defining common ground for the mesoamerican biological ...pdf.wri.org/mesoamerica_english.pdf · iv...

DEFINING COMMON GROUNDFOR THE MESOAMERICANBIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

Kenton Miller

Elsa Chang

Nels Johnson

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE

July 2001

ii DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

Carol RosenPublications Director

Hyacinth BillingsProduction Manager

Alfredo GarzónCover Design

The cover illustration portrays a landscape in which terrestrial and marine protected areas are connectedthrough corridors of natural or restored habitat and surrounded by buffer and multiple-use zones to ensurethe long-term conservation of biodiversity. In this vision, landscapes are managed for ecosystem services suchas clean water, soil stability, crop pollination, and carbon storage that directly benefit people. Many residentscontinue to rely on forestry, agriculture, and fisheries for their livelihoods but the expansion of biodiversity-friendly activities such as agroforestry, shade coffee, certified timber production, and ecotourism helps toimprove both environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

Each World Resources Institute Report represents a timely, scholarly treatment of a subject of public concern.WRI takes responsibility for choosing the study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedomof inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance of advisory panels and expert reviewers. Unlessotherwise stated, however, all the interpretation and findings set forth in WRI publications are those of theauthors.

Copyright © 2001 World Resources Institute. All rights reserved.

ISBN 1-56973-473-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2001093058

DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR iii

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments .................................................................... v

Acronyms ................................................................................. vi

Executive Summary ................................................................ vii

I. Introduction ...................................................................... 1Regional Background ....................................................... 1

Genesis of the MesoamericanBiological Corridor Initiative ......................................... 3

II. Understanding the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor ........................................................ 7Rationale ........................................................................... 7

The Mechanism: Differentiated Land-Use Zones ........... 8

Core ZonesBuffer ZonesCorridor (Connectivity) ZonesMultiple-Use ZonesDetermining Zone Extent

III. Strategic Challenges and Opportunities ..................... 13Reconciling Stakeholder Interests .................................. 13

Fostering Democratic Governance andEnabling Civil Society Participation ............................ 17

Catalyzing Information forParticipatory Decision-Making ................................... 20

Clarifying the Function ofMBC Land-Use Categories .......................................... 21

Addressing Property Rights andLand-Tenure Issues ...................................................... 23

Capturing Benefits from Ecosystem Goods and Services ................................................... 25

Harmonizing Institutional and Legal Frameworks and Promoting Intersectoral Cooperation ............... 27

Setting Investment and Management Priorities ........... 28

IV. Conclusions .................................................................... 31

About the Authors .................................................................. 33

Annex 1. Highlights of a Decade ofCentral American Environmental Achievementsand the Evolution of the MBC Initiative .............................. 34

Notes ........................................................................................ 35

References ............................................................................... 39

BoxesBox 1. Mesoamerica’s Unique Biological Heritage ........................ 1Box 2. Biodiversity-Friendly Agriculture ..................................... 9Box 3. Weaving Small Farmers into the Mesoamerican Corridor ........................................................... 10Box 4. The Campesino a Campesino Movement ..................... 15Box 5. Local Autonomy for Environmental Planning and Management in Cantón San Ramón, Costa Rica ................. 18Box 6. Collaborative Management of Sarstoon-Temash National Park in Belize ............................................................. 19Box 7. Land-Use Map Empowers Indigenous Group to Assert Land Rights in Honduras .......................................... 21Box 8. Land Rights and Ownership Issues in the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras ................................. 23Box 9. Land-Tenure Regimes and Deforestation in Petén, Guatemala ................................................................................ 24Box 10. Ecotourism and Community-Based Conservation in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary ........................... 26Box 11. Potential for Carbon Sequestration in the MBC .............. 27Box 12. A Tri-national Effort to Conserve Coastal Resources in the Gulf of Honduras ............................................................ 29Box 13. Environmental Services and Cattle Subsidies in Costa Rica ............................................................................ 30

FiguresFigure 1. Institutional Structure of the MBC Initiative ................. 4

MapsMap 1. Proposed Elements of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor ............................... front coverMap 2. Talamanca-Caribe Biological Corridor ................. back cover

TablesTable 1. Primary Goods and Services Provided by Mesoamerican Ecosystems .................................... 2Table 2. Protected Areas in Mesoamerica ..................................... 8Table 3. Examples of Desirable MBC Outcomes for Main Stakeholder Groups ........................................................ 14

iv DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

Foreword

participation in the planning and implementation ofthe MBC and options for increasing social andeconomic benefits from the MBC.

• Improving Human and Ecological Security. Thistheme will use the best available data to proposeways in which the MBC can anticipate changes indemography, climate, and species distributions(including invasive species) to help improve humanand ecological security in Mesoamerica during the21st century.

• Providing Timely Information for Decision-Making. This theme will assess critical data gaps,monitoring needs, and strategies for sharing infor-mation to support better decision-making by stake-holder groups and policy-makers.

These notes are intended to help relevant stakeholdersin Mesoamerica, including urban and rural residents,civic associations, private business, and governmentdecision-makers and planners-as well as internationaldonors with programs in the region-to better under-stand the implications of the MBC initiative and thedecisions needed to implement it. To this end, we hopethese notes will help readers articulate their ownexpectations of the economic, social, and environmentaloutcomes they would like the MBC to produce. Thisfirst note is based on field interviews and analysisconducted by a team of Central American experts andWRI staff. It examines the basic components of theMBC, the initiative’s implications for the interests of themajor stakeholder groups, and identifies some of themost pressing challenges that must be addressed if theMBC is to be translated into a widely supported andeffectively implemented program of action. The au-thors’ aim is not to prescribe solutions but to raiseawareness of the challenges ahead and to clarifyoptions for addressing them.

In 1999, the World Resources Institute (WRI) enteredinto a partnership with regional and national conserva-tion and development organizations active inMesoamerica—the region including the five southernstates of Mexico and the seven countries of CentralAmerica—to evaluate policy options for acceleratingimplementation of the Mesoamerican Biological Corri-dor (MBC). The MBC is a region-wide initiative in-tended to conserve biological and ecosystem diversityin a manner that fosters sustainable social and economicdevelopment. The goals of WRI’s partnership in theregion are: to broaden the constituency that activelysupports and implements the MBC; to highlight theMBC’s potential social and economic benefits; tofacilitate the use of accurate information in planningand decision-making; and to help decision-makersevaluate policy and investment priorities. This effortseeks to catalyze actions necessary to plan and imple-ment the MBC, by publishing a series of policy notes onkey issues raised by the initiative and organizing aseries of workshops and briefings for relevant decision-makers using the data and analysis presented in thesenotes. The publications and workshops will address thefollowing themes:

• Building a Shared Vision of the MBC Initiative.This theme introduces the MBC concept, examineshow the MBC affects different stakeholder groups,and identifies issues that must be addressed to buildwider support in the region.

