The Mexican Nature Conservation Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~b a I E n v i r o n m e n t F a c i I i t -: 20862 April 1999 The GEF recently completed an evaluation of Experience with Conservation Trust Funds. Trust funds have been set up in many developing countries during the past decade as a way to provide long- term funding for conservation of biological diversity. The majority were established as non-governmental organizations capitalized bv grants from governments and donor agencies, proceeds of debt-for-nature swaps, or taxes andfees specifically designatedfor conservation. Thefunds examined in the evalua- tion seek to provide more stable funding for national parks and other protected areas, or small grants to private organiizations and community groups for projects to conserve biodiversity by using resources more sustainably. Some also finance projects to expand understanding of conservation. One of the outstanding funds analvzed in the evaluation was the Mexican Nature Conservation Fund (FMCN). We are pleased to feature the Fund's experience in this issue of GEF Lessons Notes. We can draw important lessons and insightsfor the management of other conservation programs from FMCN's use offeedbackfrom its experience tofocus its grantprogram, its role as an advocatefor conservation in Mexico, its support of participative processes for setting conservation priorities, and its active efforts to create synergies among different grant-making programs. -Jarle Harstad Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator THE MEXICAN NATURE CONSERVATION FUND FMCN was established as a private, civil association under Mexican law in 1994. Its mission is to conserve the biodiversity of Mexico and ensure the sustainable use of its natural resources, through the promotion of strategic actions and medium- to long-term financial support. The Fund was created following extensive consultations throughout the country and with the strong support of the president of Mexico, the NGO community, and business lead- ers. FMCN has an 18-member board of directors of individuals selected to reflect diverse experience, professional abilities, and geographic and demo- graphic characteristics. Mexico's Secretary of Environment is an ex officio mem- ber. The Fund's standing committees on evaluation (project selection) and administration and finance are chaired by board members and involve a number of other people from Mexico's conservation com- munity. FMCN was capitalized with $10 million contributed by the Mexican government (part of which is still being paid) and $19.5 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Investment earnings from this endowment support a competitive grants program of approximately $2 million annually. In July 1997, FMCN received a $16.5 million GEF grant implemented by the World Bank to estab- Protected lish a Natural Protected Areas Fund (FANP). A new technical committee was created within the FMCN Areas Fund structure to oversee FANP operations. It is made up of seven members drawn from five sectors of soci- lets park ety (public, private, social, academic, and conservation groups). Since January 1998, earnings from the managers fund (about $1 million per year) have supported costs associated with the management of ten priority focus on protected areas. The Mexican government committed to provide a core staff of five people and an in- conservation  G E F L e s s o n s N o t e s creasing share of basic management costs in each area included in the program. Allocations from FANP, although relatively modest, have provided a basic sense of "resource security" to park managers-the assurance that their basic operating costs and staff salaries will be covered. This, in turn. has allowed them to retain staff and concentrate their attention on undertaking conservation activities, attracting project funding, and collaborating with communities and interested organizations. The allocation of trust fund resources to the parks in 1999 was determined in part on the basis of reserve size, population inhabiting the areas, and past performance under the program. Leadership in a National Priority-Setting Process Linking the field and When FMCN was established, there was little guidance available for focusing its grants program. national policy setting Mexico's efforts at national environmental planning had not produced clear guidelines or priorities for action. FMCN used feedback from its grantees and other people involved in conservation to help deter- mine where it should place its emphasis for greatest impact. It supported other organizations that could help community groups set their own priorities and objectives for conservation investments. And FMCN also saw the value of being linked to a larger national process. The Fund provided partial financial support for, and participated actively in, a national priority-setting process led by the National Council for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO). This process led to the identification of approxi- mately 150 priority areas for biodiversity conservation. Using Experience to Build a Focused Program Funding choices based FMCN's calls for proposals to its grant program have evolved based on experience. In the first year, on program goals and more proposals were received from academic institutions than NGOs and community groups. This was intended results not the mix the fund wanted. So they focused future requests for proposals on field-level activities, and financed workshops conducted by other organizations that helped their target groups prepare better proposals. The types of results FMCN hoped to achieve, and indicators to measure them, were spelled out for the grants program as a whole. In 1998, proposals were requested in three categories: (1) conser- vation of ecosystems and species, (2) sustainable use of natural resources, and (3) institutional strength- ening and environmental education. All conservation projects must be in areas identified as high priori- ties for biodiversity conservation by CONABIO or for species included in the government's endangered list or in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). FMCN has incorporated this experience in developing procedures for the newer GEF-supported Natural Protected Areas Fund. It used the "logical framework" planning and evaluation methodology to iden- tify-and set indicators to measure-the impacts the Fund expects to achieve in the ten areas. FMCN worked with national protected area system staff and each park's manager to develop a "logical frame- work" of inputs, outputs, purposes, and goals as the basis for their annual work plans and to determine the best use of funds allocated to them. Area managers report FANP is very effective at sharing best practices and encouraging three times a year to FANP and the national system headquarters top performance. One example: each reporting period, FANP se- on achievement of milestones in those frameworks. Funds are lects the outstanding progress report from the ten areas and cir- released when the reports are approved. The financial manage- culates it as a model to the managers of the other nine. ment and reporting systems developed in the ten FANP areas are being adopted