Northern Mesoamerica Briefing Book

Comentarios

Transcripción

Northern Mesoamerica Briefing Book
Mesoamerica Hotspot: Northern Mesoamerica
Briefing Book
Prepared for: Improving Linkages Between CEPF and World Bank Operations, Latin
America Forum, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—January 24 –25, 2005
MESOAMERICA HOTSPOT: NORTHERN MESOAMERICA
BRIEFING BOOK
Table of Contents
I. The Investment Plan
• Ecosystem Profile Fact Sheet
• Ecosystem Profile
II. Implementation
• Overview of CEPF’s Northern Mesoamerica Portfolio
o Chart of CEPF’s Northern Mesoamerica Portfolio
o Vision Maps for CEPF Grantmaking
• List of grants by Corridor
III. Conservation Highlights
• Laguna del Tigre National Park Assessment - ParksWatch
C E P F FA C T S H E E T
Mesoamerica
Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot
CEPF INVESTMENT PLANNED IN REGION
Northern Mesoamerica: $7.3 million
Southern Mesoamerica: $5.5 million
The Mesoamerica biodiversity hotspot harbors the highest montane forests of
Central America, with the most extensive and best-protected cloud forests in
the region. The hotspot is one of the 25 richest and most threatened reservoirs
of plant and animal life on Earth.
QUICK FACTS
Mammal diversity in Mesoamerica is second
highest among the 25 biodiversity hotspots,
with 521 species. Among these, 210 are
found nowhere else.
The Mesoamerica hotspot has an estimated
24,000 species of vascular plants, of which
approximately 5,000 are unique to this
hotspot.
In contrast to Mesoamerica’s exceptional
biological and cultural wealth, however,
nearly 50 percent of the region’s 45 million
people live below the poverty line. In rural
areas, more than 70 percent of the population is poor or needy.
Approximately 80 percent of the region’s
original forest has been cleared or
significantly altered.
While many national governments have
declared new national parks or reserves,
many of these areas are poorly protected or
too small for maintaining viable populations
of species over the long run. With the latter
limitation, establishing connectivity through
appropriate land uses between protected
areas to avoid fragmentation is crucial.
Forming a land bridge between two continents, the Mesoamerica hotspot
features species representative of North and South America, as well as its own
unique wildlife. The jaguar, spider and howler monkeys, Baird’s tapir and
the unusual horned guan are found here. The region is a critical flyway for at
least 225 migratory species. Three of the Western Hemisphere’s four
migratory bird routes converge in Mesoamerica.
THREATS
Mesoamerica exhibits some of the highest deforestation rates in the world.
Other direct threats include conflicts in legal frameworks; illegal logging and
occupation of land; uncontrolled tourism; oil drilling and pipelines;
unsustainable corporate and small-scale mining; unsustainable agriculture
and hunting; and uncontrolled forest fires.
CEPF STRATEGY
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has separate but complementary strategies, known as ecosystem profiles, for the northern and
southern regions of the Mesoamerica hotspot. Both strategies are underpinned by conservation outcomes—targets against which the success of
investments can be measured. These targets are defined at three levels: species
(extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes (corridors
CEPF has separate but complementary
strategies to address critical conservation issues in the northern and southern
regions of the Mesoamerica hotspot.
1 91 9 M S TR EE T, N W, W A SH I N G TO N, DC 2 00 36 , U S A 1 . 2 0 2. 9 1 2. 18 08 FA X 1. 2 02 .9 12 .1 0 45 U p d at e d Fe br ua r y 20 0 4
www.cepf.net
@ Haroldo Palo Jr.
created). While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a
region on its own, the partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation
investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss and that its
success can be monitored and measured.
In Northern Mesoamerica, CEPF focuses predominantly on Belize,
Guatemala and Southern Mexico.
CEPF targets two priority areas: the Selva Maya conservation corridor which
extends throughout the southeast of Mexico over the province of Petén in
Guatemala and throughout Belize; and the Selva Zoque and Chiapas/
Guatemala Highlands corridor which includes the key biodiversity areas of
the Selva Zoque in Oaxaca; Chiapas and Veracruz; the Sierra Madre of
Chiapas; and Cuchumatanes and the Sierra de las Minas in Guatemala.
Four strategic directions guide CEPF's approach in the northern region:
1. foster civil society participation in regional decisionmaking on select
policies and investments to promote conservation and sustainable
development of the Selva Maya and the Selva Zoque and Chiapas/
Guatemala Highlands corridors
2. collaborate with other donor-funded projects to facilitate and operationalize successful conservation activities in Northern
Mesoamerica’s eight most important key biodiversity areas
3. Support priority conservation actions in three priority key biodiversity
areas
4. prevent the extinction of Northern Mesoamerica’s 106 Critically
Endangered species (including in El Salvador and Honduras)
This regional strategy is funded over five years, beginning in 2004.
In Southern Mesoamerica, CEPF focuses on Costa Rica, Nicaragua and
Panama. CEPF targets three priority areas: the Cerro Silva-Indio Maiz-La
Selva corridor between Nicaragua and Costa Rica; the southern Talamanca
region connecting with the Osa Peninsula in Costa Rica; and the northern
Talamanca-Bocas del Toro corridor between Costa Rica and Panama.
Four strategic directions guide CEPF's approach in the southern region:
1. strengthen key conservation alliances and networks within integral
corridors
2. integrate connectivity among key, critical areas through economic
alternatives
3. promote awareness and conservation of flagship species
4. support improved management of key protected areas
ABOUT US
CEPF is a joint initiative of Conservation
International, the Global Environment
Facility, the Government of Japan, the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
and the World Bank.
The partnership aims to dramatically
advance conservation of Earth’s biodiversity
hotspots—the biologically richest and most
threatened areas—in ways that benefit both
people and nature. A fundamental goal is to
ensure civil society, such as community
groups, nongovernmental organizations and
private sector partners, is engaged in biodiversity conservation.
CEPF acts as a catalyst to create strategic
working alliances among diverse groups,
combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a coordinated,
comprehensive approach to conservation
challenges.
HOW TO LEARN MORE
For more information about CEPF, the
strategies for this hotspot and how to apply
for grants, please visit www.cepf.net.
This regional strategy is funded over five years, beginning in 2002.
1 91 9 M S TR EE T, N W, W A SH I N G TO N, DC 2 00 36 , U S A 1. 20 2. 9 12 . 1 80 8 F AX 1 .2 02 . 91 2. 1 0 45 U pd at e d F e b r ua r y 2 00 4
www.cepf.net
Ecosystem Profile
Northern Region
Of The
MESOAMERICA
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT
Belize, Guatemala, Mexico
Final version
January 15, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1
THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILE.......................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................2
Biological Importance .............................................................................................................................. 2
Socioeconomic Context........................................................................................................................... 3
Progress in Conserving Biodiversity........................................................................................................ 4
CONSERVATION OUTCOMES ...................................................................................................5
Species Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 6
Site Outcomes......................................................................................................................................... 7
Prioritization of the Key Biodiversity Areas .............................................................................................. 7
Corridor Outcomes.................................................................................................................................. 9
Selva Maya Corridor ............................................................................................................................... 9
Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands Corridor .................................................................... 11
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT THREATS .......................................................................................12
Deforestation......................................................................................................................................... 13
Forest fires ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Agricultural Encroachment .................................................................................................................... 15
Infrastructure development.................................................................................................................... 17
Illegal Traffic in Timber and Fauna ........................................................................................................ 18
Civil Society Response.......................................................................................................................... 18
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENTS ..............................................................................20
Funding Trends ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Bilateral and Multilateral Donors............................................................................................................ 24
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CEPF.......................................25
CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT .............................................................................................26
CEPF Strategic Directions..................................................................................................................... 28
CEPF Investment Priorities ................................................................................................................... 28
CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PROGRAM FOCUS....................................................29
SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................................................................32
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................33
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................34
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................35
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................38
Appendix 1: Northern Mesoamerica’s Globally Critically Endangered Species ..................................... 38
Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Areas and the Threatened Species they Support .................................... 42
Appendix 3. Prioritization of Key Biodiversity Areas .............................................................................. 48
Appendix 4: Priority Key Biodiversity Areas, Priority Sites, Threats, Investments and Potential
Interventions ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix 5: Definitions of Funding Categories Used in Investment Analysis ........................................ 58
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of species in Northern Mesoamerica.................................................................3
Table 2. Protected Areas in Northern Mesoamerica, 2000 ..........................................................4
Table 3: Northern Mesoamerica’s Globally Threatened Species.................................................7
Table 4: Criteria for Prioritization of Key Biodiversity Areas.........................................................8
Table 5. Incidence of Forest Fires .............................................................................................15
Table 6. Area Under Agriculture, 1980 to 1999 .........................................................................15
Table 7. Major Conservation and Sustainable Development Donors in Northern
Mesoamerica, 1993 to 2008................................................................................................21
Table 8. Investments in Eight Key Biodiversity Areas, 1993 – 2008...........................................22
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. CEPF Priority Corridors and Key Biodiversity Areas ......................................................10
Map 2. Forest Cover in Northern Mesoamerica, 2000 ...............................................................14
Map 3. Key Biodiversity Areas in Northern Mesoamerica..........................................................49
iii
Prepared by:
Conservation International, Mexico and Central American Program
In consultation with:
Department of Environment in Belize
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in Guatemala
National Commission for Protected Areas in Guatemala
National Commission for Protected Natural Areas in Mexico
Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources
With the technical support of:
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International
Regional Conservation Strategies Group, Conservation International
Compiled and with editing assistance by:
Carlos Rodríguez Olivet
Nigel Asquith
In consultation with the following stakeholders:
BELIZE
Valdemar Andrade
Ismael Fabro
Noreen Fairweather
Elogardo Gutiérrez
Herbert Haylock
Sharon Matola
John Pinelo
Natalie Rosado
Wilber Sabido
Diane Wade-Moore
Marcelo Windsor
GUATEMALA
Mario Aguilar
José Antonio
Roan McNaab Balas
Luis Castillo
Julio Curruchiche Castillo
Fernando Castro
Marco A. Cerezo
Billy M. Cruz
Igor de la Roca
Emmy Díaz
Fernando García
María José González
Carlos Jiménez
Sergio Augusto Lavarreda
Andreas Lenhoff
Eddy López
Mario Mancilla
Julio Morales
Rodrigo Morales
Gabriela Moretti
Marie Claire Paiz
Julio Pineda
Claudia Quinteros
Fernando Ruiz
Fernando Secaira
Alejandra Sobenes
Saúl Blanco Sosa
Ramón Zetina
MEXICO
Carlos Alcérreca
Salvador Anta
Heidi Asbjornsen
José Luis Bustamante
Sophie Calme
Javier Castañed
Enrique Duhne
Andrea Ericson
Roberto Escalante
Gerardo García
Heriberto Hernández
Juan Jose Jiménez
Rubén Langlé
Marco Lazcano
Claudia Macías
Adrián Méndez
Rodrigo Migoya
Benjamín Morales
Pablo Muench
Antonio Muñoz
Carlos Melgoza
Juana Sandoval Luis Poot
Carmen Pozo
Gabriel Ramos
Rocío Rodiles
Enrique Rojas
Juan Jacobo Schmiter
Bernardo Solano
Miguel A. Vázquez
Hans Vester
Rosa María Vidal
Gonzalo Villalobos
REGIONAL EXPERTS
AND INDIVIDUALS
Jorge Cabrera
Juan Carlos Godoy
Mac Chapin
María José González
Jonathan Guzmán
Megan Hill
Norman B. Schwartz
CI
Hamilton Barrios
Rodrigo Gordillo Bosque
Charlotte Boyd
Sabrina Boyer
Tom Brooks
Jason Cole
Mark Denill
Matt Foster
Carlos Galindo
Ricardo Hernández
Ruth Jiménez
Eric Lamarre
Sonia López
Ignacio March
Roberto Martín
Antonieta Méndez
Mónica Morales
Efraín Niembro
Elizabeth O’Neill
Donnell Ocker
Humberto Pulido
Manuel Ramírez
Abbe Reis
Alejandro Robles
Ivonne Sánchez
Jorgen Thomsen
Lucía Vásquez
Manuel Villareal
John Williams
Michele Zador
Deborah Barry
iv
INTRODUCTION
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world’s threatened
biodiversity hotspots in developing countries. It is a joint initiative of Conservation International
(CI), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Government of Japan, the MacArthur
Foundation and the World Bank. CEPF supports projects in hotspots, areas with more than 60
percent of the Earth’s terrestrial species in just 1.4 percent of its land surface. A fundamental
purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in
the hotspots. An additional purpose is to ensure that those efforts complement existing strategies
and frameworks established by local, regional and national governments.
CEPF aims to promote working alliances among community groups, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), governments, academic institutions and the private sector, combining
unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach to
conservation. CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on biological areas
rather than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on a corridor-wide basis to
identify and support a regional, rather than a national approach to achieving conservation
outcomes.
THE ECOSYSTEM PROFILE
The purpose of the ecosystem profile for Northern Mesoamerica is to define measurable
outcomes for conserving species, sites and corridors, to provide a rapid assessment of the threats
and underlying causes of biodiversity loss and to identify funding gaps and opportunities for
investment. The ecosystem profile recommends strategic funding directions that contribute to
the conservation of biodiversity in this globally significant region. Organizations representing
civil society propose projects that fit into these strategic directions. The profile does not define
the specific activities that prospective implementers may propose, but outlines the conservation
strategy that will guide those activities. Applicants for CEPF grants will be required to prepare
detailed proposals identifying and describing the interventions and performance indicators that
will be used to measure the success of their projects.
This ecosystem profile and five-year investment strategy for the Northern Mesoamerica region
was developed based on stakeholder consultation and review of background reports coordinated
by CI. Seventy-four experts representing 42 scientific, governmental and nongovernmental
organizations from Belize, Guatemala and Mexico participated in the preparation of the profile.
Data on biodiversity, socioeconomic factors, institutional context and conservation efforts were
compiled and synthesized from more than 330 organizations, representing international donors,
NGOs, public agencies, universities, community-based groups and the private sector. A threeweek tour of the region in January 2003 permitted field observation and discussion with local
communities and park staff, followed in February 2003 with a stakeholder workshop in
Guatemala that enabled broad input from the conservation community to formulate the niche and
investment strategies proposed for CEPF. Experts in the region then validated the niche and
investment strategy in August 2003.
As the region has undertaken several priority-setting exercises in the past, the development of
this ecosystem profile aimed to ensure consensus without duplicating efforts in the establishment
of priorities. In 2000, the principal international conservation organizations in the region,
including CI, The Nature Conservancy and WWF joined forces with recognized scientific
experts, local NGOs and the Mesoamerica Biological Corridor Project to identify priority actions
and conservation gaps at the regional level. This process began as an independent effort before
CEPF approved the Northern Mesoamerican region as a target for investment. However, CEPF
strategically invested in the subsequent process of establishing priorities and the results of this
process form an important element in the approach recommended for CEPF investment.
In Northern Mesoamerica, CEPF will direct its funding to influence development policies and
investments through civil society and local government action in order to achieve conservation
outcomes in the Selva Maya and the Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands
conservation corridors. After five years of investment, CEPF is expected to have achieved the
following results:
• Fostered civil society participation in regional decisionmaking to promote policies and
investments that support the conservation and sustainable development within the two
conservation corridors, focusing on agriculture, infrastructure, tourism and forest fires;
• Facilitated and operationalized successful conservation activities, in partnership with
other donors, in eight key biodiversity areas;
• Directly supported conservation actions in three priority areas; and
• Contributed to preventing the extinction of Northern Mesoamerica’s 106 critically
endangered species.
BACKGROUND
Mesoamerica is comprised of the seven countries in Central America (Belize, Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama) and the five states of southeastern
Mexico (Campeche, Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Tabasco and Yucatan), with a total area of
approximately 760,00 km2. This ecosystem profile focuses on the northern region of the
Mesoamerica hotspot, which includes the areas of northwest Belize, north and central Guatemala
and the southern Mexican states of Campeche, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco and
Yucatan. The geographical area under study extends from the Zoque Forest in Oaxaca to the
Lacandona Forest in Chiapas and from the northern Yucatan in Calakmul and Cozumel Island
down to the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala, stretching to the Montañas Mayas in Belize
with the Rio Bravo Reserve, before continuing along the Pacific down the Sierra Madre in
Chiapas and El Triunfo as far as the Cuchumatanes and the Sierra de las Minas in Guatemala.
Biological Importance
With less than one half percent of the land of the planet, Mesoamerica possesses between 7 and
10 percent of all known forms of life and 17 percent of all terrestrial species (Table 1). The
region is among the most biologically diverse on the planet. Mesoamerica is the second most
important of 25 hotspots in the world for species diversity and endemism―only the Tropical
Andes hotspot ranks higher. For species diversity, Mesoamerica ranks number one for reptiles,
and number two for amphibians, birds, mammals and non-fish vertebrates. Rates of endemism
are equally high. Mesoamerica is classified as the highest in the world for mammalian
endemism and second highest for amphibian, bird, reptilian and non-fish vertebrate endemism.
Furthermore, three of the Western Hemisphere’s four migratory bird routes converge in the
region.
2
Table 1. Number of species in Northern Mesoamerica
Country
Belize
Guatemala
Mexico
Campeche
Chiapas
Quintana Roo
Tabasco
Yucatan
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Plants
163
251
571
738
121
231
42
112
3,409
8,681
79
171
90
88
93
ND
628
340
370
343
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8,218
1,257
2,180
ND
2,280
ND - No data available. Source: IUCN 2002; CONABIO 1998; CCAD 1999b; CONAMA 1999;
NBC 1998; DGB 2001; Obando 2002; OdD-UCR and UNEP 2001; Mendieta and Vinocour 2001.
Several factors are responsible for the region’s exceptionally high diversity. Geographically,
Mesoamerica serves as a terrestrial bridge between two of the world’s great biogeographic
realms: the Nearctic of North America and the Neotropic of South and Central America and the
Caribbean. Indeed, the great transition zone between the two realms is centered in Oaxaca,
which is the most diverse of all Mexican states. Furthermore, Pacific and Caribbean coastalmarine ecosystems and the second largest reef in the world border the region. Inland, extensive
mountain chains reach up to 4,211 meters and annual average rainfall varies widely from 500 to
7,000 mm. There are three biomes, 20 life zones and 33 ecoregions, including coastal-marine,
rainforests, cloud forests, dry forests and pine forests. The Selva Maya is the largest continuous
expanse of tropical rainforest in the Americas after the Amazon.
In addition, the area’s broken topography and multiple microclimates has produced the region’s
own unique species. In Northern Mesoamerica, a series of highlands and mountain chains—
including Santa Marta volcanic range near Coatzacoalcos in Mexico and Sierra de las Minas in
Guatemala—are considered evolutionary islands. Physically isolated from surrounding valleys
and lowlands plains, they are home to many endemic species of plants and animals.
Socioeconomic Context
Mesoamerica’s biological diversity is echoed by its demographic diversity. The region is home
to 32 distinct ethnic and indigenous groups with a total population of more than 9 million, or
about 45 percent of the total population of the region. Most of the area’s native inhabitants share
a common heritage as descendants of the Mayan civilization. They speak 29 different Mayan
languages. Today’s Mayans are concentrated in southern Mexico and in the highlands of
Guatemala, where as much as 85 percent of the population is indigenous. Together with other
native peoples, such as the Zoque, Xinca, and Garifuna, the Maya have a significant presence
among the membership and management of NGOs in the region.
In contrast to Mesoamerica’s exceptional biological and cultural wealth, however, nearly 50
percent of the region’s 45 million people live below the poverty line. In rural areas, more than
70 percent of the population is poor or needy. With an annual growth rate of more than 2 percent,
the population is expected to double by 2025. Obstacles to the region’s economic development
have included civil unrest throughout the 1980s and early 1990s in Guatemala, and to this day in
Southern Mexico with the Zapatista movement. Furthermore, natural disasters in the form of
floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes have continually set back advances made
3
by the region’s economies. Hurricane Mitch in 1998 alone caused more than 11,000 deaths and
$5 billion in property damage. The region’s poverty and demographic pressures are considered
to be driving forces behind the environmental degradation experienced over the last three
decades.
The economic base has historically relied on agriculture, and more recently on industry and
commerce. In the last decade, however, tourism has been the fastest growing sector.
Approximately 1 million visitors travel to the region’s protected areas each year, generating
billions of dollars and surpassing agriculture as the principal economic sector in several Central
American countries.
Progress in Conserving Biodiversity
In the last 20 years, significant strides have been made to put conservation on the agenda.
Partnerships between governments, NGOs, universities, the scientific community, indigenous
and campesino communities, the private sector and community groups have resulted in a number
of institutional frameworks for conservation. Within these frameworks, the Central American
System of Protected Areas (SICAP) and Central American Commission on the Environment and
Development (CCAD) have occupied a position of importance in both Central American
regional and national agendas. One of the environmental tasks that governments have undertaken
is an effort to save the forests and protect their biodiversity from the threat of agricultural and
urban expansion and uncontrolled logging.
Of particular importance in the last two decades was the establishment of a system of protected
areas in each country. Governments have worked closely with NGOs and universities to set
aside some 600 protected areas, covering about 20 percent of the region. Thirty-one Ramsar sites
and Wetlands of International Importance were declared, as were seven World Heritage sites. In
Northern Mesoamerica, 194 areas covering 8.3 million hectares were declared as protected as of
2000 (see Table 2). In spite of the strides in setting aside land for diverse categories of
protection, about 60 percent of these sites are less than 10,000 hectares in area, and are
considered to be too small for maintaining viable populations of species over the long run. With
this limitation, the importance of establishing connectivity through appropriate land uses
between protected areas to avoid fragmentation must be underscored.
