together with a loss of contacts and counterparts.
2.0 Background and Context
The Central American Regional Environmental (PROARCA) was approved in July 1995, taking into account the
experience of the Regional Natural Resources Management Project (RENARM). The project was designed to
have the Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) as the counterpart institution
and main partner in its execution. The Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) is used as a framework,
in response to the Joint Central American-USA Declaration, which was signed in December 1994 by President
Clinton and the Presidents of Central America.
In order to fulfill the objectives, $ 25 million was committed to the implementation of a project that has three
principal components:
· Central American Protected Area System (CAPAS), with the objective of consolidating the system and
attaining a gradual ecological rehabilitation of the surrounding areas.
· Coastal Zone Management (Costas). The component was designed to promote the integrated management
of marine-coastal areas. These are defined as of high economic and ecological value that at the same time
are subject to permanent exploitation by the inhabitants of the zone who use these resources for their
livelihood.
· Environmental Protection and Legislation. A component which seeks to harmonize and strengthen the
legal frameworks of the countries and the region in environmental aspects (LEPPI and EPA).
The programmed actions are in response to Strategic Objective 2 of the Regional Program of the United States
Agency for International Development in Central America (USAID/G-CAP) for “Increased effectiveness in
regional management of key natural resources”.
PROARCA has a strategy of strengthening Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and community grassroots
organizations, and of supporting government offices in the management of natural resources in four specific
geographic areas. The Gulf of Honduras, which includes areas of Belize, Guatemala and Honduras; The Gulf of
Fonseca which contains areas of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua; La Mosquitia with areas in Honduras and
Nicaragua; and Gandoca/Bocas del Toro with areas in Costa Rica and Panama. Other areas also are included
where the Bilateral Missions require regional cooperation.
The project was designed within a context of great regional need for the protection and management of the
environment, biodiversity and natural resources. This situation continues at the present time and has been
emphasized by the occurrence of natural phenomena of extraordinary proportions, as was the case with Hurricane
and Tropical Storm MITCH. Events such as MITCH have shown the vulnerability and fragility of the region and
have served to demonstrate the interdependence existing between the countries of the region, not only in
environmental matters but also in other aspects that are closely related to environmental quality.
Regional integration is a subject that the countries of the region are dealing with on different levels and in
different areas. Commerce and the environment are the areas in which the greatest progress to date may be
observed. In order to attain full regional integration, the Presidents of the countries have created the System of
Central American Integration.
2.1 Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD)
This regional example was created in 1990 to promote the regional incorporation of environmental matters at
political decision-making levels and to implement policies, plans and projects that emanate from the Commission.
The Commission is comprised of the Central American Ministers of Environment.
14
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Presently, the CCAD is in a process of transition owing to the need to rationalize and delimit areas of action for
the new Directorate General of the Environment (DGMA), created within the System of Central American
Integration (SICA). The present situation has shown that the Directorate General absorbs the functions of the
Executive Secretariat of CCAD while at the same time it has acquired a number of its own responsibilities
independent of CCAD. The DGMA is presently defining its strategic plan and the priority aspects that would
orient its activities in the regional sphere. The CCAD retains its legal personality and status and seems to have
acquired the rank of Board of Directors of the DGMA. The DGMA, however, finds itself in a situation that lacks
a legal framework recognized by all the countries in which the CCAD has a mandate.
2.2 System of Central American Integration (SICA)
Since February 1993, the SICA has been the crux of the present process of integration of the Central American
Republics. The system was created as an instrument for obtaining integration in the economic, social, cultural,
environmental and political fields. Its most hierarchical organ is comprised of the Presidents of the member
countries who delegate their powers to the Ministers of Foreign Relations. The system has a Secretary General
who reports to this Council of Ministers and to the Presidents. All the countries of the region, however, have not
ratified the SICA, and Belize and Panama are incorporated in it as observers.
In order to comply with its mission and objectives, SICA has established four specialized technical secretariats,
one of which is the Executive Secretariat of the Central American Commission on Environment and Development
(SE-CCAD) and which has created the Directorate General of the Environment (DGMA), an entity which little by
little is absorbing the executive functions of the Central American Commission on Environment and Development
(CCAD).
15
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
2.3 Regional Environmental and Natural Resources Management Project (RENARM)
PROARCA is considered to be the second stage of the RENARM project which was a project designed under
very special conditions in Central America, with a commitment of 10 years but with financing stipulated for 6
years. It had a wide range of activities and multiple implementers, making it an extremely complex project. The
main recommendations for a second stage were as follows:
· To 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;
· To structure activities by geographic areas; and
· To invite different interest groups to form confederations with the purpose of working together in
identifying and solving problems of common interest.
Using these criteria, the concentration of programs should be sought as rapidly as possible in an effort to: (a)
concentrate efforts to define the policies which contribute to mitigating the most important aspects affecting
biodiversity; (b) concentrate on watershed and natural forest management through efforts in agroforestry and
hillside agriculture in multiple-use and buffer zones; (c) assign responsibilities for monitoring to specified
partners and defined areas; (d) assure that any type of research carried out is related to problems whose resolution
has a direct impact on biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture. The evaluation of RENARM shows
us that although it was a very dispersed program, the quality of its actions was impressive especially when
activities were carried out which followed the traditional functions of the implementers.
3.0 Description of the PROARCA Project
PROARCA is executed by three major components which are described below. However, it also is worth
mentioning that the Project includes financing, under an AID Handbook 3 Agreement, for the strengthening of the
CCAD so that it may play its role of coordination and facilitation, between the national level efforts of the
countries signatory to the ALIDES and CONCAUSA agreements, and environmental protection and sustainable
use of natural resources in the Central American Region. The financing is used to provide an important part of the
operational costs of SE-CCAD, both for staff salaries as well as for equipment and material used in daily work,
and in facilitating meetings and communications between members of the forum of National Ministers of the
Environment, and the technical liaisons and advisors of CCAD.
3.1 Central American Protected Areas System (CAPAS)
CAPAS is managed by International Resources Group (IRG) through a results-based contract. There is also a
subcontract with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to work in a coordinated manner with IRG for CAPAS
implementation.
According to the contract of July 10, 1996, CAPAS/IRG must center its efforts on four main areas:
· Providing short and long-term technical assistance;
· Administering the contracts it enters into;
· Administering and managing the small grants to NGOs and Central American institutions; and
· Providing statistical data to USAID/G-CAP concerning client needs, satisfaction and performance, in
order to evaluate progress by means of the results indicated above.
Furthermore, CAPAS should provide the following four products to USAID/G-CAP and its partners in the
PROARCA project: (a) analytical studies; (b) logistical support; (c) “progress monitoring” toward the attainment
of the strategic objective of USAID/G-CAP; and (d) strengthening of project effectiveness and its impact under
16
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
the three components of PROARCA. In general, the USAID/G-CAP and IRG contract for CAPAS is a results￾based contract, as distinct from the other components of PROARCA which are based on cooperative agreements.
The annual requirements for implementation are contained in the annual work plan, which serve as a basis for the
annual progress evaluation, along with the contract standards. Nevertheless, the real guide for the component
work is the annual plan. Once approved, it structures the work over the coming year, providing the necessary
flexibility for this type of contract.
3.1.1 Results Expected from CAPAS According to the Contract
Increase in biodiversity and habitat protection in key parks. This result is developed in three parts: (a) the
registration of information concerning national parks and other protected areas (APs) which exist in the region so
that they may be monitored through a regional system (gap analysis, registration and information on the parks and
other APs and their buffer zones) for development of a regional AP monitoring strategy; (b) approval and
initiation of a program to increase its financial sustainability (the existence of financing plans for the parks and
APs from sustainable sources); and (c) reduction of cross border conflicts arising over natural resources
(identifying zones of conflict for the proposal of solutions, especially in the control of traffic in biodiversity, in
coordination with SE-CCAD).
Demonstration of economic viability of compatible uses in buffer zones. Compatible uses should be analyzed
according to these themes: natural forest management, ecotourism activities, the establishment of a minimal basis
for policies of incentives and disincentives for appropriate activities. Such activities should be documented and
disseminated by IRG. The small grants, the forest certification systems, the best practices, the ecotourism
activities and the analysis of incentives for alternative uses should be endorsed by CCAD at the end of the second
year of implementation.
Increase of environmental awareness, and environmental consensus and commitments in the region. The four key
elements of this result are: (a) increase of public awareness; (b) a user-based approach; (c) transparency in making
decision; and (d) strengthening of participatory processes throughout the Central American region. The
geographically focused methods for achieving these bases should be designed by CAPAS, and incorporated into
the small grants program, the employment of EIAs and other environmental evaluations, conflict mediation, user
surveys and the drafting of a plan service for users which would serve as an input for the re-engineering activities
which the Central American region was about to undertake.
Transfer of capacities to the counterpart agencies. This is essentially in two areas, the design of environmental
policies and the administration of the APs and their programs and management plans, which CAPAS should
evaluate for existing capacities and the design of a strategy for the transfer of skills and abilities, duly
documented. The important element of this result is the formation of a critical mass of professionals who are
trained and working in the key agencies.
3.1.2 The CAPAS Small Grants Program
The essential objective of small grants (SG) is to improve notably the participation of communities and
professional groups in the analysis and execution of plans and activities in protected areas and their buffer zones
and in other activities which are critical for conservation, all in support of the results described above. The
procedure to approve SGs is well detailed in the contract IRG-USAID/G-CAP. The decisions for their approval
rest on the application of plans for competitiveness throughout the region, with a strong role played by USAID/G￾CAP. Of the eleven steps needed to approve a SG, five correspond to USAID/G-CAP and five to CAPAS. CCAD
is involved in the process, especially at the end to give approval. The committee for the selection and awarding of
the SGs includes the USAID bilateral missions, the Official Contractor (IRG) and representatives of SE-CCAD. A
letter of support from the Ministry of the Environment and/or Natural Resources also is required as a condition of
approval. The final approval is by the CCAD (although its participation is not only limited to this, but that is how
it has been interpreted in CAPAS and USAID/G-CAP).
17
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
3.2 Costas
The following description of the Costas component is from the Terms of Reference for this evaluation. The
Central American coasts contain abundant biological diversity. These areas have a very high ecological, economic
and social value due to the habitats, unique species and the natural resources within these areas that are important
sources of income for the livelihood of local communities and the support to the national economies. The Central
American coastal and marine areas are particularly threatened by: water pollution, over-exploitation of fisheries
resources, population growth, infrastructure development primarily for tourism, mangrove destruction and, in
general, the lack of appropriate planning of coastal zone development.
The Coastal Zone Management Component, Costas, was established to promote integrated coastal management in
Central America. The goal of Costas is to strengthen local capacity for the conservation and effective
management of coastal and marine resources. The project focus on four transboundary priority sites selected for
their ecological and economic importance: 1) Gulf of Honduras (Belize, Guatemala and Honduras); 2) Miskito
Coast (Honduras and Nicaragua); 3) Gulf of Fonseca (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador); and 4) Gandoca/Bocas
del Toro (Costa Rica and Panama). A consortium of recognized international organizations in the environmental
field: The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the University of Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Center (CRC/URI) implement this component through a Cooperative Agreement with USAID.
These organizations work to strengthen governance and policies related to coastal zone management and the
designated protected areas. Simultaneously, Costas works with communities to demonstrate, adapt and
disseminate effective models for protection of coastal resources. At the regional level, Costas' staff support the
sites by promoting international collaboration for the management and protection of shared resources and by
strengthening national policy implementation. The regional priorities are based on local needs; commonalties
identified across sites and opportunities for sharing lessons learned.
Costas' activities are implemented primarily through a grants program through which sub-grants are awarded to
local NGOs and other concerned parties. Costas, like CAPAS, s required to coordinate with CCAD,
USAID/G-CAP and USAID/Bilateral Missions in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama.
Important partners include environmental authorities (ministries and departments) in each country. Costas also
works in partnership with other regional institutions/initiatives such as: the Central American Commission of
Marine Authorities (COCATRAM) and the Mesoamerican Reef Initiative. Costas' technical assistance is provided
by eight long-term staff, all Central Americans. The key positions for the purposes of this evaluation are: The
Team Leader (specialist in Coastal Resources), the project Administrator, the Project Coordinator (specialist in
Monitoring & Evaluation), the Policy Advisor, and four Regional Site Technical Assistants (RSTAs) based in the
four transboundary priority sites. This team supports the achievement of four results, two at the regional level: 1)
Regional and National dialogue and Collaboration for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strengthened, and 2)
Tools, Methods and information directed to strengthen regional capabilities, disseminated; and two at the site
level: 3) Participatory Management of Resources for coastal-marine biodiversity protection/conservation, and 4)
institutional arrangements and institutions strengthened.
3.3 Environmental Protection and Legislation Component
This component seeks to: harmonize and strengthen the national and regional environmental frameworks;
strengthen national institutions in order to confront problems of pollution; and expand the awareness of
government sector officials and the private sector concerning environmental quality and control standards
contained in the international trade regulations. By implementing this component, three results are expected: (a) to
have promoted the prevention of pollution and the adoption of clean technology, as much as possible, in exchange
for solutions for the treatment of effluents; (b) effective civil society participation in the identification of problems
and their solutions, the preparation of regulations, and in respect to their rights to have access to information on
how environmental risks affect them; (c) the establishment of mechanisms and networks of professionals to
facilitate the transfer of environmental protection technology; and (d) institutional development of environmental
authorities in Central America. In order to attain these objectives, the component contains four sub-components
that are described briefly below.
18
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
3.3.1 Analysis and Prioritization of Risks - PRIDE
This sub-component consisted of a contract with the USAID/PRIDE Project for the elaboration of a comparative
analysis of environmental risks at the regional level and the preparation of a regional environmental action plan.
The analysis found that solid waste, pollution by wastewater, and pollution by pesticide represent the most
important risks in the region. The Regional Environmental Action Plan was drawn up with broad participation of
the national and local governments, NGOs, scientific institutions, the private sector, and community
organizations. This plan formed the basis for obtaining technical services of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under a Program Assistance Service Agreement (PASA) with USAID/G-CAP. The sub￾component was completed in 1997.
3.3.2 Initiative for Development of Local Environmental Policies and Programs - LEPPI
The sub-component is presently executed under a cooperative agreement with the Cooperative Housing
Foundation (CHF), with support of the EPA under the previously cited PASA, in projects of environmental
sanitation in eighteen municipalities of six countries in the region. The methodology used under this sub￾component includes the following stages: (a) identification, with the direct participation of the community, of
priority environmental problems which affect the health of the inhabitants; (b) election by the community of
“action committees”, with participation of representatives from the governmental sector and civil society, for
management of the process of developing projects for environmental sanitation; (c) participatory creation of a
“community environmental profile” as a basis for the design and monitoring of progress in the development of
sanitation projects; (d) identification and prioritization of the most effective measures for resolving the
environmental pollution problems pointed out in the profiles mentioned above; (e) establishment of a strategy,
action plan and monitoring system for dealing with the problems in each of the municipalities receiving attention;
and (f) carrying out design feasibility studies and the implementation of pilot projects.
3.3.3 Harmonization and Application of Environmental Legislation and Program of Biodiversity
This sub-component is executed by the Executive Secretariat of the CCAD (SE-CCAD) under two sub-activities,
as described below:
Program for the Harmonization and Application of Legislation - PROLEGIS, which seeks the establishment
and/or strengthening of the national environmental frameworks by means of technical assistance and training for
legislators and judicial functionaries (deputies, prosecutors, state attorneys, attorneys), officials of the responsible
ministries and representatives of private enterprise, in matters relevant to the adoption and application of laws and
regulatory frameworks for environmental protection and rational use of natural resources. The establishment and
operation of regional networks of professionals from these same organizations is also promoted to facilitate the
exchange of experiences, information and assistance. The sub-component is carried out with technical support of
the EPA (under its PASA), and should be coordinated, according to its design, with activities executed under the
other two components of CAPAS and Costas.
Biodiversity Program - PROBIO1
, is dedicated to the promotion of the ratification and compliance by national
governments of the regional and international agreements and conventions for the protection of biodiversity, such
as: The Central American Convention on Biodiversity, CITES, Ramsar, Climate Change, MARPOL, and others.
Also the Program promotes the establishment of networks of professionals in establishing operational strategies
and materials for these agreements and conventions, regional information systems, and uniform regional positions
concerning access to genetic materials.
3.3.4 Pollution Prevention
This sub-component is coordinated through the SE-CCAD as an integral part of PROLEGIS and with the CHF in
the execution of the LEPPI sub-component. Under the component, the EPA has provided assistance and training
 
1
 The initials “PROBIO” are a coinage of the Evaluation Team as an abbreviation of the Programa de Biodiversidad which is
managed by the Executive Secretariat of CCAD.
19
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
under the headings of: (a) drafting and application of environmental legislation and regulations (see PROLEGIS,
above) and evaluation of environmental impact; (b) specific assistance to governments and to private enterprise in
clean production; (c) design and execution of projects for environmental sanitation in selected municipalities (see
LEPPI, above); and (d) the establishment of electronic networks for technical information on pollution control,
which are accessible to professionals from government institutions, private enterprise and specialized centers of
the region.
3.4 Management and Administration of the Project
The Project document establishes a structure with two levels of authority for its management and administration.
The first is the Steering Committee made up of members of the USAID/G-CAP, the environmental officers of all
the bilateral missions in the region and officers of USAID/G-CAP related to aspects of the project in the region.
The Committee is responsible for the decisions of the project concerning its management and orientation, and is
headed by the Officer for Strategic Objective No. 2 of the USAID/G-CAP.
The second level of supervision and coordination constitutes the Project Management Unit which is responsible
for the coordination of activities among components and among implementing agencies, The Unit is comprised of
the team leader of the institutional contractor (CAPAS), the authorized representatives of the Consortium of
NGOs (Costas) and LEPPI (CHF), in themselves the implementing agencies under the three components of the
Project, and a high-ranking representative of CCAD, as well as any other representative of the USAID/G-CAP
which may be considered appropriate for the subject under discussion. The Unit is, by design, to be chaired by the
Project Officer for PROARCA, but now it is chaired by the USAID Officer for Strategic Objective No. 2.
At the present time the Project is being implemented under the official responsible for Strategic Objective No. 2
of the USAID/G-CAP. The Project Officer is supported by three officers, one for each component of the project.
There is a private consultant who acts as advisor and technical-administrative liaison between the CCAD and
USAID/G-CAP. The components are being implemented under different administrative arrangements.
The CAPAS component is implemented by a private company (IRG) under a results contract. This contract
includes a sub-contract with The Nature Conservancy—TNC in order to work in a coordinated manner in the
implementation of the component.
The Costas component is being implemented by a cooperative agreement between USAID/G-CAP and the
Consortium led by TNC, Worldwide Fund for Nature - WWF as a sub-contractor of TNC, and the University of
Rhode Island/Coastal Resources Center –CRC/URI as a sub-contractor of WWF.
The Environmental Protection and Legislation Component is being carried out under different arrangements
according to the activity. The activity under the sub-component of Analysis and Prioritization of Risks was
implemented two years ago through a “buy-in” with “PRIDE”, a global project which was implemented by
Chemonics International. The sub-component of the Initiative for the Development of Local Environmental
Policies and Programs - LEPPI is carried out through a cooperative agreement with the Cooperative Housing
Foundation -CHF. The Harmonization and Application of Environmental Legislation sub-component is
implemented under a USAID Handbook 3 Agreement with the CCAD. The activities under the Pollution
Prevention sub-component are attended to through a PASA signed between USAID and the EPA, under which
advisory services and technical assistance are provided through the CCAD for this sub-component and that of
Harmonization and Application of Environmental Legislation, and to CHF in its work in environmental sanitation
under the LEPPI sub-component.
4.0 Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation focus is intended to shape a vision of looking toward the future, with the aim of obtaining from the
exercise an overview of those aspects which have a regional scope and whose impact may make possible greater
diffusion between the countries of the region. This focus was discussed and agreed upon between the ARD
Evaluation Team and the USAID Mission Director in Guatemala, the Team Leader for the Strategic Objective
(SO2), the Evaluation Coordinator, the supervisors of the respective Project components for USAID/G-CAP, and
20
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
the agencies responsible for the implementation of CAPAS (IRG), Costas (Consortium of TNC/WWF/URI-CRC)
and LEPPI(CHF) components. The Work Plan presented in APPENDIX 1 includes a detailed description of the
methodology followed by the Evaluation Team. The Evaluation Team placed emphasis on analyzing Project
aspects and components, according to the criteria described below.
4.1 Strategic Focus of the Evaluation
An analysis was made of the indicators used by USAID and the implementing agencies to monitor and evaluate
the progress of the activities in comparison with Regional Strategic Objective No. 2 of USAID/G-CAP, the
purpose and goals described in the PROARCA Project Document, and the means utilized by the implementing
agencies to measure the progress and impacts of activities under different components. The Evaluating Team
differentiated in its analysis between those actions which are achievements and those which more properly are
processes which will lead to the achievement of an impact at the regional, cross-border, national and/or local
level, recognizing that the various components have different methodologies for focusing and initiating actions.
Attention was given in the evaluation to incorporate the implementation strategic focus which had been used
under the various components, identifying and analyzing the conditions which have influenced the attainment of
the objectives pursued under the Project or, in the case of processes, to orient activities in that direction. Also,
actions were analyzed and singled out which were not implemented owing to lack of opportunity or decisions in
the implementation process. In addition, the various social and institutional groups with which the components
have had activities and impact were identified and characterized.
Methods and techniques that have produced positive results were distinguished from approaches or strategies that
had not managed to generate the desired impact, judging by their scientific, social and political value. Their
acceptance and/or adoption by the counterparts, participants, beneficiaries and/or other stakeholders was also
evaluated, as well as the degree and nature of participation in the implementation of activities by stakeholders at
all levels, including USAID (G-CAP and bilaterals), CCAD, cross-border organizations, national and local
governments, NGOs, private enterprise and community and natural resource user groups. The Evaluation Team
analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the different models of administration and management under
various contractual mechanisms, with the purpose of determining the cost-benefit ratios, value added and
efficiency in the use of financial resources in a comparison between the results sought and the actual
achievements. Because organizational and financial sustainability is, for the Evaluation Team, a linchpin in the
success of a project of this nature, special emphasis was given to analyzing the strategies and activities under each
component related to technology transfer and the capability of all the counterpart agencies to continue actions for
environmental protection and conservation which are promoted by the Project. On the other hand, the Evaluation
Team made an effort to collect the lessons learned from the various components, with the purpose of
recommending the continuation or expansion of those which, in the Team’s judgment, appear to be promising,
and to reduce the emphasis or support for those which, in the analysis, are found to have little promise or to be
poorly oriented.
4.2 Evaluation Methodologies
The Evaluation Team employed a number of methodological instruments to gather and analyze the information
for Project evaluation, including: orientation meetings with USAID, CCAD and the implementing agencies of the
respective components; visits to a representative selection of sites where activities of the three components are
being carried out and interviews with groups of counterparts in the implementation of the activities or their
beneficiaries/users. The Evaluation Team analyzed the progress of each component (CAPAS, Costas,
LEPPI/PROLEGIS/EPA) with respect to attainment of Project objectives, considering what has been proposed in:
the Project Paper; Strategic Objective No. 2 of USAID/G-CAP under which the results package is being
implemented; the cooperation agreements and/or contracts established between the responsible parties of the
components; and the plans approved annually by the officials of USAID/G-CAP. Using this as a base, the
Evaluation Team utilized the mechanisms and tools listed below:
· Initial orientation meetings with the responsible principals for the Project in Guatemala and El Salvador
(USAID/G-CAP and CCAD);
21
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
· Visits to work sites and capital cities and interviews with the stakeholders, using Guides for Interviews
(see APPENDIX 2 - Interview Guides, APPENDIX 3 - Field Notes and APPENDIX 4 - Contacts);
· Review of the bibliography produced by each component (see APPENDIX 5 - Documents Consulted);
and
· Integration of information collected and synthesized from the field visits and interviews, and presentation
of the results at the Feedback Workshop of the Counterpart Groups (see APPENDIX 6 - Workshop
Minutes).
5.0 PROARCA Project: General Findings and Conclusions
The Evaluation Team has made the following general findings and conclusions concerning the achievements of
the Project in relation to the key elements of regionality, participation, internal integration of its components,
organizational and financial sustainability, the contribution to CONCAUSA objectives, and administrative￾managerial apsects of Project implementation. The general findings and conclustions are complemented by the
specific findings and conclusions by component, which are presented in later sections.
5.1 Context of PROARCA Within the Definition of Regionality
In the PROARCA Project various concepts and definitions of regionality are being conjugated. The Evaluation
Team found no shared vision of the definition in USAID (G-CAP and bilateral missions), SE-CCAD, nor among
the implementing agencies of the respective components. This situation has complicated the strategic questions
under which the Project is implemented, and has contributed to an isolated implementation of many of the
activities both internally as well as among components. The concepts of regionality are being used within three
major categories, as described below:
· Thematic Regionality. The concept of thematic regionality is oriented to general structural aspects which
affect environmental protection and the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources at every
level, that is local, national, regional, and international. It considers an implementation strategy based on
themes which, according to the judgment of the implementor, have applicability across the region. The
predominant themes promoted under this concept, although they are all related to the fundamental ideas
of environmental protection and biodiversity, are of a political, economic, and technical-scientific nature.
· Geographic Regionality. This concept is oriented to specific geographic areas where a number of
characteristics of environmental and ecological value are found and which, according to the objectives of
a project or activity, merit being conserved and/or managed under regimes of sustainability. It considers a
strategy in which only the interventions that are considered valid for attaining the objectives are applied
within determined geographic borders.
· Cross-border Regionality. This concept requires that a project must have more than one country within a
geographic area selected to receive support. The concept begins with the idea that in the border areas
there are great gaps in the application of environmental protection regulations, because official presence
and control is limited by the governments along the length of the border, even when these zones (being
also understood as ecoregions) might possess environmental and economic features of importance and/or
biodiversity of regional or even international importance.
In the majority of cases, CAPAS has implemented activities under the concept of thematic regionality,
implementing studies, training, plans, and reference guides to strengthen the counterpart organizations in their
work of environmental protection and conservation. Ordinarily the same technology or support package is
employed for distribution at the regional level. Within the activities implemented under CAPAS are found, among
others, the subjects of: gaps in the environmental legal frameworks and regimes for natural resources used within
the region; mechanisms for the monitoring of efficiency levels in protected areas management; preparation of
management and financial plans for protected areas, including private reserves; and the environmentally friendly
22
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
marketing of coffee, ecotourism and forest exploitation. A number of the subjects also consider the concept of
cross-border regionality, such as the protection of threatened species (turtles, CITES).
The Costas component is being implemented under the concept of geographic regionality; four geographic areas
of importance for coastal-marine biodiversity values. Two of the sites, Gulf of Honduras and Gulf of Fonseca,
also employ the concept of cross-border regionality, the two areas being shared by three countries. A number of
themes have been concentrated in these sites, among others: the establishment of multi-organizational coalitions,
development of organizations (primarily NGOs), protected area management, ecotourism development, fisheries
management and port contingencies.
There is a mix of regionality concepts managed by the Implementing agencies under the sub-components that
comprise the Environmental Protection and Legislation component. Four strategically selected municipalities are
receiving attention under the LEPPI sub-component in environmental sanitation projects in three of the areas
served by Costas, under the geographic regionality concept, while the remaining sites reflect priorities of the
USAID missions. The majority of the activities managed under the sub-components directed by SE-CCAD,
PROLEGIS/EPA and PROBIO, are being executed under the concept of thematic regionality, in which their work
has been concentrated on studies, training and technical assistance, the establishment of networks of international
professionals, etc. in order to strengthen the counterpart organizations in their work of environmental protection
and conservation, such as: assistance for the establishment and/or reformulation of general legal - regulatory
frameworks of environmental protection, including aspects of environmental impact assessment, safe handling of
pesticides, and the adoption of international conventions. Some of these activities relate to the cross-border
regionality concept, such as in the cases of the application of the CITES, MARPOL and Ramsar protocols under
PROBIO.
The Evaluation Team found various opinions among the representatives of USAID/G-CAP and the bilateral
missions. In USAID/G-CAP, the opinions of project officials on concepts of regionality depend a lot on which
component has the responsibility, more or less reflecting the regionality concept under which the component is
being implemented (see above). At the bilateral mission level, there is a variety of regionality concepts which
vary from thematic to geographic; but they always reflect, as might be expected, a certain sensitivity to and
protection of their bilateral strategic objectives. In a number of cases it offered the bilateral missions were
concerned with obtaining greater financial resources to compliment the bilaterally financed activities and that any
regional project should contribute to this effort. We also found opinions in the USAID bilateral missions that
some activities were seen in the bilateral range and not regionally (especially concerning the LEPPI activities),
while at the same time they accepted funding under this sub-component.
Because activities tied to one or more themes may be applicable throughout the region, there are different
political, socioeconomic, cultural and environmental conditions and capacities which tend to complicate these
efforts, both in terms of efficiency and cost/benefit values. The Evaluation Team believes that it would be difficult
for a project such as PROARCA to reach the critical mass needed to transform the present attitudes, policies,
capabilities and actions in all countries of the region about so many themes in so brief a time and in such
changeable situations. This also was a conclusion of the RENARM Project evaluation and it is listed among the
lessons learned from this PROARCA precursor project. It is undeniable that the Project is making a significant
contribution, but significant changes will never be achieved if the governments do not change their attitudes and
financial priorities in favor of the environment.
We determined during interviews and field visits that the SE-CCAD has not yet been able to consolidate a
regional view concerning environmental matters in its managing units. The national institutions continue to focus
on national activities and politics without perceiving or adopting a perspective of the benefits to be gained from
having a regional focus. We identified this same behavior during our visits to the bilateral missions in the various
countries, where we found that USAID/G-CAP also has not managed to consolidate a regional agenda in
environmental matters. Furthermore, while implementation of activities of a single project may be defended under
one or another regionality concept, it is difficult to carry out a project with three components, each one with a
different idea of regionality. The Evaluation Team’s conclusions are that these differences in concept have
contributed to a thematic and geographic dispersion of Project efforts.
23
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
5.2 Integration of Project Components
The Evaluation Team found that, similar to the conclusions of the RENARM Project evaluators, PROARCA
components and activities are thematically and geographically dispersed. While the work quality under all the
components has been high, this dispersion has caused a relative reduction in administrative-managerial efficiency
of implementation at the greater Project level, the duplication of some activities to achieve similar goals, a
reduction or potential loss in efficiencies and economies of scale, and in some cases, limited impact levels. The
Evaluation Team did not find that there is a shared vision for the implementation of the Project components
among USAID, CCAD (neither in the Executive Secretariat nor in the Ministries) and the implementing agencies
(TNC/WWF/URI, IRG, CHF, and EPA).
PROARCA is a complex project, from its design through its implementation. The design assigned the
implementation of each project component to five distinct implementing agencies, one of them a consortium of
three organizations (TNC/WWF/URI, IRG, CHF, CCAD and EPA). While it may have been considered implicit,
the Project Paper did not emphasize the need for thematic and geographic integration of the Project components.
Certain cross-cutting activities were contemplated, for example that there would be monitoring of all the activities
of the overall Project under the CAPAS component, but these activities were never undertaken. While half the
environmental sanitation projects supported by LEPPI were placed in Costas priority areas, the other half were
situated according to the judgment of bilateral missions without any connection to the regional project.
The Evaluation Team found that the implementing agencies have not worked integrally to prepare their strategic
plans or their annual programs. While there have been joint meetings between USAID/G-CAP and bilateral
missions and the implementing agencies for the respective components to present the summaries of the past six
months or year and the plans for the six months or year to come (the so-called “Round-up”), these have been done
after the planning stage had been completed and they are useful mainly for information. Once they have been
made, the plans of each component also are exchanged among the implementing agencies. In some cases, the
tasks of financing and/or implementation of some activities of mutual interest and priority have been shared and,
while successful experiences have been shared, these few cases have been exceptions.
At the Steering Committee level of USAID/G-CAP, integration efforts appear limited. There may be several
reasons for this lack of integration: the lack of an integrated institutional vision concerning regionality (see
above); the Project design itself; the administrative-managerial complexity of having five implementers and
different contractual arrangements (cooperative agreements, results contract and a PASA) and the great amount of
paperwork required for their processing; the thematic and geographic dispersion of activities; and/or also owing to
personnel changes in nearly all involved institutions during the past 15 months. It is nevertheless important to
point out that there has not been sufficient emphasis by USAID/G-CAP as the financing agency in promoting, if
not demanding, greater integration between the components, and even internally within the respective components
themselves. Nor have there been great efforts by the implementing agencies to undertake strategic and operational
coordination, although the Evaluation Team believes that the advantages in doing so are obvious and valid.
5.3 Project Management and Administration
The PROARCA design established that the components would be implemented by five implementing agencies,
under a variety of contractual arrangements, as indicated below. This strategy had a lot to do with USAID’s
intention to assign coordination and implementation of each component according to the specialties of the
organizations eventually to be selected (for example, NGOs for protected areas, EPA for pollution control). In any
case, the number of contractors and the variety of contractual arrangements has complicated an inherently
complicated project even more, requiring great efforts on the part of USAID/G-CAP administrative personnel in
administrative supervisory activities and contributing to the bureaucratization of Project management.
Every contractual arrangement has its advantages and disadvantages. There is no intention here to judge if one or
the other arrangement may be better, but only to show that an attempt should be made to choose the combination
of specialized implementing agencies according to the advisory and technical assistance services required. What
is important, as a lesson learned from PROARCA, is to minimize the number and variety of arrangements,
because the administration of so many agreements, contracts and sub-contracts adds to the bureaucratic cost, both
24
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
for the time required by the implementing agencies and for USAID to “push papers”, as well as in the
administrative costs themselves, thus reducing concomitantly the resources available for the real activities of
providing counterpart and beneficiary support.
On the other hand, as is shown below in the sections concerning the conclusions of the three PROARCA
components, the implementing agencies of the PROARCA components have been able to direct a great number of
activities tied to biodiversity conservation and environmental protection at the Central American level.
Nevertheless, these same activities are dispersed and very uncoordinated and or disconnected among themselves
due to lack of thematic and geographic integrated strategic planning, between their implementing agencies. The
original PROARCA design, which in itself is a complex project with several components and sub-components did
not adequately emphasize strategic planning and annual programming among the implementing agencies. Nor has
USAID/G-CAP insisted on facilitating that integration over the Project life, a situation which is exacerbated by
insufficient application of USAID/G-CAP and SE-CCAD technical quality controls to the various Project
components, which has generated dispersion and technical disconnection in implementation. An imbalance in the
support given by SE-CCAD to the different Project components was also noted, since the time and effort
dedicated to the PROLEGIS and PROBIO sub-components is well known, while relations with other Project
components (CAPAS, Costas) who are of more importance to PROARCA, is left free or attended to in a marginal
way. This situation has contributed to a nearly separate implementation by the three main PROARCA
components, and among the sub-components of the Environmental Protection and Legislation component.
Important opportunities exist for improvement of techno-managerial and administrative efficiencies in Project
implementation, and to gain greater impact in the promoted activities.
A similar situation occurs between the Project and other development agencies working on similar projects in the
region. The counterpart agencies have limited absorptive capacity to manage the responsibilities and financial
resources which are being delegated to them under numerous assistance projects. With the eagerness to respond to
the demands of so many clients under numerous projects, the counterpart agency representatives (principally the
NGOs and government agencies) spend a great deal of their time in workshops, many of them thematically
repetitious, and in responding to a range of responsibilities for processing plans and progress reports and
accounting reports required of them by the financial agencies. The Evaluation Team also found numerous
instances where the same product (gap studies, collections of laws and regulations, manuals, contributions to
protected area conservation) were repeated, that is duplicated - in itself a waste of financial resources. While the
PROARCA components’ implementing agencies have made some collaborations in the countries with other
development agencies in order to avoid these problems (especially SE-CCAD under PROLEGIS and PROBIO,
and CAPAS in some isolated cases), they are not sufficient to counteract the instances of inefficiency mentioned
above.
A project’s success and achievements are closely related to the support and close ties which the directing team has
with the different components’ implementing units. That relation and habits of interaction are developed through
implementation and they lend character and mystique to the management and administration unit. In the case of
PROARCA, in the past year there have been a number of changes in the central management structures both in
the USAID/G-CAP donor agency as well as in the principal partner SE-CCAD, so that these relations have been
altered. These changes have been the product of normal rotations within the Agency and the cyclical changes of
governments within the region. Although both changes have been foreseen they have subtly affected relations
between components and partners. All parties involved are making the necessary efforts to readapt their modes of
operation to the new situation, but such effort takes time and energy. These adjustments take time, and in the
PROARCA case one may predict that the obstacles will be overcome.
5.4 Distribution of CAPAS and Costas Financial Resources
In this section, a brief quantitative analysis is made of the use of financial resources under the CAPAS and Costas
components, to try to answer some comments about equal distribution, or not, of the PROARCA resources by
country.
Forty percent of the PROARCA funds are assigned to the CAPAS component. CAPAS also has the majority of
technical personnel with varied expertise and according to CAPAS’ themes. In the detail of expenditures (in
25
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
percentage terms) made by CAPAS during July, 1998 to June, 1999, it is seen that 43% of the expenditures were
in technical assistance: administrative expenditures represented 24%, with a breakdown of 15% in Guatemala and
9% in the main office, 15% in the small grants program; 14% for conducting workshops; and 4% in
communication.
In the CAPAS case it was not possible to obtain a distribution of expenditures by country because they do not
keep their expenditure accounting by country; but the number of participants in courses and workshops given by
CAPAS in different subjects by country was obtained. The information corresponds to the period October, 1998
to September, 1999 with a total of 1,486 participants, distributed as shown in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Participants in Courses and Workshops
El Salvador is the country which has participated the least, due to its geographic location it did not enter into
participation in the CAPAS component during the early years of execution until the coffee plantations of the
country were included as an extension of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. Belize also had less participation
which, according to the explanations received, has a low population density and less pressure on natural
resources, as well as language limitations because of the language used in the courses, primarily Spanish. There is
a disproportionate number of participants in the Guatemalan courses and workshops, which is explained by it
being the Project headquarters. Having made the preceding observations, the remaining countries show a rather
level tendency.
The same tendencies may be observed with the distribution of the small grants. What is really very noteworthy is
the differential of those distributed in Guatemala in relation to the other countries of the area. This situation will
have to be explained by the CAPAS implementing agency, since the Evaluation Team could not determine the
reasons. From another viewpoint, it should be noted the equitable distribution of small grants does not
necessarily meet the regionality criterion that is envisioned for a future project. An equitable distribution of
financial resources does not guarantee that a regional impact is being made. Consideration should be given to the
Workshop Participants
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Belize Guatemala El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Costa Rica Panamá
Participants
26
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
differences in scale among the countries, the various levels of development in the number and quality of NGOs
and PVOs, differences in population, the total area within protected areas but, above all, it should be considered
whether there has been a regional impact. However, this criterion is very rooted in the countries because of
different kinds of pressures, whether these be political, economic, lobbies, etc. Graph 2 below shows the amounts,
by country, of small grants distributions during project life.
Figure 2: CAPAS Component Small Grants Distributed by Country
The Costas component provided a list of investments by work site and major entries, which are given in Graph 3.
This histogram shows the resource distribution is concentrated in the items for central office operations, travel,
technical assistance, WWF and URI, of which an important percentage is attributed to technical assistance at the
four field sites. The distribution of expenses at the field sites level is well balanced. Also note that all sites
supported by the Costas component are cross-border except for Costa Miskita whose principal activity is carried
out in Nicaragua because of reasons provided by the implementing agency concerning difficult communication
with the Honduran Mosquitia.
Distribution of Small Grants
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Belize Guatemala El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Costa Rica Panamá
27
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Figure 3: Distribution of Expenditures by Site Under Costas
* ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL
** INCLUDES REGIONAL OPERATIONAL TRAVEL COSTS OF ALL THE PARTICIPANTS FOR THE REGIONAL
AND SITE WORKSHOPS
5.5 Participation of Civil Society and Development of Human Resources
The Project has enjoyed significant success with participation in the various components at all levels of society in
the Central American Region. High levels of participation have been obtained from authorities, technicians,
specialists, NGOs, private sector, and grassroots organizations for different actions and in all the countries.
Participation has not been limited to the four Costas management sites, which has generated a high level of
recognition by various groups of interested parties about the work of the Project. Through management of the
Project opportunity has been provided to different sectors to have a greater role in environmental affairs, with the
aim of planning the management of their resources as well as establishing common agendas to protect species and
resources of regional, national and local interest.
Civil society participation for every component has been full and ongoing. The gap studies and mini-cases,
environmental and site profiles, and the use of coordination workshops to identify the problems in natural
resource use and biodiversity protection have taken resource user opinions as a basis for designing support and
technical assistance strategies and activities. Costas and CAPAS small grants programs have facilitated resource
transfer directly to NGOs for carrying out activities tied to these components’ objectives. At the same time
resources administered by LEPPI were delivered to municipalities which otherwise would not have had the
advantage of sanitation projects benefiting the entire population. Training workshops and courses have reached
counterparts and beneficiaries of government institutions, NGOs and natural resource and biodiversity
producer/user groups, all openly and without bias; this in itself has democratized technical assistance and
knowledge transfer.
There remains room for improvement, however, since the results of some attempts at coordination (gaps, mini￾cases and environmental action plans), while valid and of good quality, were not given sufficient emphasis in
programming of later support activities. Also, many of the training events are not tied to programming activities
within the same component that gave the courses; so they were not followed by “in service” reinforcement, and
training impact remained limited.
