EVALUATION: 
CENTRAL AMERICA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 
(PROARCA) 
ANNEX A 
Implemented by: 
ASSOCIATES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. 
Contract No.: LAG-I-00-99-0001 3-00 
Task Order No.: 520-99-P-034 
January 15,2000 
Prepared by: 
Carlos Rivas (Team Leader) 
Paul Dulin 
Sergio Zelaya 
Jurij Hornziak 
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 .corn 
Annex A 
Table of Contents 
Comments on the Draft Report 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 
3.0 COMMENTS ON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
4.0 COMMMENTS ON CAPAS 
5.0 COMMENTS ON COSTAS 
6.0 COMMENTS ON LEPPI 
7.0 COMMENTS ON PROARCA I1 DESIGN 
Field Notes 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
2.0 PANAMA 
3.0 COSTA RICA 
4.0 NICARAGUA 
5.0 HONDURAS 
6.0 EL SALVADOR 
7.0 GUATEMALA 
8.0 BELIZE 
-- 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Repott 
Annex A. I - 1 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EVALUATION PROARCA REPORT 
1 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-2 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
ARD shipped 14 copies of the draft final report to USAIDIG-CAP and to the three component implementers one 
week before the final oral presentation held in Guatemala City on December 15", 1999. Comments on the draft 
report were submitted in writing to USAID who forwarded the comments to ARD and the evaluation team. 
Revisions were made to the draft report based on these comments. Errors in facts were corrected. Two sections of 
the report that were translated INTO Spanish were reviewed and revised by the Team Leader to improve the 
quality of the Spanish. Other comments related to observations, opinions, and perceptions are recorded here as 
they provide valuable points of view, especially in consideration of the pending design for the second phase of 
PROARCA 11. 
Comments have been compiled into this single document. No words have been changed in the comments. They 
have been organized into major headings: general comments on PROARCA, comments on the executive 
summary, comments on CAPAS, Costas, LEPPI and the design of PROARCA 11. 
2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 
Overall I feel that the evaluation was well carried out and the team did a good job especially considering the 
number of components and the number of countries that had to be covered. 
Regarding content, we note that the Evaluators are not necessarily substantiating their sources of information. 
That carries the inherent risk of interpreting comments out of context, and of not scaling observations in their 
proper dimensions and magnitudes. If possible, we reauest that the document show citations (of persons and 
documents) that substantiate the points that are being asserted. 
The Evaluation Team observed that few decision-makers in Central America recognize CONCAUSA, or the 
commitments within it. But does that mean that those commitments are no longer useful, or that USAID and 
SICNCCAD have to work harder at making them known? Alternativelv, what is the possibilitv of a post-Mitch 
environmental summit and agreement? 
The Evaluation Team focused considerable attention on the different definitions of regionality, the extent to 
which these definitions are not shared, and the implications this has for program coherence and management 
(Section 5.1). There are many alternative concepts of regionalism that can be valid and useful, even at the same 
time. Yet we certainly amee that for program design and management, USAID and SICAICCAD will need to 
arrive at firm understandings about a definition of regionalitv that will be acceptable for all parties. 
En t6rminos generales estamos satisfechos con la pate descriptiva del informe pues identifica las principales 
fortalezas del PROARCNCostas asi como sus mas evidentes debilidades . Si embargo, nos parece que el 
documento no refleja la calidad del trabajo realizado, requiriendo de una revisi6n de fonna y de un poco mas de 
anilisis integral, en particular en lo referente a las recomendaciones generales para el futuro del programa. 
Section 1.2.2; Section 10.1.5. Institutional capacity building. Much ado is made about the failure of PROARCA 
to capacitate institutions. This statement has to be qualified. At least in the case of CAPAS considerable effort 
was dedicated through the small grants program to building the capacity if small grass roots organizations. In 
fact, the selection of grant recipients divided organizations into two categories: those that were well-established 
and needed limited supervision; and those that were relatively "weak" and in need of grant management 
assistance proposal development and financial management. Capacity was indeed provided in the most effective 
manner: hands-on. 
pp -- - - - - - - - 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-3 1 
Section 1.2.5; Section 5.8; Section 9.6 - Relationship USAID-CCAD. On this topic the evaluation report 
contradicts itself. In Section 1.2.5 it states that CCAD should participate at the highest level of management and 
supervision and be involved in a broad spectrum of other functions related to project implementation. In Section 
5.8 it is stated there is consensus that CCAD is a political entity and that such an institution should not be 
involved in project implementation. This position is re-stated in Section 9.6. Apparently there is lack of 
agreement within the evaluation team. 
It must also be clarified that CCADIDGMA's distancing from PROARCNCAPAS was largely voluntary. The 
report makes it sound as if USAID excluded CCAD. This is incorrect. For example, CCAD participated in the 
1998 internal evaluation of CAPAS. Contractually this exercise is to be conducted by USAID alone. IRG agreed 
to CCAD's involvement and the PROARCA team created the space for its participation. USAID and IRG 
proposed to increase participation by DGMAICCAD (then located in El Salvador) in the 1999 evaluation. This 
invitation was declined because the evaluation panel's composition was not acceptable to DGMA (2 PROARCA, 
2 USAID bi-lateral, 2 CCAD). There has also been a tremendous amount of effort on the part of IRG to inform 
and involve DGMA/CCAD in the project, short of changing its contractual agreement with USAID. Finally, 
CAPAS actually coordinated the development of the regional environmental strategy at the request of 
DGMNCCAD and CCAD is involved in the approval of CAPAS annual workplan. 
The point is that CCADJDGMA was not excluded from a partnership with PROARCA, but chose to selectively 
extricate itself. In fact, at times excessive CCAD involvement (e.g. ministerial-level approval or annual 
workplans) has undermined the effectiveness of project implementation. In my opinion the mission did not make 
an objective or balanced analysis of the USAID-CCAD relationship. This imbalance should be corrected. 
Given the political nature of CCAD and its nebulous institutional status, PROARCA was looking towards the 
evaluation team to suggest alternative regional partners. This is especially important in light of the 
recommendations that PROARCA be centered in particular transnational watersheds, a model that would require 
participation of entities with mandates that go beyond CCAD's functions. On the other hand, I recognize the high 
quality of the answers provided to the questions in Section 9.6 that pertain to the relationship USAID-CCAD. 
The recommendation on page 10 that USAID investigate the possibility for core financing by other donors is 
troubling. The unwillingness of Central American nations to provide core funding to CCAD is a de-facto 
statement of the level - or lack thereof- of commitment the region has towards integration from an environmental 
perspective. 
Section 5.1 Regionality Context. The definitions of the three different "concepts" of regionality are unnecessarily 
confusing. This section needs to be re-written. 
Simply, there are issues that repeat themselves throughout the region (deforestation, mangrove management), 
there are shared ecosystems (Gulf of Honduras) and resources that cross boundaries (water, migratory species, 
illegal trade), and there are ecosystems that do not straddle boundaries but repeat themselves (mangroves). These 
are the aspects that should form the basis for the definitions of regionality. Some require regional collaboration, 
others need to be tackled at the national level or local level. 
Finally, the dispersion of PROARCA activities is not so much due to different concepts of regionality, but to the 
design of the program. 
BlOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-4 
3.0 COMMENTS ON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Section 1.1 PROARCA Achievements. Would like to see a short section here highlighting or giving examples of 
major achievements rather than just saying achievements are summarized following each major component. 
Section 1.2.4: Monitoring and Evaluation Systems. I would like for the report to address and recognize the cost of 
a in-depth biophysical monitoring system. I believe mention should be made that PROARCA was not designed as 
a researchlscience activity but something much different. It should also recognized that of all the components 
only COSTAS is site specific and lends itself to in-depth monitoring. Finally each year the cost of data and 
monitoring is getting cheaper and may be appropriate for PROARCA Dos and should be considered by the design 
team. 
Section 1.2.5 Relationship between USAID/G-CAP. The CCAD move to Salvador should be noted here and the 
small size of staff in SICA Direcion Ambiental. 
4.0 COMMMENTS ON CAPAS 
We are of the opinion that the T.O.R. for the Evaluation Team did not adequately address the scope of the 
CAPAS component. The single best indication of that is the section of the special questions (Section 9.1). Five of 
the six questions for CAPAS relate to small grants. Yet the grants activity is only about 20% of the total CAPAS 
effort. 
The Evaluation Team did its best to widen its inquiry for CAPAS, which they correctly estimated as almost 40% 
of PROARCA (i.e., excluding funds retained within GCAP). However, the requirements for the Evaluation 
Team's travel and overall orientation were less than ideal with respect to reviewing and reflecting on the single 
largest part of PROARCA. 
The histograms in Section 5.4 lead the uninformed person to believe that CAPAS has favored some countries 
over others. Also, the implicit comparison with another component is misleading, since the structure and thematic 
composition of that component is totally different. The Evaluation Team provides sufficient controversy here to 
reinforce the importance of a thorough discussion of resource allocation across countries. 
We have to begin by remembering the scalar differences across the seven countries. Some countries have 
considerably more environmental NGOs than others, with Guatemala and Costa Rica apparently in the lead. 
Some countries have larger human populations than others (e.g., ratio of 40 to 1 in the case of Guatemala 
compared with Belize). Some countries have a greater number and surface area of protected areas than others 
(eg, surface area of protected areas in Costa Rica compared with El Salvador is approximately 700 to I). 
On top of that, internal political factors enter into the equation. For example, the management of protected areas 
in El Salvador has been held back by a bitter dispute between two competing ministries, making it difficult for a 
project like CAPAS to form viable partnerships with the government authorities. The "low" participation of El 
Salvador in CAPAS events is not unrelated to the struggles between those two ministries. 
Moreover, one country (Belize) has turned down invitations to several CAPAS events and activities, even when 
invited as a full partner. It is not simply the question of language and small population, as postulated by the 
Evaluation Team. Rather, we have been facing a deeper and more fundamental question about regional 
commitments. Belize divides its loyalties between Central America and the Caribbean, and has chosen not to 
participate as widely in PROARCAICAPAS as have other countries. 
Finally and most importantly, CAPAS works to achieve results, theme by theme. That has produced the so-called 
"discretionality" (p. 71) that some observers criticize. It has to be accepted that a performance-based team--such 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
b 
Annex A. 1-5 
as we are in CAPAS--is not going to invest its project resources in everything and everywhere, and in equal 
proportions. 
In light of the scalar differences previously identified, an equal division of the pie would be highly unfair to 
several countries, as well as highly inefficient for the Central American system of protected areas as a whole. 
Another way to view this -- we have been careful with USAID's funds, investing them where they have the 
highest probability to produce positive outcomes over the long term. In the next regional environmental program, 
USAIDIGCAP should be clear that an equal division of program resources across countries is not necessarilv a 
fair arrangement, and is certainlv not an efficient one. 
The first part of Section 5.4 presents a breakdown of the commitment of funds in CAPAS by functional area. 
However, the figures are incorrectly reported. Implicitly, the information portrays CAPAS as an expensive 
component, with most funds going into salaries and administration. That is a false representation, and the "lesson 
learned" for a future program is that a large component also can be a cost-effective component by holding down 
administrative costs (i.e., fixed costs) as a proportion of total costs. 
The correct figures that we presented in the table for CAPAS are: (i) technical assistance, 42.4%: (ii) 
administrative salaries and office expenses (at all levels, including Washington), 24.3%; (iii) small grants, 15.2%; 
(iv) workshops, 14.2%; and (v) communications unit, 3.9%. These data are for July 1998 through June 1999, 
when CAPAS had just barely begun to disburse its grants. By project completion in 2000, we can anticipate that 
the proportion of funds for grants will be higher, and proportions for all other categories will be lower. The 
imvortant point is: administrative costs can be reasonable in a large component. with the large maioritv of funds 
available for overational (i.e., field) aspects due to internal economies of scale. 
The perceptions about the many parts of a single component like CAPAS are exactly that: they are perceptions 
from the outside. Most persons contacted by the Evaluation Team know only one or two activities of CAPAS, 
and are not in a position to intelligently comment on cohesiveness and integration. 
Two themes that are repeated by the Evaluation Team as missing in the current CAPAS are (i) land tenure, and 
(ii) environmental services. 
In a future environmental program, land tenure can be addressed if and only if the project horizon and budget are 
sufficiently ample to consider treating this topic with the seriousness it deserves. Regarding environmental 
services, we have the same response: this will require a lengthy time horizon and sizable budget to move the 
agenda forward. 
Moreover, PROARCA already has taken big steps forward in its activities in (i) forest certification; (ii) 
ecotourism standards, certification, and marketing; and (iii) coffee standards, certification, and marketing. 
PROARCA has become a leader in Central America in these thematic areas, and in some cases, without rival. 
Thus a pragmatic strategy for the next environmental program should build on the foundations that have been 
laid, and that show possibilities for ready expansion. 
We believe such an approach will have greater practical payoff for the region than starting up entirely new lines 
of work on environmental services. To be remembered is that very few countries to date, including the countries 
of the industrialized world, have moved beyond the academic stage regarding environmental services. To date 
this field is dominated by many studies and few applications. Certain diagnostics and awareness building may be 
helpful for Central America, but in pragmatic terms, the application of environmental incentives and taxes in 
green and blue themes will be a very long-term undertaking. Instead, our practical suggestion would be to extend 
what PROARCA already has underway regarding - "eco-friendly businesses." That then becomes the base upon 
which to selectively move towards newer and more experimental topics. 