Table 2. Protected Areas in Northern Mesoamerica, 2000
Country
Belize
Guatemala
Mexico
Campeche
Chiapas
Quintana Roo
Tabasco
Yucatan
Total
Number of
Protected
Areas
59
104
31
4
14
9
1
3
194
Area
(ha)
1,029,110
2,865,830
4,469,000
1,793,000
980,000
998,000
303,000
395,000
8,363,000
Percent of
Territory
Protected
44.82
26.32
18.77
31.44
13.31
25.46
12.31
9.06
Percent of Total
Area Protected in
Mesoamerica
6.04
16.83
26.24
10.53
5.76
5.86
1.78
2.32
Source: CCAD, UNDP, GEF, 2002
4
In addition to the declaration of these protected areas, CCAD has become one of the most
important pillars in the modernization of environmental legislation. By 1995, all Mesoamerican
countries established environmental legislation with the objective of ensuring the conservation of
forests and biodiversity. They also developed a set of principles and instruments for the
protection of the environment and the prevention of pollution. Over the past five years, CCAD
has worked toward forming strategic alliances involving technical teams from each member
country to address the challenges of conservation, including such issues as international trade in
endangered species, biodiversity and protected areas.
More recently, over the last two years, CCAD has set up the Permanent Forum for the Civil
Society as a mechanism for coordination with regional NGOs. This mechanism was established
as a means for regional dialogue and interaction with the Council of Environment Ministers of
Central America and as a point for consultation between the various organizations representing
the sectors of Central American civil society.
The Mesoamerica Biological Corridor (MBC), funded by the World Bank through GEF and
other partners such as German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), has been another important
achievement in conservation in the region. The initiative is one of the most ambitious plans for
bringing conservation and sustainable development to the regional agenda. It involves both a
political and a programmatic approach and emphasizes the conservation of biodiversity, the
consolidation of the regional system of protected areas, community development and
communications. Efforts during the first few years have focused on positioning the concept,
developing the legal and institutional framework and implementing concrete projects. In the next
phase of the MBC, the lessons learned will be examined and a new consolidation phase will
begin as a platform for the sustainable development of the region. In Northern Mesoamerica, the
MBC recently started its operations in Mexico.
Northern Mesoamerica is a highly complex and dynamic region from an ecological, political and
social perspective. To ensure that CEPF funding is channeled toward grants that are strategically
positioned to achieve the greatest benefits for conservation, preparation of the ecosystem profile
relied on three analytical exercises. A biological assessment defined which species and
geographical areas are the most important to conserve. A threats assessment examined the most
critical pressures confronting these priority areas that require urgent attention to prevent the loss
of biological diversity. And an investment analysis identified funding trends, gaps and
opportunities to ensure CEPF investments complement and build synergy with funding from
other donors and actors in the region. These three analytical pieces formed the basis for the
development of the CEPF investment strategy and niche, and are summarized below.
CONSERVATION OUTCOMES
To ensure CEPF investments are channeled toward the species and locations of the highest
priority, the ecosystem profile adopts conservation outcomes—targets against which the success
of investments can be measured—as the scientific underpinning for determining CEPF’s
geographic and thematic focus. These conservation outcomes were defined in cooperation with
scientists from CI’s Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, and represent the full set of
quantitative targets that must be achieved in order to prevent biodiversity loss. The expectation is
that CEPF grantees will work in partnership with other donors and key actors to ensure that
investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss and that performance toward
5
measurable goals will be monitored and evaluated. Outcomes, therefore, do not represent those
targets to be achieved exclusively through CEPF funds, but rather through partnerships with
other conservation organizations, government, communities and donors.
The conservation outcomes presented in this ecosystem profile span a hierarchical continuum of
three ecological scales:
•
•
•
Species - avoid the extinction of globally threatened species;
Sites - areas containing species of global importance; and
Corridors - landscapes that maintain ecological processes.
These three levels are connected geographically through the presence of species that are located
in several sites, and beyond, at sites housed within larger landscapes. An ecological connection
also exists. If species are to be conserved, then the sites where they reside must be protected and
sustainably managed; landscapes must maintain the ecological services on which the sites and
the species depend. At the landscape level, the team defined biodiversity conservation corridors
(within which sites are nested) to target investments at increasing the amount of habitat with
ecological and biodiversity value within these corridors. Given the threats to biodiversity at each
of the three levels, the ecosystem profile team set quantifiable targets in terms of extinctions
avoided, sites protected and corridors consolidated.
Outcome definition is a fluid process and as data become available, species-level outcomes need
to be expanded to include other taxonomic groups that previously had not been assessed.
Avoiding extinctions means conserving globally threatened species to make sure that their IUCN
Red List status improves or at least stabilizes. This in turn means that data are needed on
population trends. For most of the threatened species, however, no such data is currently
available.
Species Outcomes
In determining species outcomes, CEPF aims to stabilize and improve the conservation status of
species in order to achieve the ultimate goal of avoiding the extinction of globally threatened
species. Thus, in preparing the ecosystem profile, CI determined that the obvious targets for
conservation in Northern Mesoamerica are globally threatened species that have a high
probability of extinction in the medium term. Species outcomes were therefore based on the
conservation status of individual species, as compiled in the 2002 IUCN Red List, which
provides quantitative, globally applicable criteria under which the probability of extinction is
estimated for each species. At the time of this profile’s preparation, IUCN had identified 470
species as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU) for Mesoamerica
(Table 3). Preventing the extinction of these species forms the first level of quantitative
conservation outcomes.
Globally threatened species in Northern Mesoamerica are dominated largely by plants due to the
fact that this taxonomic group contains many more species than other taxa, and also by
amphibians based on the disproportionate threat that amphibians face in the region. Of these 470
species, 106 species are considered to be Critically Endangered, defined as those species that
face an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. Northern Mesoamerica’s Critically
Endangered species are listed in Appendix 1.
6
Table 3: Northern Mesoamerica’s Globally Threatened Species
Taxonomic
Group
Plants
Invertebrates
Fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Birds
Mammals
Total
Number of Globally Threatened
Species
Country
Total*
Critically
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Belize
Guatemala
Mexico
57
1
4
33
4
2
5
106
82
13
5
36
5
5
11
157
145
3
3
36
3
7
10
207
28
1
ND
3
5
2
5
44
79
8
ND
50
9
6
8
160
189
12
12
35
10
11
19
288
284
17
12
105
12
13
25
470
ND- No data available.
* Note that total species reflects the summation of Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species in the three countries.
Site Outcomes
Site outcomes aim to identify, document and protect areas that are critical for the conservation of
global biodiversity. Most species are best conserved through the protection of sites that they
inhabit. Thus, the next level of analysis for the ecosystem profile sought to identify particular
site outcomes, also called key biodiversity areas, for each target species. The objective of
defining individual sites was to identify areas where investments could be made to create
protected areas or special conservation regimes, expand existing protected areas and improve
protected area management, all of which help to prevent species extinctions. For the analysis,
key biodiversity areas were identified based on two major criteria: vulnerability (contain globally
threatened species) and irreplaceability (contain globally important congregations of species).
Furthermore, the team defined individual sites as those areas that could be managed as a single
unit.
To identify site-level outcomes, the team analyzed the distribution of globally threatened species
and mapped out the location. Several sources of data were used. In Mexico, the team used
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) as determined by the International Council on the Preservation of
Birds (CIPAMEX) and BirdLife International. In Belize and Guatemala, the analysis was based
on BirdLife International’s Key Areas for Threatened Birds in the Neotropics, which are the
precursors of the IBAs. In addition, the analysis included existing protected areas where globally
threatened species occur, as well as important habitat for threatened species that currently are not
protected but could be managed as a single unit. Several additional factors were considered:
habitat for endemic species; sites with large congregations of waterfowl and fish; distribution of
amphibian species; and analysis of the geo-referenced localities database contributed by the
National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) in Mexico.
Prioritization of the Key Biodiversity Areas
Based on this methodology, the team initially identified 24 key biodiversity areas covering
approximately 14.3 million hectares (see Appendix 2 for a detailed list of the globally threatened
7
species in each key biodiversity area). These are the highest priority sites for conservation,
based on both vulnerability and irreplaceability.
To ensure that CEPF invests in those areas of the highest priority for global conservation, the
team prioritized the 24 key biodiversity areas further. The areas were ranked based on two
considerations: their importance for the protection of endemic and globally and nationally
threatened species and on their potential to conserve habitat of wide-ranging, higher trophic level
species (Table 4). Because CEPF is a global initiative, the team gave more weight in the
analysis to considerations related to ranking in Critically Endangered species. Therefore, while
the conservation potential ranking was considered an important element, the final prioritization
reflected more the species-based ranking that emphasizes globally threatened species.
Table 4: Criteria for Prioritization of Key Biodiversity Areas
Biological Importance
•
Number of species on the IUCN Red List that
are present in the area.
•
Number of species on the national red lists
that are present in the area.
•
Number of endemic species present in the
area or whose ranges are thought to extend
through the area.
•
Existence of globally significant
congregations of species (i.e. migratory
aquatic birds, bat colonies, flamingo nesting
grounds, etc.)
Conservation Potential
•
Percentage of the area that is currently in a
good state of conservation (i.e. natural
vegetation with very light human impact).
•
Relative status of ecosystem conservation in
the key biodiversity areas (i.e. what
proportion of the area has intact functioning
ecosystems).
•
Importance of connectivity provided as a
conservation corridor between other key
biodiversity areas.
•
Ecological diversity in terms of types of
landscape and vegetation included in the
area, considering the intermixture of habitat,
altitudinal gradients, etc.
The prioritization exercises showed similar rankings for both parameters, with areas that
demonstrated high importance for species protection also indicating excellent potential for
maintaining habitat (Appendix 3). Based on the analysis, the following eight key biodiversity
areas, which harbor 176 Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered species, were
identified as the highest priorities for conservation in Northern Mesoamerica:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Selva Zoque, Mexico
Reserva de Biosfera Sierra de las Minas, Motagua, Bocas del Polochic, Guatemala
Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Mexico
Los Cuchumatanes, Guatemala
Selva Lacandona y Sierra del Lacandon, Mexico and Guatemala
Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre, Guatemala
El Gran Peten, Mexico and Guatemala
Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas, Guatemala and Belize
8
Corridor Outcomes
Identification of corridor outcomes, which represent the highest level of analysis for the profile,
aimed to define conservation priorities at the landscape level. The need for identifying such
corridors rests on the understanding that existing protected areas and sites are often too small and
isolated to maintain ecosystem functions and evolutionary processes. The focus must therefore
be on linking major sites and protected areas in a network, or so-called biodiversity conservation
corridors, across wide geographic areas in order to maintain these large-scale processes. In
addition, corridors are necessary for wide-ranging species and for ecological processes on which
key biodiversity areas depend.
Corridors within the Northern Mesoamerica region were identified and delineated based on the
following criteria: coverage of key biodiversity areas, existence of large-scale intact biota
assemblages, needs of wide-ranging landscape species, connectivity of habitats, and
opportunities for maintaining ecological and evolutionary processes. Based on the results, two
corridors were identified for CEPF investment: 1) the Selva Maya and 2) the Selva Zoque and
Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands corridors. These corridors encompass the majority of site and
species outcomes for Northern Mesoamerica. They are large enough to maintain ecosystem
processes essential for sustaining biological diversity, while also being anchored by key
biodiversity areas that have been determined to be of the highest priority for conserving globally
threatened species. These corridor outcomes aim to consolidate the areas that function as
corridors for biodiversity, including the conservation of areas that provide connectivity to
maintain ecological processes. The two corridors and eight key biodiversity areas are described
below in brief, including significant biological features and threatened species and habitats.
Selva Maya Corridor
The Selva Maya contains the second most extensive mass of continuous tropical rainforest in the
Americas after the Amazon Forest. It extends throughout the southeast of Mexico (the states of
Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo), over the province of Petén in
Guatemala and throughout Belize. The Selva Maya is covered with tropical montane rain forest
(Selva Lacandona in Chiapas, and Chiquibul and the Mayan Mountains in southern Belize) as
well as tropical lowland rain forest (Marqués de Comillas in Chiapas, Yucatan Peninsula, Peten
in Guatemala, northern Belize). The Selva Maya includes the middle and lower parts of the
Usumacinta river basin, which, together with the Grijalva river basin, is one of the most
important river systems in Mesoamerica. The endemic species of the Selva Maya comprise 11
mammals, including the Yucatan brown brocket deer, 20 birds including the ocellated turkey, 39 reptiles
and 11 amphibians. At least 19 species of endemic fishes have also been reported.
Lacandona, Laguna del Tigre and the Gran Peten key biodiversity areas
Lacandona, Laguna del Tigre and the Gran Peten are linked as three of the most important key
biodiversity areas in the Selva Maya corridor. Lacandona supports the mammals Tylomys
bullaris (CR) and T. Tumbalensis (CR), along with four species of Endangered insects and four
species of Endangered plants. The Gran Peten supports two other species of Endangered plants
and two species of Endangered reptiles. These key biodiversity areas are also important because
of the presence of the northernmost populations of many Neotropical species, such as Baird’s
tapir (EN), jaguar, ocelot, white-lipped peccary, howler monkey, spider monkey, scarlet macaw,
harpy eagle and the Moreleti crocodile.
9
Map 1. CEPF Priority Corridors and Key Biodiversity Areas
Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala
Highlands Corridor
1. Selva Zoque
2. Reserva de Biosfera Sierra de las
Minas, Motagua, Bocas del Polochic
3. Sierra Madre de Chiapas
4, Los Cuchumatanes
Selva Maya Corridor
5. Selva Lacandona y Sierra del Lacandon
6. Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre
7. El Gran Peten
8. Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas
Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas key biodiversity area
The Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas of Belize and east-central Petén is the fourth key biodiversity area
in the Selva Maya corridor. The Montañas Mayas contain several peaks that exceed 1,000 meters,
the windward side of which is covered with wet forest and contains a herpetological assemblage
with many similarities to that of the adjacent lowlands and the southern portion of the Petén.
Broadleaf forest, including riparian forest, occurs in the lowlands. The leeward side of these
mountains tends to be much drier and is covered with what has been referred to as pine parkland
or palm, and pine savanna. The Upper Raspaculo River shows particularly high dynamism due
to regular extreme disturbance from flooding. This damage, along with that from three
hurricanes that have passed through the area since 1961, has created a large area of secondary
forest in the upper basin. The Montañas Mayas support two globally threatened amphibian
species, and riparian areas appear to support a high density of Baird’s tapir (EN). While few
endemics occur, at least one frog, Rana juliani, is limited to these mountains.
10
Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands Corridor
The Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands corridor includes the key biodiversity areas
of the Selva Zoque in Oaxaca; Chiapas and Veracruz; the Sierra Madre of Chiapas; and
Cuchumatanes and the Sierra de las Minas in Guatemala. The corridor is best known for its
ecosystem diversity and its high endemism. For example, six endemics are concentrated in a
small patch of cloud forest in El Pozo, Chiapas: the salamander Ixalotriton niger (CR), the frog
Eleutherodactylus pozo (CR), the lizards Anolis parvicirculatus and Sceloporus internasalis and
the rats Ototylomys sp. nov. and Tylomys bullaris (CR).
Selva Zoque key biodiversity area
In addition to its expansive wet tropical forest, the Selva Zoque contains large areas of montane
mesophilous forest and pine-oak forests that mingle with tropical montane forests and other
communities, thus giving rise to landscapes with a very elevated diversity of flora and fauna. The
importance of the Selva Zoque region is outstanding at the bioregional level. Zoque and its
immediate surroundings represent the northern or western limit of Central American species such
as highland guan, quetzal and the horned guan (EN). Several new species of plants and animals
have also been reported as endemic to the area. Zoque also maintains extensive populations of
large mammals such as jaguar, river otter, Baird’s tapir (EN) and spider monkey, and large birds
such as harpy eagle, scarlet macaw and great curassow. The Selva Zoque is considered to be one
of the largest areas containing tapir habitat and is currently the northwestern limit of its
distribution. Although the Selva Zoque is Mexico’s second largest forest, it has no officially
protected areas.
Sierra Madre of Southern Chiapas key biodiversity area
The Sierra Madre of southern Chiapas includes a chain of mountains of extraordinary
biodiversity. This species diversity is a result of the area’s proximity to the Pacific coastline and
its altitudinal diversity. The region connects both with Selva Zoque and the Guatemala mountain
chain in the south, and covers the greatest expanse of mesophilous montane forest or cloud forest
in all of Northern Mesoamerica. This region constitutes the principal habitat in the world for
species such as the quetzal and the endemic horned guan (EN). The El Triunfo Biosphere
Reserve is perhaps the most important representative of this entire region, including important
ecosystems, species, endemic taxa and ecological services. El Triunfo supports one of
Mexico’s largest fragments of mesophilous montane forest, a vegetation type that
constitutes less than one percent of Mexico’s territory.
Cuchumatanes key biodiversity area
The Cuchumatanes highlands encompass most of northwestern Guatemala. The Sierra de los
Cuchumatanes is the most extensive highland region in Mesoamerica with 1,500 km2 lying
above 3,000 m elevation. Most of Cuchumatanes is covered with pine-oak lower montane and
montane humid forest. However, on windswept higher slopes and peaks lower montane wet
forest is present and in the extreme northern portion a subtropical pluvial forest covers the Sierra
de los Cuchumatanes. The Sierra receives over 6,000 mm of rainfall annually. Cuchumatanes
shares much of its fauna with the Chimaltenangan, Cuilcan and Minan areas and supports six
endemic amphibians: the salamanders Bolitoglossa jacksoni (CR), Dendrotriton cuchumatanus
(CR) and Bradytriton silus (CR), the frogs Hyla dendrophantasma (CR), Plectrohyla tecunumani
(CR) and Hyla perkinsi (CR).
11
Sierra de las Minas-Motagua-Bocas del Polochic key biodiversity area
The different altitudes and orientation of the Sierra de las Minas have a profound influence on
the climate and ecological conditions in the 242,642-hectare biosphere reserve. Rainfall varies
significantly within short distances. Some areas of the upper reaches of the Polochic receive
more than 4,000 mm of rainfall annually, while in the Motagua valley annual precipitation is less
than 500 mm. The geographical isolation of Sierra de las Minas and its altitudinal variability
have given rise to a great diversity of habitats for flora and fauna, which have functioned as
islands of genetic evolution. Cloud forest covers 1,300 km2 of the reserve, which probably
represents the largest expanse of this ecosystem in Mesoamerica. The biosphere reserve alone is
home to 885 species of mammals, birds and reptiles, which represent 70 percent of all species of
Belize and Guatemala. Among the plant species, Persea schiedeana (VU), Quercus purulhana
(VU), Cornus disciflora (VU) and Parathesis vulgata (EN) risk extinction and 56 species are
endemic. Sierra de las Minas supports 21 species of regionally endemic birds, such as horned
guan (EN), along with quetzal and probably harpy eagle.
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT THREATS
Despite Northern Mesoamerica’s importance to global biodiversity and the progress achieved
over the last two decades in advancing the conservation agenda, the region is under extremely
heavy development pressure. Habitat is being lost at an alarming rate. Approximate 400,000
hectares of forest is destroyed every year. If current deforestation rates continue, Mesoamerica’s
forests will disappear in 12 years, by the year 2015. The rapid loss of habitat makes
Mesoamerica one of the most threatened hotspots in the world.
To understand the causes behind the destruction, the CI team consulted with stakeholders,
conducted a literature review and made site visits to determine the proximate threats to
biodiversity and their root causes. Below is a synopsis of the findings. A detailed threats
assessment for all eight key biodiversity areas to receive CEPF support is presented in Appendix
4.
Stakeholders concurred that threats to biodiversity can be attributed to three fundamental root
causes. The first of these causes is an economic development model that has thus far failed to
lift from poverty more than 40 percent of Guatemalans, more than 30 percent of Belizeans and
between 10 and 20 percent of Mexicans. The poor lack access to education, health, credit and
property, and have few economic options outside of working on the most marginal lands for
agriculture, many of which are in the areas of highest biodiversity. The combination of poverty
and lack of health and education have generated consequent problems: a demographic explosion,
high mortality and malnutrition rates, and lack of capacity to use strategies for rational resource
management. For the future, with high population growth, these pressures will only continue
unless more sustainable land management practices are adopted.
The second root cause is a development paradigm and political vision that has been based on
short-term resource extraction and that has failed to appropriately value biodiversity and the
environment in terms of their contributions to the sustainable development and welfare of current
and future generations. Indeed, many contradictory policies have been implemented. On the
one hand, extensive areas have been set aside for protection and conservation, while on the other
hand, development policies have promoted the extraction of natural resources such as extensive
12
agriculture, logging and oil development. Agriculture has moved into protected areas. Such
policy failures remain widespread throughout the region, and therefore require that civil society
engage at the national and regional levels if it is to effect a change on behalf of conserving
habitat and species.
The third root cause can be attributed to weak institutional structures and legal frameworks
required to develop and enforce environmental policies and laws. A lack of coherence exists
within the legal structure. Use of soil, water and biodiversity, for example, is covered by a series
of legal instruments of different character and legal hierarchy. This legal confusion not only
leaves regulatory gaps, but it also makes the application of a particular policy or law difficult.
As mentioned previously, significant advances have been made in passing environmental laws in
Mesoamerica, but the accompanying technological and financial instruments, such as the use of
economic incentives, have yet to be developed to encourage environmentally sustainable
economic development.
Laws protecting biodiversity are hampered by the lack of precision and legal implementation
frameworks as well as by a shortage of human and financial resources assigned to legal
institutions responsible for enforcement. As a result, even unambiguous environmental laws are
difficult to enforce. Furthermore, while there has been a push toward decentralization in
Northern Mesoamerica, in which more responsibility for resource management is placed on local
governments, little has been done to date to ensure that local governments have the capacity to
assume additional resource management responsibilities. Funding from central to local
government has typically supported public infrastructure works and municipal debt servicing.
As a result, local governments lack the technical expertise and resources needed to promote an
integrated approach to rural development and to enforce environmental laws. Little support
exists for land tenure laws or forest fire prevention and control at the local level.
Fortunately, these legal hurdles are well recognized and are beginning to be addressed through a
joint CCAD – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiative called PROLEGIS, which is
funded through USAID’s PROARCA project. The initiative has four goals that, once instituted,
should contribute to addressing this root cause: harmonize environmental standards and
regulations; increase capacity to enforce and comply with environmental legislation; apply key
international agreements; and develop a harmonized regional system for environmental audits,
and compliance registry and certification.
