· Web viewUnited Nations Development Programme. Conservation of dry forest AND COASTAL...

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

CONSERVATION OF DRY FOREST AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC COAST OF SOUTHERN NICARAGUA:

BUILDING PRIVATE –PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS (PIMS 1824)

PROJECT SUMMARYPROJECT IDENTIFIERS1. Project name: Conservation of Dry Forest and Coastal Biodiversity of the Pacific South of Nicaragua: Building Private-Public Partnerships

2. GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP

3. Country or countries in which the project is being implemented: Nicaragua

4. Country eligibility:CBD ratification: November 20th, 1995Nicaragua has an UNDP-assisted Country Programme.

5. GEF focal area(s): Biodiversity 6. Operational program/Short-term measure: OP #3 -Forest ecosystemsOP #2 -Coastal, fresh water and marineThe project is also eligible under the GEF’s Strategic Priority 1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas.

7. Country Driveness: According to MARENA's Strategy for the National Protected Areas System (currently under discussion), its objective 4 states that the SINAP counts with an institutional framework that promotes efficient decentralized administrative schemes from the protected areas system. Three schemes have been defined and are beingimplemented regarding management of protected areas. The second scheme applies to the present project; decentralized areas that are administered through co-management agreements by third parties and supervised by MARENA.At the same time, the co-management has three administrative modalities; by NGO's, byMunicipalities and Mixed (communities and private land-owners). Also, the concept ofco-management was introduced in the Protected Areas Regulation (Decree 14-99) inwhich it is defined that the co-management is the model for administrative collaborationin protected areas by which the Government gives up a protected area's administration, or the co-management with private institutions, local governments, NGO's or universities(please refer to pages 11 and 12 for more information on the matter).8. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs:The project will demonstrate how public-private partnerships can provide replicable, effective and sustainable protection to biodiversity of global and national significance at the Chococente wildlife refuge. Regionally, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

Project Description 1

(MBC) identifies the project as a local model of public private partnerships which can be replicated through the region. The project will also provide insights on how local communities living in the refuge improve their livelihoods without jeopardizing biodiversity. ON the other side, MBC will provide a framework through the regional strategy of protected areas which is currently being designed. Tropical dry forests, such as the one at Chococente, have been classified as regionally critically endangered. Turtles to be protected are also endangered. The project will serve as a replicable demonstration of how to implement the mandate of Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) of decentralization and co-management, and will thus contribute to the expansion and consolidation of the national (Nicaragua) and the regional (Central America) system of protected areas. Nicaragua’s National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan and Chococente’s Management Plan identified Chococente as a priority wildlife refuge and the theme of private-public co-operation as a key mechanism for achieving conservation. Nicaragua’s Coastal Zone Action Plan (CZAP) identifies ecotourism as the most appropriate form of coastal development for the area in question, as does the Nicaraguan Institute of Tourism (INTUR). The project will be implemented in accordance with Nicaragua’s National Environmental Action Plan (1993), which encourages co-operation between NGOs and Government, and will thus be consistent with the National Environment Law #219, by seeking to incorporate different sectors of civil society into the management of biodiversity and natural resources. The project will also support Nicaragua in meeting its international obligations under the CBD, including Article 7 (Identification & Monitoring); Article 8 (In-situ conservation); Article 10 (Sustainable use of components of biological diversity); Article 12 (Research and training); Article 13 (Public education & awareness); and Article 18 (Technical and scientific co-operation). Through its strong alternative livelihoods component the project will also contribute to the national poverty alleviation strategy (RSPR) and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development.

9. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement: Nicaraguan government GEF focal point (Mr. Nórvin Sepúlveda) 7 July 2003

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES10. Project rationale and objectives:

Development Objective:Conservation and sustainable use of globally significant coastal and dry forest ecosystems through public-private partnerships.

Project Objective:To demonstrate effective public-private

Indicators:

Five years after project completion there will be at least five additional public-private partnerships protecting globally significant coastal and dry forest ecosystems underway.

In year five, the area of forest cover


partnerships in co-management of a protected area for the conservation and sustainable use of dry forest biodiversity and a turtle nesting area in the south Pacific coast of Nicaragua. The project will also provide the GoN with a general framework for the replication of the co-management model.

Immediate Objectives 1 : 1. Consolidation of the Chococente Wildlife Refuge.

2. Adoption of Biodiversity Friendly Livelihoods

(>3,411 ha) and quality is the same or improved compared to year one2.

In year five, at least 90% of the 1,160 ha of “modified” land (pastures, agricultural lands, etc) due to anthropic activities are being restored or sustainable activities are being implemented.

At the end of the project the number of species of birds nesting in the area is equal or greater than on year one.

Illegal egg collection events reduced by 75% in year five compared to year one.

The rolling 3-year average of the number of forest fires declines by 50% by year five compared with year three.

Contrast of socio-ecological and economic surveys at the household level show 80% less dependency and wildlife commercialization (turtle eggs, iguanas, birds, etc).

Entrance and user fees will account for 50% of the managerial recurrent costs of the Refuge by the end of year two and 60 to 70% of the recurrent costs by year five.

1’.Visitors book at the Center in year five shows praise for the facilities and quality of ranger guidance and services, and conservation status of the Refuge.

2’. Records of Sustainable Alternative Livelihoods Specialist confirm a substantial decrease in the amount of damaging economic activities (egg harvesting, livestock grazing, etc) undertaken by local inhabitants.

1 Objectives as given in Annex 1. Logical Framework.2 Rio Escalante – Chacocente Wildlife Refuge Management Plan, MARENA, December 2002.


3. Strengthening of enforcement capacities.

4. Sustainable uses of turtle eggs.

5. Improved awareness of the value of the Refuge and its biodiversity.

6. Effective monitoring and evaluation system implemented.

7. Mechanisms established and activities implemented to promote the replicability of the co-management model.

2’’Records also confirm that the 50% of the adult population that is benefiting from project generated biodiversity friendly activities are those who were generating the most damage to the natural resources.

2’’’The Records of the Sustainable Alternative Livelihoods Specialist indicate that on year four there are at least 10 families benefiting fro ecotourism related activities.

3’. Park and police statistics show illegal use events reduced between year one and five by at least 70%.

4’. On year five, Refuge books indicate illegal poaching of eggs reduced by 80% compared to year two.

4’’Centre records indicate that starting year three harvesting of turtle eggs is done according to the agreed adaptive management plan.

5’. On year five awareness surveys of people living in areas belonging to the three municipalities indicate improved knowledge of, and more positive attitude towards, the value of the Refuge and its biodiversity compared to year one and three.

6’. Reports available at the end of years one, three and five at the project management offices with biological and sociological surveys.

6’’In year five, minutes of the co-management entity indicate discussion of the results of the monitoring and ad hoc adjustments to project management.

7’.At the end of year five, official publication in “La Gaceta” of the approval.


7’’ By year five, at least five site visits involving public and private stakeholders from other pertinent PAs have undertaken exchanges that promote the project as a co-management model.

7’’’ By year five a National Workshop has been held that presents and promotes the project as a model for public-private partnerships as a mechanism for PA management.

11. Project outcomes:a) The Refuge will have a co-

management entity with bylaws and all necessary agreements with stakeholders to carry out its conservation mandate.

b) Forest biodiversity degradation and turtle eggs losses in the Refuge due to human activities will have been largely stopped.

c) Stakeholders in and around the Refuge will have an improved attitude towards its conservation and biodiversity.

d) An increasing stream of visitors to the Refuge will be paying fees and praising its benefits.

e) An effective monitoring and evaluation system in place and running.

f) Refuge residents experience improved livelihoods and reduced dependency on extraction of wildlife.

g) The public private partnership model becomes a viable option for protected area co-management.

Indicators:a’) Decree of establishment and bylaws available on year three at the refuge.

b’) Forest cover (> 3,411 ha), egg and species censuses available on year five at the Refuge indicate sustained improvement of its biodiversity.

c’) Sociological surveys available at the Refuge on year five show improved attitudes.

d’) Entrance and user fees will account for 50% of the managerial recurrent costs of the Refuge by the end of year two and 60 to 70% of the recurrent costs by year five.

e’) The minutes of the co-management entity will indicate discussions of the results of the monitoring and evaluations, and ad hoc adjustments to project management.f’) Project household surveys on year five show improved livelihoods and reduced dependency on extraction of wildlife in at least 50% of original households.

g’) By year five there are at least five applications presented to MARENA to adopt this model.


12. Project activities to achieve outcomes:

Detailed indicators for all immediate objectives and all associated activities are presented in the attached log-frame matrix (Annex 1).

1. Consolidation of the Refuge . Establishing the public-private co-management entity; Study tour with stakeholders and MARENA to learn from the Chilean experience in co-management and incentives to private landowners; Exchange visit to Talamanca Biological Corridor with representatives of private landowners to learn from their experience; approving by all stakeholders of the bylaws defining roles, rights, responsibilities, of the various actors and the management structure; preparing and approving co-management agreements between MARENA, private landowners and municipalities; capacity building for management and co-management of the Refuge; constructing of an interpretation and visitors center, administration building, cabins for visitors, park ranger facilities; constructing of three watchtowers, equipping the administration buildings; demarcation of the land and marine borders of the Refuge; elaboration and approval of an overall framework management plan for the Refuge; elaboration and approval of individual farm management plans; capacity building of stakeholders for the implementation of management plans, training of rangers, community fire fighters and volunteers; equipping of guides, rangers ,community fire fighters and volunteers; establishing a system for volunteers contributions to the Refuge.

2. Adoption of biodiversity friendly livelihoods . Preparing and approving the strategy and action plan for alternative biodiversity friendly livelihoods both in the Wildlife Refuge and in its buffer zone; preparation and approval of a strategy for biodiversity-friendly eco-tourism; implementation of the strategies; preparation and implementation of a substantive number of production projects with tangible benefits for the local communities (including both large and small landowners); improving roads within the Refuge.

3. Strengthening of enforcement capacities . Preparing and approving agreements for an enforcement strategy defining the roles of the various actors, including MARENA, the three municipalities, private sector, NGOs, army, and environmental police; biodiversity-relevant training of actors; building of control posts and purchasing of needed equipment.

4. Sustainable use of turtle eggs . Collecting of previous lessons

COSTS.

GEF $296,057 TOTAL $1,286,682

GEF $61,777TOTAL $2,169,795

GEF $75,278TOTAL $121,078

GEF$72,947


learned in the region; preparation and implementation of an adaptive management plan for the sustainable use of turtle eggs; establishing a co-funded hatchery;

5. Improved awareness of the value of the Refuge and its biodiversity. Preparing, approving and implementing an education-dissemination strategy and action plan aimed at key audiences, including local schools, adults, decision-makers, landowners, municipalities and other institutions; establishing biodiversity displays at the visitor’s center; designing and constructing educational trails with signposting in the Refuge.

6. Effective monitoring and evaluation system implemented. Agreeing on biological and sociological-attitudinal surveys and indicators to be monitored (some of them available in the log-frame matrix); conducting the year one, three and five surveys for baseline and impact assessments; conducting a short mid-term evaluation on year three, and a full and final evaluation on year five; conduct annual reviews (5 Tri-partite, 4 PIRs); feed back from the monitoring and evaluation exercises to management.

7. Mechanisms established and activities implemented to overcome key barriers to public-private PA partnerships and promote the replicability of the co-management model. Hiring a lawyer-consultant to prepare a draft regulatory framework from the experience obtained through this model, defining respective roles and responsibilities of the different actors, the benefits accruing from their involvement in co-management and thereby establishing the basis for an incentives scheme, through a participatory process with all relevant actors before final approval of the final document. Promotion of project co-management experiences shared through a series of site visits by stakeholders from other PAs and organization of a National Workshop to appeal to wider audiences with a final publication of workshop proceedings and their dissemination.

TOTAL $182,047

GEF $85,777TOTAL $171,402

GEF $72,777TOTAL$159,177

GEF $58,862TOTAL$58,862

13. Estimated budget (in US$):GEF PDF A: $ 25,000GEF (Project): $ 962,120 Total GEF: $ 987,120 Total Co-financing: $ 3,894,968 (including $30,000 for the PDF A)-----------------------------------------------------TOTAL: $ 4,882,088 Ratio of GEF: Non-GEF funding is 3.8


Information on institution submitting project brief14. Information on project proponent:Fauna & Flora International (FFI), founded in 1903, is the world’s longest established conservation body. Today FFI is active on over 50 countries working with local partners and counterparts to protect and conserve species and ecosystems through sound science, a genuinely participatory approach, and a strong commitment to build local capacities and to the long-term sustainability of conservation achievements. Annex 3 gives information on the capacity of FFI as an executing agency, and summarizes its global experience with MSPs and related projects.