- - 
BlOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Repord 
Annex A. 1-6 
CAPAS accepts that they have not monitored the changing state of the biophysical resources they affect (Section 
5.7). We ascribe this to the short time horizon in which we operate, the purposely-diffuse locations of our 
activities and sites, and the considerable expense which genuine monitoring would entail. Nor was it ever 
expected that we would engage in biophysical monitoring, as can be confirmed by studying our contract. 
On the other hand, each grant recipient in CAPAS has had to prepare and submit an analysis of environmental 
impact. We are using that information to determine cases in which environmental impact assessments and 
subsequent environmental monitoring may be required. These details seem to have been missed by the 
Evaluators. 
In a future regional environmental program, one way to approach monitoring would be to assip a special unit to 
handle this across the whole program, thereby achieving. a certain economy of scale, and harmonizing the 
monitoring across components. 
The Evaluation Team states that CAPAS established a publication office that provides support to the other 
components (section 6.1.1) . That is not entirely correct. Rather, we have provided a consultant who examined 
communications needs in Costas, LEPPI, and CAPAS. Also, one of our communications specialists has been 
working part-time for LEPPI to help that component with a one-page monthly bulletin similar to the bulletin we 
produce in CAPAS. 
The Evaluation Report makes the statement that some interviewees mentioned limited access to the materials we 
produce (Section 6.6.2). Yet CAPAS reaches several hundred key persons in the public and private sectors of 
Central America via a combination of mail, electronic media, and our website. Our materials are provided "free" 
to users. 
There is also a statement about an Information Clearinghouse (Section 6.2.3). However, 
CAPAS has not entertained that concept. In CAPAS, our documents are by-products of our technical assistance. 
We have not looked at the production of guides and reports as a lead activity. That could change in a future 
regional environmental program, but for the present we should not be measured against a standard that was never 
intended. 
The Evaluation Team incorrectly interpreted that CAPAS has developed a critical mass of experts in Costa Rica 
and Guatemala (section 6.2.2). The actual situation is that we have drawn upon expertise that is already resident 
in Costa Rica (especially) in the role of CAPAS staff and consultants to attempt to build up knowledge and skills 
in the other countries. For CAPAS this has been a successful strategy of horizontal transfer, so long as we do not 
attempt to characterize Costa Rica as "the model." We believe that intra-rerrional horizontal transfer is well worth 
continuing into the future, and that it is generally preferable to bringing in experts from the U.S. and elsewhere 
outside Central America. 
An erroneous statement in the Report is that our Training Manager does not integrate his work with the other 
CAPAS professionals. The Training Manager's activities are developed in close consultation with each of the 
other team members, sometimes with the Training Manager in a lead role, sometimes in a supporting role. This is 
how we believe that institution building should continue into the future. We agree with the Evaluation Re~ort 
that training should be aimed at "in service" professionals and technicians, which is basically what we do. 
CAPAS has funded two rounds of competitive grants for conservation NGOs, first in 1996-1998 and then again 
in 1998-2000. The Evaluation Team focused on this second round, which is also the bigger effort. 
The Evaluation Team defined the main issues as: (i) appropriateness of the grants criteria and selection process, 
(ii) adequacy of announcing the availability of the grants, (iii) the extent of regionalism in the grants, and (iv) 
BIOFOR indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-7 
distribution of the grants by country. We perceive a largely favorable view of the grants program in Section 9.1, 
but this view is occasionally contradicted in other parts of the Evaluation Report. 
Regarding equity among countries (section 5.4), our response is that some countries submitted more and better 
grant proposals than others. The Evaluation Team suggests that, in the future, one design option should be quotas 
by country, and with themes for the grants defined by each country (p. 72). We strongly disagree on both points, 
since that would completely undermine the reasons to have a regional environmental program. 
The Evaluation Team proposes another option, which is to tie the grants subcomponent with protected areas that 
are being supported in other parts of PROARCA (p. 72). That option may or may not be feasible, depending on 
several situational factors (e.g., the existence or not of viable NGOs in those places, and the calendars of project 
activities). To some extent, CAPAS is already following this approach, although more by coincidence than by 
planning. 
Important is that our grants program had to defend itself against political pressures in both rounds, since high￾level interests endorsed certain grant proposals. The Evaluation does not fully describe those pressures, and does 
not cite them as an explanation for many of the "questions" about the CAPAS grants program. The competitive 
framework for the CAPAS grants is consistent with the performance-based nature of our component. Five losing 
proposals were generated for every grant proposal which won. Regarding grants in a future regional 
environmental program, the tradeoff between merit and political pressure is a very real dimension of any merit￾based grants pronam. 
Section 3.1.1 (p. 14) -- CAPAS Results. This section tries to summarize what CAPAS should accomplish under its 
contract. The description bears little resemblance to what CAPAS is actually tasked with doing and has to be re￾written. 
Section 3.1.2, Section 6.2.4 The Small Grants Program The evaluation indicates that there are 1 1 steps to 
approve a small grant and that CCAD is involved only in the last step (CCAD approval). This is inaccurate. The 
evaluation team should clarify with the CAPAS Small Grants Program administrator how grants were made. 
Certainly, as a full member of the selection committee, CCAD plays a key role in the selection of proposals. 
USAIDIG-CAP, in contrast, acts only as an observer. 
Section 6.1 Componente CAPAS - logros y fortabzas. This section does not do justice to the accomplishments of 
CAPAS. I understand that the emphasis was to be placed not on the past but on an analysis that would serve to 
guide the PROARCA team as it designs the next phase. 
Future actions cannot be divorced from past accomplishments. Furthermore, the evaluation becomes part of 
IRG's performance record. It would be unjust not to at least recognize some key accomplishments. Key actions 
that were missed include: production of the first regional-level standardized vegetation map for the region, the 
first regional assessment of the mahogany situation in Central America, development of the first bio-economic 
model of the fisheries resources in a trans-boundary coastal-marine ecosystem in Central America (with 
COSTAS), a web site, the establishment of organic coffee certification capacity in Honduras, market 
development for certified coffee, eco-tourism, facilitation of several co-management agreements etc., etc. 
CAPAS has also contributed greatly to synergies between PROARCA components (development of Regional 
Environmental Strategy, development of coastal marine policy, small-grants that support COSTAS activities 
(TIDEIANAI), economic model of fisheries and so on. In short, there is a lot there that was missed. 
5.0 COMMENTS ON COSTAS 
El andlisis del presupuesto de Costas es bastante inapropiado pues redne todos 10s gastos de asistencia thcnica y 
logistics regional que presta servicios a nivel de sitios. Se adjunta un grdfico con una separaci6n de estos valores 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-8 
para tener una visi6n mas precisa de la inversi6n del proyecto. Los montos correspondientes a operaci6n, viajes , 
administracidn y asistencia tkcnica brindan servicios a todos 10s sitios. 
Sugerimos usar este andisis en lugar del presentado por la misidn. 
La distribucidn de pequeAas donaciones o participaci6n a talleres realizada para CAPAS no pareceria ser 
un parimetro de comparacidn con la inversi6n por sitio en COSTAS, estos anilisis deberian hacerse por 
separado y no bajo el titulo propuesto. 
La selecci6n de ONG's socias se basa en 10s criterios siguientes: 
Presencia en el sitio de trabajo. 
Experiencia en temas claves de manejo o interis en el manejo de Areas protegidas claves. 
Capacidad administrativa y capacidad de seguir 10s requerimientos administrativos de AJD y/o de las 
organizaciones implementadoras. 
En algunos casos esta coincide con experiencias previas de 10s socios con las organizaciones 
implementadoras del Componente Costas. 
Estamos muy de acuerdo con la importancia de ampliar la gama de socios con que se trabaja, como se ha hecho. 
Sin embargo, es una realidad que no hay muchas ONG's a nivel de sitio y por tanto otras alternativas deberian 
incluir invitar ONG's nacionales que no trabajan en 10s sitios con las ventajas y limitaciones que esto implica. La 
misi6n no ofrece una alternativa para lograr mejorar este aspecto. 
La rnisi6n analiz6 el trabajo con ONG's per0 no menciona la politica de no financiar actividades a agencias 
gubernamentales. Solicitamos una recomendaci6n a1 respecto pues esto ha sido interpretado en muchas 
oportunidades como una limitaci6n. 
Las limitaciones del Trabajo de 10s RSTA's no parece ser posible de eliminar, una recomendaci6n concreta 
pareceria ser combinar dos estrategias como: 
Disponer de recursos para contrapartes nacionales que trabajen con 10s RSTA's en 10s paises en que no 
estk residenciados. 
Esta deberia ser una recomendaci6n concreta que impacta el presupuesto y la estrategia de trabajo. 
Parece haber una contradicci6n en el anilisis de 10s sistemas de donaciones (sub acuerdos), mientras en una 
secci6n se destaca la flexibilidad del mismo en otra se critica por ser "laxa". La Misidn deberia asumir una 
opini6n mas concreta y hacer una recomendaci6n mas clara para mejorar la gesti6n de 10s sub acuerdos. 
Estamos en desacuerdo con la observaci6n de que no se han abordado temas de politicas relacionados a la pesca 
o a la conservaci6n de manati. El proyecto ha realizado capacitaciones y talleres para promover homologaci6n de 
politicas, sin embargo no es funci6n del proyecto escribirlas o aprobarlas. Se esta pidiendo a1 proyecto hacer 
cosas para las cuales no esta diseiiado. 
Estamos totalmente de acuerdo con la importancia de tener indicadores biol6gicos para monitoreo y evaluaci6n. 
Sin embargo, diferimos de la idea de que sea la dnica manera de evaluar el impacto. El proyecto tiene fuertes 
limitaciones de presupuesto y estructura para lograr hacer ambos tiempos de monitoreo. Estos elementos de 
decisi6n no parecen haber sido considerados por la misi6n, por tanto no parece muy realista a1 no confrontar lo 
ideal con lo posible. 
Por otra parte, la posibilidad de evaluar el impacto del proyecto es dudosa debido a1 reducido nivel de 
intervenci6n de PROARCAJCostas con 40s recursos disponible. En otras palabras parhetros biofisicos podrian 
estar reflejando acciones de manejo diferentes de las del proyecto y por tanto no medirian el impacto de nuestras 
actividades, siendo indtil con el prop6sito de medir el impacto. 
--- 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-9 
Por ello se requiere de una recomendacidn mas concreta sobre la estructura y presupuesto del proyecto que 
perrnita lograr hacer lo propuesto por la rnisi6n. Otra opci6n es dimensionar la propuesta en funci6n de la 
importancia de medir riesgos ambientales y reducci6n de amenazas a travCs de bases de datos mas que medir 
tinicamente el impacto de las acciones de PROARCA/Costas, en este caso tendria mucho sentido lo propuesto 
coincidiendo con las prioridades regionales identificadas por CCAD. 
Las actividades productivas no son parte del enfoque original del proyecto, se propusieron con carActer 
demostrativo y como complemento a las acciones del proyecto en temas claves de manejo y en manejo de keas 
protegidas. Aumentarlas y comunicarlas como propone la misidn implica cambios en asistencia tCcnica y 
presupuesto, sobre todo si se requiere validar y transferir estas experiencias. Esta es una labor muy diferente de 
las establecidas por PROARCAICostas en sus objetivos. 
Una vez mas se plantea el caso particular de Guatemala como ejemplo para generalizar la falta de coordinaci6n 
con 10s gobiernos. Las dificultades de coordinaci6n se produjeron a1 principio del proyecto per0 hoy en dia la 
relaci6n es excelente en todos 10s casos except0 en Guatemala donde 10s cambios politicos y la complejidad 
institucional interna dificult6 esta coordinaci6n para la declaratoria de Punta Manabique. 
La Coordinaci6n con proyectos y programas extrarregionales se ve limitada por 10s recursos financieros y 10s 
mandatos regionales. En resumen se coordina con todas las iniciativas de CentroamCrica per0 no con iniciativas 
del Caribe u otras regiones. Una recomendaci6n de fondos destinados a esta coordinaci6n seria importante. 
Diferimos del comentario de que "el proyecto enfoca sus acciones en Areas protegidas y no en recursos o temas 
regionales significativos". El enfoque en Areas protegidas es parte de la gesti6n del proyecto con base en sus 
objetivos. El otro Cnfasis se da en temas claves de manejo (pesquerias, turismo, producci6n sostenible, 
contingencias portuarias, conservaci6n de tortugas marinas, manati, etc.). Este comentario no parece tener 
sustento y contradice el comentario sobre "diversificaci6n de 10s temas en 10s sitios", presentado en el capitulo de 
Cxitos y fortalezas (7.1.2). 
Las observaciones sobre monitoreo y evaluaci6n se presentan repetitivamente en diferentes partes del an8lisis. Se 
sugiere que la misi6n ubique este punto bajo el titulo correspondiente facilitando la lectura y la comprensi6n del 
texto. 
6.0 COMMENTS ON LEPPI 
Section 10.4.3. Harmonization and Application of Env Leg and Biodiversity. Pls give examples of any examples 
of progress made under international conventions mentioned in (c.) 