• Maintaining Ecosystem Services. This theme willexamine the MBC’s potential to maintain ecosystemservices such as water flow and quality, carbonsequestration, and pollination. It will also exploreoptions for capturing revenue from beneficiaries ofecosystem services to support MBC development.

• Broadening Participation and Social Benefits. Thistheme will identify strategies for increasing public

DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR v

Acknowledgments

Báez, Mario Boza, Carlos Brenes, Gerardo Budowski,Silvel Elías, Randall García, Pascal Girot, DavidKaimowitz, Alexander Kastl, Jan Laarman, MartaMarín, Felipe Matos, Ronald McCarthy, HuberthMéndez, Jorge Rodriguez, Karla Rojas, and AlvaroUgalde. Special thanks are due to Lenin Corrales, whohas facilitated data and information gathering from theregion and offered extensive feedback on the project.

We would also like to express our gratitude to thereviewers of the final draft of this paper, includingMairi Dupar, Jaime Echeverria, Anthony Janetos, JimNations, and Dan Tunstall, for their comments andsuggestions. We wish to thank Lucy Dorick, Paul Faeth,Tony La Viña, and Frances Seymour for their adviceand for helping us obtain project support.

We appreciate the support of the Summit Foundationand the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who havegenerously funded WRI’s project on the MesoamericanBiological Corridor. We thank the Swiss DevelopmentAgency for Cooperation for allowing us to build thisproject on a previously funded WRI regional projectsupporting improved governance of natural resources.

We would also like to express gratitude to our researchassistant, Amanda Ritchie, who carried out an extensiveliterature review and helped to draft some of the textboxes, and to Bret Bergst, Cecilia Blasco, and MelissaBoness for valuable research and administrative sup-port. We are grateful to Mathilde Snel for reproducingand adapting the MBC maps in our GIS lab, AlfredoGarzón for designing the cover illustration, and GeorgeFaraday and Patricia Ardila for their interest and fortheir editorial and translation support. Finally, weappreciate the production support provided by Hya-cinth Billings and Maggie Powell, and technical supportfrom CATIE (particularly Carlos Manuel Rodríguez,Pedro Ferreira, and Eli Rodríguez) and WWF-CentralAmerica (particularly Oscar Brenes, Miguel Cifuentes,and Steve Gretzinger) to print this publication in CostaRica.

This publication was made possible with the support,insight, advice and information provided by manyorganizations and individuals. Special thanks are dueto our core team of Central American consultants, GalioGurdián, Roger Morales, and Raúl Solórzano for theirassistance in preparing background papers; and to JuanCarlos Godoy—Guatemala’s National TechnicalLiaison for the MBC—for his advice and continuousguidance.

We are also much indebted to the University for Peace,CATIE and WWF-Central America, GTZ-Costa Rica,UNDP in Nicaragua, and USAID’s PROARCA/CAPAS.Their contributions of time, office space, insight, andlogistical support to the project have been crucial to ourresearch and travel in the region. We are also grateful tothe many organizations, colleagues, and friends in-volved in conservation and development projects inCosta Rica and Guatemala (particularly in theTalamanca-Caribe Corridor, the Arenal ConservationArea, the Maya Biosphere Reserve in the Petén, and inQuetzaltenango, Totonicapan, and Lake Atitlán) forsharing their experiences, hopes, and dreams for theMBC initiative. Their knowledge and enthusiasm hasbroadened our understanding of the MBC and reaf-firmed our commitment to the struggle for conservationand sustainable development in Mesoamerica.

Earlier drafts of this publication were reviewed by awide range of stakeholders in Central America whoattended a consultation workshop in October 2000 atthe University for Peace, Costa Rica, which includedrepresentatives from nongovernmental organizations,academic institutions, community and farmers’ groups,government agencies, project staff, and the donorcommunity. We appreciate the ideas and suggestionsshared at the workshop, which have helped us toimprove the usefulness of this publication. Specifically,we would like to thank Lorenzo Cardenal and the corestaff of the CCAD’s MBC Regional Office CoordinatingUnit in Managua, the eight MBC National TechnicalLiaisons, staff from the MBC office in Costa Rica, Ana

vi DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

Acronyms

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentFondo Internacional para el Desarrollo Agrícola

ILRC Indian Law Resource CenterCentro de Recursos Jurídicos para los Pueblos Indígenas

INBio Instituto Nacional de BiodiversidadNational Institute for Biodiversity, Costa Rica

IUCN World Conservation UnionUnión Mundial para la Naturaleza

MBC Mesoamerican Biological CorridorCorredor Biológico Mesoamericano

MOPAWI Mosquitia Pawisa, Honduras

PNUD Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el DesarrolloUnited Nations Development Programme

PNUMA Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio AmbienteUnited Nations Environment Programme

PROARCA/ Programa Ambiental Regional para Centroamérica/CentralCAPAS American Protected Areas System

Regional Environmental Program for Central America/CentralAmerican Protected Areas System

PROARCA/ Programa Ambiental Regional para Centroamérica/Coastal ZoneCOSTAS Management Component

Regional Environmental Program for Central America/CoastalZone Management Component

SATIIM Sarstoon Temash Institute of Indigenous ManagementInstituto Sarstoon Temash de Manejo Indígena

SICA Sistema para la Integración CentroamericanaCentral American Integration System

SICAP Sistema Centroamericano de Areas ProtegidasCentral American Protected Areas System

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammePrograma de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo

UNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammePrograma de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente

USAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentAgencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional

WCMC World Conservation Monitoring CentreCentro Mundial de Monitoreo de la Conservación

WCS Wildlife Conservation SocietySociedad para la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre

WRI World Resources InstituteInstituto de Recursos Mundiales

WWF World Wildlife FundFondo Mundial para la Naturaleza

ALIDES Alianza Centroamericana para el Desarrollo SostenibleCentral American Alliance for Sustainable Development

APPTA Asociación de Pequeños Productores de TalamancaSmall Farmers Association of Talamanca

CATIE Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y EnseñanzaTropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center

CCAB-AP Consejo Centroamericano de Bosques y Areas ProtegidasCentral American Council on Forests and Protected Areas

CCAD Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y DesarrolloCentral American Commission for Environment and Development