While there are diverse manifestations of these root causes, their impact is similar: a direct loss
of biodiversity. Stakeholders agreed that the most important proximate threats to biodiversity,
which are described in more detail below, are deforestation due to agricultural encroachment,
forest fires, illegal logging and fuel wood harvesting; infrastructure development; and poaching
and illegal wildlife trade. These threats lead to habitat degradation, decline of species
populations and disruption of ecological processesall contributing to overall loss of
biodiversity.
Deforestation
In spite of the rich biodiversity of the region, a territory once covered entirely by forest today
maintains less than half of its original cover. It is estimated that on average 45 hectares of forest
are lost every hour, which adds up to approximately 400,000 hectares every year. The expansion
13
of the road network, logging, agricultural encroachment and livestock production and the use of
wood for cooking by more than 60 percent of households have been the principal causes of this
deforestation. Deforestation has wider impacts than the forest itself. Many hydrographic basins
are suffering from the removal of their vegetative cover, leading to erosion, disturbed
hydrological cycles and heavy sedimentation in rivers and coasts, thus exacerbating the impact of
extreme climatic events. Several factors contribute to the rapid deforestation.
Map 2. Forest Cover in Northern Mesoamerica, 2000
Source: 2000 National Forest Inventory of Mexico, SEMARNA; 2001 Central American Ecosystem Map, CCAD and World Bank.
Forest Fires
Farmers in Northern Mesoamerica have long used fire to clear their land for development and to
regenerate grassland pasture. More than 500,000 hectares of forest were burned between 1990
and 1995. In 1998, with the aggravating circumstance of the drought brought about by El Niño,
poorly controlled fire destroyed more than 2.5 million hectares in Central America and a further
nearly 850,000 hectares in Mexico (Table 5).
14
Table 5. Incidence of Forest Fires
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
Number,
1996-2001
138
695
ND
651
5,027
ND
611
7,943
ND
683
5,520
ND
404
6,049
ND
715
3,143
ND
3.202
28.377
ND
Number of Forest Fires per Year
Country
Belize
Guatemala
Mexico
Area
affected in
1998 (ha)
<50,000
650,000
848,911
Source: Cochrane 2002; CCAD 2001. ND – no data available
The Historical Atlas of Forest Fires in Central America, produced by the Program for
Sustainable Development in Agricultural Frontier Areas in Central America, states that a number
of protected areas have “a high recurrence of forest fires, which constitutes a threat to
conservation of biodiversity and of forest cover, a threat which also extends to the integrity of
the MBC, of which these areas form the backbone.” These fires affect several critical protected
areas and represent a serious threat to the integrity and connectivity of the Mesoamerican
Corridor itself, particularly in Mexico and Guatemala. Protected areas affected by recurring
forest fires in Guatemala include the Laguna del Tigre National Park, the Sierra de Lacandón
Park, Machaquila and the Montañas Mayas, with a total area of 5,100km2. Stakeholders report
that forest fires have not received the attention they deserve and that greater consideration needs
to be paid to this threat. They acknowledge that advances have been made in recent years in the
governmental and international response to fires, however, fire-prevention and fire-fighting
capacity at the local level remains weak.
Agricultural Encroachment
In the last 20 years, an additional 200,000 hectares of land per year has come under agriculture
throughout Mesoamerica (Table 6). The advance of the agricultural frontier has rarely occurred
in a sustainable manner. Many soils have rapidly lost productivity, forcing farmers to move to
more fertile lands, those that are forested and even protected.
Table 6. Area Under Agriculture, 1980 to 1999
Country/State
1980
1990
1999
(ha)
(ha)
(ha)
Area
Belize
Guatemala
Mexico
Campeche
Chiapas
Quintana Roo
Tabasco
Yucatán
Total
96,000
3,050,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
4.2
28.0
Area
117,000
4,285,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Percent
5.1
39.4
Area
139,000
4,507,000
6,644,000
914,000
2,423,000
182,000
1,697,000
1,428,000
28,769,000
Area change,
Percent
6.0
41.4
27.9
16.0
32.9
4.6
69.0
32.8
37.4
1980-1999
(ha)
2,300,000
76,700,000
430,000,000
Source: FLACSO and UCR 2002; OdD-UCR and PNUMA 2001, 2002; Mendieta and Vinocour 2000:67. ND – no data available
Poverty has generated strong pressure for development in the form of forest conversion into
areas of more intensive land use, such as agriculture and livestock farming. Public rural
development programs have promoted land-use change. In Guatemala, for example, the
government encouraged forest conversion for agriculture up until 1995. Agriculture tends to be
15
highly unproductive in the region. Even today in Guatemala, agriculture and forestry account for
60 percent of land use. Agriculture employs 50 percent of the population. However, the sector is
highly unproductive, and only 10 percent of national investment goes for agriculture, reflecting a
high degree of neglect and unsustainable extractive practices. The Government of Mexico
invests annually around $60 million in traditional development programs in rural municipalities
such as those surrounding the key biodiversity areas. Many of these investments are targeted
toward development projects that encourage land-use change, and few taken into account
environmental sustainability.
Insecure land tenure and title creates a major disincentive for sustainable agriculture and
resource use secure title would anchor farmers in one area rather than requiring them to
continuously extend their range into new, forested areas. Many farmers, especially those in
politically sensitive areas such as Laguna del Tigre and the Peten, do not have legal title to their
land, and therefore have little incentive to invest in resource management or in expelling
outsiders who enter to exploit the forest. In the last eight years, more than 30 invasions have
occurred in the Lacandona Forest Reserve. Invasions have also begun in other protected areas,
including the Sierra de Lacandón and Laguna del Tigre national parks. Local governments often
lack the capacity to provide title to legitimate landholders, which is a contributing factor to
unsustainable land practices.
Unsustainable Forest Management
Unsustainable forest management practices and policies in Northern Mesoamerica have been a
major contributor to the large-scale deforestation. Several factors shed light on the problem.
Financially, returns from sustainable forest management have traditionally been much longer in
duration than from agriculture. Furthermore, landowners and communities have generally lacked
knowledge about alternative, biodiversity-friendly uses of intact forest. While attention has been
paid to the potential for non-consumptive forest-based activities, most rural communities lack
information about forest management practices that promote sustainability. Alternatives to
logging, such as shade grown coffee, sustainable ecotourism, and sustainable timber harvesting
and forest management, have been attempted with varying degrees of success throughout the
region. However, stakeholders report that information and the lessons learned about the
strengths and weaknesses of such interventions have not been systematically collected, analyzed
and disseminated. As a result, capacity to implement sustainable development options for forests
remains limited.
Another factor underlying deforestation has been that basic ecosystem services derived from
maintaining forest cover, such as soil conservation, watershed management, biodiversity
conservation, and carbon sequestration, have been undervalued. Failure to monetize these
services has meant that landowners and communities have not received direct income from intact
forest. Few, if any, formal and well-publicized mechanisms have been developed by which
communities and landowners can negotiate payments for environmental services from a position
of knowledge and strength. These factors have hampered discussions and negotiations that could
lead to better conservation, with international NGOs for conservation easements or concessions,
with local industry, municipal governments or other communities for watershed services, or with
the private sector for a sustainable ecotourism concession. Potential market-oriented
mechanisms for the creation of private and municipal reserves need to be more widely
disseminated, and greater incentives need be developed to encourage such actions.
16
Infrastructure Development
In the coming years, significant funding is expected to flow into Northern Mesoamerica for
major development initiatives. These investments hold great promise in terms of introducing
new opportunities for economic development for the people of Northern Mesoamerica and to
address the poverty that is a root cause of environmental degradation. At the same time,
however, large infrastructure projects could well fuel wide scale habitat destruction if not
designed and implemented with adequate protection. Several large projects currently on the
drawing board are of particular concern to stakeholders.
Plan Puebla-Panama (PPP). This ambitious $20 billion, 25-year development program
launched in 2000 by the Government of Mexico runs from Puebla in southern Mexico to Panama
with the goal of promoting economic development and integration of the region. The PPP could
present important opportunities for conservation by investing large sums of money for economic
development; however, it also could introduce serious new threats. Planned infrastructure is
massive: 5,565 miles of new or improved highways, 1,130 miles of electrical lines to distribute
energy from gas and dams and six development zones for industrial facilities. Clearly, the
environmental and social impacts could be commensurately harmful without adequate measures.
Indeed, widespread opposition exists against the PPP. Hundreds of groups have denounced the
plan. In addition to concerns about the environmental impacts, these groups denounced the PPP
for its failure to engage in genuine consultation with indigenous peoples and campesinos; the
potential negative impacts on the land tenure and livelihoods of indigenous and rural people; and
unequal distribution of the economic benefits toward large businesses and governments rather
than to local communities.
To address concerns over the negative impacts on the environment, several NGOs have met with
officials of the PPP to explore potential collaboration for addressing the potential environmental
impacts and promote innovative models for conservation through the sustainable use of natural
resources. Furthermore, governments of the eight countries supporting the PPP have adopted the
Mesoamerican Sustainable Development Initiative. This initiative supports three primary
strategies to ensure the environmental sustainability of PPP projects: the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor initiative, modernization of the regional environmental management project
(PROSIGA) and the Mesoamerican Program for Sustainable Natural Resource Development.
These activities represent important opportunities by which NGOs, through CEPF support, can
influence the development of this large-scale development project in a way that truly achieves
the ecologically sustainable and socially equitable development sought by the governments and
people of the region.
Mundo Maya Sustainable Tourism Program. The Mundo Maya Program is a $120-million
initiative of the Inter-American Development Bank designed to promote social and economic
development in the countries of the Selva Maya through large-scale tourism. The program calls
for building a circuit linking cultural, ecological and adventure tourism based on the preservation
of cultural and environmental sites of interest. While NGOs recognize that tourism is the fastest
growing economic sector in Mesoamerica, generating billions of dollars in foreign exchange and
representing an important source of potential revenue for conservation and rural poverty
alleviation, several concerns about Mundo Maya and tourism growth in general persist. Mundo
Maya proposes improvements to a number of roads, including one from the archaeological sites
17
of Tikal to Uaxactun in the Peten, which would facilitate access into the Maya Biosphere
Reserve. Tourism projects promote large infrastructure works and attracted visitors that surpass
the carrying capacity of fragile areas. Fortunately, through projects as the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor, efforts are underway to work with communities to conduct land-use
planning in which the carrying capacity of protected areas is considered.
Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The proposed free trade agreement for
Central America will commit Mesoamerica to greater openness, deepen the roots of democracy
and the rule of law and reinforce market reforms. These reforms, coupled with increased trade
and investment, will promote growth and achieve stronger environmental protection and
improved working conditions. The World Bank’s CAFTA support strategy includes loans and
analytical support as well as grant funds. The North American Free Trade Agreement continues
to encourage extensive investment in infrastructure and communications. However, with free
trade, civil society is concerned that the environmental consequences could be significant, as
new land is converted for cash crops and industrialization results in more pollution.
Dam and reservoir construction. Several dams and reservoirs are slated throughout the region.
Development agencies continue to propose hydroelectric dams that would flood parts of the
lower Usumacinta River basin in Selva Lacondona, even though it is likely that a more costeffective way of increasing capacity would be to improve efficiency in existing facilities.
Furthermore, the damming of Belize’s pristine Macal River has been temporarily halted by legal
action, but the planned project has not been cancelled.
Petroleum development. There has historically been a lack of coherence between petroleum
infrastructure investments and the application of laws. Conflicts between economic development
and the defense of the environment have continuously occurred. This question is particularly
critical in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Laguna del Tigre and in Chiapas and Tabasco, where
petroleum activity is intense and investment in exploration and exploitation have grown over
recent years.
Illegal Traffic in Timber and Fauna
Despite appropriate laws and regulations, illegal timber and wildlife harvesting inside protected
areas is widespread throughout the region. Weak law enforcement allows illegal and
unsustainable hunting and trafficking of fauna, despite the fact that Belize, Guatemala and
Mexico each have laws that prohibit the hunting or collection of endangered or threatened
species, that outlaw hunting inside a protected area and its buffer zone, and that regulate in other
areas through strict permits capture rates and closed seasons and areas. Subsistence and trophy
hunting not only kill individual animals, but also can affect biodiversity in the rest of the forest
through the loss of potentially important ecosystem processes.
Civil Society Response
To date, civil society’s response to these threats can be characterized as having a mixed record.
On the one hand, NGOs have made significant strides within individual sites and in helping to
establish environmental institutions and legislation. NGOs have been at the forefront of
advocating for the establishment of new protected areas and environmental legislation.
Management plans for protected areas have been prepared. Environmental education programs
have heightened awareness about the importance of conservation. Local communities have been
18
engaged in the full gamut of environmentally sustainable development activities conceived and
promoted by NGO. NGOs remain an important source of information and expertise on various
conservation issues. More recently, several NGOs have become involved in conservation
decisionmaking in fora such as the CCAD, although open access to such venues is not the norm
for most NGOs. In short, NGOs have served as the principal advocates for and practitioners of
biodiversity conservation in Northern Mesoamerica over the past two decades.
Despite these important contributions, a wide gap still exists between the threats facing the
region and the ability of civil society to respond to them effectively. Part of the problem is that
the environmental community in Northern Mesoamerica only began to take shape about 20 years
ago and is still nascent in comparison with other civil society groups in such areas as health or
agriculture. In most cases, individual NGOs were established to conserve a particular site or in
reaction to a particular issue, such as a proposed dam. As a result, members of the NGO
community have tended to focus on their individual sites and issues, rather than on the broader
threats at hand. This single-site and -issue orientation has resulted in a fractionalized and
dispersed environmental community, where collaboration is weak and where the broader and
integrated vision required to tackle such complicated and pernicious issues as agricultural
encroachment or colonization at the policy level has yet to be fully realized.
Another part of the problem that has hampered collaboration among civil society groups with
similar agendas is the lack of the funding and opportunities to discuss and cooperate on issues of
common interest. Little funding has historically existed to support the development of
collaborative alliances comprised of individual groups working to achieve common goals. One
result of this weak coordination has been that the NGO community has yet to scale up beyond
what are many innovative and promising initiatives to the degree required to address large-scale
threats. Rather, NGO initiatives have often developed in isolation of one another with little
cross-fertilization of ideas, lessons learned and synergy achieved in working together.
Therefore, NGOs working in ecotourism, conservation coffee or protected areas management,
for example, have had little opportunity to learn from each other or to work cooperatively on
activities that are mutually beneficial.
Another impediment within the NGO community has been the lack of technical knowledge
required to engage in and influence decisionmaking on such topics as agricultural policy or
infrastructure development. Civil society groups, especially those representing indigenous
peoples and others in the poorest sectors of the region, lack access to information, and have
difficulty tracking and analyzing complex technical information. They lack the technical
background in areas such as economic analysis or environmental impact assessment in order to
interpret the data using the latest analytical tools.
These limitations have resulted in a NGO community that is reticent and even ill-equipped to
engage constructively in decisionmaking on the critical broader issues impacting biodiversity.
The need to strengthen dialogue and collaboration has been underscored repeatedly in the region.
For example, during the Conference of the Mesoamerican Society for Biology and Conservation
held in San Jose in Costa Rica in September 2002, representatives of leading NGOs and regional
projects met to present conservation priorities. The results of this meeting reflected the
importance of establishing mechanisms for communication and coordination at regional, national
19
and local levels. Among the points agreed on was the need to strengthen regional collaboration
between NGOs and CCAD.
In the future, as billions of dollars of government and donor funds are invested in Northern
Mesoamerica for development and conservation, the impact of these weaknesses within the NGO
community will potentially have greater consequences. As the principal advocates and
practitioners of conservation, civil society will need to develop the capacity to work
collaboratively to serve as influential, technically solid promoters of conservation which can
engage in policy discussions to address current and future threats. For CEPF, therefore, a high
priority must be to help the NGO community to evolve and mature to a new, broader level of
action. The challenge will be to build networks of NGOs that have the technical capacity and
organizational wherewithal to help develop and implement strategies and policies that tackle the
most critical threats to biodiversity.
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT INVESTMENTS
Given Northern Mesoamerica’s importance for global conservation, the international donor
community has progressively channeled more resources toward conservation and
environmentally sustainable development to the region. During the early days of conservation in
the 1980s, funding for biodiversity and sustainable development was scant. Universities and
research institutions promoted most conservation initiatives. Indeed, many reserves and parks
owe their establishment to prominent scientists or academic institutions with access to
decisionmakers. By the early 1990s, several high profile events, such as the Earth Summit in
Rio de Janeiro, galvanized interest in conservation at higher political levels. National and
regional agencies were established to support the environment, particularly biodiversity, and
appropriate legal frameworks were developed.
By the mid-to-late 1990s, international NGOs developed strong conservation programs in
conjunction with newly established national and regional counterparts with funding from
bilateral and multilateral donors and private foundations. Community-based organizations built
capacity to take advantage of the new environmental movement. Significant conservation
investment and progress occurred: new protected areas were established, biosphere reserves and
national parks were staffed, management plans were developed and implemented through
participatory planning with the local communities and best practices in ecotourism, agroforestry
and non-timber products were developed at the pilot project scale. Since the 1990s,
governments have invested increasingly in regional biodiversity conservation, culminating in the
development of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, financed by the World Bank, GEF and
other partners such as the GTZ.
Funding Trends
On a regional scale, several funding trends emerge. Between 1993 and 2003, the Northern
Mesoamerica region received $82 million for conservation and environmentally sustainable
development from a variety of donors. Over the last six years, from 1997 to 2003, local and
international NGOs received $29 million for activities that include the introduction of best
practices, technical assistance, protected areas management and conflict management. During
this time, investments implemented by community-based organizations were low.
20
Funding for 2004 to 2008 is expected to grow significantly, reaching nearly $125 million. In
total, for the period spanning 1993 to 2008, about $182 million will have been invested for
conservation and environment projects for the eight key biodiversity areas selected by CEPF for
support (Table 7). This figure excludes general development investments such as Plan PueblaPanama and the Mundo Maya Sustainable Tourism Program, although they may support
sustainable development components as well.
Table 7. Major Conservation and Sustainable Development Donors in Northern Mesoamerica, 1993
to 2008
Donor
Government of Mexico
GEF
World Bank
USAID
Government of Guatemala
DANIDA-GTZ
PULSAR
Mexican Protected Areas Fund
GEF-UNDP Small Grants Program
Ford Foundation
GTZ
Inter-American Development Bank
Packard Foundation
Sharp Foundation
Total
Amount
(millions)
58.5
35.3
32.6
17.8
12.8
8.6
5.4
3.8
3.1
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
181.9
Overall, several funding trends emerge in the eight key biodiversity areas of interest to CEPF
(Table 8). Most notably, investments in Cuchumatanes will experience significant growth, from
$0.6 million over the last 10 years t o $50.6 million from 2004 to 2008. Likewise, investments in
the Selva Zoque will increase from $1.5 million to $11.6 million. These large sums present an
unprecedented opportunity for civil society to engage in conserving these critical areas. Funding
for the Sierra Madre de Chiapas and the Gran Peten is expected to increase as well. Support for
the Lacandona key biodiversity area will decrease. Meanwhile, though biologically important,
no investment data was available for Laguna del Tigre, Chiquibul and Sierra de las Minas for the
next four years.
21
Table 8. Investments in Eight Key Biodiversity Areas, 1993 – 2008
Key
Biodiversity Area
Investments
1993 - 2003
(Millions)
Chiquibul
Total Amount: $0.07
• Protected Area Management ($0.03)
• Environmental Education ($0.04)
Cuchumatanes
Total Amount: $0.6
• Protected Area Management
Gran Peten
Total Amount: $11.7
• Project Management ($2.5)
• Protected Area Management ($2.25)
• Economic Alternatives ($1.7)
• Policy ($1.4)
Lacandona
Total Amount: $13.7
Laguna del Tigre
•
Total Amount: $2.9
•
•
•
•
Project Management ($3.2)
Protected Area Management ($3.0)
Planning/Mainstreaming ($2.3)
Economic Alternatives ($1.0)
Monitoring ($0.7)
• Protected Area Management ($1.3)
• Natural Resource Management ($0.5)
• Monitoring ($0.2)
Selva Zoque
Total Amount: $ 1.5
•
•
•
•
Sustainable development ($0.4)
Forest fires ($0.2)
Capacity building ($0.2)
Restoration ($0.2)
Sierra de las
Minas
Total Amount: $ 0.7
Sierra Madre
Total Amount: $3.9
• Economic Alternatives ($0.4)
• Forest fires ($0.4)
• Protected Area Management ($1.84)
• Sustainable development ($0.5)
• Forest fires ($0.5)
• Capacity building ($0.4)
Investments
2004 to 2008
(Millions)
Total Amount: No investment data
available
Total Amount: $50.6
• Capacity building ($11.4)
• Resource Management ($9.7)
• Sustainable Development ($9.7)
• Species Conservation ($9.7)
Total Amount: $29.2
• Planning/Mainstreaming ($26.0)
• Sustainable Development ($1.7)
• Planning/Monitoring ($0.8)
Total Amount: $7.6
• Planning/ Mainstreaming ($4.6)
• Economic Alternatives ($0.6)
• Land-Use Planning ($0.4)
Total Amount: $0.08
• Forest Fires ($0.05)
• Planning ($0.03)
Total Amount: $ 11.6
• Planning ($10.2)
• Sustainable development ($0.7)
• Forest fires ($0.3)
• Economic Alternatives ($0.3)
Total Amount: No investment data
available
Total Amount: $22.7
• Planning/ Mainstreaming ($19.8)
• Sustainable Development ($1.3)
• Economic Alternatives ($0.4)
Note: The CEPF profile team collected information through interviews and searches of donors’ Internet sites, including those of the World Bank,
GEF, UNDP Small Grants Program, USAID, Fondo Mexicano, FOGUAMA, FCG, ASDI, DANIDA, CIDA, BID, BCIE, CONABIO, MacArthur
Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Categorization of projects was based primarily on the classification system used by the UNDP’s Small
Grants Program, although further categorization was conducted using donors’ own descriptions and terminology (see Appendix 6 for full list of
categories).
One important characteristic of these new investments is that they will be channeled through
government to strengthen the management of specific sites, unlike in earlier years when funding
went primarily to NGOs. As a result of this new funding pattern, most investments to NGOs and
CBOs will in all likelihood be channeled through government rather than received directly from
donors. In addition, the current funding scenario indicates that certain key biodiversity sites will
be well funded, while others will remain woefully underfunded. Indeed, no or little funding has
22
been identified for Laguna del Tigre, Chiquibul and Sierra de las Minas, although they rank very
high in maintaining populations of globally endangered species.