PROARCA/Costas
$-
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
$500,000.00
$600,000.00
$700,000.00
GANDOCA
BOCAS
GOLFO DE
FONSECA
GOLFO DE
HONDURAS
COSTA MISKITA CENTRAL OFFICE
OPERATIONS
TRAVEL ** TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
WWF URI
PERSONNEL 1 1 1 1 8*
28
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
5.6 Counterpart Organizational and Financial Sustainability
Many resources and efforts under PROARCA are aimed at training in technical subjects. Technical knowledge
transfer is an integral part of counterpart strengthening, whether they are NGO officials, government institutions
or groups of natural resource producers and users. There have been some instances of advising and training in
planning aspects (especially protected areas), accounting administration (for sub-donors under the small grants
programs) and in such areas as how to undertake a business marketing program (ecotourism and environmentally
friendly coffee). Another important step in facilitating the work of the municipalities in providing services to their
citizens, is the establishment of environmental sanitation project management committees in the municipalities
covered by LEPPI. Without criticizing these efforts, greater attention is still needed in the science of counterpart
organizational development, especially the NGOs and groups or associations of natural resource producers/users,
to make them solid and financially solvent.
Nearly all NGOs and natural resource producer/user associations are weak in the basic managerial skills within
their own organizations. NGOs generally do not have a membership larger than their own officials, or if they have
a membership it is based on a small membership fee; usually these members do not have a relationship with NGO
activities. Except for some NGOs, there is little or no use of volunteers even when volunteering is a basic element
separating an NGO from a service provider or specialized center. The existence and adequate functioning of a
board of directors is another organizational development aspect of the NGO and association. The boards of
directors of many NGOs and associations are weak, inactive in the “political” activities of the organization or are
exercising management and administrative functions within the operation of their organization that may be
considered a conflict of interest.
PROARCA has played a limited role in financial sustainability. As is always the case with direct contributions,
there is the risk of creating dependency on projects such as PROARCA for sustainability of organizational
activities. This is the case in the CAPAS, and especially Costas, small grants programs or in off-site
administration of financial resources for design and implementation of LEPPI environmental sanitation projects.
This risk is even greater if the resources are used to finance positions (part- or full-time, salaried or on a
consultancy basis) for NGO or association officials. Although the Evaluation Team observed that Costas, CAPAS
and LEPPI counterpart organizations are very weak in these matters (except for some very special cases such as
FUNDAECO), it did not see any training advisors, courses or workshops aimed at fundraising, preparation of
financing proposals, or in development of strategies and mechanisms for diversifying and augmenting their
financing sources. For example, in preparing financial plans for certain protected areas (Río Platano, Cerro San
Gil), a projection of financial needs according to the management plan was made showing present financing
sources, but presenting neither a strategy nor alternatives for raising the missing funds which the plan itself
indicated would be needed in the future. If the organizations do not have the strategy or the capability of
generating their own resources, then the activities which had been supported by PROARCA resources will end the
day Project financing is terminated.
During the counterpart and beneficiary organizations evaluation, there were many comments concerning the need
for support from productive activities which would generate income. Nonetheless, except for CAPAS’ tourism
and environmentally friendly coffee activities and the ecotourism activity supported by Costas in Belize, there
seemed to be little emphasis in the majority of activities implemented under the components on promoting
production and merchandising aspects linked with the environmental area - this would be to obtain economic
benefits which would guarantee sustainability of processes and social welfare.
5.7 Information for Project Monitoring and Evaluation
The Evaluation Team found that Costas, through the M and E Scorecard, is monitoring progress in processes of
activities management using a number of parameters, such as: legal status of protected areas; co-management;
community and stakeholder participation; personnel and institutional strengthening and training; strategic and
annual planning; and even including drawing up and implementing monitoring plans to evaluate indicators of
human activity that contributes to natural resource degradation and the impact of efforts to combat them. CAPAS
is promoting a similar system for monitoring progress in protected area management activities. Beyond
quantifying progress toward activity goals (number of meetings, training events, reports, etc.), neither the
29
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Environmental Protection and Legislation component nor LEPPI, EPA or CCAD was seen to make use of process
monitoring systems or of impact indicators related to their activities.
Uniform quantitative base line definition and monitoring and information management systems are lacking in all
components to measure progress toward Project objectives, in social aspects as well as in Project components’
biological resource base. We must mention also that BSP designed a monitoring system for Costas which was
never implemented; that EPA offered to develop water quality monitoring programs in the Gulfs of Fonseca and
Honduras which was not accepted by Costas; and that CAPAS did not succeed in mounting a system for
monitoring the vegetation cover in selected protected areas, although there was a study carried out in vegetation￾ecological associations to show protected area distribution gaps in comparison with representative biodiversity
associations in the region.
The quality and quantity of information being collected by the implementing agencies is in response to the
requirements in their contracts and agreements, used by USAID/G-CAP for making the performance evaluation
for each one. These analytical parameters also satisfy the Results Framework (R-4) which USAID uses to
evaluate progress on the Regional Mission Strategic Objectives. The analytical parameters used at present to
evaluate work progress under each component as well as to evaluate R-4 progress, are not sufficient to evaluate
Project activity impact. In the Regional Strategic Objective, “Effective Regional Management of Key Natural
Resources”, indicators of compliance are given: “1) Deforestation tendencies in selected protected areas; 2)
Reduction in degradation of selected coastal areas and water resources.” According to the Project Paper, the
means to verify Project core goal achievement (the compliance indicators) are: “1. Remote sensor monitoring
through an institutional contract; and 2. Water quality monitoring through an institutional contract”. The
Evaluation Team found no Project level activity related to monitoring protected area vegetation coverage, nor to
natural resources (flora, fauna) or water quality monitoring relating to coastal areas.
At the overall Project level, there is an absence of the basic scientific data needed to evaluate impact on natural
resources of activities carried out under each component. We heard comments that biophysical parameter
monitoring and research was very expensive and of limited use, and that there were not sufficient resources to
fund such activities. The Evaluation Team disagrees with these opinions, believing that parameters that are
technically and financially relatively accessible do indeed exist, and that they merit consideration. The Project
finds itself in a dilemma: it is not possible to evaluate progress toward the Strategic Objective because there is no
base line against which to monitor the indicators and activities. Further, because both CAPAS and Costas are
promoting productive activities (environmentally friendly) in environmentally fragile areas, according to the
requirements set forth in the Conditional Negative Determination, approved by PROARCA under the
Environmental Threshold Decision, the initiatives which contain any productive activity should have a special
study of the potentially negative impacts and measures to prevent them. These studies, as a quid pro quo, require
the collection of biophysical data as a basis for monitoring to determine the environmental feasibility of the
activities to be promoted.
5.8 The USAID - CCAD Relationship and the Present State of CONCAUSA
The Project's ongoing support of CCAD has permitted this institution to be consolidated and to form one of the
pillars of the Regional Integration System/SICA. After several years of operation, SE-CCAD is in the process of
redefining its strategic and institutional plan under a new organizational structure whose objective is to guarantee
the permanence of operation in regional environmental subjects. USAID/G-CAP and SE-CCAD have managed to
keep the environmental theme on the regional agenda and the possibility of keeping the forum of Environmental
Ministers in force and open to environmental action. That has been in large part with the financing of the
RENARM and PROARCA Projects. With the support of USAID/G-CAP through PROARCA, the SE-CCAD has
arranged the association of interest groups in the environmental area as well as having participated in important
strategic alliances which are about to produce results at the regional level, such as the Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor, CITES, Mesoamerican Reef System, Protection of Biodiversity, and Climate Change among others. The
environmental theme has managed to position itself in the region as one of the pillars of Central American
integration; as an example, one of the four Directorates General of the SICA is the Directorate General of
Environment (DGMA).
30
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
The original PROARCA design established the USAID - CCAD relationship at two levels:
· First, the CCAD is the regional counterpart of USAID/G-CAP for overall Project implementation and
receives resources to finance operation of the Executive Secretariat and its offices, and provides the
required logistical support for the meetings and communications between CCAD members, its technical
councils and liaisons; and
· Through its Executive Secretariat, the CCAD is the implementing agency responsible for the specific
activities implemented under the Harmonization and Application of Environmental Legislation
(PROLEGIS) and Protection of Biodiversity (PROBIO) sub-components, and it participates as an EPA
partner in activities under the Pollution Prevention sub-component - all under the main Environmental
Protection and Legislation component.
The Project paper established two levels of managerial supervision for the PROARCA Project: the Steering
Committee participated in by USAID/G-CAP and representatives of USAID bilateral missions in the region; and
the Project Management Unit-PCU, subordinate to the Steering Committee, comprised of the USAID/G-CAP
Regional Strategic Objective Officer as President; the heads of the three implementing agencies responsible for
coordination of component implementation (IRG/TNC, TNC/WWF/URI, CHF); and a senior representative of
CCAD. The three Project officials from USAID/G-CAP responsible for the PROARCA components are
incorporated into the Project Management Unit virtually from Project initiation
From the outset it may be seen that the level of the USAID/CCAD relationship is one of operational coordination
in the Project Management Unit, and not at the directive level (Steering Committee). This limits the CCAD role to
implementer, reducing its profile as a counterpart. At Project initiation the CCAD participation only at the Project
Management Unit level was not a limiting factor, in large part because of the pre-existing working relationship
with USAID in the implementation of RENARM. Also, the work of the Technical-Administrative Advisor , in the
role of liaison, has served as intermediary between USAID and CCAD in planning, evaluation, administration and
communication. But after the principal offices of CCAD were transferred and the process of integration with the
SICA was initiated certain inconveniences presented themselves. In the same way, CCAD was participating in the
yearly performance evaluation of all the Project implementers and in coordination meetings with the Project
Management Unit, with a certain continuity up until the date which more or less coincided with the CCAD offices
moving to El Salvador. From that time on, the CCAD nearly ceased participating in Project management and
administration. This is due in part to the transfer of CCAD offices to El Salvador, but it also should be noted that
there had been important personnel rotation between almost all the principal actors in the involved organizations,
which probably had something to do with the distancing of the CCAD and USAID.2
In the majority of cases, the counterpart organizations and persons interviewed identified the SE-CCAD as a
political entity. It is assigned the role of harmonization at the political levels with a number of coordination
functions of regional scope. Whenever the evaluators had access, they were told clearly that such an organization
should not invade the field of project implementation.
The Evaluation Team found that CCAD participation in major Project strategic and annual planning actions, aside
from planning and evaluation of activities entrusted under the Environmental Protection and Legislation
component, had been minimal. This situation has resulted in a certain CCAD distancing from some activities
carried out under the other components, and lessening of recognition at the country level, that PROARCA
(Costas, CAPAS, LEPPI), which as a Project has the USAID and CCAD co-participation as partners.
Also, the SE-CCAD is heavily dependent on PROARCA resources to finance activities directed towards
environmental policies and legislation, biodiversity conservation and to finance the CCAD meetings. Up to now,
with some exceptions, SE-CCAD has been unable to obtain the larger resources needed for its basic operations,
and its member countries are not up to date with their contributions assigned under ALIDES (US$20,000 per
 
2
 In USAID/G-CAP, the Strategic Objectives Officer and the Project Officer responsible for the Costas component were
changed; in CCAD, the Executive Director was changed; in Costas the Director of the TNC/WWF/URI Consortium was
changed; and in LEPPI, CHF Directors were changed on several occasions.
31
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
year). This lack of long-term financing (core funding) and its present dependence on project resources (soft
money), complicate SE-CCAD functions and PROLEGIS and PROBIO program implementation.
Concerning CONCAUSA, the Evaluation Team was able to determine that nearly all activities carried out under
each component is related to the strategies, objectives and obligations entrusted to the Government of the United
States of America in the CONCAUSA Agreement (although work is not being performed under all the stipulated
rubrics). Prominent PROARCA contributions are:
· Consolidation of some national protected area systems relating to the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor,
and incorporation of additional areas in hitherto underrepresented ecoregions, including marine-coastal
areas;
· Training in technical subjects dealing with conservation and sustainable use of renewable natural
resources, and biodiversity protection;
· Review and modernization of legal-regulatory frameworks for environmental protection and natural
resource conservation, including progress in adoption and application of protocols of the international
conventions for biodiversity protection (CITES, Ramsar, Climate Change, Biodiversity);
· Establishing professional networks in environmental legislation and application aspects, standards for safe
handling of pesticides and Prior Consent Report anticipated for the importation of pesticides, and training
in these matters; and
· Environmentally friendly productive activities promotion in protected area buffer zones and in fragile
areas.
PROARCA has been deficient primarily in areas of generating and publishing scientific information on
biodiversity, generation of base line information and undertaking systematic monitoring programs of parameters
and indicators for evaluating natural resource conditions (especially deforestation rates in protected areas and land
use), in facilitating indigenous group participation in conservation activities, and aspects of facilitating greater
participation of other financial agencies in activities promoted by PROARCA.
· Along with the Central American Governments’ obligations stipulated in the Agreement, there have been
certain important advances, especially related to:
· Promulgation of framework legislation and regulations for environmental protection, including safe
management of pesticides;
· Declaration of more protected areas, including wetlands and coastal-marine areas, and
· Ratification of the Central American Biodiversity Convention.
However, the governments have not met their obligations, in contributing financially to CCAD, nor have they
advanced rapidly enough to sign and ratify some international environmental protection and biodiversity
conservation conventions. National environmental conservation and protection budgets, other than projects
financed by foreign grants, have not increased, leaving management of protected areas largely subject to north￾south transfers. Nor has civil society fully participated in preparation of proposals for environmental legislation,
nor has there been significant advance in promoting indigenous group participation in conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity.
Perhaps the most important aspect of CONCAUSA, is whether it still has validity as policy and directive both for
the United States Government, with its interests represented by USAID/G-CAP and the bilateral missions, as well
as for the CCAD and SICA/Directorate General of the Environment. In the interviews conducted with the officials
of SE-CCAD (SICA/DGMA) and USAID/G-CAP, it could not be shown if CONCAUSA still represents both
parties’ interests.
32
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
6.0 CAPAS Component: Findings and Conclusions
PROARCA/CAPAS has the objective of offering support to a framework of policies as well as technical and
financial assistance for protected areas management and biodiversity conservation in Central America. Thus, the
project strengthens the agenda of CCAD and its Executive Secretariat. Among the relevant achievements of the
CAPAS component one may cite it having participated actively in environmental consciousness raising of
individuals and institutions in the Central American region, especially in protected area management. This
CAPAS achievement is shown by the creation of spaces for horizontal apprenticeship, aids and advances in
technical knowledge on environmental subjects and a number of private groups (especially NGOs and consultants
from some countries in the region) who have capitalized on those technical skills.
6.1 Achievements and Strengths
6.1.1 Participation
The complexity of the component means that in order to carry out its activities, CAPAS personnel must undertake
actions with at least four different kinds of actors who at times are antagonistic among themselves and highly
competitive; the governments (Ministries of the Environment and authorities of protected areas), the SE-CCAD,
NGOs, consultants and services providers and some communities and municipalities. It must be emphasized that
with this diversity of actors the Component has achieved implementation of relevant actions in highly susceptible
and changeable environments in every country of the region. There is a comparative advantage in that this range
of actors has allowed it to disseminate successful experiences gained from apprenticeship processes at a time
when the environmental subject needed to raise its profile in the region.
The working arrangement has generated valuable horizontal apprenticeship processes that have been carried out
on two levels; through the training sub-component in response to the countries’ demand and through the small
grants sub-component. In both cases the intention is to develop solid opportunities for strengthening institutions
and individuals.
The CAPAS team has achieved synergy and co-implementation with other PROARCA components, such as the
case of Costas, and with other important regional actors such as the GEF, BM, AID, UICN, NASA and many
NGOs, obtaining significant common contributions.
CAPAS has managed to establish an office for publication and creation of informative booklets. Through a
consultant they examined communication needs in the other project components.
6.1.2 Technical Aspects
Capas has a broad mandate and has been able to concentrate its actions on six environmental themes: protected
areas, forests and climate change, natural resource policies, marketing favoring the environment, training and the
small grants program which has facilitated the strengthening and impacts at different levels and in all the regional
countries.
Following the design principles, CAPAS has made substantial progress in the production of generally high quality
documents (which are produced according to national demand and to CAPAS’ priority themes), and has also
achieved an excellent level of instruction and training, development of new economic-environmental
opportunities, participation in the design of regional policies and capabilities in the resolution of problems related
to protected areas.
Some examples which are worth highlighting as CAPAS’ strengths related to document production and
economic-environmental opportunities are: (a) development of monitoring strategies for protected areas, which
are being replicated in different countries; (b) the coffee and environment activities, which although they preceded
PROARCA in the region, they have been given a new turn and a new vision in order to be compatible with
markets for environmentally friendly products; (c) work carried out on themes of design of national policies and
33
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
regional positions; (d) raising national capacities and generation of greater value added from the themes and sub￾themes managed in CAPAS; (e) the production of the first standardized regional vegetation map; and (f) the
attainment of various co-management agreements in protected areas among many other positive actions.
The small grants program (including the “genius grants”) is an innovative theme which is difficult to implement
but which has had a direct and concrete impact on individuals and organizations. This innovative arrangement for
support has been received by the Central American environmental community and has awakened a competitive
spirit in the recipients of support as well as an understanding of the importance of having quality in activity
implementation. The majority of the recipients also have adopted control and activity follow-up mechanisms as an
additional benefit, both in technical activities as well as in financial-administrative aspects that quite definitely
have strengthened the recipient organization.
The CAPAS implementation arrangement has permitted the strengthening and incorporation of themes and sub￾themes that already are maturing in the Central American region’s countries. Among other aspects, this strategy
has allowed the development of training workshops that generate positive externalities when they permit the
exchange of information and experiences among their participants. The same situation applies in the case of
activities related to pro-environmental marketing, where they have been managed to develop and apply a
successful strategy, with clients clearly defined, in the public sector as well as in the private, with plans for its
strengthening and with association strategies oriented to the attainment of concrete results.
The technical activities of CAPAS have been based on teams and the formation of a critical mass of experts in
countries such as Costa Rica and Guatemala which has facilitated processes and the transfer of experiences to
other countries of the region as well as the generation of regional positions related to international conventions
such as CITES, Biodiversity and Climate Change.
6.1.3 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
Due to the diversity of the CAPAS component, it can support the majority of regional agenda themes and has
acted as a “think tank” for a number of activities in process in the region. Vision and meticulousness in selection
of consolidated themes have also been important in obtaining its regional expansion. This has been valid more for
the terrestrial protected areas, forests and biodiversity, although it has made important contributions for the
implementation of processes in the coastal themes especially in the policy area.
The activities undertaken by CAPAS have been developed in a work scope that is varied and occasionally diffuse.
It has had to choose between the political, especially when it is necessary to support SE-CCAD and the
Environmental Ministers of the region, and the technical. The second aspect has been accomplished through well￾positioned partners in the subject who helped to rapidly advance the implementation process. In most cases the
strategy has been effective. Criteria and/or transversal axes which often are identified in CAPAS’ activities are:
(a) diversification and flexibility in the activities; (b) decentralization in implementation; (c) consultations with
interested parties; (d) emphasis on results and generation of synergy; and (e) coupling processes with training
activities.
The selection of work areas is based on geographic aspects considering activities that would be bi- or tri-national
at least; important themes for USAID/G-CAP and recognized in the actions by CCAD. They have also taken the
administrative and organizational aspects into account, especially when they have provided support to the themes
of commercialization under rubrics related to services and production. This kind of strategy has permitted the
component to have activities in all the countries of the region and to generate interaction among them. These
criteria, subtle on many occasions, have permitted the component to resist pressure to be the “petty cash” of the
region in environmental matters. The Evaluation Team recognized the need and pressure on the part of countries
and most organizations to obtain financial support.
CAPAS has managed to position itself appropriately as a facilitating and catalyzing component for processes and
results, with the capacity and strategy to enter into iterative and often non-linear processes which it facilitates,
promote self-help without taking possession and to withdraw opportunely, leaving the processes underway. This
has served to gain CAPAS the credibility that the great majority of those interviewed have of the project.
34
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
6.1.4 Management and Administration Aspects
CAPAS administrative and managerial aspects, especially in the small grants sub-component, answers to and
supports the donees’ administrative-accounting systems in their planning processes, providing them the resources
they require to carry out their activities, with the appropriate monitoring.
CAPAS has maintained a relationship with the CCAD Executive Secretariat (SE-CCAD) for the implementation
of its activities, especially in the approval of its initial budget, the approval of annual work plans, in sub-theme
activities managed by CAPAS and in prompt attention to requests from the SE-CCAD.
CAPAS at present has a modern, agile and simple administrative structure that answers clients’ and technical
team members’ needs and donor requests.
6.2 Opportunities for Improvement
6.2.1 Participation
CAPAS has a tendency to dilute its activities owing to the pressure that the stakeholders exercise. Support for
NGOs has gone to existing ones with a high profile in the national environmental arena (although in the last small
grants process new NGOs were incorporated).
Ongoing workshops have not been provided to the Environmental Ministries on themes developed by CAPAS to
guarantee project knowledge in the face of constant changes operating in the region in these agencies.
CAPAS could promote regional harmonization with an outline for organizational strengthening beyond its
partners, especially for the agents of change (especially NGOs and consultants) which it should support. This
strategic shortcoming limits the possibilities for harmonization of processes among the diverse parts of the region.
CAPAS has implemented activities in different places without coordination between locations. Developed
activities are quick and localized, dispersing the chances for development of the “critical mass” of experts
throughout the region. The “critical mass” is essential to obtain sustainable impact.
6.2.2 Technical Aspects
At present, training and detailed plans emphasize budgets and their distribution, but there is little included about
local capitalization mechanisms for the areas. Plans would be improved by more emphasis on identification and
establishment of mechanisms for payment of environmental services. This lack was also noted in the subject of
training.
CAPAS has a good communication strategy but the partners and beneficiaries have little access to the documents
produced by CAPAS. Mechanisms for creating and publishing case studies of best practices and lessons learned
are lacking, which may have limited consolidation of protected area management structures.
While CAPAS has produced a large number of documents, the quality is uneven. There is no CAPAS mechanism
for quality control of the published documents so that they might be more homogenous and in line with the
investment.
CAPAS has the capacity to develop a “critical mass” of experts in each country in the region. Since the capacity
already exists in Costa Rica and Guatemala, CAPAS must focus its efforts on developing this “critical mass” in
the other countries in order to promote regionality of impact. The comparative disadvantages between countries
are especially notable with environmental authorities.
35
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
In management of private reserves where the co-management mechanism is not encouraged, there is the risk that
competition would be generated between areas and thus convert the matter into a national problem rather than a
regional solution.
Although the processes for small grants have direct influences, they do not always energize regional, technical or
environmental policy themes connected to those developed by CAPAS or other PROARCA components.
Selection of such grants' recipients is made on the basis of national criteria.
There are opportunities to improve the concept of regionality. The concept of regionality that now exists is weak
and under-emphasized. This lack may be observed in the relative isolation perceived in each theme managed by
CAPAS, despite the weekly meetings which are held, as each party responsible for the themes have different
concepts of regionality, according to their opportunities.
6.2.3 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
Throughout the project the planning processes have been independent among components. Further, these planning
processes have not been sufficiently iterative. In general information is gathered and the plans are drawn up in
CAPAS, later requesting the respective approvals from the pertinent organs (USAID/G-CAP and SE-CCAD).
Partner participation becomes more intense during implementation and this is a weakness to be corrected
appropriately.
The CAPAS technical team has established mechanisms to have excellent communication. However, it was said
during the interviews that it could be improved in the integration aspect if the planning process were more
interactive. The working system of shared responsibilities produces the feeling of activity independence despite
the weekly meetings which are held. This effect becomes sharper when it is seen that each activity area is
managed under a different concept of regionality (thematic, geographic, cross-border). Because of the strong need
to produce results, the technicians run the risk of falling into activism without considering the actions that are
being undertaken in the other areas. Coordination in this sense is high but it is more in response to coincident
opportunities than to a work strategy. This may be a design flaw.
Although there are monitoring plans, there is a lack of monitoring and evaluation implementation based on
indicators and base lines using biophysical, social and institutional information.
6.2.4 Management and Administration Aspects
There are opportunities for improving communication with SE-CCAD. In the past year CAPAS has taken limited
advantage of the existing space for establishing synergy especially with SE-CCAD at three levels: (a) planning
(development of common themes and agendas); (b) operationally; and (c) in information (symmetry in its use and
management). It is pertinent to clarify that efforts have been made to improve coordination but unfortunately they
have had little success.
Regional distribution and thematic emphasis of the small grants must be planned strategically. The small grants
do not always serve regional matters. The Evaluation Team was informed on several occasions that the
announcement process for the small grants had not been broad enough. The announcement process should be
more clear and objective.
7.0 Costas Component: Findings and Conclusions
According to the Evaluation Team’s findings and conclusions, the following successes and strengths are
noteworthy, which are then followed by a series of opportunities for improvement.
 7.1 Successes and Strengths
The Costas approach of building coalitions as a basis for participation of stakeholders, although still incipient, is
yielding positive results in certain locations. The project has been pivotal in facilitating the declaration of new
36
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
marine-coastal protected areas, including reserves for fisheries management, and strengthening management in
those already declared, in the four sites. The establishment and support of Trinational Alliances in the Gulf of
Honduras and Gulf of Fonseca, although fledgling, is seen as a promising approach for meeting participatory
transboundary natural resources management challenges.
7.1.1 Participation
Costas focus on coalition building and diversification of partnerships is successful in moving towards broader
ownership and greater regionality of marine and coastal resources management. Costas has assisted in the creation
and development of effective working relationships with transboundary partners (e.g., Alianza Trinational para la
Protección del Golfo de Honduras and the Alianza Trinacional para la Protección del Golfo de Fonseca) and
communication both across borders and among diverse groups of stakeholders representing divergent interests
and management responsibilities. The building of coalitions recognizes the roles of diverse partners and
establishes mechanisms to utilize their contributions. Coalition building promotes wider ownership of activities
and helps counter perceptions of external leadership/ ownership that may be fostered by working only through
one or more bilateral partnerships. These are appropriate models of cooperation and coordination that are suitable
for replication to other coastal and marine areas in the region.
Especially important is recognition and inclusion by Costas of fisheries management agencies and private sector
interests as key players in marine resources management. An important example is the Gulf of Fonseca shrimp
aquaculture working group which includes shrimp producers, conservationists, regulatory agencies and research
institutions. The activities of this group complement other Costas initiatives in the Gulf of Fonseca region. While
the objectives and approaches of these groups may sometimes not coincide with those be at odds with
environmental agencies and organizations, their inclusion in coalitions and multi-national committees is a key
factor in their success. Such coalitions ensure ownership of issues and solutions by stakeholders, provide an
effective forum for exchanges of views and provide mechanisms for developing acceptable transboundary
agreements. There is evidence the binational cooperation process utilized in the Gulf of Fonseca by Costas and
PROGOLFO is being independently replicated without the support of either activity. Interviews suggest that
recent cooperation between El Salvador and Guatemala to manage the binational Rio Paz Ramsar site has drawn
on lessons from the Gulf of Fonseca.
There has been significant movement at the Costas sites to increase the number of partner organizations involved
in implementing activities. This indicates that activities at Costas sites are moving beyond start-up activities and
into a more substantial phase of progress in implementation. This diversification of NGO partners is an effective
mechanism that should be continued and encouraged, as it reduces the risk of project failure do to an under￾performing NGO partner. Examples of partner-induced setbacks include the failure of an NGO partner in Belize
and administrative and management issues with a partner NGO in the Costa Miskita of Nicaragua. Diversification
reduces risk, promotes progress towards project objectives and broadens both participation and the spread of
benefits and lessons, promoting sustainability. In addition, a larger pool of NGOs competing for small grants
improved the quality of staff effort, proposals, products and services. Recent diversification of partners in the
Costa Miskita illustrates the benefits of a broad partner base. The original primary NGO partner, MIKUPIA, has
been joined by the Moravian University (CIUN-BICU), the National University of Heredia (UNAH), MOPAWI
and FADCANIC, expanding the range of activities undertaken and broadening the base of participation and
ownership of the activity in the site communities.
Costas has been effective in promoting effective models for co-management of marine and coastal protected areas
involving NGOs and, in most cases, relevant government agencies. Replication of processes at the national level
in the region will significantly advance coastal conservation. In Honduras, SERNA provided technical support
and political backing for the legal declaration of the Pacific spur of the Meso-american Biological Corridor,
strengthening the original planning performed by ANDAH and CODDEFFAGOLF organizations in Honduras. In
Bocas del Toro, NGOs and communities are working closely with national and municipal authorities to develop
and implement a management plan for Bastimentos Marine Park.
Partner NGOs and Costas small grant recipients have received administrative and management training and have
significantly improved their operational capabilities: TIDE in Belize (Gulf of Honduras) and CODEFAGOLF in
37
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
the Gulf of Fonseca are good examples. Based on their improved capabilities and performance, the membership
has TIDE evolving into a for-profit organization to better facilitate ecotourism activities in their area of influence
for the benefit of community partners. Strengthened NGOs are more effective coalition partners, able to clarify
their strategic objectives, establish their identity, maintain and expand their membership, improve operations
abilities and effectively represent community interests in marine and coastal environmental management.
Financially responsible and accountable NGO partners support the long-term sustainability of Costas activities.
Costas’ institutional focus has contributed to the sustainability of activities in target sites. These training activities
are continuing and should be encouraged and expanded.
Costas has improved cooperation with CCAD on new coastal marine initiatives, such as the Sistema Arrecifal
Mesoamericano (SAM) initiative, and is planning to explore cooperation in additional regional marine protection
activities (e.g., port contingency planning). Costas has recently developed a productive relationship with CCAD
working directly with SE-CCAD in the preparation of the marine-coastal component of the regional
environmental strategy (PARCA). Costas also supported CCAD in developing relations with the international
Ramsar convention. This is an area of Costas strength and a key regional issue for CCAD. CCAD is the
appropriate counterpart for regional marine resources agreements such as Cartagena and MARPOL conventions.
Costas has the expertise to assist CCAD in developing these regional issues, both through technical assistance,
and high level education and awareness activities targeting the leadership of the member nations.
Costas has also been successful in bringing regional recognition to marine protected areas. Costas has also been
successful in promoting regional recognition of the importance of Central American coastal-marine resources
(e.g., marine turtles, mangroves) and “environmental security” (marine pollution, oil/hazardous material transport)
issues. Costas has had limited but important collaborations with other donors and initiatives in these areas,
activities that have important implications for the sustainability of these efforts. An excellent example is Costas’
role in attracting the interest of the Inter-American Development Bank for regional expansion and funding of port
contingency planning and marine pollution control. This contributes significantly to building greater regional
collaboration in protection and management of marine and coastal resources.
Policy activities involving Costas, including the CAPAS funded gap analysis (“brechas”) and case studies (“mini￾casos”), have generally been successful and well received. At the national level, these are seen as action oriented
activities that strengthen national goals of management of coastal-marine resources and protected areas. For
example, the Board of Directors of the Guatemalan National Forestry Institute (INAB) reviewed and accepted
draft mangrove regulations prepared by Costas’ partner IDEADS. INAB now has responsibility for obtaining
official approval of the regulations. This Costas-CAPAS collaboration has improved the regional recognition of
the PROARCA activity.
SE-CCAD has also used these gap analyses to prioritize and act on coastal and marine resource conservation. For
example, a regional fisheries management workshop was organized under CCAD leadership and the fisheries
departments of Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, with Costas support, which served as a forum for reaching
agreement on fisheries management priorities for the Gulf of Honduras and for the Banco Chinchorro in Mexican
waters. Agreements on priority lobster management issues were reached at a CCAD sponsored and Costas
supported binational workshop in the Costa Miskita
Many of Costas site activities have embraced and built on past activities of other donors, local partners and
national government agencies. Costas has taken on implementation of existing plans (Costa Miskita, Gandoca￾Manzanillo), has built on local initiatives (Bocas del Toro) and has sought out local partners with an independent
record of success in marine resources or protected areas issues (e.g., CODEFAGOLF, PROMAR). Costas’ ability
to recognize and incorporate past activities and successes is contributing to component success, reinforces local
ownership of activities, and avoids costly and time-consuming efforts of initiating new activities.
7.1.2 Technical Aspects
Costas activities have recently begun diversifying to include more resources management initiatives, such as
fisheries management in the Gulf of Honduras and Gulf of Fonseca, lagoon fisheries management and community
forest management in Costa Miskita, rather than its traditional narrow focus on protected area management. This
38
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
diversification is essential because it more accurately reflects the interests of the stakeholders involved in
transboundary coalitions, many of which are directly involved in resources use or management, and because these
activities directly affect the livelihood of many community members at COSTA sites.
Costas has effectively promoted the concept of coastal and marine reserves/limited access areas. Panama’s Bocas
del Toro lobster refuge is now central to the Maritime Authority’s plans for regional lobster management for the
province. Similarly, fishing restrictions proposed as part of the declaration (Pending) in the Port of Honduras
Marine Reserve in Belize are central to the Belize Fisheries Department efforts to manage snapper stocks and
protect breeding aggregations. As there are little biological or accurate fisheries landing data on which to base a
traditional fisheries management plan for Central American Caribbean fish stocks, if demonstrably successful,
these experiences can serve as a regional model for conservation and sustainable management of poorly
understood fish stocks.
Costas has had notable success in having coastal areas in facilitating designation of new protected areas (in
Belize, Honduras and Guatemala) and in linking coastal protected areas with biological corridors, pointing to
successes in both co-management models and in regional recognition. The Costas strategy has been effective in
increasing national and regional awareness of the importance of linking coastal protected areas to planned
terrestrial biological corridors, including CCAD’s design and planning efforts for the Meso-american Biological
Corridor and the Honduran Pacific Biological Corridor.
Costas provides essentially the only fisheries forum (e.g., Voice of the Fisherman) in the region, and is
increasingly involved in transboundary fisheries management issues (Gulf of Honduras, Gulf of Fonseca),
gradually moving towards regional fisheries initiatives. The transboundary management models developed under
Costas appear to be useful tools for regional fisheries management. However, the lack of either regional fisheries
organizations or regional approaches to fisheries management impedes progress in this area.
7.1.3 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
Social and institutional development is the main thrust of much of Costas site activities. This is an explicit
recognition of the extent of human occupation and use of marine and coastal protected areas in Central America.
This also recognizes the weakness of NGO, community and government institutions involved in managing
resource use activities. Costas has successfully incorporated key social issues in the planning and increasing the
relevance of, site activities and promoting local ownership. The current monitoring plan is proving successful in
measuring changes in management processes and institutions. The plan is based on an approach developed and
used successfully in terrestrial protected areas, including those in the USAID-TNC Parks in Peril activity, focuses
primarily on processes, and uses subjective site management indices to monitor progress, including: (a) protected
area management; (b) governance and local policy; (c) institutional strengthening; (d) regional policy; and (e)
integrated coastal management capacity building. The current plan recognizes that impacts are implicitly inferred
from improvements in processes, that management of coastal and marine protected areas is a social and
institutional process, and that monitoring for biophysical impacts can be costly and difficult, especially within the
short time frames involved.
Costas sites are home to some activities of other PRORACA components. For example, the Gandoca-Bocas del
Toro site hosts both CAPAS activities around the protected areas and LEPPI activities in the municipalities. A
similar series of activities is centered in the Gulf of Honduras, with LEPPI sites in La Unión, El Salvador and
Choluteca, Honduras. These actions provide a model of inter-component coordination that can potentially
magnify overall PROARCA impacts and efficiencies of scale.
7.1.4 Management and Administration
The RSTA system is key to the success of Costas activities and is well-regarded by Costas partners. It is adaptive,
site oriented, responsive to local needs and conditions and provides a vehicle for continuous technical support.
RSTAs are regarded as “honest brokers” of coalition building and conflict resolution, and their continuous
presence demonstrates a long-term commitment to the site, the partners and the process.
39
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
The Costas small grants program, which is in reality a mechanism to finance partners’ participation in project
activities, is flexible, adaptable and designed to take advantage of evolving opportunities. The Puerto Barrios port
contingency planning initiative provides a clear example of the ability of Costas to recognize and support
innovative approaches and coalitions, and to achieve significant successes with relatively small investments. The
Costas grants program appears to be well designed to support longer-term, process-oriented activities and is well
received by grantees involved in mid- to long-term activities designed to improve processes, such as fisheries
management in the Gulf of Honduras and Gulf of Fonseca.
Project management has effectively assumed more authority for implementation of activities and focused parent
organization (TNC, WWF) activities on strategic direction. As a result, Costas is more field-oriented, more
responsive and adaptable to evolving conditions at the sites.
7.2 Opportunities for Improvement
There are immediate and evolving opportunities for Costas to increase the effectiveness of its regional
involvement in marine resources management issues. The following are considered areas where Costas should
improve its strategic and operational thrusts.
7.2.1 Participation
Until quite recently, there had been extensive reliance in Costas on but a few NGOs as partners, perhaps due in
part to the lack of NGOs on site and the start-up nature of activities. But this narrow focus has risks as some of
these partner organizations (for example in Belize and the Costa Miskita) have had internal organizational and
implementation difficulties. This has both impeded progress towards Costas objectives at the affected sites and
has unnecessarily involved Costas management in the internal affairs of the partner NGOs. There are also
additional risks in working with one NGO or in providing support to one NGO over another, which may be
perceived by some community members or “excluded” organizations, correctly or incorrectly, as favoritism.
There is also a risk that community members may view partnerships as endorsements, quid pro quo, of the goals
and objectives of partners. Existing local NGOs are likely to have organizational objectives unrelated to Costas
site management objectives. For example, in the Costa Miskita, partner NGOs MIKUPIA and MOPAWI have
their own social, political and economic objectives.
While Costas has made some efforts in involving government agencies in marine and coastal resources
management coalitions, it works almost exclusively with NGO in protected areas. In many cases government
agencies are informed and involved in the activities, such as in Bahía de Chismuyo, Honduras. On occasion,
however, there has been little or no involvement of government agencies in the designation or management of the
protected areas (e.g., CONAP for Cerro San Gil and Punta Manabique reserves in Guatemala). While working
with NGOs strengthens co-management initiatives, government involvement increases agency knowledge. It is
important to clarify that there is an inherent weakness in government agencies due to insufficient personnel and
inadequate resources to mobilize that, in some cases, has limited their participation.
Many marine and coastal resources issues, such as fisheries, agriculture, water quality and land use planning, are
the responsibility of government agencies outside of national environmental ministries. CCAD is only made up of
ministers of the environment, but not ministries of agriculture and natural resources that may include these
sectors. While CCAD is well placed for regional leadership in coastal and marine protected areas, biodiversity and
environmental protection (port contingency planning), it may not be the only or most appropriate partner for
integrated coastal zone and marine resources management. Also, while integrated coastal zone management is
recognized as a regional issue by CCAD, outside of Belize there is little action on the national level.
Costas has, to date, been weak in the dissemination of results of successful activities, lacking a clear
communications strategy and staff time dedicated to such actions, even where these are sorely needed among
actual and potential partners. This weakness significantly hinders Costas’ ability to carry out its regional mandate
to develop models of coastal management and share them throughout the region. Another major shortcoming is
the failure of sharing of experiences and lessons learned either among the RSTA staff or among partner
organizations from the various sites. Also, NGOs can and should exchange views and knowledge. There has been
40
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
a limited degree of exchange among NGO partners from the various Costas sites (principally at regional
workshops) and while beneficial, it is insufficient.
There has been a good amount of information developed by Costas for transboundary marine/coastal issues,
including the “brechas” studies and the "marco legal" for manatee protection. Much of this work has been done at
the behest of SE-CCAD. However, the Evaluation Team finds that, while the quality of these studies is generally
good, utilization of the information appears to be relatively limited. This suggests a weakness in the design and/or
planning of studies and their linkage with technical activities and inter-component coordination.
National governments tend to have varying views of the regionality of Costas, depending on the level of activity
in the country. For example, El Salvador government institutions activities in the Gulf of Fonseca as primarily
Honduran, while Honduran agencies see the Gulf of Honduras activities as only benefiting Belize. The Evaluation
Team found that planning and technical activity support is indeed weighted to countries where RSTAs reside
(e.g., Honduras in Gulf of Fonseca, Belize in Gulf of Honduras), explicable in that the RSTAs spend more time
and have better contacts “closer to home”. This tends to reinforce the national perception that projects are not
truly transboundary. There is also little awareness on the part of agencies in countries that national activities in a
neighboring country can have large regional impacts (e.g., Puerto Barrios port contingency, fisheries management
and marine protected areas in the Honduran sector of the Gulf of Fonseca and in the Belizean sector of the Gulf of
Honduras).
Ties and relationships with other regional coastal programs and activities are not highly developed. With the
exception of sister projects within which TNC and WWF have participation and several GEF initiatives (including
SAM), the Evaluation Team perceived limited evidence of collaborations with other regional programs and
organizations working in very similar technical themes within the Caribbean and Pacific regions (CARICOMP,
IOCARIBE, UNEP-CEP, NOAA, University of Miami/RSMAS and various others). Consequently, there is a
possibility that certain lessons learned, technical information and potentially fruitful synergies and co-financing
opportunities are not being utilized.
7.2.2 Technical Aspects
There is little technical or science-based activity involved in any of the sites. The Evaluation Team feels strongly
that this is a critical weakness that undermines effective resources management, implementation of pilot
productive-use activities, and monitoring and evaluation of impacts of project actions. This was the role foreseen
in the technical proposal accepted by USAID as part of the cooperative agreement for Costas for the University of
Rhode Island/Coastal Resources Center, but which, apparently never materialized. The Evaluation Team was told
that URI’s role was reduced because of budget constraints.