CCC Caribbean Conservation Corporation

CEDARENA Centro de Derecho Ambiental y de los Recursos NaturalesCenter for Environmental Law and Natural Resources

CI Conservation InternationalConservación Internacional

CICAFOC Coordinadora Indígena Campesina de Agroforestería ComunitariaCoordinator of Indigenous Farmers for Community Agroforestry

CIDA Canadian International Development AgencyAgencia Canadiense para el Desarrollo Internacional

CIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCentro para la Investigación Forestal Internacional

CONAP Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas, GuatemalaGuatemala’s National Council for Protected Areas

CRAAN Comisión Regional Autónoma del Atlántico NorteNorthern Atlantic Autonomous Region Commission

CRAAS Comisión Regional Autónoma del Atlántico SurSouthern Atlantic Autonomous Region Commission

DESFIL Development Strategies for Fragile LandsEstrategias de Desarrollo para Tierras Frágiles

DGMA Dirección General del Medio AmbienteGeneral Directorate for the Environment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsOrganización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y laAlimentación

FEMICA Federación de Municipios del Istmo CentroamericanoFederation of Central American Municipalities

FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias SocialesLatin American Faculty of Social Sciences

GEF Global Environment FacilityFondo Mundial para el Medio Ambiente

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammenarbeitAgencia de Cooperación Técnica Alemana

DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR vii

Executive Summary

approach aims to maximize the conservation functionsof protected wildlands by promoting forms of land-usein the wider landscape that offer both conservationbenefits and sustainable livelihoods. Guided by thisrationale, the MBC’s planners have endorsed four land-use zones: Core Zones, Buffer Zones, Corridor Zones,and Multiple-Use Zones. This paper discusses thecharacteristics of each zone-type as well as the criteriathat should be used for assigning land to each.

Core Zones are locations designated as protected areas,designed to provide secure habitats for wild fauna andflora. Buffer Zones surround protected areas andfunction to filter out negative impacts moving into andout from these areas. Corridor Zones link core areaswith one another, and either remain under wild cover,or are managed to ensure that human land-uses arecompatible with the maintenance of a high degree ofbiological connectivity. Finally, Multiple-Use Zones areareas devoted primarily to human use, but managed tofacilitate the creation of broader landscapes that arehospitable to wild species. As part of an integratedsystem for regional land-use, each type of zone pro-vides both ecological and socioeconomic benefits.

Planning and implementing the MBC effectively willrequire that several strategic challenges be addressed.Eight are considered here:

1. Reconciling Stakeholder Interests;

2. Fostering Democratic Governance and EnablingCivil Society Participation;

3. Catalyzing Information for Participatory Decision-Making;

4. Clarifying the Function of MBC Land-Use Catego-ries;

5. Addressing Property Rights and Land-Tenure Issues;

6. Capturing Benefits from Ecosystem Goods andServices;

7. Harmonizing Institutional and Legal Frameworksand Promoting Intersectoral Cooperation;

8. Setting Investment and Management Priorities.

The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor is a regionalinitiative launched in Central America and southernMexico that aims to conserve biological diversity whilefostering sustainable development. Its particularsignificance lies in the scope and complexity of its goalsand the wide range of institutions and social actors itinvolves. These characteristics give the MBC greatpromise; however, they also present major challengesthat will have to be addressed if the initiative is to havea positive impact on the region. Most centrally, theinitiative’s success requires the development of a sharedvision of its goals and functions—a vision that recog-nizes the divergent needs at stake and identifies thecommon interest all regional actors share in achievingecological and socioeconomic sustainability. The abilityto build trust and confidence among various stakehold-ers of the MBC will, in the end, determine its fate. Thispaper aims to contribute to the building of such avision, not by prescribing solutions, but by raisingissues and suggesting processes within which theseissues can be addressed.

The need for a comprehensive response toMesoamerica’s environmental problems is pressing.The region possesses one of the world’s richest concen-trations of biological resources, but the viability of theseresources is threatened by economic underdevelop-ment, social inequality, and population pressure. Avicious cycle of environmental degradation and socio-economic stagnation exists. In the last decade, however,these issues have received increased attention fromregional decision-makers, a trend culminating in thelaunching of the MBC. This initiative has become thefocus of significant inflows of donor assistance, andinspired numerous field projects in the region. Never-theless, stakeholders and policy-makers remain dividedand uncertain about the MBC’s goals and benefits, andwary of its likely impact on their interests.

The rationale that lies behind the MBC arose fromconservation biologists’ growing awareness of the needto maintain links between biological habitat areas toensure species survival. This recognition has stimulatedthe development of a holistic approach to the relation-ship between wild and human-impacted land. Such an

viii DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

1. Reconciling Stakeholder Interests: The MBC aimsto improve biological conservation in theMesoamerican region, while delivering benefits to awide range of rural and urban social groups. It will,therefore, require consensus among public agencies atregional, national, and local levels; the private sector;conservationists; civil society organizations; and ruraland indigenous populations. The benefits that each ofthese major stakeholder groups is likely to seek fromthe initiative are identified, and strategies for buildingcooperative relationships among these groups areoutlined.

2. Fostering Democratic Governance and EnablingCivil Society Participation: The MBC is being imple-mented in a regional political context marked by effortsto consolidate democracy, decentralize public decision-making, and increase opportunities for participationby civil society groups. Its planners must take theseprocesses into account; in doing so they also have theopportunity to position the MBC as a key mechanismfor deepening democratization within Mesoamerica.

3. Catalyzing Information for Participatory Decision-Making: The MBC’s success will depend on the collec-tion and dissemination of accurate, relevant, andappropriate information to the broad array of decision-makers and stakeholders involved. At present, there aresevere limitations in the types of information availableand the mechanisms for its distribution. These short-comings must be addressed, at both technical andpolitical levels, if meaningful stakeholder participationis to be achieved.

4. Clarifying the Function of MBC Land-Use Catego-ries: The use of an integrated scheme for the functionalzoning of land use lies at the heart of the MBC’s pro-posed strategy. To be effective, therefore, these catego-ries must be well understood and effectively applied.The contribution of each zone should be well defined,taking into account its function within the overallscheme for land use.

5. Addressing Property Rights and Land-TenureIssues: The MBC raises questions regarding land rightsthat have long plagued Mesoamerican society. Long-term approaches to land use can only thrive if securetitle is recognized, an issue of particular importance tothe region’s indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, securityof land-tenure is no ecological panacea. The problem ofunsustainable exploitation strategies must be addressedby also strengthening the broader economic incentivesfor sustainable land use.