Furthermore, funding will continue to be scant for the kinds of policy reforms that are critically
needed in order to address key threats to the region. The current investment scenario does not
envision support at a policy level to confront some of the most destructive threats to biodiversity:
agricultural encroachment, forest fires, infrastructure development and destructive tourism
development. CEPF can therefore help to fill this gap by supporting NGO efforts to advocate for
the kinds of policy reform that promotes sustainable development in the two corridors.
Two projects account for a large share of new investment in the region. The World Bank and
GEF will invest $40.8 million in the Western Altiplano Natural Resource Management Project
(MIRNA), which will cover the Los Cuchumatanes key biodiversity area in Guatemala. The
Government of Guatemala will provide $8.6 million for the project. MIRNA supports three
main components: (i) Improving the welfare of the rural poor through the sustainable use and
conservation of natural resources, targeting 54 municipalities and 760 small-scale, grassroots
production and conservation projects; (ii) biodiversity conservation to support the protection of
sites of global importance, environmental education, and monitoring and evaluation; and (iii) an
environmental services market as part of a long-term strategy to promote the sustainable use of
resources in the region.
Similarly, the World Bank and GEF have allocated $19 million and the Government of Mexico
has committed $67 million to support the Mesoamerica Biological Corridor in five corridors
located throughout Southern Mexico. The project aims to promote the conservation and
sustainable use of biological resources biological corridors that link existing protected areas with
productive landscapes. More specifically, the project supports the design and monitoring of the
corridors, corridor integration into development programs, and the sustainable use of biological
resources. Two of the MBC’s five sites—Selva Zoque and Sierra Madre de Chiapas—coincide
with CEPF’s key biodiversity areas.
Both these projects place a high premium on ensuring active participation by civil society and
local NGOs to guarantee their success. Indeed, MBC designers state in the project appraisal
document that robust stakeholder and civil society engagement must underpin the initiative in
order to ensure sustainability: “Stakeholders’ interest and participation, demonstrated through the
project’s preparation phase, reflects the demand that exists for locally adapted programs for
sustainable use of natural resources. This, together with institutional and political commitment,
technical soundness and financial viability, is likely to ensure the long-term sustainability of the
project. The specific combination of community participation, political will, civil society
engagement, and financial arrangements required to promote sustainability of biodiversity
conservation after the project is likely to vary across the various corridors.”
The CEPF profile team envisions a strong synergy and complementarity with these two projects.
Civil society has worked successfully for many years in certain sites and communities, often
under difficult conditions, where these projects are located. This breath of experience will be
important to these two projects. Furthermore, CEPF provides a platform to support civil society
and local governments through opportunities to enhance coordination, share lessons learned and
build capacity in ways that allow for their meaningfully participation in these two projects. At
23
the same time, the MBC and the MIRNA provide local NGOs and governments with
unprecedented opportunities to engage in conservation and sustainable development initiatives in
three of the eight key biodiversity areas.
Bilateral and Multilateral Donors
To ensure that the CEPF strategy fully considers the landscape of investments from bilateral and
multilateral donors, private foundations and governments, the profile team identified the full
panorama of projects and programs currently in implementation or expected to be executed in the
near future. The major donors of conservation and sustainable development initiatives in
Mesoamerica are described briefly below.
Global Environment Facility. The GEF has been the largest international donor of biodiversity
conservation in Mesoamerica. Since 1993, the GEF has invested approximately $35 million in
Northern Mesoamerica. Approximately $18 million supports the Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor, while $3 million has supported community-based organizations and NGOs through the
UNDP’s Small Grants Program. The GEF has also supported the preparation of the national
biodiversity conservation strategies and action plans and is providing $16.5 million to the
Protected Areas Fund in Mexico (FMCN), targeted at 10 priority protected areas, three of which
are within CEPF’s key biodiversity areas. In the future, the expectation is that the GEF will
direct 80 percent of its future investments through governments in four areas: in-situ
conservation (protected areas, strengthening the national protected areas system), natural
resource management, sectoral integration (tourism, trade, finance, agriculture) and
communication of lessons learned.
The World Bank. The Bank’s 2001-2006 strategy supports public sector initiatives in the
sustainable management of natural resources, development of frameworks for environmental
management and support in the search for equitable solutions for other regional challenges. In
Mexico, the Bank has assisted the Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources Mexico (SEMARNAP) to develop policy instruments consistent with the country’s biodiversity
strategy, including improving conservation through the national system of protected areas
(SINAP); promoting sustainable use of plant and animal species with improved management and
market access; and mainstreaming both conservation and sustainable use into territorial
development by means of integrated land-use planning. The Bank’s future investments in the
region will total approximately $30 million, and will concentrate on the sustainable development
of the Cuchumatanes through the Western Altiplano Natural Resource Management Project.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID investments are
channeled through NGOs to support the conservation of critical ecosystems and improve natural
resource management. USAID-Guatemala has supported natural resource management in
priority biodiversity areas—principally the Maya Biosphere Reserve—while offering viable
options for sustainable income-producing alternatives. USAID also funds PROARCA, a
regional environmental program, which aims to improve environmental management in the
Biological Corridor. In addition, there are three Parks in Peril sites in the area—Sierra de Las
Minas/Bocas del Polochic in Guatemala, and Calakmul and El Triunfo biosphere reserves in
Mexico. Another priority for USAID is improved river basin and water management, as
integrating themes that help prioritize activities and also reduce vulnerability to climate change.
24
The Government of Germany (GTZ and other agencies). The Government of Germany is a
major donor in Mesoamerica, supporting balanced economic and social development. In
collaboration with DANIDA on many initiatives, the German government provides support for
various regional projects including the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor through support for
the CCAD. Other regional programs include an ecotourism project; support for the Center for
Research and Training in Tropical Agriculture, offering assistance to small agro-industries in the
use of non-chemical alternatives to pesticides; and a project to improve the environmental
management of small and medium enterprises in Central America.
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The IDB has less than $500,000 for conservation
and sustainable development in the region. However, within the Plan Puebla Panama, the
Mesoamerican Initiative for Sustainable Development will promote sustainable natural resource
management, and develop environmental management at national and regional levels. This
initiative will also promote mechanisms for local community participation.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). UNDP has invested around $40 million in
support of the MBC at a regional level. It also has provided $3 million through the GEF-UNDP
small grants program, working toward the strengthening of the protected areas.
Private Foundations. The Packard, Kellogg, Sharp and Ford foundations all fund programs in
the Maya Forest. For the MacArthur Foundation, investments have targeted rapid population
growth and the demand for resources, even though the region is not one of the Foundation’s
geographic priority areas.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CEPF
Several conclusions emerge from the biological, threats and investment analyses conducted for
the ecosystem profile to serve as guiding posts for developing the CEPF investment strategy:
• Perhaps most fundamentally, from a biological perspective, Mesoamerica ranks among
the top hotspots in the world for diversity of species and endemism. From an investment
efficiency perspective, CEPF support to Northern Mesoamerica will go far,
proportionally speaking, to conserve species, sites and landscapes of global import. Eight
key biodiversity areas that fall within two larger corridors emerge as the highest priorities
for conservation due to the presence of globally threatened and endangered species.
• Although impressive strides have been made to conserve the region’s biodiversity
through collaborative efforts between governments, NGOs and donors, Mesoamerica also
ranks among the most threatened hotspots in the world. Indeed, if current deforestation
rates continue unabated, little forest cover will exist by 2015, and biodiversity will be
lost. Urgent action is therefore needed to change this ominous trend.
• Although biodiversity is concentrated in specific sites, the causes of the most pernicious
threats and obstacles to conservation are more systemic, political and regional in nature.
For CEPF, the threats analysis suggests that reducing threats to biodiversity in Northern
25
Mesoamerica will require a different investment strategy than that grounded solely in
site-based conservation. As a result, actions to ameliorate threats to biodiversity must be
targeted at a regional and political level, focusing on the most important threats:
agricultural encroachment, forest fires, infrastructure development and large-scale
tourism development.
• Interdependency exists between civil society and the large investments planned in the
next few years. On the one hand, virtually all future investments will in one way or
another depend on vibrant civil society participation to ensure their success. It is well
recognized that civil society best reflects the needs and perspectives of local stakeholders,
and that NGOs bring to bear unique expertise and experience gained from practicing
conservation and the sustainable use of resources over the last two decades. Equally
important, civil society will look to these new investments as providing the financial
wherewithal to address the root causes and proximate threats to biodiversity loss.
• While civil society has contributed significantly to advancing conservation over the last
two decades, efforts now need to evolve further toward strengthening and unifying civil
society in more strategic and collaborative ways in order to confront priority threats at a
policy level and to engage in strong partnerships with implementers of large investments.
CEPF therefore provides a platform in which civil society can develop the capacity and
knowledge required to ensure that they fulfill their vital role for the future.
CEPF NICHE FOR INVESTMENT
Through CEPF, civil society and local governments will play an instrumental role in helping to
ensure that the most important development and conservation initiatives and policies in Northern
Mesoamerica have a long-term, positive impact on the region’s most biologically rich areas.
These new initiatives, such as the Plan Puebla-Panama, Central America Free Trade Agreement,
the Mundo Maya initiative and the Western Altiplano Natural Resource Management Project,
put regional decisionmakers at a crossroads. If planned and implemented thoughtfully with
meaningful participation of civil society and local communities, these initiatives promise to help
attack the root causes and proximate threats of biodiversity loss. If, on the other hand, these
schemes are implemented with little consideration for their environmental and social impacts,
they risk perpetuating the root causes of resource degradation, exacerbating biodiversity loss and
fueling the cycle of poverty. Given this reality, the recognition exists that these development
schemes themselves must rely heavily on constructive engagement with civil society to achieve
their own economic, social and environmental sustainability and success.
With this imperative in mind, the CEPF niche is designed to promote win-win solutions to
achieve the critical regional goals of poverty alleviation and conservation by influencing select
development investments and policies in the Selva Maya and the Selva Zoque and
Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands corridors. More formally, the CEPF niche aims to
Influence select development policies and investments to achieve biodiversity
conservation outcomes in the Selva Maya and the Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala
Highlands corridors through increased knowledge, capacity and coordination of civil
society and local government.
26
The CEPF niche is designed with the understanding that a unique window of opportunity exists
over the next five years for conserving the biological heritage of Northern Mesoamerica. If civil
society has the strategic vision, appropriate capacity and desire to work collectively toward
common goals, it will have the opportunity to influence the design and implementation of the
$122 million of conservation related investments. Equally important, civil society will be able to
proactively engage in the preparation of tens of billions of dollars to be invested through the Plan
Puebla-Panama and related development initiatives in order to ensure that they have a long-term
positive effect on biodiversity.
Through the adoption of four strategic directions, CEPF will take a multi-pronged approach to
achieve this goal. First, CEPF will work at a corridor-level to encourage biodiversity friendly
policies and investments within the Selva Maya and the Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala
Highlands corridors. The aim will be to ensure that civil society develops the capacity to
participate in the decision-making process related to high priority investments and policies. The
second strategic direction is designed to complement the first strategic direction by serving as the
field component of the policy and investment strategies pursued. It will target the eight most
biologically important key biodiversity areas in the region to ensure that these priority sites
achieve their conservation objectives through CEPF and partner funding. CEPF will work to
help coordinate and build capacity of civil society and local governments in ways that allow
them to successfully support conservation in the field. The third strategic direction funds priority
actions in the three key biodiversity areas where basic conservation needs are likely to be
underfunded in the next five years. The fourth strategic direction supports conservation activities
that focus on saving the region’s critically endangered species from extinction.
Guiding principles that underpin this strategy rest on the need for CEPF to focus on those
investments and policies that have the greatest impact on conservation in Northern Mesoamerica.
CEPF will fund activities that support viable alternatives to resource degradation and that
mitigate potential threats, such as the case for infrastructure projects. Furthermore, the strategy
will consider actions where civil society and local governments, independently and jointly, have
a meaningful and often unique role to play.
27
CEPF Strategic Directions
1. Foster civil society
participation in regional
decisionmaking on select
policies and investments to
promote the conservation
and sustainable
development of the Selva
Maya and the Selva Zoque
and Chiapas/Guatemala
Highlands corridors
CEPF Investment Priorities
1.1. Promote policy reforms that integrate biodiversity conservation in
agriculture, infrastructure development, forest fires and tourism
1.2. Develop and strengthen collaborative networks that enable civil society
to influence investments with corridor-wide impacts (such as Mundo
Maya, PPP, CAFTA) and to foster coordination of current activities
1.3. Build and support action-oriented associations focused on
conservation-based enterprises to identify and share lessons learned
and to facilitate their growth
1.4. Promote the introduction and use of new sustainable conservation
financing mechanisms, focusing on payments for environmental
services. *CEPF will not provide funding for the actual payments, but
will fund analysis and promotion of different models
2. Collaborate with other
donor-funded projects to
facilitate and operationalize
successful conservation
activities in Northern
Mesoamerica’s eight most
important key biodiversity
areas
3. Support priority
conservation actions in
three priority key
biodiversity areas
1.5. Support corridor-level biological and environmental management
monitoring relevant for understanding the state of biodiversity
conservation for decisionmaking
2.1. Increase coordination of key stakeholder groups to plan and implement
initiatives in the eight priority key biodiversity areas
2.2. Increase local government and NGO capacity for forest fire prevention
and control, enforcement of land tenure laws and the prevention of
illegal hunting and timber harvesting
2.3. Build civil society capacity to support the mitigation of impacts of
proposed infrastructure projects on biodiversity, focusing on roads and
dams
2.4. Assess the adequacy of coverage of protected areas, and lay the
groundwork for declaration of new private and public reserves
3.1. Strengthen management of Sierra de las Minas in areas such as
facilitating payments for watershed services, stakeholder coordination
and reduction in timber harvesting
3.2. Strengthen management of Laguna del Tigre in areas such as fire
management, conflict resolution and economic alternatives to
deforestation
4. Support efforts to prevent
the extinction of Northern
Mesoamerica’s 106
Critically Endangered
species
3.3. Strengthen management of Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas in areas such
as xate harvesting and the protection of the Macal River valley
4.1. Improve protection of Critically Endangered species through enhanced
knowledge of their conservation needs, increased local capacity to
conserve these species and investments in field conservation and
protection projects
4.2. Increase coordination of efforts to improve the protection of Critically
Endangered species through the exchange and consolidation of data
and information
28
CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PROGRAM FOCUS
Foster civil society participation in regional decisionmaking on select
policies and investments to promote the conservation and
sustainable development of the Selva Maya and the Selva Zoque and
Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands corridors
Government investment in conservation and development in the Selva Maya and the Selva
Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands corridors will grow significantly in the coming years.
New investments aim to promote economic development and increase income for the rural poor.
If designed and implemented well, they hold real potential for helping arrest land and forest
degradation. Conversely, some projects will fund major infrastructure—roads, deepwater ports,
power transmission lines and hydroelectric dams—which could well introduce new threats to the
region. At the same time, the continuing process of decentralized financial decisionmaking will
give state and municipal governments control over hundreds of millions of dollars.
Given this dynamic, civil society engagement in decisionmaking processes is critical to ensure
that development proceeds democratically, in a way that incorporates the needs of all
stakeholders and the environment. Civil society, particularly environmental NGOs, occupy an
important and unique position as the principal advocates for the interest of the environment and
biodiversity. Given these needs, CEPF will invest in empowering civil society to engage in
high-level decisionmaking processes for priority investments and policies through five linked
and mutually reinforcing investment priorities.
1.1
CEPF will support the promotion of policy reforms related to the most critical issues for
conservation where civil society can make a difference: agriculture, infrastructure
development, forest fires and tourism development. These four issues together have the
strongest influence on the welfare of biodiversity in the two corridors. CEPF will
initially identify appropriate NGOs that are interested in working collectively, through
strategic alliances that are designed to be proactive. To ensure that these alliances have a
firm analytical basis to develop their positions and strategies, CEPF will initially fund
assessments to gain better understanding of each issue and to identify priorities and
opportunities for action. Based on this analytical work, the alliances will develop and
implement strategies whereby the NGO community can work collaboratively on high
priority actions that will achieve the greatest benefits for conservation. CEPF will fund
capacity building exercises and technical assistance where necessary to ensure that civil
society has the wherewithal to effectively influence policy change and development
investments.
1.2
CEPF will support civil society participation in policy-making fora and collaborative
networks at the highest levels, including the CCAD, the Central American System of
Protected Areas (SICAP), the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, the Mesoamerican
Initiative for Sustainable Development and national governments. Civil society will play
an active and advocacy role in the consultation process to ensure that biodiversity
considerations are integrated into the future development plans of the two corridors.
29
1.3
CEPF will aim to support conservation-based enterprises that show promise of generating
environmentally sustainable sources of income for communities that otherwise could be
agents of deforestation and environmental degradation, focusing on ecotourism and
conservation coffee. In the region, a multitude of initiatives have been undertaken,
however, dialogue and collaboration between the operators of these enterprises has been
virtually non-existent. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to scaling these
initiatives up to the extent required to play a meaning role in threats amelioration. To
address these shortcomings, CEPF will support the creation of associations of
conservation-based enterprises for ecotourism and conservation coffee with a view
toward supporting their success and scaling up their operations. CEPF will support the
identification and sharing of share lessons learned and best practices, evaluate their
potential to address critical threats at the appropriate scale, promote greater collaboration
in areas such as marketing to build synergies and strengthen capacity to improve their
operations so that they can reach levels needed to play a larger role in mitigating threats.
1.4
CEPF will support the introduction and use of innovative conservation financing tools
into the region, such as payments for environmental services, and incentive payments.
Collaboration will be sought with the Western Altiplano Natural Resource Management
Project, which works on building environmental service markets. Several potential
opportunities exist for promoting market-based incentives for sustainable conservation
financing. CEPF will support the identification of viable opportunities in the corridor for
promoting such projects, including technical assistance and capacity building to develop
potential projects and policy instruments.
1.5
To ensure that accurate information is generated about the state of biodiversity and the
trends, CEPF will support corridor-level monitoring of trends and parameters considered
important in biodiversity conservation in partnership with other organizations working in
this arena, including the MBC. CEPF will support partner efforts in the collection and
analysis of relevant data with a view toward promoting information sharing. CEPF will
fund efforts to disseminate findings to key decision makers and donors. CEPF investment
in monitoring will complement similar efforts planned for Southern Mesoamerica.
Collaborate with other donor-funded projects to facilitate and
operationalize successful conservation activities in Northern
Mesoamerica’s eight most important key biodiversity areas
CEPF has identified the eight most important areas for conservation in Northern Mesoamerica.
If these sites can be secured, a considerable share of the Mesoamerica hotspot’s biological
diversity will be conserved. The challenge, however, is two-fold. As noted in the profile, five
key biodiversity areas—Selva Zoque, Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Lacandona, the Gran Peten and
Cuchumatanes—are expected to receive significant new investments over the next five years.
However, these new investments will not address several critical threats, such as planned
infrastructure projects. In addition, although the three remaining key biodiversity areas—Sierra
de las Minas, Laguna del Tigre, and Chiquibul/ Montañas Mayas—will also be affected by
development policies and investments, they are projected to receive negligible funding. Despite
these dramatic differences in funding levels, civil society and local governments have a critical
role to play in conserving all eight key biodiversity areas.
30
Through this strategic direction, CEPF will allow the high-level policy work conducted under the
first strategic direction to trickle down to the field, and conversely, allow the lessons learned in
the field to trickle up to the policy level through networks that are vertical in nature. CEPF will
support four investment priorities:
2.1 CEPF will support a network of key stakeholders within each corridor that represent the
conservation interests of the eight key biodiversity areas. This network will help ensure
that members develop and work toward common objectives of consolidating key
biodiversity areas that key programs are well coordinated, and that lessons can be shared
with the ultimate goal of strengthening the corridor. This investment priority will be
focused at a more operational level and include as members local NGOs and community
groups, governments and park services, among others. Furthermore, these corridor-level
networks will interact with the policy-level networks in the first strategic direction to
ensure that these two levels of action are working to maximize synergy and
communications.
2.2 Bottlenecks to ameliorating threats not only occur at the policy level, but also at the local
level. Thus, CEPF will help build local government and NGO capacity, as appropriate, in
three areas where municipalities play a critical role in threat amelioration: forest fire
prevention and control, enforcement of land tenure laws and titling, and prevention of
illegal hunting and timber harvesting. CEPF may build this capacity through training,
procurement of equipment, land titling surveys and improved enforcement.
2.3 CEPF will fund activities to ensure that infrastructure projects are designed to incorporate
biodiversity and community interests. Targeted projects will be identified, training
courses in economic and environmental impact analysis will be delivered, an economic
and environmental impact analysis of each target project conducted and the results will
be communicated to decisionmakers and the public. Special attention will be paid to
roads and dams, which present the most immediate threats in the corridors.
2.4 Protected areas coverage remains inadequate in some key biodiversity areas, such as the
Selva Zoque. CEPF will support analysis to identify the location of priority sites for
increased protection, and assist in laying the groundwork for declaration of new private
and public protected areas and municipal reserves. CEPF will then provide support to
identify sources of funding to manage these areas.
Support priority conservation actions in three priority key biodiversity
areas
Management of three priority key biodiversity areas—Sierra de las Minas, Laguna del Tigre and
Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas—currently lacks funding to meet the most minimal of needs, despite
the areas’ high biological value. CEPF will concentrate funding in these areas through a limited
number of high priority actions to ensure adequate management presence and capacity for
conservation. CEPF will support activities that provide a stronger foundation and justification
for future conservation investments. These core set of interventions include three investment
priorities:
31
3.1 In Sierra de las Minas, developing a system for payments for watershed services, enhancing
conservation stakeholder coordination and reducing timber harvesting.
3.2 In Laguna del Tigre, investing in fire management, conflict resolution and economic
alternatives to deforestation.
3.3 In Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas, introducing alternatives to and enhancing sustainability of
xate harvesting and improving protection of the Macal River valley.