Regardless, a sound technical basis is critical to the design of effective interventions because it permits the
establishment of tendencies and in some cases, cause and effect relation of project interventions. Improvements in
management and decision making are necessary but not sufficient to improve the status of biological or physical
resources. Focusing only on the management and institutional issues addresses only part of the issues of
unsustainable use of resources clearly identified in the site profiles. It is only from biological data that conclusions
can be drawn that marine reserves to protect fish stocks or endangered species are actually functioning as
intended. This is particularly important in coastal resources and fisheries management. Only by examining the
impacts, for instance, to water quality or targeted aquatic species population levels, can the effectiveness of the
interventions (in terms of both biological impact and cost/benefit) be evaluated. It is also the only mechanism to
determine the direction and magnitude of any needed adjustments to the resources management approaches over
the course of the Project.
Costas terrestrial protected area management activities in coastal sites are very similar to work done under other
PROARCA components. This is primarily a design issue, where similar activities are undertaken by different
components. There have been missed opportunities of increased efficiencies and synergies that could have been
41
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
realized from closer coordination and planning of terrestrial protected area activities among SE-CCAD
(PROLEGIS and PROBIO) and CAPAS components.3
There has been only limited emphasis, much of it incipient, on productive activities in most sites (activities with
TIDE in Punta Gorda are the most advanced). The emphasis of the management of protected areas and protection
of biological diversity has shifted the strategic focus away from resources management and use. There are
examples of plans for community use of resources (forestry in Costa Miskita, ecotourism development in Belize
and Bocas del Toro), but the theme appears to be a low priority within the Costas framework, even while
expectations are very high among the communities for increased benefits from the activities, including income
generation through productive use. This is a key ingredient for protected areas management and resources already
used by the resident population. Lack of focus on productive, community management and use of the resources
may affect sustainability of activities. First, community support for coastal management activities depends, in
part, on returns from resources use. Second, long term financial sustainability of protected areas and management
plans depend on income generated by these areas.
A problem analysis has been used to identify the principal threats to important marine resources at all project
sites. However, the findings have been underutilized in the design of site activities and management plans.
Particularly important are threats external to the site, such as upstream watershed activities, often one of the most
important threats to coastal and marine resources. For example, the Gulf of Honduras Site Overview identifies
water quality degradation due in part to upstream land use, as a key threat to the Gulf. Similar findings were made
for the Gulf of Fonseca and the Gandoca-Bocas del Toro region (specifically San San and the Changuinola
region). Apparently, threats analyses has not coincided with community priorities in some locations (e.g., Port of
Honduras, Belize), and plans to address watershed issues were dropped in favor of community priorities. The
divergence of community priorities and prioritized threats suggests that there is a need to make communities more
aware of actual (as opposed to community-perceived) threats to their resources. It further suggests that the threats
analysis more fully incorporate community participation and valuation of their priorities in the evaluation process.
An excellent example of a low cost, community based watershed awareness activity is the “Adopte una
Quebrada” program recently implemented by the La Selva Biological Station in Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica, within
the Gandoca Costas site area.
While important products have been prepared to guide integrated coastal management practices, development of
best practices for productive uses has been slow in developing. This is a key USAID requirement as specified
under the Environmental Threshold Decision governing any productive-use activities promoted by the Project.
While this is likely due to the complexity involved in bringing together all stakeholders (e.g., shrimp farm
development in Gulf of Fonseca), it continues to impede the development of productive uses of resources.
Many marine resources management problems are rooted in policy and institutional issues and have been issues
for a long time (e.g., manatee conservation in Gulf of Honduras). Lack of coherent policy and inadequate
enforcement (e.g., poaching in Gulf of Honduras, Gulf of Fonseca) are key issues affecting transboundary
fisheries. Yet, beyond the financing of studies to better understand the problem, little substantive activity has
taken place to deal directly with these transboundary legal and regulatory issues, nor was SE-CCAD
(PROLEGIS) assistance accessed to sufficiently support such an initiative.
7.2.3 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
Strategic plans focus almost entirely on the protected areas with much less emphasis on the resources that make
these areas valuable. Integrated coastal management is addressed only in the context of coastal marine protected
area activities, rather than a regional theme of significance in its own right. Annual work plans have been
prepared in isolation, with little exchange of lessons learned among sites. There are numerous unrealized
opportunities for improving efficiency, sharing lessons learned and coordinating action in the planning process.
While tools such as land-use planning, zoning and GIS to support planning and monitoring functions were
proposed in the original project design and subsequent Costas cooperative agreements, and were in evidence
earlier in the Costas activities, these have declined in importance. Currently, little integrated land and resources
 
3
 Note: this is also a crosscutting planning and management-administration issue.
42
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
inventory and management is being carried out. Some of Costas’ work is being presented in automated map
format, but the Evaluation Team did not observe any evidence of true analytical GIS activity. This has led to a
weakening of analytical and science-based planning and monitoring functions.
While all Costas sites had site profiles prepared, only one site had completed a protected area Rapid Ecological
Assessments/REA (Bocas del Toro), with additional REAs either underway (Chismuyo) or planned in the near
future (Punta Manabique. However, given the strong protected areas focus of Costas activities, the delay in REA
may weaken management planning for affected coastal/marine protected areas.
The development of monitoring plans for each site took place significantly after the start of activities. This
appears to be due to a combination of factors: (a) difficulties inherent in start up; (b) difficulty in agreeing on
what to monitor and for what purpose; (c) personnel changes (especially a change in Costas leadership); and (d)
lack of PROARCA management (USAID/G-CAP and implementing partners) emphasis on development of
indicators and monitoring plans. Biophysical data is normally required to understand the complexities in threats to
conservation and sustainable uses of coastal and marine resources, as well as to monitor and evaluate the efficacy
of technical interventions and the costs/benefits of project investments. With the focus of monitoring almost
exclusively on management and institutional processes and little focus on biophysical data, the Evaluation Team
finds the monitoring plan is incomplete.
The Evaluation Team recognizes that both international and local NGOs wish to reflect the views of the
communities they work with. However, the Evaluation Team was sometimes unable to clearly identify the
community needs and expectations (as opposed to municipal government and local NGO needs and expectations)
within the overall context of the site management plan. Coincidence of project objectives and local community
demands varies considerably among sites. Baseline data on community perceptions and expectations are not
adequately reflected in the “scorecard” monitoring approach used in Costas.
Biophysical data are also needed to carry out environmental assessments, which are required to comply with the
Conditional Negative Determination issued for PROARCA under the Environmental Threshold Decision (LAC￾IEE-95-24). The Conditional Negative Determination described in the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)
finds that certain activities may result in temporary negative impacts that may require mitigative action to ensure
environmental integrity. It specifically calls for environmental/best management practices guidelines to be
developed to “…design subprojects and evaluate their environmental impacts” (italics ours). Biological or
physical data are the only acceptable means by which to make this evaluation for activities involving the use or
management of resources, as cited in the environmental guidelines prepared for Costas (Section 5.3 - Rodriguez
1998). For example, USAID and Costas guidelines call for environmental assessments based on specific
biological criteria prior to financing activities such as sustainable harvesting of marine turtle eggs at Ostional,
Costa Rica, or community management of forests in Lisangni, Costa Miskita Nicaragua. A number of activities
planned by Costas for implementation are not in compliance with USAID Environmental Guidelines (1998) and
requirements that environmental assessments be carried out for certain activities with anticipated or potential
environmental impacts. Activities requiring assessments include management plans for community based forestry,
fisheries management and implementation of protected area management plans that include ecotourism (e.g.,
Gandoca, Bastimentos, Port of Honduras) or extractive uses (Paynes Creek-Port of Honduras, Gulf of Fonseca).
7.2.4 Management and Administration
Because of the diversity of backgrounds and training, RSTA strengths vary among sites, and on occasion, certain
technical were not available to meet evolving site needs (e.g., micro-credit in Costa Miskita, coalition building in
Gulf of Honduras). Recognizing the strengths of the RSTAs and the RSTA based approach, it is also important to
recognize and identify any weaknesses in the RSTA technical background against the specific needs of each site.
This is the basis for both planning technical assistance fore each site and for developing individually tailored
training activities for the RSTA team.
Some contracted studies (e.g., some “brechas” work) had good concepts but weak designs, resulting in less
effective technical support. This suggests that the design of technical studies and services had inadequate
technical scrutiny during the review and approval process, including back-to-office support.
43
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
The process for selection of Costas NGO partners and grant recipients is informal and fairly loosely defined.
Some sites (Bocas del Toro–Gandoca) have a better defined outline of how individual partners, their activities and
objectives contribute to achieving overall site objectives. While providing advantages (e.g., take advantage of
arising opportunities), for most Costas sites this design left unclear how each partner and their activities will
contribute to achieving long term site objectives. The criteria presented were (a) presence in the site, (b)
experience in key management themes or interest in management of key protected areas, and (c) administrative
capacities to conform to USAID requirements.
Financial sustainability of partner NGOs is a site management index in the monitoring plan but it does not appear
to be a priority. While there has been some training of partner organizations in financial-administrative
management, apparently no assistance and training has been provided in aspects of organizational and financial
sustainability (membership and board development, project preparation and proposal development, co-financing
and fund-raising, etc.). Because financial sustainability does not appear to be a priority issue for Costas, this may
significantly affect long-term sustainability of local as well as transboundary activities.
Also, while Costas has initiated coordination with other donors in addressing complex coastal/marine resources
management issues, this is still limited, and there is scope for improvement. A specific example involves the Gulf
of Fonseca and cooperation with PROGOLFO, financed by DANIDA. Opportunities to share data and combine
strategic and annual program planning to allow local partners to be more effective and efficient and promote wise
use of financial resources have been limited. For instance, Costas will be publishing an atlas of georeferenced
information on resources only for the Honduran sector of the Gulf of Honduras, even as PROGOLFO has data
that could contribute to such and atlas for the entire Gulf.
Finally, the Evaluation Team detected several management and administration difficulties inherent in
international NGO consortia. Strategic and annual planning, matching fund-raising, accounting and personnel
management policies, and even some technical approaches differ among the members of the consortia. This has
caused some frictions in project implementation at all levels. TNC and WWF have largely segregated themselves
by sites, which has had some negative influence on site activities, especially in terms of management and
technical efficiencies. The Evaluation Team also noted the absence of URI/CRC in current project activities,
which seem to be limited to technical review tasks in the University’s home office in Rhode Island. It was
explained that URI played an important role at the outset of Costas activities, especially in site and organizational
development, but that participation in now limited by budget constraints.
8.0 Environmental Protection and Legislation Component: Findings and Conclusions
In this section, findings and conclusions are presented by sub-component under each analysis parameter. In
accordance with the Evaluation Team’s analysis, the following achievements and principal strengths of each sub￾component were shown, followed by opportunities for improvement.
8.1 Successes and Strengths
Each sub-component of this component has had particular achievements and strengths because they are carried
out in an individual way. However, there have been instances of synergistic implementation among sub￾components that are considered to be strengths. The LEPPI sub-component has met its goal of initiating ten
environmental sanitation projects, exceeding the goal in the case of Panama where processes are being carried out
to establish a total of five solid waste management projects with financial support of the bilateral USAID mission.
Each one of the LEPPI projects is in a different stage of implementation, from the participatory process of
identifying priorities for community environmental sanitation, to feasibility studies for the projects selected and,
in some cases, the inauguration of finished projects.
The CCAD, through the PROLEGIS and PROBIO programs financed under PROARCA, has been active at the
Central American level in the inclusion of environmental action and protection of biodiversity matters, responding
to the commitments stipulated under the CONCAUSA agreement. CCAD has used several coordination
workshops, short training courses, disclosure materials, and the provision of technical and political assistance to
44
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
establish and/or modernize the pertinent legal-regulatory frameworks at the national level in response to the
responsibilities entrusted by the regional and international conventions and treaties in matters of environmental
protection and biological diversity.
The EPA, through its PASA agreement with USAID, has actively responded to requests for technical assistance,
training and the provision of technical consulting material over a wide range of themes that run from the text of
laws providing a framework for environmental protection methods for assessing environmental impact, the
management of toxic and dangerous substances, and as far as supervision and quality control in technical design
and construction of environmental sanitation works. EPA personnel have served as partner and technical
consultant both for CHF for the LEPPI projects, as well as for the CCAD in environmental legislation
harmonization and application and in pollution prevention implemented under PROLEGIS.
8.1.1 Participation
LEPPI
With the Steering Committees, integrated forums have been created comprised of representatives of the municipal
governments, civil society interest groups, and representatives of decentralized organisms of national government.
The committees include instances of decision making and shared management in projects of municipal benefit,
thus highlighting the importance of civil society participation in the democratic governing process.
LEPPI also has facilitated development of environmental sanitation actions, and their financing, in communities
traditionally excluded from this support. In some of these projects, it was possible to stimulate technical and
financial support, which is being shared with the bilateral USAID missions.
CCAD (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
CCAD, through PROLEGIS and with technical support of EPA, has participated actively in the strengthening
and/or establishment of some regional networks for coordination and consultation in among others: legal
environmental aspects including the Network of Environmental Law Organizations (RODA), the Mesoamerican
Association of Environmental Law (AMADA) and the Central American Network of Application of
Environmental Laws; a regional association of skilled technicians who are responsible for environmental impact
assessment; and a commission of registry chiefs and those responsible for pesticide programs, and regional and
international organizations related to pesticides.
Through PROBIO, CCAD has contributed to establishment and/or strengthening of, among others: the National
Commissions for Biological Diversity (CONABIO) and in a regional network of these organizations and a
regional network of access to genetic resources, the Mesoamerican Network of CITES and a regional network for
focal points for implementation of the Ramsar Convention. These networks serve as forums for information
exchange and coordination of actions for biodiversity conservation at the national and regional level.
CCAD has achieved a certain synergy in the co-financing and management of some activities related to the
PROLEGIS (CAPAS, Costas, OPS, GTZ, PNUD and COSUDE) and PROBIO (CAPAS, UICN,
PROGOLFO/DANIDA), especially in training and coordination of regional events.
8.1.2 Technical Aspects
LEPPI
With EPA assistance, CHF has been able to embark upon a series of municipal environmental sanitation projects,
some using appropriate technology for small urban centers (2,000 - !8,000 inhabitants), largely based on the
environmental action plans. Some of the projects may serve as pilot projects that would be potentially replicable
in communities with similar socioeconomic and environmental conditions in particular countries of the region.
45
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
CCAD and EPA (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
Through PROLEGIS, and with technical contributions from the EPA, CCAD has contributed to development of
fundamental legislation and regulation in matters of environmental protection in all countries of the region,
including preparation and promulgation of framework environmental laws for five countries in the region. CCAD
also has facilitated formation and strengthening of regional forums and networks for experience exchange and to
provide technical assistance in subjects of environmental impact assessment, application of regulations and
judicial processes for those responsible for environmental violations, and in safe handling of pesticides.
With the support of EPA, there has been improvement in basic technical capacity and orientation for various
government officials, including judges, prosecutors, attorneys and officials responsible for steering the legislation
and regulations for environmental impact assessments and audits (including formation of a Central American
experts group as trainers) and for disposal of exhausted pesticides (for technicians and representatives of
agriculture and the environmental authority). These have contributed to increasing human resource technical
capacity in the region. EPA also has intervened to give rapid response in some emerging cases of toxic substance
pollution, proposing technically appropriate solutions according to the case.
For PROBIO, CCAD is supporting regional national authorities in development of strategies and policies,
promulgation of laws, preparation of plans and tools, and regional training related to implementation of the
CITES and Ramsar conventions, response actions for Climate Change, protected areas co-management,
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor conservation and protection, and Mesoamerican Reef System conservation.
8.1.3 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
PRIDE
With support provided by a buy-in to PRIDE project services, a Regional Environmental Action Plan was
developed which serves to guide EPA support activities to major component objectives. It established a working
relationship with CHF and CCAD for implementation of LEPPI and PROLEGIS, respectively.
With the initial pilot projects of LEPPI supported by PRIDE in Usulután and Puerto Barrios, an appropriate
participatory methodology has been applied and tested for environmental risk analysis and prioritization of
actions and environmental sanitation projects at the community level. This methodology includes a number of
workshops for co-participation with the municipality, civil society and CHF in community environmental profile
and environmental action plan development.
LEPPI
The participatory processes for risk analysis, problem prioritization and creation of environmental action plans
have served to orient municipalities in organization and planning appropriate to their management. They also
have been able to regard environmental protection as a fundamental idea in governing and development plans at
the municipal level in the sites served by the sub-component.
CCAD and EPA (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
CCAD, through PROLEGIS and with the support of the EPA, is facilitating gradual insertion of regulatory
material for environmental protection into the political agendas of the national and municipal governments. With
PROBIO support, CCAD has helped single out the themes of CITES, Ramsar, Climate Change and biodiversity
conservation within national government planning in the region, especially with integration of the Regional
Network of National Biological Diversity Commissions. Also, PROBIO is directing a process for establishment
of the Mesoamerican System of Biodiversity Information - SIMEBIO.
46
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
8.1.4 Management and Administration
LEPPI
Under LEPPI activities, multiple planning and technical design activities were implemented out of a total of ten
environmental sanitation projects in all countries of the region except Belize. Even with limited grant funds,
implementation of pilot scale projects was achieved in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala (wastewater) and in Puerto
Viejo, Costa Rica (transfer and classification of solid wastes). The bilateral USAID missions have also been
involved in co-financing environmental sanitation works in Choluteca, Honduras (wastewater) and Usulután, El
Salvador and Chilibre, Panama (transfer and classification of solid wastes). In six of the projects, the
implementing-beneficiary municipalities of the projects have contributed with their own funds, labor and
equipment, and in four of the projects the citizens contributed with their valuable labor. CHF has administered the
funds of its cooperative agreement in an efficient way, opportunely providing the funds needed for financing
participatory workshops for preparation of environmental action plans, designs of works and their construction
(an average of $50,000 per community), and in providing technical-administrative assistance of their in-house
staff. In some projects, CHF/LEPPI initiated its support activities for initiatives already underway in the
communities (e.g., Usulután), advancing the environmental sanitation objectives already prioritized but as yet
incipient.
CHF consistently accessed technical support from the U.S.EPA in prioritization and final selection of sites, design
and quality control of the sanitation works, and review of environmental impact studies. EPA also gave short
courses in environmental sanitation, including aspects of wastewater and solid wastes. In the pilot project for
collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater in Puerto Barrios, EPA has been very active in supervising
construction of the works.
In this way, it has achieved synergy in the use of LEPPI funds and available resources under the PASA agreement
between USAID and EPA.
Jointly with municipal authorities, CHF has begun to manage the promulgation of municipal ordinances for the
correct operation and charge for environmental sanitation services provided by the projects supported by LEPPI -
an aspect which is very important in guaranteeing the sustainability of the projects undertaken.
CCAD and EPA (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
USAID, through PROARCA, is financing 66% of personnel salaries and equipment of the SE-CCAD, technical￾political workshops, communications and the meetings of Ministers and liaisons of the CCAD and the Technical
Councils. This financing has been essential for CCAD functioning in recent years, and has contributed to
achieving multiple politic and environmental objectives under the ALIDES and CONCAUSA conventions.
With funds from PROARCA, CCAD has been able to act as a catalyst and facilitator in raising the awareness and
response capability of the member countries in matters of legislation and regulation of environmental protection at
the general level and in adoption of more active strategies and participation by the countries in promotion of
biodiversity protection.
CCAD through PROLEGIS, has accessed EPA professional technical services in a continuous and consistent
manner to support its activities technically, attaining synergy in use of the CCAD program funds and the
resources available under the PASA agreement between USAID and the EPA. EPA has been able to respond with
advice and technical assistance according to how the regional demands are presented, as articulated through the
CCAD. The CCAD seeks to negotiate a memorandum of understanding directly with EPA to provide follow-on
for the activities started under PROLEGIS, in provision of advisory and training services with COSUDE co￾financing - a demonstration of the relation’s success.
8.2 Opportunities for Improvement
If the implementing agencies of the sub-components under the Environmental Protection and Legislation
component have been able to put in motion a large assortment of environmental protection and legislation
47
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
initiatives at the Central American level, by the same dispersal of activities and lack of integrated strategic
planning, both thematic and geographic, there are a number of opportunities to improve the technical and
administrative efficiencies and the impact of the promoted activities. This situation in part is owing to the original
design of the PROARCA project which, although it was such a complicated project of many components, did not
place sufficient emphasis on strategic planning and annual integrated programming. On the other hand,
USAID/G-CAP’s failure to encourage that integration during the life of the project has contributed to an
implementation by the three principal components of PROARCA and among the sub-components of the
Environmental Protection and Legislation component which is virtually individual and separate.
8.2.1 Participation
LEPPI
Except for the membership of the Steering Committees participating in the 14 LEPPI projects and the USAID
bilateral missions, the number of public and private entities who know about the LEPPI activities is very small,
even among partners of the other PROARCA components. There has been no active participation detected, or at
least the expression of their approval, from the national institutions that govern environmental activity in the
prioritization of themes and activities included in the annual work plans under the subcomponent. According to
the institutions responsible for managing the environmental impact evaluations for the projects in El Salvador and
Guatemala, and the case study analysis of the sanitary landfill in Bocas del Toro, Panama, they were not involved
in the management process until very late in the Project cycle resulting in a bad selection of sites, in some cases,
and consequent delays in the processing of the environmental certification documents.
In several of the projects served under LEPPI, the participatory process resulted in the prioritization of an activity
under the environmental action plans which, in the last analysis, was not the action ultimately selected for
development with the resources provided by LEPPI. Although the final selection was made at the end of the day,
and according to a cost comparison between the different actions, the decision not to proceed with the chosen
action - which resulted from the participatory process - tends to reduce the validity of the greater process and to
confuse the participants in the process. In other cases, there was a lack of flexibility to adapt the process according
to the organizational level of the groups and the development stage of the project; for example, it is forced to pass
through all the stages of the participatory process (three or four workshops) even when the community already
had one or more years acting on the sanitation project. Owing to the long process of action for some projects (up
to three years), the interest of the Steering Committees has lessened, with only groups of 4 to 7 persons remaining
in the committees, placing in doubt the possibility of carrying out the projects included in the environmental
action plans due to abandonment by the communities.
Beyond the cases of some bilateral USAID offices, there have been no important collaborations with other
national and international institutions to finance sanitation works in the countries, even when there are programs
better financed by multilateral institutions, such as the sanitation projects for intermediate urban centers financed
by the IADB and World Bank. There is a danger of creating high expectations in the communities and among
members of the Steering Committees to count on environmental sanitation projects. However, obtaining the
necessary financing, they may feel deceived for having participated in a process for such a long time without
achieving its objectives. This makes it very difficult to motivate communities to participate in similar processes
and projects in the future.
CCAD and EPA (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
While there have been instances of collaboration with other technical and financial assistance agencies in the
activities of training and coordination under PROLEGIS and PROBIO, there was no important collaboration and
participation with entities which, in the judgment of the Evaluation Team, would have been appropriate partners.
In the majority of countries in the region there are special institutional strengthening projects in environmental
management and biodiversity conservation financed by the IADB and World Bank (there is particular mention of
the technical cooperation of the IADB for Guatemala and El Salvador, and the Proyecto de Desarrollo Ambiental
of Honduras, financed by the World Bank). These projects have similar, if not identical, objectives and activities
which promote the CCAD under PROLEGIS and PROBIO. However, the Evaluation Team did not see great
48
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
efforts to attain technical or financial synergy among them were not seen, even when the project financing
capabilities of other groups are much greater than the PROARCA financial resources.
Similar to that of LEPPI, the Evaluation Team found that the number of public and private entities that know the
objectives and activities of PROLEGIS and PROBIO is small, even among partners of the other PROARCA
components. The lack of encouragement for the participation of these entities has resulted in duplication of some
activities, as well as lost opportunities to obtain institutional, technical and financial support.
8.2.2 Technical Aspects
LEPPI
In the judgment of the Evaluation Team, some projects managed with LEPPI support are of such importance that
they surpass the size of the projects originally proposed in the design of the component and the very capacity of
CHF to manage and finance them. Examples include a solid waste project in Usulután and a wastewater project in
Choluteca, Honduras. Both are multi-million dollar projects. Also, some technologies employed in the
environmental sanitation projects may not be appropriate in relation to the sociocultural and economic reality of
the sites. For example, the solutions to sanitation problems in Puerto Barrios may exceed US$2,000 per dwelling -
nearly on the level of the annual income for one family in the neighborhood to be served.
In some of the projects visited, there was a noted failure to collect basic physical and economic data about the
communities and beneficiaries of the sanitation works. This situation complicated the cost/benefit analysis of the
projects, and made it more difficult to define the “technological package” (packaging) extracted from the pilot
projects for their subsequent diffusion and replication.4 On the other hand, it should be mentioned that EPA had
offered to carry out water quality monitoring activities in the Gulf of Fonseca as well as an activity of sampling
and modeling (EMAP) of natural resources in the Punta Gorda zone, but the offer was refused by the Costas
component Coordinator at the time for unknown reasons.
Some of the technological orientations and training provided by the EPA have not been in accord with the
socioeconomic and environmental reality present in the countries of the region. The implementation of those
facets of the project was not be possible due to political, social and economic limitations. Furthermore, the
sequence of proposed actions appears overly ambitious; that is, it would have been better to implement activities
in stages rather than to attempt to execute all the stages of the projects at once. In some cases, especially at the
beginning of a project, the limiting factors were the language used by the EPA readers and advisors, and the
language used in the didactic materials distributed.5
 Also, the quality of the training is seen to be limited in some
cases by the lack of program follow-up and reinforcement in the work sites of the participants. This problem is
compounded by the lack of a program or resources to apply what has been learned.
CCAD and EPA (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
Due to the high number of “priorities” under the activities managed by the CCAD, and the limiting factors of the
SE-CCAD in finances and human resources, the activities have been dispersed and diluted from thematic and
geographic perspectives. Efforts to promote biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, including
policies, training, advisors and quick interventions, are seen to be very limited and of questionable impact.
The quality of the training is seen to be limited in some cases by the lack of a follow-up program and
reinforcement of lessons learned in the work sites of the participants. This is a particular problem in cases of real
environmental problems, under a strategic programming and with the financial-logistical resources to apply what
 
4
 In the waste water project in Puerto Barrios, there were no samples taken of the contaminant load nor of the volume of the
effluents from the residences to be incorporated into the treatment system. The efficiency of treatment (reduction in DOB5
and solids) and data on the quality of water in the receiving bodies were ignored as well.
5
 It should be noted that EPA’s priority criterion in providing assistance and training under the Project had been experience
and not language.
49
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
has been learned. Again, some of the technologies and training promoted by EPA have not been in accord with
the political, socioeconomic and environmental conditions present in the region, and the limiting factors of the
language employed by the readers and advisors, as well as the use of English in the didactic materials, have
limited their effectiveness.
8.2.3 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
LEPPI/EPA/CCAD (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
Strategic planning and annual programming of activities between sub-components of the Environmental
Protection and Legislation component (USAID, CHF, EPA, CCAD) has been nearly nonexistent. There has been
no strategic planning or annual programming of activities between the executors of the other principal
components of PROARCA, even in instances in which such integration would be fundamental for the success of
the overall project. In few instances have the LEPPI, CCAD and/or EPA activities have been linked, thematically
or geographically, with the other components of PROARCA - especially in the cases of Costas (pollution control
in coastal areas), PROLEGIS/CAPAS and Costas (environmental management policies, sustainable use of
renewable natural resources), and PROBIO/CAPAS and Costas (biodiversity conservation, climate change,
Ramsar and CITES). The collaborations have been casual and incipient, not based on strategic planning or
programming.
The location of the EPA representatives (in Washington and Atlanta) has limited development of a close working
relationship. It has also limited the strategic and annual planning of certain activities. Without a continuous
“presence”, EPA has had to respond to demands for its services (on-call retainer) without participating fully in the
development of the strategies and with certain limitations in the planning of the activities on the project trajectory.
On the other hand, the fact that EPA provides services under all the sub-components and with two counterparts
(SE-CCAD and CHF) makes it difficult to consolidate their work plans and to respond in a timely fashion and
with sufficient quality to the requests for technical assistance.
Basic economic and scientific data (biophysical and socioeconomic) are not being collected. This data is needed
to analyze the costs of the LEPPI projects in comparison with their real socioeconomic and environmental
benefits (for example, on water quality in relation to projects for waste water). In the case of the PROLEGIS and
PROBIO programs managed by SE-CCAD, impact indicators have not been developed in order to be able to
analyze progress in the attainment of the principal and intermediate program objectives; For example, data on the
incidence of environmental infractions, water quality, incidence of incursions and illegal use of resources in
protected areas and trade of species in danger of extinction.
It should be noted that, in the original PROARCA design, the CAPAS component was going to provide technical￾managerial services in monitoring the impact of the activities under all Project components. However, these
activities were never carried out under the CAPAS component.
8.2.4 Management and Administration
LEPPI
Because of the changes and/or late hiring of the officials in the implementing agency of LEPPI/ CHF, the work
under this sub-component was delayed. Most of the activities under the sub-component have been implemented
under considerable pressure from project officials during the past 18 months, affecting both the work rhythm and
the attainment of the goals and objectives programmed since its initiation. This particularly affected the project in
terms of developing sustainable mechanisms for the operation and financing of the sanitation projects, as well as
preparation of the technological packages derived from the pilot projects so that they might be circulated and
replicated. There have also been strategic changes in the administrative methodology, requiring execution of some
physical works with limited resources, and changes in the transfer of grant funds to the municipalities (they were
changed from credits to grants handled directly by CHF).
50
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Even though the Steering Committees have served as forces of change in their communities, exercising social
pressure on the municipal governments (e.g., through a resolution or decree) and run the risk of disappearing if
their management capacity is substantially reduced or the mayor changes.
Quite late in the process, LEPPI has begun issuing municipal ordinances to require the establishment of policies
for operation of the sanitation works by private enterprise and/or municipalities and charging for the services of
environmental sanitation. Even so, the concept of financial sustainability does not seem to be well understood or
accepted by the members of the Steering Committees, the municipal governments, or the private sector.
CCAD and EPA (PROLEGIS and PROBIO)
For the past year, the SE-CCAD has been in a major institutional transition. It is being integrated under the
auspices of SICA. This has meant that PROLEGIS and PROBIO have been working without a fixed policy and
technical direction, weakening their efforts to affect medium and long-term activities.
As mentioned previously, the EPA officials’ location in Washington and Atlanta has complicated the
administration of resources destined for certain activities and the timeliness and quality of programming the
technical contributions for PROLEGIS and PROBIO programs.
9.0 Evaluation Questions Set Forth in the Terms of Reference of the Evaluation
Contract and their Responses by the Evaluation Team
In this section, the Evaluation Team answers the specific questions expressed in the Terms of Reference of the
Contract USAID/G-CAP/ARD. The questions are presented below using the same enumeration found in the
Contract, followed by the responses in Italics. It should be noted that the large majority of the questions are
answered or supported by the main text of this evaluation report.
9.1 Specific questions related to CAPAS
1. How effective has CAPAS been in the use of the regional technical experience through arrangements with
consultants?
It is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that CAPAS has been very effective in identifying capacities and
technical experience in the region for development of subjects related to the areas in which it is working. The
documents produced and the consulting work in large part are of high technical quality and have been developed
by national experts and/or from the countries of the region. Additionally CAPAS has been able to establish a
network of experts (especially in Costa Rica and Guatemala) which should be extended to other countries if the
capacities exist.
2. Is the process used to announce, review and select proposals for small grants by CAPAS the appropriate
one?
For the second occasion on which CAPAS authorized the small grants contact was made mainly with the NGO
participants in the first process and to some new ones through a selection work (internal to CAPAS, with close
ties with the personnel of G-CAP which was based on the following procedure:
Announcement:
Based on preliminary lists of NGOs at the disposition of CAPAS about 623 entities were invited to participate in
the competition for presentation of proposals on subjects managed by CAPAS (with formats from the same
previously sent to SE-CCAD). Direct contact was made with them through e-mail, letters of invitation and other
direct means. There was no use made of media of mass communications (for example announcements in
newspapers printed in the region) for a decision between CAPAS and GCAP which was based on economic
reasons (opportunity cost) and efficiency (it was perceived that there was a risk of receiving proposals of every
kind and quality).
51
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Review of Proposals of the Total of 80 entities invited in the first phase of small grants, about 77.5% were
received as answers (62 in all); for the second invitation of 623 entities, 24% were received (150 in total). The
review of these - after their reception and classification by subject - was dine in two phases, in internal to CAPAS
in which each one of the thematic technicians and specialists relative to his field. The technicians to CAPAS were
responsible for selecting those proposal finalists. The second phase consisted in the formation of a proposal
review committee, (ad honorem) to whom the final proposals were presented for the personnel of CAPAS. Finally,
the selection of the finalists was presented to G-CAP (for contractual reasons) which approved the proposals to
be formally presented to the Council of Ministers of the Environment of Central America. Each proposal had to
be accompanies by a letter of endorsement from the national authorities (also for contractual reasons). In the
case of the second grant there were problems in this last part of the process because the Ministers of Environment
were not aware of a relations of approval of the Ministries under their charge with the proposals presented. The
criterion was used of distributing a maximum number of small grants per country of which there were considered
those with the greatest technical scientific value, this with the purpose of complying with the demand for equality
of distribution required by the countries.
The Evaluation Team believes that CAPAS carried out an ever larger effort to announce the beginning of the
process, doubling in the second year the number of organizations contacted which is further shown by the number
of responses received during the second process as compared to the first process. This is a subject which always
will be subject to discussion, because there will always be different ideas about what is the appropriate number to
distribute, knowing that there are many organizations in the region. This was a very debated matter within the
Evaluation Team because there are criteria entering into play such as equity, justice, freedom of access, political
aspects and many other aspects. The process was explained to the Evaluation Team in detail and after learning
what it implies and the necessary review work we reached the conclusion that for the purposes of efficiency the
decisions taken to make the announcement were appropriate. It is pertinent to state that can always be broader
and to make publications in newspapers of large circulation for example, but with the quantity of resources to
distribute a massive circulation of this nature could result in being more expensive than the resources distributed.
In this sense the Evaluation Team recommends to always attempt to maintain a balance seeking to not fall into
deliberate marginalization of groups or organizations.
Considering all the elements related to the process, among the important ones being the level of consultation, the
time involved in carrying it out, the levels of consultation, the costs involved and the pressures from different
sources which are generated during the process of judging the Evaluation Team considers that the process was
appropriate.
3. Was the composition of the Review Committee for proposals the appropriate one from the technical and
institutional point of view?
The committee was comprised of 8 persons selected between those regional entities and USAID missions related
to the subjects (in the case of the second grant representatives were convoked from the SE-CCAD, CCAB-AP and
Costas); also, specialists were invited who had previously been identified by CAPAS (specialist in APs, specialists
in CITES, one from the CAPAS staff and one representative of a Central American country which was not
represented by the other members. CAPAS defined profiles of the selected members. One inconvenience is that of
not participating from the beginning of the deliberations for preselection of finalists, the Review Committee could
not have all the inputs necessary for effective decision making. This participation is made more difficult when it is
considered that their work is voluntary. The effectiveness of the committee was appropriate if all the factors
involved are considered.
4 Were the criteria for the selection of the non-governmental organizations appropriate?
The Evaluation Team considers that the large majority of the small grants have been successful. This clearly
shows that the criteria for selection of the organizations were appropriate.
52
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
5. Is the process used to assure the approval of government entities the appropriate one? Is CAPAS seeking
the approval of these entities appropriate? The governmental participation creates the possibility of
politicizing the process of making small grants? How may this possibility be minimized?
The Evaluation Team that the formal process of approval for the small grants appears to be the most appropriate.
The consultations made by the Evaluation Team indicate that CAPAS has had contact with the institutions which
in the best judgment of the Technical Team and in consultation with USAID/G-CAP have been the appropriate
entities. It is the belief of the Evaluation Team that the fact that government participation creates the opportunity
of politicizing the process is an intrinsic situation. It is not possible for the Evaluation Team to make a
recommendation in this sense because the behavior of the government representatives as of any other member of
the committee is personal and unpredictable. The recommendation would be to avoid conflicts of interest as much
as possible.
The Selection Committee may consider the following aspects:
· The early incorporation of the governmental entities in aspects of design of profiles and terms of reference for
the competition only. This incorporation would allow a finer tuning of the subject matter to be put in the
competition. One parameter that should be part of the invitation to the competition is the regional character
of the proposals (including raising the national capacities in regional matters).
· The identification - in each country - of the clear national counterpart. It is the government authorities (the
ministers of environment, the authorities of protected areas and the municipalities) who should participate
and make their own the processes that have been made available by the small grants.
· To minimize the risks of politization in the process of awarding the small grants. Other actors of the region
might be incorporated, such as the universities and the centers of science and technology (although this may
exclude them from participating in the competitions), as well as the NGO groups. However, it is very
important to emphasize from the beginning the tutelary role of the government entities and to manage a clear
“hands off” policy as far as the final selection and execution of the grants.
· Finally the criterion for invitation to participate should be open from the beginning, in the sense that anyone
might participate in order to avoid erroneous perceptions on the part of the government representatives. The
reception of proposals with little technical validity derived from a totally open process is a risk that its
validity might be reevaluated, although it would represent greater cost.
6. What is the opinion of the recipients of the small grants?
The opinion of the recipients of the small grants is very positive. Emphasizing the fact that the benefit for his
organization has gone further than the established committees. They have benefited because they have been
forced to enter into a structured work plan and have in most cases strengthened their accounting and
administrative systems. In some few cases they tell us that such arrangements had already been incorporated as
routine practices for all the actions of the organizations. On some occasions they reported to us that there were
delays in the payments that had influenced on development of the activities but in all cases the reasons were
justifiable and it is not a generalized problem; on the contrary, the norm is punctuality and effectiveness of the
process.
9.2 Specific Questions Related to Costas
1. Analyze the effectiveness of the regionalization of the best practices of integrated marine coastal
management.
Regionalization of best management practices for integrated coastal management is in the very early stages of
development. A Costas sub-contractor, the University of Rhode Island/CRC, developed integrated coastal
management workshops and regionally applicable ICM guidelines. Similarly, the Biodiversity Support Program
developed guidelines for strategic planning and monitoring of integrated coastal management sites. While these
may be considered as best management practices, the scope of the activities was relatively limited, directed
primarily towards strengthening local Costas partners. More regionally applicable best management practices
for key coastal management topics such as fisheries, coastal wetlands, ecotourism, pollution prevention, and
53
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
water quality management still await development. During the current PROARCA phase, Costas has focused
primarily on marine-coastal protected areas and, to a limited extent, on some transboundary resources
management issues at some sites. Planned productive-use demonstrations (e.g., community management of
lagoon fisheries and coastal forests), replication of port contingency planning and management of endangered
marine species provide promising opportunities for Costas to develop regional best management practices.
2. Analyze the implementation and effectiveness in the identification/support and replicability of the
mechanisms for transboundary international collaboration.
Costas has had success in developing coalitions and committees as mechanisms for collaboration on marine
resources management, especially transboundary fisheries in the Gulf of Honduras and the Gulf of Fonseca, and
among a broad group of stakeholders, such as in port contingency planning. This approach appears to be a
successful model for transboundary/international collaboration that has promise for application throughout the
region. Nevertheless, the coalitions formed to facilitate transboundary collaboration in addressing environmental
problems should also include, as appropriate, representatives of local and national governments in order to foster
their full support and assistance with project activities.
3. Evaluate the timeliness and quality of the technical assistance provided by the Guatemala office of Costas
to the technicians resident in regional locations.
Technical assistance from the Costas Guatemala office in support of RSTA has been of uniformly high quality.
With minor exceptions early in the implementation, timelines have not been an issue as well. Support from the
collaborating NGOs’ offices in the USA has sometimes been erratic due to scheduling problems and other
priorities.
4. Evaluate the timeliness and quality of the technical assistance provided by the technicians resident in
regional locations to the local partners.
RSTA are the key to Costas success on site. The technical assistance provided by RSTA to communities has
generally been timely and of very high quality. However, RSTA strengths vary among sites, and on occasion,
certain technical skills were not available to meet evolving site needs (e.g., micro-credit in Costa Miskita,
coalition building in Gulf of Honduras). It is important to identify strengths of the individual RSTA, assess the
anticipated needs of each site and develop an integrated TA program that best utilizes RSTA skills, Guatemala
office assistance and off- site TA.
5. Analyze the strategy used by the small grants program and its effectiveness. What is the opinion of the
recipients of the small grants?
The small grants program appeared to be well received by recipients. The program favors organizations involved
in medium or long-term strengthening of institutions and management processes for coastal marine protected
areas over activities intended to have an impact on the status of specific resources. While the small grants
programs support overall activities at a site, the strategy for how the grants program will be used to achieve
specific long-term objectives remains loosely defined and flexible, and varies by site. Some sites (Bocas del Toro–
Gandoca) have a better defined outline of how individual partners, their activities and objectives contribute to
achieving overall site objectives. In other sites, this strategy may provide advantages (e.g., take advantage of
arising opportunities) but it also leaves unclear how each partner and their activities will contribute to achieving
long-term site objectives.
6. Analyze the selection criteria for choosing local partners (NGOs).
The process for selection of Costas NGO partners and grant recipients is informal and fairly loosely defined.
Specific selection criteria were not formally defined. Nor is there a strategy defining how each partner and their
activities will contribute to achieving long-term site objectives. Costas chose initial partners on a subjective
evaluation of the partners’ ability, based on site presence, coincidence of objectives with those of PROARCA
Costas and previous experience in working with one of the Costas consortium members. This led to Costas
54
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
working with a very limited number of partners early in implementation but the number of partners has recently
increased.
