1 / 16

Regional experiences with management effectiveness evaluation

Regional experiences with management effectiveness evaluation. Using different tools in Central America Durban, South Africa 8-17 Sep 2003. Alberto Salas IUCN-Mesoamerica. Central America context and the Protected Areas (richness and poverty).

isadoram
Download Presentation

Regional experiences with management effectiveness evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Regional experiences with management effectiveness evaluation Using different tools in Central America Durban, South Africa 8-17 Sep 2003 Alberto Salas IUCN-Mesoamerica

  2. Central America context and the Protected Areas (richness and poverty) • Seven countries in small extention (half a millon Km2): Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panamá. • A population of 34 millions inhabitants (estimation for 2025 of 59 millions people). • Right now an indigenous population of 6.7 millions. • 20 millions of Central Americam people live under poverty conditions and 14 millions in extreme poverty. • It is estimated that the region contains 7% of the global biodiversity, 22 ecoregions and 17 life zones.

  3. Central America context and the Protected Areas (regional integration) • Two regional conventions: the Forest and Biodiversity and PA´s. • One Ministerial Forum: Central America Comission on Environmenta and Development (CCAD) and 13 different technical commitees one of them Central America Council on Protected Areas (CCAP). • Higth participation of civil society. • Strategic Program of CCAD: The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) and the Mesoamerican Reef System. • Different regional strategies related to Protected Areas: Central America Forestry Strategy, Central America Biodiversity Strategy (running) • Central America Enviromental Plan (PARCA)

  4. Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS) • Seven countries with National Protected Areas System. CAPAS is composed by the seven NPAS: Presently CAPAS has 554 declared PAs and 200 proposed. • PAs cover 25% (12.964.026 Has) of the Central America territories. • Privated PA´s are incresing; Belize is almost 5% of the national territory, Costa Rica has more than 100 private PA´s. • There is also a growing number of municipal PA´s (15 PA´s) • 43 internationally designated protected areas: 27 Ramsar sites; 8 World Heritage Sites and 8 Biosphere Reserves. • 69% of the PAs are less than 10,000 has (thats the main reason for the MBC) • 51 PA´s are in country boundaries and 23 are transboundaries.

  5. CAPAS growth from 1969 to2002:Numberof declared PAs, hectares protectedand the percentage they represent of CA territory. Fuente: J.C. Godoy, 1997, SICAP, UICN/ORMA, 1997 Elaborado por: R. Mc Carthy, A. Salas, UICN/ORMA, 1997

  6. Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS): status of management. • Only 18.7% (104 PA´s) have management plan and only 53% PA´s have annual operational plan. • Near 40% of the PA´s has permanent personnel. Sometimes the each PA has only 2 or 3 people. • Initiatives to manage PA´s with coordination of 2 and even 3 countries are in place • We have communities living in the PA´s and around (buffer zones). • More than 120 PA´s have co-management processes • So many different management categories (36 at regional level). • All countries have adopted M&E systems using different approaches and adapting tools to national priorities.

  7. Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS):main outputs • Increasing ecosystemic representation. • Existing strategic and legal frameworks. • Wide participation of stakeholders • Participatory planning and M&E processes.

  8. Central America Protected Areas System (CAPAS): main threats • Insufficient economic resources (more responsabilities, less money) • Little personnel in the PAs and little continuity of the same one. • Low institutional capacity. • Little advantage of the ecoturísm potential. • Gap of monitoring on biological and socioeconomical issues.

  9. Management effectiveness evaluation in LA • 1989. Evaluation of treats. Strategy for National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador. (Cifuentes,et.al.) • 1990. Desing methodology and aplication in N.P. Corcovado and N.P. Manuel Antonio; Costa Rica (P.Ortiz) • 1990. Scorecards, TNC. Parks in Peril. • 1992. Numerical Evaluation of National Parks System in Venezuela (Rivero y Gabaldón) • 1993. Review methodology and aplication en B. R. Carara and N. M. Guayabo, Costa Rica. (H. de Faria). • 1997. PROARCA/CAPAS (J. Courrau et.al.) • 1997. IUCN-WCPA (M. Hockings) • Evolution of the concept of management of PA´s • Necesity of mesure improvement in PA´s management. • Bali, 1982 • Caracas, 1992 • Lack of systematic tools to mesure

  10. Management effectiveness in Central America • TNC´s Scorecard development by the Parks in Peril Project (1990) • A CATIE thesis development by de Faria (1993) • PROARCA/CAPAS Project (1997) • WWF/CATIE-IUCN-GTZ, Forest Innovation Project (1998) • Enhancing our Heritage – UNESCO/WCPA-IUCN (2000)

  11. First steps • Pilot protected areas in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panamá. • Different areas through thesis (CR, Osa, Gua, PNT, Pan LA) • TNC´s PiP Sites in Honduras (RP), Costa Rica (PILA) and Panamá (Chagres) Putting the Pieces Together

  12. Countries official adoption process: PROARCA/CAPAS model • Started with 5 pilot sites in CR, 1997 • Trained CA protected areas professionals, 1997 • CR decided to officialize the tool for all the state protected areas, 1999. • Pilot sites in Panamá, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras. • Panama decided to officialize the use of the tool for all the PA´s, 2002. • Costa Rica and Panamá start providing staff training on their own. • Honduras officialized the use of the tool, 2000 • The project continued providing training and technical assistance over 4 years • 5 Ranges, 43 indicators Pieces Together

  13. Looking for a Regional Framework • The adoption of the tool at the country level led to the development of a regional system wide database. • Country specific versions of the database were developed for all countries • Some countries started “feeding” the database with data from the sites.

  14. From the official adoption to the policy, ten years later: the case of CR. • Pilot sites, NP´s Corcovado and Manuel Antonio, 1991 (P Ortíz) – BR Carara and NM Guayabo, 1993 (de Faria) • Review methodology, CA Osa and adyacent áreas, 1997 (Izurrieta) • 10 ranges, 63 indicators, • PROARCA/CAPAS, 1997 (Courrau) • Official adoption, 1999 • Policy and strategies for management effectiveness, 2003 (Mena y Artavia) • 8 principles, 5 ranges, 19 factors, 31 criteria and 37 indicators.

  15. Lessons learned • Our countries has not development alredy a monitoring culture. It take time and it´s a processes. • M&E must to development as a tool for decision makers. • M&E system has a lack of social and economics indicators. • There was a need for M&E tools in the region. • Some contries and PA´s (sites) have demonstrated willigness and commitment to implement M&E. • The introdution of M&E in CA has led to new management of PA´s • M&E in order to work (follow up) and be sustainable requires regular training of PA´s staff and technical assistance.

  16. Thanks/Gracias

More Related