6. Capturing Benefits from Ecosystem Goods andServices: Mesoamerica’s ecosystems produce a rangeof vital goods and services to human populations. Atpresent, however, these benefits are undervalued froman economic standpoint, and often are neither sharedwith rural populations, nor reinvested in ecosystemmaintenance. Potential strategies to address theseproblems, such as carbon sequestration credits,ecotourism, and sustainable agriculture, are discussed.

7. Harmonizing Institutional and Legal Frameworksand Promoting Intersectoral Cooperation: Implement-ing the MBC requires actions coordinated across policysectors and at a variety of geographic levels. Currentlegal and institutional frameworks are isolated andoften provide conflicting approaches to identical issues.The environmental agencies most directly involved inthe initiative will have to establish unified responses tothe MBC’s goals. To this end, there is an urgent need toestablish mechanisms for intersectoral cooperation andalliance-building. In addition, many of the regions’environmental issues span national boundaries, requir-ing the development of crossnational governancearrangements.

8. Setting Investment and Management Priorities:Although the financial resources already committed tothe MBC are substantial, they are nevertheless finite,while the range of potentially relevant investmenttargets is vast. Human and financial resources will haveto be prioritized so that the most urgent problems areaddressed cost-effectively. At present, for instance,coastal issues appear to have been marginalized, whileno-cost opportunities for fostering eco-sustainableeconomic activities should be considered, such astransferring existing subsidies rather than introducingnew ones.

The paper concludes by outlining a possible scenariofor launching the kind of strategic, yet inclusive reviewof the MBC’s goals and strategies called for here. Pilotparticipatory action plans could be initiated within eachMesoamerican country. Stakeholders would convene toidentify a national site for a pilot project, the majorissues involved, and a strategy for addressing them.This option would facilitate a two-way communicationprocess—contributing to an understanding of the MBC,while providing MBC planners with feedback regard-ing local needs and desires. The MBC now stands at acritical threshold between concept and reality. Its visionwill not be realized unless most of the region’s peopleunderstand the MBC’s purpose and commit to its goalsand objectives.

DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR 1

Box 1. Mesoamerica’s Unique Biological Heritage

Comprising the five southern states of Mexico and theCentral American countries of Guatemala, Belize, ElSalvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, andPanama, the Mesoamerican region covers 768,990square kilometers. Its natural ecosystems range fromcoral reefs and lowland rainforests to pine savannas,semi-arid woodlands, grasslands, and high mountainforests, constituting about 22 distinct “ecoregions”according to biogeographers. Although the regioncontains only 0.5 percent of the world’s land surface,because of the variety of its ecosystems and its location,which links the Americas’ northern and southernbiotas, Mesoamerica is home to a disproportionateshare—about 7 percent—of the planet’s biologicaldiversity.

Panama, for example, has 929 species of birds — morethan Canada and the United States combined. Belize, atiny country of 22,965 square kilometers (half the sizeof Denmark) is home to more than 150 species ofmammals, 540 species of birds, and 152 species ofamphibians and reptiles. Mexico possesses the world’slargest variety of reptiles (717) and 4,000 species ofplants used for medicinal purposes. In Guatemala’shigh central mountains, nearly 70 percent of thevascular plants are endemic. The Mesoamerican BarrierReef, which runs for 1,600 kilometers along the coastsof Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras, is theworld’s second largest coral reef system, while theregion contains 8 percent of the world’s mangroveforests. Mesoamerica is also considered to be one of theworld’s most important centers of origin for agricul-tural crops: its indigenous peoples bred maize, squash,various beans, and chili peppers from wild speciesendemic to the region.

Sources: INE/SEMARNAP 1996; CCAD 1998a, 1998b,2000a; Windevoxhel et al. 1998; UICN 2000.

I.Introduction

The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) is aregion-wide initiative intended to conserve biologicaland ecosystem diversity in a manner that fosterssustainable social and economic development. Itsspecific aims are to (a) protect key biodiversity sites; (b)connect these sites with corridors managed in such away as to enable the movement and dispersal ofanimals and plants; and (c) promote forms of social andeconomic development in and around these areas thatconserve biodiversity while being socially equitableand culturally sensitive. Putting this vision into practiceis a complex and ambitious task that must involve awide range of actors, including national and localgovernments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),local communities, and international donors.

Regional Background

There are pressing reasons for such an initiative. TheMesoamerican region possesses one of the richestconcentrations of species and ecosystem diversity in theworld. (See Box 1.) From political, social, and economicstandpoints, however, the region has been far lessfortunate. Although the civil conflicts of recent decadeshave come to an end, the human and material destruc-tion they wrought has exacerbated long-standingproblems of social inequality, economic underdevelop-ment, and environmental decline. Currently, almost halfthe population remains below the poverty line andmany lack access to basic healthcare, education, andclean water.1 Moreover, Mesoamerica’s population isgrowing rapidly—at over 2 percent per annum from1995 to 2000—and despite rapid urbanization, themajority of the region’s inhabitants still live in thecountryside and depend directly on biological resourcesfor subsistence (State of the Region 1999, INEGI 2000,World Bank 2000).2

This rapid growth, combined with the continueddependence of much of the population on agriculture,and high levels of poverty, has led to unsustainableexploitation of natural resources, widespread water

2 DEFINING COMMON GROUND FOR THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

pollution, soil erosion, sedimentation, and deforesta-tion. By the mid-1990s, the region was losing an esti-mated 2.1 percent of its forests every year—one of thehighest rates in the world (FAO 1999).3 More than halfof Mesoamerica’s forests have been lost and approxi-mately 90 percent of its primary or “frontier” forestshave been logged, converted to agriculture, or replacedwith tree plantations (Bryant et al. 1997). Similar habitatlosses have occurred in other ecosystems, including theregion’s coastal mangroves, coral reefs, grasslands, andwetlands (Burke et al. 2000, Matthews et al. 2000,Revenga et al. 2000). The scale and speed of habitat loss

and fragmentation in one of the world’s biologicallyrichest areas, has led many conservationists to considerMesoamerica one of the world’s biodiversity “hotspots”(Mittermeier et al. 2000).