7. Analyze the effectiveness and timeliness of the process used by Costas to review the proposals of the
local partners (technically, financially, and programmatically).
Costas’ process for technical, financial and programmatic review of local partner proposals was generally well
received by the local partners. The Costas component would benefit from a more formal quality assurance and
control mechanism to evaluate all products and services on the basis of need, product quality and utility criteria
according to an established plan.
8. Is the process used by government institutions to guarantee approval the appropriate one? Is Costas
seeking approval from the appropriate institutions? Does the participation of government create the
possibility of politicizing the process for judging the grants? How may this be minimized?
Because of institutional issues and the lack of focus by national governments on integrated coastal management,
Costas does not specifically seek approval of government institutions for proposals. Rather the component seeks
to first inform relevant organizations of planned activities and then to gain their concurrence. Responsibility for
management of resources in the coastal marine area is widely dispersed, making coordination difficult. With few
exceptions, Costas generally engaged the appropriate government entities in the planning and implementation of
site activities. Relations with national government entities have recently improved, especially in areas where
resources management, as opposed to protected areas, is the focus of activities.
9.3 Specific Questions for the Environmental Protection and Legislation Component.
1. How well known is LEPPI at national and regional government levels?
The activities of LEPPI are known by the national institutions which have had contact with CHF, the steering
committees and/or the municipal mayor’s offices involved in the processing of the process of environmental
sanitation (for example, the ministries of health and of environmental protection which award the permits or
certifications for the operation of the project). At the regional level knowledge of the LEPPI activities was seen
only at the level of the SE-CCAD.
2. How representative has the selection of the LEPPI sites been in political, ethnic, cultural terms and
considering geographical aspects?
Since half of the selected sites correspond to three of the areas of influence of the Costas activities and the other
half to the criterion of the bilateral USAID missions, the Evaluation Team believes that the system for selection of
the site was rather biased. although the Team knows the criteria for selection given by the EPA no logic was
perceived in its application. With so few sites in a large region with such varied cultural, environmental, socio
cultural and political conditions, it is difficult to analyze the representativeness of the sites. What may be said is
that the sites contain a range of these conditions, Pacific as well as Atlantic, mountain and coast, Afro Central
Americans and Latins, urban and semi urban, large and small. Notwithstanding, it would be difficult to
extrapolate the experiences, quid pro quo, of so few and varied sites to other sites.
3. How effective has been the methodology implemented by LEPPI to identify the problems and solutions of
pollution in the communities?
The Evaluation Team found a varied acceptance, largely of “very good” and some commentaries of “average”.
Probably these represent the experiences in their respective municipalities. for some, the process was very long
and exaggerated; while for others it served to catalyze and assemble the leader of the community. For the
Evaluation Team, the methodology has logic and organization and uniformity was found in the products. It would
be advisable to evaluate the ten cases of the last three years and to refocus the methodology according to the
experiences gained and lessons learned with the aim of cutting down the steps or at least the number of
workshops and the time required to apply the process.
55
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
4. Do the steering committees feel competent to duplicate the processes without the assistance of LEPPI?
Once again, it depends on the community. The Evaluation Team saw many differences in the capacity,
convocatory power, and composition of the committees; some democratic and others autocratic; and some
hanging in the air very close to disintegration. There was not seen, at least among the committees interviewed, the
capacity and strength sufficient to replicate the process. It was felt in some cases that the committee was
organized as patronage, in which upon completing the project would be dissolved.
5. How well has LEPPI coordinated with the PROARCA components? How may this coordination be
improved?
Except for the location of five of the LEPPI projects in the zones of influence of three of the Costas sites,
important coordination was not observed. As described in the preceding sections of the evaluation report, the
overall project lacks integration and coordination. As has been indicated in this report, strategic planning and
integrated annual programming and evaluation needs to be stimulated and to be spread between all the
components, and substantially to improve communication between all the implementing agencies, USAID and SE￾CCAD.
9.4 Specific Questions Related to the Environmental Protection and Legislation Component
and the Protection of Biodiversity Activities Managed by CCAD.
1. Have these activities contributed to compliance of the CONCAUSAS commitments?
Like the other components of PROARCA, the activities of PROLEGIS and PROBIO are in the middle of a series
of processes, in which they have managed to advance their agendas toward the obligations assigned in the
CONCAUSA agreement, but few of the activities could be qualified in themselves as completed processes or
achievements. As is described above in the document, both the government of the United States as well as the
national governments, members of CCAD have attained a series of advances in their agendas, but there are other
obligations remaining with little or practically no activity.
2. Are these activities complying with national and regional demand in the opinion of the ministers of the
environmental and natural resources and other key clients?
The opinions varied depending on the country because of the constant changes in ministers or the sending of
various deputies to the meetings of the CCAD, the Evaluation Team noticed a differentiated knowledge at the
level of the ministries and a certain lack of communication from the main offices of the ministries from the
activities which are realized with the subordinate units, and the real demands or necessities. Probably, the
reasons for this differentiation are multiple, among them the poor internal communication in some ministries, the
previously mentioned frequent changes of ministers and vice-ministers, the lack of strategic plans (for
biodiversity, environmental protection, etc.) and other priorities less connected with regional priorities.
Definitely, the activities carried out implicitly harmonize with the needs and priorities at the regional level, with
the demand set forth by the same CCAD and the coordinators of the PROLEGIS and PROBIO. To what extent
these demands coincide with those of the national governments was not clear. Finally, the Evaluation Team noted
that the more frequently a minister or his deputy had participated in the reunions of the CCAD, and the more time
he had spent in such meeting, the more he knows the PROARCA Project and the more he feels satisfied with the
work.
3. How well have the environmental protection and legislation component and activities of protection of
biodiversity coordinated with the components of PROARCA? How may this coordination be improved?
The SE-CCAD was able to coordinate some activities especially with CAPAS which served as partner in various
gap studies, mini cases and training events especially with PROBIO. Costas, at the request of CCAD has
collaborated in aspects of policies (Semáforo Gap Study) with PROLEGIS and the initiative of the Mesoamerican
Reef System. Notwithstanding as has been described in the preceding sections of the Evaluation Report, the
56
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
greater Project lacks integration and coordination. Also as has been indicated in this report, strategic planning
and annual integrated programming and evaluation should be encouraged and shared between all the
components and communication between all the implementing agencies, USAID and CCAD should be
substantially improved.
9.5 Specific Questions for Activities Carried Out by EPA Under the PASA Mechanism
1. Is the training and the technical assistance provided by EPA relevant for achieving the harmonization of
environmental legislation in Central America?
Since CCAD with the support of ETA initiated its labors at the peak of the environmental legislation in several of
the countries (framework laws and the establishment of the new ministries of environment and natural resources),
the harmonization from bottom to top came later. Definitively, the materials imparted in the training events and
the assistance are very necessary in the region. Some of the matters were not well founded in terms of the political
and technological reality of the countries of the region (stock manuals of EPA, procedures developed for
developed countries) and several inconveniences occurred with the language of some experts and documents. It
could be better, since with the experience gained, to concentrate training and assistance efforts on a limited
number of geographic sites and thematic areas, since it was very difficult to demonstrate the impact of the
activities between the participants of the courses distributed in seven countries. Because it is a service provided
according to the demand, a range of activities emerged, many without connection with the other. The great
achievement under this subcomponent has been the contribution of the EPA to the drafting and promulgation of
very important legislation for environmental protection in countries in which there had been none and the
beginning of strengthening of the institutions established to apply this legislation. However, harmonization in
itself, at least in terms of its balanced application between the countries of the region, is still in process.
2. Are the national and regional counterparts satisfied with the technical assistance offered and with the
level of training?
The opinions differ, but in general terms, yes. Some counterparts were not satisfied with the process in the
provision of assistance because of reductions in the dates programmed for the activities. The creation of a unit of
Central American trainers in subjects of environmental impact evaluation has been well received. However there
have been certain criticisms concerning the level of the training, since the courses on basic principles of
evaluation of environmental impact have been redundant for several, when they wanted greater specialization in
the evaluation of projects under specific sectors.
3. To what degree is the knowledge obtained through the regional courses and the technical assistance being
applied by the participants?
It was very difficult to determine for two reasons: (a) a representative minimum mass did not arrive at the
meetings called with the Evaluation Team; and (b) the agencies responsible for the application of the regulations
of environmental protection are so poorly financed and supported by the national governments that the work of
the personnel is very limited. The Evaluation Team found instances in which, according to the persons
interviewed, they are applying what they learned, but they could not elaborate on how their system of work had
changed, that is procedures. On the other hand, since data of value for monitoring and evaluating the impact of
the assistance and training is not being collected, it was not possible to carry out a minimal systematic analysis,
beyond the number of participants and the instances of assistance.
4. How well has the EPA Program coordinated with the PROARCA components? How might this
coordination be improved?
With the exception of its contributions to CHF in the execution of the activities under LEPPI, no important
coordination with the other components was noted. It was found that EPA had offered to Costas to institute
monitoring programs of water quality in the Gulf of Fonseca and a program of environmental modeling related to
the activities in Punta Gorda, but it was rejected for unknown reasons. As is described in the preceding sections
of the evaluation report, the major project lacks integration and coordination. As also has been indicated in this
57
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
report, it is necessary to encourage strategic planning and integrated annual programming and evaluation shared
between all the components, and to improve substantially the communication between all the implementing
agencies, USAID and SECCAD.
9.6 Specific Questions on the Partnership between CCAD and PROARCA
1. How should the partnership be between USAID/G-CCAD in the future?
It should be egalitarian relationship such as two organizations pursuing the same objective. None of the
organizations should be subordinated to the will of the other and rather there should be high level negotiations to
seek the necessary mechanisms to achieve the objectives pursued in the region. It is decisive that the CCAD not
be considered as one of the executing institutions of the project, except in its active role in the harmonization of
legislation and its application in the region. Among both organizations they must clearly define what will be the
scope of each one in decontrol and follow up of the projects with the single objective of facilitating processes and
the execution of the programs and projects. It is dangerous for both institutions to fall into the temptation of
controlling activities that only interfere with the execution. This type of decision should be taken before the
beginning of each project in order to avoid the confusion of roles at the time of implementation.
2. What objectives, activities, institutional arrangements, and geographic areas may be the basis for a future
partnership relation (in the context of ALIDES, CONCAUSA, and the Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor)?
It is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that there should be a partnership relation at the executive level and of
overall coordination to assure the congruence between the strategies and activities executed under the project
with the policies and major regional strategies of the countries of the region, thus represented by CCAD whether
these are ALIDES, CONCAUSA or, in the particular case of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. At the same
time, CCAD should play a role as protagonist and catalyzer in the harmonization of policies and legislation (and
of instigator of its national and local application), focusing on the transboundary subregions selected for the
support of PROARCA in its second phase.
3. Are the political and legislative activities toward significant environmental themes well focused in
Central America?
Definitely, yes. However, the present program is too ambitious in trying to cover the full range of themes at one
time with limited personnel and resources. Therefore, it is recommended that, for the second phase, efforts be
concentrated in the transboudary subregions selected because they comprise a living laboratory in which the
same subjects may be dealt with but with a narrower geographic focus, thus permitting attainment of greater
impact in development of experiences and in establishing replicate precedents throughout the region.
9.7 Questions Related to the Collaboration and Working Relationship Between the
Components of PROARCA.
1. Up to what level has CCAD been related with the PROARCA components in order to achieve the results
being sought?
The Evaluation Team knows that there has always been a close collaboration between the CAPAS component and
the team of the CCAD in the activities which have shared responsibilities especially protection of biodiversity.
This relationship was less with the component Costas. In the last year, however, it has improved substantially.
The Environmental Protection and Legislation Component is executed by CCAD and unfortunately the lack of
communication is notorious that has existed between the subcomponent LEPPI financed through the same
component. The Evaluation Team believes that if there were between the USAID/G-CAP and the CCAD an
integrated planning process between the different components these situations would tend to disappear with time.
Until now the exercises which have been conducted with these intention, for example the round tables (round up)
of PROARCA every six months, have been successful but only as a mechanism to share information and to obtain
58
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
collaboration by chance in some aspects, but it was not possible to plan jointly the actions for the following work
season nor to evaluate progress from the integral perspective.
2. What specific activities and components under the PROARCA components have benefited the
relationship with CCAD?
Because of a certain disconnection which there has been between the CCAD and the Costas and LEPPI
Components, greater benefits have not been achieved from the relationship. On the other hand, the activities
coordinated between CAPAS and CCAD/PROBIO and CCAD/PROLEGIS with EPA, have resulted in more
tangible achievements. However, for lack until now of a strategic integration and integrated planning and
evaluation of the activities of all the components, and between USAID/G-CAP and the CCAD the range of the
activities toward the larger objectives originally pursued.
3. What components or activities should be implemented with greater participation of the CCAD?
The natural niche of the CCAD is politics and legislation. The laborious always will be to incorporate the
necessary technical ingredients for the elaboration of policies that respond to the regional necessities and not
only to purely national conditions. The opening of discussion forums may be continued but with reorientation of
efforts to real transboundary cases in specific subregions in order to create experiences and precedents with
which the high executives may be approached for the rendering of decisions, especially in the application of
legislation. It is necessary to have the active participation of the CCAD as a mechanism of integration to which
the executors may look to obtain maximization of the impact of the actions which are being carried out and which
respond to necessities of different subgroups of the civil society. This is a vision of the CCAD at the service of the
interests of the regional society and vigilant of its assets. The Evaluation Team sights several strategic points
concerning this orientation in the text of the evaluation document. Also, the CCAD should play a role of
integrator at the regional level of the financial contributions and the assistance which the region receives from
the international community, watching over its concerted and integral use order to achieve the objectives of
environmental protection and sustainable use of the renewable natural resources at the regional level.
4. What components or activities may be implemented with a minimal participation of CCAD?
In the technical activities at the field level (execution of pilot projects, small grants programs, workshops,
training courses, etc.). In these activities the role of the CCAD should be more as a proponent and instigator than
as an actor to maintain itself fully informed on what the tendencies are which are providing solutions to the
problems at the base level and to be able to contribute by supporting these tendencies with the proposition of
policies and legislation and coordination (“lobby”) at this level.
10.0 Recommendations of the Evaluation Team
The intention of the following recommendations is to provide a USAID/G-CAP, CCAD (DGMA/SICA), and the
implementing agencies of the respective components and subcomponents, a series of instructions which in the
judgment if the Evaluation Team, would be applicable in terms of:
· The orientation in the execution of the activities under each component until the closing date of
PROARCA (the date of the termination of the Project or PACD);
· The design of the second phase of the project (PROARCA II); and
· The period of transition between the closing of PROARCA I and the initiation of PROARCA II.
10.1 Recommendations of General Nature
The following recommendations respond mainly to the general findings and conclusions submitted in Section V.
The general recommendations are applicable at the global Project level and support specific recommendations
submitted for each component.
59
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
10.1.1 PROARCA Within the Regional Context
USAID/G-CAP and CCAD should seek a way of unifying their criteria for considering PROARCA within a
single concept of regionality. Evaluating the experience obtained in Project implementation to date, the existing
opportunities are considered for consolidation of efforts and investments within a single regional concept, thus
allowing greater efficiency and impact in achieving distinctly regional objectives. While it is undeniably true that
all the activities under the three components are having an impact on the region, it is more important that they
have regional impact. At the same time, it is recognized that under PROARCA there are limited financial sources
to respond to so much need in the region. Therefore, it is not possible to do everything for everybody.
With these two considerations in mind, the Evaluation Team suggests creating within PROARCA a hybrid
definition of regionality, where the three regionality concepts are combined: thematic, geographic and
transboundary. This concept application is justified from the environmental, political, socio-cultural and economic
point of view. It is also advisable to integrate the Project efforts and investments in search of greater efficiency
and impact, as described in the next section. The strategy would involve execution of the three components’ most
successful elements in sites duly selected under environmental, social and political criteria, such as:
· Biological value (biodiversity);
· Socio-economic values (poverty, quality of life, risks);
· Socio-cultural values (ethnicity, human development indexes);
· Environmental vulnerability;
· Development opportunities, economic alternatives and sustainable use of natural resources;
· Real and potential local, national and regional economic importance ; and
· Political vulnerability (caused by abandonment, ignorance, lack of representation and/or regulatory
weakness).
Without anticipating or biasing the selection of areas suitable for Project execution, at least in its second phase,
the Evaluation Team believes that transboundary subregions offer the best opportunities to comply with the
criteria previously cited as these subregions are not limited, by political boundaries. That is, the geographical
extension of parameters represented in the aforementioned values are of a transboundary nature. Nationality is not
ruled out as a criterion in these subregions, but is seen as an opportunity to assist the governments in adoption of
the concept of a greater region. The existing of political vulnerability, provides an opportunity to prove new
alternative transboundary concepts and mechanisms of transboundary cooperation.
What is important for USAID and CCAD at this point is to create space to submit and analyze the different
regionality concepts and to reach a consensus on which definition would be applied in the Project’s second phase.
In order to do this, it will be necessary for USAID/G-CAP to call a meeting with the bilateral missions to analyze
regionality concepts, to define a strategy in which responsibility would be assigned (or at least the strategic
intention), and to align their strategic objectives to respond to the agreed concept. It would be ideal that the
strategic objectives of the bilateral missions and their projects would be completely linked to the strategic regional
objective and vice versa, both thematically and in geographic location. Parallel to this the CCAD or the Technical
Secretariat should consult not only with the traditional CCAD partners (national environmental ministries) but
with other groups active in matters of environmental protection and renewable natural resources, conservation
including each country’s NGOs and the appropriate regional nets, in order to define the concept which would best
represent regionality. If the two processes had already been accomplished prior to the preparation and approval
phase of the new USAID/G-CAP regional strategic objective, it is suggested that USAID/G-CAP and CCAD
should devote a day’s work to adopting a concept of regionality to be applied under the Project’s second phase.
This concept will become one of the fundamental bases for design.
10.1.2 Integration of Project Components
Along with the concept of regionality, the Evaluation Team suggests that there should be considered a radical
reorientation considered as to how the execution of the three PROARCA Project components is seen and
supervised, starting in the six to nine months remaining of its first phase and up to the design and implementation
of the second phase. Recognizing the experience obtained under the RENARM Project and that of PROARCA to
60
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
date, it is important to point out the similarities in the two projects' evaluation findings and their
recommendations. The Evaluation Team suggests that USAID/G-CAP, CCAD and the Implementing Agencies
under the three components should make an effort to identify the thematic and geographic areas of articulation in
their strategies, participation processes, assistance and support mechanisms, and implementation models to map
the route to integration. This should be done as soon as possible.
In order to avoid the thematic and geographic dispersion of activities which the Project has had up to now, beyond
adopting an agreed regionality concept, the Evaluation Team suggests: (a) global strategic planning and joint
annual programming and evaluations; (b) communication by means of semi-annual, or monthly meetings, or
meetings with whatever frequency is necessary depending upon the rhythm of jointly executed activities; (c) open
and current exchange of information; (d) shared work in activities, especially when they coincide in the field
areas; and (e) vision and supervision by USAID/G-CAP. The “round-up” meetings under the auspices of
USAID/G-CAP should become a greater participatory forum to accomplish these actions in a continuous and
consistent way, thus creating more opportunity for integration in all aspects of design, planning, management,
monitoring and evaluation of activities.
10.1.3 Project Management and Administration
The Evaluation Team believes that the complex nature of this regional project became even more complex with
an implementation model created by five implementing agencies and under a variety of contractual arrangements.
It is suggested that USAID/G-CAP should not make the same mistake when designing the second phase. While
the Team does not venture to propose that one contractual arrangement be adopted over another, it is suggested
that the number of contracts or agreements be reduced. Despite the good intentions to integrate the work of so
many partners, there is no reason to design a second phase with so many contractual elements, whether
cooperation agreements, institutional contracts or agreements of the PASA or RASA type. RENARM and
PROARCA experience has shown difficulties in regional project implementation with many implementers under
a number of contractual arrangements. This is mentioned not without praise to the current implementing agencies
that, according to the Evaluation Team analysis, have done their worked admirably well.
A solution to the problem of coordination between so many implementing agencies would be to reduce the
number of contractual entities while assuring an appropriate mix of the various strengths within those entities.
Another way to look at this is to consider: (a) a real consortium where the participant organizations would
constitute an agency with access to the technical strength characterizing each one; or (b) a consortium which
would combine NGOs and private companies to achieve the aggregate value of one with the other. In the case of a
PASA agreement, it is suggested that the person in charge, duly selected for his appropriate capacity for the
assigned tasks, language and knowledge of the environmental, social, and political conditions of the region,
should be assigned to the region with headquarters where he could interact with his partners in USAID, CCAD,
the other implementing agencies and his counterparts at the Central American level.
10.1.4 Participation of Civil Society and Human Resources Development
The participation models used by the Implementing Agencies of the three components have achieved important
progress in the PROARCA objectives and should be continued considering the specific recommendations by
component. The Evaluation Team was particularly impressed with the trinational coalition models in the Gulf of
Fonseca and the Gulf of Honduras, viewing them with great potential in the management of subregional activities
promoted by Costas. As a general recommendation, it is suggested that more attention and importance should be
given to the follow-up work using the findings and recommendations. The findings is this case resulted from the
mini-case studies and gaps analyses, site profiles and environmental action plans, which established a good
strategic and programmatic base for activities under their respective components.
While the majority of the training efforts under the components is of high quality, it is suggested that the
particular recommendations found in sections 10.2 to 10.4 should be taken into account. An axiom to consider in
future training efforts, from the strategic and operational perspectives, is to link the training for the development
of human resources directly to activities that are being carried out under the component that provides the training.
In this way more advantage would be taken from the aggregate value and impact. Key in these follow-up actions
61
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
is in-service training, which is understood as a reinforcement of one or more training events in the form of
assistance in applying the learned material.
The Evaluation Team regards the role of each implementing agency as communicators and circulators of
messages and information related to Project objectives as very important. Each one should function as a receptor
and circulator of information and experiences related to the thematic and methodological aspects of its activities.
In order to comply with its role, each implementing agency should intensify its efforts to compile successful
experiences from one or more geographical sites or technical projects, transcribe them in a practical language, and
spread them through guides and manuals of best practices and multimedia presentations according to the
recipient. The same information should be circulated through texts and reference materials used in courses and
workshops for human resources development. It would also be useful to consider the resources to set-up a
communications center for the entire Project in its range of components for the project second phase. Beyond a
publication office, the communications center should be able to undertake actions suitable for transferring
adequate and necessary messages to the counterparts and stakeholders based on an effective communication
strategy to obtain synergy and create a multiplier effect in the dissemination of information.
The CCAD, an organization that most importantly represents the public good of the region, should open its
participatory mechanisms for civil society beyond the forum for ministers and some counselors. Much of the
activity in the environmental area is under the direct responsibility of the NGOs, while the offices of the
governments are weakened in continuous restructuring processes and budget cuts in the environmental and
conservation sector. Therefore, the SE-CCAD should consider including these entities as valued resources and
opinions when preparing its strategic plan, consultation actions, coordination and implementation of activities.
This should accompany the support of the SE-CCAD processes in communication, feedback and information
distribution to its partners and other beneficiaries of Project components.
10.1.5 Organizational and Financial Sustainability of the Counterpart Organizations and their
Activities, and National and Local Financing Mechanisms
The Evaluation Team suggests that more emphasis be placed on advising and transferring the science of
organizational development to non-governmental counterpart organizations (NGOs, productive associations,
community organizations, etc.) to create more capacity for self sustainability. Within that science, the following
aspects are included: strategic planning and objectives planning, annual programming, monitoring and evaluation
of activities and their impact; specialization and strengthening of boards of directors of the organizations in
appropriate skills according to their mission; effective organizational management; personal management and
team work; recruitment of members and volunteers recruitment and maintenance; fundraising; project preparation
and proposal writing for financing; skills in public relations, communications and conflict resolution. While many
of the activities could be seen as responsibilities of national governments, they should be considered because of
their relation to counterparts and processes being stimulated under all PROARCA components.
There are great opportunities in the Project, with the strategies and activities of each component, for incorporating
environmental services as the core of sustainable financing of environmental protection activities and
conservation of natural resources. Natural resources provide goods of economic value, such as: production of
water for consumption, energy generation, irrigation, dilution and evacuation of waste water; forests as watershed
regulators, protection against floods, carbon sinks and fixers, habitat and farms for species of economic and
biodiversity importance, recreation and ecotourism. hunting and fishing; and the wetlands, coasts and reef
ecosystems as habitats and nurseries of flora and fauna of economic and genetic importance, deposits and
generators of substances of pharmaceutical value, and a base for the maintenance of the tourist industry. The
protected areas are the legally established units to protect many of these natural resources, but they receive very
little or no income for services they produce and contributions the make to society. Therefore, PROARCA should
intensify its assistance, studies, training and support in the preparation of their economic-financial and legal
mechanisms to incorporate the environmental cost of use of these resources in order to sustain them with the
quality required for the future, while assuring that the funds collected should be transferred directly to the
organizations working in conservation actions. It is important to incorporate communities neighboring protected
areas in the conservation work and to assure that they benefit from the taxes received for selling the services. It is
62
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
also important to make public and private enterprises and civil societies aware of the reasons for paying for
environmental services which they traditionally have not recognized as worthy of investment.
Currently, PROARCA only undertakes activities related to carbon fixation to access the international market of
purchase/sale of credits. There are numerous additional activities of great potential for the region, including,:
· incorporation of amounts destined for the conservation of potable and industrial water use
· tariffs and discharge rate of waste domestic and industrial waters;
· electricity tariffs;
· sale of tourist permits and concessions; entry charge for protected areas;
· “green” stamps and certifications of natural products (including woods and environmentally friendly
coffee as being promoted under CAPAS);
· fees for airport, gasoline and other fuels, outboard engines, power chain saws, and import/sale for
pesticides and other dangerous substances; and
· rights of way in protected areas for installation of electricity transmission lines, oil pipeline and gas pipes
, roads and positioning of communication towers (example FUNDAECO in Cerro Gil).
Also, PROARCA could help by supporting the operation of national and environmental funds, as a counterpart
source for the conservation activities. Some of these funds are not in use, only in existence because of a law that
has been enacted but not implemented, or simply under-utilized.
10.1.6 Coordination and Co-financing of Activities with Other Development Agencies in the
Region.
As it has been mentioned in this evaluation report, the Implementing Agencies of the PROARCA components
have achieved collaboration with other development agencies in some countries, but should be more aggressive in
looking for technical and financial support to collaborate in many activities executed by PROARCA. There are
scores of national and regional projects implementing activities under similar objectives and with the same
governmental and non-governmental executors, many of these coincide thematically and geographically with the
activities financed under PROARCA. In efforts to facilitate these collaborations, the coordination between the
parties should be evaluated upon the following aspects: strategic and annual planning, including aspects of
inventory and monitoring of social and environmental parameters necessary to evaluate activity impact; human
resources training/education; scientific and geo-referenced information systems; and co-financing. In order to
facilitate these collaborations, only some coordination and co-financing opportunities are mentioned which should
be investigated:
· Nature conservation projects financed by the Global Environmental Fund—GEF at a regional level (as the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, Mesoamerican Reef System, and Program for Maritime
contamination control in the Gulf of Honduras) and national level (specific projects in each country) with
support from the World Bank and IDB, among others;
· National environmental funds (example: USAID finances the National Environmental Fund of Honduras
through VIDA Foundation);
· Regional Central American Program for Environmental Protection and Disasters Prevention, financed by
the IDB;
· National projects for environmental institutional strengthening financed by the IDB and World Bank
(example: PAES/SINAMA in El Salvador, and PRODESAMH in Honduras);
· Environmental program in the Caribbean Region executed by PNUMA from its office in Jamaica;
· Integration of the Tourist Sector in Coastal Protected Areas, implemented by IUCN and BMZ of
Germany; and
· Reconstruction programs and projects for damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, especially in Honduras and
Nicaragua, with funds from USAID, IDB, World Bank and several bilateral agencies.
RUTA’s office is preparing an inventory of all environmental projects and programs and national and regional
natural resources conservation for Central America requested by SE-CCAD. It would be very useful to analyze
63
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
this summary to prepare a strategy for becoming closer to the other development and financing agencies working
in the region, searching for thematic and geographic connections to the objectives and activities carried out under
PROARCA.
10.1.7 Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
The Evaluation Team suggests that USAID/G-CAP, SE- CCAD and the Implementing Agencies of the three
components should make an analysis of the current gaps in their monitoring systems in comparison with the
verifiable indicators listed in the USAID/G-CAP Strategic Objective 2 and the Project Paper. While there is little
time left in the execution period of the current project, the logical monitoring parameters to be included in the
second phase design should be identified and the collection of the existing scientific information bases to facilitate
establishing baselines for monitoring the development of the second phase should be initiated.
While monitoring of the social-organizational and management processes should be continued (example the
Scorecard managed under Costas), it is still necessary, especially with a view toward the second phase, to include
measuring and monitoring biophysical parameters as a basis for evaluation of the impact on PROARCA’s
activities from the perspective of environmental protection and conservation of natural resources, the Project’s
target. In order to do this, the minimum number of biophysical parameters to be monitored should be well
selected, according to the activity results the Project expects.
Revisiting the Strategic Objective 2 of USAID/G-CAP (and the new version being developed) would be a good
starting point to make this analysis. It is also advisable to review existing strategies under each component to
determine if the parameters addressing the required indicators under Strategic Objective 2 are being monitored,
that the requirements of the USAID Environmental Threshold Decision requirement for productive activities
promoted for the Project and subsequent monitoring of the biophysical-impact indicators parameters are being
fulfilled. The USAID Environmental Threshold Decision requires gathering biophysical information to be able to
make succinct studies of environmental impact.
With the advancement in technology and the availability of measuring equipment at a relatively low cost, the
costs of implementing a monitoring program have been substantially reduced. Without anticipating or biasing the
selection of parameters for monitoring, in accordance with superficial analyses made by the Evaluation Team in
view of PROARCA’s objectives and activities, it would be worth considering, among other alternatives, the
following parameters:
· Quality of water in the tributaries and across the coasts in the Costas sites, and inventory of land and
maritime sources of pollution;
· Quality of residual waters generated by the beneficiaries and in the receiving bodies of waste waters prior
and after treatment, in LEPPI projects;
· Fish take in Costas sites, including species, weight, places for fishing, equipment type, date and time;
· Composition of populations of selected endangered species and other indicator species (manatee, turtles,
birds, mammals) in and around protected areas;
· Vegetation cover and its composition in selected protected areas, by interpretation of images from remote
sensors and verification at the field level;
· Incidence of incursions in protected areas, incidence of illicit use of natural resources in protected areas or
other reserves, and the number of judicial procedures successfully resolved by environmental prosecutors
and attorneys;
· Number of traditional users of natural resources converted vocationally into sustainable resources users
(for example, the transmayas fisherman to sports fishing guide, lobster fisherman to diving guide,
fishermen and timber merchants to nature guides), and their income levels;
· Number and nature of regulations and resolutions being applied thoroughly in conflict transboundary
sites;
· Incidence in animal traffic and plants controlled under the CITES Convention; and
· Incidence of leakage and/or violations of the MARPOL protocols and other conventions related to ports
and maritime transportation.
64
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
10.1.8 Relation USAID—CCAD
The CCAD should become a real partner of the USAID/G-CAP in order to strengthen its position as a real
counterpart as a member of the Steering Committee, and as an implementing agency in the Project Management
Unit under the corresponding component. In this way the political-management entity would be made necessary
in the integration of the objectives and strategies of both institutions according to the major objectives detailed in
CONCAUSA and in the PROARCA Project. This role could act as a potential mechanism to integrate
PROARCA’s strategies and activities with the rest of the projects and the participating initiatives that CCAD
would have in the region.
Because it is a true counterpart, CCAD and its Executive Secretariat need to have long-term financing (core
funding) that would allow them to function as an independent institution and a facilitator of activities that favor of
environmental protection at a regional level in collaboration with USAID and the other multi and bilateral
development agencies. Since USAID/G-CAP is the institution which has contributed the most to the constitution
and strengthening of the CCAD and its Executive Secretariat, a process should be initiated with the other
international development agencies, IDB, UNDP and the Scandinavian countries in particular to propose and
analyze long-term financing activities for CCAD. Some alternatives to be considered are: (a) a trust fund with
fixed or stepped annual contributions according to the interest or participation in projects of regional range; (b)
the establishment of a patrimony fund; (c) taxes on transboundary and/or international commerce in the region; or
(d) a mix of the alternatives already mentioned. It is advisable not to adopt a mechanism by which the CCAD
would depend on a percentage (for example 3-5%) of each project with a regional counterpart participating,
because the CCAD would become a project searcher for its financing, as well as an NGO, and would face
reductions at a financial level and technical orientation according to its luck in obtaining particular projects y
diverse agencies and sources.
At the same time, both USAID/G-CAP as well as CCAD (acting for the environmental ministers representing
their governments) need to evaluate the progress in reaching the CONCAUSA objectives and the validity of the
activities still under execution related to this agreement. A decision should be made whether CONCAUSA will
still be the political basis on which the implementation of PROARCA II would be developed, or if it would be
changed to another technical-political instrument in order to support USAID technical and financial assistance.
It is suggested that USAID/G-CAP and the SE-CCAD meet, at least once a month with the PROARCA Project
during the remainder of the period with the intent to analyze its relationship and to consider that relationship in
terms of design and execution of the Project’s second phase. An agreed plan should come out of these meetings to
facilitate the steps for: (a) design for PROARCA’s second phase; (b) the closing of PROARCA and transition to
PROARCA II; (c) financing alternatives for recurrent operational CCAD costs; and (d) major appreciation about
responsibilities of the parties for these actions. It should be noted that since the CCAD and its Executive
Secretariat are still under institutional transition to the SICA, it could be complicated to reach a consensus on
many of these items until this transitional phase is finished and the CCAD (and SE-CCAD or SICA/DGMA)
define its raison d’etre, strategic approach and action priority guidelines for the region.
10.2 Recommendations for CAPAS Component
The following recommendations mainly correspond to the opportunities for improvement mentioned above in
section 6.2.
a. The Evaluation Team postulates that CAPAS should maintain its strategy of being a facilitator component
and catalyst of results strengthening processes. It should also continue to apply its strategy to direct
iterative lineal or non-lineal processes, promoting self management, and an effort to create experiences
and even precedents in recognizing environmental services as a sustainable basis for conservation
activities. CAPAS should define the support mechanisms in the pertinent entities to follow clear
regulations and to avoid at a maximum discretional situations, defining subjects as regionality, support
level, geographical focus, and to concentrate its action areas to develop impacts. CAPAS’ strategic plan
should include these actions. From a different point of view an effort should be made to extend the base
of its partners in order to avoid a concentration of partners in particular countries.
65
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
b. In its annual planning process CAPAS should include subjects and national agendas that have a regional
impact and which are guaranteed and incorporated into the SE-CCAD planning. These planning processes
could be interactive and participate with the CAPAS partners in order that their national counterparts
would feel a real component participation and not only a participation related to the activity being
performed. In the planning process, CAPAS should include a different strategy for the short-term actions
as measurable actions relevant to the long-term results. It is important that the process be realistic and
sufficiently flexible to accommodate continuous changes in the region, whether personnel, policies,
and/or counterpart financial and human resources availability. The long-term indicators should allow
measurement of the sustainability and self management processes.
c. To initiate the necessary strategic actions during the current project’s remaining period, it is
recommended that CAPAS work strongly to concentrate its technical assistance on a rational number of
strategically selected protected areas, in search of mechanisms which would allow local capitalization of
organizations, including administrators or co-administrators. On this subject, there should be an important
role for charging for environmental services such as potable water production, for energy, irrigation,
regulatory watershed capacity, farms for economically important species, recreation, hunting and fishing.
It is necessary that the new CAPAS phase should contribute to strengthening links between these services
and neighboring communities as well as with the urban society in general. Also, in order to facilitate the
income of environmental services CAPAS should give attention to the diversification of partners,
including in the model additional ministries other than those of the environment. Including other
ministries creates the possibility of providing support with solutions not only from the environmental
protection focus, but from the productive point of view of natural resources exploitation which is not
under control of the environmental ministries.
d. Since land tenure and the legal nature of property is a great limitation to protected areas have in the
majority of countries in the region, it is suggested that CAPAS make incursions into the subject of land
ownership. More aggressiveness on the subject is recommended in the Project’s next phase since it is
such an important issue for viability of the protected areas which should not be ignored as it has in the
past. At least, the impact of land ownership on CAPAS’ strategy and the objectives of its working areas
should be determined. The component may share efforts with PROLEGIS in the localized legal
investigation for the selected protected areas, giving support and technical assistance to contribute to the
solution of a common problem for the majority of the countries in the region, based on case studies and
pilot projects. As an integral factor, it is recommended that CAPAS contribute to conflict resolution in
delimiting protected areas disseminating short-term methods and access tools, transfer of available
technology and reduce cost. Even though this is a subject of national magnitude it has impacts of regional
character in protecting areas in the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.
e. It is recommended for the future project that an in-depth analysis be made of mechanisms for relating the
implementers to political entities, in this case the SE-CCAD (CICA/DGMA). This will contribute to a
better delimitation, in the spheres of political development, of the functions and expectations concerning
the Project. It is also necessary to plan processes of continuing training for the Ministries of Environment
and for new partners in the material which CAPAS is developing, as well as for the appropriate selection
of participants when the time comes for the political authorities to participate in the selection of
participants. This situation would be helpful given the constant turnover that occurs in the region with
nearly annual changes in some of the governments or environmentally related authorities.
f. There should be work towards the development of a critical mass of experts in each country of the region.
While this is not the sole responsibility of CAPAS, mechanisms should be sought for the authorities to
understand this need and to avoid the technical dependency on Costa Rican and Guatemalan experts
which the component has generated. Time also should be invested in processes of methodological
adaptation and systems to be disseminated in order to compensate for and prevent problems that arise
from differences in concepts, vocabulary, language (e.g., Belize), and in the legal and organizational
conditions which vary among countries.
66
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
g. There should be a strategy formulated and mechanisms consolidated to guarantee continuity and follow￾up for the resolutions, conclusions and recommendations of the workshops conducted by the component.
h. It is recommended that support through small grants to NGOs be continued and developed and that the
possibility be included for the financing of activities implemented through private, profit-making firms as
long as the proposals are competitive. The small grants subcomponent should be protected in order to
avoid political influences as much as possible. Mechanisms should be optimized so that the small grants
will guarantee equality between countries, or at least will more clearly require that the selection criteria
should consider need on an equal plane with the capacity to present good proposals. But it also should
avoid the role of negotiations in the political sphere, which is in itself a non-transparent process. Until
now this potential danger has been avoided through small concessions. One of the concessions is that the
selection of the recipients of such grants is made through two equal grants per country and that they are
chosen on the basis of national criteria. However, insofar as the selection criteria of the program are
known, this becomes more difficult. Another alternative to be considered would be the application by
CAPAS of a number of small grants strategically designed to maximize efforts for protection of the
protected areas which had been previously selected as priority areas. The activities to be financed may be
oriented to themes such as: the productive-sustainable use of natural resources in buffer zones; the
preparation of natural history guides for the protected areas; the development of ecotourism activities,
sustainable forest management, environmentally friendly coffee, etc.
i. It is recommended that the concept of establishing an information clearinghouse be more fully developed.
Currently, the communication area of the component does not have a budget; rather it is being financed at
the expense of the other work areas and was created without receiving collaboration from the other
PROARCA components. The concept needs strengthening in the second phase.
10.3 Recommendations for the Costas Component
The following recommendations mainly correspond to the opportunities for improvement mentioned
above in section 7.2.
10.3.1 Participation
a. Coalitions and bi- or tri-national committees appear to be excellent tools for creating transboundary
partnerships and facilitating consensus-based decision making. Coalition building at a site is a successful
model for strengthening local participation and should be continued, expanded and replicated. The
Evaluation Team recommends that Costas develop a strategy to more actively involve all national
partners in site activities, including an awareness strategy and action plan to educate national leadership
about the transboundery and regional benefits of coastal management. Further, Costas should develop
awareness efforts specifically targeting the less active national partners in a site to clearly demonstrate the
transboundary benefits of Costas activities. There is room for strengthening coordination and
communication with other coastal/marine activities and programs, especially with those supported by
USAID and those in the greater Caribbean region. There are important lessons to be learned and
experiences shared. Better communication will avoid duplication of efforts, improve efficiency and
promote the regional awareness of coastal management. The Evaluation Team recommends that Costas
management initiate communications to learn more about and programs such as, among others:
CARICOMP, IOCARIBE, UNEP-CEP, NOAA, University of Miami/RSMAS, ICLARM,
ReefBase/ReefCheck, IDB-financed activities in Bay Islands of Honduras and Barbados, and USAID￾financed Coastal Water Quality Improvement Project in Jamaica and Environmentally-Sound Tourism in
Quintana Roo Mexico.
b. While The Evaluation Team recognizes the importance of recent advances made by Costas in fisheries
management, it appears that future advances are limited by the lack of regional leadership (CCAD
environmental ministries) and partner organizations (primarily protected areas-oriented NGOs). To
facilitate recognition of commercial fisheries management as a regional issue and support Costas fisheries
67
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
successes, the Evaluation Team recommends that Costas and PROARCA management evaluate potential
new partnerships and mechanisms for regional cooperation in fisheries management.
c. Recently, as site activities have evolved and matured, opportunities to expand the number partners have
increased. This has led to a wider distribution of small grant funds and a diversification of partners. A
recent improvement in the partner selection process and diversification of partners has reduced the
impacts of local conflicts, administrative problems and other issues. The Evaluation Team recommends
that diversification of partnerships be continued and that additional efforts to educate the communities
about the extent and nature of the partnerships be undertaken.
d. The Evaluation Team recommends a review by Costas management of protected area activities to ensure
the participation of the appropriate government agencies in the coalitions. The Evaluation Team further
recommends that Costas management review and refine their approaches to keeping agencies informed of
progress in protected areas under their jurisdiction.