Nicaragua Office -Fauna & Flora International, MARENA, Km 12 1/2 Carretera Norte, ManaguaPhone + 505 (0) 88 73079Head Office -Fauna & Flora International, Great Eastern House, Tenison Road, Cambridge, CB1 2TT, UKPhone + 44 (0) 1223 571 000, Fax + 44 (0) 1223 461 48115. Information on proposed executing agency (if different from above):n/a16. Date of initial submission of project concept: 30 October 2000INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:17. Project identification number: PIMS 182418. Implementing Agency contact person: Mr. Leif Pedersen, Portfolio Manager, UNDP-GEF LACEmail: [email protected] Tel: (5255) 5263-9815

Ms. Leonie Arguello, Programme Officer, UNDP-NicaraguaEmail: [email protected] Tel: (5052) 661-701 19. Project linkage to Implementing Agency program(s):The present project fits within UNDP's Country Programme (2002-2006), which states that UNDP, with the support of specialized UN organizations, will contribute to the country's environmental organization and energy development to improve the well being and security of the poor. As one of its main expected outputs, UNDP will work towards improving the technical capacity of the Government and Civil Society to integrate environmental policies and regulations into national, sectoral and local development programmes and plans. UNDP also aims to validate innovative conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems of local and global importance, with the help of GEF resources, as well as engage the private sector in the restoration and organization of ecosystems and threatened forests in the country.

The project is also linked to the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor since the MBC will institutionalize a unit that will guarantee the interest of the corridor. In a sense, the Corridor is the great umbrella under which the current project will operate. Nonetheless, the project lands directly on the field with very practical issues and solutions to common threats to the area. At the same time, the project is also linked to the National Biodiversity Strategy and coincides with its guidelines. The Strategy initiated as a two phased enabling


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

activity and concluded this past august. Here again, the project will land on the field and implement guidelines specified in the strategy.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project DescriptionRationale and ObjectivesCurrent SituationExpected Project OutcomesActivities and Financial Inputs Sustainability Analysis and Risk AssessmentStakeholder Involvement and Social AnalysisIncremental Cost AnalysisBudgetImplementation PlanPublic InvolvementMonitoring and EvaluationList of Annexes.

Annex 1 Logical FrameworkAnnex 2a) Site Location MapAnnex 2b) PA Habitats MapAnnex 3 Information about the ProponentAnnex 4 Biodiversity ReportAnnex 5 Threats and Root Causes Analysis ReportAnnex 6 PDFA SummaryAnnex 7 Matrix of agreed land uses at ChococenteAnnex 8 Summary of the most relevant laws and regulations related to the

projectAnnex 9 Chococente’s NGOs and Alternatives Survey

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered SpeciesCAM Municipal Environment CommissionCOMAP USAID-Funded project: Comanejo de Areas ProtegidasDED German Development ServiceDGAP General Department of Protected AreasDGBRN General Department of BiodiversityFFI Fauna & Flora InternationalFISE Emergency Social Fund (Nicaragua)GoG Government of GermanyGoN Government of NicaraguaGoJ Government of JapanGoUK Government of the UKGTZ German Technical Agency of CooperationIDB Inter American Development BankIDR Rural Development Institute (Nicaragua)MARENA Ministry of Environment and Natural ResourcesMECD Ministry of Education, Culture, and SportsMSP Medium Sized ProjectNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationPA Protected AreaPDM Plan of Development for the MunicipalitiesPIM Plan of Investments for the MunicipalitiesPOSAF Socially responsible, environmental agroforestry project


PSO Proyecto Sur Oeste (GTZ-IDR)SINIA National System of Environmental InformationUNA National Agrarian UniversityUNV United Nations Volunteers


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVESCentral America contains 7% of the world’s biodiversity in 0.5% of the world’s land area. Within Central America, Nicaragua has particular biological importance. There is more forest left in Nicaragua than any other Mesoamerican country after Mexico, and it has some of the largest areas of tropical dry forest in the region. Dinerstein et al. (1995) assessed the terrestrial ecoregions of Latin America and rated the Central American Pacific dry forests as bioregionally outstanding and critically endangered. Additionally, the region’s coast provides important nesting grounds for globally significant populations of sea turtles.

The importance of the Mesoamerican region for globally significant biodiversity has led to the implementation of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC), the largest multi-lateral conservation initiative in the world. It aims to link natural habitats in a contiguous landscape unit from southern Mexico to northern Colombia. In Nicaragua the government identified the Pacific dry coastal forest as an element of this landscape conservation initiative. However, due to limited resources availability this area was removed from the implementation phase of the Nicaraguan element of the MBC that concentrates instead on the corridor of tropical lowland forest of the Atlantic coast. The Protected Area (PA) selected as foci for this project is situated on Nicaragua’s southern Pacific coast, and as part of the ecoregion excluded from the MBC, makes a logical focus for a complimentary GEF Medium-sized project.

NICARAGUA’S SOUTHERN PACIFIC COASTThe southern zone of Nicaragua’s Pacific coast is characterized by hilly terrain with tracts of tropical dry forest, globally significant sea turtle nesting beaches, productive rocky near-shore marine environments, and short seasonally dry river courses. This project focuses on a legally gazetted refuge within this region: the Rio Escalante-Chacocente Wildlife Refuge (14,800 hectares of dry forest and 12km of coastal habitat), henceforth referred by its original and local name Chococente.

Globally significant sea turtle populationThe reserve supports one of Mesoamerica’s most important ‘arribada’ (massive reproductive arrival) beaches, the location of the spectacular phenomenon of mass nesting sea turtles. Chococente, the project site, is one of seven arribada beaches for Olive Ridley turtles in the world. Olive Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea IUCN Endangered) nest in vast numbers, with 3-4,000 individuals per night during the peak season in July -December. Appropriate use of their eggs is crucial to the survival of this globally threatened specie, since there are now less than half a dozen major nesting beaches in Mesoamerica, several have already been lost in Mexico, and population declines are being reported from arribada beaches in the Indian Ocean. More immediately threatened is the Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea, IUCN Critically endangered), which also breeds on the beaches in significant numbers and it is predicted will become extinct in the Pacific within the next decade unless immediate action is taken. Black turtle (Chelonia mydas agassizii, IUCN Critically Endangered) and hawksbill turtles


(Eretmochelys imbricata, IUCN Critically Endangered) have also been known to breed here. All these species are listed on Appendix I of CITES, prohibiting international trade.

Globally significant terrestrial biodiversityThe beach is contiguous with critically endangered tropical dry forest ecosystems, with unique species assemblages that evolved due to the mix of North and South American species. These forests are remnants of an ecoregion that once stretched unbroken from Mexico to Panama, of which only 2 % of the original habitat remains (Janzen, 1983). Thus these reserves are of global biodiversity significance for their terrestrial habitat alone. Chococente represents the most intact area of tropical dry forest in Nicaragua, and the second largest fragment in the Central American Pacific.

The forests contain several threatened vertebrate species, such as the Central American spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi geoffroyi, IUCN Critically Endangered), white-faced monkey (Cebus capuccinus, IUCN Critically Endangered) and mantled howler monkey (Alouatta palliata, IUCN Critically Endangered). These and other vertebrate species have already been lost from most of the Nicaraguan Pacific coast forests, and are suffering local extinction throughout their ranges. The dry forest also contains several globally threatened tree species, including cocobolo (Dalbergia retusa IUCN Vulnerable), and lignum vitae (Guaiacum sanctum IUCN Endangered). The forest forms a mosaic with small coastal lagoons, which further increases biodiversity through provision of habitat for migratory birds and other species such as juvenile fish and the returning American crocodile (Crocodylus actus IUCN Vulnerable) that inhabit the mangrove ecosystems in some areas.

These biodiverse ecosystems and protected areas, such as Chococente, also support human activity through traditional and non-regulated usage, which pose important threats to their biodiversity. This is critical in a relatively isolated area with poor conventional agricultural potential in one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Nicaragua’s national PAs are mostly privately-owned. Beaches, however are all in the public domain. All of them fall under the remit of MARENA (the Ministry of Natural Resources) whose legal mandate is to facilitate the incorporation of civil society into the conservation management of protected areas. Chococente is a private (land) and public (beach) protected area under the Wildlife Refuge management category, defined by the Regulation of Protected Areas as:

“Land and/or aquatic areas subject to active intervention to guarantee the maintenance of the habitats and/or satisfy the needs of determined unique, rare, protected or endangered resident or migratory animal species or communities of national or international importance.”

The management objectives of Wildlife Refuges are:

To conserve the habitats and flora and fauna species of national and/or international interest To improve knowledge through scientific investigation and monitoring of the biological

species in the area as the main activities associated with sustainable resource use


To establish limited areas with educational ends and permit the public to appreciate the characteristics of the habitats being protected and the wildlife management activities

To conserve and manage the habitats for the protection of one or more resident or migratory species of national, regional or world interest

In addition, the Regulation of Protected Areas defines Guidelines for the Administration of Protected Areas for each management category. Within these general guidelines, the Wildlife Refuge can be administered by MARENA alone or shared. Non-profit organizations, municipal governments, universities, indigenous and rural communities and private associations can have access to co-management. The latter is regulated through the guidelines established by the Co-management of Protected Areas. Also, Chococente’s Management Plan, in its Institutional Framework specifies that the role of the private owners is, amongst others, “to participate in decisions that can have incidence or impact in the development of the Refuge” and “to participate (through their chosen representatives) in the Coordination and Monitoring Commission for the implementation of the Management Plan programs”.

MARENA´s policy is to decentralize and delegate power to regional authorities such as regional Municipal Environmental Commissions (CAMs), and seek partners for co-management of protected areas, so that they can become involved in management and monitoring of natural resources. MARENA is currently testing co-management models (under the auspices of COMAP, a USAID funded project) with NGOs. The scope of these partnerships is not only limited geographically (to the Pacific) but also to the NGO sector. What is needed in Nicaragua, in a context where 95% of the protected areas are under private land ownership, are mechanisms that facilitate the active involvement of the private sector to ensure effective co-management. However, at present, there are no models that can effectively address the existing barriers to the creation of public-private partnerships; only limited prior experience of dealing with the private sector in protected area management; and no established regulations or clearly defined incentives to encourage private sector collaboration. As a result many PAs are not being actively managed and are suffering degradation and fragmentation. This is the case of Chococente (see location and habitat maps in Annex 2). Biodiversity found at Chococente can be seen in Annex 4.

THREATS TO CHOCOCENTE BIODIVERSITYProximal threats to biodiversity in Chococente are shown in detail in Annex 5. Amongst these, the key threat is from the 500 people (communities and landowners) that live inside the PA. People utilize natural resources, and if uncontrolled these activities will increasingly threaten both the coastal and forest biodiversity. Hunting for wildlife, collection of firewood, illegal logging and cattle grazing in forest nuclei areas already degrade the forest ecosystems. Turtle eggs are also harvested from the beaches. Low reproduction rates, and a reduced population size, means that this level of harvest is probably unsustainable. Although there have been sporadic attempts at controlling the harvesting of turtle eggs, there have also been periodic illegal mass-harvests and ‘vandalism’ where nearly 100% of the eggs may be taken or destroyed. There is an overall imminent threat to the turtle populations and forest biodiversity from unsustainable and unregulated land uses.


ROOT CAUSES OF THREATS TO BIODIVERSITYThe root causes underlying these threats, and their inter-relationships are analyzed in Annex 5, but below is a summary of some of the key causal factors that threaten the biodiversity of Chococente: poverty and lack of biodiversity-friendly livelihood options; insufficient awareness of the significance of the biodiversity; distrust between sectors and towards private owners and government authority; insufficient enforcement of laws and regulations; and no clear understanding of how private owners can benefit from the different incentives schemes provided by the existing Environmental Legal framework, which is essentially unknown to most private owners. In addition, these incentives are not being promoted by MARENA and thus are not motivating conservation as they were designed to do. As with the rest of the National Protected Area System, Chococente has no experience of how to effectively manage private protected areas under public-private partnerships. Also, it has no regulatory framework defining the corresponding roles, rights and responsibilities of the state versus private owners and municipal authorities.