Furthermore, the impact of human activities on theregion’s ecosystems is jeopardizing the limited levels ofeconomic and social welfare already achieved. Inaddition to goods such as timber, fuelwood, and fish,Mesoamerica’s major ecosystems provide the region’speople with valuable services, such as water filtration,carbon sequestration, and pollination of crops. (See Table

Table 1. Primary Goods and Services Provided by Mesoamerican Ecosystems Ecosystem

Goods

Services

Agroecosystems • Food crops • Fiber crops • Crop genetic resources

• Provide habitat for birds, pollinators, soil organisms important to agriculture

• Build soil organic matter • Capture and store atmospheric carbon

Coastal Ecosystems

• Fish and shellfish • Fishmeal • Seaweed • Genetic resources

• Moderate storm impacts (mangroves, barrier islands) • Dilute and treat wastes • Provide harbors and transportation routes

Forest Ecosystems • Timber • Fuelwood • Drinking and irrigation water • Fodder for livestock • Non-timber products (vines,

bamboo, leaves, etc.) • Food (honey, mushrooms, fruit

and other edible plants, game) • Genetic resources

• Remove air pollutants • Recycle nutrients • Maintain watershed functions (infiltration, purification, flow

control, soil stabilization) • Maintain biodiversity • Capture and store atmospheric carbon • Moderate weather extremes and impacts • Generate soil

Freshwater Ecosystems

• Drinking and irrigation water • Fish • Hydroelectricity • Genetic resources

• Buffer water flow (control timing and volume) • Dilute and carry away wastes • Cycle nutrients • Maintain biodiversity • Provide transportation corridors

Grassland Ecosystems

• Livestock • Drinking and irrigation water • Genetic resources

• Maintain watershed functions • Cycle nutrients • Remove air pollutants, emit oxygen • Maintain biodiversity • Generate soil • Capture and store atmospheric carbon

Source: WRI 2000.


1.) When these ecosystems are degraded with respect towater quality functions, for example, it may be neces-sary to invest large amounts in water treatment andfiltration plants to replace the “ecosystem services” thathave been lost. The present trend of growing ecosystemoverexploitation and degradation will impose increas-ingly large economic costs on the region as clean andreliable water supplies become more scarce, fisherystocks decline, flooding and drought become moresevere, and wildlife disappears.4

Hurricane Mitch and the forest fires that burned widelyacross Mesoamerica in 1998 dealt a further blow to theenvironment and people of the region. These eventsclaimed thousands of lives, destroyed infrastructure,devastated agricultural lands, altered ecosystems andlandscapes on an unprecedented scale, and seriously setback economic development, especially in Honduras,Guatemala, and Nicaragua (CCAD-PFA/EU 1998,Barraclough and Moss 1999, World Neighbors 2000). AsHurricane Mitch illustrated, human vulnerability tonatural disasters has been exacerbated by the stress thatover-use has placed on ecosystem health.

Genesis of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Initiative

The present MBC initiative is the result of a growingrecognition of the need to develop an integratedregional approach to Mesoamerica’s environmentalproblems. Its development was facilitated by theending of civil conflicts following the negotiation ofcease-fires and the inception of peace processes in theearly 1990s. As the peace process moved forward, thereversal of environmental degradation and conserva-tion of biodiversity became an important part ofnational and regional policy agendas. As public aware-ness of the importance of environmental protectionincreased, domestic and international conservationgroups stepped up collaborative efforts with theregion’s governments to slow deforestation and protectthreatened habitats. International attention toMesoamerica’s environmental issues also grew, result-ing in financial support from international developmentagencies and conservation groups. Environmental andTropical Forest Action Plans were implemented andhundreds of protected areas—taking in approximately11.5 million hectares of land—created, as countriesdesignated new national parks, biological and forestreserves, wildlife refuges, and biosphere reserves aspart of the Central American Protected Areas System(Sistema Centroamericano de Areas Protegidas, SICAP)(CCAD 1998a, UICN 2000).

The legal and institutional frameworks governingenvironmental issues also changed significantly in thisperiod. At the national level, governments establishedagencies to oversee environment and natural resourcespolicy formation and administration. At the regionallevel, Central America’s presidents signed the CharterAgreement for the Protection of the Environment in1989, resulting in the establishment of the CentralAmerican Commission on Environment and Develop-ment (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo,CCAD) (CCAD 1989). The CCAD embodies a unifiedvision for regional environmental cooperation withinwhich the quality of life of Central Americans will beimproved through rational use of natural resources,pollution control, and the reversal of environmentaldegradation.5

The UN Conference on Environment and Developmentin 1992, and the adoption of the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity and the Framework Convention onClimate Change, inspired Central American countriesto reach a number of regional agreements forbiodiversity conservation, protection of priority naturalareas, and forest management (CCAD 1993, WRI 1995).6

In 1994, the Central American Ecological Summit inNicaragua culminated with the proclamation of theCentral American Alliance for Sustainable Develop-ment (Alianza Centroamericana para el DesarrolloSostenible, ALIDES)—a plan to promote peace, consoli-date democracy, and protect the environment (CCAD1994). ALIDES committed the governments of theregion to a series of environmental measures, includingthe consolidation of SICAP and the establishment of acomprehensive system of biological corridors. At thesame time, these environmental efforts were alsointended to address the region’s socioeconomic needs.7

The present Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC)initiative8 grew out of a regional wildland conservationeffort introduced in 1994 by a consortium of interna-tional conservation organizations.9 This effort, calledthe Paseo Pantera (Path of the Panther) project, sought toconserve biodiversity by linking protected areas fromsouthern Mexico to Panama using “corridors” ofnatural and restored habitats (Carr et al. 1994). (See Map1.) Over the next five years, the concept behind thePaseo Pantera project was broadened in scope to formthe basis for the MBC, which was now seen as aninstrument for integrating sustainable developmentwith ecological protection on a region-wide scale. Withthe decision that the southern five states of Mexicowould participate in the initiative, it was redesignatedthe Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and publiclyendorsed by regional heads-of-state at a summit in


1997, following a series of national consultationspromoted by the CCAD.10 This declaration of supportrepresented a commitment at the highest political levelto the development of a land-use planning system thatwould improve the lives of Central Americans whilemaintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services.Endorsement of the initiative also represented a signifi-cant step by the governments of the region towardhonoring their global commitments under the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity and also—given the MBC’simplications for increased carbon storage through forestconservation and regeneration—the Framework Con-vention on Climate Change.