Support efforts to prevent the extinction of Northern Mesoamerica’s
106 Critically Endangered Species
While conservation of habitat has been an important investment theme in Northern Mesoamerica
in the last 10 years, species conservation has received minimal funding. Moreover, speciesspecific funding has focused on large umbrella species such as jaguar and the scarlet macaw,
species that although regionally threatened, are not globally threatened. Less well known
Critically Endangered species, such as the six amphibians supported in Cuchumatanes and the
two rodents in Lacandona, have received no conservation investments and remain in critical
danger. Regional, or even site-specific conservation actions are rarely enough to protect such
small, often locally endemic species. CEPF will invest in efforts to prevent the extinction of
Northern Mesoamerica’s 106 Critically Endangered species throughout the region (including in
El Salvador and Honduras) through two investment priorities:
4.1 CEPF will provide small grants to increase knowledge and understanding of the 106
Critically Endangered species and their management needs, including distributions,
resource requirements and conservation status. Investments will build capacity for their
management through targeted training in their conservation, development of conservation
strategies and direct field conservation and protection projects.
4.2 CEPF will increase coordination of species-protection efforts through the exchange and
consolidation of data and information.
SUSTAINABILITY
Over the next five years, more than $122 million will be invested in conservation and sustainable
development in five of the eight most important key biodiversity areas. CEPF funds will be only
a fraction of these investments. CEPF will be unable to support the breadth of projects that need
to be implemented or the total number of organizations that require funding. CEPF will
therefore invest, at a regional and local level, in a niche that other donors are not filling. This
niche is to enhance civil society’s ability—through the building of knowledge, capacity and
coordination—to engage in the decisionmaking processes that determine how Mesoamerica’s
natural and financial resources will be used.
After a successful five years of investment, CEPF will have increased civil society’s capacity to
influence the decisions that ensure the sustainable management of Mesoamerica’s natural
resources. NGOs, community groups and local government officials across the region will have
increased knowledge about the threats to biodiversity, the role of their governments and regional
actors in increasing or diminishing these threats, their potential solutions and the likelihood that
32
such activities geared toward mitigating threats will work. Civil society groups will also
demonstrate an increased capacity, both individually and in coordination with others, to take
decisions about how to manage these threats and opportunities. CEPF’s legacy for natural
resource management in Northern Mesoamerica will not only be in specific projects, but in the
development and strengthening of a civil society-based decisionmaking process that is more
knowledgeable, more democratic, more effective and, ultimately, more sustainable.
CONCLUSION
Northern Mesoamerica is at a crossroads. The level of environmental consciousness and the
perceived importance of biodiversity conservation have increased rapidly in recent years.
Governments have led the way, creating the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and the Central
American Commission on the Environment and Development. Many donors have followed,
investing millions of dollars in sustainable development, and promising to invest exponentially
more in the next five years. However, a few investors have not yet responded to the new
Mesoamerican consciousness. Projects that destroy rather than protect natural resources
continue to be proposed such as road improvements that cut into the region’s most important
biodiversity areas and dams that will flood pristine, globally unique forests. Moreover,
significant segments of Mesoamerican civil society have not yet been able to influence the
decisionmaking process that determines which investments and which policies will be
implemented. The disconnect remains wide between the top down planning that governments
are able to provide, and the transparency and decentralization that civil society needs.
CEPF will invest in bridging this gap. Five years of investments in knowledge, capacity and
coordination will enable civil society to better engage in the making of decisions that improve
conservation and will ensure that other, bigger development investments have had a net positive
impact on biodiversity conservation. Mesoamericans deserve a significant role in natural
resource management decisionmaking: CEPF investments will help prepare them for this role.
33
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CCAD
CEPF
CI
CONABIO
CONANP
CONAP
FCG
GEF
GTZ
IADB
IUCN
MBC
NGO
PPP
PROARCA
PROLEGIS
SEMARNAT
SICAP
TNC
UNDP
UNEP
USAID
WWF
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
Conservation International
National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity Mexico
National Commission for Protected Nature Areas - Mexico
National Commission for Protected Areas - Guatemala
Trusteeship for the Conservation of Guatemala
Global Environment Facility
German Technical Cooperation
Inter-American Development Bank
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
Nongovernmental organization
Plan Puebla Panama
Resource Evaluation Program for Central America
Environmental Legislation Program of the CCAD
Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources - Mexico
Central American System of Protected Areas
The Nature Conservancy
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Environment Program
US Agency for International Development
World Wide Fund for Nature
34
REFERENCES
Arizmendi, M.C., and L. Márquez-Valdelamar, editors. 2000. Areas of Importance for the
Conservation of Birds in Mexico, Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature. México.
BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Barcelona and Cambridge: Lynx
Edicions and BirdLife International.
Cabezas, José Roberto. 2002. Mesoamerican Program for the Sustainable Development of
Natural Resources in Multinational Areas. Central American Commission on the
Environment and Development, May 2002.
Castañeda, L. 2002. State of the Environment and Natural Resources in Guatemala. UNDP.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 2002. Central American
Forestry Strategy. May 2002.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 2000 Legislation and
Policies for the Trafficing of Central American Flora and Fauna. June 2000
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 2002. Central American
Policies for the Conservation y Racional Use of Wetlands, April 2002.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 1999. Environmental
Plan for the Central American Region.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 1998. State of Central
American Environment and Natural Resources.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 2002. Central America in
the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Our Environmental Commitment.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 2000. Program for the
Sustainable Development of Agricultural Frontier Zones in Central America. Atlas of
Fires in Central America. July 2000.
Central American Commission on the Environment and Development. 2001 Central American
Ecosystem Map.
Cocheiro, A. 2001. Plan Puebla Panama: Mexican Chapter, President of the Republic of Mexico
Cochrane, Mark A. 2002. Fires of Tropical Forests in Latin America and the Carribbean:
Prevention, evaluation, and temporary alert, United Nations Environment Programme.
México.
Conservation International. 2002. A Conservation Strategy for the Selva Maya Biodiversity
Corridor (5ft Draft Unpublished). Washington DC. (2002).
35
García-Gil. 1999. Forest Fires in Southeast Mexico and Central America.
General Department of Biodiversity, Secretariat of Natural Resources and the Environment.
2001. Biodiversity Study on the Republic of Honduras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Jacobs Noel and Anselmo Castañeda, Editors. 1998. The Belize Biodiversity Action Plan, 19982003. September 1998.
Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences and the University of Costa Rica, San José. Central
America in Statistics. 2002.
Mendieta Vargas, Alvaro y Ana Cristina Vinocour Vergas 2000. Mesoamerica Biological
Corridor: The Paseo Pantera as a Model of Sustainable Development. Data for a
Communication Strategy, Central American Commission on the Environment and
Development, and the World Bank (Project RUTA III). San José, Costa Rica.
Mesoamerica Biological Corridor, Nature, People, and Welfare: Making it a Reality for the
Sustainable Development in Mesoamerica. 2002.
National Commission for Protected Areas - Guatemala. 1999. National Policy and Strategy for
the Development of the Central American System of Protected Areas.
NBC 1998. The Belize National Biodiversity Action Plan. National Biodiversity Committee.
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment. Belmopan, Belize.
Obando, Vilma 2002. Biodiversity in Costa Rica: State of Knowledge and Management. INBioSINAC. San José, Costa Rica.
Resource Evaluation Program for Central America (PROARCA). 1997. Strengthening the
Institucional Capacity of Central American System of Protected Areas.
Resource Evaluation Program for Central America (PROARCA). 1998. Forest and Agricultural
Fires in Central America.
Resource Evaluation Program for Central America (PROARCA). 1998. Comparative Analysis of
Legislation in Mesoamerica on Protected Areas and Natural Resources Management.
Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources - Mexico, 2000 National Forest
Inventory of Mexico.
Statersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J., and Wege, D.C. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the
World - Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge: BirdLife International.
UNEP, WCMC, Darwin Initiative, Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, IUCN, CONAP, SERNA,
MARN, MARENA, MINAE, ANAM, Belize Ministry of the Environment. 2002.
Biodiversity in Mesoamerica - 2002 Report.
36
Wege, D.C., and Long, A.J. 1995. Key Areas for Threatened Birds in the Neotropics.
Cambridge: BirdLife International.
World Conservation Union. 2002. Biodiversity in Mesoamerica: 2002 Report. San Jose, Costa
Rica.
World Conservation Union, CICAFOC, UNOFOC. 2000. Communities and Forest Management
in Mesoamerica, Regional Profile of the Working Group on Community Participation in
Forest Management. January, 2000.
World Bank. 2002. Environmental Strategy for the Latin American and Caribbean Region.
Washington, DC.
WorldBank. 2002. World Bank Atlas (From the world development indicators). Washington DC.
World Bank. 2000. Project Appraisal Document, Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project.
Mexico. November 6, 2000.
World Bank. 2003. Project Appraisal Document, Western Altiplano Natural Resources
Management Project. Guatemala. April 30, 2003.
World Conservation Union. 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland
(Switzerland) and Cambridge (UK): IUCN. Online. www.redlist.org.
Worldwide Fund for Nature and World Conservation Union. 1994 - 1997, Centres of Plant
Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation. 3 volumes. Cambridge, UK:
IUCN Publications Unit.
37
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Northern Mesoamerica’s Globally Critically Endangered
Species
ACTINOPTERYGII CYPRINIDAE
Sardinita de
Tepelmene
Cachorrito de
Dorsal Larga
Guayacon
Bocon
Molly del
Poecilia sulphuraria Teapa
Hyalinobatrachium
crybetes
Duellmanohyla
salvavida
Hyla
dendrophasma
Notropis moralesi
Cyprinodon
CYPRINODONTIDAE verecundus
Gambusia
POECILIIDAE
eurystoma
AMPHIBIA
Centrolenidae
Hylidae
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hyla insolita
Hyla perkinsi
1
Perkins'
Treefrog
1
Hyla salvaje
Hyla valancifer
Plectrohyla
chrysopleura
Plectrohyla
dasypus
Plectrohyla
pycnochila
Leptodactylidae
Plethodontidae
Plectrohyla
tecunumani
Eleutherodactylus
anciano
Eleutherodactylus
coffeus
Eleutherodactylus
cruzi
Eleutherodactylus
fecundus
Eleutherodactylus
merendonensis
Eleutherodactylus
olanchano
Eleutherodactylus
pozo
Eleutherodactylus
saltuarius
Bolitoglossa carri
Mexico
Common
Name(s)
Honduras
Scientific Name
Guatemala
Family
Belize
Class
El Salvador
Countries of Occurrence in N. Mesoamerica
1
Lichenose
Fringe-limbed
Treefrog
1
1
1
1
1
Thicklip
Spikethumb
Frog
Cave
Spikethumb
Frog
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cloud Forest
Salamander
1
38
Bolitoglossa decora
Bolitoglossa
diaphora
Bolitoglossa
jacksoni
Bolitoglossa
longissima
Bolitoglossa
synoria
Bradytriton silus
Cryptotriton
monzoni
1
1
Jackson's
Mushroomton
gue
Salamander
1
1
1
Finca Chiblac
Salamander
1
1
1
Cortes
Cryptotriton nasalis Salamander
Forest
Dendrotriton
Bromeliad
cuchumatanus
Salamander
1
1
Ixalotriton niger
1
Ixalotriton parvus
1
Nototriton lignicola
AVES
CRUSTACEA
MIMIDAE
Pseudoeurycea
exspectata
Toxostoma
guttatum
TROCHILIDAE
Amazilia luciae
HIPPOLYTIDAE
MAGNOLIOPSIDA ANNONACEAE
AQUIFOLIACEAE
ARALIACEAE
BIGNONIACEAE
BOMBACACEAE
BORAGINACEAE
CACTACEAE
1
Jalpa False
Brook
Salamander
Cozumel
Thrasher
Amazilia
Hondureña
Esmeralda
Hondurena
Honduran
Emerald
1
1
1
1
1
Somersiella sterreri
Desmopsis
dolichopetala
1
Malmea leiophylla
1
Ilex williamsii
Dendropanax
hondurensis
Oreopanax
lempiranus
Chodanthus
montecillensis
Quararibea
yunckeri
1
Cordia urticacea
Coryphantha
vogtherriana
Echinocactus
grusonii
Escobaria
aguirreana
Mammillaria
berkiana
Mammillaria
brachytrichion
Mammillaria
guelzowiana
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Opuntia chaffeyi
Turbinicarpus
booleanus
1
1
Turbinicarpus
1
39
hoferi
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
Turbinicarpus
jauernigii
Turbinicarpus
rioverdensis
Turbinicarpus
swobodae
Viburnum
hondurense
1
1
1
1
Viburnum molinae
Viburnum
subpubescens
1
CELASTRACEAE
Maytenus williamsii
Tontelea
hondurensis
1
CONNARACEAE
Connarus popenoei
1
1
1
ELAEOCARPACEAE Sloanea shankii
FAGACEAE
Quercus hinckleyi
1
Hinckley's oak
1
Quercus hintonii
Casearia
FLACOURTIACEAE williamsiana
Molinadendron
HAMAMELIDACEAE hondurense
Pleurothyrium
LAURACEAE
roberto-andinoi
LEGUMINOSAE
Bauhinia paradisi
Dalbergia
intibucana
Lonchocarpus
molinae
Lonchocarpus
phaseolifolius
Lonchocarpus
sanctuarii
Lonchocarpus
trifolius
Lonchocarpus
yoroensis
Platymiscium
albertinae
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Terua vallicola
Mollinedia
butleriana
1
Mollinedia ruae
1
MYRSINACEAE
Gentlea molinae
1
MYRTACEAE
Eugenia coyolensis
1
Eugenia lancetillae
Forestiera
hondurensis
Fraxinus
hondurensis
Coccoloba
cholutecensis
Coccoloba
lindaviana
Colubrina
hondurensis
1
MONIMIACEAE
OLEACEAE
POLYGONACEAE
RHAMNACEAE
RUTACEAE
SAPOTACEAE
Decazyx esparzae
Sideroxylon
retinerve
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SYMPLOCACEAE
Symplocos molinae
1
THEACEAE
Ternstroemia
1
40
landae
VIOLACEAE
VOCHYSIACEAE
MAMMALIA
REPTILIA
Gloeospermum
boreale
1
GEOMYIDAE
Vochysia aurifera
Orthogeomys
cuniculus
1
HETEROMYIDAE
Heteromys nelsoni
1
MURIDAE
Tylomys bullaris
Tylomys
tumbalensis
1
1
1
VESPERTILIONIDAE Myotis cobanensis
Abronia
ANGUIDAE
montecristoi
Dermochelys
DERMOCHELYIDAE coriacea
Canal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cardon
Leatherback
Tinglada
Tinglar
CHELONIIDAE
Eretmochelys
imbricata
Tortuga laud
Hawksbill
Turtle
1
Tortuga carey
Cotorra
Lepidochelys kempi Kemp's Ridley
1
Tortuga iora
Tortuga
marina
bastarda
41
Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Areas and the Threatened Species they
Support
Area
Alta Verapaz
Class
Amphibia
Bosques Mesofilos del Norte de
Chiapas
Amphibia
Aves
Coniferopsida
Magnoliopsida
Mammalia
Chiquibul Montañas Mayas
Amphibia
Aves
Mammalia
Complejo Sierra de Las Minas,
Motagua, Biotopo Quetzal
Amphibia
Species
Eleutherodactylus sartori
Bolitoglossa mulleri
Bolitoglossa odonnelli
Eleutherodactylus bocourti
Eleutherodactylus rivulus
Nyctanolis pernix
Plectrohyla quecchi
Rana macroglossa
Plectrohyla pycnochila
Cryptotriton alvarezdeltoroi
Eleutherodactylus glaucus
Plectrohyla acanthodes
Bolitoglossa rostrata
Duellmanohyla chamulae
Duellmanohyla schmidtorum
Hyla chaneque
Plectrohyla guatemalensis
Ptychohyla macrotympanum
Dendroica chrysoparia
Ergaticus versicolor
Juniperus gamboana
Maytenus matudai
Oreopanax sanderianus
Heteromys nelsoni
Tylomys bullaris
Tylomys tumbalensis
Sorex sclateri
Sorex stizodon
Peromyscus zarhynchus
Eleutherodactylus sabrinus
Eleutherodactylus sandersoni
Electron carinatum
Tapirus bairdii
Antrozous dubiaquercus
Eleutherodactylus daryi
Ptychohyla panchoi
Bolitoglossa meliana
Bolitoglossa odonnelli
Cryptotriton veraepacis
Eleutherodactylus aphanus
Eleutherodactylus bocourti
Eleutherodactylus sabrinus
Eleutherodactylus sandersoni
Plectrohyla hartwegi
Status
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
42
Corredor Sian Ka'an Calakmul
Corredor Vallarta Punta Laguna
Costa Norte de la Peninsula de
Yucatan
Mammalia
Reptilia
Magnoliopsida
Actinopterygii
Aves
Mammalia
Reptilia
Cozumel
Aves
Mammalia
Cuchumatanes
Reptilia
Amphibia
The Grand Peten
Amphibia
Aves
Magnoliopsida
Mammalia
Plectrohyla pokomchi
Plectrohyla quecchi
Tapirus bairdii
Antrozous dubiaquercus
Caluromys derbianus
Lepidochelys kempi
Tontelea hondurensis
Ophisternon infernale
Ogilbia pearsei
Charadrius melodus
Caluromys derbianus
Dermochelys coriacea
Eretmochelys imbricata
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Crocodylus acutus
Toxostoma guttatum
Nasua nelsoni
Procyon pygmaeus
Reithrodontomys spectabilis
Crocodylus acutus
Bolitoglossa jacksoni
Bradytriton silus
Dendrotriton cuchumatanus
Hyla dendrophasma
Hyla perkinsi
Plectrohyla tecunumani
Dendrotriton rabbi
Plectrohyla glandulosa
Bolitoglossa mulleri
Bolitoglossa rostrata
Eleutherodactylus rivulus
Nyctanolis pernix
Plectrohyla guatemalensis
Plectrohyla hartwegi
Plectrohyla quecchi
Ptychohyla macrotympanum
Rana macroglossa
Bolitoglossa mulleri
Eleutherodactylus rostralis
Electron carinatum
Cymbopetalum mayanum
Wimmeria montana
Aegiphila monstrosa
Aegiphila panamensis
Aegiphila skutchii
Tylomys tumbalensis
Tapirus bairdii
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
CR
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
VU
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR
EN
43
Reptilia
Humedales Costeros de Chiapas
Aves
Coniferopsida
Magnoliopsida
Reptilia
Izabal Caribe
Amphibia
Lacandona
Amphibia
Insecta
Liliopsida
Magnoliopsida
Mammalia
Antrozous dubiaquercus
Caluromys derbianus
Trichechus manatus
Dermochelys coriacea
Eretmochelys imbricata
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Crocodylus acutus
Amazona oratrix
Pinus tecunumanii
Pistacia mexicana
Dermochelys coriacea
Lepidochelys olivacea
Crocodylus acutus
Heloderma horridum
Rhinoclemmys rubida
Eleutherodactylus charadra
Ptychohyla panchoi
Bolitoglossa mulleri
Eleutherodactylus rostralis
Eleutherodactylus sabrinus
Eleutherodactylus sandersoni
Bolitoglossa mulleri
Bufo tutelarius
Duellmanohyla schmidtorum
Hyla chimalapa
Plectrohyla sagorum
Ptychohyla macrotympanum
Amphipteryx agrioides
Epigomphus paulsoni
Hetaerina rudis
Heteragrion tricellulare
Brahea nitida
Gaussia maya
Malmea gaumeri
Vitex cooperi
Vitex kuylenii
Wimmeria chiapensis
Cedrela odorata
Lonchocarpus santarosanus
Magnolia yoroconte
Pouteria amygdalina
Saurauia leucocarpa
Saurauia villosa
Sideroxylon durifolium
Swietenia humilis
Ticodendron incognitum
Tylomys bullaris
Tylomys tumbalensis
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
EN
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
44
Reptilia
Laguna del Tigre
Montebello
Pantanos de Centla / Laguna de
Terminos
Rio Hondo
Selva Zoque
Mammalia
Reptilia
Amphibia
Aves
Coniferopsida
Mammalia
Aves
Reptilia
Reptilia
Amphibia
Aves
Magnoliopsida
Mammalia
Reptilia
Tapirus bairdii
Antrozous dubiaquercus
Caluromys derbianus
Dermatemys mawii
Crocodylus acutus
Tapirus bairdii
Dermatemys mawii
Bolitoglossa stuarti
Nyctanolis pernix
Dendroica chrysoparia
Pinus tecunumanii
Peromyscus zarhynchus
Amazona oratrix
Dendroica chrysoparia
Caretta caretta
Dermatemys mawii
Eleutherodactylus pozo
Ixalotriton niger
Bolitoglossa mulleri
Bufo tutelarius
Duellmanohyla schmidtorum
Eleutherodactylus rostralis
Hyla chaneque
Hyla chimalapa
Plectrohyla guatemalensis
Plectrohyla sagorum
Ptychohyla macrotympanum
Dendroica chrysoparia
Electron carinatum
Hylorchilus navai
Albizia plurijuga
Chiangiodendron mexicanum
Elaeagia uxpanapensis
Eugenia uxpanapensis
Oreomunnea pterocarpa
Parathesis vulgata
Erythrina tuxtlana
Eschweilera mexicana
Ocotea uxpanapana
Quercus purulhana
Quercus skinneri
Orthogeomys cuniculus
Tylomys tumbalensis
Lepus flavigularis
Tapirus bairdii
Leptonycteris curasoae
Peromyscus zarhynchus
Crocodylus acutus
EN
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
CR
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
45
Selvas de Tabasco
Actinopterygii
Sian Ka'an
Amphibia
Mammalia
Actinopterygii
Mammalia
Reptilia
Sierra de Ticul - Punto PUT
Actinopterygii
Sierra Madre de Chiapas
Amphibia
Heloderma horridum
Gambusia eurystoma
Poecilia sulphuraria
Duellmanohyla chamulae
Caluromys derbianus
Cyprinodon verecundus
Cyprinodon beltrani
Cyprinodon labiosus
Cyprinodon maya
Cyprinodon simus
Ophisternon infernale
Hippocampus erectus
Ogilbia pearsei
Procyon pygmaeus
Reithrodontomys spectabilis
Tapirus bairdii
Antrozous dubiaquercus
Caluromys derbianus
Trichechus manatus
Dermochelys coriacea
Eretmochelys imbricata
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Crocodylus acutus
Cyprinodon verecundus
Cyprinodon beltrani
Cyprinodon labiosus
Cyprinodon maya
Cyprinodon simus
Ophisternon infernale
Ogilbia pearsei
Ixalotriton parvus
Bolitoglossa engelhardti
Bolitoglossa flavimembris
Bolitoglossa franklini
Bufo tacanensis
Eleutherodactylus greggi
Eleutherodactylus sartori
Plectrohyla acanthodes
Plectrohyla lacertosa
Pseudoeurycea brunnata
Bufo tutelarius
Dendrotriton megarhinus
Dendrotriton xolocalcae
Duellmanohyla schmidtorum
Eleutherodactylus matudai
Hyla chimalapa
Plectrohyla avia
Plectrohyla guatemalensis
VU
CR
CR
VU
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
CR
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
46
Aves
Magnoliopsida
Mammalia
Volcanes Occidentales
Amphibia
Zona Huave
Aves
Coniferopsida
Amphibia
Aves
Mammalia
Reptilia
Plectrohyla hartwegi
Plectrohyla sagorum
Pseudoeurycea goebeli
Ptychohyla macrotympanum
Dendroica chrysoparia
Oreophasis derbianus
Tangara cabanisi
Ergaticus versicolor
Matudaea trinervia
Symplocos tacanensis
Heteromys nelsoni
Tylomys bullaris
Tylomys tumbalensis
Sorex stizodon
Tapirus bairdii
Peromyscus zarhynchus
Bolitoglossa engelhardti
Bolitoglossa flavimembris
Bolitoglossa franklini
Bufo tacanensis
Dendrotriton bromeliacius
Eleutherodactylus greggi
Oedipina stenopodia
Plectrohyla glandulosa
Pseudoeurycea brunnata
Bolitoglossa rostrata
Bufo tutelarius
Duellmanohyla schmidtorum
Eleutherodactylus matudai
Eleutherodactylus sabrinus
Plectrohyla avia
Plectrohyla guatemalensis
Plectrohyla hartwegi
Plectrohyla sagorum
Pseudoeurycea goebeli
Ptychohyla macrotympanum
Rana macroglossa
Oreophasis derbianus
Juniperus standleyi
Eleutherodactylus silvicola
Amazona oratrix
Orthogeomys cuniculus
Lepus flavigularis
Eretmochelys imbricata
Crocodylus acutus
Heloderma horridum
Rhinoclemmys rubida
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
CR
EN
EN
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
VU
EN
EN
EN
EN
CR
EN
CR
VU
VU
VU
47
Appendix 3. Prioritization of Key Biodiversity Areas
Biological Importance
Nationally Threatened
Endemic
Total
Extent Of Conservation
State Of Conservation
Connectivity
Ecological Diversity
Total
Key Biodiversity
Area
Globally Threatened
Country
Conservation Status
Mexico
Selva Zoque
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
12
Guatemala
3
3
3
9
2
3
3
3
11
Mexico
Complejo Sierra de las Minas,
Motagua, Biotopo
Sierra Madre de Chiapas
3
3
3
9
2
3
3
3
11
Guatemala
Cuchumatanes
3
3
3
9
2
2
0
3
7
Mexico
Lacandona
3
3
1
7
3
3
3
2
11
Guatemala
Laguna del Tigre
1
3
3
7
3
2
3
2
10
Mexico/
Guatemala
Belize
The Grand Peten
3
3
1
7
3
3
3
1
10
Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas
3
3
1
7
3
3
1
2
9
Mexico
3
1
3
7
1
1
0
1
3
Mexico
Bosque Mesofilos del Norte de
Chiapas
Sian Ka'an
3
2
1
6
3
3
3
2
11
Mexico
Corredor Sian Kaán Calakmul
2
3
1
6
2
1
3
1
7
Guatemala
Volcanes Occidentales
3
3
6
1
2
0
2
5
Guatemala
Izabal Caribe
3
2
5
1
2
2
2
7
Mexico
Pantanos de Centla / Laguna de
Terminos
Cozumel
2
2
1
5
3
2
0
1
6
1
1
3
5
3
2
0
1
6
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
6
Mexico
Costa Norte de la Peninsula de
Yucatan
Sierra de Ticul - Punto PUT
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
7
Mexico
Humedales Costeros de Chiapas
0
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
5
Mexico / Belize Rio Hondo
1
1
0
2
1
1
3
1
6
Mexico
Corredor Vallarta Punta Laguna
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
1
6
Mexico
Selvas de Tabasco
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
3
Mexico
Zona Huave
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
3
Guatemala
Alta Verapaz
0
1
1
2
1
5
Mexico
Montebello
0
Mexico
Mexico
0
Note: Qualitative Rank (3 = highest; 1 = lowest)
48
Map 3. Key Biodiversity Areas in Northern Mesoamerica
Key Biodiversity Areas
1. Selva Zoque
2. Complejo Sierra de las Minas, Motagua, Biotopo
3. Sierra Madre de Chiapas
4. Cuchumatanes
5. Lacandona
6. Laguna del Tigre
7. The Grand Peten
8. Chiquibul/Montañas Mayas
9. Bosque Mesofilos del Norte de Chiapas
10. Sian Ka'an
11. Corredor Sian Kaán Calakmul
12. Volcanes Occidentales
13. Izabal Caribe
14. Pantanos de Centla / Laguna de Terminos
15. Cozumel
16. Costa Norte de la Peninsula de Yucatan
17. Sierra de Ticul - Punto PUT
18. Humedales Costeros de Chiapas
19. Rio Hondo
20. Corredor Vallarta Punta Laguna
21. Selvas de Tabasco
22. Zona Huave
23. Alta Verapaz
24. Montebello
49
Appendix 4: Priority Key Biodiversity Areas, Priority Sites, Threats, Investments and Potential
Interventions
Area
Selva Zoque
Sitios
estratégicos
•
PRIORITY 1
•
•
Media Luna. Selva
mediana
subperennifolia y
Selva alta
perennifolia en
Veracruz.