En el inciso 8.2.1 referente a Participaci6n se menciona lo siguiente: "En algunos casos, las instituciones 
nacionales responsables de reglr 10s reglamentos de evaluaci6n de impacto ambiental de 10s proyectos no fueron 
involucradas en el proceso de gesti6n hasta muy tarde en el cicio del proyecto, resultando en una mala selecci6n 
de 10s sitios y demoras en el procesamlento de 10s expedientes de certificacidn ambiental y la iniciaci6n de las 
obras de saneamiento" 
A este respecto, LEPPI para el desarollo de cada uno de 10s talleres de participaci6n comunitaria ha involucrado 
a representantes de las instituciones relacionadas con 10s temas de saneamiento ambiental en el desarrollo de 
todos 10s proyectos, asi como tambiCn estos representantes en algunos casos forman parte de 10s ComitCs de Por 
otro lado, la selecci6n de 10s sitios ha sido resultado en algunos casos de la contrataci6n de un equipo de 
expertos, para evaluar 10s posibles sitios de ubicaci6n de 10s proyectos a travCs de matrices de evaluaci6n de 
impactos. Si bien es cierto, en algunos casos ha habido alguna demora en la aprobacidn de 10s Estudio de Impacto 
Ambiental como en el caso de UsulutAn y La Uni6n, esto se debid a que el Ministerio del Ambiente a1 momento 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.1-10 
de la realizaci6n de estos EIA, no tenia a disposicidn de 10s interesados 10s requerimentos tCcnicos para la 
realizaci6n de este tip0 de estudios. 
"En varios de 10s vrovectos atendidos baio LEPPI. el proceso participativo result6 en la priorizaci6n de una 
actividad baio 10s planes de acci6n ambiental que, a1 fin v a1 cabo, no fue la acci6n ultimamente seleccionada 
para desarrollar con 10s recursos proveidos LEPPI. Aunque la selecci6n final se hizo a final de cuentas de 
acuerdo a una comparaci6n de costos entre las distintas acciones, de no vroceder con la accidn eleaida. tiende a 
restar validez del vroceso mavor v confundir a 10s particivantes en el proceso." 
En efecto, como resultado del proceso participativo se jerarquiz6 una actividad bajo 10s planes de acci6n 
ambiental, que a1 final no fue la seleccionada para set desarrollada por LEPPI. Esto obedecid a que en algunos 
casos, el pr6blema resultante de la priorizaci6n ya habia sido abordado por otras instituciones o bien la 
comunidad prefiri6 desarrollar algfin problema del cual no tuvieran apoyo institutional. Cabe mencionar que para 
tomar una decisidn de tal naturaleza, LEPPI convocd a un V Taller, y fue la comunidad la que de comtin acuerdo 
tom0 tal determinaci6n. 
"En otros casos, hacia falta flexibilizar v adavtar el vroceso de acuerdo a1 nivel oraanizativo de 10s muvos v la 
etapa de desarrollo de un vrovecto: vor eiemplo. se insistid en pasar por todas las etapas del proceso participativo 
Jtres o cuatro talleres), aun cuando la comunidad va tenia uno o m6s aiios aestionando el vrovecto de 
saneamient0."- 
La metodologia del proyecto LEPPI se ha caracterizado por ser flexible. Sin embargo, en ciertos casos debi6 
realizarse el proceso completo de 10s talleres, a pesar de que algunos grupos ya habian iniciado trabajando en 
cada proyecto, debido a que la decisi6n de abordar ese problema no era compartida por la mayoria, o bien no 
estaban involucrados en este proceso representantes de todos 10s sectores de la comunidad. 
"Mas all6 de almnas oficinas bilaterales de USAID. no se ha lomado mavores colaboraciones con otras 
instituciones nacionales e internacionales para financiar obras de saneamiento ambiental en 10s vaises" 
El proceso participativo de LEPPI involucra la participaci6n de las Municipalidades, miembros de las 
comunidades y entidades nacionales en el financiamiento de 10s proyectos. tal es el caso del proyecto de aguas 
servidas de UsulutBn, el cual es financiado por LEPPI, la Municipalidad de Usuluth, comunidad y ANDA 
(Administracibn Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) instituci6n nacional que rige este tema en El 
Salvador. 
Por otro lado. existen entidades financieras que apoyan proyectos de desarrollo comunitario. Sin embargo, las 
municipalidades con las que LEPPI trabaja, en la mayoria de 10s casos no tienen acceso a estos crCditos, ya que 
no disponen de capacidad de pago suficiente para ser acreedores a este tip0 de financiamiento. 
En el inciso 8.2.2 de Aspectos tknicos, se menciona: "Algunos proyectos gestionados con el apoyo de LEPPI son 
de una envergadura que sobrepasa el tamaiio de 10s proyectos propuestos en le diseiio original del componente " 
Dado que la seleccidn de algunas comunidades no fue responsablidad directa de CHFILEPPI, el proyecto debi6 
buscar el apoyo de las bilaterales de USAID para abordar y financiar 10s proyectos de saneamiento ambiental, 
previamente priorizados con el apoyo de la comunidad en el Plan de Accidn Ambiental. Asimismo no es 
responsabilidad directa de CHF la administraci6n de 10s fondos destinados a estos proyectos, adn cuando esta 
intituci6n disponga de la capacidad tCcnica para esta gestidn. 
En el inciso 8.2.3 de Planificacidn, Monitoreo y Evaluacidn se menciona lo siguiente: 
"No se est6 recolectando datos econ6micos v cientificos bbicos (biofisicos y socioecon6micos) necesarios para 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1- I I 
analizar 10s costos de 10s urovectos de LEPPI en comparaci6n con sus beneficios. impactos socioecon6micos Y 
ambientales reales, uor eiemolo. sobre calidad de amas en relaci6n a 10s provectos de aguas servidas." 
A este respecto, LEPPI ha iniciado un programa de monitoreo ambiental, precisamente en el proyecto de aguas 
servidas de Playa Grande, Ixc5n En conjunto con la Escuela de Ingenieria Sanitaria de la Universidad de San 
Carlos de Guatemala, se han tomado muestras de calidad de aguas para veriricar el funcionamiento de las plantas 
de tratamiento, y medir la calidad de cada descarga en 10s rios, posterior a su tratamiento primario. Se disponen 
de cuadros en este aspect0 en particular. 
En el inciso 8.2.4 de Gestidn y Administracidn se menciona: 
"Los Comites Gestores son meros organismos de hecho sin reconocimiento formal antes sus municipalidades, 
suietos a desa~arecer con el carnbio de Alcalde" 
Los Comitis de Gesti6n Ambiental de LEPPI, han obtenido en la mayoria de 10s casos reconocimiento por parte 
de las municipalidades. Esto implica que ejercen presi6n social y estando formado por miembros de las 
comunidades con intereses genuinos en aportar algo a su pais, no tienden a desparecer con el carnbio de 
autoridades municipales. Si bien es cierto, 10s representantes de las instituciones asi como las autoridades de la 
Municipalidad van cambiando, no asi 10s representantes de las fuerzas vivas de la comunidad. 
7.0 COMMENTS ON PROARCA II DESIGN 
Section 1.3.1 Design criteria for PROARCA II. Please explain how an activity like PROLEGIS AND PROBIO 
can be reoriented geographically as they work on national issues etc. 
The Evaluation Team commented on deficiencies in interactions at several levels: (i) between PROARCA and 
SICAICCAD, (ii) among the components of PROARCA, and (iii) among the components of CAPAS. This is a 
large topic, and it has to examined in its various layers and manifestations. 
With SICNCCAD: 
For now, we would like to say that any gap in interactions between CAPAS and SICAICCAD is not for lack of 
trying. Rather, the gap is best explained by a divergence of perspectives regarding how a regional project should 
operate, and to whom a regional project should report. This sensitive political point needs to be discussed and 
finallv resolved by all parties for the sake of a viable environmental vrogram in the future. 
The Evaluation Team recommends that CAPAS and similar components develop their workplans in consultation 
with the governments. This raises very fundamental questions: Is the CCAD more than the sum of its seven 
members? Is there an identifiable CCAD agenda to guide workplan development? Does the Executive Secretariat 
of SICNCCAD have the authority to act on behalf of its member ministers? Or are we in PROARCA interacting 
and negotiating with individual agencies in each of the seven countries? Despite ten years of CCAD existence, 
the answers to these questions are not at all clear. 
In CAPAS, the main working-level partners in the seven governments have been officials for protected areas, 
forests, wildlife, tourism, and coffee. In coffee and tourism--and even protected areas and forests--CAPAS also 
has private-sector partners. The government officials for protected areas and forests are at the level of the CCAB￾AP, while the formal counterpart for PROARCA is the political level of the SICNCCAD. The Evaluation Team 
is nearly silent about tensions between the technical level and the political level in several of the countries. Nor 
does the Evaluation Report call sufficient attention to the fact that tourism, coffee, CITES, etc., spill outside the 
action domains of the ministries of environment. Yet these tensions and structural matters have been very evident 
to us, and have contributed to an "organizational nightmare" for the management of natural resources. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1- 12 
This disorganization, in turn, explains why consultation about workplans is an inefficient and time-consuming 
process, without any real forum for harmonizing different priorities emanating from different levels and agencies 
in different countries. If there is to be a PROARCA 11, USAID will want to devote considerable effort to defining 
who the true counterpart(s) reallv idare, and to insuring that consultative processes can be made workable and 
efficient. 
Among Components: 
Regarding interactions among the components, Costas will corroborate that CAPAS and Costas have gotten 
together to jointly implement several activities of mutual interest. Admittedly, this was not be design or by 
instruction from higher levels. We did this voluntarily. The Evaluation Team is absolutelv correct in 
recommending a design and implementation that integrates the components more formallv in the future. 
A highly important point about overall coordination: it was originally intended in GCAP that Component #1 
would have coordination responsibilities across all the components. But due to internal budget and administrative 
situations in USAIDIGCAP in 1994-1996, it was decided to fund only the technical function of CAPAS and not 
its coordination function. This history may be relevant for the design of the next regional program (this history is 
not in the Evaluation Report). 
The Evaluation Team remarks on the possibility in a future program to establish a single 
cornmunicationsloutreach group that would handle publications, maps, reports, etc, for the entire program. As the 
Team noted, this has begun informally, at an incipient level of collaboration, under existing arrangements in 
PROARCA. However, that cannot go very far under current structures of the components. We believe that a 
sin~le communications unit for the entire program can be a sensible and cost-effective strategv. 
We disagree that "permanent training" should be a feature of PROARCA. The goal should be "progressive 
training," in which each organization is brought to a new and higher level. In PROARCA 11, this may require 
prior (i.e.. conditionalitv) agreements with the governments and NGOs so that each partner organization co￾supports institution building with an adequate level of its own resources. This will be one way to separate serious 
institutions from those which are merely opportunistic. 
We accept that the ministers of environment need to be presented with "training" in the themes that the project 
has been advancing (section 6.2.1). To date, however, we have not found the right opening for that with 
SICAICCAD. Yet a "training" for the ministers should be a goal in the next regional environmental program. 
Among the Evaluation Team's leading concepts for a PROARCA 11 is to focus all components of the program 
into 4-6 transboundary geographical subregions, and to apply the Costas model of subregional coalitions as the 
worlung counterpart (section 10.5.1). This approach is presented as a strategy to reduce the dispersion of efforts 
in the current PROARCA, and to try to catalyze a critical mass of progress in selected areas. 
We believe that this strategy may be workable. It will demand intensive intra-program planning and 
communication, which is currently lacking. It may cut down on the confusion that our partners and clients have 
about the alphabet soup of PROARCA. Moreover, if properly implemented, the strategy could indeed have a 
chance to build a critical minimum effort in a few subregions. Finally, a site-based strategy may be an answer to 
SICAICCAD, simplifying issues of USAID/GCAP7s presence and scope. 
At the same time, the site-based strategy implies backing away from one of the original goals of PROARCA: to 
try to influence the high-level policy agenda for environment in Central America. The proposed site-based 
framework of PROARCA I1 would be able to provide bottom-up examples of cross-country cooperation in 
environment. Yet the site-based strategy may have to cede potential opportunities to shape regional-level 
agendas. 
-- 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-1.7 
CAPAS has been engaged in several such agendas, e.g., region-wide strengthening of CITES, region-wide 
mahogany situation, regional marketing initiatives for sustainable tourism and coffee, region-wide monitoring of 
protected areas, etc. We contend that PROARCA's presence and leadership in these themes is having a 
significant impact for Central America. Moreover, the comparative advantage of a regional program is its 
economies of scale - to very widely replicate activities in important themes at low marginal costs for each new 
application. Those advantages will tend to disappear if the future PROARCA bases itself in 4-6 subregional sites. 
That is the opportunity cost. 
Moreover, the coalitions being nurtured by Costas are young and still unproven in terms of being able to carry 
out challenging tasks. Quite possibly, they are precisely the appropriate vehicle for PROARCA 11. But that would 
have to be assumed - the Evaluation Team has not provided sufficient support for this recommendation. 
In summary, we believe that a site-based stratem for PROARCA 11 may be attractive. but it has important 
opportunity costs to be carefully identified and evaluated. 
We agree with the Evaluators that there will be disruptions and a significant waste of resources if there is a break 
between PROARCA and the next environmental program (Section 10.5). USAIDIGCAP and SICNCCAD will 
have our full cooperation in working to define an appropriate bridging stage, and can count on us for inputs 
regarding; technical and financial aspects. 
Las conclusiones y recomendaci6n respecto a 10s mecanismo de organizaci6n y adrninistracidn no son claras. 
AID tiene tres mecanismos (Acuerdos de Cooperacidn, Contratos por Productos y Acuerdo de Donaci6n). LA 
Misi6n propone usar dos o tres modalidades (1.3.l.e), eso no es ningh cambio a la situacidn actual, ademiis 
parece contradecir a1 punto 5.3 donde se recornienda minirnizar las modalidades de administracidn para el 
programa. 