The responsibility for coordinating regional planningand implementation of the MBC was assigned to theCCAD. (See Figure 1.) With financial support from theUNDP’s Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the

German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), theCCAD launched a six-year, multi-million-dollar re-gional project, Programa Regional para la Consolidación delCorredor Biológico Mesoamericano.11 When funding for theproject was approved in 1999, CCAD established theMBC Regional Office Coordinating Unit (ROCU) inManagua, Nicaragua, which assumed responsibility forworking with the designated national technical liaisonsin each of the eight Mesoamerican countries to plan,coordinate, monitor, and evaluate strategic policies andactions for MBC implementation (CCAD 1999).12

Since its establishment, ROCU has worked with thenational technical liaisons to develop operational plansand a comprehensive strategy to coordinate andmobilize action for MBC implementation. CCAD hasalso encouraged coordination of international and

Figure 1. Institutional Structure of the MBC Initiative

Sources: Earth Council et al. 1997; CCAD 2000a.

1 In addition to the primary institutions listed, there are many national and local organizations contributing to theconsolidation of the MBC.

General Secretariat - Central American Integration System

(SG-SICA)

Heads of State

Ministers of Foreign Affairs

Economic Directorate

Social Directorate

Cultural Education Directorate

Environmental Directorate

General Secretariat

Strategic objectives and actions

Water Environmental Management

Clean Production

Forests and Biodiversity

Council of Environmental Ministers

MBC Regional Project funded by UNDP-GEF/GTZ

Primary organizations contributing to the MBC1

MBC Initiative

Economic Ecological

Social

Central AmericanCountries and Mexico

WWF

CATIEGTZ

WBIUCN

CICAFOC

WRITNC

USAIDWCS

GEFUNEP - UNDP

CICCAD


national technical and financial commitments to MBCactivities, including the development of action andmanagement plans for transnational terrestrial andmarine/coastal sites and protected areas, institutionalstrengthening, training, and education. The MBC hasreceived support from a broad spectrum of develop-ment and conservation organizations, which areimplementing a wide variety of projects relevant to theMBC’s goals at a range of geographic levels and ad-dressing diverse issues. For instance, the NatureConservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and University ofRhode Island (funded by USAID) are focusing onconservation and management of the MesoamericanBarrier Reef System,13 while USAID’s Regional Environ-mental Program for Central America (PROARCA) issupporting a set of activities aimed at strengthening theCentral American Protected Areas System, SICAP.National and local-level projects are also underway. InCosta Rica, the national MBC office is coordinatingefforts by non-governmental organizations to establishthe biological corridors of Paso de la Danta—betweenprotected areas on the Osa Peninsula and theTalamanca Mountain Range, and Corredor Barbilla—connecting indigenous reserves, protected areas,wetlands, and coastal zones (CBM-CR 2000). Addition-ally, the World Bank is engaged in developing theAtlantic Biological Corridor in Nicaragua and Panama,while the Nature Conservancy, in collaboration withCentral American partners, is working to establish localbiological corridors between Sierra de Lacandón andLaguna del Tigre National Parks in Petén, Guatemala.

Despite this range of activity, questions remain amongregional stakeholders concerning the structure, goals,and impacts of the MBC. The Paseo Pantera projectproposal, which was defined mostly in terms of biologi-cal outcomes, worried many local residents, especially

indigenous groups, who feared expropriation of theirancestral lands and the expansion of protected areasonto their territory. The broadening of the MBC’s scopeto incorporate socioeconomic goals was in part aresponse to these fears. However, conservationists havebecome concerned that the MBC is taking on social andeconomic problems that it cannot solve, thus creatingunrealistic expectations. Meanwhile, the environmentalagencies have been accused by other sectors of govern-ment and independent groups of using the MBCprimarily for political leverage and as a marketing toolto capture donor investments.

If the MBC is to fulfill its promise, these diverse inter-ests and concerns will have to be taken into account.Many of the stakeholder groups critical to its imple-mentation at the local level—indigenous groups, smalland large farmers, local governments, and privatebusinesses—will condition their support on the socialand economic benefits they expect it to provide(McCarthy and Salas 1998; Gurdián 2000; WRI fieldvisits, with added contributions from Raúl Solórzano,Roger Morales, and Juan Carlos Godoy 1999-2000).Equally, the significant political and financial commit-ments governments and international donors havemade to the MBC stem from their belief that it iscapable of addressing a wide array of problemsthrough an “environmentally-driven package ofdevelopment services” (CCAD 2000b).

The collaboration of these actors is vital if the MBCinitiative is to have a positive impact on the humanwelfare and ecological security of the region. Thus, themajor challenge now is to build a widely shared andholistic understanding of how the MBC initiative canbenefit both people and nature. The aim of this paper isto facilitate this process.


II.Understanding the MesoamericanBiological Corridor

the local extinction rate accelerates (Bennett 1999).Evidence is already emerging that human-inducedclimate change is exacerbating these problems.

Recognizing the practical and ethical problems in-volved in creating sufficiently large contiguous blocksof protected land to counter the ill effects of habitatfragmentation, conservation biologists now view theuse of corridors between protected areas as a promisingmechanism for reducing localized extinctions(Rosenburg et al. 1997).15 A growing number of empiri-cal and experimental studies have confirmed the valueof this strategy (Bennett 1999).16 Various means can beused to foster biological connectivity between mainhabitat areas, including maintaining corridors undercontiguous natural cover, the provision of “steppingstones” of small habitats, encouraging diverse croppingpatterns in intervening croplands, and retaining largelive and dead trees in surrounding forest clearings.17

The MBC seeks to put this strategy to work.

The MBC concept also promises significant socioeco-nomic benefits to the people of the region. For example,the regional network of corridors envisioned under theinitiative would protect large areas of forest capable ofsequestering atmospheric carbon that could be sold inemerging international markets for carbon offsets. TheMBC network would also help protect the watersupplies on which Mesoamerica’s residents depend.The protection of forests and watersheds under theMBC could also reduce the impact of future naturaldisasters. It would facilitate the preservation of vitalcultural and archeological sites and help spread nature-based tourism beyond Costa Rica and Belize, where it iscurrently concentrated. Finally, it offers new opportuni-ties for indigenous peoples and rural residents to sharethe economic benefits from, and assume managementresponsibilities for, the region’s biological resources.

While, in principle, these benefits could flow from anysuccessful large-scale conservation initiative, theconcept behind the MBC has the particular advantage

Rationale

If properly planned and implemented, the MBC offers ameans to maximize conservation benefits while improv-ing social and economic opportunities for rural popula-tions. In contrast to traditional approaches to conserva-tion, which treated protected wildlands in isolationfrom the settled or cultivated areas around them, theMBC operationalizes the “bioregional” approach toland-use management. Under this approach, communi-ties and their governments develop strategies for landand water use that encompass entire ecosystems orbioregions,14 aiming to protect and restore them so theycan simultaneously conserve biodiversity and sustainfarming, forestry, fisheries, and other human uses(Miller 1996).