Cerro de
Chapultepec.
Selva alta
perennifolia y
Selva mediana
subperennifolia en
Veracruz
Sierra de la
Garganta. Selva
alta perennifolia en
Veracruz
•
La gringa (Oaxaca)
•
Espinazo del
Diablo. Selva alta
perennifolia, Selva
mediana
•
•
Sierra de Tres
Picos (Oaxaca,
Veracruz).
Cuenca Alta del
Corte: Selva alta
perennifolia, Selva
mediana
subperennifolia,
Bosque mesófilo
de montaña, y de
pino-encino, Selva
baja caducifolia.
Argumento o justificación
Amenazas
principales
• La Selva Zoque se considera la región con
mayor cantidad de especies de orquídeas
en México. A la fecha se han registrado
alrededor de 300 especies de orquídeas
que constituyen el 27% de las especies y el
60% de los géneros registrados en todo el
territorio nacional (Salazar 1997).
•
Fragmentacion de
unidad de Zoque
•
ingobernabilidad
•
Proyectos de
infraestructura
• Potencialmente puede llegar a haber hasta
5000 especies de plantas vasculares
(Martínez, com. pers). Se proponen
alrededor de 900 especies de mariposas
que constituyen el 45% del total de especies
mexicanas (De la Maza 1997). Se han
registrado 320 especies de aves (Townsend
1997) y el número de especies de
mamíferos ha sido estimado en alrededor
de 140 especies (Medellín 1997). De
hecho, la Zoque se encuentra en el área
con mayor diversidad de especies de
mamíferos en el país (Arita y León Paniagua
1993, CONABIO 1998).
•
Colonización
silvestre en la zona
de amortiguamiento
de la zona de
protección forestal y
faunísitica ilegal
Extracción ilegal de
madera
•
Tráfico de fauna
•
Pérdida de sistemas
de uso tradicional
• La región ha sido designada en la categoría •
de “sobresaliente a nivel biorregional” en la
evaluación del Banco Mundial y la WWF
•
(Dinerstein et al. 1995). La región conocida
como bosques húmedos de Tehuantepec es
•
considerada como nivel 1 de máxima
prioridad regional.
•
•
•
•
• En la Selva Zoque se encuentran tres areas •
endémicas para aves (EBAS): Los Tuxtlas
and Uxpanapa (013), Isthmus de
Tehuantepec (014) and Northern Central
American Highlands (018). Esta última EBA
es la que mayor número de especies
•
endémicas tiene en México y Centro
América (Stattersfield et al. 2000).
Inversiones actuales
Indefinición en la
tenencia de la tierra
de Bienes
Comunales
Expansión de la
frontera
agropecuaria
Apertura de caminos
Incendios forestales
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
Media inversión
FMCN: Proyecto piloto de uso
sustentable y diversificado de
flora y fauna silvestre
Pronatura: Plan Regional para
la conservación.
Centro de Estudios para el
Manejo Sustentable de los
Recursos Naturales, S.C.:
Prevención y control de
incendios forestales
WWF: Proyecto Bosques de los
Chimalapas; Educación
ambiental y agroecología
Fundación Packard: varios
SEMARNAT-CONANP: Control
y Vigilancia
CONABIO Conservación y
Desarrollo Sustentable en El
Ocote
FMCN: Conservación y
Monitoreo de Aves en El Ocote
Depto. de Desarrollo
Internacional de la Gran
Bretaña: Reserva ecológica
Campesina en los Chimalapas
CONABIO/ Fundación Ford:
Tejiendo con Pita en el sureste
de México
FMCN / Gobierno del Estado
de Chiapas: Conservación de
Áreas Naturales Protegidas
mediante Estrategias de
Monitoreo
• Diseñar una estrategia de
gestión ambiental para
establecer compromisos y
acuerdos con los actores
sociales locales, así como
con las instancias del
gobierno federal y estatal
involucradas en la Selva
Zoque.
• Fortalecimiento del marco
jurídico y de la
observancia de la ley.
• Diseñar una estrategia
variada y amplia de
mecanismos de
conservación y protección
de la Selva Zoque que
incluya diferentes
opciones y herramientas
de manejo adecuado
como: decretos de ANP
(Uxpanapa),
establecimiento de
Reservas Comunales,
UMAS, Programas de
Manejo Forestal, etc.
• Desarrollar ordenamientos
territoriales, zonificación
para áreas protegidas
comunales y para áreas
de manejo forestal, y
sistemas agroforestales
• Diversificar alternativas
productivas incluyendo
ecoturismo comunitario.
Contaminación por
agroquímicos
50
Area
Sitios
estratégicos
•
Sierra Cerro Azul
(Oaxaca)
•
El Tolostoque.
Selvas bajas
caducifolias en el
extremo suroeste
de la región de
interés (Oaxaca).
•
•
Argumento o justificación
Amenazas
principales
Inversiones actuales
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
• Diseñar y operar un
Programa Regional de
Prevención y Combate de
Incendios en la Selva
Zoque que integre
esfuerzos y recursos.
• Promover un Programa
Regional para la
Inspección y Vigilancia de
la Selva Zoque, que
involucre Profepa, los
gobiernos de los estados,
los ONGs y las
comunidades.
Selva del Ocote.
El Ocote y su
conexión de
Chimalapas.
Contiene selva alta
perennifolia,
bosque de pino
oocarpa
• Fortalecer y apoyar los
esfuerzos subregionales
de gestión y desarrollo
sustentable emprendidos
por las diversas
instituciones.
El Retén
• Atención a problemas
agrarios en el área entre
la porción nororiente de
Santa María Chimalapa y
los núcleos agrarios
chiapanecos
pertenecientes a
Cintalapa.
• Ayudar al dialogo entre las
comunidades en conflicto
• Evaluación y mitigación de
impactos por
infraestructura.
Mecanismos de
compensación por
impactos.
• Fortalecimiento de
sistemas tradicionales
sustentables
51
Area
Sitios
estratégicos
Argumento o justificación
Amenazas
principales
Inversiones actuales
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
• Fomento a mecanismos
de retribución por captura
de carbono. Subsidios por
mantenimiento de
bosques
• Evaluación y Retribución
por servicios ambientales.
Mecanismos de
conservación de tierras
Complejo
Sierra de las
Minas
•
Sistema Sierra de
las MinasMotagua
•
PRIORITY 2
•
•
•
•
•
Sierra Madre
de Chiapas
PRIORITY 3
•
•
•
•
•
Área de
conectividad entre
Sierra de las Minas
y el Biotopo del
Quetzal
Bosques
mesófilos
Corredor PaxtalPico del Loro
Cerro 3 Picos.
Volcán Tacaná
El Triunfo
•
Incluye al monte espinoso seco de
•
Motagua, el cual es una ecosistema
único en Meso América. Abarca todo
un paisaje con un gradiente altitudinal
que vá de los 6 msnm hasta 3,015
msnm. El CBM no está invirtiendo en
este sistema.
•
No ha habido fondos para el
establecimiento de nuevas ANP que
proteja parte de esta bioregión.
Es la fabrica de agua en Guatemala
•
por la dimensión de la captación de
agua.
En Motagua hay epífitas (Thillandsia
spp.) Endémicas.
Posible centro de origen de coníferas
y otras especies.
Tiene poblaciones importantes de
spp. en peligro de extinción.
•
Zona esencial para las migraciones
locales de los quetzales de Sierra de
las Minas
•
Area de mayor importancia para aves
migratorias.
Alta concentración Microendemismos.
Grandes poblaciones de Pavón,
quetzal.
Mayor extensión de Bosque Mesófilo
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
En el sistema
Polochic la
indefinición de la
tenencia de la tierra
ha promovido las
invasiones.
Mucha presión por
cambio de uso del
suelo.
Contaminación.
Hay minería en
Sierra Santa Cruz,
hay problemas por
extracción petrolera
en el futuro.
• Media inversión
• Fundación Defensores De la
Naturaleza: Administración del
Distrito Motagua de la Reserva
de Biosfera Sierra de las Minas.
Expansión Frontera
Agropecuaria.
Incendios forestales.
Aprovechamientos
forestales no
sustentables
Construcción de dos
• Media inversión
• TNC: Sitio plataforma cuencas
costeras de Chiapas
• FMCN: Propagación de Palma
Camedor Chamaedorea
quezalteca
• Banco Mundial: Conservación de
52
• Prevención y control de
incendios
• Evaluación de sistemas
agroforestales para
conservacion de
biodiversidad
• Diseño e implementación
Area
Sitios
estratégicos
Argumento o justificación
Amenazas
principales
en México.
•
carreteras y caminos
rurales.
Carretera
Montecristo
Mapastepec
Inversiones actuales
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cuchumatanes
PRIORITY 4
•
Norte de
Huehuetenango
(Incluye a
Cuchumatanes y
Laguna Yolnabaj)
•
•
Incluye parte de la cuenca donde
•
nace el río Lacantún, Bosques de
niebla. La biodiversidad de la región
podría ser de las mas importantes en
Guatemala por estar en transición
•
entre las Selva Maya y las tierras
altas. Hay poblaciones importantes de
Abies guatemalensis
Cambios acelerados •
de uso del suelo por •
reacomodos.
Incendios forestales.
Ha estado
abandonada por los
esfuerzos de
conservación
(Prácticamente no ha
habido inversiones
de conservación)
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
Biodiversidad en la Reserva de
la Biosfera El Tri unfo
FMCN / CONABIO:
Conservación de Palmas y
Cycadas
SEMARNAT: Brigadistas para la
prevención de incendios en la
Reserva El Triunfo.
Estrategia de aprovechamiento
sustentable, diversificación
productiva y conservación de
recursos naturales en áreas
comunales
Universidad Autónoma de
Chapingo: La reconversión
productiva en los bienes
comunales
GEF, Fondo para el medio
ambiente, The David and Lucile
Packard Foundation, Banco
Nacional de fomento exterior:
Mejoramiento del hábitat en
paisajes productivos y
producción y comercialización de
café sustentable
Campesinos Ecológicos:
Reforestación
Media inversión
Banco Mundial, GEF,
Gobierno de
Guatemala:Producción
Sostenible, Conservación de la
Biodiversidad, Servicios
Ambientales, Administración y
Gestión
53
de Estrategias Regionales
de Corredores de
Conservación.
• Evaluación y mitigación de
impactos por
infraestructura.
• Retribución por servicios
ambientales.
Area
Sitios
estratégicos
Selva
Lacandona,
Complejos I
y II,
Lacondonia
•
PRIORITY 5
•
Corredor
Hidrológico del
Lacantún
(Cañadas-StoDomingo.
Conexión con
Usumacinta)
Corredor
Hidrológico del
Usumacinta
Chiapas-Tabasco
Lagos OcotalSuspiro-Ojos
Azules.
Sierra Cojolita
Montes Azules
•
•
•
•
•
Complejos I y II
(Incluye las ANP
San Román,
Aguateca Dos
Pilas, El Pucté, El
Rosario, Ceibal,
Petexbatún)
Parque Nacional
Sierra del
Lacandón
Argumento o justificación
•
•
•
Mayores poblaciones en Chiapas de
algunas spp. amenazadas y en peligro
(vertebrados).
Unico hábitat de Ara macao.
Corredor de conexión con resto de
Selva Maya.
Amenazas
principales
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Poblaciones importantes de spp. en
peligro de extinción incluyendo
guacamaya roja.
•
•
Poblaciones importantes de spp. en
peligro de extinción incluyendo
guacamaya roja.
•
•
•
•
•
Inversiones actuales
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
• Alta inversión
• UNAM: Conservación y valor
utilitario de Especies arbóreas;
Estrategia de Producción
Agropecuaria Sustentable, y
conservación de los recursos
• BID: Impulso a la Apicultura;
Conservación de La Selva a
Través del Uso y Manejo de
Mariposas
• U.S.AID-CI: actividades de
protección, monitoreo,
investigación y recreación;
Fortalecimiento de la
participación social en la
conservación; Fortalecimiento de
la educación ambiental;
Invasiones.
Establecimiento de un sistema
Ausencia
de áreas protegidas
institucional
comunitarias; Estudio de
factibilidad para el desarrollo de
una empresa artesanal para
mujeres; Restauración ecológica
y conservación; Diagnóstico de
Extracción ilegal de
la calidad del agua; Estrategia
madera.
para la integración de la red de
Avance de la
Turismo responsable; Monitoreo.
frontera agrícola.
•
USAID: Ecoturismo en el
Asentamientos
Usumacinta; Conservación del
irregulares.
parque Nacional Laguna Lachúa;
Incendios forestales.
Conservación de la Guacamaya;
Presas
Continuación del monitoreo de
hidroeléctricas en
áreas críticas; Continuidad a la
estudio.
integración de la Estrategia de
conservación; Capacitación en
manejo de Áreas Naturales
Protegidas por la Universidad
Estatal de Colorado; Uso y
tráfico de vida silvestre.
• INI: Estudio de factibilidad del
potencial turístico y Manifiesto de
impacto ambiental.
Presas proyectadas:
Boca del Cerro.
Invasiones en
ANPs.
Incendios forestales
Conflicto social.
Indefinición en la
tenencia de la tierra
en periferia de
Bienes Comunales.
Cambios en uso del
suelo.
Pérdida de sistemas
de uso tradicional.
54
• Solución del conflicto
agrario.
• Manejo sustentable de
recursos.
• Programa Forestal
Eficiente
• Mecanismos innovadores
y eficientes de
concienciación pública en
el ámbito no formal.
• Observancia de la ley.
• Reforzar vigilancia.
Area
Gran Peten
Sitios
estratégicos
•
Biotopo El Zotz
•
Complejo
Mirador-Rio AzulDos Lagunas
(Cuadrante Nornoreste del Petén)
PRIORITY 6
Argumento o justificación
•
•
•
Zona de
Uaxactún -El Zotz,
Tikal
•
Franja Fronteriza
Guatemala-Belice
(Incluye El Pilar)
•
Amenazas
principales
Buen estado de conservación pero
cerca de la frontera de cambio de uso
del suelo.
Importante colonia de murciélagos.
Está en excelente estado de
conservación (Inversión preventiva)
•
Impactos negativos por turismo.
•
El Monumento Natural y Cultural El
Pilar promueve la cooperación
binacional entre Guatemala y Belice.
•
Apertura de
accesos.
•
Carretera que
gestionan Quintana
Roo y Melchor de
Mencos.
Sobrecaceria por
xateros
Saqueo de recursos
•
•
Triangulo
Nakum-Yaxhá-
•
Amenazas que tiene
que ver con su
situación fronteriza
con Belice.
•
Caminos
potenciales Caceria,
extracion de madera
ilegal, agricultura
Naranjo
•
Rio Bravo, Aguas
Turbias, al Norte de
Contiguidad con Mexico y Guatemala
Inversiones actuales
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
• Grupo Jaguares: Apoyo a la
campaña de prevención de
incendios, artesanías lacandonas
y frijol abono.
• Fundación Packard: Población y
ambiente
• FMCM: Campaña de difusión
para la prevención de incendios
• UAC: Operación de la Estación
Chapul; Ordenamiento de las
actividades ecoturísticas en el
Monumento Natural Bonampak
• TNC:Manejo del Parque
Nacional Sierra del Lacandón
• Alta inversión
• FMCM: Agricultura orgánica;
Apicultura comunitaria;
Prevención de incendios con
alternativas de uso de suelo;
Rescate y cría de venado cola
blanca
• Pronatura: Proyecto Calakmul
• USAID-CI : Planta de acopio de
miel Yax Balam; Los viveros
como una alternativa para el
desarrollo sustentable; Parcelas
escolares
• MacArthur: Criterios e
indicadores de Manejo Forestal;
Participación de la Comunidad
en la Conservación
• CONABIO: Conservación y
manejo de Cérvidos Tropicales
• TNC: Educación Ambiental,
capacitación y difusión;
Zonificación ecológica para la
Reserva de Calakmul
• WWF: Proyecto Forestal
Calakmul
• BID: Programa de Desarrollo
Sostenible del Petén
• Banco Mundial: Areas Protegidas
de la Comunidad Bio-Itza
• KFW: legalización de tierras, el
55
• Urgen alternativas
productivas para que la
población local no
deteriore estas selvas.