La misi6n no hace ningjn aporte sobre el tema de regionalidad del programa. En el caso de Costas se manejan 
dos conceptos biisicos: 
Regionalidad basada en el trabajo transfronterizo compartiendo lecciones aprendidas a nivel de sitio 
(paises participantes del sitio) y a nivel regional. Cayos Miskitos es una excepcidn en este principio 
derivada de decisiones de manejo y logisticas, mas que de diseiio. 
Regionalidad basada en temas de coincidencia entre sitios y en la regi6n. Temas identificados como 
prioridades regionales por 10s actores involbcrados (ejemplo, manglares, contingencias portuarias y 
tortugas marinas) y temas de coincidencia como la pesqueria de pequeiia escala. 
Se espera de la Misi6n una posici6n orientadora bajo su perspectiva externa de la regionalidad y sus valores 
para contextualizar y enmarcar la segunda fase del programa. 
Section 1.2.3 -- Nationalfinancial mechanisms for payment of environmental services. The evaluation correctly 
asserts that PROARCA did not include activities to promoted payments for environmental services. This is not 
surprising since this category of activity is not part of the PROARCA strategy. The evaluators suggest that it be a 
component within PROARCA II. This is a valid recommendation. However, many of the suggestions made by the 
evaluation team are for actions that are better implemented at the national level (airport taxes, park entry fees, 
watershed conservation fees). It also important to note that the only environmental services program in Central 
America is on the verge of collapsing because governments see more urgent uses for the 'environmental' taxes it 
is collecting. In England, a fuel tax and a climate change tax are coming under increasing attack. The point made 
by the evaluators is well taken, but then there is reality. Perhaps some analytical work could be supported. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A. 1-14 
Section 1.2.4; Section 5.7; Section 7.2.2; Section 10.1.7 -- Biophysical monitoring. Much ado was made about the 
lack of an environmental monitoring system. In one instance (p. 44) a statement was made to the effect that 
biophysical monitoring is necessary to establish cause and effect between COSTAS project activities and 
environmental impact. 
Whereas monitoring of selected indicators within well defined sites is useful for description and management, the 
statement that cause-and-effect can be established runs counter to the basic tenets of science. An association 
between two variables (e.g project activity-impact) in an open ecological system cannot be construed as cause￾and-effect, unless all other variables are held constant or measured. Thus, the ongoing debate concerning the 
cause-and-effect links between increased atmospheric C02 concentration and climate change. This in spite of the 
fact that the most sophisticated computer programs and prominent atmospheric scientists on the globe are 
dedicated to analyzing this relationship. Also, the multi-million dollar EPA-sponsored EMAP program in the US 
is used to formulate hypothesis and describe the state of the environment. This is a far cry from cause-and-effect. 
I am perhaps over-stating the case, but it is important -lest PROARCA 11 dedicates an inordinate amount of 
resources to biophysical monitoring at the expense of more important activities- that the requirements and 
limitations of biophysical monitoring be carefully considered. It is inappropriate to suggest that CAPAS dedicate 
resources to biophysical monitoring to determine if it has been effective or not is in changing the condition of 
natural resources in Central America. As designed, that particular component of PROARCA is theme-based and 
process oriented. CAPAS did not know before hand where it would work. To monitor at random or the entire 
region is impractical. 
The above notwithstanding, CAPAS produced the first regional map of vegetation cover that utilizes a standard 
methodology. This is a very important contribution to Central America's natural resources database. This map 
(and methodology) is being now used as a base for the elaboration of more detailed vegetation maps, an 
accomplishment overlooked by the evaluation team. 
In conclusion, the strong recommendation that more resources be dedicated to biophysical monitoring must be 
critically analyzed. Biophysical monitoring may be appropriate for certain site-based activities and the outcome 
not treated as cause-and-effect statements, but rather as a tool for management. Meaningful monitoring is easier 
said than done. Certainly in the case of CAPAS, to introduce biophysical monitoring at this stage is not 
appropriate. If USAID decides to continue work in the COSTAS site, the introduction of some limited form of 
biophysical monitoring may be appropriate. 
Section 1.3.1; Section 10.5.1 - Information Center in PROARCA II. The management, storage and management 
of information at a regional level should be a key CCAD (DGMA) function. Whereas PROARCA could 
contribute to the development of this capacity, the information base has to be a SICA initiative, created by a 
SICA entity (CCADJDGMA). Its creation and existence should not depend in its entirety on PROARCA funds. 
To do so would guarantee that this would be an ephemeral accomplishment. 
The above notwithstanding, PROARCA should maintain a data base and web site for its activities. In fact, such 
site does exist under CAPAS with several very useful links. It needs broadening to include PROARCA activities 
in general. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2- I 
FIELD NOTES 
t BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-2 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
The evaluation team visited seven countries in three weeks and carried out interviews with implementers 
and partners of the various PROARCA components. This included visits to the four COSTAS sites and 
four of the LEPPI municipal sites as well as numerous interviews with CAPAS partners in the field and 
in capital cities. 
The notes taken on the field trips and during the guided interviews are collected here. Appendices 1-3 of 
the main report present the work plan, interview guides, and list of people contacted. 
These are rough notes but they do provide part of the background material, along with the documents 
consulted, from which evaluators based their findings and recommendations. The field notes are 
organized by country. Each country has notes that cover all the PROARCA components. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report , 
Annex A.2-3 
2.0 PANAMA 
Program disconnect with PROARCA by geography. Some LEPPI work in Portobello, not going anywhere. 
Good mission relations with CAPAS, COSTAS. LEPPI - regional programs support bilateral work "to the extent 
possible". Panama mission focus on watershed, trying to increase complimentarity. Complimentarity differs 
from getting funds. Mission did a buy-n for LEPPI. 
Watershed focus: watershed of Canal is expanding by law, increases chances of complimentarity in areas li9ke 
protected areas, biodiversity, and coastal protected areas. 
LEPPI is the best component in terms of cooperation. 
Chilibre project - mission is excited and positive. One of the most populated areas of the watershed. Problem is 
the limits on LEPPI put in by design and financial limits. Activities end with workshops and no implementation. 
Lacks a "what happens next" component. Full mission, community, and NGO cooperation with LEPPI. Mission 
wants to replicate in 6 watershed municipalities. 
Mission would like to see LEPPI staff more often, and to see more of COSTAS and CAPAS, esp. to strategize 
with NGOs and Panamanian counterparts. Focus: would like COSTAS and CAPAS to help in watershed area 
coastal and protected areas (e.g. Ft. Sherman, collaboration with MesoAmerican Biological corridor in Panama). 
Saw synergy with LEPPI; can do as well with other PROARCA components. 
CCAD contact is minimal. Never visited Panama, no evident interest in working with USAIDPanama, no 
outreach. Want more CCAD meetings, Mission knows and is influential with new Panamanian envt. Minister 
and CCAD are missing opportunities. 
Mission wants TA from PROARCA and is willing to put "earnest money" on the table to make PROARCA more 
relevant to Panama. Overcome the limited connection of PROARCA to Panama. Want to expand LEPPI model 
of mission-PROARCA cooperation to biodiversity, protected areas, and biological corridor. Overall problem in 
getting corridor concept off the ground, mission can be an effective catalyst in Panama. 
PROARCA needs more emphasis on institutional structures to allow USAID (G/CAP and missions) to influence 
how people work together (within and among govt. institutions, NGOs, and NGOs and govt., local and national) 
- this is USAID area of expertise. PROARCA needs to take a more proactive and advocate role for regionality, 
more effort to influence outcomes (not just process) in region. Focus of building regionality should be on change 
oOf policy, change of attitude, build consensus, build teams - this must be based on full bilateral mission 
participation and support. 
PROARCA has missed strategizing with mission on regional issues, where PROARCA works at the regional 
level and the CA missions work within countries to influence and gain support for regional activities. 
PROARCA has not recognized the pivotal role of the bilateral missions in building support for regional activities. 
Appears to Panama mission that PROARCA is still caught up in the "money game" as the focus of regionality. 
Money should be removed form the table, PROARCA should provide leadership and technical contributions to 
change policy, change of attitude, build consensus, build teams. PROARCA has also not been effective in 
influencing other donors, such as "common agenda" with Japan. Not working more closely with bilateral 
missions misses many opportunities for influencing other donors. 
Regionality. CA is too small to differentiate among regional versus national efforts. Not a great deal of 
difference. Missions often not thinking in regional terms or long term - job for GfCAP and PROARCA. 
PROARCA should not just focus on individual activities, but focus on regionality. GfCAP and missions need to 
think as one team for regionality to succeed. Missions are often competing, not cooperating, the result of 
historical differences. PROARCA should be a force to overcome this. Bilateral missions should be charged with 
regional responsibility. 
pp -- 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00073-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-4 
PROARCA is trying to do too much with too little. Too scattered to be effective. Not building teams not 
changing institutional perceptions. 
PROARCA assistance is a two-way street; mission can both gain from and add to. Problem is poor 
communication with mission, always learn of activities too late. Examples: CAPAS sponsored, Tropical 
Science Ctr. Caoba led study by country and meetings. Panama mission not informed of study and study did a 
poor job on Panama section in reports. Now, regional mahogany meeting in Costa Rica, informed 2 Y2 weeks 
age, agenda not clear, leaves mission too little time to fund counterpart to attend. 
Also problems with COSTAS and LEPPI - lack of forward planning and communication, too short notice to be 
able to respond to meetings, seminars, etc. CAPAS and COSTAS lack a buy-in mechanism, a good option for 
small missions. Mission wants to use the same people as CAPAS uses in other countries to ensure 
complimentarity, wants to use a buy-in mechanism. CAPAS has good writing and production capabilities. 
PROARCA appears to be contributing to building regional skills capacity. Good use of CA TA resources, but 
too many Costa Ricans - need to make the effort to expand the pool of TA sources to other countries. 
Lack of long term training program leaves capacity building weak and limits pool of TA sources. Future 
PROARCA should build CA technical capacity through a) more LT training, b) work with ROCAP graduates to 
expand ROCAP established network, c) develop regional vision of environmental education, objectives, strategy. 
Assist NGOs and govt. agencies in envt. ed. Perfect focus for small grants but CAPAS has no envt. ed. 
component. Need a long term GICAP commitment to LT training that goes beyond the indicator capacity of 
USAID, strategy that involves both GICAP and bilaterals in LT training to build regional capacity (and thus 
regionality). 
Small grants program in CAPAS needs to work more with smaller, less well known NGOs. Working well now 
under pressure to move out funds with limited staff and resources - in effect forces CAPAS to work only with 
established NGOS and excludes the small NGOs. 
Future activity needs to have central regional themes as a center, such as mahogany: policies, procedures, 
demonstration plots for each country, reforestation, and silviculture. All this will both address critical 
environmental and economic issues on regional scale. 
Opportunities lie in convergence of donors (e.g. watershed in Panama). Both mission and G/CAP need to 
cooperate on this. The paradigm is not trans-border but watershed. 
ComitC Gestor led, see LEPPI planning process as useful, primarily because of "realization" of project with 
follow up funding from USAIDPanama. LEPPI focus on planning, mission on execution. LEPPI planning did 
not address economiclfinancial issues, the "motor" for the project. USAIDIPanama intervention maintained 
interest of participants. 
Comit6 is the catalyst for the project. ComitC authorized by Junta Communal, which brought in NGO 
(APROSAC) to provide TA to Comit6. CHFILEPPI did not play a role in the organization of the Comitk. 
APROSAC had similar micro-enterprise activities underway in areas outside of authorized USAID area of 
activities (PC watershed limited). 
Problems and issues: Solid waste project. Community friction over placement of recycling center. Awareness 
and building support are a central issue to overcome opposition. Other critical issues that still need to be 
addressed are how a micro-enterprise is based within a municipality, how it gains concessions, how it is to 
survive changes in administration. Financial sustainability is the biggest issue. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report a @' 
Annex A.2-5 
Currently project is not self sustaining, not enough contracts. Competitors collect and dump without separating 
and recycling. Not licensed by municipality. Project micro-enterprise is licensed, collects, separates and 
recycles, but it is more expensive. Issues of a) financial competition with unlicensed collectors and enforcement 
by municipality of licensing requirements, but dilemma in that some households will opt out of having waste 
collected if price rises to micro-enterprise level. 
APROSAC is using environmental awareness to raise consciousness of community of need to separate and 
recycle. APROSAC has contract for TA to Cornit6 and micro-enterprise. LEPPI role was to promote dialogue 
between provider (micro-enterprise) and client, needs to find ways to resolve issues between client and provider. 
Clients (and competitors) are left out of this TA process (APROSAC and LEPPI both side with micro-enterprise). 
This illustrates a major weakness in LEPPI's approach of focusing all efforts on an NGO when the NGO has it's 
own agenda. First, APROSAC was wedded to the idea that a women owned micro-enterprise was the acceptable 
design for the micro-enterprise. They insisted on using poverty class, inexperienced women to operate the 
project. While admirable goals, this was not the focus of the activity - improved municipal solid waste 
management was. By supporting the APROSAC vision and excluding better off, more experienced operators, 
LEPPI placed in jeopardy the administrative and financial stability of the effort. It also excluded perhaps the 
most capable operators, the competitors, from the project. Second, APROSAC solution to price issues and 
competition was to suggest making municipal waste collection a monopoly, hardly reassuring for the small client 
household or the competition, also monopoly problems with price and service. 
LEPPI role was major in technical assistance, minor in assistance to ComitC. Focus of the TA process was on 
assistance to micro-enterprise (business management), envt. education to raise awareness, legal issues in 
organization, fitting into municipal structure. Did not address land issue or provide sufficient assistance to assist 
in acquiring land for recycling center. This was the most difficult issue. 