10.3.2 Technical Aspects
a. National integrated coastal resources management priorities are the basis for effective regional priorities.
Costas can assist CCAD in promoting regionalization in two ways. First, by continued involvement at
local level to raise awareness of integrated coastal resources management and to provide case studies for
national governments. Second, by increasing efforts to keep national level interests informed and aware of
the successes and benefits of regionally integrated technical and managerial approaches. Transboundary
approaches should address core problems of enforcement, weak policy and inadequate institutional
arrangements, in addition to awareness and training activities. Effective change in transboundary fisheries
management will require coordinated effort on the bi-national as well as the regional level. This is both a
bilateral and a design issue that should be addressed in the upcoming PROARCA design.
b. There is a need to develop a more effective communication strategy, with dedicated staff, impact-oriented
objectives, and an appropriate budget. CAPAS, when confronted with a similar weakness, rapidly
developed a useful strategy through a targeted consultancy. This type of technical assistance is should be
readily available from the TNC or WWF home offices. TIDE in Port of. Honduras-Paynes Creek and of
the Port Security Committee in Puerto Barrios are examples of success stories with wide potential for
replication, and should be more aggressively disseminated. In addition, a more clearly defined program of
exchanges among sites would promote the spreading of lessons learned and facilitate the development of
local views and solutions. The Evaluation Team recommends that a specific strategy for sharing lessons
learned and exchanges among partners at Costas sites be developed as soon as possible to disseminate
lessons learned to date.
c. The inclusion of resource management activities more accurately reflects the integrated resources
management design of Costas. To ensure that these activities are relevant to the Costas and PROARCA
objectives, the Evaluation Team recommends that these be linked to specific productive activities and
demonstration projects. As these activities mature, there is a need to increase the technical content of
training. All sites would benefit from more technically oriented courses (e.g., larval fisheries management
techniques in Gulf of Fonseca, community forest management in Costa Miskita). Courses and follow-up
on the job training for technology transfer should be more heavily utilized.
10.3.3 Planning and Monitoring
a. The strength of the strategic plans varied significantly among sites. It would benefit Costas to have a
panel review site action plans to ensure quality and compliance with Costas component plans and USAID
performance evaluation findings. The Evaluation Team further recommends that annual plans be
developed jointly among all Costas sites. There is a need to more fully focus activities on integrated
coastal resources management, as opposed to just marine-coastal protected area management, and define
how Costas site activities relate to both marine-coastal protected areas and integrated coastal resources
management strategies within the overall Costas framework. While this may require re-defining
68
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
component approaches and objectives in a future design, it would broaden the applicability to the region,
not just to protected areas. There are also opportunities to bring together RSTA in joint planning that
would allow for grater technical depth and cross application of experience in the strategic and annual
planning processes.
b. For marine protected areas where limited fishing activity is part of the management plan (e.g., Port
Honduras, Bocas del Toro, Bahia de Chismuyo), it is important to implement the fisheries monitoring
activities described in the Biodiversity Support Program’s Caminos al Exito guidelines. The use of marine
protected areas as fisheries management tools is an important success that requires careful validation and
documentation through monitoring with adequate biophysical baselines and indicators. This will ensure
that national government fisheries agencies will support marine reserves as part of their management
options. Further, awareness efforts to spread the concept to other marine areas and countries will promote
both improved marine resources management and increased interest in marine protected areas and may
substantially support the SE-CCAD’s efforts under the SAM initiative. The Evaluation Team further
recommends developing closer cooperation with national fisheries management agencies in the
monitoring effort. They are key stakeholders and can contribute significantly to data collection and
analysis, ideally under the leadership of a technically competent institution such as Costas subcontractor,
the University of Rhode Island. Results from the Gulf of Fonseca and Gulf of Honduras show that the
participation, collaboration and support of national fisheries management agencies are crucial to the
adoption and spread of limited take marine protected areas.
c. To demonstrate the benefits of integrated coastal management, maintain and expand community support
and contribute to long term financial sustainability, the Evaluation Team recommends that Costas
implement and expand demonstrations of sustainable productive uses of coastal and marine resources.
While some productive use activities are being tested (e.g., tourism and sport fishing activities in Belize),
the more difficult consumptive uses still remain in the early planning stages. The Evaluation Team
recommends that Costas develop a productive uses strategy and an action plan for testing, demonstration
and extension using small grants and technical support. Best Management Practices (BMP) and
completion of required environmental assessments to satisfy USAID and Costas guidelines are essential
prerequisites that should start promptly to allow sufficient times for meaningful pilot trials.
Demonstration activities for fisheries and other marine resources management, sustainable forestry and
ecotourism require clear socioeconomic and biophysical targets and indicators that will allow (a)
impartial evaluation of technical and financial feasibility of these activities, (b) verify that the activities
conform with USAID’s environmental determination for PROARCA and (c) validate current investment
in demonstration activities. The Evaluation Team recommends that successful demonstrations of
productive activities be substantiated with scientifically defensible data and documented, and technical
packages proposed for replication demonstrate the value of the investment in the original activity as a
basis to expand activities to other sites. The monitoring of organizational and participatory processes,
albeit non-comprehensive, should be continued because of the value in monitoring changes in
management actions and decision making.
d. Design and collection of baseline information for proposed activities should be addressed at the start of a
Costas activity and for all new sites (and reconstituted at current sites). Biological indicators and
monitoring have a crucial place in this activity, so baseline information of sufficient quality to support a
monitoring activity is essential. Given that there was no established plan for biophysical data collection,
indicators or monitoring, there has been an understandable reluctance to get into collection of biological
baseline data. There are notable exceptions: the Karata and Wouhta lagoons in the Costa Miskita, and
fishery landings in Gulf of Honduras. However, baseline data are needed for all Costas sites. A
biophysical monitoring strategy should be based largely on the guidelines presented in the BSP document,
Caminos al Exito and in site profiles (e.g., Gulf of Honduras). Developed with full community
participation, these documents propose a series of site-based indicators and baseline variables. They
propose community led and relatively inexpensive monitoring strategies. The indicators and baseline data
needs described in these plans should serve to guide a biological baseline activity, while the planned
management and productive use activities are still in relatively early stages.
69
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
e. GIS is an especially useful, rapid and cost effective tool for planning and for analysis of many of the
baseline and monitoring needs of the activity. To take full advantage of this technology, Costas should
collect, collate and assimilate currently available and project-generated georeferenced databases for each
of its sites and truly harness the power of GIS software, rather than using such a tool for menial
automated-mapping tasks.
10.3.4 Management and Administration
a. There is a need by for discussions among the management of Costas and other PROARCA components,
and between PROARCA and CCAD, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing partnerships in
areas such as policy/legal frameworks, fisheries management, and coastal/marine protected areas. These
discussions should lead to: (a) the clear definition of roles and responsibilities among existing partners
and (b) identification of new partners in areas such as regional fisheries management and integrated
coastal resources management. Costas, by virtue of its recent successes in transboundery resources
management, is in a position to promote these discussions. Closer planning and cooperation can increase
co-location of components in specific sites. This combination can accelerate progress on site and magnify
both Costas and overall PROARCA results.
b. The RSTA system is a successful model that should be refined and strengthened, perhaps through funding
for national RSTA counterparts (“twinning”) at each Costas site for sustainability. There is a need to
assess both site needs and RSTA skills to evaluate RSTA ability to meet anticipated site TA needs. The
assessments and resulting needs for technical assistance to the RSTAs should be included in annual site
plans and form the basis for advance planning of such assistance from central or home office. The
assessment should also be used to develop a training program for each site RSTA to build individual
skills needed to meet the most important needs on his/her site and to increase the skill level of the overall
RSTA group. Training can be by tailored courses and on-the-job when external specialists are on TA. It is
critical to develop mechanisms to facilitate and improve information exchange among RSTA. Success at
any given site is a function of RSTA knowledge and experience. They are the focal points for the
development of approaches, resolution of issues and promotion of activity objectives. There is much to be
gained from having frequent and extensive exchanges of experiences and information among RSTA.
There are various mechanisms that Costas management may wish to explore, including exchanges among
RSTA (where RSTA work together at one site for a period) and periodic meetings among RSTA, perhaps
held at one of the sites.
c. Members of the management consortium (TNC, WWF and URI/CRC) are encouraged to examine their
relationship and establish a more efficient and integral administration and management model. Each
Costas consortium member has complementary areas of strength that should be brought to bear at both the
central-office level (for planning, technical assistance, and monitoring and evaluation) and at each Costas
site. Focusing greater implementation authority by consortium members in the Costas project office in
Guatemala City should be encouraged, as this would promote management under more of a true
consortium, rather than a grouping of three autonomous organizations. The Evaluation Team also
recommends that Costas management develop guidelines for responding to requests for assistance,
including quality control of products and plans for delivery/distribution of technical reports.
10.4 Recommendations for the Environmental Protection and Legislation Component
The following recommendations account in large part for the opportunities for improvement mentioned in section
8.2 above.
10.4.1 General Recommendations with Relevance to the Major Component
The recommendations that follow are applicable to all subcomponents at some point, in other words, to the major
component.
70
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
a. USAID/G-CAP, in collaboration with SE-CCAD, should facilitate strategic and operational closeness
among the three components and their implementing agencies, making it apparent in comprehensive
annual strategic and programming activities, with the desire to find technical and cost/benefit efficiencies
in component activities.
b. Complementing the above-mentioned actions, USAID/G-CAP and SE-CCAD should also facilitate the
strategic and operational convergence between this component and the CAPAS and Costas components,
from both the thematic and geographic perspective.
c. As there are many regional and national projects and programs for environmental protection and
legislation financed by other bilateral and multinational agencies, USAID/G-CAP, SE-CCAD and the
respective implementing agencies should seek mechanisms to coordinate efforts and activities among
them to avoid duplication and overloading the counterpart organizations with isolated activities, and to
obtain political, technical and financial synergy.
d. Programming and provision of technical assistance by EPA would be more efficient in technical and
logistical terms by assigning full-time personnel with headquarters in the region.6
10.4.2 LEPPI Subcomponent
a. More emphasis should be placed in communication aspects with the national governmental institutions
responsible for ordering the legislation and regulations for environmental sanitation and protection early
in the project cycles for each country, making sure to process all required permits and certifications in
time and quality, and keeping those same institutions continually informed.
b. It is suggested that precautions be taken in the participatory processes of project prioritization and
planning at a community level. In communities where experience already exists for managing a sanitation
project, the process should be adapted and shortened (not requiring the four traditional workshops in order
to achieve an environmental action plan) in order to directly proceed with actions to complete project
preparation and manage its financing and sustainable operation.
c. A mechanism should be established for the Steering Committees to be recognized more formally by the
municipal city halls without becoming entities with their own legal personality (in order to avoid creating
a parallel bureaucracy competing with the municipality) nor being subject to the mayor’s political
command. The municipalities should offer the Committees office space and occasional secretarial
services and communications in order to facilitate the Committee’s activities. The Evaluation Team is
opposed to the idea of transferring resources directly to the Committees, because they would become staff
members of the municipality, an NGO or a private enterprise, losing their raison d'être and voluntarism.
d. To meet the expectations created by the communities to receive the environmental sanitation projects that
had been prioritized by the LEPPI process, resources must be requested from other financial entities early
in the project cycle. Since there are many bilateral sources and especially multilateral ones at a national
level with national government institutions (Funds for Social Investment, loans for environmental
sanitation for intermediate urban centers, etc.), it would be logical to make early contact to find out about
their consent in financing sanitation works in the selected sites, and to prepare pre-feasibility and
feasibility studies according to the technical requirements demanded by each of them.
e. It is suggested that LEPPI efforts be more centered in small size communities (2,000 to 25,000
inhabitants), leaving the larger urban centers to municipal and national government agencies which could
have direct access to the financing sources offered under the IDB and World Bank programs (social
 
6
 With the initiation of the Post-Mitch Reconstruction Program at the regional and national level financed by the Government
of the United States through the USAID missions in Honduras and Nicaragua, the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
has assigned a full-time expert in the USAID mission in Tegucigalpa. With this precedent, EPA could assign an expert to
USAID/G-CAP under the PASA agreement as coordinator and technical director.
71
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
investment loans and funds). Thus, more emphasis will be given to appropriate technology projects, in
accordance with the socio-economic level of these communities, including cost/benefit aspects of
solutions and citizens’ capacity to pay for services (whether managed by a municipal or private
enterprise), and the awareness and training aspects in use and operation/maintenance of the works.
f. As a basic concept, environmental quality indicators should be established on which to base an evaluation
of the projects’ impacts in environmental sanitation. Basic scientific data is needed in order to be able to:
monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the technology used; calculate the project cost/benefit ratio;
prepare the technical packaging derived from the pilot projects; and circulate the results in order that the
projects be replicated. Examples of useful scientific data follow:
· Waste water projects: data on quality of effluents to be collected, treated and discharged through the
sewage projects and the water quality in the receptor basins; and a cost analysis by housing solution
as compared to the beneficiaries’ capacity to pay for the service;
· Solid waste collection, classification and disposal projects: data about the type, volume, number and
location of illicit dumping of solid wastes (the rivers for example), and an analysis of the costs by
housing solution as compared to the capacity of the beneficiaries to pay for the service.
Without these data it would be difficult to analyze if these are the most adequate projects to be circulated and
replicated in other parts of the countries with similar conditions.7
 LEPPI (CHF and EPA) should take into account
that, no matter how efficient a sanitary solution may be, its adoption is in direct correlation to the cost and
simplicity of operation by the beneficiaries. Therefore, it is suggested that a “second best strategy” be adopted to
accomplish the insertion of a project by stages, for example: it could be more efficient to build a more effective
solid wastes system of collection and classification as a first stage, before making arrangements for a modern
costly sanitary landfill as a project approach; and to install septic tanks and the correct disposal of its effluents as
a first stage, and a treatment plant as a second stage.
10.4.3 Harmonization and Application of Environmental Legislation Component
a. SE-CCAD should reduce the environmental subject groups to be treated under the PROLEGIS and
PROBIO programs to a manageable number that better reflects the more outstanding regional
environmental priorities, and in proportion to its managerial-technical capacity (especially in relation to
the number and specialty of its personnel). As there is an important number of projects and programs for
institutional and operational environmental strengthening at the regional and national level, SE-CCAD
should redouble its efforts to coordinate with them, facilitating greater efficiencies in strategic planning
and coordinated programming of actions for environmental protection and legislation, with emphasis on
active application of existing frameworks. SE/CCAD should facilitate co-financed and co-implemented
activities among projects and actors of the governmental and non-governmental sectors, proposing as
success indicators the incidence and value of these co-participations. It is very important to coordinate the
activities implemented under PROLEGIS and PROBIO with environmental institutional strengthening
projects financed by the IDB and World Bank in the countries of the region, and with the regional and
national initiatives under the auspices of the Global Environmental Fund (GEF), the latter emphasizing
biodiversity protection and management strategies for the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.
b. SE-CCAD should improve its current strategy and public relations and communication program to make
both its image and its reason for being as well as its activities better known and supported by government
and non-government entities (real and potential counterparts). One mechanism suggested to improve and
maintain its image, publicize its strategies and comply with, at least, part of its mission, will be re￾establishing its Web page, but making it into a source of contact data from other primary and secondary
scientific information sources (metadata), and a repository and a place to circulate didactic and geo-
 
7
 While the processes of environmental impact assessment governed by national and/or municipal authorities on this matter
could include requirements to monitor biophysical indicators of environmental quality, during the evaluation, no examples of
these environmental sanitation projects under the LEPPI auspices were observed, although they could be included in the
environmental certifications eventually granted by the authorities.
72
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
referenced information about: (a) project descriptions and national and regional environmental programs,
together with contact data from its implementors; (b) inventory and condition of renewable natural
resources and biodiversity; (c) technical and socio-economic information, such as manuals and
methodologies for environmental management and carbon fixation and guides to best technical practices,
mechanisms for the incorporation of environmental costs in national accounts (environmental services),
investigation and monitoring results, census and statistics, etc.; and (d) up to date information on
conferences, workshops, training courses, etc. The current efforts under PROBIO for creation of the
Mesoamerican System of Information on Biodiversity (SIMEBIO) should be integrated into this major
system at the SE-CCAD level. As a complement, SE-CCAD should investigate the possibility of serving
as a focal point and repository/distributor of regional monitoring information of the main biophysical
indicators (vegetative cover, water amount and quality, biodiversity indexes, etc.).
c. The technical assistance and training strategy used under PROLEGIS with the support of EPA, should be
re-focused towards cases of real environmental problems in specific geo-physical areas strategically
selected to contribute to the major CCAD and PROARCA regional objectives. Preferably, the efforts
should be oriented in relation to the priority transboundary sites managed under the Costas component
(and others to be chosen), linking in a synergetic way with priority matters under the auspices of both
Costas and CAPAS. Thus, the assistance and training efforts would be directed into achieving more
reachable subregional solutions with the appropriate participation of actors with greater proximity to the
problems—instead of diluting the efforts by dealing with the macro structural problems at a national level
(from the bottom up, more in harmony with the original upward harmonization). The same suggestion is
applicable in the PROBIO case which should concentrate its efforts to facilitate institutional and civil
society responses in the application of the CITES, Ramsar, MARPOL, Cartagena, Climatic Change, etc.
conventions, in the transboundary priority zones to, again, take advantage of the same synergy. The most
important progress made under international conventions to date, by CCAD's own assessment, has been
under:
· CITES (International Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species), for which
CCAD/PROBIO and PROLEGIS, with some assistance provided under CAPAS, has carried out
training and produced identification handbooks to be used by customs officials at international entry
points and border crossings; and
· International Convention on Biological Diversity, for which CCAD facilitated elaboration of the
preparation of the Central American Agreement on Biological Diversity and its signature by ALIDES
member countries. This agreement was developed within the framework of the International
Convention and, by and large, supports it covenants. CCAD/PROBIO has been somewhat active,
albeit with budgetary and personnel restrictions, in promoting the strengthening of the National
Biodiversity Commissions and the conformation of these through a regional network, providing
training and information exchanges.
d. SE-CCAD, once it has completed its transition/incorporation to SICA, having adopted its strategic plan y
having proposed its principal programs and roles for in-house personnel, should establish the financial
mechanisms for its basic operations (core funding). The advantages and disadvantages of various
alternative mechanisms should be analyzed, opting for a mix that better favors the long-term technical￾management objectives. It is advisable that SE-CCAD does not opt for an alternative that would imply
particular project resource dependency (soft money), since these mechanisms tend institutionally to
destabilize, resulting in reductions in quality and quantity of personnel and in the technical orientation of
the organization.
10.4.4 Pollution Prevention Subcomponent
Since the activities under this subcomponent, executed by EPA under the PASA agreement, directly support the
LEPPI and CCAD (PROLEGIS and PROBIO) objectives and programs, the recommendations mentioned in
subsections above are applicable.
73
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
10.5 Recommendations with Direct Relevance to PROARCA II Design and Initiation.
In the first place, the Evaluation Team is in total agreement with the idea that there is need for implementing a
second phase for the PROARCA Project. Several processes for transfer of methods and appropriate technology
have been put forward to contribute to the solution of environmental problems and non-sustainable use of
renewable natural resources in the region. The implementation of a second phase would contribute to achieving
the objectives originally established in Strategic Objective 2 and the PROARCA Project Paper, strengthening the
actions of Implementing Agencies and counterpart organizations in environmental protection and conservation of
biodiversity. The following are some recommendations presented by the Evaluation Team which should be
considered in the second phase design of the PROARCA Project.
10.5.1 Design criteria for PROARCA II
In this section, the Evaluation Team would like to propose criteria for the PROARCA II design based on
evaluation results. Criteria are presented in a summarized way and only as a proposal to be analyzed together with
other alternatives and strategies that USAID/G-CAP and CCAD would consider. For the Evaluation Team, the
following criteria represent experience acquired to this date, the strengths and opportunities for improvement
which have been analyzed and articulated in this evaluation.
a. The Project, in all its components and activities, should be focusing on between four and six
transboundary subregions which have the environmental, social, and economic criteria which remain to
be set (see section X.A.1 above). Because of the investments already made and the advances achieved to
date, it is suggested that the sites of the Gulf of Fonseca, Gulf of Honduras and Bocas del Toro-Gandoca,
now considered under the Costas component should be included among the subregions to be considered
under the new project. The geographic area now included in each of these three mentioned sites should be
extended to include the watersheds that are most influential for the environmental quality of the coastal
zones. The exact boundaries should be drawn during the design phase, once again taking into account the
selection criteria and a more intensive analysis of the social and environmental characteristics of these
subregions;
b. Applying the selection criteria, as many as three additional subregions should be chosen to be considered
under the new project. Some possibilities to be taken into account are: (a) the Río Lempa (Honduras-El;
Salvador) binational watershed, (b) the Río Paz and La Barra de Santiago (Guatemala-El Salvador)
watershed and coastal zone; (c) the Lago de Nicaragua (Nicaragua-Costa Rica) binational watershed; (d)
the Río San Juan (Nicaragua-Costa Rica) binational watershed and coastal zone; and (e) the Río Motgua
(Guatemala-Honduras) middle binational watershed. Inclusion of the Costa Meskita should be analyzed
according to the selection criteria and the possibility of expanding the area to include the Honduran
Mosquitia, if and when justified.
c. The methodology for participation in the new Project should be based on the coalition model developed
under Costas. The coalitions should be extended, where appropriate, to include local government
institutions and representatives of decentralized national organizations to achieve the constant and broad
support of activities. Training events and workshops would be used at the minimum necessary to transfer
skills required by the counterpart organizations; and only when these training events are linked to the
activities executed under the project and have the required “in-service” follow-up.
d. The activities currently executed under the CAPAS and Environmental Protection and Legislation
(LEPPI, PROLEGIS and PROBIO) components should be geographically reoriented to the selected
subregions, with efforts to integrate and establish investments to obtain greater strategic, technical,
operational, administrative and economic (cost-benefit) efficiencies, and a higher impact.
e. The activities presently being initiated under CAPAS, protected area management, protection of
endangered fauna (manatee, tortoise and others yet to be defined), climate change, tourism and
environmentally friendly coffee, as well as certification of forests under sustainable
management/exploitation in buffer zones, etc. should be executed under an integrated plan in the selected
74
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
subregions, coordinating them with activities already executed under other components in order to
achieve greater scale and efficiency impact.
f. Activities currently executed under LEPPI should be based on a rapid inventory of pollution sources,
whether domestic, agricultural and/or industrial, that most influence the human and natural environment.
A classification and prioritization should be made of the sources to be considered. For municipal and rural
small projects (2,000 to 20,000 inhabitants or small industries in rural areas), the participatory process
should be applied (if the currently used short process is required) to prioritize, design and implement
strategies and/or works needed, preferably with the participation of USAID bilateral missions. For
projects of greater importance, whether municipal or industrial, in collaboration with appropriate local
and/or national authorities, contact should be made with financial agencies’ representatives or projects
that consider this type of solution (World Bank, IDB, Social Investment Funds, UNDP/PNUMA,
Chambers of Industry) in order to facilitate a resolution.
g. With the concentration of PROLEGIS and PROBIO activities in the subregions, experiences would be
generated under political, environmental and social conditions in a living laboratory, developing legal￾regulatory mechanisms and linking the strengthening of local institutions to transfer them from a local
level to a subregional level (upward harmonization) in traditionally abandoned zones which are still
vulnerable, and with a higher success potential due to the reduction of the geographic area scale. Also the
Project would promote application of the protocols for the international conservation and environmental
protection conventions (CITES, Ramsar, Biodiversity, Genetic Resources, MARPOL, Cartagena, etc.) at
a local level, always in concert with the other components.
h. The new Project strategy should include more emphasis on promotion of sustainably productive and
environmentally friendly activities, an integral factor in watershed management and essential for the
buffer zones of the coastal protected areas. It would start from the experience obtained under CAPAS and
Costas, with emphasis on best practices.
i. Preferably, the new project should be implemented through two, but not more than three, contractual
arrangements (one agreement or contract for each modality). Initially there would be an institutional
contract to facilitate a rapid, high quality consultancy response; and a cooperative agreement because of
its comparative and programmatic advantages and its potential to create linkages with other programs in
the region executed by the NGOs participating in the agreement. It could be convenient to include an
inter-agency agreement (as a PASA) depending on the Project’s final design and the requirements for a
specialized consultancy which these agencies might have, but only if a professional headquartered in the
region could be assigned. The reduced number of agreements and contracts would substantially simplify
the Project’s administration, both for the eventual implementers and USAID, and would contribute to a
better integration between the parties in planning, execution, and monitoring and evaluation of the
Project’s activities.
j. CCAD (SIG/DGMA), should be a counterpart at a regional level and should participate in the Board of
Directors. Depending on the completion of its integration with SICA and the nature of its new modus
operandi and strategic plan, it could act as the implementing agency for PROLEGIS and PROBIO
activities. The specific arrangement for its participation would depend on the financing and administrative
model that this organization would have adopted under SICA (its own trust fund /core funding, patrimony
fund, project items).
k. During the first semester of work in each of the selected subregions, the implementing agencies should
prepare a baseline of the social, economic, environmental and political parameters that they should use to
evaluate progress and impacts of the activities towards the new Project objectives. These should include
biophysical-indicator parameters of the dynamics of the condition and conservation status of natural
resources and ecosystems. A unique information system should be established for the Project in order to
input, store, analyze and evaluate monitoring data against the baseline. Note that monitoring and
evaluation responsibilities belong to everybody, therefore each implementer should keep his/her
monitoring and evaluating systems up to date.
75
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
l. The Project should also have a shared information and communications center. The Project should create,
in coordination with SE-CCAD, a Web page that would provide information about all activities which
would take place, accessible documents which could be downloaded from the Internet, a metadata
section, with hyperlinks to direct the visitor to Web pages of other national, regional and international
collaborators, other projects, international scientific and assistance organizations, and documentation
centers. The Project’s communications center would act as a depository and clearinghouses for thematic
and geo-referenced information related to the serviced Project and subregions. The center would also
keep a list of counterparts, actors and stakeholders, duly classified in order to send them information
about their interests or for education and lobbying. Finally, the communications center would support all
implementing agencies in the transfer of appropriate technology and assist in preparing appropriate
strategies and means for importing information at all levels (from resource users to the political arena),
via correct messages and information related to the objectives, both from the public relations perspective
and that of the Project image.
m. The Project’s management and supervision by USAID/G-CAP should be vigilant in order to accomplish
the required coordination activities during the annual planning processes. It is necessary to continue semi￾annual exchange meetings, after arriving at an inter-component evaluation phase concerning progress
actions and considering the levels of integration. During this process USAID/G-CAP should be cautious
not to fall into Project micro-management, but to act as a facilitator for aspects of institutional and
regional policy and the Project’s global integration. One of the issues that should be defined as soon as
possible is the validity of CONCAUSA as an execution framework for the Project.
10.5.2 Recommendations Concerning the Design Process and Transition between PROARCA
and PROARCA II
The Evaluation Team noticed with concern that the actions normally required within the project’s cycle, at least
those related to the Project’s second phase design are late. The PROARCA Project is nearing its closing date
(PACD) as are deadlines for contracts and agreements with the Implementing Agencies (between June and
August, 2000). The regional mission is presently discussing and analyzing its new Strategic Objective 2, a
precursor to the design of PROARCA’s second phase, programmed for approval in March, 2000. In order to
design the Project’s second phase, it is assumed that USAID would contract a private company under an open
competition arrangement or through provision of services under an indefinite quantities contract (IQC) This
process could take, according to the contractor’s competence and selection, approximately 3 to 4 months. If at
least four more months are added to the design phase, plus the Project revision and approval period in
Washington, PROARCA II would not be initiated until more or less the first semester of the year 2001.
If USAID/G-CAP would want to consider contracting the present implementing agencies to follow the Project’s
execution during its transition until the initiation of the second phase, there would then be a lapse of about 7 to 12
months between PROARCA’s PACD date and the initiation of PROARCA II. It should be mentioned that the
costs to close a project and to re-initiate it are exorbitant—not only in financial terms, but even more in terms of
loosing contact with the counterparts and interruption of the rhythm and momentum of activities. While the
TNC/WWF/URI Consortium could still continue to support some activities in the four Costas sites, no effort has
been made to seek more funds for their financing and it is likely that the contract with RSTAs would end and the
nexus with the sites and counterparts would be lost. The LEPPI and CAPAS situation would be more abrupt,
since CHF has no counterpart funding, except some financing from some bilateral USAID missions for design
and construction of works; and IRG, as an institutional contractor, will end its activities when its contract
terminates. The PASA with EPA will share the same fate.
The future for SE-CCAD would be more important when it exhausts the financing now received under
PROARCA. Financing for PROLEGIS and PROBIO personnel would have to be found or their contracts would
have to be suspended. Also SE-CCAD will have to seek financing for meetings and communications with
Environmental Ministers.
76
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Without the knowledge of current USAID plans and if the option should remain to go ahead with one or more of
the current Executive Entities, the Evaluating Team suggests that the mission considers a type of “bridge”
financing to continue implementing one or more components and its activities, but only under a transition strategy
considering some of the recommendations presented in this evaluation report. Without this financing or if USAID
has decided to change the orientation and arrangement of the Project execution in its second phase, then
continuity in present activities and processes, and the contact and relationship with counterparts would be lost.
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDICES
A1 - 1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDIX 1: Workplan
A1 - 2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Evaluación del Proyecto Ambiental Regional Centroamericano (PROARCA)
Metodología y Plan de Trabajo del Equipo Evaluador1
USAID/G-CAP, Guatemala
Octubre 18, 1999
1.0 Enfoque GENERAL de la evaluacion
La evaluación tendrá un enfoque formativo con visión de futuro con el propósito de obtener del ejercicio un
panorama sobre los aspectos que tienen un alcance regional y cuyo impacto pueda tener mayor difusión entre los
países de la region. Este enfoque ha sido discutido y acordado con el Director de la Misión de USAID en
Guatemala, el Líder del Equipo del Objetivo Estratégico (SO2), la Coordinadora de la Evaluación y los
supervisores de los respectivos componentes del Proyecto por parte de USAID/G-CAP, y los entes responsables
de la implementación de los componentes de CAPAS (IRG), Costas (Consorcio TNC/WWF/URI-CRC) y LEPPI
(CHF). El Equipo Evaluador de ARD ha discutido la metodología con todos y se llega a concluir el Plan de
Trabajo presentado en el Anexo I. En la ejecución de su Plan de Trabajo, el Equipo Evaluador pondrá énfasis en
analizar los aspectos del Proyecto en sus componentes descritos a continuación.
1.1 Procesos e Indicadores
Se determinarán y analizarán los indicadores utilizados para medir los impactos de los diferentes componentes.
Será preciso definir la situación en la que se encuentran aquellas acciones que son logros y las que son mas bien
procesos para los cuales se estuviesen cumpliendo hitos o pasos intermedios que conducirán al cumplimiento de
un impacto a nivel regional, trans-fronterizo, nacional y/o local. Se parte del hecho que los diferentes
componentes tienen metodologías diferentes de enfocar e iniciar acciones. Algunos componentes están realizando
procesos que tomarán mas tiempo que la vida del Proyecto, para tal fin se evaluarán los hitos o resultados
intermedios, y en otros casos son actividades que ya llegaron a su fase final, produciendo logros sustantivos, o
cuya ejecución haya generado nuevas líneas de actividad.
1.2 Enfoque Estratégico
Se buscará identificar y documentar el enfoque estratégico que se ha utilizado por los diferentes componentes para
llevar a cabo la ejecución del Proyecto. Se determinará cúales son las condiciones que han brindado a los
diferentes componentes la oportunidad de definir una estrategia que haya permitido lograr los objetivos
perseguidos bajo el Proyecto o, en el caso de procesos, orientar actividades en esa dirección. Se identificarán
aquellas acciones que por falta de oportunidad o decisión en el proceso de ejecución no fueron implementadas.
También se identificarán y analizarán cúales son los diferentes grupos sociales con los que los componentes
hayan tenido actividad e impacto.
1.3 Métodos Técnicos
El Equipo Evaluador pretende distinguir aquellas metodologías y técnicas que han producido resultados positivos
sin descartar identificar el por qué algunos enfoques o estrategias no hayan logrado generar el impacto
perseguido. Se analizará la validez científica, social y política de los métodos y técnicas empleadas en la
implementación de las actividades, los logros y productos, y la diseminación y uso de los mismos por parte de los
contrapartes, participantes y beneficiarios interesados (stakeholders).
 
1
 El Equipo Evaluador está formado de: Carlos Rivas (Jefe del Equipo), Jurij Homziak (Associates in Rural development,
Inc.), y Paul Dulin y Sergio Zelaya (Consultores).
A1 - 3
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
1.4 Participación a Todos Niveles
Es crucial para el Equipo Evaluador identificar los niveles de participación en la ejecución de todos los niveles
involucrados entiéndase, entre socios, contrapartes y beneficiarios. Se espera poder identificar el interés y
participación de los socios a nivel de USAID (G-CAP y bilaterales), SICA-CCAD, organismos transfronterizos,
los gobiernos nacionales y locales, ONGs, la empresa privada y grupos comunitarios y usuarios de recursos
naturales.
1.5 Modelos de Gerenciamiento y Administración del Proyecto
El equipo Evaluador señalarán las ventajas y desventajas de los distintos modelos de administración y
gerenciamiento de las actividades bajo distintos mecanismos contractuales, con el afán de determinar las
relaciones costo-beneficio, valor agregado y eficiencia en el uso de los recursos así como en los resultados
perseguidos.
1.6 Sostenibilidad Organizacional y Financiera
El establecer los mecanismos necesarios para lograr la sostenibilidad de las acciones bajo ejecución es un
elemento importante de evaluación especialmente relacionado con los objetivos de transferencia de tecnología y la
continuidad de las acciones de protección ambiental por parte de los contrapartes y los beneficiarios del Proyecto.
Este es un aspecto de interés para todos los involucrados en la implementación del Proyecto, tanto ejecutores
como el organismo donante. Se analizarán los actuales marcos y estrategias organizativas y financieras para
evaluar el potencial de sostener las actividades actualmente apoyadas bajo el Proyecto.
1.7 Lecciones Aprendidas
El Equipo Evaluador recopilará y las lecciones aprendidas de los diferentes componentes con el propósito de
analizarlas con el afán de poder recomendar la expansión de aquellas que, a juicio del Equipo, aparezcan como
prometedoras y reducir el énfasis o apoyo a aquellas que, ante el análisis, se perciban como poco prometedoras.
2.0 METODOLOGIAS A SER EMPLEADOS POR EL EQUIPO DE EVALUACION
El Equipo Evaluador empleará una serie de instrumentos metodológicos para recopilar y analizar la información
necesaria para poder evaluar el Proyecto, incluyendo: reuniones de orientación con USAID, CCAD y los entes
responsables de los respectivos componentes; visitas a una selección representativa de sitios en donde se llevan, o
han llevado, a cabo actividades de los tres componentes y entrevistas con los grupos de interesados, sean estos
contrapartes en la ejecución de las actividades o beneficiarios de las mismas. El Equipo Evaluador analizará el
avance de cada componente (CAPAS, Costas, LEPPI/PROLEGIS/EPA) con respecto a la consecución de los
objetivos del Proyecto considerando lo propuesto en:
· El Documento del Proyecto (PP);
· El objetivo estratégico de la USAID bajo el cual esta ejecutándose el paquete de resultados;
· Los convenios de cooperación y/o contratos establecidos entre los responsables de los componentes; y
· Los planes aprobados anualmente por los funcionarios de la USAID.
Para lograr esto el Equipo Evaluador utilizará los mecanismos y herramientas señaladas a continuación.
A1 - 4
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
2.1 Reuniones de Orientación y Retroalimentación con los Principales Responsables del
Proyecto en Guatemala y El Salvador
Durante la primera semana del trabajo del Equipo Evaluador, se llevaron a cabo reuniones de orientación con los
representates claves de USAID/G-CAP y los entes responsables para la ejecución de los componentes. Lo mismo
se hará con la CCAD al llegar a San Salvador. Se recibió toda la información disponible y de orientación de parte
de los responsables de los componentes. A regresar de las visitas al campo y las programas entrevistas guiadas a
los diferentes grupos de actores, se pretende reanudar las discusiones en entrevistas con USAID y los entes
responsables de los componentes.
2.2 Visitas a Sitios de Trabajo y las Ciudades Capitales y Entrevistas con los Grupos de
Interesados
Se ha programado un número importante de visitas y entrevistas con grupos de interesados en los siete países, en
los que el proyecto tiene acciones (véase Anexo II). Para consultar personas y grupos en toda la región, se está
dividiendo las tareas entre dos sub-equipos (A y B). Los dos sub-equipos visitarán El Salvador, el Equipo A se
trasladará entre los países de Honduras, Guatemala y Belize, mientras el Equipo B se dedicará a las tareas en
Panamá, Costa Rica y Nicaragua.
Durante las visitas a las capitales de los países se harán entrevistas guiadas en pequeños grupos de personas pre￾seleccionadas con el apoyo de USAID y los entes responsables de la ejecución de los componentes, con el
objetivo de lograr la información requerida para cumplir con los objetivos perseguidos por la evaluación. En
algunos casos será necesario entrevistar ciertas personas de manera individualizada.
En el proceso de las visitas de campo se entrevistarán los beneficiarios, contrapartes y/o coaliciones y los
facilitadores de los componentes en las áreas de trabajo. Es el interés del Equipo Evaluador que, al salir de cada
sitio de campo, presentar una visión sintetizada de la información recopilada (principalmente para los
representantes locales de Costas). Esta presentación tiene el propósito de corroborar la información obtenida y, si
es necesario, profundizar en algunos temas en los que los informantes consideren oportuno aclarar conceptos. La
metodología de recopilación de información e intercambio a ser utilizado por el Equipo Evaluador hace uso de
tres instrumentos principales: la entrevista guiada, la discusión con grupos focales, y el taller de interesados. A
continuación se describe la metodología y los tres instrumentos en mayor detalle.
2.2.1 La Entrevista Guiada y Guías para Entrevistas
La entrevista guiada es una metodología sencilla y eficáz para recopilar información sobre proyectos que cuentan
con numerosos y heterogeneos grupos de contrapartes y participantes, varios niveles de beneficiarios y proyectos
cuya implementación tenga un mayor alcance geográfico. PROARCA es un proyecto que cuenta con todos estos
calificadores. La entrevista guidada es, en realidad, una discusión entre el evaluador e interesado sobre la
participación del segundo en el Proyecto. La metodología busca un análisis cualitativo de las actividades del un
proyecto, no en sí una fiscalización cuantitativa, y se orienta mayormente a la evaluación del impacto de las
actividades y la eficiencia de sus procesos gerenciales y metodológicas, y menos al cumplimiento de las metas
aritmétricas de los planes anuales de trabajo. Para evitar que la discusión entre los interesados salga de los
objetivos de la evaluación, el Equipo Evaluador empleará Guías para Entrevistas (véase Anexo III), un
instrumento útil para orientar las discusiones entre los evaluadores y los grupos de participantes y/o beneficiarios
de los respectivos componentes de PROARCA. Se incluyen en las Guías una serie de preguntas abiertas acerca
las experiencias y opiniones de los entrevistados, cuyas respuestas alimentarán el análisis, por parte del Equipo
Evaluador, de los logros de los tres componentes mayores del Proyecto, y sus actividades y productos, y de los
procesos y métodos usados en su implementación.
A1 - 5
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Las Guías contienen dos secciones principales:
· una sección general, en relación a los temas administrativos y gerenciales, el enfoque estratégico de los
componentes, y el alcance geográfico y temático de las actividades; y
· una sección específica, que trata actividades particulares de CAPAS, Costas y/o LEPPI, pertinentes a los
respectivos grupos focales de las entrevisitas.
Una vez efectuadas las entrevistas iniciales en Guatemala con USAID/G-CAP y representates de los Entes
Ejecutores de Componentes (EEC) responsables de la implementación de los componentes, y la SICA-CCAD en
El Salvador, el Equipo Evaluador se divide en dos sub-equipos para facilitar la cobertura de la multiplicidad de
participantes y beneficiarios en los siete países de la región. Los Equipos A y B se trasladarán a los sitios
programados, y en las fechas y horas indicadas, se reunirán con grupos de particpantes y beneficiarios
debidamente seleccionados por los EE para facilitar discusiones con los mismos empleando las Guía para
Entrevistas.
2.2.2 Entrevistas en Grupos Focales y Recopilación de Información
Se ha optado por entrevistas en grupos de 2 hasta 12 personas como la manera más eficiente, en calidad y tiempo,
de efectuar la recopilación de información en la region. Los entrevistados incluirán contrapartes, funcionarios de
los equipos de ejecución de componente, participantes y beneficiarios de las respectivas acciones y productos,
funcionarios de USAID a nivel regional y bilateral, funcionarios de los gobiernos nacionales y locales, el SICA￾CCAD y, de acuerdo a su disponibilidad en el tiempo y lugares, representantes de algunos organismos bi- y/o
multilaterales.