To-date the management regime of the reserve has not been strong enough, or possessed sufficiently good relationships with communities nor had enough capacity to be present throughout the reserve, to prevent violation of both national laws and reserve regulations. These infractions, involving both terrestrial biodiversity and turtle eggs, are carried out by a variety of stakeholders. The failure to deal with this adequately has been based, in part, upon an incomplete understanding of, and lack of solutions to, poverty and the potential of biodiversity-friendly livelihood options for people collecting eggs and using resources.

Combined with ineffective management is the fact that there is a lack of clarity about the location of the buffer zones as opposed to core conservation zones. Consequently, cattle are grazed and hunting takes place in areas that should be part of the core-conservation area, while other areas are fenced off by private land-owners who then continue to use them for activities prohibited under national law within Wildlife Refuges – see below.

Due to the presence of large, often powerful landowners in the refuge there is both a clear necessity and opportunity for constructive private/public partnerships within the management regimes. However, there are no examples to follow on how this can be effectively achieved.

The local populations rely on the natural resources within the refuge and seasonal work in Costa Rica. The annual income of people in the area is one of the lowest in Nicaragua (the GDP is less than US$150). There is little awareness among local people about the purpose and management of the PAs and as a result they have a neutral-to-negative image of the refuge. Not only is there a basic lack of awareness about the reserves themselves, but also a lack of understanding about the importance of environmental services to the existing income generated for these communities (including both large and small landowners) by the presence of the forest and coastal resources.

This unique combination of globally significant biodiversity, threats and root causes, with private land ownership provides an opportunity to demonstrate how these various stakeholders, public and private, can collaborate in protecting global commons. The inter-stakeholder collaboration


initiated during the PDF A process at the site provides a constructive basis and synergies for the development of the proposed model. The demonstration can be later replicated and thus help protect biodiversity at much wider geographical scale. This opportunity is the GEF entry-point.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND GEF PRIORITIES.

The project goal is: To demonstrate effective public-private partnerships in co-management of a protected area for the conservation and sustainable use of dry forest biodiversity and a turtle nesting zone in the south Pacific coast of Nicaragua. The project will also provide the GoN with a general framework for the replication of the public-private co-management model.

The seven Immediate Objectives of the project are: Consolidation of the Chococente Wildlife Refuge, Adoption of Biodiversity-Friendly Livelihoods, Strengthening of Enforcement Capacities, Sustainable Use of Turtle Eggs, Improved Awareness, Effective Monitoring and Evaluation, and the Replication Framework.

Each of these objectives will focus on building the capacity of key individuals, organizations, and associations to ensure that the biodiversity in the PAs will continue to be conserved in the long-term.

The goals of this project are consistent with Biodiversity Strategic Priority 1, as approved by the GEF Council in May 2003: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas. As mentioned, Nicaragua’s national PAs are mostly privately owned, but there are no examples of how effective co-management can be achieved under the potentially numerous opportunities using public and private institutions. As a result many PAs are not being actively managed and are suffering degradation and fragmentation. By providing a critical demonstration and a framework for how private-public sectors can co-manage protected areas, the project will help expand and consolidate Nicaragua’s national system of PAs. Moreover, the project will build capacities for long-term institutional, management and financial sustainability, and will demonstrate how to catalyze participation of local communities, larger private landowners and NGOs. By providing and promoting an example of effective private-public partnership and a framework for replication the project will remove barriers to further participation of the private sector in conservation of endangered globally significant biodiversity. Critically endangered areas, previously under weak or no management, will subsequently be subject to enhanced protection under public-private partnerships.

The goals of the project are also fully consistent with the goals of OP3 and OP2, to conserve critically endangered forest and coastal biodiversity through conservation and sustainable use. The project will also contribute to avoid land degradation and to integrated ecosystem management.


CURRENT SITUATION (BASELINE)The project has been under discussion and preparation since 1999. This long preparation time has generated some unexpected results. The expectation within government and non-government has been that the project and the monies will be granted, and as a consequence investments that without GEF project would not go to Chococente, have been funneled into the Refuge. That is, the expectation of the project started leveraging activities and resources even before the project was fully prepared. Without the project expectation these monies would have been lost or invested elsewhere. The most notable examples of this leveraging effect concern the construction of facilities at the Center (IDB-funded), preparation of an overall framework Management Plan for the Refuge (IDB), and improvement of roads within the Refuge (Japanese cooperation). For example, monies for the construction of facilities (US$400,000) were allocated within an IDB loan, but there was no place for the facilities. IDB needed to have the constructions made on public lands and MARENA did not have resources to purchase the land. However, because of the project expectation, FFI bought the land (US$25,000) and donated it to MARENA, in order that it accessed the IBD loan and ensured the installation of the facilities. Private investors and large landowners have also increased their interest in conservation through participation in the project, and plan to make additional surveys, research and management plans under the assumption that the project would be approved and the conservation goal would be adopted. The situation is similar with other investments, particularly funding for the management plan which established objectives and zoning (Annex 7) because of the project. Since the PDFA preparatory process began these investments have now been made, the facilities are in place and the framework management plan has already been approved by stakeholders. Finally, in anticipation of the project, UNDP sought and secured Japanese financing and improvements in the road started in November 2003.

Since these investments are in place even before project approval, they could be considered part of the Baseline. This chronological definition of Baseline includes in it everything that is in place at the moment the project is designed. However, in this case, were it not for the expectation of project approval during the long design process, these investments would not be there. They were truly leveraged by the project.

Regarding the legislative scenario related to the project site, Presidential Decree 1294 established Chocente as a Wildlife Refuge on August 17th, 1983. According to Article 1 of the Decree, the Refuge was created with the objective of “protecting the nesting beaches of marine turtles Lepidochelys olivacea (Olive Ridley) and Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback turtle), as well as the remaining dry tropical forest in the Pacific due to its socio-economic, ecological and scientific importance’’. The General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (Law 217) of 1996, established the norms, definitions and mechanisms to preserve, conserve and restore the environment and natural resources according to the general principles dictated by the Constitution, whilst the Protected Area Regulation of Nicaragua (1999) provides an overall framework for the management of Protected Areas established by Law. It presents the essential aspects of; mechanisms for the establishment of new Protected Areas; the steps for their public and private administration according to the different categories; the management objectives; land tenure; monitoring and control; incentives; infractions and applicable sanctions. Chapter XIV General Norms, article 65 “Concessions when the Area has private landowners” states that when there is private ownership (as it is the case in most PAs in Nicaragua), MARENA will only


grant management responsibility and permit controlled development within these properties if the owners agree to abide by this regulation and sign an agreement to this affect. Chapter XIV – Article 63 “Incentives for the Regulation of Nicaragua’s Protected Areas”, then states that MARENA will issue Ministerial Resolutions in favour of those private owners who dedicate their properties to research, promotion and conservation of the environment and natural resources. In short, MARENA will establish the type of incentive that shall be applied for the different conservation activities undertaken by the private owners. This applies to properties both within legally established protected areas or buffer zones. On October 29th 2002, the overall Management Plan for the Wildlife Refuge of Río Escalante-Chacocente was officially approved. The Institutional Framework of the plan defines the main actors in the management of Chococente as: Private Landowners, MARENA and the Municipality of Santa Teresa. In this regard, the role to be played by the private owners is; to exercise property rights over their property; to manage their properties according the general rules; zoning and usage norms; and to share in benefits derived from the development of the Refuge whilst participating (through elected representatives) in the Coordination and Evaluation Commission (CEC). The Plan also considers the Municipality of Santa Teresa to be a key player and of extreme importance to achieve a sustainable management of the Refuge. The Plan stipulates that it is necessary to establish a “collaborative administration” for the integrated management of the Refuge (see a brief summary of the most relevant laws and regulations to the project in Annex 8).

Therefore, the incentives exist for private owners to dedicate their properties to conservation efforts but until now no private landowners have not claimed exemption from paying Property taxes. This is due to their lack of knowledge of the system and the inability of MARENA to certify interested private landowners .

The GEF defines Baseline investments as activities that would happen without the project. This is not the case of the investments described. GEF defines incremental activities as those needed and leveraged by the project to achieve the conservation objectives. This is the case of all investments just mentioned, and should therefore be part of the bona fide increment. (Baseline and Increments can have either local or global benefits). For these reasons, in preparing this project and allocating investments to Baseline and Increments, GEF definitions were followed very strictly and all investments and activities leveraged by the project, even if they are in place before project approval, are considered part of the Increment. To facilitate understanding, in the cost and time allocation matrices, these investments and activities are labeled Year 0 investments in order to differentiate them from investments and activities to be actually carried out during the five years of project implementation.

Bona fide no-project Baseline investments between year 1 and 5 will sum $758,356 distributed as follows:

CONSOLIDATION OF THE REFUGE (US$56,625).MARENA’s presence is restricted to the beach. Without project they would have invested a total of US$10,000 to improve signals and train their rangers. MARENA, with the support of PSO, would provide basic training and limited equipment (20 back pumps) to voluntary community fire fighters organized from the four communities within the refuge (US$5,000). The project


will increase their effectiveness by providing observation towers, further training and equipment in order to guarantee a quick response that is so crucial in this highly combustible habitat.

Nicaragua law establishes a role for the municipalities in decentralized natural resource management and the institutional capacities of the municipality of Santa Teresa is being developed through training by PSO (US$ 31,625). The objective of this component of the PSO project is to assist the municipality to realize its mandate in protected area management, and to integrate protected area management into municipal development and investment processes. This project will complement these efforts by establishing the precise regulations and mechanisms to define a systematic role of the municipal authorities in the management of the Chococente refuge, including its possible inclusion in the eventual co-management entity.

All the land in the refuge is under private ownership. (The FFI donation that means that MARENA actually owns land falls under the Year 0 investments category). There are no regulations or formal agreements with landowners to facilitate their participation in management, even though a couple of landowners, particularly Chacocente de Acayo, would have invested about US$10,000 to cover targeted research on biodiversity, trails, and meetings with stakeholders. Chacocente de Acayo has expressed extreme interest in collaborating conservation efforts and in investing in related activities on their lands. There are currently no property-specific management plans. The existing Management Plan allows for the private owner’s participation in the Coordination and Evaluation Commission, which according to MARENA, is meeting once every two months. Currently there are problems with the private owner’s participation in this Commission due to the fact that they are not aware of their rights and responsibilities and how they can benefit from the Refuge.

Access to the refuge is poor and for six months of the year, it is only possible to reach the refuge by foot or horseback. Without the added benefit of services of any kind, there are few visitors to the refuge and there is no entrance tariff. Researchers must obtain permits and currently revenue is less than US$200/year. Improving access within the Refuge is a priority.

ADOPTION OF BIODIVERSITY FRIENDLY LIVELIHOODS (US$391,916)Without the project there would be few activities to enhance local livelihoods and reduce poverty, the main root cause behind biodiversity losses in the refuge. Community stakeholders expressed repeatedly that improving their livelihoods is conditio sine qua non for them to reduce harvesting of natural resources and change their cattle management practices.

The most significant funding earmarked for rural development for the zone is provided by FISE, to be invested in social infrastructural improvements (US$306,666), including schools, latrines and wells.

PSO supports the main productive cooperative in the refuge through institutional capacity building (US$63,250). This cooperative currently focuses on turtle egg distribution and traditional agriculture, and constitutes an important organizational base for the implementation of the proposed project livelihoods activities which will promote and establish sustainable alternatives amongst its members.


Additionally, a local NGOs (Tierra y Vida) develops traditional medicine and medicinal plant production and marketing, in two of the refuge’s communities (US$12,000). This NGO has considerable local support amongst these communities but is limited by low capacity and a lack of resources. By engaging this NGO in the implementation of sustainable alternative activities, the project will increase its positive impact and consolidate its capacity.

Chacocente de Acayo will invest US$10,000 in re-forestation with native species.

STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT CAPACITIES (US$243,190)Without the project the army would continue maintaining soldiers (US$173,190) and MARENA would maintain rangers (US$40,000) to enforce limited egg collection in the beach. One of the landowners, Chacocente de Acayo, would employ guards (US$30,000) but there would be no coordination between this team and the MARENA rangers.

SUSTAINABLE USE OF TURTLE EGGS (US$10,000)As the officially designated administrative body of the refuge, MARENA will invest US$10,000 to supervise harvesting of 10% of the eggs and their distribution in the communities. This 10% does not have enough scientific support. Studies as well as an enforceable adaptive management plan are needed.