LEPPI weakness is lack of flexibility and breadth to adequately address and resolve issues of sustainability. 
LEPPI needs to address how to design and provide a more complete TA package to allow for sustainability. 
Sustainability depends on resolution of ComitC issues, which include: role in overall project, role in micro￾enterprise, relation to public, internal conflicts, questions of who owns micro-enterprise. LEPPI project not 
prepared to answer these. Need to better define how project and CornitC interact. 
Sustainability also affected by LEPPI weakness in the following: 
Needs site-specific TA (too "cookie cutter" of an approach). 
Need to better identify quantity and type of TA. 
Need to assist micro-enterprises in administration (not just business) and awareness of providing a service. 
Need to address envt. education to raise awareness of need to separate waste. 
Need to coordinate with municipality on setting collection fees, licensing. 
Need to develop markets for recyclables and compost. 
Need to better define roles of players. 
More investment of time in partners. 
Need to define timeframes for activities. 
Need to define what to expect from TA. 
Need to include competitors in the process. 
Need to focus on financial sustainability aspects of micro-enterprise earlier in the concept. 
Needs to improve communication and relations with community - more emphasis on explaining mechanisms; 
community needs to be more clearly informed of how, by whom, etc., the project will function. Current model 
has information focused on leaders, without much on popular level. 
Need workshop to define what does community expect and how project will meet these expectations. 
- - 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-6 
Management models of solid waste - need to define model in order to allow solid waste enterprises to become 
sustainable. LEPPI is not designed or capable of addressing this issue. 
Good relations with COSTAS, participate on planning committee for Bastimentos Marine Park. New experience 
with community participation in resources planning. Very positive experience. 
Coastal management is new concept for Admin. Maritima recently created by government of Panama. They are 
learning from the Bocas experience. Also promoted communication with Costa Rica marine authorities (local 
and national contacts) on cross border coastal and marine reserves management issues. 
Cooperation with COSTAS has strengthened Admin. Maritima presence in the region and improved their 
credibility and visibility among fishing communities. Park experience has had positive impacts, showing Admin. 
Maritima benefits of outreach efforts. 
Cooperation among Admin. Maritima and TNC: TNC technically weak, esp. in fisheries, so Panamanian agencies 
must work closely with TNC to provide needed skills. . Also, management plan outside of park will profoundly 
influence what happens in park - park area limited in comparison to outside area. Fisheries management crosses 
park boundaries. Fisheries goal is sustainable management of fisheries in entire region, balancing artisanal and 
industrial fishing. 
Little data available on main fisheries, esp. lobster. Bocas essentially no data available, so habitat is basis for 
management. For lobster, need to identify habitats, larval habitats, and food resources. Areas based management 
is key because of lack of data. Core for areas based management is the marine park with no fishing or limited 
fishing areas. Areas based fisheries management is a new view and process. It is critically important for future 
management to have clear indicators of impact of areas based management on extracted resources. 
Key to success of areas basedlimited take areas approach to fisheries management is community participation. 
Admin. Maritima and earlier agencies were unsuccessful in being policemen, using command and control 
approaches. Ownership of management and resources is the key. Education component is critical for change in 
community and fishers attitude. Promote "environmental self respect", "no piracy" view is essential for fisheries 
sustainability. 
No respect locally for laws that do not work. New areas based regulations and approach have community 
support. Community support for marine resources management - see it as in their own interest. Central for 
community support and broad support: need to define rights of use in and outside of marine park. Define fishing 
take zones based on community knowledge of habitats and fisheries, this is basis for protection of sto9cks. 
Learn from these experiences to transfer areas based and limited take areas management to high conflict areas 
where rights of use are in conflict and undefined. Admin. Maritima wants to use areas based management with no 
takellimited take core protected areas as the central management tool for fisheries in areas where fisheries 
pressure is growing, where data is weak, difficult or too costly to collect. Inexpensive, effective community 
supported but need more accurate data to establish effectiveness and feasibility of use in other areas of Panama. 
While habitat protection is central issue addressed by marine protected areas planning for Bastimentos, three 
other issues are also important and is not addressed by COSTAS. These are not in the park but in the 
surrounding areas: 
dumps and wastewater, 
deforestation and erosiodsedimentation, coral impacts, 
Agrochernnicals. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report z.& 
Annex A.2-7 
All of these are growing as tourism grows. Need to be addressed because they are destroying the resource base 
and impact tourism. Need to go beyond just park borders and immediate area. Tourism impacts also include 
selling of coastal properties for development; mangrove deforestation by coastal development, growth of urban 
populations wanting access to tourist generated revenue. 
Local govt. has great influence. Some cooperation with local government but there is no effort by COSTAS to 
make local govt. more effective in coastal management. Lack of operations, implementation capabilities. Need to 
strengthen to address these other outside the park issues. Local govt. is responsible for addressing these tourism 
and other threats to natural resources base. They are lead for these local issues but are not ready to undertake 
responsibility. Weak administration, need training and assistance to undertake these coastal protection functions. 
Need assistance in planning and organizing to undertake this. Weak municipaVlocal govt. human resources for 
coastal pollution and other mgmt. - NGOs get the training under COSTAS but local govt. gets left out. Not 
addressed under COSTAS - too focused on park only. 
Need to involve other agencies. ANAM and PAT are involved in park. Lack of coordination with Tourism 
Ministry (PAT) with other tourism related issues that affect envt. Other agencies not assuming responsibilities 
for health and wastewaterlwater quality. 
Regionality well served by PROARCA- increase cooperation with Costa Rica. Would like to see more effort to 
promote interchange among fisheries bodies in the region to work out differences in norms, laws and standards. 
Also to address regional responses to new fishing pressures (e.g. sea cucumber). Marine park and no-take fishing 
areas policies and rules are new to Panama, would like to have exchanges with others I CA and region to learn 
more about what has worked elsewhere. Need to involve resources agencies in exchange of staff. 
LEPPI process identified water availability, sanitary issues with potable water, as top priorities, solid waste lower 
but defined as more feasible to address. Built on previous studies and work on solid waste already done. In 8 mo. 
planning process LEPPI provided workshops for diagnosis, identification of problems, priorities. LEPPI 
contributions: contract for site EA, site selection and finalization. Provided technical advice on designs of 
treatment plan and dump site, identified better process for planning, made link to municipality and improved 
information base. Comit6 and municipality appreciated documentation of planning process (plan to use this 
again). 
Technical approach was the weakest aspect. Weak analysis: did not consider a semi-urban dumpsite or the 
realities of an island location. LEPPI did not use locally knowledgeable experts to lead the technical process. 
Also EA not approved by national Health Ministry. 
Health evaluationJEA conflictive issue. Approval of travel request late did not meet with appropriate officials to 
resolve EA problem. While regional health agency support project, national does not. 
Financial issues were not addressed. No idea of costs, need assistance to determine actual costs and fee 
structures. Some areas too poor to pay, basis for hotel industry or municipal subsidies need to be determined to 
see if feasible. Financial plan proposed (by whom?) but not in place. 
Need assistance to design awareness program for all levels of population for waste collection. Need pilot project 
to test and develop awareness training for all involved. 
Tourism industry did not participate in planning. Simply glad to pay to have service (should have made added 
effort to involve them). Hotel industry willing to pay to subsidize poor areas collection - need to know costs and 
mechanisms. Not done. 
Main issues are: LEPPI staff needed to include the national Health Ministry in the planning process, at least 
coordinate with them on the EA issue. Stakeholders group was not appropriately defined to include key health 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
$3 I 
Annex A.2-8 
agency. LEPPI needed to make local participants aware of non-local stakeholders that have great influence on 
outcomes of planning process. 
LEPPI needs to "own" the final product, along with Comit6 and partners. Just seems to advise as an outsider. 
Needs to ensure that the process is left in a viable state. 
LEPPI is not concerned with replicability of process. There is interest in other urban sites in the region but there 
is no mechanism for replication. 
Previous activities and experience with external funding. Basis for selection as partners, small grants recipients. 
Environmental education, conservation focus to raise awareness of protected area and promote participation in 
park planning. Community development, communications focus within protected area. 
Lack of a clear vision why the COSTAS activities are in the communities. 
Leverage additional funds for conservation work. Coordination of donors started as NGO initiative, not led by 
COSTAS, but now taken up. COSTAS is focussed on just this site, while the NGOs see this as one activity in a 
continuum of sites. View activity as very important to entire region of Panama and a model for other 
Panamanian coastal areas. View park as central to project and focus for community activities. Must go outside 
of parks focus to different types of use areas. Need to have plan and strategy to expandreplicate activities to 
other areas in northwest Panama and Costa Rica. Build geographic alliances with other region NGOs, 
communities, management agency offices. 
Need to address issues such as industrial fishing (e.g. sea cucumber fishing) and improve information available to 
both NGOs and resources management agencies. 
Sustainability is an issue. Admittance fee is collected but all funds return to Panama City. Little budgeted for 
Bastimentos. Concessions are central issue. Want to explore other funding sources in cooperation with tourism 
industry and municipality. No progress yet on this under COSTAS. Financial aspects of various management 
options (e.g. concessions) are critical issues. Financial plan is part of management plan (NOTE: financial plan 
was NOT included in the draft plan that was distributed at the planning group meeting 10127). 
Unknown tourism carrying capacity - need to study with baseline and monitoring of impacts of visitors on park 
resources to establish capacity. Dive operators willing to participate. Rapid Environmental Evaluation 
completed. 
Benefits to NGOs of technical training in management and organization, participation in exchanges and training 
(only some benefited), COSTAS partnership with international NGO raised awareness and credibility of local 
and national NGO in region. 
Marine resources management weak - Admin. Maritima outside park, ANAM inside. Coordination not strong. 
Adrnin. Maritima is used to working with commercial fisheries, ANAM with land parks. Need to improve 
communications and abilities of national agencies present on site to work in marine protected area and buffer 
zone. Need a clear role of who does what and how to communicate. Important for marine park because 
resources cross boundaries. Not a COSTAS focus. 
Lack of effort by COSTAS to involve local govt. in park planning, just marginal. 
Questions raised about actual community participation. Appear to not be consultation, park leadership and 
COSTAS leads the discussion. (NOTE: we observed that in the planning meeting 10127, communities simply sat 
and listened. One suggestion from community representative was voted down). Actual participation is less than 
- 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-9 
reported.. Need for COSTAS to design and deliver awareness training to improve participation. Process is slow, 
many intangibles, results far off. 
Admin issues. Slow start. One NGO report funding processes difficult and complicated, slow. Turtle funds 
need in February, funded in June, missed opportunity. Second NGO reports same problems at start, now 
resolved. 
Interestingly, the NGOs involved do not usually meet or plan together. Appear to be continuing poor relations 
among NGOs involved. Common areas of work but they do not work together outside of the project. They said 
they would not work together outside of the COSTAS framework, suggesting that efforts need to be made to 
strengthen cooperation and coordination among local partners. Weak municipal involvement and lack of 
coordination among NGOs outside the project affect sustainability. Issue of work directed primarily at NGOs, 
with their own visions, agendas (and perhaps in competition)? 
Management process benefited directly from the leadership and contributions of Eligio Binns. Funds for all 
planning activities form COSTAS, nothing from ANAM. COSTAS also funded Cornitk. Good cooperation with 
NGOs, and with national agencies, PAT and ANAM. Main COSTAS areas of assistance were in the 
management planning process, use impact assessment and fishing pressure on park. 
Park and COSTAS priorities are the same. Very satisfied with assistance. There are very limited funds for 
protected areas in Panama and few management plans of any kind. Lack of resources. Park management was an 
issue before but lacked funds and an approach. COSTAS provided the funding; vision and direction for 
participatory process that gave rise to mgmt. Plan. Gained active community support, communities incorporated 
into park planning and communities now view park expansion as the best way to preserve their resources. 
Successes to date are the completion of legal issue analysis and the draft management plans for the park and 
buffer areas. Also COSTAS succeeded in organizing communities outside park as well, so benefit of activity 
extends beyond park. Recognition of the central importance of artisanal fisheries in the Bocas region and its 
inclusion in management plan was important as well. 
It is important to replicate the process and plans. Specifically in the Gulf of Chiriqui marine park. Lack of 
resources is the constraint. All conservation work in Panama is based on foreign donations, as is biodiversity and 
other research. COSTAS funds some baseline research (Rapid Ecological Assessment). 
Sustainability of Bastimentos is a constant issue. Without or after the project, park director only sees government 
support or use of biological corridor funds as likely revenue sources. No source of funds to implement buffer 
zone plan (government?). Draft management plans call for financial plans but monthly operational cost was not 
known. Director had not explored alternate sources of income for protected area. It is possible to self-manage co￾manage park and funds. Have local control and local financing regulations in place (if so, why are admissions 
fees still going to Panama City?). 
Some coordination with LEPPI on solid waste. This is a growing issue in the Bocas region, as tourism and urban 
populations grow. 
Has heard of CCAD but has had no contact with either corridor or reef projects. 
Follow on recommendations. Need 
financial plans and plans for sustainable financing, 
assistance with resources inventory (biodiversity, forest, marine resources), 
identification of impacts of management activities that would affect communities, 
implementation of action plan, 
personnel. 
BlOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-10 
Recommend COSTAS establish better links between Direccion Nacional de Areas Protegidas and Direccion 
General del Ambiente and esp. with regional director in Changuinola. These have the authority to take needed 
decisions on direction that the park director cannot make. 