•
Parar los caminos
truncal, educacion,
promocion del manejo
sustenible del bosque,
incentivos por
Area
Sitios
estratégicos
Argumento o justificación
Rio Bravo, y el
matrice alrededor
Yalbac y Gallon Jug
Crooked Tree
•
•
•
Inversiones actuales
•
Calakmul:
Corredor ConhuásXpuhil
Corredor XpuhilArroyo Negro.
Balamkú
Conhuás
Amenazas
principales
•
•
Recarga de acuíferos
•
Selva de Guayacán.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
manejo de los bosques, la
promoción comunitaria y la
educación ambiental.
Centro Maya: agricultura
orgánica, concesiones forestales
y proyectos apícolas
PROBOTEN: Manejo forestal,
educación, extensión y el
desarrollo de la mujer
FEDECOAG, IEPADES:
Asistencia técnica agrícola,
pecuaria, forestal y organización
comunitaria
ACOFOP: Manejo Forestal
Cooperación española:
Saneamiento Ambiental
GTZ: Proyecto Manejo
Sostenible de los Recursos
Naturales
UE: Legalización de Tierras
CANANKAX: Conservación y
Manejo Participativo de las áreas
protegidas; Manejo del
Monumento El Pilar: Sistema de
Monitoreo Ambiental.
CATIE: Manejo Forestal
Sostenible en la RBM
CEDES: educación ambiental
ALIANZA VERDE: Fomento del
turismo responsable
CI: Manejo etnobotánico,
conservación y desarrollo
sostenible.
FOGUAMA:Temas de la Agenda
21
FUNDEBASE: Asistencia técnica
con énfasis agrícola orgánica.
ACODES: Manejo forestal
FCG: Instalación y Monitoreo de
la Plantación de Xate
FORD FOUNDATION: Forging
an Integrative Management for El
Pilar Archeological Reserve
Program for Belize: Protección
56
conservacion privada
• Prevención de incendios
forestales.
• Supervisión de manejo de
UMAs
• Monitoreo de flora y fauna
básica
• Fortalecimiento de áreas
protegidas
Area
Sitios
estratégicos
Argumento o justificación
Amenazas
principales
Inversiones actuales
Inversiones
recomendadas
(Enfoque
programático)
de los Recursos del Río Bravo;
Apoyo a la Comunidad y a los
Pequeños Tomadores de
Decisiones en el Mantenimiento
de la Conectividad Biológica; y
varios mas.
• Gobierno del Estado, Reserva
Balam’ku
Laguna del
Tigre
Laguna del Tigre
(Incluye al Parque
Nacional y al Biotopo).
•
•
PRIORITY 7
Es el humedal de mayor importancia
en todo Guatemala.
Hábitat importante para spp. en
peligro de extinción, incluyendo
guacamaya roja, jaguar, pecarí de
labios blancos, cocodrilos y tapir
•
•
•
•
Extracción petrolera. •
Avance de la
•
frontera agrícola.
Asentamientos
•
irregulares.
Incendios forestales
•
ChiquibulMontanas
Maya
PRIORITY 8
Belize
Chiquibul NP,
Chiquibul NR,
Mountain Pine Ridge,
Vaca.
Colombia
Cockscomb
•
Guatemala
Complejos III y IV
(Incluye las ANP
Machaquilá, Xutilhá,
Montañas Mayas)
•
•
•
Integridad, los areas más biodiversas
de Belice
Muchas especies amenazadas
Conserva remanentes de Bosques de
Poptún (Pinus caribea).
Contiguidad con Belice (Chiquibul).
•
•
Represa
Invasiones,
agricultura, xateros
Alta inversión
Banco Mundial/PROPETEN:
Manejo y Protección del Parque
FCG: La Guacamaya Roja y las
Aves Migratorias como
herramientas para la
conservación
CONAP: Valoración Económica
del Parque Nacional
• Baja inversión
• KFW: legalización de tierras, el
manejo de los bosques, la
promoción comunitaria y la
educación ambiental.
• Centro Maya: agricultura
orgánica, forestales y proyectos
apícolas
• PROBOTEN: Manejo forestal,
educación, extensión y el
desarrollo de la mujer
• FEDECOAG, IEPADES:
Asistencia técnica agrícola,
pecuaria, forestal y organización
comunitaria
• ACOFOP: Manejo Forestal
• Vision Youth Cooperative
Society: Realization of an
environmental camp at the
Cockscomb Basin Wildlife
Sanctuary
57
• Parar la represa
Appendix 5: Definitions of Funding Categories Used in Investment
Analysis
Best Practices. Agroecology projects, demonstration projects of silvopastoral systems, etc.
Capacity Building. Activities that enhance capacity for project implementation through training courses,
experience exchange, etc.
Communication. Information diffusion to different publics
Conflict Resolution. Actions that try to mediate between different parties in a conflict to identify a
consensus solution
Economic Alternatives. Implementation of productive projects of economic activities not previously
used by local populations, including ecotourism, butterfly collection and edible mushroom collection, etc.
Economic Incentives. Mechanisms for protection of private lands, ecological easements, etc.
Environmental Education. Diffusion of information about biodiversity to enhance knowledge and
consciousness of local populations
Environmental Services. Projects that initiate mechanisms of payments for environmental services
Financial Mechanisms. Implementation of long term funding or trust funds, focused on protected area
operation or revolving microcredit loans
Forest Fires. Implementation of actions that mitigate fires, difusion of fire management techniques,
financing and organizing fire brigades etc.
Land-use Planning. Projects that order and delimit productive activities in geographically defined areas.
Monitoring. The collection of biological, socioeconomic and environental impact information and the
processing and diffusion of data
Natural Resource Management. Management of natural resources, for example, forestry concessions
PA Management. Activities directed at Protected Area Management through governments, NGOs or
community based organizations: includes management programs, enforcement, public consultations,
investments in visitor centers etc.
Planning. Activities of ordering and prioritization of actions linked with the definition of new protected
areas
Planning/Mainstreaming. Actions that encourage the inclusuon of the main issues of natural reseource
conservation into conventional development agendas and projects
Planning/Monitoring. Actions of follow up and supervision of projects implemented within an
institutional planning framework
Policy. Projects that enhance knowledge of laws and policies, or promote changes or strengthening of the
application of such laws or policies
Population. Activities that promote family planning
Project Management. Administrative costs and the indirect costs of funds and project management
Research. Investigative projects that inrease knowledge of biodiversity
Restoration. Projects of ecological restoration environmental clean up in degraded or contaminated areas
Species Conservation. Concrete actions directed to the protection of a species
Sustainable Development. Actions that implement projects for the sustainable use of non-timber forest
products such as pita, xate, etc.
Technical Advisory Council. Costs of the participation of society in techncial advisory committees
Technical Assistance. Projects that extend technical services to community groups
58
An Overview of CEPF’s Portfolio in the Mesoamerica Hotspot:
Northern Mesoamerica
The future of biodiversity in Northern Mesoamerica can be considered as being at a
crossroad. On the one hand, large corridors containing some of the world’s most
biologically rich habitats continue to be well preserved, thanks to visionary policies,
institutions, and leaders that encouraged the declaration of protected areas and the
sustainable use of resources by local, often indigenous communities. CEPF targets two
large corridors that harbor exceptional species endemism and diversity. These two
corridors are considered to be of critical importance to ensure that Mesoamerica
maintains its ranking as one of the top five hotspots in the world:
•
•
Selva Maya Corridor (Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico), and
Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands Corridor (Guatemala
and Mexico).
Quite ominously, Mesoamerica confronts a host of threats that jeopardize its biodiversity.
Northern Mesoamerica, in particular, has been bedeviled by development policies that
have promoted the unsustainable extraction of natural resources, through extensive
agriculture, colonization, logging, oil development, mining, massive tourism, and illegal
wildlife hunting and trade. These poorly conceived policies often have exacerbated the
widespread and chronic poverty in Mexico and Guatemala. Many people lack access to
the most essential services to meet their basic human needs. Juxtaposed to this picture
are unique social and cultural dynamics, in which a large percentage of the population is
indigenous. Their history is characterized by disenfranchisement and victimization from
civil strife and colonization. Politically, the situation is equally complex, with strained
relations between Guatemala and Belize.
In the future, ambitious infrastructure and development projects and new economic
policies promoted under Plan Puebla – Panama (PPP) and the Central American Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA) promise to bring the potential for real and urgently needed
economic growth in this under-served region. These initiatives hold great promise as
powerful and positive engines for growth and conservation. Conversely, if planned with
little regard for the environment and local communities, these initiatives could well
perpetuate the legacy of resource depletion, disenfranchisement, and impoverishment.
Decisions taken in the next few years could determine the path of conservation and
development for decades to come.
Given this context, CEPF launched the Northern Mesoamerica Ecosystem Profile in
January 2004 with a budget of $7.3 million. The portfolio seeks to tip the scale on critical
policy decisions at multiple levels toward conservation and poverty alleviation. To
achieve this goal, CEPF builds capacity within civil society in four strategic directions,
which were developed by local stakeholders during ecosystem profile preparation:
1. Foster civil society participation in regional decisionmaking on select policies and
investments to promote the conservation and sustainable development of the
Selva Maya and the Chiapas-Guatemala Highlands corridors.
CEPF aims to mainstream conservation goals by building capacity within key
NGOs to ensure they effectively engage in development of regional and national
1
policies and initiatives, conservation-based enterprises, sustainable financing,
and hotspot monitoring.
2. Collaborate with other donor-funded projects to facilitate and operationalize
successful conservation activities in Northern Mesoamerica’s eight most
important key biodiversity areas.
Complementing high-level policy work under strategic direction 1, CEPF
encourages improved conservation practices and policies within the two focal
corridors, targeting better institutional coordination, threats amelioration,
mitigation of impacts from infrastructure, and declaration of new protected areas.
3. Support priority conservation actions in three priority key biodiversity areas.
CEPF funds site-based management activities in Sierra de las Minas, Laguna del
Tigre, and Chiquibul – Montañas Maya, where conservation priorities are likely to
be underfunded in the next five years.
4. Prevent the extinction of Northern Mesoamerica’s 106 Critically Endangered
species. CEPF funds applied research, population and threats assessments,
habitat conservation, and related activities to ensure that these species are
preserved in perpetuity.
CEPF’s strategy in Northern Mesoamerica is unique within the Latin America portfolio in
that it combines site-based conservation with higher-level policy dialogue, analysis, and
reform to ensure that decisions taken at state and national capitals positively impact
biological diversity. This multi-pronged and integrated approach recognizes that
conservation must be mainstreamed at all political levels and across multiple sectors if
Northern Mesoamerica is to maintain its world-class biodiversity.
To date, CEPF has awarded four grants for $1.9 million (Chart 1 and 2, all charts are
included at the end of the overview). The current status of the portfolio and the timeline
of grants awarded are illustrated in Charts 3 and 4.
Over the last year, the CEPF Grant Director and Coordination Unit engaged in outreach
and co-design of several critical anchor grants, and in building partnerships that should
establish a solid foundation for CEPF in the years to come. These grants and
partnerships are described in the following pages.
2
Coordinating CEPF Grantmaking on the Ground
Conservation International’s Center for Biodiversity Conservation (CBC) serves as the
coordination unit for Northern Mesoamerica. Based out of Mexico City with satellite
offices in Tuxtla and Guatemala City, the team is committed to realizing CEPF’s strategy
as presented in the Ecosystem Profile through support to a variety of partner
organizations. The unit assists grant applicants and recipients in all facets of
grantmaking, from identifying potential NGOs as CEPF partners, assisting in
conceptualization and design of proposals, and facilitating strategic partnerships
between other NGOs and governments with a view toward building alliances. The team
has been instrumental in facilitating the submission of letters of inquiry and proposals,
and in ensuring that relevant NGOs and governments are actively engaged in the design
and implementation of grants to ensure coordination.
The unit also has explored opportunities to leverage and cooperate with other donors
working in the region. For example, the CEPF team met with representatives of the IDB
in Washington to exchange information on current and future plans. As a result, the IDB
and CEPF team agreed on some common priorities for future collaboration. Similarly,
the team met with the Embassy of Holland in Guatemala to explore co-funding
opportunities in Cuchumatanes. In addition, the team works closely with several major
USAID conservation and watershed management project located in Southern Mexico.
The coordination unit has adopted an innovative structure aimed at developing projects
that are multidisciplinary in scope, focusing on integrating the biodiversity sciences with
policy. The team includes a CBC director, which manages the team; two corridor heads,
who have in-depth knowledge of their areas; and three technical experts in
environmental policy and business, biodiversity science, and protected areas and
corridors. The goal is for this multidisciplinary team to provide CEPF grantees with a
range of technical assistance opportunities, while also providing the general portfolio
with strategic guidance and leadership to achieve key outcomes.
Corridor Approach to Grantmaking
Selva Maya Corridor
The Selva Maya is the second largest expanse of tropical forest in the Americas after the
Amazon. It contains diverse habitats shared between Belize, Guatemala and Mexico,
including sweeping savannahs, transitional forests, and the largest protected wetlands in
Central America. In addition to its enormous natural wealth, the Selva Maya houses the
most important archeological sites of the Maya culture, which serve as important tourist
attractions. Based on the biological assessment conducted during preparation of the
portfolio, CEPF has identified four key biodiversity areas (KBAs) as anchors in the
corridor – Selva Lacandona and Sierra del Lacandon, El Gran Petén, Laguna del Tigre
National Park, and Chiquibul - Montañas Mayas. The latter two KBAs have been
identified as priorities for CEPF site-based funding.
Unfortunately, major parts of the Selva Maya are being radically altered and significantly
fragmented. The main threats stem from the presence of permanent communities and
land grabs in protected areas, encroaching agriculture and livestock herding, forest
fires, the oil industry, and lawlessness, which have combined to weaken institutional
control over the area. The Laguna del Tigre National Park is perhaps the most visible
3
example of a park under siege. After years of neglect by previous administrations, the
national park has lost roughly 50 percent of its habitat. It is at risk of completely
collapsing. Environmentalists fear that the loss could be a harbinger of things to come
in other parts of Selva Maya unless urgent steps are taken. Fortunately, the new
Guatemalan Administration and Congress have made rescuing Laguna del Tigre a high
priority, and have allocated new funds and personnel to strengthen the park.
While the situation in Chiquibul - Montañas Maya KBA is not as dire, this area also
confronts several threats, most notably uncontrolled xate harvesting inside core areas of
parks. So-called xateros live in camps and hunt game in important sites for biodiversity.
To address these threats, CEPF is coordinating current and future grants with key
NGOs and governments. In the Selva Maya, CEPF works with the Alianza K’ante’el, a
coalition of NGOs (WCS, Proyecto WAKA – Peru, Fundación Propeten), academic
institutions such as CECON, and the Government of Guatemala represented by
CONAP. In Belize, CEPF has entered into discussions with the government and PACT
to identify potential areas of collaboration. To date, two grants valued at $77,524 have
been approved, and one other grant is in the planning phase. These grants are
designed to provide critical information in this highly dynamic environment for future
CEPF grants dedicated to achieving two principal outcomes:
•
Rescue Laguna del Tigre by supporting the Government of Guatemala and NGOs.
CEPF will invest in grants designed to reverse the course of habitat loss in the park,
and thereby halt colonization deeper into the Selva Maya. To understand the park’s
current state and threats, ParksWatch/Tropico Verde is conducting a detailed needs
assessment involving consultations with key stakeholders. The assessment will
yield detailed investment recommendations for strengthening the area. A grant to
WCS, which leads the Alianza K’ante’el, assists in updating the protected area’s
master plan, which expired in 2003 and was plagued with problems such as
permitting human settlements inside core areas of the park. The results from these
two grants will serve as the basis for future CEPF investments.
•
Improve management of Chiquibul – Montañas Maya.
CEPF will work with Guatemalan and Belizean NGOs and governments to channel
site-based investment to promote conservation of the area. As a first step,
ParksWatch/Tropico Verde will conduct a detailed needs assessment in Guatemala
similar in scope to that already conducted in Laguna del Tigre. Findings from the
assessment and further consultation with local stakeholders will help map out
CEPF’s strategy in the KBA.
4
Highlights to date
•
Parkswatch/Tropico Verde carried out an in-depth literature review and conducted field visits with
37 representatives from local NGOs, government, and communities to assess the current
situation in Laguna del Tigre National Park. Their report, which includes analysis on the
biological, socio-economic, and management status of the protected area, will be issued shortly
and will serve as the basis for CEPF grant making and CONAP and NGO planning.
•
Preparations are underway to update the management plan for Laguna del Tigre. In coordination
with the Guatemalan park service and archeological institute, the Alianza K’ante’el team initiated
a broad consultation process involving local stakeholders, including community leaders and
members, government officials, and NGOs. The plan is scheduled to be completed by June
2005.
Selva Zoque and Chiapas/Guatemala Highlands Corridor
CEPF’s Highlands Corridor follows a mountain chain that starts at Selva Zoque and
Sierra Madre along Southern Mexico’s Pacific coast, then weaves through the
Cuchumatanes highlands of northwest Guatemala, and ends at the Sierra de las Minas
– Motagua - Bocas del Polochic by the Caribbean coast. The Corridor encompasses the
four highest ranking key biodiversity areas that were identified through a multistakeholder planning process as regional priorities.
All four KBAs have unique characteristics that make them high priorities. In Selva
Zoque, our top key biodiversity area, no protected areas or reserves exist. Sierra Madre
constitutes the principal habitat in the world for the quetzal and endemic horned guan.
Los Cuchumatanes has the most extensive expanse of highland ecosystems in
Mesoamerica, with 1,500 km² lying above 3,000 m. And high variability of rainfall and
large attitudinal gradients, coupled with geographical isolation, give Sierra de las Minas
a pattern of speciation typical of islands. Collectively, the corridor contains sizable
populations of large mammals such as jaguar, river otter, Baird's tapir, and spider
monkey, and large birds such as harpy eagle, scarlet macaw and great curassow.
Throughout the corridor lie highly-localized pockets of habitat that shelter the corridor’s
long list of endemic species.
Threats to the corridor are equally wide-ranging. Deforestation has occurred due to
agricultural encroachment, illegal logging and fuel wood harvesting, and infrastructure
development. In the Selva Zoque, for example, management of the area has been
hampered by poor communications and coordination between the three state
governments that have authority over different parts of the KBA. Forest fires have been
a particularly tricky issue since the region’s karstic geology allows fires to spread
underground, out of reach of conventional fire fighting techniques.
Working in consultation with local partners and government, CEPF has developed two
principal objectives, for which two projects are currently in the planning phase:
5
•
Improve management of Selva Zoque Key Biodiversity Area (Oaxaca, Veracruz and
Chiapas).
Through an alliance between Pronatura, WWF, and CI, in collaboration with Mexico’s
environment agency, CEPF plans to finance the implementation of a regional
strategy developed by local stakeholders to strengthen conservation in Selva Zoque.
In particular, CEPF will support a tri-state strategy for forest fires prevention and
control, facilitate development of new community reserves and/or protected areas,
promote research on the area’s globally endangered species, and foster dialogue
between Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Chiapas to improve governmental coordination on
management of the area.
•
Promote sustainable financing to conserve Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve.
Through a planned grant to Defensores de la Naturaleza, CEPF will help launch the
region’s first water fund. The idea is to engage local municipalities, farmers,
industry, and NGOs in efforts to protect the upper watershed, location of the
biosphere reserve. Plans call for CEPF to fund the formation of watershed
committees, design a payment system for the use of water, establish a permanent
environmental and water education program, and promote protection of the upper
watershed against agricultural encroachment and forest fires.
Highlights to date
•
As part of project preparation, CEPF met representatives from WWF, PRONATURA - Chiapas,
CI, CONANP, SEMARNAT, and CONAFOR to discuss priorities for conserving Selva Zoque.
The team conducted a field trip to several potential sites to meet with local communities. CEPF
invited the group to submit a proposal to address high priorities identified in a locally developed
conservation strategy, which will formalize for the first time the Pronatura-CI-WWF alliance.
•
Also part of project preparation, CEPF conducted a site visit to Sierra de las Minas. The team
met with staff from Defensores de la Naturaleza, local mayors, and members of water user’s
associations to discuss how to link water use and payments to conservation of the upper
watershed. CEPF invited Defensores to submit a formal proposal to help launch Guatemala’s
first water fund that will involve channeling water payments for conservation.
Regional Grants
A major aspect of the Northern Mesoamerica portfolio calls for helping civil society
engage constructively on critical policy and regional issues. The idea is to ensure that
biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed into major development policies and
decisions by promoting innovative and coordinated approaches that meet the region’s
aspirations for economic development while also conserving its rich biological heritage.
Given this mandate, CEPF has worked with several key NGOs and alliances on
preparing eight projects, two of which have been approved for $1.6 million, to achieve
several major objectives:
6
•
Ensure CEPF runs smoothly in the field to achieve outcomes.
The coordination unit grant provides day-to-day technical and project management
support to grant applicants and recipients. To date, the coordination unit has
supported grantees in their submission of letters of interest and full proposals. A
team of technical experts will complement corridor-level directors to provide strategic
leadership and technical guidance to build the CEPF portfolio in a well integrated
and technically sound way. As the portfolio matures, the expectation is that the
coordination unit will assist with grant implementation and performance and impact
monitoring, as well as engage partners and donor agencies in opportunities for cofinancing and leveraging.
•
Ensure regional fora and the Plan Puebla – Panama integrate conservation
objectives into their plans and operations.
CEPF aims to help civil society participate in discussions and decision-making
regarding future policies and projects in the region. A grant to the Conservation
Strategy Fund is dedicated to ensuring that major infrastructure projects on the
drawing board incorporate measures to accommodate biodiversity concerns.
Another grant being designed considers support to leading NGOs to begin a
constructive and open dialogue that leads to a common strategy for ensuring that
conservation priorities are integrated into major infrastructure works and policies.
•
Support hotspot monitoring of conservation trends and parameters.
CEPF will support CI and partners in the collection and analysis of baseline
information to monitor the impact of current conservation projects and to identify
future priorities for the hotspot. As part of the initiative, CEPF will promote strategic
alliances to coordinate universities, governments, and NGOs on national and
regional efforts geared toward the exchange of tools and data for decision-making.
•
Foster the development of sustainable financing mechanisms.