IMPROVED AWARENESS OF BIODIVERSITY OF THE REFUGE AND ITS BIODIVERSITY (US$31,625)PSO currently supports the development of environmental awareness (US$31,625). Efforts are needed focusing on biodiversity components and production of materials for a range of local, national and international audiences, including the police and army.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION (US$25,000) Some species and habitat monitoring is underway and funded by Chacocente de Acayo (US$25,000) in a small area of the Refuge. The National Agrarian University (UNA) maintains six permanent plots in the forest to monitor plant regeneration and the impacts of fire. The absence of a strong management regime in the refuge and coordination with the university means that this information serves no forest management function. What is needed is more systematic biological and social assessments that feed into a management program.

REGULATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC –PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (US$0).At present there are no national regulations or plans that facilitate the establishment of protected area management under public-private partnerships.


EXPECTED PROJECT OUTCOMES, WITH UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS (GEF ALTERNATIVE)

Planned investments under the Baseline (no-project scenario) are insufficient to protect the globally significant biodiversity of the Chococente wildlife refuge. The refuge will not be consolidated, there will not be enough resources for alternative livelihoods and people will continue degrading the forest and over-harvesting of turtle eggs, awareness will be insufficient and local stakeholders, including landowners, communities and municipalities will not become true partners in the conservation efforts. Moreover, under the baseline course of action, globally significant biodiversity will continue to be lost at Chococente and in other similar areas (like La Flor Wildlife Refuge) on the southern Pacific coast of Nicaragua and Central America. Also, in the baseline scenario, considering that Chococente is a typical example of a privately owned national protected area, there will be no model of private-public co-management to demonstrate its effective application nor a chance to remove the existing barriers to this sort of co-management model.

What is needed is a change into a new, Alternative scenario in which the refuge will have a co-management entity, the corresponding bylaws and necessary agreements between stakeholders to carry out a strong conservation mandate. Under this mandate, human-induced forest biodiversity degradation and turtle eggs losses in the refuge will be largely stopped and stakeholders in and around the refuge will have an improved attitude towards its conservation and biodiversity. Refuge residents (also including large landowners) will also experience improved livelihoods and a reduced dependency on the extraction of wildlife and an increasing stream of visitors will be paying fees and praising its benefits. The Refuge and the co-management entity will also count with an effective monitoring and evaluation system with valuable indicators. Moreover, under this Alternative scenario, the public-private partnership model will become a viable option for protected area co-management and start to be replicated throughout Nicaragua and other Central American countries. This new, Alternative course of action defines the end of project scenario for this intervention.

Key assumptions for the process leading to this Alternative scenario are: i) that the project will be successful and there will be adequate dissemination of its results; ii) large land owners, communities and MARENA will be sufficiently committed and will collaborate and participate meaningfully enough to render the co-management entity effective; iii) MARENA and other enforcement entities will be willing to pay the political costs of strong enforcement; and iv) alternative livelihoods provided by the project will be adequate enough to convince stakeholders (including both large and small landowners as well as community members) of the need to change some of their current practices, including reductions of turtle egg harvesting and quotas.

Interventions focus on seven Immediate Objectives: Consolidation of the Refuge, Adoption of Biodiversity-Friendly Livelihoods, Strengthening of Enforcement Capacities, Sustainable Use of Turtle Eggs, Improved Awareness, Effective Monitoring and Evaluation, and the Replication Framework. Sustainable use of turtle eggs will be an umbrella goal that will serve to conserve all turtle species and additional coastal biodiversity. Patrolling of the coasts to protect arriving turtles will also prevent illegal harvesting and fishing of other species.


All these interventions are meant to complement Baseline actions to ensure the Alternative scenario described. Project design includes strong incentives, such as promoting the existing legal incentives under law and the promotion of alternative livelihoods, awareness, and capacity building, but also strengthening of enforcement capacities. All activities in the project will be add-ons. There may be some substitutions under the Alternative Livelihoods component, but these would be fully funded by non-GEF parties.

Minimizing of risks has been a key concern in designing the Immediate Objectives and their funding. Consultations during PDF A allowed ample discussion with all stakeholders about their concern to see a strong management entity developing and having a role in it, having a conservation-oriented management plan for the refuge, and eventually seeing stronger enforcement of Nicaraguan laws in it. These discussions demonstrated the great interest in consolidating the refuge and further enforcement as long as people had sufficient compensation through the legal incentives and the alternative livelihoods provided by the project. Therefore UNDP and FFI catalyzed resources from other donors to ensure communities will be able to access to enough alternative and biodiversity friendly livelihoods. These activities will benefit people living in the refuge and key stakeholders in the buffer zone. Here again, the project will concentrate on both the large and small landowners present in the Refuge and its buffer zone. The project catalyzed technical assistance for alternative livelihoods from DED and UN Volunteers that will help communities achieve sustainable and biodiversity-friendly livelihoods at the end of the project. These livelihoods will allow people to reduce their pressure on natural resources, including turtle eggs, endangered wildlife, firewood and grazing areas in nuclei forested areas and obtain direct economic benefits from conserving biodiversity.

Conversations during PDF A preparation also showed that stakeholders will in fact be able to interact successfully in preparing management plans and agreeing on how to implement them. During PDF A consultations, stakeholders interacted successfully in producing a framework management plan for the refuge (a Year 0 investment funded by IDB). Recent changes in the GoN also allow for optimism regarding the chances of successful negotiations for co-management at Chococente and similar areas along the Pacific coast of Nicaragua.

ACTIVITIES AND FINANCIAL INPUTS (GEF AND NON-GEF FUNDED INCREMENT)

The following MSP activities will lead to the outcomes of the project. The logical framework (Annex 1) gives detailed complementary information about milestones and timings.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE REFUGE (GEF US$296,057; NON-GEF US$990,625)

The project will establish and consolidate a public-private co-management entity for the wildlife refuge of Chococente. The entity will be composed of a combination of private landowners (both large and small), community members, representatives of the municipality of Santa Teresa and MARENA. An expert will provide conflict resolution support to facilitate greater collaboration


and establish productive ways to overcome differences. This input provided by the project is indeed an incentive for the local stakeholders to participate in the public-private co-management entity. As such, the project will continue FFI’s work in forging a shared vision amongst actors and the conservation goals of Chococente. In a second phase of input, a lawyer will facilitate discussions about feasible co-management options following discussions and agreements about respective roles, rights and responsibilities. All stakeholders will participate in negotiating the agreements and bylaws. Once formalized, the public-private co-management entity will receive relevant and comprehensive protected area management training to ensure that by year three, an effective and sustainable management entity is established at Chococente. The co-management entity personnel will receive six key training components on: conflict resolution (years 1 and 3); targeted management training (one each year for five years); training on the type of activities permitted in the refuge(years 2 and 3); Marine turtle conservation training (one on the second year); forest conservation training (one of the third year) and tourism management training (two on the second and third years respectively). These training components will not be confined to the chosen representatives of the private and public sectors participating in the co-management entity but will also include other key stakeholders interested, for example, the municipal technicians. From Year 3, the public-private co-management entity will play the primary role in the project and in the Refuge management. Once in operation, the co-management entity will be responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the individual property management plans and for the approval of projects to be conducted under the sustainable livelihoods component. The Entity will also resolve conflicts related to natural resource use within the Refuge. The project will work through the co-management entity for the last two years of the project to ensure that by the end of the project is has been fully empowered and manages the reserve effectively. Also, in year one, the project team and key stakeholder will participate in a study tour to learn from Chilean experience (GEF/UNDP project) on co-management and incentives to private landowners. The idea behind this study tour is to foster the private landowners participation in the project by clearly seeing that there are benefits related to conservation through different existing incentives schemes. Also in year one, an exchange visit to Talamanca Biological Corridor with representatives of private landowners and community members will be organized to learn from this internationally acclaimed experience.

In order to have a well-consolidated refuge, the project will foster the construction of an Interpretation and Visitors Center, an Administration Building, Cabins for visitors and scientists, as well as Park Rangers facilities. (These investments fall under the Year 0 investments previously explained). This will be built on the land donated by FFI to MARENA for the purpose of accessing the IDB loan for the infrastructure. Closer to the nesting beach, the project will build three observation/ monitoring towers and one small rangers facility. This infrastructure will be used by park rangers, volunteers and scientists in the short run and by eco-tourists in the long run. The project will also equip the administrative buildings of the refuge. In addition, a pier will also be built with MARENA funds, following an impact analysis, for the purposes of the boat patrolling and terrestrial and marine demarcation of the refuge boundaries will be undertaken.

Also, the project will facilitate through MARENA funds, the elaboration and approval of an overall framework management plan that will determine the use of the land, zoning of the different conservation areas, and the corresponding permitted activities. (This is also a Year 0


investment). This plan will be translated with GEF funds into a popular version presented in an accessible language that will be made available to all local residents. The project will also coordinate with funding partners (MARENA and Proyecto Suroeste, PSO) for the elaboration and approval of individual property management plans by providing technical assistance to landowners to ensure their participation in the production of these plans. A concomitant and essential activity of the project is to provide capacity building to all the stakeholders for the implementation of the overall framework management plan and the individual property management plans. More precisely, the private owners will receive technical assistance to develop the individual property management plans from MARENA and PSO during the first three years of the project (MARENA US$50,000 and PSO US$10,000); the biodiversity component of the individual man. Plans will be assumed by the project at a planned expense of US$ 27,000; capacity training for the design and implementation of the individual management plans will be provided by both the project and the government during the first three years (GEF US$ 30,000 and MARENA US$15,000).

The project will also provide targeted training to local community guides, rangers and community fire fighters to ensure appropriate and professional management of the refuge, attention for future visitors and scientists and forest fire prevention and control. Rangers, guides and fire fighters will also be fully equipped by the project. The project will contract a director of the refuge whose salary for the first three years will be covered by both MARENA and GEF, after which it will be assumed exclusively by MARENA.

The project, through MARENA funding, will secure the physical demarcation of the terrestrial and maritime boundaries, providing posts, signs and buoys. In order to create longer-term international commitments to the refuge, the project with GEF funds will contract a consultant to design and implement a Voluntary Donor System. This will coordinate with FFI’s International Volunteer Program, which will bring overseas students to the refuge to work on discrete turtle related-conservation activities and to foster cultural understanding and links between Europe and the residents of Chococente.

Throughout implementation, the project team will have continual access to the technical support of FFI’s international (country, regional and UK-based) team. The added value of this collective support is the transfer of biodiversity and protected area management skills to the project and future co-management team. The increased proximity of the project to FFI’s international team will mean that the project and the refuge will benefit from its international liaison work, resulting in increased profile and longer term sustainability.

The project will invite la Flor’s Wildlife Refuge management personnel on the site to learn about what has been accomplished by the project to consolidate the Refuge.

At the end of the project the refuge will be fully consolidated, all infrastructure will be in place and functioning, and the public-private co-management entity will be fully empowered. People working in the refuge, including locals, will have been trained as guides, rangers and for other related jobs.


ADOPTION OF BIODIVERSITY FRIENDLY LIVELIHOODS (GEF US$61,777; NON-GEF US$2,108,018)Responding to the need to address the poverty related threats to Chococente’s biodiversity resources, the project has a strong alternative livelihoods component. These activities will benefit people living in the refuge and key stakeholders in the buffer zone. Central to this component is the project’s Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Specialist who will be financed for the entire five-year period with co-financing from the German agency, DED. This expert (with extensive experience in rural development in tropical dry forest habitats, productive alternatives, commercialization, project design and proposal writing) will operate as a fully integrated member of the core project team and will be supported by two alternative livelihoods extension agents supplied by the UNV. In accordance with UNV regulations, when a project assumes the costs of one volunteer (US$15,000), the organization will provide for a second volunteer at no cost.

The promotion of biodiversity friendly livelihoods is an integral part of the existing Chococente Management Plan. Section 7.1.3. is a sub-program on: “Production of Alternatives” and specifies that the terrestrial element of the Refuge is almost entirely private property composed of 84 private properties whose owners carry out traditional agricultural practices such as harvesting of grain and breeding livestock. These activities have a very limited potential in food production, job and income for the population due to the dry climate as well as poor and degraded soils. The Management Plan seeks to identify, select and promote other income generating non-traditional alternatives for the land owners of the Refuge that could used to complement or even substitute traditional agricultural practices. The Management Plan also specifies the following:

Only low impact activities will be identified and promoted i.e. those that do not put at risk or threaten the Refuge’s ecosystems.

That all new activities identified should be regulated by the DGAP.Pre-requisites:

Funding is available and there is a willingness to ensure the implementation of the activities.