PROARCA has had a national impact in that a) importance of integrated coastal resources management is now 
recognized at the national level and b) other protected areas directors are aware of and are using the participatory 
planning approach for protected areas. 
Presentation of draft management plan to Cornitk. Only COSTAS, municipal and agency political leaders spoke 
(poderosos). Community leaders spoke only once, to have a longer period to review and comment on plan, and 
were quickly voted down. Interestingly, some community members attending refused to identify themselves by 
name during the introductions, suggesting a level of discomfort with the Cornitk. 
Park director does not have a vision. Entire meeting was led and directed by COSTAS. Eligio Binns catalyst. 
Local with a lot of ability and local knowledge. The process would not have succeeded without him. 
Fisheries presentation focused on use of limited access in buffer zone and core no take protected area as basis for 
regional lobster management plan. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00073-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report A / 
Annex A.2- 1 1 
3.0 COSTA RlCA 
PROARCA a travCs de CAPAS ha contribuido a establecer sistemas de Monitoreo que se estd adoptando en 
todas la dreas protegidas del Pais. Tanto en las que son manejadas por instituciones de gobierno como aquellas 
que est6n en co-manejo por ONGs. El monitoreo de las keas protegidas que se esta implementando es 
computarizado y tiene la participacidn de todos 10s agentes sociales. El sistema de monitoreo ademds ha 
permitido el empoderamiento de 10s usuarios. 
CAPAS ha contribuido a fortalecer el SINAC mediante cursos de capacitaci6n para el establecimiento de un 
sistema de planificaci6n estratkgica, planificaci6n financiera y ecoturismo. En el caso de ecoturismo se esth 
realizando estudios de caso para el manejo de visitantes que podrian ser de gran utilidad en otros paises. 
El impacto de CAPAS ha sido a nivel nacional. En general capas ha sido un buen complemento para el sistema 
nacional porque ha proporcionado herramientas importantes para 10s sistemas de manejo. Ha fortalecido las 
ONGs y ha servido para llenar el vacio que se estd sintiendo en el pais en la actualidad de parte de las nuevas 
autoridades. 
Las herramientas de manejo que se han desarrollado son un product0 que esta siendo diseminado en la regidn y a 
nivel latinoamericano. El caso de las pequeiias donaciones es un ejemplo que tiene dos prop6sitos fortalecer las 
ONGs y desarrollar cosas practicas en el terreno que sirven de ejemplo y que pueden ser multiplicadas en 10s 
diferentes paises de la regidn. 
CAPAS en coordinacidn y complementando las acciones de COSTAS logrd establecer mecanismos para el 
manejo de tortugas marinas un tema regional y que ha generado mucho conflicto. 
Es undnime en la reunidn el pensamiento que este tip0 de apoyo debe continuar tal como ha sido, de alta calidad 
y soportando productos concretos como lo ha hecho CAPAS y fortaleciendo procesos como el caso de COSTAS. 
La primera modalidad es rdpida la segunda es mds lenta. Lo ideal seria llegar a tener un hibrido de CAPAS y 
COSTAS que permita apoyar las dos modalidades. 
Costas ha trabajado activarnente en un proceso en Gandoca y Bocas del Toro con el apoyo de CAPAS 
organizando las comunidades y logrando el empoderamiento de 10s procesos en esas keas y ambos se han 
acoplado a necesidades institucionales. 
Capas ha contribuido tambiCn a identificar "gaps" importantes asi como prioridades de conservacidn en 
diferentes paises de la Regi6n. Uno de 10s aspectos importantes es el trabajo intersectorial que se ha realizado 
con CAPAS poniendo en la misma mesa ONGs, Gobierno y comunidades. Lo mismo a sucedido con las 
solicitudes de apoyo de 10s diferentes ministerios para el caso de fijacidn de carbon0 y la creaci6n de bases de 
datos para AP. Ambos componentes han tenido una visidn de apoyo y una actuacidn de servicio. 
PROARCA se ha cimentado en lo que ya existia. Se han asociado con actores claves y han promovido 
democratizaci6n. 4 aiios no es suficiente para este tip0 de proyectos. 
En la actualidad se esth presentando limitaciones de comunicaci6n con Ministros. Los gobiernos y las politicas 
cambian. Han faltado coordinacidn a nivel politico para aprovechar impacto positivo. Sin embargo, se ha tenido 
la precaucidn y tacto para que trabajos tCcnico de PROARCA no se hayan desgastado teniendo que entrar en 
trabajo politico. Este tip0 de trabajo deberia ser hecho por otra instituci6n, este podria ser el role de la CCAD o 
de la CCAB-AP dltimamente ha perdido vigencia y es un buen socio potencial tCcnico para PROARCA. 
PROARCA estd promoviendo acercarniento de personas y didlogo a nivel de Centroamkrica. Aspecto muy 
necesario para lograr difundir y capacitar a gente de carnpos de AP. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
a 
Annex A.2-12 
CCAD debe coordinar y facilitar. Ellos tienen visi6n regional. Ha habido falta de conocimiento del rol de CCAD 
y especialmente en el Gltimo aAo CCAD se ha perdido ya no tiene el sitio WE3 y no emite el boletin. 
PROARCA debe hacer pocas cosas para no diluirse. Y no debe dejar de lado el consolidar sistemas de AP en 
CentroamCrica. No se debe confundir el role de un proyecto como PROARCA con el role de la CCAD. 
Especialmente ahora que hay problemas y pugna entre CCAD y AID. 
PROARCA actlia local y estfi a nivel regional. Esta misma caracteristica deberia tener la segunda fase. Proyectos 
deben ser permitidos a dar participaci6n en procesos. Esto debe estar claro en segunda fase. Tal vez CCAD no es 
el socio dptimo para PROARCA. AP, bosques y pesca porque por lo general estas actividades estfin en otros 
rninisterios. 
PROARCA no ha sido difuso o disperso. Tal vez se han manejado muchos temas diferentes en CAPAS. 
La informaci6n de eventos es eficiente si el evento es coordinado por PROARCA. En casos en 10s que solo se 
financian se debe mejorar la infomaci6n y convocatoria de eventos. TarnbiCn se debe revisar la estrategia de 
informaci6n y divulgaci6n. 
Se han dado casos de retrasos en aprobaci6n de contratos y sub-acuerdos per0 se entiende que es por la 
naturaleza de la gestion y en muchos casos requisitos que hay que cumplir entre donantes y ejecutores. Si es 
necesario unificar lineas de mando y respetar diferencias institucionales. 
PROARCA debe continuar trabajando en organizar y contribuir a producir un marco legal regional para proteger 
las AP. Definicidn de benchmarks para monitorear especies. Romper la asistencia t6cnica tradicional sin 
participaci6n. Esto debe continuar en PROARCA I1 
Solid waste and wastewater key issues in community. Interest by community, municipality, small business 
(hotels, tourism industries). Ministry of Tourism. Solid waste chosen as tractable problem. LEPPI funding 
helped a lot. Could not start without LEPPI infusion. 
Production of compost, recycling and environmental education components. Private and public trash collection - use of receptacles in common areas is public effort, hotel and restaurants use collection service. Willing to pay, 
cheaper than self-disposal. 
Good pilot demonstration, teaching facility for many others, model for other communities (e.g. Saxiola). 
LEPPI supported workshops (too many) and a financial feasibility study. Financial study designed and led by 
private sector, for profit interests in Puerto. Large business payments support collection system, cheaper than 
self-disposal. 
Want additional LEPPI support to change demonstration project to private business, but trash collection alone not 
economically feasible. Working with the "whole package" of waste is the only economically feasible approach, 
but complex. Must have recycling and composting. Want LEPPI to give small business truck for collection and 
shredder (!), support environmental education to have community separate trash for recycling. Need awareness 
funding to make more businesses willing to participate. 
Key points gained form interviews: 
Ownership of activity by relatively powerful interests is essential for success. 
Must focus on being a business, not a service. 
If it can't become self-sustaining it is not worth the effort and raised expectations of the LEPPI process. 
Private sector leadership and self-interest is the key. 
Working too broadly in the community dilutes the impact and reduces effectiveness of solutions. 
Fully researched markets and financial studies must be a central piece to the LEPPI solid waste program. 
-- .- - - - - - - - - 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report A d 
Annex A.2- 13 
LEPPI must help participants and implementers understand the entire materials cycle to be able to address 
concerns and issues at each step. 
LEPPI work linked to protected areas in region leads to better understanding of links between tourism and 
protected areas, responsibilities of municipalities and business towards resource base. Protected areas benefit 
form influx of income form tourists, tourist support of "green" values. Business benefits form the attraction the 
protected areas provide. 
Envt. NGOs active in Talamanca Corridor area before PROARCA. Initial agroforestry focus, grew to include 
environmental conservation, forestry, community organization, producers organizations and other rural 
development issues such as training and community credit. Very close working relations with producer and 
community organizations. 
PROARCA focus on Gandoca-Manzanillo areas; start 1996. Work with both CAPAS and COSTAS, initially on 
turtle conservation, continuing existing NGO work. Small CAPAS and COSTAS grants provided important 
economic infusion to communities and improved volunteers. COSTAS provided TA was the most important 
impact of COSTAS. Many sources of funds but little experienced TA - good use of Eligio Binns and local Costa 
Rican experts. Other important PROARCA impacts on NGOs from training (e.g. nature guides) by CAPAS and 
COSTAS. Exchange with Bastimentos (Binns) useful to Gandoca-Manzanillo. 
PROARCA objectives in keeping with NGO objectives, eco-tourism development, improved management of 
coastal resources, environmental conservation, and environmental education while improving quality of local life. 
Very good relations. 
Specific comments form local Gandoca NGO: COSTAS involved in both existing and new activities at Gandoca. 
Many new starts since COSTAS arrived. Small grants support a variety of activities, management plan (build on 
existing plan), manual of best practices, (new), turtle studies (build on past work). COSTAS assists with admin. 
Costs and other small expenses without which the Gandoca NGO could not work. 
COSTAS promotes good links among Bastimentos-Gandoca-Manzanillo, and between Gandoca and the 
COSTAS main office. Promotes information exchange at local level among NGOs, local govt., and development 
associations. Little information or exchange with other COSTAS or CAOPAS sites. Want better exchanges and 
other links to other COSTAS sites. Training primarily theoretical, with little practical application. Want to gain 
application experience through exchanges among protected area staff at other COSTAS sites. Environmental 
courses, esp. guide courses, successful, but need more field based focus. Want to see more regional activities. 
Want both contacts and to share experiences and learn from successes and failures. 
Multiple use protected area requires patrols to control illegal fishing. Expensive. Get some funds from central 
government but unpredictable. Sustainability requires constant patrols to control illegal uses. COSATAS 
support needed to pay for patrols. Want to see more active COSTAS role in bringing in more municipal and 
regional government support, funds (park tourism benefits them) and participation. 
Need inventories, bio-monitoring; build on past and ongoing work (eg lobster research by national university). 
COSTAS has a role in bringing in research interests and especially in linking the Srnithsonian in Bocas and 
Gandoca - not done. COSTAS should build links to other Bocas actors, esp. NGOs. Financial support for 
cooperation and exchange. 
Small grants: CAOAS rigid, COSTAS flexible. CAPAS uses private sector (accountable) implementation of 
small grants. Detailed planning, careful, responsible, control of documents, follow-up. COSTAS is less strict on 
controls, "improvise" more opportunistic. Local NGO prefers CAPAS model- use of receipts, plans for 
expenses, corroboration of costs. Better tracking, accountability, can see their effects of funds expended. 
BlOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report -3 G' 
Annex A.2- 14 
PROARCA seen as impact oriented. 
CAPAS training (e.g., guides) directed at self-sufficiency and economic opportunities for local communities. 
Need funds for community groups and activities to support comitk de vigilancia, beach cleanup. Minimal funds 
needed but large impact on participation. 
COSTAS success has been the adoption of the locally supported agenda as the strategy for Gandoca. PROARCA 
design, by not being too narrow, allows fore success. However, communities and local NGOs want better 
communication with PROARCA, better access to publications and information (CAPAS and COSTAS) 
Social focus is fundamental to management of protected area. Includes users of natural resources. However, 
mixed-use area is difficult to manage and need heavy investments in education and sustainable productive use 
demonstrations. Need a baseline study to establish management parameters. Need a model of sustainable use 
(best practices) as the core model for a mixed use protected area. 
LEPPI essentially unknown. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2- 15 
4.0 NICARAGUA 
PROARCA ha contribuido substancialmente con Nicaragua. Pero deberian apoyar mAs especialmente a las 
instituciones de gobierno. El trabajo en la Costa Miskita con COSTAS es importante. CAPAS ha contribuido en 
el manejo de muchas Areas protegidas con las pequeiias donaciones y se esta haciendo algo en el area legal. 
Deberia haber mas apoyo a las instituciones nacionales para lograr hacer mayor cantidad de cosas por ejemplo en 
el Golfo de Fonseca. El apoyo que se brinda es mas dirigido a Honduras y se deberia coordinar con PROGOLFO 
estrechamente para el manejo del Golfo de Fonseca. 
En el caso de Areas protegidas las pequeiias donaciones a travks de CAPAS nos han ayudado a consolidar 
aspectos importantes como 10s planes de manejo y la estructura de rnanejo tanto de las ONGs involucradas como 
de las ireas. Las ONGs han aprendido a darle un mejor seguirniento a la planificaci6n y a 10s aspectos 
financieros. Hacer la relacidn plan de trabajo y disponibilidad de recursos e identificar en que temas necesitamos 
la capacitacibn. Los cursos que han realizado con el apoyo han sido muy buenos per0 han sido mejor preparados 
10s que se han manejado desde Guatemala en cuanto Organizaci6n y manejo financiero. 