This approach to environmental planning accords withthe new emphasis within conservation biology on theimportance of maintaining connectivity betweenbiological populations. Throughout the world, agricul-tural expansion, road development, urbanization, andextensive logging, mining, and oil drilling have beencutting up habitat areas into ever-smaller fragments(Bennett 1999). As habitats shrink and become sur-rounded by human-dominated landscapes, manynative species are confined to isolated areas too small toallow them to find adequate food, water, mates, orrefuge from predators. As a result, these “islands” ofnatural habitat lose species over time, with largemammals and birds (especially predators) disappearingfirst. Even if the habitat patch is large enough tosupport a small population of a particular species undernormal conditions, such populations are vulnerable tolocal extinction due to hurricanes, drought, disease, andinvasive species. Isolated species populations are alsoless able to adapt to environmental change owing to thelimited range of variation present within their genepool. Population biologists have shown that sitesintended to maintain a region’s biota need to be suffi-ciently large to retain a minimum population of any-where from 500 to 5,000 individuals of each species(Barbault and Sastrapradja 1995). As habitat fragmentsbecome smaller and more isolated from one another,


that it recognizes and utilizes the contribution that avariety of land uses can make to biodiversity conserva-tion. It requires less land to be set aside from humanuse than would an approach that relied on the creationof large, isolated protected areas, thus implying fewersocioeconomic opportunity costs for the region’sinhabitants.

The Mechanism: Differentiated Land-Use Zones

At the heart of the MBC initiative lies a proposed land-use scheme consisting of four categories: Core Zones,Buffer Zones, Corridor Zones, and Multiple-UseZones.18

Core Zones

Core Zones are locations designated as “protectedareas.”19 Their purpose is to ensure that the forests,wetlands, coastal estuaries, coral reefs, and other wildhabitats continue to maintain biodiversity and generateenvironmental services for people living in and aroundthese areas and beyond. Typically, these zones willinclude the headwaters of rivers that provide water fortowns, irrigation and hydroelectric projects, farms, andindustry. They may contain wetlands critical for provid-ing nutrients for surrounding soils, and downstreamestuaries important for fisheries. They may harborinsects crucial for biological control of pests and dis-

eases in the areas surrounding them. Their wild specieswill provide a vital resource for bio-prospecting fornew foods, medicines, and industrial materials. Andequally important, they may contain scenery, wilder-ness, and historic places vital to people’s cultural andspiritual identity.

Mesoamerica has a large number of protected areasalready in place that will function as the MBC’s CoreZones, but most of these areas are small. Currently, theyaverage only 18,400 hectares in size, and only 18 exceed100,000 hectares. (See Table 2.) Overall, they containnearly 11 percent of the region’s land area but thepercentage varies for each of Mesoamerica’s 22 distinctecoregions. Research suggests that Core Zones shouldcover at least 10 percent of a given ecological region,and ideally they should cover substantially more (Souleand Sanjayan 1998).

Buffer Zones

The second type of land designation within the MBCinitiative is made up of the geographic areas surround-ing protected areas, which are termed Buffer Zones. Thepurpose of these zones is to create a physical spacebetween protected areas that contain primarily wild-land, on the one hand, and adjacent areas that featurefarms, harvested forests, and other human uses, on theother. These rings of land and water around the Core

Table 2. Protected Areas in Mesoamerica

Total Number Small Large Total Area(IUCN Categories I-VI1) (<10,000 ha) (>100,000 ha) (ha)

% NationalTerritory

No. Personnel2

Working in PAs

Mexico3 41 30 5 1,914,000 8.3 NABelize 32 20 2 479,000 20.9 67Guatemala 38 10 4 1,827,000 16.8 218Honduras 70 54 1 693,000 6.0 166El Salvador 2 2 0 5,000 0.2 126Nicaragua 70 48 1 908,000 7.0 144Costa Rica 85 26 1 723,000 14.2 864Panama 30 17 4 1,422,000 18.8 272

Total 368 207 18 7,951,000 10.7 1857

1 The IUCN recognizes six categories of protected area: Category I (Strict Nature Reserves), Category II (National Park), Category III (NationalMonument/Landmark), Category IV (Habitat or Species Management Area), Category V (Protected Landscape or Seascape), and Category VI (ManagedResource Protected Area).2 Number of personnel working in protected areas, all IUCN Categories. CCAD 1998a: 134.3 Protected areas in Mexico included in the MBC are located in the states of Campeche, Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, and Yucatan.

Sources: WRI 2000, WCMC 2000.


Zones are managed to filter or absorb negative impactsoperating in either direction. For example, aerialspraying of pesticides on adjacent agricultural cropscan drift hundreds of meters and have serious impactson wild biodiversity; conversely, wild animals mayrange out from the Core Zone to damage adjacent farmsand crops. Thus, in effect, Buffer Zones serve as transi-tional areas within which land uses are managed toreduce and control interzone impacts.

Some countries in the region, such as El Salvador, havelegislation providing for Buffer Zones within protectedareas. Others have established such Zones to define aspecific management category, for example at the MayaBiosphere Reserve in Guatemala (CONAP 1999a).Nonetheless, existing Buffer Zones are often not clearlydemarcated and few are designed specifically to filterout negative influences flowing between protectedareas and surrounding lands. International experiencepoints to the importance of designing Buffer Zones sothat they are tailored to the specific conditions of eachlocation (UNEP 1996). If Buffer Zones are to protect thecore areas, their residents must be offered a set ofequitable incentives and regulations that promotechanges in land use, while compensating for such costsas crop damage.