Activities: The production potential, based on known non-traditional products and The known potential for ecotouristic development

This project sub-team will work with the communities as well as large and small landowners to reduce the impact of traditional practices (agro-forestry and animal production), establish new biodiversity friendly livelihood options, promote marketing networks for potentially commercial products and establish community based ecotourism services. Recently, DED has conducted a survey on the NGOs present in the Refuge and working in its buffer zones. It analyzed existing alternatives and identified several new production alternatives. In the buffer zones, the local NGOs and the communities have worked on the development of household vegetable gardens, chicken breeding and protection of micro river basins through reforestation with fast growing trees and fruit trees. Amongst the alternatives identified by the NGOs and community members, the community ecotourism stands out with increasing production of chickens, pigs; improved apiculture; and sowing of vegetables with small-scale irrigation systems. The buffer zone has good access roads and two of the local NGOs, ATYV and CIEETS, are working on the


establishment of several “rural shops” that could provide better markets for these various products. The analysis concludes that the storage and sale of a diversified range of products will generate a stable production base without negatively affecting the natural resources of the reserve. It will also reduce the dependence of the inhabitants of the buffer zone upon the collection of turtle eggs. Other projects not related to natural resources could include the creation of a local business cooperative that promotes Chococente’s products that would be a key element to creating momentum behind all these initiatives.

Inside the Refuge, the alternatives have to be in line with the specifications of the Management Plan. Some of these alternatives are; promotion of community ecotourism – something that has to be linked to a concerted national and international marketing campaign (which could be linked to other sites in this area of Nicaragua where similar projects are taking place), ranching of wild animals such as iguanas; limited agricultural and cattle grazing practices to meet tourism servicing demands; etc. Some of the population will benefit directly from tourism by being trained as guides capable of informing visitors about turtles, flora and marine and terrestrial fauna, as well as provision of general tourist services. It will be essential to link the traditional production in the Refuge with the rural shops promoted by the two local NGOs, and the tourism itself may be linked to a Chococente Tourism Agency in Santa Teresa or Nandaime to promote and channel the tourism influx (please refer to Annex 9 for more information).

The Sustainable Alternative Livelihoods specialist will coordinate the elaboration of a Biodiversity Friendly Livelihoods Strategy and Action Plan. This will respect the land use categories established in the refuge management plan and identify feasible biodiversity friendly options that local residents are interested in adopting during extensive consultations with them. As such, this plan will define priorities and a framework for technical and investment support for productive and incoming generating activities in the refuge as well as in the buffer zone. In this regard, PSO has been working with property owners who are interested in establishing their properties as Private Forest Reserves. The strategy and action plan will use a basis for its design the analysis recently conducted by DED as well as the short-term consultancy that they intend to conduct starting on January 2004. The expected results of the consultancy are the following:

The role of DED in relation to FFI, the co-funders and national and international actors defined within an overall biodiversity conservation remit.

Development of a strategy for DED cooperation. Carry out a targeting exercise, defining the beneficiaries at this stage. The beneficiaries

will be the more resource dependant. This targeting exercise shall be reviewed with all the stakeholders and the project’s partners (FFI, MARENA, UNDP, PSO, Municipality, etc.)

Analysis of the existing database (Studies, Sta. Teresa Municipality Strategic Plan, National Development Plan, etc.)

Development of a database regarding possible sources of funding for the alternative livelihoods component.

Definition of the capacity building component of the project. Building the capacity (eg of the Cooperatives) or setting up the institutions that can provide long-term assistance to start-up businesses (eg micro-finance, market assessments, training etc) during after the project.


Funds for the implementation of components of this strategy and action plan, which will include capacity training and set-up funding where necessary, will be obtained from the various co-financing sources committed to this project for this purpose. More specifically, MARENA has committed US$175,000 to this component to invest during the first three years of the project; IDR (Rural Development Institute), through its “Rural Productive Re-activation Program” with a budget for 5 years of US$68 million has also expressed interest in financing projects proposed under this component; DANIDA-MARENA through its Small Grants Fund could also finance projects in the area as well as the recently established GEF Small Grants Program. These are just some of the co-financing sources identified at this stage but it will be necessary to keep on analyzing other possible sources of funding. On this regard, DED’s short term consultancy will analyze in depth all the possible funding sources for the component. The continued field presence of the sub-team, will provide the opportunity for follow-up and to identify further training or small scale investment needs.

Given the high ecotourism potential of this area, the project will produce via the contractual input of a regional specialist, an Ecotourism Action and Funding Plan. This will be developed with a view to minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing benefits to the local communities through their participation in tourist service provision. The capacity training and infrastructure needs identified in this will be addressed in a set of proposals that the Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Specialist will prepare together with the local beneficiaries. Funds will be obtained from the above sources and the subsequent implementation will be overseen.

The success of this livelihood component is largely dependent on improved access to the area in order to increase visitor numbers and proximity to markets. Hence the project has secured co-financing from the Japanese government to improve existing roads from Santa Teresa. As such, the project is also able to respond to a priority expressed by the communities and Santa Teresa municipality during the PDF A participatory planning process and during the most recent participatory planning process undertaken by Santa Teresa’s Municipality with the support from PSO. In order to convert the goodwill generated by the project’s delivery of such a significant infrastructure development into project buy-in, the environmental education program will include a component that disseminates information about the link between GEF investments for biodiversity conservation and road improvements. Improved enforcement will prevent the stimulation of extraction practices that typically accompany increased access to such biodiversity rich areas. The road improvement project has an environmental education component and is also working on capacity building of the beneficiary communities for the road maintenance. This MSP project has planned the construction of two biodiversity control posts, located in the two main access roads to the Refuge that shall control the possible increase in wildlife trafficking within the Refuge (US$ 2,000).

Exchange visits with community members and private landowners from La Flor’s Wildlife Refuge will be promoted to ensure replicability in a geophysical similar area.

Road improvements will be conducted, following an environmental impact assessment, using local labor input and will be maintained by the communities to ensure long-term sustainability.


Mitigation measures will be supported by the same fund if required. In addition, the terms of reference for the road improvement have been elaborated by MARENA together with UNDP and the Municipality of Santa Teresa.

The overall goal of this component is not just increase the income generation of the beneficiary communities but also income substitution. From the third year of the project onwards, the Co-management Entity will monitor the income substitution component and will have the authority to decline assistance to beneficiaries just as to provide it. Thus, the biodiversity friendly component will be channeled through the Entity.

At the end of the project people living in the refuge will have received substantive support for alternative, biodiversity friendly-livelihoods and sustainable uses of biodiversity, to secure their improved, sustainable livelihoods and full participation in the project goals.

STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT CAPACITIES (GEF US$75,278; NON-GEF US$45,800) To consolidate the refuge and prevent wildlife extraction will require the strengthening of enforcement capacities. The project will contract, with GEF funds, the services of an expert in conflict resolution. Following consultation with all relevant institutions and actors, the expert will elaborate with a lawyer a draft enforcement strategy that will define, according to existing national biodiversity and enforcement laws, the respective roles of all the relevant actors, including MARENA, the three municipalities, private sector representatives, local and national NGOs, army and environmental police. Following approval by the Chococente Advisory Group, all actors will sign off on the strategy.

The lawyer will then draw up a series of legal agreements that will formalize how enforcement agencies will collaborate to protect Chococente according to the refuge management plan and commit relevant actors to this.

A series of biodiversity related training sessions will then be undertaken (with GEF and MARENA funding) involving rangers, volunteers, community control guards and the environmental police to ensure that all parties within the refuge have the capacity to respond appropriately to breaches. Members of San Juan del Sur’s CAMs (Municipal Environmental Committee), where La Flor’s Wildlife Refuge lies, will also be invited to participate in the training sessions.

At least part of the rangers training is likely to be carried out by FFI’s partners at IRF (International Ranger Federation). This means that the Wildlife Refuge guards will benefit from regional ranger training expertise; can be certified to international standards – increasing their self esteem; and will then belong to an international network of Park Guards with the possibility of exchange visits to other countries and participation in international ranger events.

Another crucial aspect of enforcement that the project will address with MARENA funds is the construction and equipping (with motorbikes and radios) of two control posts. GEF and


MARENA funds will purchase communications equipment and ranger transportation, and for the coastal area, will provide and equip a motorboat that will patrol to reduce illegal turtle hunting activities that occur opposite the main arribada beach during the nesting season.

As it was mention on the previous section, the co-management entity, from the third year onwards, will be fully operative and thus responsible for the conflict resolution issues arising with the use of natural resources, the enforcement of management plan, supervising the biodiversity friendly livelihoods component and in general, responsible for managing the Refuge. Therefore, during the last two years of the project, the Co-management Entity will become the main provider.

SUSTAINABLE USE OF TURTLE EGG (GEF US$72,947; NON-GEF US$109,100)

The project will fund an Adaptive Participatory plan for the sustainable use of turtle eggs use for approval by the Chococente Advisory Group and Steering Committee. This will be directed at protecting all the turtle species that frequent the beaches of Chococente, while looking to optimize the harvesting benefits from egg extraction. It is envisaged that not all species will be able to be harvested every year and the project may have to negotiate some species bans. This management plan will be derived from various inputs, including a MARENA-funded Sea Turtle Scientific Diagnosis that will review the literature and best practices in Nicaragua and elsewhere. It will also take into consideration the data produced by FFI’s Leatherback Conservation Project. In this project, turtles are used as an umbrella species to protect other coastal species. Patrolling of coastal areas will eliminate poaching of turtles arriving to the beaches and simultaneously illegal fishing of other species.

It is important that this project benefit from the inputs of regional turtle specialists who will be working with FFI to strengthen national sea turtle management capacity. GEF funds are requested to ensure the regular and annual input of one such specialist who will provide advice about proposed management activities and provide on-site training. The project will also establish and implement, through FFI support, a sea turtle conservation program that identifies the dynamics between the turtle populations that visit Nicaragua and the wider Pacific populations. Related monitoring and hatchery activities will contribute to visitor attractions and will be incorporated into the Ecotourism Strategy.

Exchange visits of center personnel to Costa Rica, where there is considerable experience in sea turtle management, will also contribute to the identification of further options for effective turtle egg management. Ongoing monitoring of the turtle populations will provide feedback for adjustments to the management plan, while GEF funds are required to train rangers in the implementation of the management plan.

Given the current harvesting practices, it is crucial that the community, who are represented and organized through a legally established cooperative, are closely involved in the elaboration of this plan in order that they become aware of the need and benefits of responding to the biological sustainability criteria of the different species. To facilitate this, a popular version of the plan produced in accessible language, will be disseminated. Once the adaptive plan is operative,


exchange visits with La Flor’s community members currently harvesting turtle eggs will be promoted to foster replicability.

An FFI activity that was successful in 2003, and will be built upon as part of the overall management and enforcement regime, was FFI’s volunteer program. This involved students working on different aspects of FFI’s existing turtle conservation program, thereby building good will in the communities; providing limited income; and increasing enforcement of the turtle regulations; whilst increasing awareness of the need for such systems, in a non-threatening way.

At the end of the project, people will have endorsed and be fully engaged in the implementation of a sustainable management plan for turtle eggs. People will also be committed to the conservation of species whose eggs cannot be collected.

IMPROVED AWARENESS OF VALUE OF THE REFUGE AND ITS BIODIVERSITY (GEF US$85,777; NON-GEF US$85,625)

A multi-tiered Biodiversity Education Strategy will be designed by a GEF-funded Environmental Education specialist. This strategy will be based upon attitudinal data collected in the baseline survey at the earlier stages of the project, and will build on the groundwork of PSO-MARENA-MECD alliance which currently addresses this component. However, since this alliance has had no funds to produce education materials, the project will, with GEF funds, implement the strategy by producing materials and holding workshops. Given the importance of engendering local stakeholder identification with the refuge, some of the materials produced from these workshops by local children and adults will be used for educational extension purposes and displayed at the interpretative Center. In addition, displays of an international quality will be prepared. Collectively, these materials will be installed at the Center and provide a focus for visitor attractions and educational visits.

The project will also design and establish trails and signposting in the refuge.

At the end of the project, stakeholders in the refuge and in nearby areas will have had a chance to learn about the significance of the refuge and its biodiversity, and the refuge will be providing valuable conservation services to the national and global communities.

EFFECTIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED (GEFUS$72,777; NON-GEFUS$86,400)

Monitoring and evaluation will have two sub-components. On the one hand, it will monitor biodiversity and people’s attitudes towards it and socio-ecological and economic changes at the household level and on the other it will monitor and evaluate project implementation.