En la costa Miskita el trabajo ha sido bastante dificil por 10s diferentes intereses que se manejan en el irea y la 
diversidad de grupos ktnicos. Sin embargo se han logrado avances importantes en introducir el concept0 de heas 
protegidas en las ireas marino costeras. La situaci6n que en este momento se afronta es que la mayoria del 
trabajo se ha realizado en aguas frias (lagunas) y no sabemos como realmente va a trabajar cuando apliquemos 
las cosas en las aguas calientes del mar. El trabajo que se realiza en el Area se viene haciendo desde hace 
bastantes aiios per0 con el apoyo de COSTAS se ha logrado consolidar por el hecho de haber involucrado mas 
socios y no solo estar con una sola ONG. (Por razones climiticas no se pudo visitar la zona) 
PROARCA tambikn nos esta ayudando a capacitar gente en 10s aspectos legales en la nueva normativa que entro 
en vigencia en el pais. Se ha capacitado gente en la aplicacidn de normas y se han mandado algunos tknicos a 
otros paises de la regi6n. 
En el caso de LEPPI toda la capacitacidn fue muy provechosa aunque el lugar y el tema de manejo de desechos 
sdlidos ya se venia trabajando. En este momento 10s trabajos van avanzados per0 todavia no hemos logrado 
iniciar 10s trabajos. Un 6rea en la que necesitamos ayuda es en 10s desechos liquidos de 10s barcos y lanchas 
pesqueras. Todos 10s aceites que utilizan en 10s motores 10s tiran a1 mar. Hay experiencias ya en el pais en la que 
se estin recogiendo y se reciclan o se utilizan para combustible pero, necesitamos apoyo para regular y poner en 
prActica el control en 10s diferentes puertos pesqueros. 
-- 
BlOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2- 16 
HONDURAS 
Instrumento auxiliar de las politicas de cada pais a travCs de 10s Ministerios encargados. 
+ Falta de coordinaci6n con 10s proyectos financiados (falta info). 
Cafe ecol6gico/orgdnico (AHPROCAFE y CECH). 
+ SERNA no es considerada contraparte; se buscan otros aliados. 
+ Papel importante: Silvia Marin / Edas Muiioz 
+ Mediaci6n SERNA-ANDAH-CODDEFFAGOLF (visitas campo y reuniones) en Golfo de Fonseca. 
+ Aspectos tecnicos y de medici6n de las actividades en el Golfo de Fonseca: a travCs de PROGOLFO, 
Proyecto de SERNA. 
+ Algunos proyectos requieren AVAL de SERNA y esta 10s desconoce. A veces hay duplicidades (se 
pueden resolver con envios peri6dicos de informes / reportes a SERNA). 
+ No ha habido participaci6n en algunas capacitaciones regionales (de legislaci6n particularmente); no 
se han recibido meniorias del resultado de 10s mismos. 
SERNA: No ejecutor, solo normador 
Ejecutores: ONGs y otros 
Otros casos 
Est. Nac. de Biodiversidad: GEF / B Busto 
CITES: apoyo de Genius Grant a Carla Cantarero en DAPVS; ahora estd en la UNAH y el proyecto 
pas6 a la dltima. 
2 talleres con autoridad cientifica 
CAFE ECOLOGICO: jactividad nueva, existente? 
ipapel de CAPAS? 
CCCH: 50 coops y 12 grupos precoop. 
+ Objetivos estrategicos, ya existian 
comercializaci6n 
manejo alternative: certificaci6n 
aspectos ambientales 
Enlace Sur-Sur en M.A. y desarrollo (red de ONGs); tambiCn pertenecen 
"red pequeiios productores de cafC" -t comercio justo, que garantiza 
precios minimos. CAPAS financi6 un encuentro a nivel de America Ldtina 
para pequefios productores (espacio de encuentro regional) con 
productores, comercializadores y brokers. 
+ Donde estd la CCCH? 
Tiene la presidencia de la Coordinadora Regional 
Iniciativas 
Mercadeo (criterios: cafC (de pequeiios productores, certificado) 
Crear una certificadora (de cafk, hortalizas, etc.) en Honduras 
- - 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
35 
7- 
Annex A.2- 17 
Para Eruropa 
20,000 qq en cinco eos (cafe certificado) solo de la CCCH 
Sello de calidad de comercio iusto, con actividades de prefinanciamiento (menos del 60%) y se paga 
contra cosecha. 
Necesidades: CCCH requiere de m6s apoyo 
Ejemplo: apoyos como de financiamiento (caso biobitina) y 10s 4 talleres que se desarrollaron con 
150 asociados 3 por cada uno; uno de 10s resultados de 10s talleres: "manual de control 
interno". 
PROARCA, CAPAS est6 apoyando en 10s talleres de comercializacidn (mercados a futuro): esta es una 
debilidad regional a1 igual que marcas por regidn. 
CAPAS da apoyos puntuales contra productos. 
91 % de mediano y pequefios productores 
Conocid de CAPAS por medio del periddico. 
Proyecto de 10 zonas: piloto para "tirarlo" a nivel nacional el otro afio. Componentes 
Capacitacidn 
Mercadeo 
Certificacidn 
Asistencia tCcnica (un tkcnico financiero con CAPAS: small grants), en temas de cultivo (manejo) de cafe 
orghnico) y generar6 "guia metodoldgica" en cultivo. 
Certificadora de agricultura org6nica y que se certifiquen desde Honduras para mercado norteamericano. 
CAPAS da el apoyo financiero en partes 15%, 60% y el resto. 
VENTAJAS DE CAPAS 
Intercambio de informacidn entre la regidn 
Vinculo, cultivo (organizaci6n del productor) - comercializacidn (mercado) 
Estuvo en evaluacidn de CAPAS (1999) 
Pidid una informacidn de lo que es PROARCA, ya que en SERNA hay nueva administracidn 
Consejo de Ministros 
La DGMA de SICA 
iSe vincula PROARCA con CCAD? y 
iC6m0 ha sido la participacidn de la CCAD? 
Hay conocimiento de la relacidn PROARCA y CCAD en la SERNA; per0 no en 10s ONGs y en otras 
organizacioines. CCAD es la Ministra es un Foro. I 
BlOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
33 1 
Annex A.2- 18 
Su participacidn (de CCAD) es beneficiosa, 10s resultados son "mayores". 
El enfoque de CCAD siem~re debe ser de visidn regioinal. 
Medidas, leyes (estandarizadas) 
Aspectos bi-tro o multinacionales 
Debe ver 2 grupos 
10s proyectos regionales (cada pais teniendo o desarrollando un componente) 
10s proyectos nacionales 
Distribuci6n de recursos financieros 
debe ser equitativa (pequefias donaciones) 
(hacer mbs astringentes 10s criterios de selecci6n): vincularlos con 10s problemas concretos. 
La CCAD debe buscar 10s consensos en 10s criterios de asignacidn de RR 
CCAD: vinculada a gobiernos 
PROARCA: vinculada a proyectos 
Falta la vinculacidn de CCAD con otras redes de la sociedad civil. 
SUGERENCIAS PARA PROARCA 
1. PROARCA deberia vincular 10s temas que son "vinculables2 a nivel regional y nacional. 
2. Vincular integralmente el "eje caf6" en el manejo de Aps en 10s Ministerios. Es decir, vincularlo con 
otros procesos existentes, incluyendo la legislacidn (que algunas veces es contradictoria); el vinculo debe 
ser mhs que solamente "prestar el logotipo" - prod - comerc-ambiente tanto anivel regional como 
nacional. 
3. Asignaci6n de RR: debe vincularse con la resoluci6n de 10s problemas concretos que el componente de 
PROARCA pretente atender per0 debe haber consenso regional en la elaboracidn de criterios (y en la 
planificaci6n). 
4. PROARCA I1 
Debe basarse en diagndsticos nacionales 
Participaci6n en el monitoreo de las actividades y proyectos por parte de SERNA (representante de 
CCAD). 
Concepto de regionalidad de 10s usuarios y de 10s tkcnicos de PROARCA ya que este concept0 varia 
de acuerdo a la din6mica de 10s procesos que se apoyan. 
Que CCAD apoye m6s en el criterio de regionalidad. 
PROARCA puede apoyar tkcnicamente a las unidades especializadas de SERNA; mejorar la 
comunicacidn. 
1. Planificacidn estratkgica (con apoyo de capas) de la DAPVS de COHDEFOR. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report / 
Annex A.2- 19 
2. Aplicaci6n de la "Herrarnienta de Monitoreo de APs" generado por CAPAS (TNC): Se est6 proponiendo 
insertarlo para el uso y planificaci6n de APS. 
3. PROGOLFO, PROMANGLE y PROCARA-COSTAS trabajando en reuniones conjuntas desde julio 
1999 para cordinar temas comunes en ireas geogrificasltemiticas. Tambikn en perspectivas. 
Estudio capacidad carga Golfo de Fonseca 
CB del Golfo de Fonseca (10s 3 paises) 
4. Regionalidad: 
Talleres para "descentralizaci6n del Poder Civil en el tragarniento de 10s problemas ambientales 
del Golfo de de Fonseca. 
Varia en funci6n de iniciativas nacionales (caso del Gobierno de Honduras con Belice); en el 
Golfo de Fonseca hay mb movirniento de base en Honduras, tambitn la presidn 
industriaVagroindustria1 ha sido mayor en Honduras (mayor 
confrontaci6n en Honduras); FUNDEGOLFO: Asociaci6n Pescadores en NIC.; ASUMA: ONG 
en El Salvador = se requiere de una estrategia para que 6stos 6rganos sigan creciendo (en 
particular en ES); hay una Trinacional de Golfo (estrategia de expansi6n). 
5. En regionalidad se requiere tambiCn una estrategia basada en la demanda local (caso ASUMA, caso LA 
UNION). 
6. Otras caracteristicas de regionalidad 
Pobreza: igual en 10s 3 paises 
Capacitaci6n: mejor en Honduras 
Voluntad: existe en 10s 3 paises (talvCz un poco menos en ES). 
7. Objetivos de 10s Usuarios de 10s RRDEL 
Golfo: Diferentes en cada pais (prolo.1imitrofe) 
ES: pescar en aguas hondureiias * 
HON: pescar en aguas hondureiias y nicaragiienses * 
(*) problemas de tipo legal 
Requiere: Negociaciones entre 10s 3 paises 
RREE 
Ambiente 
* Municipalidades 
(a travks de una conferencia que est6 promoviendo CODDEFFAOLF) 
8. Trabajo en PROARCA-COSTAS 
Informaci6n, concientizaci6n y capacitaci6n (en 5 municipios del Valle): UNAs, 
voluntariadolasesoers (mestros) 
0 ConseraciBn RRNN 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
7~' - 
Annex A.2-20 
SIG (a partir de inducci6n) 
Manejo de cuencas 
Saneamiento bdsico muncipal 
Legislaci6n (forestal) 
Planeacidn 
Categorias de manejo de APs 
Se capacit6 a maestros, lideres comunitarios, UMAS, son capacitaciones introductorias y 
diferenciadas. 
Apoyo en procesos de concertacidn 
para declaratorica de APs 
vinculado con procesos de levantamiento de capacidadesl 
Apoyo tCcnico directamente a usuarioslgobierno (ej: talleres de manejo costero integrado) 
Apoyo en levantamiento de la capacidad propositiva municipal (conacioneslpristamos). 
Apoyo complernentarios a actividades y procesos en ejecucidn. 
Fortalecimiento institucional = estratigico para la Cornisi6n de Verificacidn y Control (CVC). 
Contribucih m8s importante de COSTAS 
Acompaiiamiento en el proceso de aprobacidn de APs 
Apoyo a CVC 
Apoyo a trinacional de la SDC civil trinacional 
como: catalizador 
facilitador/interlocutor 
iEl papel de RSTA o 10s recursos financieros? 
Papel de RSTA: 
interlocutor 
permite capitalizar en capacidades locales ya existentes 
permite identificar m8s claramente las actividades de trabajo 
iCu8nd0 CODDEFFAGOLF podrfi "caminar por si mismo" (sostenibilidad/autosostenibilidad)? 
Este es un proceso. Separando la necesidad de recursos financieos. Obietivo: apoyar a las 
municipalidadeslcomunidades para que vayan "independizandose"; se hace a travis de proyectos piloto. 
CODDEFFAGOLF g un grupo de comunidades m8s que una ONG. 
CODDEFFAGOLF y el gobierno 
CODDEFFAGOLF y la cooperaci6n: CODDEFFAGOLF lidera, la cooperac6n solo acompaiia 
Un hito importante: la declaratoria de las AP que puede influir en la membresia de la ONG; 
igualmente se espera potenciar la venta de servicios ambientales 
(secuestro de carbono). 
CCAD: Supervisor de proyectos ambientales; son 10s Ministerios de Ambiente. 
'base para 10s acuerdos entre CODDEFFAGOLF-ANDAH 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
36 
Annex A.2-21 
RECOMENDACIONES PROARCA I1 
1. MLs apoyo a las UMAs 
En generaci6n/transferencia/intercambio de informaci6n (sistemas de informaci6n) 
2. Continuar apoyo a 10s 3 paises 
2.1 La Trinacional: regionalidad (CBM, organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil) 
2.2 Fondos orientados a proyectos productivos, ademLs de 10s de conservaci6n (opci6n a1 uso 
tradicional de 10s RR) 
2.3 Con la aprobaci6n legal, declaratoria de APs, se requerirb mayores apoyos tCcnicos-cientificos 
(estudios mLs profundos) y tambiCn aspectos tCcnicos en manejo prictico. 