Los Equipos A y B utilizarán rotafolios tanto para facilitar las discusiones como para documentar las experiences,
opiniones y recomendaciones de los entrevistados de acuerdo a las preguntas de las Guías. Para cada entrevista,
los Evaluadores deberán de preparar una lista de temas alrededor cúal se girarán las discusiones guiadas. Un otro
papel rotafolio, se recopilará los esencial de las discusiones en términos de respuestas a las preguntas. Una vez
concluidas las entrevistas, los Evaluadores transfirirán la información de los rotafolios a documentos
computerizados. Estos documentos consituirán las notas de campo, uno de los productos estipulados en el
contrato a ser entregados por el Equipo Evaluador a USAID/G-CAP. De manera similar, las observaciones
directas de los miembros del Equipo Evaluador, hechas en relación a las visitas a los sitios de los componentes
Costas y LEPPI, serán transferidas a formato de documento.
2.2.3 Integración de Información de las Entrevistas y Visitas al Campo, y su Presentación en el
Taller de Interesados
A terminar los viajes y entrevistas, los Equipos A y B integrarán y analizarán sus respectivos hallazgos desde la
perspectiva regional. Se presentarán los principales hallazgos y conclusiones mediante una serie de materiales a
ser facilitados a los participantes en el Taller de Interesados. Más allá de los representantes de USAID, SICA￾CCAD y los entes responsables de los componentes, se invitarán tres representantes de cada país, una persona que
pertenezca a las ONGs involucradas, una persona que este dedicada al uso de los recursos naturales, y un
funcionario gubernamental (nacional o local) considerados por el Proyecto como "Interesados" (Stakeholders). En
el caso particular del componente de LEPPI, se invitaran 3 a 4 personas adicionalmente. La selección de los
participantes será responsabilidad entre la Coordinadora de la Evaluación de USAID y los entes responsables de
la ejecución de los diferentes componentes.
El Equipo Evaluador presentarán sus hallazgos y conclusiones formalmente en el Taller al iniciar la primera
plenaria. Luego, se distribuirán los participantes del Taller en Grupos de Trabajo de acuerdo a su interés temática
y/o afiliación con las respectivas acciones a nivel regional para analizar los hallazgos y conclusiones del Equipo
Evaluador y validarlas o enriquecerlas concordante con su criterio. Los Grupos de Trabajo priorizarán las
conclusiones y presentarán recomendaciones para la continuación, expansión y/o reorientación de las actividades
A1 - 6
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
bajo una segunda fase de PROARCA. Para facilitar las tareas de los Grupos de Trabajo, la persona contratada
para facilitar el proceso por ARD proveerá directrices para calificar y guiar las discusiones, observaciones y
recomendaciones de los participantes hacia los objetivos mayores de la evaluación.
2.3 PREPARACION DEL INFORME DE LA EVALUACION Y SU PRESENTACION FORMAL A
USAID/G-CAP EN GUATEMALA
El Equipo Evaluador analizará los resultados del Taller de Interesados, junto con sus propias conclusiones y
criterio profesional para preparar el borrador del informe de evaluación, incluyendo la formulación de
recomendaciones a los entes responsables de la ejecución de los componentes en relación a sus estrategias y
métodos de implementación, y a USAID/G-CAP sobre las estrategias, actividades y alcance geográfico y temático
pertinentes para el diseño e implemntación de una segunda fase de PROARCA.
A una semana después de haber enviado el borrador del informe de la evaluación a USAID/G-CAP, el Jefe del
Equipo Evaluador regresará a Guatemala para efectuar una presentación formal del documento, con el uso de
presentaciones multi-medios, incluyendo Powerpoint y diapositivas tomadas en los sitios de trabajo del Proyecto.
Estos mismos medios formarán parte de los productos a ser entregados a USAID/G-CAP como memoria de la
evaluación.
ARD presentará la versión definitiva del informe de evaluación a una semana de haberse recibido las
observaciones de USAID y los entes reponsables de la ejecución de los componentes.
A2 - 1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDIX 2: Interview Guides
A2 - 2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
1. ¿Cuáles son la razón de ser y objetivos de su organización?
2. ¿En qué actividades de PROARCA ha participado y/o beneficiado Usted y su organización (descríbanlas)?
3. ¿Cómo supo de PROARCA, es decir, como se iniciaron las actividades con el Proyecto?
4. ¿Cuáles son los temas o problemas principales que han sido tratados por PROARCA? ¿Cuál ha sido su
contribución, o de su organización, en tratar estos problemas o temas?
a. ¿Cómo el Proyecto contribuyó a resolver estos problemas?
b. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de seleccionar el sitio en donde se está trabajando con apoyo de
PROARCA? ¿Está de acuerdo con la selección?
c. ¿Describa el proceso utilizado para identificar tanto estos problemas como las prioridades para
tratarlos bajo PROARCA?
d. ¿Coinciden estas prioridades con las de su organización, y con las del Gobierno local y nacional?
e. ¿Cómo se han involucrado las mujeres y grupos étnicos en el proceso?
f. ¿Qué valor piensa que tienen los talleres?
5. ¿Son las actividades en que usted (o su organización) participó totalmente nuevas (que resultaron del
proceso PROARCA), o son la continuación de actividades previamente encaminadas por su organización?
6. ¿Piensa que el apoyo de PROARCA es regional, nacional o local? (Explíquese por favor)
7. ¿Qué otros componentes de PROARCA conoce Usted que tienen alcance en su comunidad o radio de
acción?
8. ¿Manejó su organización los recursos proporcionados por PROARCA bajo sus propios sistemas de
administración, o manejo PROARCA todos aspectos de administración (Explíquese por favor)?
a. ¿Cómo han sido los procesos administrativos de PROARCA (lento/burocrático, rápido/eficiente)?
b.¿Tienen sus propios fondos u otros fondos que manejan en conjunto con los de PROARCA?
9. ¿Qué aspectos cree Usted que PROARCA ha logrado con éxito?
10. ¿Qué actividades, proyectos o apoyos piensa que PROARCA debería replicar y/o expandir, y dónde?
(Explique)
11. ¿En qué aspectos debería fortalecerse PROARCA (asistencia técnica, capacitación, talleres, materiales y
apoyo logístico)?
12. ¿Cómo califica el trabajo de PROARCA? ¿Que recomendaciones tiene para mejorar su impacto y alcance?
13. ¿Qué piensa Usted son los temas o problemas principales regionales que merecen ser apoyados por un
proyecto regional como es PROARCA?
14. ¿En qué actividades y en cuáles áreas geográficas debería estar trabajando PROARCA? ¿Por qué?
15. ¿Cómo piensa que PROARCA debería contribuir a resolver los problemas ambientales?
16. ¿Cual debería ser el papel de la CCAD con relación a proyectos regionales, como PROARCA?
A3 - 1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDIX 3 Contacts
A3 - 2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
People and Organizations
PROARCA/CAPAS Meeting
October 11, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Claudia Quinteros Grant Program Assitant
Damaris Chávez Mercadeo Pro-ambiental
Jurij Homziak Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Rafael Calderón Environmental Politics
Sergio Zelaya Consultant/ Evaluation USAID/ARD
Paul Dulin Consultant/ Evaluation USAID/ARD
Martin Schwarz Advisor CCAD/PROARCA
Rafael Luna Trainer
Teresa Robles Manager of Small Grants Program
Hilda Rivera Specialist - Forestry Component
Jan Laarman Team Leader - CAPAS
Luis Furlán Communications Specialist
Costas Meeting
October 12, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Paul Dulin Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Néstor Windevoxhel Director PROARCA/Costas
Carlos Rivas Team Leader ARD
Sonia Uribe Administrative Manager PROARCA/Costas
Jurij Homziak Consultant USAID/ARD
Marcia B. Brown Coordinator PROARCA/Costas/TNC
Andreas Lehnhoff Director, TNC-Guatemala
LEPPI Meeting
October 12, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Carlos Rivas Team Leader ARD
Paul Dulin Consultant ARD
Sergio Zelaya Consultant ARD
Jurij Homziak Marine Resources Specialist/ARD
María Isabel Bolaños Regional Advisor CHF/LEPPI
Nadia Gamboa Regional Technical Advisor CHF/LEPPI
Roberto Morales PROARCA
Ana Paola Aragón Assistant LEPPI
Claudia Montenegro Accountant
A3 - 3
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
PROARCA Meeting
CAPAS Office
October 14, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Paul Dulin Consultant ARD
Nadia Gamboa LEPPI
Jan Laarman CAPAS
Carlos Rivas Team Leader ARD
Maribel Bolaños LEPPI
Néstor Windevoxhel Costas
Rafael Luna Costas
Claudia Quinteros CAPAS
Hilda Rivera CAPAS
Jurij Homziak Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Luis Furlán CAPAS, Communication
Antonio Arreaga Communication Unit/CAPAS
LEPPI Meeting
USULUTAN Municipality
October 20, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Carlos Rivas Team Leader ARD
Paul Dulin Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Jurij Homziak Consultant USAID/ARD
Juan José Artolh LEPPI CHF Management Committee
Silvia Lorena Alvarez LEPPI CHF Management Committee
Rafael Romero Head, Management Committee LEPPI CHF
Ernesto Salvador Pérez Arévalo Environmental Health Technician/M.S.P.A.S.
Víctor Hugo Martínez Chávez Coordinator of Management Committee of La
Unión
Ezequiel Patricio Franco Environmental Health Technician /M.S.P.A.S.,
Usulután, Management Committee
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
José Angel Benitez Adjunct Coordinator, Usulután
Sergio Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
A3 - 4
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
PROARCA Meeting
List of Participants
PLACE: MAR – SAN SALVADOR
October 22, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Carmen Celina Dueñas PANAVIS
Zulma Rivera de Mendoza Zoological Foundation of El Salvador￾Andrés Sánchez PANAVIS/AGRNR
Jurij Homziak Consultant USAID/ARD
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
Ernesto López Zepeda MARN
José Enrique Barraza MARN
Francisco Serrano MARN
PROARCA Meeting
October 22, 1999
4:00 p.m. – MARN El Salvador
Name Role/Organization
Sergio Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Roberto Rivas MARN/Environmental Quality
Raúl Gamboa DGSVA/CITIES-El Salvador
Mercedes de Gómez MARN/ Environmental Quality
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
Blanca Lidia Menjivas Min. of Environment/Public Participant
USAID-HONDURAS Meeting
October 25, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Juan Miguel Guzmán Consultant
José Mario Zuñiga Consultant
ANDAH Meeting
TEGUCIGALPA
October 25, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Francisco Avalos
A3 - 5
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
CCAB-AP Meeting
TEGUCIGALPA
October 25, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Juan Blas Zapata
PROARCA Meeting
EN SERNA/TEGUCIGALPA
October 25, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Lourdes González UPEG
Enrique Arias Vice Minister
Carlos Ropaz
José Antonio Fuentes Morales Di Bro
Juan Francisco Martínez FUNDA-AHPROCAFE
Karla María Avila S. Communication - SERNA
Tatiana Lara CCCH/Cafetalera
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
PROARCA Evaluation
CODDEFFAGOLF Offices
CHOLUTECA
October 26, 1999
San Lorenzo, Valle, Honduras
Name Role/Organization
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Carmen Carrión Technical Counterpart PROGOLFO
Saúl Montúfar CODDEFFAGOLF
Lorenzo Olivas AFE-COHDEFOR
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Leana Corea CODDEFFAGOLF
Edgar Mejía CODDEFFAGOLF
Edas Muñoz RSTA Golf of Fonseca
Eda Amanda Cruz CODDEFFAGOLF
A3 - 6
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
PUERTO BARRIOS Meeting
October 27, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Oscar Rosales FUNDAECO/Executive Secretary
Claudia Ruiz PROARCA/Costas
Rafael Sambula PROLANSATE
Marco Vinicio Cerezo Director-FUNDAECO
Jack Mightingale BTIA
Giovanni Zamora Director-FUNDAECO. Coastal Marine Zone
Project
Oscar López Sandoval Tucán Dugu – Livingston
Renzo Druetto TTG Italia
Municipality of PUERTO BARRIOS Meeting
October 28, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Esperanza de Donado
Luis Salguero EPA Region IV
Rimeldo Quinto CAMTUR
Nery Ramos Empresa Portuaria
PUNTA GORDA Meeting
FISHERMEN/TIDE
October 29, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
George Coleman Fisherman
John Young Fisherman
Wilfred Requena Fisherman
Alex Leonardo Fisherman
Thomas Garbutt Fisherman (Tour guide)
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Ovel Leonardo Jr. Fisherman
F. Calix Fisherman
Philip Cabre Fisherman
Oliver Garbutt Fisherman
Víctor Jacobs Fisherman
Shawn Fisherman
A3 - 7
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
BELMOPAN, BELIZE Meeting
November 1, 1999
Name Role/Organization
John Briceño Minister of Natural Resources / Environment
Ismael Fabio Administrator, Dept of Environment
Elias Awe Help for Progress
Anselmo Castañeda ENVIC Consultants
Angel V. Chun MINAREN, Forest Department
Natalie Rosado MINAREN, Forest Department
AMIGOS DE EL PILAR-BELIZE Meeting
November 1, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant USAID/ARD
Paul Dulin Consultant USAID/ARD
Carmen Cruz Amigos de El Pilar
Betty Cruz Amigos de El Pilar
Heriberto Cocon Amigos de El Pilar
Iván Cruz Amigos de El Pilar
Noel Manzanero Amigos de El Pilar
Paula García Amigos de El Pilar
Elías Awe Help for Progress
BELIZE CITY Meeting
November 2, 1999
Name Role/Organization
George Myvett Fisheries Administrator, Dept. of Fisheries
Jorge Pérez Senior Fisheries Officer, Dept. of Fisheries
Vincent Gillet Administrator, Coastal Zone Management
Institute
Pamela Scott Belize Audubon Society
Noel Jacobs Regional MBRS Project Preparation
Coordinator, World Bank
A3 - 8
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
PANAMA Meeting
October 25, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Jurij Homziak Consultant USAID/ARD
Felipe Frederick USAID/PMA
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
Hal Cardwell USAID/Panamá
Maribel Rodríguez APROSAC
Mateo Cross APROSAC
Edna de Jaén USAID/Panamá
Miriam Mendoza Community Committee - Chilibre
Dionisio Arauz Management Committee
Rosa Elena Pérez C.S. Chilibre, Management Committee
Mariela de Edwards Management Committee
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
Javier Santos Management Committee
Lea Roussel USAID/Panamá
LEPPI Meeting
BOCAS DEL TORO
October 26, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
Denis E. Hernández CEPSA
Luis Mou Sue Management Committee
Juan José Lezcano MINSA
Edgar ercado MEFIN
Marino Pineda MINSA
Isabel E. Alvendes Asoc. Conserv. CARIBARO
José Thomas IPAT
Jorge __________ Management Committee
LEPPI Meeting
PUERTO VIEJO, COSTA RICA
October 27, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
Earl Junier Wade MINAE
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
Jurij Homziak Consultant USAID/ARD
Aurora Gámez LEPPI/Secretary - Management Committee
Susana Schik ATEC Costa Talamanqueña de Ecoturismo y
Conservación
Julio Muñoz ADECOMABA/President - Management
Committee
Roberto Hagges Channer Refuge Administrator
A3 - 9
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
SAN JOSE Meeting
COSTA RICA
October 29, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Jenny Asch Corrales SINAC-MINAE
Yadira Mena Araya Consultant, Monitoreo AP-CA
Lenin Corrales Chávez Consultant, bajo contrato TNC
Juan José Derda PROARCA-CAPAS
Ana Baez Tourism and Conservation Consultant
Ricardo Soto TNC
Gerardo Artavia PROARCA/CAPAS
Carlos de Paco TNC
Bruce Moffak TNC
Didiher Chacón Association ANAI
Lawrence Pratt INCAE
Carolina Mauri United States Embassy
José Corrau TNC/PROARCA/CAPAS
Lilliana Sánchez TNC/PROARCA/CAPAS
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
CEDARENA Meeting
RESERVAS PRIVADAS Y TURISMO ARTESANAL
October 29, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Martha Eugenia Marín Meléndez Costa Rican Natural Reserve System
Yarleny Fontana Coto ACENESA
Andrea Meza CEDARENA
Ligia Molina CANATUR
Flora Ayub CANATUR
Leyla Solano COGNENO
Amos Bien Costa Rican Natural Reserve System
Leonel Umaña Fonseca CEDARENA
Laura Cornwell AID/Washington
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
A3 - 10
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
CHF-LEPPI Meeting
MANAGUA
November 3, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
Elsa Vivas MARENA
Carlos Cajina Municipality San Juan del Sur
Gerardo Miranda Municipality San Juan del Sur
Helio Zamora MARENA
Leonel Wheelock General Director of Environmental Quality
Jacqueline Membreño Asesora Disup-Decentralization
Marvin Palacios INIFOM Manager of Municipal Development
and Coordinator - San Juan del Sur
Juan Sandoval INIFOM-Project Analyst
MARENA, CAPAS/Costas Meeting
NICARAGUA
November 3, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Lisa González DGBRN-MARENA
Fausto Cepeda WWF/PROARCA/Costas
Maritza Rivera USAID
Mauramartha Zeas Foundation COCIBOLCA
Germán Cruz Almanza MARENA/DGAP
CONAMA-LEPPI/PROLEGIS/EPA Meeting
November 3, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant/Evalution USAID/ARD
Jurij Homziak Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Martin Schwarz Advisor CCAD/PROARCA
Jorge Mario del Valle Head of Dept. of Environmental Promotion and
Managment
Antonio Arreaga Communications Unit/CAPAS
Paul Dulin Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Francisco Way Consultant LEPPI
IDEADS/GUATEMALA Meeting
November 3, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Paul Dulin Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Jurij Homziak Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Sergio A. Zelaya Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Marco Cerezo Director General, FUNDAECO
Yuri Giovanni Metini Executive Director, IDEADS
Edmundo E. Vásquez Paz Program Director, IDEADS
Iván Azurdia Bravo Solar Foundation
A3 - 11
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
CAMTUR-INGUAT/GUATEMALA Meeting
November 4, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Paul Dulin Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Sergio Zelaya Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Denia del Valle CAMTUR-FEDECATUR- Executive Director
Ileana Cordón Coordinator/CRECER
Julio E. Orozco INTECAP/Head of Dept. of Tourism
María Regina Recinos Director of the Office of Information and
Public Relations, Service Best Trainer, Univ. of
Guatemala Valley
CONAP Meeting
November 4, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Jurij Homziak Consultant/Evaluation USAID/ARD
Juan Carlos Rosito Protected Areas/INAB
Carmen María López CONAP Projects
Juan Carlos Villagrán Conservation Units/CONAP
CONAMA Meeting
November 4, 1999
Name Role/Organization
Otonielle Aquino Liaison/CCAD with Conama
Juan de Dios Calle Sub-Director of Conama
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/ARD
A3 - 12
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
USAID/G-CAP Meeting
November 11, 1999
Name Role/Organization
George Carner Director, USAID/G-CAP
Carlos Rivas Evaluation Team Leader
Phil Jones Team Leader, USAID/G-CAP
Jurij Homziak Evaluation Team Member
Carmen Aida Gonzalez Project Official, PROARCA/Costas,
USAID/G-CAP
Paul Dulin Evaluation Team Member
Joao Queiroz Project Official PROARCA/CAPAS,
USAID/G-CAP
Sergio Zelaya Evaluation Team Member
Erhardt Rupprecht Sub-Director/USAID/G-CAP
REUNION CON ENTES EJECUTORES DE CAPAS, Costas Y LEPPI
11 de Noviembre de 1999
Name Role/Organization
Carlos Rivas Team Leader/USAID/ARD
Nestor Windevoxhel Coordinador/PROARCA/Costas
Jurij Homziak Evaluation Team Member, USAID/ARD
Rafael Calderón PROARCA/CAPAS, Evironmental Politics
Sergio Zelaya Evaluation Team Member, USAID/ARD
Paul Dulin Evaluation Team Member, USAID/ARD
Emilio Ochoa PROARCA/Costas
Rafael Luna PROARCA/CAPAS, Training
Anaité Betancourt PROARCA/CAPAS
Marcia Brown PROARCA/Costas
Jan Laarman Team Leader/CAPAS
Arturo Villalobos PROARCA/LEPPI-CHF
Nadia Gamboa PROARCA/LEPPI-CHF
Maria Isabel Bolaños PROARCA/LEPPI-CHF
Fernando Secaira PROARCA/Costas
A4 - 1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDIX 4 Documents Consulted
(CAPAS, Costas, LEPPI)
A4 - 2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
1.0 PROARCA/CAPAS Publications
1.1. Protected Areas
Corredor ecológico entre el Biotopo del Quetzal y la Sierra de las
Minas, Guatemala
Gálvez Ramírez, Eliseo junio 1998
Proyecto de planificación y promoción de corredores biológicos locales
propuestos en la República de Panamá
ANCON junio 1998
Análisis comparado de la legislación vigente en Mesoamérica sobre el
tema de las áreas protegidas y el manejo de recursos naturales
compartidos: Capítulo A, Sobre el estado de la normativa ambiental en
Mesoamérica en materia de Áreas Protegidas
Sobenes, Alejandra
 Vásquez Paz, Edmundo E.
abril 1998
Manejo participativo de la Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra de las Minas,
Guatemala
Rojas, Oscar Estuardo junio 1998
El Consejo Ejecutivo local del área protegida de Cerro San Gil,
Guatemala: Un esfuerzo piloto de participación local en el diálogo de
políticas ambientales, para el manejo descentralizado de los recursos
naturales
Rosales Lemus, Oscar Joel junio 1998
Diagnóstico sobre la participación pública y ciudadana en áreas
protegidas estratégicas en la República de Panamá
TECHNOSERVE junio 1998
Strategy for Monitoring the Management of Protected Areas in Central
America
Courrau, José mayo 1999
Estrategia para el monitoreo del manejo de las áreas protegidas en
Centro América (revisada)
Courrau, José mayo 1999
Estrategia de monitoreo para el manejo de áreas protegidas de
Centroamérica, versión avanzada
Courrau, José junio 1999
Sesión de monitoreo. Parque Nacional Volcán Arenal Mena A., Yadira
Artavia Z., Gerardo
marzo 1999
Reporte de monitoreo:
Parque Nacional Montecristo, El Salvador.
Segunda medición
Artavia Z., Gerardo
Mena A., Yadira
junio 1999
Sesión de monitoreo de manejo:
Biotopo del Quetzal "Mario Dary Rivera", Guatemala
Mena Araya, Yadira
López, Padilla, Giovanni
octubre 1999
Sesión de monitoreo de manejo:
Parque Nacional Laguna Lachuá, Guatemala
Mena Araya, Yadira
Sierra L., José Enrique
octubre 1999
Resultados del taller “Definición de Indicadores para el Monitoreo de
Áreas de Conservación” (Costa Rica)
SINAC julio 1999
Consulta a directores de sistemas de áreas protegidas de Centroamérica:
Reporte de resultados
Artavia Z., Gerardo
Mena A., Yadira
junio 1999
A4 - 3
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
II Curso regional de monitoreo del manejo de áreas protegidas Mena A., Yadira
Artavia Z., Gerardo
1999
Informe general final sobre el Curso Básico de Planificación Estratégica
de Áreas Protegidas. Parque Nacional Montecristo, El Salvador
Morales, Roger junio 1998
Propuesta de Plan Estratégico del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas
de Honduras – SINAPH y lineamientos del Departamento de Áreas
Protegidas y Vida Silvestre – DAPVS (Honduras)
DAPVS/AFE-COHDEFOR marzo 1999
Seminario de Planificación Estratégica de las Áreas Protegidas de
Panamá
Valdebenito, Sergio junio 1999
Taller sobre administración de áreas protegidas (Nicaragua) MARENA 1999
Manual para la planificación financiera a largo plazo en áreas protegidas
de Centroamérica
Garffer, Patricia junio 1998
Long-Term Financial Plan (1997-2001) for El Imposible National Park,
El Salvador
Garffer, Patricia junio 1998
Update on the Long-Term Financial Planning Process for the Río
Plátano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras
Garffer, Patricia junio 1998
Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary Long-Term Financial Plan (1999-
2000)
Garffer, Patricia abril 1999
Plan Financiero a Largo Plazo, 1999-2003, para el Parque Nacional
Sierra del Lacandón, Guatemala
Dada, Juan José mayo 1999
Reserva Protectora de Manantiales Cerros San Gil, Guatemala: Plan
financiero a largo plazo, 1999-2003
Dada, Juan José julio 1999
Hacia el consenso del Sistema Centroamericano de Áreas Protegidas –
SICAP￾Godoy, Juan Carlos marzo 1997
Fortalecimiento a las capacidades institucionales del Sistema
Centroamericano de Áreas Protegidas (SICAP)
Chang, Elsa
Sève, Juan
julio 1997
1.2 Forests
General
Plan estratégico del CCAB-AP. Borrador para consulta Rodríguez, Jorge
Incendios forestales y agrícolas en Centroamérica: Balance de 1998 Pasos, Rubén
Rodríguez, Jorge
1998
1.3 Certified Coffee
Forest Certification
La certificación forestal en Centroamérica Camino Velozo, Ronnie de
Alfaro Murillo, Marielos
diciembre 1997
Oportunidades para el sector forestal privado: Memoria del taller de
certificación forestal
Alfaro Murillo, Marielos julio 1998
A4 - 4
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Forest Politics
Diagnóstico para apoyar el proceso de políticas forestales participativas Rivera, Hilda agosto 1999
1.4 Certified Coffee
Certifications in Central America
Estudio centroamericano de certificaciones de café
Vol. 1: Situación actual del café certificado
EMA julio 1999
Estudio centroamericano de certificaciones de café
Vol. 2: Información sobre programas y agencias certificadoras
EMA julio 1999
Estudio centroamericano de certificaciones de café
Vol. 3: Directorio de contactos para café certificado
EMA julio 1999
Politics
Diagnóstico de políticas que favorecen o no la mayor promoción y
ejecución de actividades de producción amigables con el ambiente en el
sector cafetalero de Centroamérica
Obando, Sergio agosto 1999
1.5 Climatic Change
Benefits of Carbon Sequestration in the Meso American Biological Corridor
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. Resumen regional
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. República de Belize
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. República de
Guatemala
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. Rep. de Honduras
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. República de El
Salvador
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. República de
Nicaragua
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
A4 - 5
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. República de Costa
Rica
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Estimación de los beneficios ambientales por no emisión y fijación de
carbono (masa aérea) por acciones de ordenamiento forestal en el área
propuesta del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. República de
Panamá
Corrales, Lenin
Alpízar, William
Imbach, Pablo
septiembre 1998
Carbon Sequestration by Forests
Estimación de la cantidad de carbono almacenado y captado (masa
aérea) en los bosques de la República de Belize
Corrales, Lenin julio 1998
Estimación de la cantidad de carbono almacenado y captado (masa
aérea) en los bosques de la República de Honduras
Corrales, Lenin julio 1998
Estimación de la cantidad de carbono almacenado y captado (masa
aérea) en los bosques de la República de El Salvador
Corrales, Lenin julio 1998
Estimación de la cantidad de carbono almacenado y captado (masa
aérea) en los bosques de la República de Nicaragua
Corrales, Lenin julio 1998
Estimación de la cantidad de carbono almacenado y captado (masa
aérea) por los bosques de Costa Rica
Corrales, Lenin julio 1998
Estimación de la cantidad de carbono almacenado y captado (masa
aérea) en los bosques de la República de Panamá
Corrales, Lenin julio 1998
Competition in Carbon Markets
Seeking a Competitive Advantage for Central America in Selling and
Marketing Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Recommendations Based on a
Survey of Potential Investors
Hamilton, Anne
Embree, Sid
agosto 1999
Project Planning
Memoria del Evento Seminario/Taller para la Formulación de Proyectos
de Cambio Climático, Guatemala
Fundación Solar agosto 1999
Memoria del Evento Seminario/Taller para la Formulación de Proyectos
de Cambio Climático, Panamá
Fundación Solar agosto 1999
1.6 Training
General
Capacitaciones financiadas por PROARCA/CAPAS, segundo año.
Informe de evaluación
Colom, Alejandra julio 1998
Resultado 5, Capacitación. Informe de Resultados Luna, Rafael septiembre 1999
Curso de capacitación para el uso de ICONS McCarthy, Ronald
Alberto Salas
abril 1998
A4 - 6
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Memoria del taller de participación ciudadana, Costa Rica – Nicaragua McLaughlin, William
Charpentier, Claudia
Quintero, Bayardo
junio 1998
Elaboración de indicadores para proyectos ambientales Robles, Teresa
Luna, Rafael
octubre 1999
Environmental Awareness
Proyecto de educación y concienciación del Corredor Biológico en
Honduras
MOPAWI junio 1998
Un programa de visitas guiadas para periodistas y relacionistas públicos
en Nicaragua
Martínez R., Pandora junio 1998
1.7 Conservation of Private and Indigenous Land
General
Análisis legal: Tenencia de tierras indígenas y colonizadoras en la
Biosfera del Río Plátano
Vallejo Larios, Mario diciembre 1997
Iniciativa centroamericana de conservación privada. Fase II CEDARENA junio 1998
Land Use
Incrementando la compatibilidad entre la agricultura y la biodiversidad.
Recomendaciones políticas
Wille, Christopher
Roldán Chacón, Carmen A.
Gaitán González, Luis B.
junio 1998
Factibilidad económica del uso de la tierra en plantaciones forestales,
manejo de bosques naturales y café orgánico-ecológico en América
Central
Ramírez, Octavio
Gómez, Manuel
junio 1998
1.8 Ecotourism
Manuals
Guía para las mejores prácticas de ecoturismo en las áreas protegidas de
Centroamérica
Báez, Ana L.
Acuña Torres, Alejandrina
julio 1998
How You Can Improve Your Ecotourism Operation! Furlán, Luis E. agosto 1995
Manual para el diseño e implementación de un sendero interpretativo.
Parque Nacional Chagres
Spadafora, Rita
Báez, Ana L.
Batista, Soledad
1999
Manual de procedimientos para la preparación de directrices para el
manejo de usuarios en un área protegida
Báez, Ana L. 1999
Factibilidad de proyectos turísticos Luna, Rafael 1999
Other
Estudio parcial de prefactibilidad para la Estación Biológica San
Miguel, Reserva Natural Absoluta Cabo Blanco, Costa Rica
Báez, Ana L.
Acuña Torres, Alejandrina
junio 1999
A4 - 7
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Licencia de calidad Service Best:
Situación actual el programa para el establecimiento de normas de
calidad en Centroamérica
del Valle, Denia Eunice julio 1999
Políticas para dirigir los beneficios del ecoturismo hacia las
comunidades y pequeños operadores en Guatemala
Sostenible por Naturaleza agosto 1999
1.9 Management of Transnational Resources
Fisheries in the Gulf of Honduras
Minicasos sobre asuntos importantes de manejo y los grupos de interés
relacionados a ellos: Golfo de Honduras
Brown, Marcia julio 1998
Base legal e institucional para el establecimiento de un mecanismo de
manejo de recursos compartidos en el Golfo de Honduras
Montes, José Antonio junio 1998
Propuesta para el análisis bioeconómico de escenarios alternativos para
la gestión de las principales pesquerías del Golfo de Honduras.
Agüero, Max
González, Exequiel
1998
Políticas sustentables en el sector pesquero del Golfo de Honduras: Un
enfoque de manejo integral
Calderón, Rafael julio 1999
Meso American Caribbean Coral Reef System
Análisis comparado de la legislación vigente en Mesoamérica sobre el
tema de las áreas protegidas y el manejo de recursos naturales
compartidos: Capítulo B, Sobre el estado de la normativa nacional en
Mesoamérica para el manejo de los recursos naturales compartidos en el
área de influencia del Sistema del Arrecife del Caribe Mesoamericano
Sobenes, Alejandra y
Edmundo E. Vásquez Paz
abril 1998
Taller regional sobre el manejo de pesquerías en el Sistema del Arrecife
del Caribe Mesoamericano
Monge, Luis marzo 1998
Archeological Site in El Pilar, Belize – Guatemala
Paisaje El Pilar: Puerta entre dos naciones. Plan de manejo para El
Pilar
Ford, Anabel mayo 1998
El Pilar Landscape: Gateway Between Two Nations. El Pilar
Management Plan
Ford, Anabel mayo 1998
Memorando de entendimiento entre el Consejo Nacional de Áreas
Protegidas de Guatemala (CONAP) y el Departamento de Bosques de
Belize
Montes, José Antonio
Ankersen, Tom
julio 1999
1.10 Politics of Natural Resources
CITES
Legislación y políticas sobre el tráfico de flora y fauna silvestres en
Centroamérica
Cabrera Medaglia, Jorge
Programa de capacitación para la implementación de CITES en Costa
Rica
AMBIO marzo 1998
Informe del taller de planificación para la instalación de CITES Luna, Rafael noviembre 1998
A4 - 8
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Elaboración, impresión y distribución del libro “Listas de fauna de
Importancia para la Conservación en Centroamérica y México”
UICN-ORMA julio 1999
Taller regional sobre la conservación del manatí en el Golfo de
Honduras
PROARCA/CAPAS
PROARCA/Costas
IDEADS
mayo 1999
Reglamento de procedimientos para la aplicación uniforme de CITES
en Centroamérica
AMBIO julio 1999
El Acuerdo Tripartito para la Conservación de Tortugas Marinas en
Centroamérica: Avances 1998-1999
Calderón, Rafael julio 1999
Meso American Legislation
Análisis comparado de la legislación vigente en Mesoamérica sobre el
tema de las áreas protegidas y el manejo de recursos naturales
compartidos: Informe Técnico
Sobenes, Alejandra
Vásquez Paz, Edmundo E.
abril 1998
Análisis comparado de la legislación vigente en Mesoamérica sobre el
tema de las áreas protegidas y el manejo de recursos naturales
compartidos: Memoria del Taller de consulta y presentación de la
investigación regional a expertos legales mesoamericanos
Sobenes, Alejandra
Vásquez Paz, Edmundo E.
abril 1998
Principios de legislación ambiental en México Bezaury, Juan junio 1998
Coastal and Marine Resources
Inventory of Fisheries Policies Lorraine, Hillary junio 1998
Minicasos sobre asuntos importantes de manejo y los grupos de interés
relacionados a ellos: Gandoca / Bocas del Toro
Brown, Marcia julio 1998
Minicasos sobre asuntos importantes de manejo y los grupos de interés
relacionados a ellos: El Golfo de Fonseca
Brown, Marcia julio 1998
Minicasos sobre asuntos importantes de manejo y los grupos de interés
relacionados a ellos: La Costa Miskita
Brown, Marcia julio 1998
Taller binacional sobre el manejo de la pesquería de langosta en la costa
Miskita. Transcripción de resultados
Monge, Luis mayo 1998
Taller binacional sobre el manejo de la pesquería de langosta en la costa
Miskita. Memoria
Monge, Luis mayo 1998
Regulación pesquera vigente en México Bezaury, Juan junio 1998
Other
Elaborando un protocolo de acceso a los recursos genéticos y
bioquímicos en Centroamérica: Hacia la justa y equitativa distribución
de beneficios (revisado)
Cabrera Medaglia, Jorge mayo 1999
Talleres de gestión alternativa de conflictos ambientales en la región
centroamericana: Informe de evaluación
Pendizch, Christine abril 1998
Políticas ambientales para el siglo 21: Un enfoque para la CCAD Calderón, Rafael mayo 1999
A4 - 9
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
1er. Taller internacional sobre análisis y diseño de políticas forestales y
de recursos naturales
Camino, Ronnie de febrero 1999
1.11 PROARCA / CAPAS
Plan Técnico de CAPAS, julio 1988 a septiembre 2000 PROARCA/CAPAS 1998
La relación del proyecto PROARCA/CAPAS con los acuerdos políticos
centroamericanos sobre el ambiente
Laarman, Jan marzo 1999
Resultados de PROARCA/CAPAS. Julio 1998-agosto 1999 PROARCA/CAPAS agosto 1999
Plan de trabajo para PROARCA/CAPAS, sept 1999 – sept 2000 PROARCA/CAPAS 1999
1.12 Vegetation and Ground Cover
Maps
América Central:
Vegetación y cobertura de suelo
Vegetation/Land Cover
Boucher, Timothy M.
Courrau, José
Li, Xiaojun
1988
Evaluation
A Conservation Assessment of Central American Vegetation and
Ecoregions: Gap Analysis Approach
Li, Xiaojun
Boucher, Timothy M.
Sayre, Roger
Courrau, José
Connor, Melissa
mayo 1999
Evaluación de conservación de la vegetación y las ecoregiones de
Centroamérica: Enfoque de análisis de brechas
Li, Xiaojun
Boucher, Timothy M.
Sayre, Roger
Courrau, José
Connor, Melissa
mayo 1999
2.0 Costas Publications (until June 1999)
2.1 Regional Reports and Guides
Integrated Coastal Management Guides
VIII Reunion de las Trigoh. Alianza Trinacional para la Troteccion de
Golfo de Honduras, Tornabé, Tela Atlántida, Honduras, C.A.
Manejo de Tortugas Marinas: El Caso de Centroamérica. San José,
Costa Rica. Producido por la Asociación ANAI.
Funcacion para las Poteccion
de Lancetilla Punta sal y
Texiguat
Chacón, D.
Julio 1999
Junio 1999
El Corredor Biológico Talamanca/Caribe: un esfuerzo por el desarrollo
sostenible de Talamanca. Producido en conjunto por la Asociación
ANAI, la Universidad de Rhode Island y PROARCA/Costas.
Chacón, D. y E. Ochoa. Septiembre 1998
Ostional: una iniciativa para el uso racional de huevos de tortuga
marina lora (Lepidochelys olivácea). Producido en conjunto por la
Asociación ANAI, la Universidad de Rhode Island y
PROARCA/Costas.
Chacón, D. y E. Ochoa Septiembre 1998
A4 - 10
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
El plan de manejo del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre
Gandoca/Manzanillo (borrador). Producido en conjunto por la
Asociación ANAI, la Universidad de Rhode Island y
PROARCA/Costas.
Chacón, D. y E. Ochoa Septiembre 1998
Un plan para el manejo sostenido del humedal de Sierpe-Térraba.
Producido en conjunto por la Asociación ANAI, la Universidad de
Rhode Island y PROARCA/Costas.
Chacón, D. y E. Ochoa Septiembre 1998
La producción de cacao orgánico, una experiencia agroecológica de la
Asociación de Pequeños Productores de Talamanca (APPTA).
Producido en conjunto por la Asociación ANAI, la Universidad de
Rhode Island y PROARCA/Costas.
Chacón, D. y E. Ochoa Septiembre 1998
Una Guía para Evaluar el Progreso del Manejo Costero Integrado.
Ecuador. Guia preparada por PROARCA/Costas y URI-CRC
Ochoa, E. Julio 1999
Manual para un taller comunitario. Ecuador. Guia preparado por URI￾CRC.
Ochoa, E. Septiembre 1998
Cuaderno de trabajo para preparar un plan de MCI. Guia preparado por
CRC-URI para el primer curso de MCI de PROARCA/Costas.
Ochoa, E. Septiembre 1998
Guidance for preparing a site profile (draft). Narragansett, RI. Concept
paper prepared by CRC-URI.
Olsen, S. April 1997.
Concepts and tools for integrated coastal management (draft).
Narragansett, RI. Concept paper prepared by CRC-URI.
Olsen, S. Enero 1997
Conceptos y herramientas para el manejo costero integrado (borrador).
Narragansett, RI. Papel de concepto preparado por CRC-URI.
Olsen, S. Enero 1997
Policy Reports
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso El Salvador (phase I - recopilación de la
normativa relevante) Estudio realizado por la Red de Organizaciones de
Derecho Ambiental de Mesoamérica (RODA). San Salvador, El
Salvador.
Alvarez, G. y J.L. Rodríguez Enero 1998
Mini-casos sobre asuntos clave de manejo y grupos de interesados
relacionados: Golfo de Fonseca. Guatemala, Guatemala. Un
componente de la consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación
de políticas que afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos
costero-marinos en Centroamérica, realizado por RODA,
PROARCA/CAPAS y PROARCA/Costas.
Brown, M. Julio 1998
Mini-casos sobre asuntos clave de manejo y grupos de interesados
relacionados: Gandoca/Bocas del Toro. Guatemala, Guatemala. Un
componente de la consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación
de políticas que afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos
costero-marinos en Centroamérica, realizado por RODA,
PROARCA/CAPAS y PROARCA/Costas.
Brown, M. Julio 1998
A4 - 11
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Mini-casos sobre asuntos clave de manejo y grupos de interesados
relacionados: Golfo de Honduras. Guatemala, Guatemala. Un
componente de la consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación
de políticas que afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos
costero-marinos en Centroamérica, realizado por RODA,
PROARCA/CAPAS y PROARCA/Costas.
Brown, M. Julio 1998
Mini-casos sobre asuntos clave de manejo y grupos de interesados
relacionados: Costa Miskita. Guatemala, Guatemala. Un componente
de la consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas
que afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos
en Centroamérica, realizado por RODA, PROARCA/CAPAS y
PROARCA/Costas.
Brown, M. Julio 1998
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso Belize. (fases I y II). Estudio realizado por
RODA. San Ignacio, Belice.
Ellis, Z. Enero 1998
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso Honduras (fases I y II). Estudio realizado por
RODA. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Elvir, E. Enero 1998
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso Costa Rica (phase I - recopilación de la normativa
relevante). Estudio realizado por la RODA. San José, Costa Rica.
Espinoza, L., E. Chin, F.
Paniagua, Z. Piskulich
Enero 1998
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso Panamá (phase I - recopilación de la normativa
relevante). Estudio realizado por la RODA. Panamá, Panamá.
Hernández, M. Enero 1998
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso Nicaragua (fases I y II). Estudio realizado por
RODA. Managua, Nicaragua.
Jarquín, L. Enero 1998
Resumen del Plan de Acción del Sistema Arrecifal del Caribe
Mesoamericano. Preparado por PROARCA/Costas y UICN/ORMA, a
solicitud de CCAD.