A monitoring plan will be developed to assess the effectiveness of the protected area management regime. The project team will consider using the WB and WWF’s tracking tool to assess the PAs management effectiveness. Measurements will be carried out in year 1 to obtain baseline information, then again in year 3 to provide for an adaptive management response, and finally in year 5 to evaluate project impact. The monitoring system will be based on the collection of sound biological, social and attitudinal information using key indicators. The design of the biodiversity monitoring system will be co-financed by MARENA and will made as compatible as possible with the SINIA system (National System of Environmental Information) which it is developing. The project, with GEF funding, will subsequently monitor trends in key habitats and species, including marine turtle populations. A household survey, co-financed by UNDP, will be used to obtain socio-ecological, economic and attitudinal information in order to identify changes in household practices, livelihoods, incomes and perspectives on the developments of protected area management. Such data will also enable the project to produce substantive information about its contribution to poverty reduction.

The UNA will undertake the monitoring of flora, based on its permanent plots. The project will seek a local university to help with the rest of the monitoring. Management staff, ranger teams and other NGOs will be trained in undertaking monitoring activities to ensure a high standard of monitoring beyond the end of the project.

The project will also be evaluated by a regional external consultant at the end of year 3 to provide the opportunity for adjustments. A final evaluation and audit will take place in year 5. The regular meetings with the Steering Committee will also effectively constitute a mechanism for frequent project monitoring. The project will also be subjected to annual Tripartite Reviews (UNDP, GoN, and FFI as Executing Agency) and starting year two, PIRs. During its implementation, the project will have had a powerful management tool applied and the refuge will be endowed with a firm monitoring system to be used in its subsequent co-management.

MECHANISMS ESTABLISHED AND ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED TO PROMOTE THE REPLICABILITY OF THE CO-MANAGEMENT MODEL. (GEF US$58,862)

With the input of an environmental lawyer, the project will, through a participatory process, produce a document based on the experience of this pilot case that will serve MARENA as a draft framework for revised regulation to facilitate the establishment of public-private co-management arrangements elsewhere in the national system of protected areas. This will identify mechanisms for the promotion of this model and for the removal of barriers that prevent more widespread uptake. More specifically, the draft regulatory framework will define respective roles and responsibilities of the different actors, and the benefits accruing from their involvement in co-management - thereby seeking to establish the basis for an incentives scheme.

To facilitate the replicability of the project model and acceptance amongst stakeholders of other PAs, the project will organize at least five visits involving public and private stakeholders from other pertinent PAs to exchange experiences and promote the projects co-management model.


During the last year, the project will organize and host a National Workshop aimed at appealing to this wider audience. The Workshop will be facilitated with MARENA to present the proposed regulatory framework developed from the above process, as well as to share the other experiences and lessons learnt by the project. To achieve this effect, the project will also publish the workshop’s proceedings and disseminate them to stakeholders across the Nicaraguan PA system.

PROJECT COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION (GEF US$184,685; NON-GEF US$339,000)The project implementation costs include the contracting of project team personnel (coordinator, field manager, administrator, secretary, drivers); office running costs, travel and maintenance. Co-financing for the project occurs with in-kind support from MARENA’s for office space at its departmental office in Diriamba. FFI’s office in MARENA in Managua, will also be made available for project personnel during their visits to the capital. DED’s contribution will also account for the salary of a German professional who will be hired for the project’s duration (5 years) to run the Alternative Livelihoods component of the project. The UNV Programme will also provide a Volunteer throughout the project to work in the Alternative Livelihoods component under the direct supervision of the DED technician.

SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

SUSTAINABILITY. By delivering increased individual and institutional capacities, the project will help overcome one of the key current impediments to conservation of globally significant biodiversity in the project focal areas, and Nicaragua as a whole. The project will strengthen MARENA, conservation NGOs, municipalities, and on-site entities as well as local key stakeholders. Recruitment of national staff with high potential, provision of pragmatically focused training to these personnel, and their subsequent retention in legally agreed management entities will help to ensure the long-term benefits of the project.

The project will enable private landowners to manage their farms in biodiversity friendly ways and will capacity train communities and private landowners in biodiversity management and alternative livelihoods consistent with conservation values. All these activities will be sustainable. Landowners and communities will finance further technical assistance that may be needed to further improve their farms. It is important to say that local NGOs have been working for some time on identifying and consolidating sustainable alternative livelihoods with a high success rate. Just as an example, three local NGOs (Promesul, Famu and PSO) started initiatives related to beekeeping, introduction of household gardens, craftsmen fisheries as well as lower livestock which once the projects funding ended, have not only maintained themselves but also been replicated in other communities.

The management entity will be institutionally sustainable and be working in partnership with individual landowners, communities and municipal authorities through their co-management


agreements. The organizations will be implementing effective management plans that link into local and national development frameworks. They will also have support and understanding for sustainable natural resource use from local communities. By the end of the project the entities will posses all the skills required to continue biodiversity protection in the long term.

Recurrent costs of the Chococente management entity and the Center will be funded by the GoN through entrance and other fees (such as research permits and concessions) and private landowners. MARENA will cover the recurrent costs of guides and rangers. Military personnel will be funded by the central government. It was estimated that entrance and other fees will provide increasing revenues with an increasing flow of local and international tourists and researchers interested in using the facilities. By the end of the second year of implementation, these fees will amount to about US$20,000 and they may double during the life of the project. These estimates were elaborated taking into consideration the Government’s Development Plan tourism cluster which is based on the National Tourism Institute’s National Tourism Strategy. The overall goal of the strategy is to place Nicaragua in the competitive Central American tourism market. This implies that the country will have to grow 1,5 times its hotel infrastructure and must base its strategy upon its tourist attractions with which it can compete in the international market, particularly ecotourism. The strategy is sub-divided into four systems but for the present project, we shall concentrate on two systems; the Environmental Zoning System and the Regional Tourism System. The first clearly identifies Chacocente Wildlife Refuge as a “Zone of Special Tourism Interest of punctual character” taking into consideration its tourist potential as well as nature protection. The second system identifies and prioritizes the areas according to its development potential and productive capacities through the promotion of new production alternatives and tourism products. One of the areas identified and prioritized in this system is Chacocente Wildlife Refuge. Added to the scientific tourism through organizations such as Earthwatch (an FFI partner); plus a voluntary payback system through the interpretation and visitor center; and mechanisms such as the establishment of a ‘Friends of Chococente’ donor club; etc. should result in this amount being a basic minimum in terms of annual revenue. Further links to marketing the area as part of a package linked to other turtle sites (the Ruta Tortuga), or similar ‘ethical’ nature-based tourism projects such as the one that FFI is establishing on Isla Ometepe, will be crucial to ensuring a steady flow of suitable visitors. It may also be possible to derive some income from the outlets selling ‘biodiversity’ derived products, certified as from Chococente Wildlife Reserve, in the buffer zone. This will be more than enough to cover recurrent management costs.

The project will, in order to assure replicability of the proposed model in a very similar area like La Flor Wildlife Refuge, assure the participation of the main stakeholders in the project. This will be done by promoting exchange activities between community members to demonstrate what has been successfully applied and to learn by seeing.


RISKS.Large landowners, communities and government institutions do not have a tradition of collaboration or co-management in Nicaragua. There is thus the potential risk that this key component of the project may fail. However, during PDF A these groups already proved their capacities to discuss the objectives of the refuge and how the project would impact them. Moreover, they were able to successfully negotiate and agree on the overall framework management plan for the refuge and continue to do so through the different participatory processes fostered by the local governments together with the project’s partners, like FFI and PSO. There is still a small risk that these groups may not be able to agree on details of how to co-manage the refuge. Therefore, project will catalyze the establishment of a co-management entity and will provide training in conflict resolution and co-management and thus help minimize this risk.

The project has a very strong education and awareness component as well as a systematization process that will coordinate with all the relevant actors present in the area to assure that the project’s results and best practices are well disseminated. Likewise, the direct involvement of MARENA, UNDP and FFI ensures that these entities will distribute the project results through their respective networks.

The project will also support significant investments in alternative, biodiversity-friendly livelihoods and thus help reduce the risks that small land owners and communities will not want to change some of their activities and agree on overall land use restrictions.

The commitment of landowners to the sustainable management of natural resources is also vital to the success of biodiversity conservation in PAs composed of privately-owned land. Without their support the conservation of biodiversity throughout the reserves will be compromised. However, major landowners are currently supporting conservation efforts and their direct involvement and support in the implementation of the project will encourage their continued commitment to improved reserve management.

There is a small risk that MARENA, municipalities and police will not actively pursue their role in enforcement of national laws limiting natural resource usage in a socially-sensitive manner. Therefore, project design paid special attention to strengthening enforcement capacities and obtaining commitment from all parties. Increasing awareness at all levels of the significance of the refuge will also help reduce the need for enforcement. Recent changes lead to increased optimism regarding the long-term commitment of the GoN. A favourable change in high-level MARENA personnel since the PDF A phase was completed seems to be a clear re-iteration that the project focal areas are absolute conservation priorities for the GoN. The implementation of a change in enforcement personnel at Chococente is one example of where fulfillment of MARENA’s stated commitment will be crucial to successful project implementation.

The monitoring and evaluation procedures built into the project, will identify unanticipated risks and allow them to be addressed.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT


Considerable work has already been carried out through FFI’s involvement in the area, and the PDF A process (see Annex 6). The project will therefore commence with the advantage of having established solid relationships between all key actors.

The biodiversity, socio-ecological and legal studies, plus a series of participatory planning and consultation sessions, funded through the PDF A, identified the key private and public stakeholders (see Table below). These workshops were some of the first in Nicaragua to involve both local community representatives and Ministry officials discussing conservation issues at the same venue. The result was a real feeling of buy-in and ownership to the process, amongst all those involved, which led to the development of this document. This highlighted the benefit of involving actors in appropriate levels of decision-making. Their incorporation into the Steering Committee and the Chococente Advisory Group means that they will continue to participate in key decision-making processes, as well as ongoing project evaluations. On October 29 th 2002, the Ministerial Resolution No. 48-2002 was published in Nicaragua’s Official Gazette, approving the overall Management Plan for the Wildlife Refuge of Chacocente. Prior to publishing the resolution, the Management Plan was widely discussed with all the relevant stakeholders receiving their support. It is then safe to assume that the private landowners are willing to accept the conservation restrictions posed by the Management Plan.

Regarding the private landowners voluntary involvement in the proposed managerial structure for the Refuge, we should take into consideration the following:

a) The institutional framework of the approved management plan specifies that the main actors by right, obligation, responsibility and authority in the management of Chacocente are: Private Landowners, MARENA and the Municipality of Santa Teresa.

Section 2.3.2.1 of the Management Plan refers specifically to private landowners. The role established in the Management Plan to be played by the private landowners is the following: 1. To exercise property rights over their property. This right is not absolute and the

laws of the country govern it. 2. Manage their properties according the general rules, zoning and usage norms

established by the Management Plan. 3. Participate of the benefits derived from the development of the Refuge. 4. Participate in other decisions that can or could have an incidence upon the

development of the Refuge.5. Participate (through elected representatives) in the Coordination and Evaluation

Commission (CEC) and the Sub-Comission Chacocente Protected Area of COMAREN for the implementation of the Management Plan programs. (see Annex 8 Summary of the most relevant laws and regulations related to the project)

The social study and participatory planning process highlighted the importance of alleviating natural resource exploitation, through the provision of alternative livelihoods and the meaningful involvement of local stakeholders in all aspects of project implementation. They also emphasized the central role of women in resource use and family welfare, and the need to secure their ongoing participation. Community representation in the Chococente Advisory Group will mean that the project remains responsive to local issues and concerns.


Working with a series of partner organizations (including bilateral agencies, and NGOs) provided information about their ongoing activities and capacity training needs. This highlighted the low level of management and technical expertise within the Nicaraguan NGO sector, particularly within Chococente. This suggested that the only feasible method of establishing an effective management entity for this area is through the formation of a new team.

Table summarizing key stakeholder involvement in the PDF A and proposed MSP project

PDF A: Key stakeholders involved:Consultation process Communities, landowners, all relevant government

entities, including POSAF MARENA, army, police Municipalities (CAMs); international assistance organizations, including GTZ, DED, NGOs

Proposed MSP Project Objectives: Key stakeholders involvedConsolidation of the RefugeAlternative Livelihoods

Project staff, PA teams, POSAF MARENA, Municipalities (CAMs), GTZ, DED, local communities, Chococente Advisory Group, landowners.