2.4 Procesos de zonificaci6n (ordenamiento territorial?) y generaci6n de acuerdos de uso y manejo 
de 10s RN entre 10s paises. La SERNA: asurnir liderazgo en CCAD. 
2.5 Proceso de "acercamiento" y coordinaci6n. 
2.6 Apoyo en una conferencia regional sobre 10s temas arriba indicados. 
2.7 Apoyo logistico para la UMAs y a 6rganos pdblicos descentralizados presentes en la zona. 
3. Continuar con apoyo a la C.V.C. y replicarla en 10s otros paises; incorporar a otros miembros, caminar 
procesos (de monitoreo y control) en la CVC, reorientandola de "curativa" a "preventiva". 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
37 
Annex A.2-22 
6.0 EL SALVADOR 
PREGUNTAS: 
1. PROARCA y las estratkgicas, politicas y planes nacionales (visidn). 
2. Regionalidad de las actividades en el Golfo de Fonseca. 
3. Modelo sostenible: El desarrollo comunitario alrededor de APs. 
4. PROARCA jnuevas actividades o continuacidn de otras actividades? 
5. PROARCA y CCAD. 
6. Adrninistraci6n de PROARCA. 
7. Valor de 10s talleres. 
8. Pequeiias donaciones 
CAPAS 
COSTAS 
9. Leppi, prolegis 
10. Temas ambientales y otros donantes 
1 1. Futuro de PROARCA. 
COMENTARIOS: 
1. Coincidencia de prioridades (MARN-PROARCA), en algunas veces. 
2. PNUD-GEF = Est. Nac. de Biodiversidad. 
3. Impactos de PROARCA: nacional, regional, capacitaci6n. 
4. Replicabilidad: lecciones aprendidas y experiencia de la tortuga marina (manejo, integrado y regional). 
5. Aval tCcnico de 10s GO. Se deben conocer todos 10s proyectos de cada pais. ipapel de la CCAD?. 
Experiencia del PROGOLFO; costas trabajando con ONGs y no con ONGs. Se requiere estructuras de enlace 
ONG-GO. 
Debe basarse en la evoluci6n de la complejidad y seriedad de las tareas. 
Ver las APs como sistema. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-/-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Repoft 
3f 
Annex A.2-23 
Oportunidades Adicionales: Pequefias donaciones 
Continua con las "contribuciones excepcionales" 
r Se visualiza claramente en el proyecto PROGOLFO 
Una opcicin: Que en el futuro todos 10s proyectos Sean regionales. 
ejemplo: 1. RIO PA2: Guate-ES, Sitio Ramsar Binacional. 
2. CBM: actividades nacionales del CBM; criterios de integracicin. 
3. Mapa de vegetacidn, base del CBM 
Experiencias regionales se diseminardn con el tiempo. (ej.:criterios e indicadores) 
CITES tiene un carhcter regional, per0 no se ha integrado regionalmente. 
CCAD: formulaci6nfdiseiio politicas regionales. 
Manejo de fondos: flexibilidadfagilidad de criterios de AID. 
A travCs de la CCAD: 
GO y ONG (MARN): en el diseiio de la politicas 
Directamente: en el aspect0 operativo 
CAPAS: es muv agil. eficiente = no se debe cambiar este amecto tONG) 
Calidad: muy buena C se requiere mds talleres; depende de regulaciones internas 
Cantidad: muy poca 
Se enteraron por casualidad (Funzel) 
* Asociaciones o "Partnerships" 
Debe haber bancos de datos (en CAPAS) de: politicas y estrategias nacionales (MARN), Politicas y 
estrategias, regionales (MARN-CCAP), listado de ONGs, empresarios, consultores, prioridades nacionales 
(MAW 
Sirve para: pequeiias donaciones 
talleres 
Utilizaci6n de mecanismos como "punto focal operativo" que usa el GEF con la ONG. El punto focal debe opinar 
si un proyecto se enmarca dentro de las prioridades de MARN. 
- - se requiere nombrar cornit6 de enlace nacional 3 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 7& 
Annex A.2-24 
Se desconoce el apoyo que asuma ha recibido. 
Desconocen (se sabe que hay tCcnicos de MARN conocedores de esas actividades). Prolegis: muy poca 
actividad. 
- ---- 
Esfuerzos de coordinacidn, que le toca a la CCAD. 
Continuar con esfuerzos de APSs, CITES y CBM. 
Convenciones complementarias: biodiversiad y C.C. (sensibilizacidn de niveles decisorios). 
Capacitaci6n de niveles de decisidn (politicos) y las comunidades, ONG ocupantes de zonas del corredor y la 
EN de Biodiversidad. 
Costas: trabajar con en Chismuyo, en Conchagua y otra en NIC. 
Apoyo del sitio Ramsar Binational en el Rio Raz (Guat-ESs), cuenca baja. 
Talleres de "aprender" haciendo". 
Continuar apoyo a investigaciones ambientales. 
Apoyo regional de la tortuga marina. 
REGZONALIDAD 
1. Manejo de Sitios: 
Ramsar 
Cuencas bi-tri-nacionales 
Gfonseca: un punto regional (pero debe atenderse integralrnente) 
2. Manejo de Temas: 
Biodiversidad 
3. Lecciones, externalidades 
Intercambio de experiencias y lecciones aprendidas; ejemplo CONADIBIO y tortuga marina. 
1. Principios de EIA - Calidad ambientall EPA 
Mucha utilidad en formaci6n de Centroamericano - OG 
ONG y Consultoras 1 Sector Privado. 
Hay necesidad e interis 
2. Se requiere profundicar hacia -+ Auditorias 
Donde en la prictica hay muchos problemas 
TambiCn se debe profundizar en metodologias de evaluaci6n. 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-25 
3. (SINAMA): Sist. Nac. de M.A. -+ se debe conformar. 
4. Estudios de casos: Acordes a la realidad (tiene que ver con el 
(hacerlos m6s "digeribles") "manual de EPA" que debe ser adaptado) 
metodologia Sin perder la calidad. "Laboratorios de casos 
nivel de participantes reales" 
5. Problemtitica de logistica (son minimos) 
6. PriorizaciBn de un programa regional 
ProducciBn tec. limpia (agric, industria) 
Medidas de descontaminaciBn (agua, aire, suelo) 
7. Indicadores y lineas base, que tomen en cuenta las necesidades de las comunidades. 
8. Hacer cursos pricticos. 
Se esperaba un proyecto prictico (con d6lares) 
Talleres: 
1. IdentificaciBn de problemas (3-4 talleres) 
ComitC Gestor: Se jurament6. Desconocimiento del antiguo "ComitC de Desarrollo Local" de 
RTI. 
2. Problema identificado: Manejo Desechos S6lidos 
No se sabe el nivel de ejecuci6n del proyecto. 
Falta: cronograma de actividades concretas (hubo levantarniento de expectativas) 
Replicabilidad: Si se puede hacer (proceso muy participative). Pero: hay que aclarar desde el inicio: ~QuC se 
pretende con el proyecto?. 
Problemas: "Cafi": Desechos s6lidos y suelos. 
Se requiere programar muy bien las actividades. 
Clave: que las comunidades se apropien de 10s procesos; es mis valioso. 
Ambos proyectos: problemitica. 
Revisar 10s tCrminos de referencia y estudios en conjunto con MARN. Por ejemplo: el sitio de desechos no 
tiene estudio de suelos ni hidroldgico. Esto se debe hacer para facilitar 10s procesos (hubo desconocimiento de 
procedimientos de la Ley de Ambiente). 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report , 
Annex A.2-26 
PROARCA Y LA NUEVA COOPERACION 
1. Objetivos que persigue Deben ser conocidas por MARNInivel dcnico. Para 
Activiades poderlo aprovechar (acceso a 10s servicios) (requiere divulgar 
PROARCA "II".) 
Plan definido de la cooperacidn (sus prioridades y su oferta) 
Para minimizar / evitar duplicidades 
2. En este momento hay desconocimiento de PROARCA y sus servicios. 
CAPAS fue conocida hasta 1998 
Actividades (Estas actividades han caido como "paracaidas". No hay programaci6n cordinada con 
CCADICAPAS). 
Listas rojas (flora y fauna) 
Caoba 
Legislaci6n 
En capacitaci6n: se hizo un cronograma que no fue implementado. 
En administracidn: se han rezagado. 
CITES: administrative desconoce lo sue CAPAS hace (desconocimiento de 10s servicios). 
Sin embargo, 
Se requiere de m6s apoyo. 
CITES-ES, s610 mantiene como fuente de informaci6n a la Secretaria General de CITES (via internet), personal 
dedicado: minimo (4 personas). 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 4P 
Annex A.2-27 
7.0 GUATEMALA 
MODEL0 DE CAPAS 
BUENO: Incluy6 componente financier0 (mercadeo proambiental); con "service best" se 
aprovech6 positivamente "el momentum". 
El diagn6stico por pais mds 10s aspectos de certificacidn turistica. 
Mas ciencia 
Planificaci6n (Nacional y Regional.) 
Impacto econ6mico para las CAMS de turismo, mis personal capacitado, mayores 
oportunidades (ej. la negociaci6n con TACA que permitird certif. 5000 personas) 
CAPAS utilizd las capacidades instaladas en instancias con cardcter regional. 
iEs CAPAS un proyecto regional?. 
+ Si, participan varios paises, intercambio de experiencias (ejemplo de ICT); tambiin promueve 
coordinacih interinstitucional. 
Es CAPAS abierta? 
Si, permite participacidn de otros entes. Es versdtil (CAPAS esti en una fase de "conocimiento", con 
actividades bastante puntuales (que intrinsecamente tienen el concept0 regional). 
Se podria recomendar: 
Apoyos mucho mis estructurados, planificacidn estratkgica con las instituciones que ya conoce, sin 
perder la flexibilidad y versatilidad (esp. administrativa). 
Metodologia de "Talleres" 
En Turismo ha sido adecuada 
Modalidades "Contractuales" 
+ Mediante contratos y asignacidn de RR. 
+ Mediante pagos directos de CAPAS. 
Como "consultores" 
Recomendaciones para PROARCA 1 CAPAS 11: 
+ Darle seguimiento a procesos de capacitaci6n iniciados por CAPAS. 
+ Capacitar a 10s capacitadores (esp. en 10s procesos de certificaci6n); enseiianza a adultos, (factores 
multiplicadores), formaci6n de recursos humanos "que sepan enseiiar". 
+ Participar en procesoss de educacidn formal. 
+ Conceptualizar sus apoyos. 
CAPAS debe continuar con 10s 6 temas que ya trabaja, per0 debe concentrarse "tematicamente" en 
cada uno de ellos. 
BlOFOR lndefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 
Annex A.2-28 
Socios de CAPAS: 
+ Sector privado - ONG 
+ (iniciativa privada sin fines de lucro) 
Tipos de proyectos 
+ solamente regionales (a1 menos 3 paises) 
CAPAS "debe darse a conocer" 
Relacih CCAD 1 CAPAS 
CAPAS responde al mandato que tiene CCAD. 
CCAD: brazo gestor de proyectos deL SICA. 
CAPAS debe ser aut6nomo de DGMA-SICA. 
B BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report & 
I 
Annex A.2-29 
8.0 BELIZE 
PROBLEMS 
Fishing grounds problems in port Honduras. 
El problema que PROARCA nos deberia ayudar a solucionar es la definici6n de las Areas de pesca en 10s puertos 
de Honduras. 
What do about this problem? 
Para tal prop6sito es necesario que nos ayuden en el aspect0 de organizaci6r1, establecer un patrullaje conjunto de 
las areas de pesca. Para hacer esto requerimos de fondos y un proyecto como PROARCA nos 10s puede 
prorcionar. Es necesario que nos apoyen para delimitar para proteger mejor las reservas marinas y tenemos que 
hacer 10s estudios para buscar 10s mecanismos de expandirlas. Es necesario hacer mas investigaci6n en temas 
como nichos de reproducci6n para diferentes especies, meses en las que algunas especies comerciales entran en 
reproducci6n y a identificar otras oportunidades en turismo o cualquier otro tema que nos permita mejorar el 
ingreso de las gente que se dedica ha estas actividades. 
Organize 
Patrol the area (requires funds) 
More protection to marine reserve(s) & expansion 
More research (breeding grounds spawning seasons, other options) 
2. Workshops are good, but there is a need for action, also, there is the need for "workshops for fishermen" 
(more representation). 
Toda la capacitaci6n y 10s talleres que hemos recibido son buenos per0 debemos pasar a la accidn. En 10s talleres 
deberia haber una mayor representacibn de 10s pescadores que es la gente que vive de 10s recursos del mar y no 
tienen suficiente representatividad. 
SOLUTIONS 
1. More education; related with the sea, fishermen, etc. 
2. More organization 
3. Specialized workshops. 
4. Set up credit systems (mechanism) small credits for fishing activities. 
5. Retraining (fly fishing, ecotourism, etc.) 
6. Role of Tide 
Help (them) for better boats. 
Help in financial mechanisms 
Managerial skills & training (business MGMT) 
Have fishermen representation in TIDE'S board 
Get "Port of Honduras Reserve" declared 
7. Standardize Communication Systems 
(better equipment to get along with them). 
BIOFOR Indefinite Quantity Contract (Contract No. LAG-1-00-99-00013-00) PROARCA Evaluation Final Report 1