External evaluation of LAC regional parks in peril [PiP] project

Midterm evaluation covers the period 1994-5/98. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is the implementing agency. Although the program is now in its eighth year, it remains urgent. The continuing alarm of World Conservation Union biologists at the threats to humanity posed by continuing losses of biodiversity (5-12% of all species known) is heightened by the combined pressures of population increases, rural poverty, and continued high rates of resource extraction in countries where PiP sites are located. On the positive side, countervailing changes have occurred in the last 8 years. Environmental awareness is on the rise, most governments are devoting more resources to environmental activities, and a region-wide mosaic of parks and protected areas has been created, of which PiP is one of the most significant components. In addition, democratic values are taking hold, and NGOs have grown in numbers and become significant advocates for conservation. PiP itself is structurally sound, the lack of a clear relationship between governments and the program being the only significant conceptual weakness. Programmatic strengths outweigh weaknesses, as do program achievements. Over two dozen "paper parks" have been turned into functioning protected areas; staff are well qualified, committed, and enthusiastic; many TNC activities and tools are very innovative, and TNC itself has learned from experience the necessity of engaging the issues of importance to communities in and around PiP sites. Also, a network of Latin conservation NGOs has been strengthened, and PiP is actively moving from donor-based to market-based financing and has successfully leveraged significant funds from other donors. The numerous lessons learned include the following: (1) By using the principles of adaptive management, PiP has successfully worked in a variety of settings and circumstances. (2) A 3-4 year time-frame for consolidating sites appears unrealistic, and there is no evidence that a set formula can work in all cases. The decision when to terminate USAID funding must be made on a case-by-case basis. (3) Over time, the relationship between TNC and its partners should grow from mutual dependency related to specific goals to mutual support for larger programs within coalitions. (4) Success in the policy arena requires operational cooperation between USAID, TNC, partners, and coalitions. In-country TNC coordinators seem critical in organizing and managing such efforts. (5) Financial planning for the long-term management of a site is essential and should be started from project outset. Basic protection and basic finance are inseparable elements of PiP site management. (6) Income- generating activities need to be treated as businesses and managed accordingly. It is unrealistic to expect community members, local partner organizations, and onsite managers to develop in a short time the skills needed to manage businesses successfully, particularly while carrying out their other duties. (7) Working with communities has changed their attitudes, often dramatically, toward the protected area. A good neighbor policy and demonstrated interest for the well-being of the neighbor has proven effective in gaining their support. (3) Because conservation is a social process, TNC must be very clear about its role and methods with respect to surrounding communities. TNC must focus on its core strengths, reach out to partners having complementary strengths, and find creative ways to attract financing from social development funds for community work. (5) A clear distinction is needed between activities aimed at community relations, community awareness, and development of alternative resource uses through economic activities. In each case, different interventions and strategies will be needed. (4) Strategies for developing urban constituencies for the PiP Program sites are sometimes as important as working with local communities. (5) Care needs to be taken that tools such as threat analysis, gender analysis, partner NGOs, rapid ecological assessments, the scorecard, and income-generating activities do not become ends in themselves. (6) Accommodate budgets to make room for unexpected events, such as natural disasters, changes in personnel, or new complications.