Sustainable use Project staff, PA team, GTZ, municipalities, communities, landowners, Chococente Advisory Group.

Strengthened enforcement capacities. Project staff, CAMs, GTZ, MARENA, Municipalities, Chococente Advisory Group.

Awareness Project staff, PA teams, MECD, PSO, Chococente Advisory Group

Monitoring and Evaluation Project staff, PA teams, technical and site level advisory group,

INCREMENTAL COSTS ANALYSIS. The global environmental objective of the project is to protect the critically endangered biodiversity of the Central American dry deciduous forests of the southern Pacific coast of Nicaragua and the nesting beaches of endangered marine turtles at the Wildlife Refuge of Chococente. The end results of the project will be the conservation of the biodiversity in this protected area, and a framework for the replication of this public-private partnerships effort.

Threats to the Chococente protected area originate in the approximately 500 people living in it. Major threats are hunting for wildlife, collection of firewood, illegal logging and collection of turtle eggs, and cattle grazing in forested areas. The root causes underlying these threats are lack of viable demonstrations of how to effectively manage private protected areas, poverty and lack of biodiversity-friendly livelihood options, insufficient enforcement of laws and regulations, and insufficient awareness of the significance of the biodiversity.

Expected Baseline investments in the next five years are rather modest and completely insufficient to ensure protection of globally significant biodiversity. The total investment will be only US$758,356, of which US$391,916 will go to reducing poverty and improving livelihoods of people (see Incremental Costs matrix below). The rest, US$366,440, will go to activities associated with protecting biodiversity in the refuge. (To see how various donors contribute to the objectives of the project, please see the Project Financing Tables). With such small


investments, however, further degradation of the refuge will not be stopped. Larger investments in critical areas, especially alternative livelihoods, full consolidation of the refuge, strengthened enforcement capacities, sustainable uses of turtle eggs, improvement of the awareness level of the significance of the refuge and its biodiversity as well as the replication of the public private association model are needed. The project was constructed considering Baseline investments for these purposes and what additional activities would be needed to secure protection of global biodiversity values at Chococente and later replicate this experience in similar situations along the Pacific coast.

The project has been designed around seven Immediate Objectives that after completion will fully eliminate all threats and root causes to the Chococente biodiversity, improve the livelihood of people living in the area and allow for replication of public-private partnerships for the co-management of protected areas. The seven Immediate Objectives are: Consolidation of the Refuge, Adoption of Biodiversity-friendly Livelihoods, Strengthening of Enforcement Capacities, Sustainable Use of Turtle Eggs, Improved Awareness, Effective Monitoring and Evaluation, and the Replication Framework.

All activities in the project will be add-ons. There may be some substitutions under the Alternative Livelihoods component, but these would be fully funded by non-GEF parties.

A most essential project objective is to actually consolidate the refuge. This involves achieving a series of results (establishment of the public-private management entity, constructions and equipping of buildings for rangers and visitors, demarcation of the refuge, management plans, training and equipping of rangers, guides and fire fighters). These results have only global benefits. The GEF will cover about 23% (US$296,057) of the total costs (US$1,286,682) of achieving this Objective.

Improving the livelihoods of people in the refuge area has been a prime concern during project design. Field surveys and interviews indicated that people will reduce hunting, firewood collection, harvesting of eggs, illegal logging, and cattle grazing in forested core forested areas if provided with viable options. The project therefore obtained substantial co-financing to cover these costs (US$2,169,795). This is a critical project component and will give overall credibility to the intervention. GEF will cover only costs of technical assistance for the sustainable management of globally significant biodiversity, such as the preparation of a biodiversity-friendly ecotourism strategy and action plan, the salary of an expert UN Volunteer specializing in sustainable uses of biodiversity (which will also lever the additional input of an additional sustainable livelihood specialist) and a visit of key community leaders to nearby areas to witness where inaction has led to biodiversity degradation (adding to a total of US$61,777). The GEF will thus cover about 2.8% of the costs of achieving this Objective, and only costs related to technical assistance in order to achieve sustainable uses of globally significant biodiversity.

Management of turtle eggs poses a special challenge to sustainable use and as such is treated as a special case of sustainable use of endangered biodiversity of special cultural significance. People in Nicaragua eat turtle eggs and give them a special significance. Prohibiting their use would not be feasible in the short term, but it is expected that under the project, consumption will decrease significant and become negligible. This component has mostly global benefits, but the costs of


the activities will be shared between GEF (US$72,947) and non-GEF parties (US$109,100). GEF support for this component is especially important.

The project will also support the strengthening of local capacities to protect Chococente biodiversity under existing Nicaraguan laws. Financing of this Objective, with only global benefits, will be shared by GEF (US$75,278) and non-GEF (US$45,800) parties. GEF will provide for some equipment and capacity building. Non-GEF parties will contribute with new, leveraged, resources above the Baseline to ensure there is enough enforcement capacity to protect the refuge.

It is critical for the long-term protection of biodiversity in the refuge that people become fully aware of the significance of the refuge and its biodiversity. This Objective has mostly global benefits. Law enforcement and management costs will also be reduced if people living in and around the refuge understand the global values involved. The costs of this Objective will be shared by GEF (US$85,777) and non-GEF (US$85,625) parties.

Monitoring and Evaluation of biodiversity and people’s attitudes towards its biodiversity has mostly global benefits, but costs will be shared between GEF (US$72,277) and non-GEF (US$86,900) sources.

The regulatory framework for the replication of private-public partnerships for the protection of globally significant biodiversity has mostly global benefits, and will be paid by GEF in full (US$58,862).

The Total Baseline costs are estimated to be $758,356, the Alternative costs $5,640,444, and the total Increment is $4,882,088, of which the GEF pays only $ 20.2 % ($ 987,120). The rest of the Increment ($ 3,894,968) is covered by other donors.


INCREMENTAL COSTS MATRIX. (US $)Calculated for the five years of project implementation

DOMESTIC BENEFITS GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS

BASELINE

Total $ 758,356Provision of improved livelihoods Total $ 391,916

-Refuge Consolidation $ 56,625-Enforcement $ 243,190-Management of Eggs $ 10,000 -Awareness and Ed. $ 31,625 -Monitoring & Eval. $ 25,000-----------------------------------------Total $ 366,440

ALTERNATIVE

Total $ 5,640,444 Provision of alternative livelihoodsTotal: $ 2,443,309

-Refuge Cons. $ 1,399,932 -Alt. Livelihoods Sustainable uses $ 61,777-Enforcement $ 364,268 - Management of Eggs $ 192,047 -Awareness & Education $ 203,027-Monitoring & Eval. $ 184,177-Replication $ 58,862-----------------------------------------Subtotal $ 2,464,090Implementation costs: $ 523,685FFI indirect costs $ 154,360PDFA $ 55,000-----------------------------------------Total $3,197,135

INCREMENT(GEF AND NON-GEF)

Total Increment: $ 4,882,088Total GEF: $ 987,120Total Non GEF: $ 3,894,968

% GEF support for the increment: 20.2 %

Provision of Alternative Livelihoods

Total $ 2,108,018

-Refuge Cons. $ 1,286,682 -Alt. Livelihoods: Sustainable uses $ 61,777-Enforcement $ 121,078- Management of Eggs $182,047-Awareness & Education $ 171,402-Monitoring &Evaluation$ 159,177-Replication $ 58,862-----------------------------------------Subtotal $ 2,041,025Implementation costs: $ 523,685FFI indirect costs $ 154,360PDFA $ 55,000-----------------------------------------Total $ 2,774,070


FINANCING AND BUDGET

Financing by objectives and donors: (US $)

Objectives Total GEF GoN GoG GoJ GoUK FFIPrivateLand Owner

UNV UNDP

1. Refuge Consolidation $1,286,682 $296,057 $909,000 $31,625 $25,000 $25,000

2. AlternativeLivelihoods $2,169,795 $61,777 $1,740,000 $63,250 $294,768 $10,000

3. Enforcement $121,078 $75,278 $45,800

4. Sustainable Use of TurtleEggs

$182,047 $72,947 $34,000 $70,000 $5,100

5. Awareness $171,402 $85,777 $41,000 $31,625 $3,000 $10,000

6. Monitoring & Evaluation $159,177 $72,277 $17,000 $49,900 $20,000

7. Replication $58,862 $58,862

Project Coordination & Administration

$523,685 $184,685 24,000 $300,000 $15,000

Sub total $4,672,728 $907,660 $2,810,800 $426,500 $297,768 $95,000 $100,000 $15,000 $20,000

FFI Indirect cost $154,360 $54,460 $2,700 $97,200

PDFA $55,000 $25,000 $30,000

Total $4,882,088 $987,120 $2,810,800 $426,500 $297,768 $32,700 $192,200 $100,000 $15,000 $20,000

Note: Out of the Government of Nicaragua sub-total, 28% of the total is not direct financing, rather, the project, through the Alternative Livelihood’s component will have to compete to obtain these funds from the IDR (Rural Development Institute), through its “Rural Productive Re-activation Program” with a budget for 5 years of US$68 million that has expressed interest in financing projects proposed under this component. Also, FFI Indirect costs can be considered in-kind contribution since it takes into account 60% of the organizations National Coordinator’s time which will be invested in supervising the project as well as the vehicle donated by the UK Embassy to the organization.

A graphical representation of the allocation of financial resources shows that while GEF resources will go mainly to the Consolidation of the Refuge, non-GEF Resources will go mostly to alternative livelihoods.


In addition to GEF, there are eight other major donor countries/agencies. Amongst these, there is more than one agency contributing to project outcomes. For example, GoN includes MARENA, IDR, FISE and the Army. GoG includes DED and GTZ, and will be mostly funding alternative livelihoods. GTZ and DED have agreed to coordinate closely for the purposes of this project.

The Government of UK co-funded the PDF A. Consolidation of the Refuge is supported heavily (US$909,000) by the GoN (with funds accessed through a national loan arranged with the IDB) for construction of refuge infrastructures at the refuge, production of a refuge management plan, boundaries, ranger salaries, refuge director, and production of individual property management plans. FFI, with US$25,000, purchased land thereby securing access to the IDB loan. PSO contributes through its financial support for technical assistance to produce management plans at the individual property level. Chacocente de Acayo, a private partner, contributes US$25,000 for salaries of its ranger team. Complementary GEF funds (US$ 244,110) will be directed at establishing a co-management entity, including its institutionalization and training. GoJ provide counterpart funds to improve roads.

Biodiversity Friendly Livelihoods receives large sums (US$1,740,000) of GoN investment for socio-productive activities through two main agencies, including US$800,000 through IDR, and the rest from MARENA (who will manage IDB funds at US$175,000 and up to US$750,000 a DANIDA’s small grant fund). These funds will be accessed by the Sustainable Alternative Livelihood’s Specialist, funded with US$300,000 by DED. Its brother organization, GTZ which finances PSO, will support training of alternative livelihoods and private funding, US$10,000. GEF funds will strengthen the biodiversity specialist and the eco-tourist component. Japan’s contribution, consisting of US$294,768 is directed at road improvement to the refuge.


Funds to strengthen enforcement will be obtained from the US$75,278 GEF inputs to support the formalization of inter-stakeholder agreements, and to increase enforcement capacities of the refuge team. The GoN and the GEF will contribute similar amounts and will provide training, equipment and will construct control posts.

Sustainable Use of Turtle Eggs requires a total of US$72,947 from GEF for the production of a turtle egg management plan and training of personnel to implement it. Corresponding GoN funds (US$34,000) will be directed at the elaboration of nesting data and production of a diagnosis of best practice. FFI’s US$70,000 supports sea turtle conservation and US$5,100 from Chacocente de Acayo contributes to this.

Improved Awareness requires US$85,777 from GEF for a Biodiversity Education Strategy and resulting education and interpretative materials for various audiences and the Interpretation and Visitors Center. GoN co-financing will reinforce the implementation of this strategy. PSO will fund (US$31,625) training targeted at schools and the GoJ (with US$3,000) funds environmental impact component of the road improvement project. Effective Monitoring will include US$17,000 from the GoN for setting up and monitoring biodiversity, complemented by US$72,277 from GEF and US$20,000 from UNDP for baseline socio-ecological, economic and attitudinal data and subsequent evaluations. Chacocente de Acayo contributes with US$10,000 in monitoring fauna and flora.

