docNorthern Mesoamerica Briefing Book
download 
Demanda 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 processesall 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