Through an alliance between the Guatemala Trust Fund for Conservation (FCG),
local and international NGOs, and the government, CEPF has asked the group to
submit a full proposal to develop financial incentive mechanisms that support
conservation in the Petén and Cuchumatanes. The proposed grant will fund public
consultations, design of the mechanisms, and fund raising activities.
•
Promote conservation coffee in strategic locations throughout the region.
CEPF will support CI to communicate and transfer its experiences in promoting
conservation coffee in Mexico to other priority sites in the Northern Mesoamerica
where conservation coffee could be an important tool, particularly in Sierra Madre de
Chiapas, Cuchumatanes, Sierra de las Minas, and Selva Zoque. The potential grant
contributes to the Conservation Coffee Alliance, in which Starbucks, USAID, and CI
have agreed to work together to develop and promote best practices for producing
conservation coffee in Mesoamerica. CEPF plans call for engaging major NGOs in
Mexico and Guatemala in the initiative.
•
Identify new areas for public or private protection.
CEPF plans to support analysis dedicated to identifying new sites requiring
protection, as well as helping to lay the groundwork for declaring new private and
public reserves. Two grants in the pipeline to Birdlife International and its national
affiliates in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador will assist in identifying
7
Important Bird Areas (IBAs), which will be used as input to identify potential new
areas for protection.
Highlights to date
•
The Conservation International Center for Biodiversity Conservation (CBC) signed a four-year
agreement to serve as the CEPF coordination unit in Mesoamerica. The CBC adopts a new
model for conservation in the region in which technical experts in policy and business,
biodiversity science, and protected areas team up with corridor-level directors to provide an
integrated approach to conservation.
•
The Conservation Strategy Fund is currently conducting field trips throughout the hotspot to
inventory infrastructure projects that are being proposed under Plan Puebla - Panama. The
inventory will help prioritize which infrastructure schemes require additional analysis and support
from CEPF to ensure they consider biodiversity priorities.
•
A CI monitoring team held discussions with ten potential partners throughout the hotspot to
assess their current monitoring activities and capabilities and potential areas for future
collaboration. As a result, an upcoming letter of interest contemplates an alliance of local
partners working with CI to conduct hotspot-wide monitoring.
Working with The World Bank and GEF
Over the last year, several opportunities for World Bank – GEF – CEPF collaboration
have emerged. In Mexico, for example, the CEPF team held discussions with the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor to explore opportunities to collaborate on species and
habitat monitoring in the project’s focal areas. A formal agreement of cooperation is
under discussion, with the potential to secure additional financing to complement
CEPF’s investments in monitoring. Similarly on the issue of monitoring, the CEPF team
has been coordinating with The World Bank, NASA, and CCAS to develop and
implement the Mesoamerica Environmental Information System, which involves
information exchange, harmonization of protocols, and development of joint systems for
the early detection of fires.
Recently in Guatemala, the team participated in two workshops sponsored by The World
Bank and GEF. In November 2004, the team attended the Technical Workshop on
Protected Areas in Mesoamerica, in which the future role of the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor was discussed. In December, the CEPF team attended a GEF-World
Bank meeting in Antigua, Guatemala. The objectives of the meeting were to exchange
information on the GEF’s existing projects in the region, and to form strategic alliances
with other GEF initiatives with a view toward improving coordination. The CEPF team
learned about other GEF conservation projects in the region, and looks forward to
developing stronger linkages with these projects to ensure greater collaboration. As an
example of this stronger linkage, the CEPF team participated in a meeting this month in
the Petén regarding preparations of a new GEF proposal for the Maya Biosphere
Reserve.
Conclusion
By helping some of the most respected civil society groups build their capacity to
address Northern Mesoamerica’s formidable challenges to conservation, CEPF believes
that it has real potential to achieve lasting impacts to safeguard the region’s biodiversity
8
well into the future. The region faces historic opportunities with PPP and CAFTA, as
well as potentially historic roadblocks. The opportunity to collaborate more closely with
The World Bank and GEF on areas of mutual interest will significantly strengthen our
ability to influence the future direction of development and conservation policy in the
region.
Our collaboration is still emerging, although discussions between the CEPF team and
the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Mexico on potential areas of cooperation in
monitoring demonstrate that areas of mutual interest exist and need to be more fully
explored. CEPF’s comparative advantage is its ability to provide flexible and accessible
funds and technical assistance to support networks of NGOs at all levels, to achieve
conservation outcomes that were thoughtfully conceived. The World Bank and GEF
have years of experience and expertise in policy reform and institutional strengthening
across the sectors in this highly complex region. Projects such as the Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor are among the most important initiatives for conservation in the entire
hotspot. The CEPF team looks forward to building on our mutual strengths and interests
to explore how we can enter into a lasting partnership to reach our shared goals of
biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.
- January 2005
9
Charts: Mesoamerica Hotspot: Northern Mesoamerica
Chart 2. Approved Grants by Corridor and Strategic
Direction
Chart 1. Approved Grants by Corridor
.
2.5
$387,810
2
1. Foster civil society
participation
1.5
2. Collaboration w ith
other donor-funded
projects
Multiple
Selva Maya
1
3. Support priority
conservation actions
0.5
$1,549,644
0
Multiple
Chart 4. Combined Value of Grants Awarded
Chart 3. Portfolio Status by Corridor and Country*
$2,500,000
25
$2,000,000
20
$1,500,000
15
Approved
Pending
10
$1,000,000
Rejected
5
$500,000
0
$0
Guatemala
Mexico
Multiple
Selva Maya
*Small Grants are eligible to apply for grants in Guatemala and Mexico outside of the two priority corridors
Ju
l-0
4
Ju
l-0
4
Ju
l-0
4
Au
g04
Au
g04
Se
p04
Se
p04
O
ct
-0
4
O
ct
-0
4
N
ov
-0
4
N
ov
-0
4
# of Grants
Selva Maya
While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the
partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments are working toward
preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored and measured.
Therefore, the targets (hereafter ‘outcomes’), are the scientific underpinning for CEPF’s
geographic and thematic focus for investment in any given region.
Biodiversity is not measured in any single unit, but rather is distributed across a
hierarchical continuum of ecological scales. This continuum can be condensed into three
levels: species, sites, and landscapes. These three scales are admittedly arbitrary, and
interlock geographically through the presence of species in sites and of sites in
landscapes, but are nonetheless identifiable and discrete. Given threats to biodiversity at
each of these three levels, we can now set quantitative, justifiable, and repeatable targets
for conservation: “Extinctions Avoided”, “Areas Protected” and “Corridors Created”.
Conservation outcomes can be defined at three scales – species, site, and landscape –
reflecting a simplification of a complex hierarchical continuum of ecological scales. The
three scales interlock geographically through the presence of species in sites and of sites
in landscapes. They are also logically connected. If species are to be conserved, the sites
on which they live must be protected and the landscapes or seascapes must continue to
sustain the ecological services on which the sites and the species depend. As conservation
in the field succeeds in achieving these targets, they become demonstrable results or
outcomes: ‘Extinctions Avoided’ (species-level), ‘Areas Protected’ (site-level), and
‘Corridors Consolidated’ (landscape-level).
The definition of “Extinctions Avoided” outcomes requires knowledge of the
conservation status of individual species. Fortunately, this knowledge has been
accumulating over the last 40 years in the Red Lists produced by IUCN and partners.
Further, for the last decade, the Red Lists have been based on quantitative criteria under
which the probability of extinction is estimated for each species (all species on the Red
List have “a high probability of extinction in the medium-term future”). All birds have
now been assessed under these criteria (by BirdLife International), and mammals and
amphibians are currently undergoing similar comprehensive assessment. Other higher
taxa have yet to be fully assessed, although many other species are listed. All of these
data are freely, publically and electronically available on www.redlist.org. In the longer
term, endemic (“restricted-range”) species should also be added to the “Extinctions
Avoided” outcomes: species with small ranges have higher probabilities of extinction.
Once these targets for “Extinctions Avoided” outcomes have been set, much of the focus
of conservation attention can be shifted from the species to the site scale: most threatened
species are best conserved through the protection of physically and/or socio-economically
discrete areas of land. Identification of these sites - and hence definition of “Areas
Protected” conservation outcomes - requires point data on the distribution of threatened
(and endemic) species. For birds, such data have been compiled on a massive scale in
BirdLife’s Red Data Books, and subsequently synthesized in many regions (especially in
Africa and Europe) to identify key sites for protection as “Important Bird Areas”. For
mammals and amphibians, again, this process is ongoing; much work remains for other
taxonomic groups. An important clarification here is that the type of “protection” for any
given one of these “Important Biodiversity Sites” varies with the socio-economic context:
it could take the form of a national park, a private reserve, an indigenous territory, or
many other types of land tenure.
The definition of “Corridors Created” outcomes is the most complicated of the three.
Clearly, the conservation of landscapes necessary to allow the persistence of biodiversity
must be anchored on core protected areas, embedded in a matrix of other natural habitat
and of anthropogenic land uses. The delineation of conservation corridors will require
consideration of migration and minimum-area requirements of wide-ranging species, of
ecological and evolutionary gradients, of biogeographic pattern, and of resilience to
climate change and anthropogenic development scenarios. While strict criteria have yet to
be developed to encapsulate these characteristics, numerous conservation corridors and
landscapes have already been defined qualitatively, and provide an effective starting
point for the definition of “Corridors Created” outcomes.
A number of scientific and technical capabilities are required to allow the definition of
conservation outcomes at these three scales. The bulk of the work will necessarily be
founded on solid biological research, largely through literature review but supplemented
by targeted fieldwork where knowledge gaps are present. To ensure data standards and
accessibility, the data compiled from such exercises must then be entered into a
database, operating from a distributed platform and integrating spatial data, and hence
requiring knowledge management support. The definition of conservation outcomes also
requires significant GIS capacity, to enable mapping of species distributions, existing and
potential protected areas, and the configuration of conservation corridors (“outcome
maps”).
Defining conservation outcomes is a bottom-up process with a definition of species level
targets first, from which the definition of site-level targets is based. The process requires
detailed knowledge of the conservation status of individual species. Although this
information has been accumulating in global Red Lists produced by the IUCN and
partners for over 40 years, knowledge of the population status of most threatened species
is still very deficient.
For the past 10 years, the Red Lists have been based on quantitative criteria under which
the probability of extinction is estimated for each species. Species classified as
“threatened” on the Red List have a high probability of extinction in the medium term
future. These include the three IUCN categories Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered
(EN) and Vulnerable (VU). Defining outcomes is a fluid process and, as data become
available, species-level outcomes will be expanded to include other taxonomic groups
that previously had not been assessed, as well as restricted-range species. Avoiding
extinctions means conserving globally threatened species to make sure that their Red List
status improves or at least stabilizes.
Mesoamerica Hotspot: Northern Mesoamerica
Selva Maya
Strategic Direction 2: Collaborate with other donor-funded projects to facilitate and operationalize
successful conservation activities in Northern Mesoamerica’s eight most important key biodiversity
areas
Infrastructure Integration and Biodiversity Conservation in Mesoamerica
Conservation Strategy Fund
• Integrate conservation concerns into the planning of major infrastructure projects throughout
Mesoamerica by bringing together NGOs and government agencies for capacity building and analysis
of proposed projects. This grant supports an inventory of proposed major energy and transportation
projects, their ranking according to economic and environmental criteria, a conservation economics and
policy course, and three to five policy analyses of priority projects.
• $310,286.00
• Grant Term: 10/04-3/07
Strategic Direction 3: Support priority conservation actions in three priority key biodiversity areas
Needs Assessment for Conserving the Key Biodiversity Areas of Laguna del Tigre National Park and
Chiquibul-Montañas Mayas
Asociación Trópico Verde / ParksWatch Guatemala
• Conduct conservation assessments of Laguna del Tigre and Chiquibul-Montanas Mayas using
Parkswatch’s standard evaluation methodology. Grant will provide detailed information on threats,
stakeholders, management capacity, data gaps, and conservation status of biodiversity in these areas
for the purposes of planning and monitoring CEPF’s portfolio and other donor investments in these
rapidly changing regions.
• $37,524.00
• Grant Term: 9/04-2/05
Updating the Master Plan for Laguna del Tigre National Park: Definition of a New Model for Internal
Zoning
Wildlife Conservation Society -- Petén
• Update the management plan for Laguna Del Tigre National Park in Guatemala to put the park on a
stronger path toward conservation after years of degradation. Building on renewed government
commitment to the park, and working through an alliance of local nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and the Guatemalan park service, update the park’s zoning plan, develop an administrative
structure built on a co-management with Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas and local NGOs, and
prepare an investment plan.
• $40,000.00
• Grant Term: 9/04-5/05
Mesoamerica Hotspot: Northern Mesoamerica
Regional
Strategic Direction 4: Support efforts to prevent the extinction of Northern Mesoamerica’s 106
Critically Endangered species
Building the Northern Mesoamerica Corridor for Conservation and Sustainable Development
Conservation International
• Strengthen the capability of civil society to engage in all levels of decision-making regarding the future
use and conservation of Northern Mesoamerica’s biodiversity. Specifically, the grant funds several
outputs: assistance to manage the CEPF program in the region, development and implementation of
strategies to reform key policies, technical assistance to strengthen key protected areas, and
development of mechanisms to prevent the extinction of the region’s 106 species that are critically
endangered at the global level.
• $1,549,644.00
• Grant Term: 7/04-7/08
Perfil de Parque – Guatemala
Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre y Biotopo
Protegido Laguna del Tigre-Río Escondido
Trópico Verde
Fecha de la última evaluación de campo: Diciembre de 2004
Fecha de publicación:
Enero de 2005
Ubicación:
Municipio de San Andrés, departamento de
Petén, en la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya
Año de creación:
1986 el biotopo -1990 el parque nacional
Área:
335 080 ha
Eco-región:
Bosque húmedo de Tehuantepec
Hábitat:
Bosque alto y mediano, bosque de encino,
bosque de transición, sabanas inundables y
pantanos
Resumen
Descripción
El Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre y el Biotopo Protegido Laguna del Tigre-Río
Escondido están al norte de Guatemala, en el municipio de San Andrés, Departamento de
Petén. Creados en 1986 el biotopo y en1990 el parque, forman el área de conservación
estricta más grande de Guatemala, y constituyen el humedal protegido de mayor tamaño de
Centroamérica. Las extensas zonas que se inundan periódicamente le dan unas
características únicas, con grandes sabanas y bosques de transición entre estas y la selva. El
área está incluida en la Lista de Humedales de Importancia Internacional de la Convención
de Ramsar, donde ha sido agregada al Registro de Motreaux debido las amenazas humanas
que enfrentan.
Biodiversidad
Es hábitat de 40 especies de mamíferos, 188 especies de aves tanto residentes como
migratorias, 17 especies de anfibios y 55 especies de peces. Tiene las concentraciones más
altas de cocodrilo (Crocodylus moreletii) conocidas en Guatemala. Además de C. moreletii,
alberga otras especies endémicas regionales como el mono aullador (Alouatta pigra) y la
tortuga blanca (Dermatemys mawii). Entre los felinos destacan el jaguar (Panthera onca),
puma (Felis concolor) y tigrillo (Leopardus wiedii). Tres especies presentes en el área, la
tortuga blanca (D. mawii), el tapir (Tapirus bairdii) y el mono aullador (A. pigra) se
encuentran amenazadas a nivel global según la Lista Roja de UICN.
Amenazas
La Laguna del Tigre es un área amenazada críticamente que está fracasando en su objetivo
de proteger y mantener la diversidad biológica, y, a menos que se realicen acciones
urgentes, corre el riesgo de perderse en su totalidad en el futuro cercano. Las principales
amenazas provienen de la presencia humana permanente, que ocasiona serios problemas
con la expansión de la frontera agrícola y ganadera, la tala y el cambio de uso del suelo.
Las actividades ilegales como el tráfico de drogas, el paso de emigrantes indocumentados y
la venta de tierras del Estado hacen del área un lugar ingobernable.
1. Introducción
Resumen
Entre los meses de septiembre y diciembre de 2004 ParksWatch realizó una evaluación
rápida del estado de la Laguna del Tigre, un área de 334 080 ha que comprende el
Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre y Biotopo Protegido Laguna del Tigre-Río
Escondido, en el oeste de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya, Guatemala. El objetivo era
conocer el estado actual de manejo, conservación y amenazas en el área, prestando
especial atención a la situación en que se encuentran tres especies amenazadas incluidas
en la Lista Roja de UICN, el tapir o danta (Tapirus bairdii), la tortuga blanca
(Dermatemys mawii) y el mono aullador (Alouatta pigra). Esta evaluación forma parte
de un proyecto apoyado por el Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), mediante
el que se pretende obtener información confiable y al día sobre el estado de dos áreas de
biodiversidad clave en Guatemala y Belice.
El área está sufriendo grandes amenazas y existen evidencias de que porciones
importantes del parque están fracasando en su objetivo de conservar la diversidad
biológica que alberga. Aún cuando existe poca información sistemática sobre la
situación de las especies amenazadas a nivel global, reportes anecdóticos y la
información recogida durante la presente evaluación apuntan a que la destrucción del
hábitat, los incendios y la caza son las principales amenazas directas para su
conservación. Al menos la mitad del hábitat de alta calidad para el tapir (Tapirus
bairdii) y el mono aullador (Alouatta pigra) está fuertemente amenazado, y es probable
que las poblaciones de las tres especies hayan disminuido o estén localmente
erradicadas en la parte central y sur, en los alrededores de los lugares más poblados.
Las principales amenazas del área están relacionadas con la presencia humana
permanente –invasiones, cambio de uso, tala, caza, pesca, incendios forestales y otras–,
íntimamente ligada a la actividad petrolera que hay en su interior. La apertura de vías
de acceso ha facilitado actividades humanas en lugares remotos, y la situación social es
muy complicada, lo que dificulta el control y la investigación en áreas considerables del
área. La escasa voluntad política para enfrentar la raíz de los problemas y la impunidad
en la que permanecen los delitos de toda índole han provocado la falta de
gobernabilidad en el parque y el biotopo, que está siendo usurpado por grandes
terratenientes y sufre de actividades de narcotráfico.
La falta de personal y presupuesto limitó mucho el control del área en el pasado. Sin
embargo, el aumento del presupuesto debido al Decreto 16-2004 no ha mostrado ser tan
efectivo como se esperaba. La asignación de recursos no ha traído consigo el control
real del área por parte de las autoridades del Estado de Guatemala, y las perspectivas
más optimistas apuntan a que el parque perderá entre un 40% y 50% de su área, en
beneficio de los ocupante ilegales que la han ido usurpando desde su creación.
Debido a que las amenazas de la Laguna del Tigre están directamente relacionadas con
la presencia humana permanente y con la falta de gobernabilidad, sería de esperar que
las autoridades enfrenten estos problemas de manera prioritaria. Las líneas estratégicas
del manejo y la inversión en el área para los próximos cinco años deberían estar
encaminadas a retomar su control, poner orden en las actividades que se realizan en ella
y adecuarlas a la legislación existente, y a mejorar la capacidad de los administradores
para cumplir sus funciones. Los principales obstáculos que habrá que superar son la
escasa volunta política para la protección, la debilidad en el cumplimiento de las leyes y
la escasa información sobre el estado de la biodiversidad en el parque nacional y el
biotopo.
Cualquier actividad o inversión que se realice en la Laguna del Tigre va a ser altamente
insegura mientras no exista la certeza de la aplicación de la ley, y los administradores
junto con las autoridades del Gobierno de Guatemala no den muestras claras de
voluntad política para conservar el área. Por este motivo, se recomienda basar cualquier
inversión en indicadores posibles de medir y de verificar, que muestren avances en la
existencia de voluntad política en la conservación, y apoyar esfuerzos independientes
encaminados a informar e influir a los tomadores de decisión. Mientras no se logre el
control de las actividades ilegales es recomendable apoyar programas específicos de
control y vigilancia en el este y norte del parque nacional, incluyendo zonas fuera de él,
donde posiblemente existan las mejores posibilidades de proteger el hábitat de las
especies amenazadas a nivel global. Otra de las prioridades debe estar encaminada a
financiar programas de monitoreo e investigación sobre estas especies, de manera que
las decisiones sobre el área se basen en información biológica confiable.
Metodología
La evaluación se dividió en cuatro etapas. Una primera fase de revisión de literatura,
que inició antes de realizar los desplazamientos de campo. La finalidad era adquirir
información confiable sobre el área que ayudara a plantear hipótesis previas al trabajo
de campo, e iniciar un proceso preliminar de identificación de actores de interés en la
Laguna del Tigre. Tanto la revisión de literatura como la identificación de actores
fueron ampliándose a medida que se avanzaba en las entrevistas llevadas a cabo durante
la evaluación. Para realizar la evaluación se utilizó la metodología desarrollada por
ParksWatch, que por medio de un cuestionario va ayudando a entender de forma
sencilla la situación administrativa, de manejo y amenazas en que se encuentra el área
evaluada.
Previo a la visita a la Laguna del Tigre se realizó el diseño definitivo de la evaluación y
se afinaron las hipótesis de investigación. Para ello se intercambiaron impresiones con
el equipo interno de trabajo y se realizaron consultas a otras organizaciones con el fin de
elegir los lugares a visitar y coordinar otras actividades relacionadas con la evaluación y
la elaboración de información cartográfica. Una vez planteado el diseño definitivo se
iniciaron las primeras entrevistas con actores de interés o involucrados en el manejo del
área (ver listado adjunto) establecidos en Petén y en la ciudad de Guatemala.
Para la determinación del estado de las poblaciones de las tres especies de fauna
amenazadas a nivel global, se realizaron modelos simples basados en la metodología
aplicada en la zona por la Sociedad para la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (WCS).
Estos modelos están sustentados en la información existente sobre los diferentes hábitat
del parque, la pendiente en el área y la disposición de las fuentes de agua, que se
contrastó con la información disponible sobre la fenología de las tres especies. Con
posterioridad se realizó un mapa en el que se muestran los lugares potencialmente más
apropiados para las especies dentro de la Laguna del Tigre.
Durante la etapa de campo se visitó la mayoría del área, con especial énfasis en los
lugares más problemáticos y las zonas de control establecidos por el Consejo Nacional