Marin, S., N. Windevoxhel y
L. Villela.
Enero 1998
Estudio de brechas en la aplicación de la normativa ambiental. Fase II:
Costa Rica. Asunto clave: desarrollo de la zona costera de la región de
Talamanca. Estudio realizado por RODA. San José, Costa Rica.
Murillo, I., F. Paniagua y L.
Villalobos.
Junio 1998
Consulta participativa sobre brechas en la aplicación de políticas que
afectan las áreas protegidas terrestres y los recursos costero-marinos en
Centroamérica. Caso Guatemala (fase I y II). Estudio realizado por
RODA. Guatemala, Guatemala.
Noack, J. Enero 1998
Propuesta de Proyecto de Acuerdo Gubernativo para la Emisión del
Reglamento para la Protección, Conservación, Uso y Aprovechamiento
del Mangle. Guatemala, Guatemala
PROARCA/Costas Enero 1998
A4 - 12
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Estudio regional de legislación sobre tortugas marinas (borrador). San
José, Costa Rica
Red de Organizaciones de
Derecho Ambiental (RODA
Septiembre 1997
2.2 Management Plans
Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Isla Bastimentos y su Area de
Influencia. Panamá. Estudio de Zonificación (borrador).
Arias C., Elvis y Soto, R. Mayo 1999
Plan general de manejo y desarrollo del Refugio de Vida Silvestre Bahia
Chismuyo, Golfo de Fonseca, Honduras (borrador). Documento
desarrollado por estudiantes de la carrera de biología de la Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH), con el apoyo de AFE￾COHDEFOR y CODDEFFAGOLF.
Cerrato, C. Octubre 1997
Plan de manejo forestal de Lisangni, Comunidad Layasiksa. Bil
manglar según eas), Nicaragua. Plan escrito por FADCANIC con
fondos de match de WWF bajo PROARCA/Costas.
Forbes, A. Septiembre 1998
Draft management plan for Payne’s Creek National Park. Punta Gorda
Town, Belize. Plan prepared at the request of the Forest Department,
Belize Ministry of Natural Resources.
TIDE September 1998
Port Honduras Marine Reserve Draft Management Plan. Punta Gorda
Town, Belize. Plan prepared at the request of the Fisheries Department,
Belize Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
TIDE June 1998
2.3 Studies on Management Techniques
Rapid Ecological Assessments (REAs) and Participatory
Rural Appraisals (PRAs)
Evaluación rural participativa de las áreas de influencia al Parque
Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos y al Humedal San San-Pond Sak,
provincia de Bocas del Toro. Tomo 2: Aspectos Socioeconómicos.
Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (ANCON).
Panamá, Panamá.
Del Cid, M., J. Carrión de
Samudio, I.A. Valdespino, y
D. Santamaría E. (editores).
1997
Evaluación ecológica rápida marina del Parque Nacional Marino Isla
Bastimentos y Areas Adyacentes, provincia de Bocas del Toro. Tomo
3: Recursos Costero-marinos. Asociación Nacional para la
Conservación de la Naturaleza (ANCON). Panamá, Panamá.
Soto, R. y I.A. Valdespino
(editores).
Octubre 1998
Evaluación ecológica rápida del Parque Nacional Marino Isla
Bastimentos y áreas de influencia, Isla Solarte, Swan Cay, Mimitimbi
(Isla Colón), y el Humedal San San-Pond Sak, provincia de Bocas del
Toro. Tomo 1: Recursos Terrestres. Asociación Nacional para la
Conservación de la Naturaleza (ANCON). Panamá, Panamá.
Valdespino, I. A. y D.
Santamaría E. (editores).
1997
Other Protected Area Studies
Propuesta declaratoria Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano de Pacífico
Hondureño. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
ANDAH y
CODDEFFAGOLF
Septiembre 1998
A4 - 13
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Sobreexplotación de la vegetación manglar y sus efectos al ecosistema
de la Bahía de Chismuyo, Honduras: comparación estructural del
bosque manglar según el tipo de explotación económica. Universidad
de Salzburgo, Austria. Investigación realizada con el apoyo económico
de WWF – PROARCA/Costas.
Cálix Vindel, L.F. Julio 1997
Refugio de Vida Silvestre Bahía de Chismuyo: resultados de un
reconocimiento rápido. San Lorenzo, Honduras.
Equipo Técnico del Sito Golfo
de Fonseca
Febrero 1997
Integrated coastal zone management and sustainable development for
tropical estuarine ecosystems: a case study of Port Honduras, Belize.
University of South Carolina Doctoral dissertation supported by
PROARCA/Costas.
Heyman, W. November 1996
Fisheries Management
La voz de los pescadores de Guatemala (borrador). Preparado por
FUNDAECO, PROARCA/Costas y PROARCA/CAPAS.
FUNDAECO, W. Heyman, D.
Haug y R. Graham
Noviembre 1998
An analysis of commercial and sport fishing in the proposed Port
Honduras Marine Reserve. Punta Gorda, Belize. Produced jointly by
the Belice Center for Environmental Studies (BCES) and
PROARCA/Costas.
Heyman, W. and T. Hyatt July 1996
La voz de los pescadores de Honduras (borrador). Preparado por
PROLANSATE, PROARCA/Costas y PROARCA/CAPAS.
PROLANSATE, W. Heyman,
D. Haug y R. Graham
Junio 1999
The voice of the fishermen in southern Belize (draft). Prepared by
TIDE, PROARCA/Costas and PROARCA/CAPAS.
TIDE, W. Heyman, D. Haug
and R. Graham
November 1998
Ecotourism Studies
Ecotourism in Southern Belize: A visitor survey with policy
recommendations and an analysis of the economic contribution of
ecotourism to the local and national economy. (draft) Punta Gorda,
Belize.
BCES Septiembre 1996
Port Security
El transporte de productos peligrosos en el Golfo de Honduras:
evaluación de riesgos, políticas de prevención y plan de contingencia
(draft). Guatemala, Guatemala.
Peltier, N.
Gender and Resource Management
Informe de Consultoría: Valoración de la Perspectiva de Género en
MIKUPIA. Recomendaciones para Introducir la Perspectiva de Género
en la Institución. Nicaragua.
Moncada, M. Junio 1997
2.4 Site Profiles
Perfil de los asuntos de manejo de la zona costera de la Región
Autónoma de Atlántico Norte de Nicaragua (Mosquitia Nicaragüense).
Bilwi (Puerto Cabezas), Nicaragua.
Comité Intercomunitario de
Manejo, MIKUPIA,
MARENA y CRC-URI
Octubre 1997
A4 - 14
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Golfo de Fonseca: Perfil preliminar. Guatemala, Guatemala. PROARCA/Costas Junio 1996
Gulf of Honduras: Preliminary site overview. Punta Gorda, Belize. PROARCA/Costas May 1996
Golfo de Honduras: Perfil preliminar del sitio (versión español-inglés).
Punta Gorda, Belice.
PROARCA/Costas Mayo 1996
La Mosquitia: Perfil preliminar. Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua. PROARCA/Costas Mayo 1996
Perfil Preliminar: Bocas del Toro (Panamá) y Refugio Nacional de
Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo (Talamanca, Costa Rica). Bocas
del Toro, Panamá.
PROARCA/Costas Octubre 1996
Hydrological and oceanographic considerations for integrated coastal
zone management in southern Belize. Environmental Management.
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 229-245.
Heyman, W. and B. Kjerfve October 1997
Hydrological and Oceanografic Considerations for Integrated Coastal
Zone Management in Southern Belize. Manuscript to be submitted to
Coastal Marine Ecosystems of South America.
W.D. Heyman and B. Kjerfve July 1999
2.5 Financial Reports
Rapid revenue review of the Talamanca Biological Corridor. San José,
Costa Rica.
Guzman, J. 1997
Instalación de programa de crédito MIKUPIA: Reserva de Cayos
Miskitos (borrador). Bilwi, RAAN, Nicaragua.
Luna, R. Noviembre 1997
Informe Final: Evaluación Rápida Económica (ERE). Refugio
Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo.
Younkman, D y Guzman, J. Marzo 1997
2.6 Institutional Strengthening Reports
Perfiles institucionales del Comité para la Defensa de la Flora y Fauna
del Golfo de Fonseca (CODDEFFAGOLF) y la Asociación Unionense
para el Medio Ambiente (ASUMA). Perfiles institucionales rápidas de
la Unión Regional de Cooperativas Camaroneras de Puerto Morazán
(URCOCAM) y Juventud Ambientalista (JA!). Sondeos institucionales
de la Asociación Civil Trinacional del Golfo de Fonseca y de la
Comisión de Verificación y Control del Golfo de Fonseca (CVC).
Monge, L. Julio 1998
2.7 Workshop Minutes
Memorias del taller regional para la conservación de las tortugas
marinas en Centroamérica. Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Limón, Costa
Rica.
Asociación ANAI 1997
Camino al exito: resultados de los talleres de planificación estratégica y
monitoreo de los sitios regionales de PROARCA/Costas. Washington,
D.C.
Biodiversity Support Program Septiembre 1997
Taller binacional “Integración para el manejo integrado de los recursos
marino-costeros, Talamanca, Costa Rica - Bocas del Toro, Panamá.”
Changuinola, Panamá.
Chacón, D. Octubre 1997
A4 - 15
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Memorias del taller binacional sobre el manejo de crecimiento turístico
en la zona costera de Gandoca/Bocas del Toro (borrador). Bocas del
Toro, Panamá.
Monge, L. Julio 1998
Memorias del taller binacional sobre el manejo de la pesquería de
langosta en la Costa Miskita. La Ceiba, Honduras. Evento financiado
por PROARCA/Costas y CAPAS.
Monge, L. Mayo 1998
Memoria del taller regional sobre manejo de pesquerías en el Sistema
Arrecifal del Caribe Mesoamericano. Cayos del Diablo, Izabal,
Guatemala. Evento financiado por PROARCA/Costas y CAPAS.
Monge, L. Marzo 1998
Memorias del segundo taller de manejo costero integrado. Golfo de
Fonseca, Jícaro-Galán, Honduras.
PROARCA/Costas Febrero 1998
Memorias del primer taller de manejo costero integrado. Talamanca,
Costa Rica.
PROARCA/Costas Febrero 1997
Seguimiento del taller de capacitación de maestros rurales en
conservación y manejo de humedales. Coyolito, Honduras. Taller de
seguimiento organizado por PROARCA/Costas, CODDEFFAGOLF y
el Ministerio de Educación de Honduras, con fondos de match de WWF
bajo PROARCA/Costas.
Tabilo-Valdivieso, E. Agosto de 1998
2.8 Administrative Documents
PROARCA/Costas scorecard. Guatemala, Guatemala. Brown, M. July 1999
PROARCA/Costas monitoring plan for FY98. Guatemala, Guatemala. Brown, M. January 1998
Materials for the October 1998 Performance Review of
PROARCA/Costas. Guatemala, Guatemala.
PROARCA/Costas October 1998
Third work plan (october 1998 – september 1999). Guatemala,
Guatemala.
PROARCA/Costas October 1998
Sixth progress report (first semester 1998). Guatemala, Guatemala. PROARCA/Costas July 1998
Fifth progress report (second semester 1997). Guatemala, Guatemala. PROARCA/Costas. January 1998
Segundo plan de trabajo (octubre 1997 a septiembre 1998). Guatemala,
Guatemala.
PROARCA/Costas September 1997
Fourth progress report (first semester 1997). Guatemala, Guatemala. PROARCA/Costas July 1997
Third progress report (fourth quarter 1996). Guatemala, Guatemala. PROARCA/Costas January 1997
Second progress report (second and third quarter 1996, through
September 1996). Guatemala, Guatemala.
PROARCA/Costas Octubre 1996
First two-year work plan. Guatemala, Guatemala. PROARCA/Costas August 1996
First progress report (fourth quarter 1995, first quarter 1996).
Guatemala, Guatemala.
PROARCA/Costas May 1996
Start-up workplan for the coastal zone management component of
PROARCA. Guatemala, Guatemala.
PROARCA/Costas December 1995
A4 - 16
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Lineamientos ambientales de PROARCA/Costas (borrador).
Guatemala, Guatemala.
Rodríguez, J. November 1998
Procedimientos para los Sub-acuerdos de Donación con
PROARCA/Costas. (borrador). Guatemala, Guatemala.
Uribe, S. Febrero 1998
3.0 PROARCA/LEPPI Publications
3.1 Document List (ARQ. MARIA ISABEL BOLAÑOS)
1. Estudio de Prefactibilidad y Factibilidad
Proyecto de Ampliación y Mejoramiento Sistema de Alcantarillado Sanitario – Trujillo, Colón
2. Informe Inicial
Revisión y Actualización del Plan Maestro de Alcantarillado Sanitario del Sector Este de Choluteca
3. Informe Inicial
Rehabilitación y Mejoramiento de las Obras Fuera de Sitio del Alcantarillado Sanitario del Sector Oeste de
Choluteca
4. Perfil Básico Comunitario
Diagnostico Socioeconómico Ambiental de la Ciudad de Choluteca
5. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección de Desechos Sólidos entre los Municipios de Usulután,
Puerto El Triunfo, Concepción Batres y Ereguayquín.
6. Informe Final Preliminar
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección de Desechos Sólidos entre los Municipio de Usulután, Puerto
El Triunfo, Concepción Batres y Ereguayquín.
3.2 Document List (ARQ. NADIA GAMBOA)
1. Puerto Barrios, Izabal
Informe Sobre Planteamiento de Alternativas y Selección de las Más Favorables
Primera Etapa de la Consultoría Sobre Manejo de Desechos Sólidos
2. Puerto Barrios, Izabal
Informe Sobre Planteamiento de Alternativas y Selección de las Más Favorables
Primera Etapa de la Consultoría sobre Manejo de Desechos Sólidos.
3. Informe Final
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección de Desechos Sólidos de La Unión.
4. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental
Informe Final Viabilidad Ambiental
Proyecto Relleno Sanitario de Bocas del Toro
5. I Taller Regional
Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental
6. Propuesta para la implementación del sistema de manejo Integral de los Residuos sólidos en la Isla de Bocas del
Toro, Bastimento y Carenero
A4 - 17
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
7. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental
Informe Final Reconocimiento Ambiental
Proyecto Relleno Sanitario de Bocas del Toro
8. Centro de Recuperación de Materiales
Puerto Viejo – Manzanillo, Costa Rica
9. Primer Informe
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección de Desechos Sólidos de La Unión.
10. Relleno Sanitario – Diseño Final
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección y de Disposición final de los desechos Sólidos del Municipio
de La Unión.
11. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección y de Disposición Final de los Desechos Sólidos del
Municipio de La Unión.
12. Proyecto Piloto – Informe Final
Consultoría para el Diseño del sistema de Recolección de Disposición Final de los Desechos Sólidos del Municipio
de La Unión.
13. Propuesta de Servicios Profesionales
Consultoría para el Diseño del Sistema de Recolección de Desechos Sólidos de La Unión.
3.3 Central American Commission on Environmental and Development - Biodiversity,
Forests and Land Use, List of Publications - PROBIO
1. Legislación y Políticas sobre el Tráfico de Flora y Fauna Silvestre en Centroamérica.
2. Lista de Fauna de Importancia para la Conservacíon de Centroamérica y México.
3. Micronoticias de la Integración Ambiental: La Conveción sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies
Amenazadas de Flora y Fauna Silvestre.
4. SIMEBIO: Un Sistema Mesoamerícano de Información sobre Biodeversidad.
5. Documento de Inserción: Proyecto PROGOLFO.
6. Diagnóstico del Estado de los Recursos Biofisicos Socioeconómicos e Institucionales del Golfo De Fonseca.
7. Protocolo Regional de Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos y Bioquímicos en Centroamérica: Hacia la justa y equitativa
distribución de los beneficios.
8. Micronoticias de la Integración: CONADIBIOS: Comisiones Nacionales de Diversidad Biológica.
9. Avances de las Estrategias Nacionales de Diversidad Biológica.
10. Micronoticias de la Integración: Programa Estratégico del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano.
11. Talleres de Consulta e Infomación sobre el Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano a Grupos Indígenas y Campesinos
de Centroamérica: Informe por País.
12. Plan de Acción del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano.
A4 - 18
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
3.4 Technical Studies and Reports - LEPPI
1. Consulting for the design of the Solid Waste collection system in Usulatán, Puerto El Triunfo, Concepción Batres
and Ereguayquin - El Salvador (Preliminary Final Report). Contains Diagnosis of the political, legal, institutional,
technical, financial, and economic background for the Solid Waste measures in Usulután. External consultant for
CHF/LEPPI.
2. Consulting for the design of the Solid Waste collection system in Usulután, Puerto El Triunfo, Concepción Batres
and Ereguayquin - El Salvador (Environmental Impact Study). Contains Environmental description: Physical,
Biological, and Human, as well as the Impact Evaluation and the Mitigation and residual Impact measures. External
consultant for CHF/LEPPI.
3. Diagnosis of the Present Situation of the Solid Waste management in Antigua Guatemala, Jocotenango, Ciudad
Vieja and Alotenango. Guatemala. Contains physical-biological features, Socioeconomic aspects, technical aspects
of the service, and the description and analysis of the cleaning services. External consultant for CHF/LEPPI.
4. Integrated solid waste management San Juan Del Sur - Nicaragua. Contains costs of equipment, material and food
for a Material Recovery Facility, construction of a Sanitary Landfill and complimentary work, training and technical
assistance, micro enterprise operations, support team and publications. External consultant for CHF/LEPPI.
5. Revision and updating of the Sanitary Sewage master plan in Choluteca. Contains the evaluation of the sanitary
designs of the collection systems, possible alternatives, and operational, material, and energy costs. External
consultant for CHF/LEPPI.
6. Rehabilitation and improvement of the works out of the Sanitary Sewage site in Choluteca. Contains physical
revision of the existing works, material costs, environmental conditions, and possible alternatives. External
consultant for CHF/LEPPI.
7. Monthly, Quarterly, and Annual Report. LEPPI Informative Bulletin. Reports LEPPI activities to USAID, CCAD,
and other PROARCA components. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team, CHF/HQ.
8. Workplans. To organize the activities LEPPI will carry out during the year. CHF/LEPPI, INR/USAID.
9. Environmental Action Plan. Puerto Barrios - Guatemala. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities,
Institutional Representatives, Local Communities.
10. Environmental Action Plan. Ixoán, Guatemala. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities, Institutional
Representatives, Local Communities.
11. Environmental Action Plan. Usulután - El Salvador. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities,
Institutional Representatives, Local Communities.
12. Environmental Action Plan. La Unión - El Salvador. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities,
Institutional Representatives, Local Communities.
13. Environmental Action Plan. San Juan Del Sur - Nicaragua. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities,
Institutional Representatives, Local Communities.
14. Environmental Action Plan. Choluteca - Honduras. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities, Institutional
Representatives, Local Communities.
15. Environmental Action Plan. Trujico - Honduras. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities, Institutional
Representatives, Local Communities.
16. Environmental Action Plan. Puerto Viejo - Costa Rica. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities,
Institutional Representatives, Local Communities.
A4 - 19
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
17. Environmental Action Plan. Chililbre - Panama. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities, Institutional
Representatives, Local Communities.
18. Environmental Action Plan. Bocas del Toro - Panama. CHF/LEPPI Technical Team. Municipal authorities,
Institutional Representatives, Local Communities.
19. Feasibility Study and Design of the Solid Waste treatment project for Puerto Barrios and Santo Tomás de Castilla,
Guatemala. External Consultant for CHF/LEPPI.
20. Design of the Solid Waste collection system for La Unión, El Salvador. External Consultant for EPA, and
CHF/LEPPI.
21. Environmental Impact Evaluation of the Sanitary landfills in La Unión, El Salvador. External Consultant for EPA,
and CHF/LEPPI.
22. Study and design of two waste water treatment plants in Rio Escondido Puerto Barrios, Guatemala. External
Consultant for EPA, and CHF/LEPPI.
23. Sanitary landfill design and recyclable material recovery facility Bocas Del Toro - Panama. LEPPI technician,
External Consultant, Authorities Ministry of Environment ANAM Ministry of Tourism IPAT Government of
Panama, EPA, CHF/LEPPI.
24. Environmental Impact Evaluation for the Solid Waste Project - Isla Colón Bocas Del Toro - Panama. External
Consultant. Ministry of Environment ANAM, EPA, CHF/LEPPI.
25. Feasibility Study - Recyclable Material Recovery Facility design Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica. LEPPI technician,
CHF/LEPPI.
26. Material Recovery Facility design Puerto Barrios - Guatemala. EPA, CHF/LEPPI's technician, External Consultant,
CHF/LEPPI.
27. Material Recovery Facility and Micro Enterprise designs Chililbre - Panama. EPA, CHF/LEPPI's technician,
External Consultant, CHF/LEPPI
3.5 EPA Documents (CCAD/PROLEGIS)
1. Principios de Evaluacion del Impacto Ambiental (Translation)*
2. US EPA Team Visit to Guatemala: Assessment of Pesticide Regulatory Systems, Dec. 1996*
3. Environmental Packaging Seminar, Guate., July 9, 1996*
4. Integrated Waste Management Workshop, Guate., October 21-22, 1997*
5. Elements of Effective Environmental Legal Regimes: Issues and Perspectives (Framework)* - Also sent
electronically
6. Spanish translation of item #5*- Also sent electronically
7. Mini outline of Items #5 and 6*
8. Guia de Regulaciones Para la Exportación de Productos Agricolas No Tradicionales de America Latina y el Caribe
(Translation)
9. Effective Regulation of Pesticides: Brief Synopsis of Legal Framework, Central America PASA Project (outline)
10. Tratando con los Medios Infomativos
A4 - 20
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
11. Desarrollo de un Plan de Coordinación: Plan Breve
12. Ejemplo de un Bosquejo de un Plan de Emergencia Para Materiales Peligrosos
13. Pocedimiento Para Muestras
Enforcement Documents
14. Principios de Cumplimiento y Aplicacion de la Ley Ambiental, July 1992
15. Proceedings from the Managua Meeting: Creation of the Centroal American Enforcement Network [Sept. 29-Oct.5,
1996]
16. (Untitled) Nicaragua, last update: Oct. 31, 1996
17. (Untitled) Honduras, last update: April 1, 1997
18. Meeting of Environmental Law and Enforcement Experts — Central American and North American Networks of
May 1997 in Washington, D.C. (A Report on the Meeting) — Also sent electronically (but Hardcopy more
complete)
19. Estado de la Legislacion y Gestion Ambiental en Centroamerica (Documento claborado por Dr. Marco Gonzalez,
PROLEGIS, CCAD, Guate., Feb, 1998)
20. La Auditoria Ambiental: Expericenica de lose Estados Unidos (Espquema del discurso de Larry Sperling en la
Reunion de la Organización Centroamerícana de las Controlarías, Nicar. 19-21 noviembre, 1997)
21. Aplicaion de la Ley Ambiental Dentro Del Sistema Juridica de los E.E.U.U. (Esquema del discurso de L. Sperling
en la Tercera Conferencia de la Red Centroamerícana de Expertos en Derecho Ambiental y su Aplicación,
Honduras, 25-27 marzo, 1998
22. La Auditoria Ambiental: Expericia de los Estados Unidos (Esquema del discurso de Larry Sperling en la Tercera
Conferencia de la Red Centroamerícana de Expertos en Derecho Ambiental y su Aplicación, Honduras, 25-27
marzo, 1998
Enforcement Trip Reports
23. Seminar for Belizean Judges Magistrates and Prosecutors and Meetings with Belize Ministry of Tourism and
Environment on Environmental Enforcement (Belize, August,18-21, 1995)
24. Meeting of the Central American Commission for Environment and Development (Panama, June 13-14, 1996)
25. First meeting of the Central American Environmental Law and Enforcement Network (Nicaragua, Sept. 29-Oct.5,
19960
26. Central American Regional Environmental Law Course (Panama, April 28-May 2, 1997)
27 First Congress of the Organización Centroamericana de Entidades de Fiscalizadores Superiores (Nicaragua, 19-21
Novemeber, 1997)
28. Central America Network of Environmental Law and Enforcment Experts (Honduras, March 25-27, 1998)
· Hand-delivered to Roberto Morales on 8/26/99
A4 - 21
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
3.6 Local Environmental Policy and Program Initiative Project (LEPPI) Documents
Aplicación de la Ley Ambiental Dentro del Sistema Lawrence Sperling March, 1998
Juridica de los EEUU. USEPA
Background Information on “Prior Informed Consent.” No author No date
Central America Network of Environmental Law Lawrence Sperling March, 1998
And Enforcement Experts – Trip Report (Honduras) Richard Trinidad
José Pablo González
Central American Regional Environmental Law Course Lawrence Sperling May, 1997
Trip Report
Desarrollo de un Plan de Coordinación – PLAN BREVE No author No date
Effective Regulation of Pesticides: PASA No date
Brief Synopsis of Legal Framework – PASA Project
Ejemplo de un Bosquejo de un Plan de Emergencia Para No author No date
Materiales Peligrosos
Elements of Effective Environmental Legal Regimes – Peter L Lallas May, 1997
Issues and Perspectives
El Salvador Trip Report Jane Horton July, 1997
Estado de la Legislación y Gestion Ambiental Marco González February 1998
En Centroamérica PROLEGIS, CCAD
First Congress of OCEFS: Environmental Auditing (minutes) No author November, 1997
First Meeting of the Central American Environmental Lawrence Sperling October, 1996
Law and Enforcement Network – Trip Report (Nicaragua)
Honduras Database File No author April, 1997
Informe del Taller Regional Para la Aplicación del No author August, 1999
Convenio de Rotterdam Sobre el Procedimiento de
Consentimiento Fundamentado Previo (PIC) Aplicable a
Ciertos Plaguicidas y Productos Químicos Peligrosos Objeto
De Comercio Internacional (Workshop Report)
La Auditoria Ambiental: Experiencia de los EEUU. Lawrence Sperling March, 1998
Red Centroamericana de Derecho Ambiental y su Aplicación USEPA
La Auditoria Ambiental: Experiencia de los EEUU. Lawrence Sperling November, 1997
Reunión de la Organización Centroamericana de las USEPA
Contralorias
Lista de Participantes al 1 Seminario Sobre No author October, 1996
Legislación Ambiental y su Aplicación
Meeting of the Central American Commission for Lawrence Sperling June, 1996
Environment and Development – Trip Report
A4 - 22
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Meeting of Environmental Law & Enforcement Experts USAID/G-CAP May, 1997
Central American and North American Networks of CCAD
May 1997 in Washington, D.C. (Meeting Report) USEPA
Municipal Solid Waste Pilot Project Proposal USEPA No date
Nicaragua Database File No author October, 1996
Principios de Cumplimiento y Aplicación de la USEPA: Office of Law July, 1992
Ley Ambiental Enforcement
Principios de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental: No author July, 1998
Taller LEPPI/AID, El Salvador (Workshop Agenda)
Principios Para La Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental: USEPA July, 1996
Training Manual
Procedimiento Para Muestras No author No date
Proceedings from the Managua Meeting: Creation of No author No date
the Central American Enforcement Network
Reunión de Coordinación de Organismos Regionales OIRSA July, 1997
E Internacionales Relacionados con Plaguicidas
Reunión de Coordinación y Seguimiento a la Propuesta No author June, 1998
“Disposición de Plaguicidas en Países en Desarrollo.”
Reunión de Jefes de Registro/Responsables de OIRSA March, 1999
Programas de Plaguicidas
Reunión de Jefes de Registro/Responsabilidades OIRSA May, 1998
De Programas de Plaguicidas
Seminar for Belizean Judges Magistrates and Prosecutors & George Hays, Lawrence August, 1995
Meetings with Belize Ministry of Tourism and Environment Lawrence Sperling
On Environmental Enforcement – Trip Report (Belize)
Seminario de Alternativos para Tratamiento de No author September, 1998
Aguas Servidas (Seminar Agenda)
Solid Waste Management Pilot Project USAID/EPA No date
Scoring Sheet for Bocas del Toro, Panama
Talking Points on Negotiations of a Treaty to Address No author No date
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Tratando con los Medios Informativos No author No date
USAID/EPA Central America Participating Benjamin Franco April-May, 1998
Agency Service Agreement – Trip Report
USAID/EPA Central America Participating Agency USEPA No date
Service Water Quality Technical Assistance – Pilot
Project Proposals
USAID/EPA Central America Participating Agency USAID/EPA No date
Service Water Quality Technical Assistance –
Pilot Project Addendum
A4 - 23
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
USAID/EPA PASA Scope of Work USEPA July, 1996
USEPA Team Visit to Guatemala: USAID/USEPA December, 1996
Assessment of Pesticide Regulatory Systems PROARCA
Usulutan Municipal Solid Waste Management USEPA/FLDEP No date
Environmental Impact Assessment Review by USEPA
and FLDEP Solid Waste Team
A5 - 1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDIX 5: Workshop Minutes
A5 - 2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Results of the Workshop for Feedback on the Results of the Evaluation to Stakeholders
Primer Día: Resultados del Trabajo en Grupos
Guatemala, 9 de Noviembre de 1999
Luego, de la presentación del Informe de los Hallazgos y Conclusiones Preliminares del Equipo Evaluador
realizado por la mañana, el cual se basó en cuatro Componentes principales, se procedió a trabajar el 7 grupos
relacionados a los componentes evaluados. El trabajo consistió en responder a preguntas claves que servirán al
Equipo Evaluador como insumo de los contrapartes del PROARCA, en la preparación de recomendaciones a
tomar en cuenta en el diseño de la próxima fase del Proyecto PROARCA.
Resultados de los Grupos de Trabajo 1 y 2:
Los primeros dos grupos pertenecientes a las instancias USAID/G-CAP y Bilaterales, y un representante de la
CCAD, y quienes respondieron a las siguientes preguntas:
1. ¿Cómo debe ser la relación y metodología entre AID/G-CAP y bilaterales para el diseño y operación de
PROARCA II?
2. ¿Cómo debe ser la relación entre USAID-G-CAP y CCAD para el diseño y operación de la nueva FASE?
3. ¿Relación CCAD- Ministros en nuevo programa?
4. ¿Cuáles deberían de ser la Prioridades regionales en PROARCA II?
5. ¿Cuáles son los mecanismos para garantizar la sustentabilidad?
A. Grupo 1 – USAID/G-CAP y Bilaterales--CCAD
1. ¿Cómo debe ser la relación y metodología entre USAID/G-CAP y bilaterales para el diseño y operación de
PROARCA II?
Principio:
- No toda actividad regional debe tener una expresión nacional
- Comunicación de doble vía
Como métodos:
- Comunicación constante
- Participación en procesos
- Coordinación (buscando oportunidades de trabajo conjunto)
2. ¿Cómo debe ser la relación entre USAID-G-CAP y CCAD para el diseño y operación de la nueva FASE?
- En el diseño de amplia participación (Trabajo conjunto y coordinado)
- Recordar reglas de AID
- En la operación de coordinación y seguimiento (CCAD ó DGMA –SICA- no ejecutan)
3. ¿Cuáles deberían de ser las Prioridades regionales en PROARCA II?
Deben ser producto de un procedo con Base en:
- ALIDES, AGENDA 21 para Centroamerica, CONCAUSA, y PLANES ESTRATEGICOS
CCAD/US-AID
A5 - 3
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Como Temas Prioritarios:
- Biodiversidad
- Cambio climástico
- Prevención de contaminación
- Ordenamiento ecológico–económico del territorio
- Manejo y conservación de agua
- Bosques
- Producción sotenible
- Agua
Condición para regionalidad:
- Repasar CONCAUSA
- Hacer consultas nacionales (bilaterales AID más Autoridades)
- DGMA SICA y USAID –G-CAP integran lo regional
- Procurar más enfoque (menos dispersión) que PROARCA
4. ¿Cuáles son los mecanismos para garantizar la sustentabilidad?
Como Principio:
- No puede haber una receta única un menú de opciones puede incluir:
- Capacitar capacitadores más compromiso político para continuar el proceso.
- Incorporar incentivos económicos para la aplicación de leyes y políticas generadas.
- Capacitar beneficiarios en sustentabilidad financiera y promover “matching” como instrumento
económico en el programa.
- Crear y poner en práctica sistemas de auto evaluación y monitoreo en manos de beneficiarios.
- Promover sistemas de generación de ingresos y recuperación de costos.
- Apoyar Redes de Trabajo.
- Establecer mecanismos de comunicación para difundir y promover la adopción de los productos del
programa.
Integrantes del Grupo de Trabajo No. 1
Phil Jones
Nestor Windevoxhel
Rolando Quiñones
Roberto Morales
Albert Korgi
Martín Schwarz
B. Grupo 2: USAID/G-CAP y BILATERALES--CCAD
1. ¿Cómo debe ser la relación y metodología entre G-CAP y bilaterales para el diseño y operación de
PROARCA II?
Diseño:
- Consideración Marco de resultados de misiones
- Aclarar prioridades regionales de G-CAP y CCAD
- Involucrar Misiones en visualizar problemas regionales
 Operación:
- Revisar planes de trabajo en conjunto con CCAD y las misiones.
A5 - 4
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
2. ¿Relación USAID/G-CAP--CCAD?
- Mantener transparencia y compartir información dentro de la nueva visión del programa.
- Mantener el partnership bajo concepto “Matrimonio con libertad”.
- Posibilidad de firmar nuevo convenio SICA.
3. ¿Relación CCAD- Ministros en nuevo programa?
- CCAD permite comunicación más abierta con los ministros
- Consultas con la sociedad civil
4. ¿Prioridades PROARCA II?
- Aplicar, en forma concentrada, las metodologías y herramientas éxitosas de PROARCA I (ejemplo:
enfoque en 2 cuencas compartidas combinando marron–verde–azul)
- Enfasis sobre cumplimiento acuerdos intenacionales y leyes nacionales
- Enfoque comercio-ambiente.
5. ¿Sostenibilidad?
- Intensificar aplicación de macanismos ligados al mercado en por del ambiente (como manejo
producción de café, turismo, producción limpia, servicios ambientales).
Integrantes del Grupo No. 2
Carmen Aída González
Jan Laarman
Ronald Vargas
Pamela Teel
Joao de Queiroz
Arturo Villalobos
Laura Cornwell
Robert Thurston
Resultados de los Grupos de Trabajo 3, 4, 5, 6 y 7
Los próximos 5 grupos de trabajo Costas (3 y 4), CAPAS (5 y 6), y LEPPI/PROLEGIS (7) respondieron a las
siguientes preguntas:
1. ¿Cuál sería la definición del grupo de regionalidad?
2. ¿Cuáles serían los temas prioritarios en un nuevo proyecto regional, y cuáles áreas geográficas incluiría y
por qué?
3. ¿Cómo piensa que este componente debería estar relacionado con otros componentes de PROARCA?
4. ¿Considera que existe espacio para otras instancias, socios y mecanismos de tipo regional que pordrían
ser incorporados al nuevo proyecto?, ¿Cuáles de estos recomienda y por qué?
5. ¿Qué procesos y mecanismos de comunicación, promoción y dovulgación considera que serían efectivos
implementar en un proyecto regional?
6. ¿Qué estrategias y mecanismos de mercado (proyectos prodyctivos) y financiamiento sugiere que
deberían ser promovidos por los proyectos regionales para garantizar la sostenibilidad de mediano y largo
plazo de las acciones?
A5 - 5
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
GRUPO No. 3: Costas
1. ¿Regionalidad?
- Integración extranfronteriza fundamentada en intereses comunes de los países de América Central
2. ¿Temas y áreas geográficas prioritarias?
- Manejo integral marino costero
- Cuencas Hidrográficas
- Areas protegidas
Sitios de más vulnerabilidad: (i) San Juan, (ii) Bocas/Manzanillo, (iii) Golfo de Honduras, (iv) Golfo de
Fonseca, y (v) Mosquitia de Honduras-Nicaragua
3. ¿Relación entre Componentes?
- Coordinar acciones para no dispesar esperanza y recursos y optimizar mediante un cómite que defina
políticas de seguimiento en la región.
4. ¿Espacio para potras instancias, socios y mecanismos?
- Si existe el espacio u consideramos necesario la coordinaciión con los diferentes actores involugrados
a través de alianzas estratégicas y convenios.
5. ¿Comunicación, promoción y divulgación?
- Crear un centro de informática regional de doble vía, aprovechando la infraestructura ya existente.
6. ¿Estrategias y mecanismos de financiamiento y sostenibilidad?
- Capacitación y financiamiento para desarrollar alternativas de producción sostenible.
- Promoción y divulgación a través de la red informática.
Integrantes del Grupo No. 3
Víctor Hugo Martínez
Rafael Sambula
Kennet Serapio
Daniel Joseph
José Pérez
Ruben Navarro
Luis Sandolval
A5 - 6
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Grupo No. 4: Costas
1. Regionalidad?
- Un bloque geográfico de países
2. Temas y áreas geográficas prioritaria?
- Manejo de APS
- Educación ambiental (por ejemplo especie en peligro)
- Monitoreo ambiental
- Capacitación corto y largo plazo
Area más vulnerable: Golfo de Honduras y Golfo Fonseca
3. ¿Relación entre Componentes?
- Comunicación e intercambios, y evitar duplicidad (por ejemplo políticas/análisis de brechas)
4. ¿Espacio para otras instancias?
- Utilizar alianzas de ONG locales – fondos canalizados sin burocracias.
5. ¿Procesos y mecanismos de comunicación, promoción y divulgación?
- Uso de INTERNET
- Participación en eventos internacionales de mercadeo
- Créditos a participantes locales para micro empresas
- Ecoturismo
Integrantes del Grupo 4
Ovel Leonardo
Peter Hearne
Will Maheia
GRUPO No. 5: CAPAS
1. Regionalidad:
- Proceso de toma de conciencia de sentirnos un solo territorio, con metas que lleven a un desarrollo
ambiental, económico y social, similar en con de los países de la región a través de actividades que se
rijan bajo un marco general de política y legislación.
2. Temas prioritarios:
- Es importante un compromiso de largo plazo. Importante el seguimiento.
- Consercación privada (áreas aledañas a a.p.e. y el área del corredor biológico.
- Fortalecimiento institucional (organizaciones, comunidad)
- Mercadeo por-ambiental
- Fortalecimiento y mercadeo del ecoturismo
- Promoción, capacitación y control de la legislación ambiental (agricultura orgánica)
A5 - 7
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
3. Relación del componente con los otros de PROARCA:
- Identificar programas y actividades en común, que permita el intercambio de experiencias y un
mercadeo general del programa.
4. Espacio para otras instancias?
- Sí, la participación de otras instancias a través de convenios de cooperación que permita accesar
recursos económicos, información básica y aplicable en los proyectos que se ejecutan o ejecutarán.
(Universidad, centros de investigación, otras ONG locales, BM, PNUD, BID, Corredor, etc.).
5. Procesos y mecanismos de cominicación
- Boletines integrales
- Pulicación de informes técnicos
- Crear estrategias de comunicación; suplementos, trabajo con periodistas, programas de radio.
- Hojas informativas.
- Páginas WEB Internacional
- Giras y visitas a los medios
6. Estrategias y mecanismos de mercado – asegurar sostenibilidad a largo plazo
- Compromisos a largo plazo
- Gestión comercial a lo interno de las organizaciones con procesos de acompañamiento.
- Certificación
- Gestión empresarial
- Misiones comericales
- Mejoramiento de la calidad de productos
- Ferias internacionales
- Intercambio de experiencias
Integrantes del Grupo 5
Mauramatha Zeas
Martha Marín
Julio Barquero
Gabriel Valle
Martha Ayala
GRUPO No. 6: CAPAS
1. Definición (Criterios) de Regionalidad?
- Que las experiencias desarrolladas sean replicables en otros países de la región.
- Que incluya temas claves y compartidos en la región
- Que permitan la integración geográfica y temática (ejemplo bioregión)
A5 - 8
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
2. Temas Prioritarios:
- Fortalecer los procesos administrativos en los controles en el ámbito ambiental y penal.
- Fortalecer los sistemas de administración y manejo de áreas protegidas (analizar modelos de
administración existentes y que hayan sido exitosos)
- Fomentar el desarrollo de actividades productivas sostenibles en áreas de amortiguamiento de áreas
protegidas (ej. Agricultura orgánica, bancos de créditos).
- Dar continuidad a acciones específicas resultantes de proyectos que hayan sido exitosos.
3. Relaciones con otros componentes de PROARCA:
- Fomentando el desarrollo de proyectos modelos de manejo integral debtri de pasreas protegidas que
incluya aspectos de manejo ambiental y legal (ej. Mejores prácticas de conservación, EIA)
4. Espacio para otras instancias:
- Sí, y recomendamos incluir: Consejos de Senderon Mesoamericanos, Consejo de Desarrollo
Sostenible, Cámara Empresiarables, Grupos de base, ONG’s, insitituciones, etc. Se debe inventariar
los grupos que trabajan en la región para conocer posibles socios, temas de trabajo común, proyectos
ehecutados, conocer u compartir experiencias, compartir esfuerzos.
5. Procesos y Mecanismos:
- Boletín electrónico y escrito mensual
- Fortalecer la red de ocios del programa
- Fomentar el intercambio tecnológico de experiencias
6. Estrategia y mecanismos de mercado:
- Establecer capital semilla a través de fideicomisos
- Bancos de céditos (individuales. Comunitarios, microempresas)
- Acciones de seguimiento de los proyectos que se ejecutan (desde el proceso productivo hasta el
proceso de comercialización).
- Centros de información sobre mercados, productos.