more broadly throughout the national system. Promoting Participative Processes in the National Park System One of the objectives of the GEF project is to increase stakeholder input to national park manage- ment. This is accomplished through the active involvement of local technical advisory committees made up of communities, businesses, and interested organizations in each protected area included in the pro- gram. The committees were established in the mid-1990s. Initially, however, government officials were 2  G E F L e s s o n s N o t e s sometimes reluctant to consult meaningfully with them. The committees themselves often reacted nega- Increased tively when asked to review annual operating plans for protected areas based on management plans participation in developed without consideration of existing land use and ownership patterns or consultation with local protected area residents. plans FMCN has used its role as an important Where technical advisory committees are beginning to work, it is the result of years of building relation- source of funding to en- courage increased par- ships with local communities. Rfa Lagartos, one of the ten areas supported by the FANP, offers an tcipatin b . sehopd- example. This reserve occupies a thin slice of land and estuary at the northern tip of the Yucatan Penin- tsicipatin protctakehd- a sula. The "protected area" incorporates five established towns, many small farms, and a salt factory that plans. A key to this has has operated there for many years. The park director is in constant contact with local officials, fisher- been the Fund's suc- men, farmers, NGOs. and owners of the salt factory. It was not always so. Initially, the director saw his c e ss in developing function as enforcing government regulations. This met with predictable resistance. Only when he changed good working relation- his approach and genuinely engaged the community did the committee begin to become an effective ships with government. forum for consulting on conservation issues. His starring role on the local baseball team has also helped But as an independent, make him an influential member of the community. The committee in Rfa Lagartos is now a vehicle for credible, local organi- discussing not only the reserve's management and annual operating plans, but a range of related issues, zation, FMCN has including allegations of pollution by the salt factory. proven to be a more ef- fective advocate for putting into practice new principles like increased community participation than project-funded "coor- dination units" often are. Although some technical advisory committees are still not effectively en- gaged, in many areas community participation is noticeably greater since FMCN became involved in the protected areas program. Developing Links Among Grants Programs One important goal for FMCN is coordinating among its various grants programs and with those carried out by other organizations. Some grants in FMCN's portfolio support community groups work- ing in buffer zones of the ten protected areas supported by FANP. Accounting of FANP resources and hiring of park personnel is being contracted to NGOs beginning in 1999. The NGO carrying out these responsibilities in Ria Lagartos and the nearby Calakmul Biosphere Reserve also manages a project funded by FMCN to monitor marine turtle nesting sites in these two reserves. FMCN collaborates closely with CONABIO, which funds a grants program for environmental re- Fostering search and pilot projects in sustainable use of biodiversity. The two organizations consult to ensure that coordination among their activities are complementary and share information on performance of grant applicants. FMCN grants programs has also developed linkages with the GEF Small Grants Program, which supports community-based conservation projects in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, where four of the FANP areas are located. One of these projects was scaled-up and funded through FMCN for a second phase. These linkages help to foster synergies among the various grants programs, and encourage sharing of experience among the implementing organizations. Conclusion A combination of factors has led to the success of FMCN. They include: * governance structures involving all sectors of Mexican society; * development of and adherence to rigorous procedures for grant and protected areas programs that are considered to be fair and transparent; * proactive role in working with others involved in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity rather than building its own staff and overhead structures; 3  G E F L e s s o n s N o t e s * emphasis on results and learning from experience to focus its programs more clearly on its objec- tives; and * technical and financial support from important international organizations and donors. These factors have allowed FMCN to gain credibility with the Mexican government, NGOs, donors, and communities; to contribute substantially to national biodiversity planning; and to be well positioned to make a significant impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in Mexico. More infonnation about the Mexican Nature Conservation Fund can be obtained from Lorenzo Rosenzweig, Director General, Damas 49, San Jose Insurgentes, 03900 Mexico, D.F., telephone/fax: (525) 611-17-01, e-mail: fmlaros@datasys.com.mx. Information specifically about the FANP can be obtained from Renee Gonzalez, FANP Director (e-mail: fmrene@datasys.com.mx) and about FMCN's grants program from Jorge Rickards, FMCN's Technical Director (e-mail: finjorick@Cdatasys.com.nx). FMCN's site on the worldwide web is http://wwwv.fmcn.org. FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS We hope the GEF Lessons Notes series will be a catalyst for an ongoing dialogue on what is working, what is not, and how people involved in the GEF have found solutions to challenges that face all of us. We welcome your reactions to this edition. We would also like your suggestions of topics of interest to you. Please send us an e-mail at geflessons@gefweb.org-or contact us at the coordinates listed below. OTHER GEF MONITORING AND EVALUATION PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST The full report and a Summary Report of the evaluation of Experience with Conservation Trust x____ _ Funds are available on the GEF Web site (www.gefweb.org) or from the GEF Secretariat monitoring _ J and evaluation team. Earlier issues of GEF Lessons Notes can be also obtained from the GEF Web site or by writing to us. Two additional issues are based on the findings of the evaluation: GEF Lessons Note No. 5: When Is Conservation Best Served by a Trust Fund? (January 1999) GEF Lessons Note No. 6: Building Strategic Focus in a Conservation Trust Fund (February 1999) If you would like to be on the mailing list for regular receipt of GEF Lessons Notes, please contact our email address or the address below. Please let us know whether you wish to receive an electronic version or a hard copy, and which language (English, French, or Spanish) you would prefer. GEF Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation Program 1818 H Street, NW telephone: (202) 458-7387 Washington, DC 20433, U.S.A. fax: (202) 522-3240 email: geflessons@gefweb.org 4