Regulation for Establishment of Public-Private Partnerships, requires US$58,862 from GEF for production of a draft regulatory framework document that enables uptake of the model elsewhere. Also, the project will foster 5 exchange visits from other PAs from the Pacific Coast interested in replicating the model. These visits will include both the private and public stakeholders at each PA. Additionally, a National Workshop will be organized whereupon the drafted regulation will be presented by MARENA and wider lessons from the project will be analyzed. Workshop proceedings will then be produced and disseminated to promote the project model’s replicability.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The project will be implemented over five years. A summary of key activity areas and the years they are to be undertaken is given below. Year 0 refers to results leveraged during project preparation and expected to be finalized before project inception or during the first year of implementation (see text under Baseline for further explanations). This matrix is closely linked with the log-frame matrix (Annex 1).


Immediate Objectives Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 51. Consolidation of the Chococente Wildlife Refuge.1.1 Establishment of the Public-Private co-management Entity of the Refuge

1.1.1 Approval by all stakeholders of the by-laws defining roles, rights and responsibilities of the various actors and the management structure.

1.1.2. Study tour to learn from Chilean experience on co-management and incentives to private landowners1.1.3. Exchange visit to Talamanca Biological Corridor with representatives of private landowners to learn from their experience1.1.4 Co-management agreements between MARENA, private landowners and municipalities1.1.5 Capacity building for management and co-management1.1.6. Public-Private co-management Entity of the Refuge functional.

1.2 Construction of an Interpretation and Visitors Center, Administration Building, Cabins for visitors, Park Rangers facilities1.3 Construction of three observation / monitoring towers.1.4 Equipping of administration buildings

1.5 Pier constructed1.6. Demarcation of terrestrial and maritime boundaries of the Refuge1.7 Elaboration and approval of Management Plans

1.7.1 Elaboration and approval of the overall framework management plan

1.7.2 Elaboration and approval of individual property management plans

1.7.3 Capacity building of stakeholders for the implementation of the Management Plan

1.7.4 Implementation of individual farm management plans underway1.8 Guides, rangers, community fire fighters and volunteers capacitated1.9 Equipping of guides, rangers, community fire fighters and volunteers

1.10 Establishment of a voluntary donor system for the Chococente Refuge.

1.10.1 Strategy and action plan for a voluntary pay back system approved by the Steering Committee.

1.10.2. Action Plan implemented2. Adoption of Biodiversity Friendly Livelihoods2.1 Approval by the Steering Committee of a Biodiversity Friendly Livelihoods Strategy and Action Plan, including improvement of current activities and introduction of new alternatives.

2.2. Approval by Steering Committee of an ecotourism strategy and action plan for Chococente

2.3 End of year one, at least 5 production projects approved and/or under implementation.

2.4 At least 10 livelihood projects under implementation by end of year 2

2.5 At least two large and 10 new smaller projects under implementation by end of year 3


2.6 At least two new large and 10 new smaller projects under implementation by end of year 4

2.7 At least two new large and 10 new smaller projects under implementation by end of year 5

2.8 Improved two roads within the Refuge by year 2.

3. Strengthening of enforcement capacities3.1 Agreement of an enforcement strategy defining respective roles of all relevant actors, including MARENA, the three municipalities, private sector, NGOs, army and environmental police.

3.2 Agreements signed amongst various actors and institutions for the enforcement of relevant laws and management plans

3.3 Biodiversity-relevant training of the actors

3.4 Control posts built, radio equipment, motorbikes and a patrol boat operating,

4. Sustainable Use of Turtle eggs4.1 Approval by the communities and the Steering Committee of a participatory adaptive management plan for turtle eggs.

4.2 The plan is disseminated and implemented

4.3 Establishment of a Leatherback hatchery

5. Improved Awareness of the value of the Refuge and its biodiversity5.1 Biodiversity education-dissemination strategy and action plan aimed at key audiences (local schools, adults, decision makers, landowners, municipalities and other institutions) approved5.2 Biodiversity Education strategy under implementation

5.3 Biodiversity displays at the Center established

5.4 Educational trails and signposting established within the Refuge.

5.5 Web page of the Refuge is functional6. Effective monitoring and evaluation system implemented6.1 Agreement of the biological and sociological and attitudinal sampling and indicators to be used by the system.

6.2 Year one, year three and five surveys completed and delivered to the Steering Committee

6.3 Mid term and final evaluation.

7. Mechanisms established and activities implemented to promote the replicability of the co-management model.

7.1 Overall draft regulatory framework for the establishment of public-private co-management drafted and approved by MARENA.

7.2 Co-management experiences shared with stakeholders from other PAs on site.

7.3 National Workshop organized and proceedings produced addressing problems and challenges whilst highlighting successes.


IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS.The credibility and trust that FFI earned amongst actors from the different sectors during its facilitation of the PDF A process, legitimates its role as Executing Agency for the MSP (a NGO Capacity Assessment has been done be UNDP to further legitimate FFI as the Executing Agency, and is available upon request). During implementation, FFI will continue to build bridges between the public and private sectors to forge greater understanding and collaboration. FFI’s national and international staff will train local personnel, including from the incipient NGOs and universities, to broaden their own experience of applied biodiversity research and conservation and protected area management.

Project implementation will be carried out by a Project Coordinator supported by a Field Manager, a Project Administrative Assistant and an executive secretary, all of whom will be GEF-funded and recruited from amongst Nicaraguan experts. The Project Coordinator will be responsible to the Steering Committee, UNDP and FFI for the timely achievement of all project objectives. In addition, the project team consists of a DED-funded senior Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Specialist and two junior Sustainable Livelihood Specialists partly funded by GEF and partly by UNV.

Other tasks, including a part of project monitoring and evaluation, will be designated to short-term consultants. Some of them will belong to universities and local NGOs. Personnel and additional consultants will be recruited in accordance with UNDP procurement procedures.

The project will have a field office at the Center, and use MARENA facilities in Managua and Diriamba (Depart mental Delegation Office).

The Steering Committee will be comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Cooperation, MARENA, FFI, UNDP, PSO and DED and one representative of each the landowners, communities and municipalities (this latter to be determined by consensus between the three). The Steering Committee will ensure that the project meets all its objectives and provide guidance as needed. The Steering Committee will also help coordinate effectively with all partner organizations and ensure the project addresses key concerns of stakeholders. As such, it will also have a key role in the feed back of monitoring and evaluation into management.

UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, will have an oversight responsibility ensuring that global benefits are obtained and the project produces all results in a timely manner.

The Project Coordinator will attend Steering Committee meetings, but will have no vote. The Project Coordinator will present and require approval of the Steering Committee of the project’s annual work plan and all strategies and action plans. The Steering Committee will meet quarterly and be chaired by MARENA. FFI will assume the role of secretary. Additional experts may be invited to attend for the purposes of information.

The project team will also coordinate closely with the Chococente Advisory Group that will be established during the first year. The Chococente Advisory Group will include representatives of large landowners, communities, municipalities, and the MARENA departmental delegation and will have an advisory role. It will meet quarterly and will provide a mechanism for information


feedback to and from the project team, ensuring that a wider selection of primary stakeholders have access to the planning and implementation processes of the project.

FFI envisages no role for itself in the final co-management arrangements for the refuge, though it may continue to support turtle conservation in the refuge, as well as along the entire Pacific coast.


Project’s organization chart

Steering CommitteeMARENA-Protected Areas, FFI Nicaragua’s National Coordinator,UNDP, PSO (GTZ-IDR), DED, 1 representative from both large and small landowners (rotative) 2 representatives from the main Municipalities and the Project Coordinator (voice only).

Chococente Advisory Group Marena’s Carazo Delegation, CAMs

(Municipal Environmental Committees), Community Representatives and Private Landowners

Project TeamProject Coordinator

Technical Coordinator Administrative Assistant

Sustainable Alternative Livelihood’s Specialist (DED)

Extensionist (BD)- VNU Extensionist Socio-economic-VNU

Communities NGO’s Private landowners other actors

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTStakeholder participation has driven the development of this project brief (Annex 8), the project objectives and activities, and determined the implementing plan and structure. The project will continue to involve appropriate stakeholders at all relevant levels, throughout the implementation of project activities. The implementing structure (in the previous section) illustrates the direct involvement of key stakeholders in guiding the activities of the MSP. Both, the Steering Committee and the Chococente Advisory Group will have representatives of all stakeholders and will provide ample space for participation.

With the decentralization of MARENA and their search for ways to involve civil society in co-management of the country’s protected area network, this project represents a way of demonstrating the potential of a replicable management model for the country. Thus, there is great strategic value to the level of public involvement in this project. The benefit of implementing this GEF MSP through a strong capacity building program, instituted through existing international NGO relationships, will be far greater than the financial investment in the project would suggest.


Private, public partnerships are a necessary component of any future effective management regime, and the potential for creating solid alliances to produce conservation gain is one that is being pursued throughout Mesoamerica, such as through the ongoing MBC private sector work. Therefore, lessons learnt from this project would provide useful information to future conservation scenarios throughout the region.

Consultation with local NGOs, government agencies, and development NGOs has identified potential partners currently involved with the PAs. They will be encouraged to formally commit to the project by developing MoUs where appropriate. MARENA will be directly involved in co-managing the PAs with the management entities, implementing PA management and some project activities.

The project will integrate local communities in project activities, and PA regimes where appropriate. The whole project team will develop effective community liaison skills to engender positive relationships with local communities and landowners.

Awareness and interpretative materials will be targeted and distributed at local and national audiences. An outreach program, including a web page, will be carried out specifically designed to improve the understanding, and involvement of international and local communities in the protection of the PA. The project will encourage scientific interest in the PA through the effective dissemination of data and techniques developed through appropriate national and international media.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN1. Monitoring Impacts. Biological sampling and sociological survey methods, as well as detailed indicators will be agreed in a document to be prepared during the first three months of implementation. A few of them have already been detailed in the log frame matrix. Social studies will serve to measure the impact of the project on reserve inhabitants. Biological indicators will help assess impact on biodiversity. The value of these indicators will be measured on year one, three and five, and used for management and evaluation purposes. All of these aspects will be covered by the biological monitoring program designed by FFI international technical personnel in collaboration with relevant stakeholders and partners. Much of the actual field sampling will be carried out through local universities and NGOs.

2. Monitoring Implementation. The project team will undertake annual evaluations of the project using the expected outcomes and Objectively Verifiable Indicators (as given in the log frame). To monitor the progress of the PA, the project team will follow methods developed from techniques including the site-level tracking tool developed by the World Band and WWF. Project activities will be adapted as necessary, with input from the Steering Committee, in order to ensure participatory delivery of project objectives. Adaptive management will be a key project operational principle.

The project will also be subjected to formal annual Tri-partite Reviews by UNDP, FFI and the GoN. These reviews will be based on achievements anticipated in the log-frame matrix.


The annual audit process will ensure regular assessment of the project finances. This will act as a valuable interim monitoring component between mid-term and final evaluations. FFI international personnel will partner with UNDP staff on these key project assessments.

3. Evaluating Implementation and Impacts. After the first year of implementation the project will participate in the annual GEF-wide Project Implementation Review (PIR).

The project will also have two independent evaluations. A short mid-term evaluation to be done by a local or regional consultant on year three, and a final, complete evaluation to be done by an international consultant on year five.

UNDP Nicaragua will also apply best practices and lessons learnt from similar projects in the region, such as Belize’s “Community Co-Managed Park System for Belize” (BZE/98/G32/A/1G/99), thoroughly reviewing the Final Evaluations, Terminal Reports as well as the systematization. Nicaragua CO will establish teleconferences with the colleagues in Belize at the early stages of the project in order to learn from their experience and apply lessons learnt from the beginning of the project.

All information coming out of surveys and evaluations will be fed back to project management and the Steering Committee in order to fine-tune project interventions.


ANNEXES(provided in a separate file)

Project Description

Annex 1 Logical FrameworkAnnex 2a Site Location MapAnnex 2b PA Habitats MapAnnex 3 Information about the Proponent Annex 4 Biodiversity ReportAnnex 5 Threat and Root Causes AnalysisAnnex 6 PDF A SummaryAnnex 7 Matrix of agreed land use zoning at ChococenteAnnex 8 Summary of the most relevant laws and regulations

related to the projectAnnex 9 Chococente’s NGOs and Alternatives SurveyAnnex 10 Response to the GEF Secretariat Medium-Sized

Project Agreement Review

51

· Web viewUnited Nations Development Programme. Conservation of dry forest AND COASTAL...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewUnited Nations Development Programme. Conservation of dry forest AND COASTAL...