Integrantes Grupo 6
Roxana Salazar
Roberto Hagges Chan
Maritza Rivera
Dilia Santamaría
Juan Francisco Martínez
Eduardo Do Paso
GRUPO No. 7: LEPPI/PROLEGIS
1. Regionalidad:
- Grupo que abarca varios países Centroamericanos y otros, con características comunes (culturales,
ecológicos y económicos), para compartir, resolver y armonizar problemáticas ambientales y de
manejo de recursos naturales.
A5 - 9
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
2. Temas Prioritarios:
- Lo importante es que la temática del proyecto regional responda a intereses comunes, que exista
armonización e integración de todos los componentes afines en cada uno de los países involugrados
por ende armonicen los diferentes actores (públicos, pricados, ONG, sociedad civil).
3. Relaciones con toros componentes de PROARCA:
- Deben de promoverse una relación estrecha entre los diferentes componentes de PROARCA ya que
todo va relacionado, ej: Las normas que se generan en un componente son las bases del componente
que operatiza las acciones a programa para identificar puntos coincidentes.
4. Espacio para otras instancias:
- Debe existir una coordinación y participación con grupos ambientalistas, grupos locales, comités
gestors, y con otras fuentes cooperates que ejecuten proyectos regionales (corredor biológico
mesoaméricano, Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano, Progolf, otras), con instancias públicas
(Ministerio de Educación, Salud, ANAM, Agricultura), ONG, Empresas privadas y otras de la
sociedad civil.
- ¿Por qué?: Para ampliar la información del proyecto, evitar duplicidad je esfuerzos y lograr una
mayor eficiencia y complentariedad de las acciones.
5. Procesos y mecanismos:
- Debe ixistir una comunicación sistemática entre los ejecutores de los proyectos (local, nacional) con
representantes de la CCAD, en cada uno de los países y los enlaces de los proyectos. Las
comunicaciones y coordinaciones debem darse a nivel nacional y regional.
6. Estrategias y mecanismos de mercado:
- Los proyectos productivos deben ser auto-sostenibles es decir que el financiamiento debe ser
otorgado como capital semilla, el proyecto debe ser sostenible con el tiempo. Debe ayudarse a los
ejecutores del proyecto a través de:
*Capacitación gerencial
*Asesoria técnica y transferencia del tecnología
*Promoción de los productos
*Publicidad
Integrantes del Grupo No. 7
Miriam Mendoza
Antonio Fuentes
Violeta Larde
Luis Mou Sue
Marianela Rocha
A5 - 10
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Segundo Día: Resultados del Trabajo sobre Temas
Guatemala, 9 de Noviembre de 1999
Para llegar a los resultados que se presentan en éste documento, se inició en los mismos Grupos de
Trabajo del primer día con la identificación de temas prioritarios, usando para ello el trabajo extraído del
documento del Taller del primer día (véase arriba). Cada Grupo desarrollaron 5 a 6 puntos. Estos puntos
fueron compartidos y organizados en agrupaciones de 6 temas similares, los cuales son:
- PROTECCION Y CONSERVACION DE SISTEMAS ECOLOGICOS PRIORITARIOS
- ALIANZAS Y COORDINACION
- FORTALECIMIENTO INSTITUCIONAL
- PRODUCCION Y MERCADEO PRO-AMBIENTAL
- COMUNICACIÓN
- LEGISLACION AMBIENTAL
TEMA 1: PROTECCION Y CONSERVACIÓN DE SISTEMAS ECOLOGICOS
PRIORITARIOS
¿Por qué es importante?
- Areas vulnerables, biodiversidad, valor económico
¿Cómo afecta positivamente la próxima fase de un proyecto ambiental?
- Mejorar sistemas de producción
- Mejorar la calidad de vida
- Mantener procesos ecológicos
Enfoques de Acción:
1. Manejo Integrado de Cuencas Prioritatios
2. Foltalecer sistemas de Administración y Manejo de A.P.
2.1 Conservación privada
2.2 Formulación Planes de Manejo
3. Contaminación Ambiental
4. Mercadeo Pro-ambiental
Recomendaciones:
Locales:
- Sistemas importantes para la producción y calidad de vida
- Establecimiento y/o fortalecimiento de sistemas de capacitación
Nacionales:
- Establecer sistemas de monitoreo y evaluación
- Fortalecimiento institucional a las instancias de administración
- Fortalecer procesos de planificación estratégica
A5 - 11
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Regionales:
- Priorizar áreas transfornterizas
- Ecosistemas especiales y únicos en la región
- Fortalecer Procesos de Planificación Estratégica
TEMA 2: ALIANZAS Y COORDINACION
¿Por qué es importante y cómo afecta positivamente la próxima fase de un programa ambiental?
- Ampliar impacto y sostenibilidad
- Mejorar uso de recursos disponibles
- Establecer credibilidad y sinergia con otros actores
Enfoques de Acción:
- Red de información e intercambio técnico
- Redes y Alianzas para la movilización de recursos (humanos y financieros)
- Coordinación institucional para mantener transparencia, comunicación, espectativas y
responsabilidades claras.0
- Comité o red dentro del progrma con participación de todos los actores principales.
Recomendaciones:
Regionales:
- Todo esto es principalmente regional
TEMA 3: FORTALECIMIENTO INSTITUCIONAL
¿Por qué es importante?
- Garantiza Sustentabilidad
- Permite a las organizaciones participar efectivamente en la ejecución del programa
- Permite especialización
- Concuerda con políticas de gobiernos
¿Cómo afecta positivamente la próxima fase de un proyecto ambiental?
- Asegura implementación exitosa
- Reduce costos de operación del programa
- Enfocado en socios claves
Recomendaciones:
Locales:
- Enfocar en grupos comunitarios
- Enfocar en ONG locales
- Apoyo a gobiernos locales
- Fortalecer alianzas entre actores locales (e.i. TRIGOM, TRINANCIONAL GF . CVC,
comités gestores ETC.)
- Brindar apoyo técnico a los asesores de los programas
A5 - 12
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
- Disponer de asesores ó facilitadores de sitio en cada país en que se hacen intervenciones
transfronterizas.
Nacionales:
- Fortalecer Capacidad de trabajo conjunto entre gobierno nacionales y organizaciones locales
Regionales:
- Fortalecer alianzas en sitios transfronterizos
- Promover posibles alianzas regionales
- Fortalecer redes y sus miembros
- Brindar asistencia a organizaciones regionales de diferentes sectores (ONG, OG, sector
privado).
TEMA 4: PRODUCCION Y MERCADEO PRO-AMBIENTAL
¿Por qué es importante?
- Para garantizar la sostenibilidad social, económica y ambiental
¿Cómo afecta positivamente la próxima fase de un proyecto ambiental?
- Incremento de la participación de los actores dentro del sector económico.
Enfoque de Acción:
- Ecoturismo
- Café Orgánico
- Agricultura Orgánica
- Forestería certificada
- Producción limpia
- Mejoramiento de sistemas de producción
- Acceso a la tierra
- Secuestro carbono
- Servicios Ambientales, biodiversividad, agua, belleza sencilla
- Cacao ecológico
Recomendaciones:
Locales:
- Capacitación técnológica y gestion financiera y administrativa
- Acceso al crédito
- Acceso a medios de comunicación
- Información de mercados
- Infraestructura de transporte
- Organización comunitaria
- Promoción
A5 - 13
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Nacionales:
- Capacidad de certificado (Capaciatación a técnicos)
- Políticas gubernamentales de apoyo
- Capacitación
- Medios de información
Regionales:
- Intercmbio de experiencias entre paises
- Promoción y mercadeo intrea extra regional (de productos de exportación regionales)
- Certificación “Ambiental” para garantizar el acceso de los productos y servicios regionales a
los mercados internacionales.
- Información
- Educación al consumidor
TEMA 5: COMUNICACIÓN
¿Por qué es importante?
- Dar a conocer, informar, educar, formar, concientizar, y dirigir a la opinión pública y grupos
meta sobre la importancia de cambiar actitudes en el uso, conservació y proteccion de los
recursos naturales de la región.
¿ Como afecta positivamente la próxima fase de un proyecto ambiental?
- Permitirá que existan fuidez de información general y específica en temas de conservación y
esfuerzos realizados en la región.
- Permitirá que la comunidad de donantes conozcan el esfuerzo y temas prioritarios en el
manejo y uso y conservación de los recursos naturales en la región
- Permitirá la integración de otros grupos al proceso de conservación (sector privado)
Enfoque de Acción:
- Fortalecer la comunicación a través de un Boletín Electrónico y escrito mensual
- Diseñar un nuevo programa de comunicación y difusión
- Giras de promoción
- Crear red de informática regional
- Crear vinculos y mecanismos de acceso a todos niveles de apoyo que vayan más allá del
financiamiento del proyecto
- Lineas de crédito para alternativas productivas compatibles
- Contactos con inversionistas
- Préstamso concecionarios a minicipalidades
- Trabajo estratégico que apoye al nivel de campo con ONGs, y al nivel político con gobiernos,
para que las autoridades comprendan y apoyen: (i) lo que hacen las ONGs; y (ii) los
problemas ecológicos
A5 - 14
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Recomendaciones:
Locales:
- Poner en práctica los programas de comunicación (*) homogenizarla
- Tomar en cuenta los aspectos sociales y culturales
- Definir los medios de información en cada caso
Nacionales:
- Poner en práctica los programas de comunicación
Regionales:
- Poner en práctica los programas de comunicación
TEMA 6: LEGISLACION AMBIENTAL
¿Por qué es importante?
- Modificación de conductas sociales
- PROARCA apoyan al cumplimiento de CONCAUSA en legislación ambiental
¿Cómo afecta positivamente a la próxima fase de un proyecto ambiental?
- Armonización y aplicación de la ley
- Resolución alternativas de conflictos
- Aplicación de acuerdos internacionales y leyes nacionales
Enfoque de Acción:
- Fortalecer procesos administrativos y judiciales con capacitación a:
*Autoridades Competentes
*Municipalidades
*Grupos de Base
Recomendaciones:
Locales:
- Identificación de autoridades competentes y la capacidad local
Nacionales:
- Desarrollar incentivos para el cumplimiento de la ley
Regionales:
- Armonización para facilitar la aplicación de la ley
A5 - 15
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Evaluation of the Central American Regional Environmental Program (PROARCA)
Results of the Workshop for Feedback on the Results of the Evaluation to Stakeholders
Hotel Radisson Villa Magna
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala
9 y 10 de Noviembre de 1999
AGENDA
Martes
9 de Noviembre
08:00-08:30 Inscripción de Participantes
08:30-08:45 Inauguración del Taller
- George Carner, Director, USAID/Programa Centroamericano
- Ronald Vargas, Director Adjunto, CCAD
08:45-09:00 Presentación de los objectivos y metodología del taller
- Kim Alire, Facilitadora del Taller
09:00-09:30 Presentación de los objetivos y metodología empleada en la evaluación
- Carlos Rivas, Jefe del Equipo Evaluador
09:30-10:30 Presentación de los hallazgos y conclusiones principales de la evaluación
- Componente Costas, Jurij Homziak
- Componente CAPAS, Sergio Zelaya
10:30-11:00
Café
11:00-12:00 Presentación de los hallazgos y conclusiones principales de la evaluación
- Componente LEPPI/PROLEGIS/EPA, Paul Dulin
- Gerenciamiento del Proyecto por USAID y CCAD, Carlos Rivas
12:00-12:30 Preguntas-respuestas sobre la presentación del equipo Evaluador
12:30-13:00 Explicación de la metodología a ser empleada en los Grupos de Trabajo
- Kim Alire, Facilitadora
13:00-14:00 Almuerzo servido en el Hotel Radisson
14:00-15:30 1
st Sessión en los Grupos de Trabajo
15:30-15:45
Café
15:45-17:30 2
nd Sessión en los Grupos de Trabajo
17:30-18:00 Preparación en rotafolio de los resultados de los trabajos en Grupo
Miércoles
10 de Noviembre
08:00-09:30 Presentación de los resultados por los Grupos de Trabajo
09:30-12:00 Discusión abierta de los resultados de los Grupos de Trabajo y su relación con el
trabajo del Equipo Evaluador [Café abierto a partir de 10:00]
- Kim Alire, Facilitadora
12:00-12:30 Plenaria Final y Clausura del Taller
- Equipo Evaluador
12:30-13:30 Almuerzo servido en el Hotel Radisson
A6 - 1
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contact (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
APPENDIX 6: Terms of Reference
A6 - 2
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
l. Country of Performance: GUATEMALA
 Adv. & Asst. Services Yes [ ] No [X]
2. Contract OUT-LAG-I-801-99-00013, Task Order No. B13
(Incorporating FAR and AIDAR Clauses)
________________________________________________________________________________
NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961,
AS AMENDED, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 1-1223
________________________________________________________________________________
3. CONTRACTOR (Name and Address): 4a. ISSUING OFFICE:
REGIONAL CONTRACTS OFFICE
ASSOCIATES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT USAID/G-CAP
110 Main Street, Four Floor UNIT 3323
P.O. Box 1397 APO AA 34024
Burlington, VT 05402 USA
4b. ADMINISTRATION OFFICE:
TIN: 03-0265647 Same as 4a.
DUNS: 00-403-5127
________________________________________________________________________________
5. TECHNICAL OFFICE: 6. PAYING OFFICE. SUBMIT INVOICE TO:
PHILIP JONES FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE
PROARCA OFFICE USAID/G-CAP
USAID/G-CAP Unit 3323
UNIT 3323 APO AA 34024 APO AA 34024
________________________________________________________________________________
7. EFFECTIVE DATE: 8. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
See block 11b 01/15/2000
________________________________________________________________________________
9. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA;
Request ID: 596-0180-90015 Amount obligated:
Activity Title: PROARCA EVALUATION Ceiling Price:
Organization ID:
Resource Category: 410463
Account Number: 729/01021
Budget Plan Code: LDV99925596KG13
________________________________________________________________________________
10. The United States of America, represented by the Contracting Officer Signing
this order, and the Contractor agree that: (a) this Order is issued Pursuant to
the Contract specified in Block 2 above and (b) the entire Contract between the
parties hereto consists of this order and the Contract Specified in Block 2
above.
________________________________________________________________________________
1la. NAME OF CONTRACTOR; llb. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ASSOCIATES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT Agency for international Development
BY: BY:
NAME: NAME: BRADEN W. ENROTH
TITLE: TITLE: Contracting Officer (RMS)
DATE: DATE:
OUT-LAG-1-801-99-00013 D.O. No.813
A6 - 3
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1.1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 TITLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 1.3 OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 STATEMENT OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 REPORTS/DELIVERABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
1.7 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
1.8 TERM OF PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.9 WORKDAYS ORDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
1.10 CEILING PRICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.11 USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL . . . 14
1.12 DUTY POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.13 ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.14 LOGISTIC SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.15 WORKWEEK . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.16 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.17 METHOD OF PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.18 PAYMENT OFFICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.19 SPECIAL CLAUSE ON ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.15
A6 - 4
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
1.1 BACKGROUND
A: Description of the Strategic Objective:
In December 1994, President Clinton and the Central American Presidents signed
the Conjunta Centroamericana - USA ("CONCAUSA") agreement. Through CONCAUSA, the
United States became the first extra-regional partner of the Central American
Alliance for Sustainable Development. The Alliance provides a strategic
framework for collaboration with environmental issues throughout Central
America. The Regional Environmental Program for Central America (PROARCA) is the
vehicle for making the United States commitment to the Alliance a reality. The
Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD) is the lead
Regional counterpart organization in implementation of PROARCA to assure Central
American ownership and leadership of the PROARCA Program in line with the
mandates of CONCAUSA and the Central American Alliance for Sustainable
Development.
PROARCA's Strategic Objective (SO) entails the development and consolidation of
a Central American system of protected areas and the promotion of a strengthened
regional regulatory and enforcement framework for environmental protection.
These constitute two major elements of the Central American Alliance for
Sustainable Development (ALIDES) and of the CONCAUSA Agreement. To accomplish
this, the SO team is pursuing 3 Intermediate Results: 1) Improved Consolidation
of the Central American Protected Areas System; 2)Increased Local Empowerment
for Stewardship of the Environment and Natural Resources in Target Areas; and 3)
Central American Environmental Policy Frameworks Harmonized and Strengthened.
PROARCA also encompasses three components closely aligned with these three
Intermediate Results: 1) Central America Protected Areas System (PROARCA/CAPAS);
2) Coastal Zone Management (PROARCA/Costas); and 3) Environmental Protection and
Legislation. (LEPPI and EPA).
The SO provides support to host country governments, NGOs, and USAID/Bilaterals
in Central America. The PROARCA strategy is based on the strengthening of NGOs,
community based organizations and host government capacity to manage natural
resources at four key trans-boundary geographic sites: The Gulf of Honduras
(Belize-Guatemala-Honduras); The Gulf of Fonseca (El Salvador-Honduras￾Nicaragua); La Mosquitia (Nicaragua-Honduras); and Gandoca/Bocas del Toro (Costa
Rica Panama). There are other selected PROARCA sites where bilateral missions,
objectives require regional contributions.
B. Description of PROARCA's components:
(1) Central American Protected Areas System (CAPAS)
The objective of this component is the consolidation of a Central American
System of Protected Areas and the gradual ecological restoration and sustainable
use of areas surrounding them. CAPAS works in collaboration with the Central
American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD) and bilateral USAID
Missions to implement activities to identify nat'6onal systems of protected
areas to be included in a regional system; analyze legal and policy frameworks
for effective protected areas management; analyze mechanisms for financial
sustainability of this areas; and provide for information dissemination and
exchange in support of the regional protected areas system.
A6 - 5
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
The CAPAS' component is divided in to two phases. CAPAS I began in July 1996
through a performance-based contract with International Resources Group (IRG),
and ended in July 1998. The results expected to be accomplished in CAPAS I were:
1) Increased Protection of Biodiversity and habitat within key parks and
protected Areas; 2) Demonstration of Economic Viability of Compatible Uses in
Buffer Areas; 3) Increased regional Environmental Awareness, Commitment and
Consensus; and 4) Transfer of Skills to Counterpart institutions. Primarily a
Team Leader, a Grants Manager/Project Administrator and a Protected Areas
Specialist provided long-term technical assistance. Approximately 60 person￾month of short-term technical assistance on various aspects of biodiversity
conservation were also provided during phase 1. In addition, CAPAS I implemented
a US$ 350,000 competitive small grants program throughout Central America.
CAPAS II began in July 1988, at this time USAID extended its contract with IRG
through September 2000. Implementation of activities directly related to
protected areas is conducted through a sub-contract with the Nature Conservancy.
CAPAS II targets six results: 1) Improved Protection and Management of Key
Public and Private Protected Areas; 2) Improved Cross-country Harmonization of
Policies and Strategies to Protect and Manage Flora and Fauna in Central
America; 3) Improved Conservation Policies and Practices on Private and
Indigenous Lands in and near Protected Areas in Central America; 4) Expanded
market Access fox Central American Agricultural, Forest, Ecotourism Products/
Services that Meet High Environmental Standards; 5) Enhanced Knowledge and
Skills in Topics Important for Biodiversity Conservation in Central America; and
6) Strengthened initiatives of the CCAD Executive Secretariat. CAPAS II long￾term technical assistance is provided by a Team Leader (a US citizen), all other
long-term members are Central Americans, totaling 17 members, including office
support staff. Key team members for the purposes of this evaluation are: a
Communication Specialist, a Project Administrator, a Natural Resources Policy
Specialist, an Environmental Marketing Specialist, a Protected Areas Specialist,
a Capacity Building Specialist, and a Small Grants Program Manager.
Other CAPAS' important partners include environmental authorities (ministries
and departments) in the seven Central American countries. CAPAS also coordinates
with well established NGOs and PVOs and with producers and marketers of
environmentally friendly services and products such as organic coffee
certification entities, organic coffee cooperatives, and associations of tour
operators, lodge and private reserve owners. CAPAS is required to coordinate
closely with the other two PROARCA components. CAPAS relies on short-term
contracts with Central American consulting firms for implementation.
(2) Coastal Zone Management (Costas)
The Central American coasts contain abundant biological diversity. These areas
have a very high ecological, economic and social value due to the habitats,
unique species and the natural resources within these areas that are important
sources of income for the livelihood of local communities and the support to the
national economies. The Central American coastal and marine areas are
particularly threatened by: water pollution, over-exploitation of fisheries
resources, population growth, infrastructure development primarily for tourism,
mangrove destruction and, in general, the lack of appropriate planning of
coastal zone development.
The Coastal Zone Management Component, Costas, was established to promote
integrated coastal management in Central America. The goal of Costas is to
strengthen local capacity for the conservation and effective management of
A6 - 6
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
coastal and marine resources. The project focus on four trans-boundary priority
sites, selected for their ecological and economic importance: 1) Gulf of
Honduras (Belize, Guatemala and Honduras); 2) Miskito Coast (Honduras and
Nicaragua); 3) Gulf of Fonseca (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador); and 4)
Gandoca/Bocas del Toro (Costa Rica and Panama). A consortium of recognized
international organizations in the environmental field: The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the University of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Center (CRC/URI) implement this component through a Cooperative
Agreement with USAID. These organizations work to strengthen governance and
policies related to coastal zone management and the designated protected areas.
Simultaneously, Costas works with communities to demonstrate, adapt and
disseminate effective models for protection of coastal resources. At the
regional level, Costas' staff support the sites by promoting international
collaboration for the management and protection of shared resources and by
strengthening national policy implementation. The regional priorities are based
on local needs; commonalties identified across sites and opportunities for
sharing lessons learned.
Costas' activities are implemented primarily through a grants program through
which sub-grants are awarded to local NGOs and other concerned parties. Costas,
like CAPAS, is required to coordinate with CCAD, USAID/G-CAP and USAID/Bilateral
Missions in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Panama. Important
partners include environmental authorities (ministries and departments) in each
country. Costas also works in partnership with other regional
institutions/initiatives such as: the Central American Commission of Marine
Authorities (COCATRAM) and the Mesoamerican Reef Initiative. Costas' technical
assistance is provided by eight long-term staff, all Central Americans. The key
positions for the purposes of this evaluation are: The Team Leader (specialist
in Coastal Resources), the Project Administrator, the Project Coordinator
(specialist in Monitoring & Evaluation), the Policy Advisor, and four Regional
Site Technical Assistants (RSTAs) based in the four trans-boundary priority
sites. This team supports the achievement of four results, two at the regional
level: 1) Regional and National dialogue and Collaboration for Integrated
Coastal Zone Management Strengthened, and 2) Tools, Methods and information
directed to strengthen regional capabilities, disseminated; and two at the site
level: 3) Participatory Management of Resources for coastal-marine biodiversity
protection/conservation, and 4) institutional arrangements and institutions
strengthened.
(3) Environmental Protection and Legislation
This component seeks to: 1) harmonize and strengthen regional and national
environmental policy frameworks, 2) Strengthen institutions to address pollution
problems, and 3) raise awareness of public sector officials and private sector
organizations about the need to meet World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) requirements.
Three results are targeted under the component; 1) Promotion of pollution
prevention and cleaner production over end-of-pipe treatment wherever possible;
2) Effective public participation in problem identification, problem-solving,
rulemaking, and right-to-know; and 3) Mechanisms and professional networks for
effective technology transfer established.
This component is comprised of the following activities:
A6 - 7
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
a. Environmental Risk Assessment and Prioritization
USAID/G-CAP through a buy-in to USAID/PRIDE,commissioned a Regional
Comparative Risk Assessment(CRA). During this assessment,Central
American countries determined that solid waste, waste water and pesticide
contamination are the principal national pollution threats in the region. The
analysis and corresponding Action Plan were developed through a highly
participatory process, including national and regional workshops and the
participation of experts from various sectors (academia, private sector, NGOs,
community-based organizations and government agencies). The Regional Action Plan
constitutes the programming framework for PROARCA's Participating Agency Service
Agreement (PASA) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
b. Local Environmental Policy and Program Initiative (LEPPI) or Community Action
Planning
Under a Cooperative Agreement between USAID/G-CAP and the Cooperative Housing
Foundation (CHF), work is being carried out in pollution management in ten pilot
municipalities throughout Central America. The locations are Puerto Barrios and
Ixcan (Guatemala), Usulutan and La Union (El Salvador), Bocas del Toro and
Chilibre (Panama), Choluteca and Trujillo (Honduras), Puerto Viejo-Manzanillo
(Costa Rica), and San Juan del Sur (Nicaragua). The methodology implemented
through this activity include the following steps: a) community identification
of pollution problems that affect health; b) election of the Environmental
Steering Committee with the participation of the public sector and civil
society; c) formulation of a Community Environmental Profile which provides base
line information for performance assessment; d) identification of the most
effective actions in addressing pollution problems; e) establishment of a
strategy, an action plan and monitoring system to address the problems; and f)
preparation of feasibility studies and implementation of pilot projects.
c. Upward environmental legislative harmonization and enforcement
The Environmental Legislation activity provides technical assistance to national
legislatures and executive branches corresponding to the introduction and
adoption of national environmental laws and regulations. The program brings
about the regional networking of Central American environmental legal
authorities, including public attorneys, legal advisors, prosecutors, judges and
controllers, and provides training and technical assistance to these sectors in
environmental law and enforcement. Regional and national policy frameworks are
being harmonized and strengthened under the leadership of the CCAD's PROARCA￾funded Environmental Legislation and Biodiversity sub-activities in coordination
with PROARCA partners US EPA, CAPAS and Costas.
The Biodiversity sub-activity promotes the ratification and compliance by the
Central American governments of international and regional environmental
agreements. Through CCAD-sponsored regional networks the program coordinates
such initiatives as the development of national and regional biodiversity
strategies, electronic information-sharing and dissemination, the establishment
of regional norms on the illegal trafficking of endangered species, and unified
regional positions on access to genetic resources.
A6 - 8
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
d. Pollution prevention
The pollution prevention activity comprises three sub-activities: the US EPA in
coordination with the CCAD has conducted 1) workshops. This training (targeted
to Government inspectors, prosecutors and legal advisors) has focused on
environmental legislation, enforcement, standards, monitoring, impact
assessments, environmental auditing, economic incentives, and voluntary
compliance; 2) Technical expertise has been provided to Governments and private
sector on cleaner production; and 3) An informational network has been
established, where Governments and private sector can access information related
to pollution prevention legislation, expertise and state of the art technology.
C. PROARCA Management
A core S0 Team, and an expanded SO team, which includes key partners, manages
the PROARCA program. The team is based in USAID/Guatemala-Central American
Program's offices located in Guatemala City. The core SO team meets every week
to coordinate activity design, implementation and monitoring issues. During
these meetings, the acq11isiticn and assistance actions are also reviewed with
the Regional Contracting Office. The Expanded So Team meets formally twice a
year through the PROARCA round
UPS.
1.2 TITLE
Evaluation of the Central American Regional Environmental Program
-PROARCA￾1.3 OBJECTIVE
To carry out a Project Evaluation in Central America under the Central
American Regional Environmental Program -PROARCA- Strategic Objective
1.4 STATEMENT OF WORK
The contractor shall carry out the external evaluation for the regional
environmental program (PROARCA). PROARCA is a five-year, $25 million program,
which seeks to promote the Increased- Effectiveness in Regional. stewardship of
the Environment and Key Natural Resources in Target Areas. The purpose of this
evaluation is: 1) assess and document PROARCA's impacts /benefits in Increasing
Effectiveness in Regional Stewardship of the Environment and Key Natural
Resources in Target Areas; and 2) provide guidance and recommendations, based on
the successes and lessons learned-during the evaluation, for USAID's design of
FROARCA phase. 11. The external evaluation is one component of PROARCA's
evaluation strategy, which also includes annual internal performance reviews of
its components and reporting/monitoring material that has been produced during
the life of PROARCA.
The evaluation is divided in to two parts: A) components evaluation, and B)
CCAD-USAID/G-CAP Partnership Evaluation. The contractor will address some
5trategic/generic issues for parts. A and B of the evaluation:
- Identify activities, institutions, and geographic areas that show success or
promise in terms of greater measurable impact and sustainability of the,
interventions in order that they become permanent and wide-spread;
A6 - 9
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
- Recommend how the team can eliminate activities and approaches that show
neither success nor promise;
OUT-LAG-1-801-99-00013 D.O. No.813
- Assess the effectiveness of efforts to involve women and indigenous groups,
and, where necessary, recommend actions to promote greater involvement;
- Assess the extent of the coordination and integrated management in Central
America as a system, as distinct from a collection of separate national efforts,
hereafter referred to as regionality; and
- Synergy among PROARCA: components, USAID bilateral Missions, regional
organizations, NGOs, host country governments, other donors.
- Identify other partnerships (and the selection criteria) that the Regional
Program could enter into in the future that would facilitate achievement of its
results;
- Examine the options and rationale for the various funding mechanisms that are
available (performance-based contracts, grants, cooperative agreements), should
a future CAPAS-Costas-LEPPI like activity be implemented.
Part A. Component Evaluation
The evaluation team will address some management and technical issues across the
components:
- Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and agility of the management structures,
technical assistance delivery structures and institutional arrangements used by
the components' central office in Guatemala City ass compared to alternative
structures;
- Assessment of the effectiveness of the consortium mechanism to implement
activities
- Assessment of the effectiveness of the partnership between USAID/G-CAP and the
consortiums
- Assessment of the timing and quality of the technical assistance provided by
home office to the Guatemalan offices and the field;
- Assessment of each components' effectiveness to meet established results;
- Assessment of components' activities complementarity;
- Assessment of the appropriateness in approaches and partnerships to achieve
results under each component;
- Assessment of the effectiveness, from a regional conservation perspective,
in selecting geographical areas;
- Assessment of the appropriateness in working exclusively in trans-boundary
protected areas and ecosystems.
- Assessment of the types of activities not related, to trans-boundary areas or
A6 - 10
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
resources that should be carried out by a regional environmental program. What
criteria should be used to determine whether a program should be implemented by
a regional instead of a bi-lateral program?;
OUT-LAG-1-RO 1 -99-00011 DO NoS33
- Assessment of the effectiveness of the dissemination of the tools, methods and
reports that each component has developed/utilized; and
- Assessment of the effectiveness and sustainability of the regional
institutional and technical networks supported by PROARCA's components.
A.1. Evaluation questions specific to CAPAS
1. How effective has been CAPAS' use of regional technical expertise
through consulting arrangements? What is the c4uality of products
and services provided? Has the dissemination of these products been
effective? Can
2. Is the process used to announce, review, and select proposals for
CAPAS' Small Grants Program appropriate?
3. Was the composition of the program's review committee appropriate
from both the technical and the institutional point of view?
4. Were the criteria for selecting the NGOs appropriate?
5. Is the process used to secure approval by government institutions
appropriate? Is CAPAS's seeking approval of appropriate government
entities? Does government involvement create the possibility for
politicization of the grant-award process? How can this possibility
be minimized?
6. What is the recipients' view of the Small Grants Program?
A.2. Evaluation questions specific to Costas
Examine the effectiveness of the regionalization of integrated
coastal zone management best practices
Examine the implementation and effectiveness in the
identification/support and replication of mechanisms for
international/trans-boundary collaboration
Assess the timeliness and quality of the technical assistance
provided by Costas' Guatemalan office to the Regional site Technical
Assistants
Assess the timeliness and quality of the technical assistance
provided by the Regional Site Technical Assistants to local partners
Examine the strategy used for the small grants program and its
effectiveness. What are the recipient's views of it?
Examine the selection criteria for choosing local partners (NGOs)
A6 - 11
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
Examine the effectiveness and timeliness of the process used by
Costas to review proposals from local partners (technical, financial
and programmatic).
OUF-LAG-1-801-99-000.13 D.O. No.813
Is the process used to secure approval for proposals by government
institutions appropriate? Is Costas seeking approval of appropriate
government entities? Does government involvement create the
possibility for politicization of grant-award process? How can this
possibility be minimized?
A.3. Evaluation questions specific to Environmental Protection and
Legislation
I. Evaluation questions specific to LEPPI
1. How well known is LEPPI at the national and regional governmental
levels?
2. How representative has LEPPI's choice of sites been in terms of
political, ethnic, cultural, and geographic considerations?
3. How effective has been the methodology implemented by LEPPI to
identify community's pollution problems and solutions?
4. Do steering committees feel competent to replicate the process
without LEPPI's assistance?
5. How well has LEPPI coordinated with PROARCA's components? How could
this coordination be enhanced?
II. Evaluation questions specific to CCAD’s Environmental Legislation
and Biodiversity activities
1. Have these activities contributed to the fulfillment of the CONCAUSA
commitments?
2. Are these activities fulfilling the regional and national demands in
the eyes of the national ministries of environment and natural
resources, and other key clients?
3. How well have the CCAD’s Environmental Legislation and Biodiversity
activities coordinated with PROARCA's components? How could this
coordination be enhanced?
III. Evaluation questions specific to US EPA PASA
1. Is the training and technical assistance provided by US EPA
Relevant to achieve the upward harmonization of environmental
legislation in Central America?
2. Are regional and national counterparts satisfied with the technical
level of this training and technical assistance?
A6 - 12
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
3. To what degree is the knowledge obtained through regional training
courses and technical assistance being applied by the participants?
4. How well has the US EPA program coordinated with the other FROARCA
components? How should such coordination be enhanced?
OUT-LAG-1-801-99-00013 D.O. No.813
Part B. CCAD-USAID/G-CAP Partnership Evaluation
The CCAD, through its Environmental Directorate, is USATD/G-CAP's primary
partner. The CCAD was involved in the design of PROARCA and participates in the
components' annual performance evaluations. PROARCA's components also provide
direct support to some of CCAD's activities such as assistance to the
development of an environmental action plan for Central America and region
climate change related meetings
B.1. Evaluation questions specific to PROARCA-CCAD partnership
- What form should the USAID/G-CAP-CCAD partnership take in the future?
- What objectives, activities,' institutional arrangements, and geographic
areas should form the basis for a future partnership (in the context of
the, CONCAUSA and the Mesoamerican Corridor)?
- Are the policy/legislation activities of the partnership focused on the
significant environmental policy/legislation issue of Central America?
B.2. Questions related to partnerships and collaboration with PROARCA’s
components
1. To what extent has the relationship between PROARCA's components and
CCAD contributed to the achievement of the components' results?
2. What specific activities/ results under PROARCA's components have
benefited from the relationship with CCAD? What components or
activities need to be implemented with greater CCAD participation?
What components or activities may be implemented with minimal CCAD
participation?
1.5 ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA
MAARD No. 596-0180-90015
BUDGET PLAN CODE: LDV99925596KG13
APPROPRIATION: 729/01021
Total Amount Obligated:
PROJECT No. 596-0180.10
1.6 REPORTS/DELIVERABLES
The evaluation shall result in the completion of the following
Deliverables:
1. Revised methodology of the external evaluation following review of
documentation, discussion with USAID, CCAD and partners in country. The
contractor shall submit the revised methodology by the end of the start up
and document review week.
A6 - 13
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
2. Detail work plan for the overall assignment. This shall include dates and
schedules for presentation of each product. The contractor shall submit
the detail work plan by the end of the start up and document review week.
OUT-LAG-1-801-99-00013 D.O. No.813
3. Field site reports to USAID and CCAD on findings following the first and
the last field visits stages.
4. The final report including:
a) An executive summary (six pages maximum).
b) Presentations of findings, conclusion-s and recommendations per component,
and field sites.
c) A strategy and action plan for improving PROARCA's impact on biodiversity
conservation, pollution prevention and community based integrated coastal
zone management to include:
c.1) An assessment of the most successful approaches implemented
through CAPAS, Costas, LEPPI, the EPA and the CCAD's activities.
c.2) Specific actions to enhance PROARCA's effectiveness and impact
based on the findings of the evaluation.
c.3) Suggestions for a strategy for sharpening the focus of PROARCA
in Phase II, based on the successes in Phase 1. What new components,
approaches or activities should be considered for support under
PROARCA II from 2001 to 2005? What activities should the program
keep supporting? How could PROARCA streamline, simplify and enhance
the effectiveness of project management structures?
5. Final presentation. photographs taken at project sites that illustrate
findings and recommendations are desirable, including slides, prints,
“power point". These materials, delivered to USAID/G-CAP as products, will
be used in presenting information on the program to partners following
completion of the evaluation. The contractor will organize this final
presentation with USAID/G-CAP assistance and guidance. The event will
take place in Guatemala City after the submission of the final report.
1.7 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS
Technical Directions during the performance of this task order shall be
provided by the Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) specified in block 5 of
the cover page pursuant to Section G.13 of the IQC contract.
1.8 TERM OF PERFORMANCE
a. Work shall commence on the date noted in Block 7 of the cover
page. The estimated completion date is reflected in Block 8
of the cover page.
b. Subject to the ceiling price of this task order and the prior
written approval of the Technical Officer (5ee Block No. 5 on
the Cover Page), the contractor may extend the estimated
A6 - 14
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
completion date, provided that the extension does not cause
the elapsed time for completion of the work, including the
furnishing of all deliverables, to extend beyond 30 calendar
days from the original estimated completion date. Prior to
the original estimated completion date, the contractor shall
provide a copy of the Technical Officer's written approval for
OUT-LAG-1-8o 1-99--00013 D~0. No.S13
1.8 (Continued)
any extension of the term of this task order to the
Contracting Officer; in addition, the contractor shall attach
a copy of the Technical Officer's approval to the final voucher
submitted for payment.
c. It is the contractor's' responsibility to ensure that the Technical
Officer-approved adjustments to the original estimated completion
date do not result in costs incurred that exceed the ceiling price
of this task order. Under no circumstances shall such adjustments
authorize the contractor to be paid any sum in excess of the task
order.
d. Adjustments that will cause the elapsed time for completion .01 the
work to exceed the original estimated completion date by more than
30 calendar days must be approved in advance by the Contracting
Officer.
1.9 WORKDAYS ORDERED
a. Functional Labor Workdays Burdened Fixed
Category & Specialist Ordered Daily Rate Total
1. U.S. Personnel
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 37.0
SPECIALISTS & PLANNERS
PAUL DULIN
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 37.0
SPECIALIST & PLANNERS
JURIJ HOMZIAK
SUPPORT STAFF 6.0
REBECCA BUTHERFIELD
2. CCN Personnel
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 49.0
SPECIALISTS & PLANNERS
CARLOS JOSE RIVAS
ECONOMIST/ENVIRONMENTAL 37.0
POLICY SPECIALIST
SERGIO A. ZELAYA
A6 - 15
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
SUPPORT STAFF 37.0
TBD
Total 203.0
OUT-LAG-1-801-99-00013 D.O. No.413
1.9 (Continued)
b . The individuals identified above are designated as key personnel
pursuant to Section F.6 of the contract.
C. Subject to the ceiling price established in this delivery order and
the prior written approval of the Technical Officer, the contractor
may adjust the number of workdays actually employed in the
performance of the work by each position specified in this order.
The contractor shall attach a copy of the Technical Officer's
approval to the final voucher submitted for payment.
d. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that the Technical
officer-approved adjustments to the workdays ordered for each
functional labor specialist do not result in costs incurred which
exceed the ceiling price of this delivery order. Under no
circumstances shall such adjustments authorize the contractor to be
paid any sum in excess of the ceiling price.
1.10 CEILING PRICE
*Indirect Cost Rates shall be applied in accordance with section B￾14 of the basic IQC.
The contractor will not be paid any sum in excess of the ceiling
Price.
1.11 USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL
(a) The contractor and any employee or consultant of the
contractor is prohibited from using U.S. Government facilities (such
as office space or equipment), or. U.S. Government clerical or
technical personnel in the performance of the services specified In
the task order, unless the use of Government facilities or personnel
is authorized in advance, in, writing, by the Contracting Officer.
(b) If at any time it is determined that the contractor, or any of
its employees or consultants, have used U.S. Government facilities
or personnel either in performance of the contract itself, or in
advance, without authorization in, in writing, by the Contracting
Officer, then the amount payable under the contract shall be reduced
by an amount equal to the value of the U.S. Government facilities or
personnel used by the contractor, as determined b the contracting
officer.
OUT-LAG-1-801-99-00013 D.O. No.813
A6 - 16
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report
(c) If the parties fail to agree on an adjustment made pursuant to
this clause it shall be considered a "dispute" and shall be dealt
with under the terms of the "Disputes" clauses of the contract.
1.12 DUTY POST
The Duty Post for this task order is Guatemala with travel throughout
Central America.
1.13 ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
The contractor will not have access to classified information.
1.14 LOGISTIC SUPPORT
The contractor shall-be responsible for all logistic support needed to
successfully complete the contract.
1.15 WORKWEEK
The contractor is authorized up to a six-day workweek in the field with no
premium pay.
1.16 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE
The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under
this order is 000.
1.17 METHOD OF PAYMENT
Payment will be made in accordance with FAR clause 52.232.7, "Payment
Under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour-Contracts, (Feb 1997) and AIDAR
clause 752.7003 "Documentation for Payment (Nov 1998)
1.18 PAYMENT OFFICE
Payment will be made by the Financial Management Office, USAID/G-CAP as
specified in block 6 of the cover page.
1.19 SPECIAL CLAUSE
ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This task order calls for the Contractor to furnish important services in
support of evaluation of PROARCA. In accordance with the principles of FAR
Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE INELIGIBLE TO
FURNISH, AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR OR OTHERWISE, IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES
UNDER ANY-CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER THAT RESULTS IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS,
PROPOSALS, OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN AN EVALUATION REPORT WRITTEN BY THE
CONTRACTOR. THIS -PRECLUSION WILL APPLY TO ANY SUCH AWARDS MADE WITHIN 18
MONTHS OF USAID ACCEPTING THE REPORT, unless the Head of the Contracting
Activity, in consultation with USAID's Competition Advocate, authorizes a
waiver (in accordance FAR 9. 503) determining that preclusion of the
Contractor from the implementation work would not be in the Government's
interest.