Corridor (Connectivity) Zones20

The third type of zone proposed by the MBC initiativeis the Corridor Zone. The purpose of these zones is toprovide land or water pathways that link Core Zoneswith one another, allowing plants and animals todisperse and migrate, and adapt to the pressures ofchanging climate and habitat conditions. Ideally, landuse within Corridor Zones will be natural, or “re-wilded” through restoration work. In practice, however,the lands between Core Zones may already be subject tohuman use or settlement. In such cases, residents andland users will be encouraged to adopt managementpractices, such as layered and mixed cropping or shadecoffee growing, that create relatively biodiversity-friendly environments while also providing forpeople’s livelihoods. The central goal is to ensure thatland-use patterns within corridors mimic wild nature asclosely as possible by featuring a variety of crops, forestpatches, and wild habitats. From a social and economicpoint of view, corridors seek to maintain and enhancethe livelihoods of local residents while protectingstream flow and other environmental services of valueto residents throughout the region. To avoid confusionit should be clarified that the term corridor is also usedin a development context to refer to areas in whichterritorial strips have been assigned to particular

economic functions. However, contrary to the biologicalcorridors discussed above, the corridors developedunder this rubric, such as urban, transportation, andenergy corridors, are typically characterized by totallydomesticated landscapes that create barriers to themovement of wild plant and animal species.21

Multiple-Use Zones

The fourth type of zone envisioned by the MBC initia-tive is used to distinguish areas featuring wildlandfrom those devoted to agriculture, managed forestry,and human settlement. These Multiple-Use Zones canbe established within Buffer, and Corridor Zones, insome cases, to denote geographic areas that will bededicated to direct human occupation and use. TheMultiple-Use category can also be applied to widerareas beyond these three zones, to encourage diversity

Box 2. Biodiversity-Friendly Agriculture

The following practices can help to maintain orenhance biodiversity on agricultural lands:

• Agroforestry systems that feature perennial treecrops, sometimes mixed with annual crops orforage;

• Mixed cropping systems that feature severalcomplementary crops (for instance, beans, squash,and maize) in the same field;

• Organic and integrated pest management (IPM)technologies that eliminate or minimize use ofchemical pesticides and herbicides;

• Streamside buffer zones of protected or restorednative vegetation to filter agricultural runoff beforeit enters the water and to facilitate movement ofanimals along river corridors;

• On-farm protection of natural forest patches toprovide habitat for pollinators and predators ofinsect pests;

• On-farm protection of wetland areas to maintainwater tables during the dry season, minimizeflooding during the wet season, and provide habitatfor wetland species;

• Restricting disruptive practices in sensitive areasduring key nesting or migratory periods;

• Maintaining traditional crop and animal varieties.


in general land-use practices. The designation recog-nizes that the forms of human land-use and settlementmost conducive to biodiversity maintenance feature amosaic of distinct patches such as croplands, forests,and wetlands. (See Box 2.) In coastal areas the mosaicmay include fishing areas, coral reefs, tourism facilities,and shrimp farms.

Within these zones, it will be necessary to give resi-dents incentives to adopt biodiversity-friendly land-usepractices using mechanisms such as environmentalservice payments. An example of such a policy isoffered by the use of community concessions for theharvest of nontimber forest products—xate,22

wildberries, allspice—in the Maya Forest23 (Primack etal. 1998; Prins 1998; Somos UNO 1998; CONAP 1999a,1999b; UICN 2000). Similarly, the cultivation of organiccacao in Costa Rica’s Talamanca-Caribe BiologicalCorridor provides an effective habitat area for manyspecies, while supplying livelihoods and income forlocal producers. (See Box 3.) Another effective strategy isthe encouragement of layered-cropping farmingtechniques, with timber trees growing over fruit trees,shade coffee, and vegetables, as practiced in San LucasToliman, a town located in the Multiple-Use protected

area around Lake Atitlan, Guatemala (WRI field visits,January-February, 2000).

Determining Zone Extent

The relative extent of each of these zones will varydepending on the social, economic, biological, andinstitutional context within which they are situated. Aparticularly crucial variable is the intensity of existinghuman use and settlement. Where extensive wildlandsstill remain and human population is low, relativelylarge Core Zones can be established and corridors canalso feature wildland. Ecosystem goods and servicesmay be exported to adjacent bioregions to supportincreased populations or large infrastructure projects,such as irrigation or power generation. Income fromthese goods and services can be recycled back to theCore Zones to help cover their operating costs.

In densely settled areas, the extent of wildland will besmall. Farming, grazing, forestry, or, in coastal areas,fishing, will occupy most of the landscape. In this case,the Core Zones and corridors will be limited in extent.Initially they may feature small farms, livestock pas-ture, and cutover forest. In the short-term, neighboring

Box 3. Weaving Small Farmers into the Mesoamerican Corridor

Fewer than ten years ago, Luis Rodriguez bought a 20-hectare farm next to the recently established Talamanca-Caribe Biological Corridor in southeastern Costa Rica.With its degraded pastures and severely eroded soils, localpeople doubted his farm would ever return to productiv-ity. But Luis had a vision that the land could be restoredby allowing regrowth of native trees while farming adiverse range of crop species and domestic animals. Usingplenty of sweat equity, Luis has created a farm that helpssecure his family’s long-term and short-term needs.Naturally regenerating and planted trees are stabilizingand enriching the soil and will provide future income forretirement and education. Organic cacao, palms, and otherfruit trees are beginning to produce crops for the family’s“annual savings account.” And with the soil stabilized andincreasingly fertile, the family is able to grow pineapple,tomatoes, yucca, other vegetables, and medicinal plants,and to raise chickens, turkeys, fish, and goats for theirimmediate cash and food needs. Luis has not onlyimproved his family’s economic situation, his farm nowoffers habitat for wild flora and fauna. Thanks to hissuccess, Luis has become Coordinator of the Small

Farmers Association of Talamanca (APPTA), whichcomprises 1,500—largely indigenous—farmers who useinnovative agricultural practices and integrated pestmanagement to produce organic banana, ginger, and 20percent of the world’s organic cacao.

If the MBC is to succeed, many more small farmersthroughout the region will need to follow LuisRodriguez’s path. Most won’t have the same extraordi-nary vision and commitment as this man. But, by workingwith leaders such as Luis Rodriguez, MBC planners canidentify the policies and market incentives that canmotivate farmers to follow his lead. By promoting greateropportunities for local residents to participate in MBCplanning and management, supporters of the MBC canhelp weave thousands of small farmers into the fabric ofthe corridor network across Mesoamerica.

Source: WRI staff field visit to the Talamanca region, CostaRica and personal interview with Luis Rodríguez andAPPTA representatives, February 2000; UICN 2000: pp. 92-93.


residents may need to continue their traditional use ofCore Zone resources until alternative livelihoodsbecome available. Governments can support a transi-tion away from this use by ensuring that local popula-tions are able to capture a share of the income generatedby Core Zones, for instance from water supplies or

ecotourism, in return for steps by residents to phase outfarming and forestry activities within the Core Zones.In areas of particular importance for conservation, itmay be necessary to use land purchases and economicincentives to draw people away to other sites.


III.Strategic Challenges

Below we will discuss the importance of each challengein establishing common ground for MBC implementa-tion. A set of questions is presented within each sectionto help stakeholders identify effective responses to thechallenge in question.

Reconciling Stakeholder Interests

The interests and aspirations of MBC stakeholdersdiffer widely, depending upon their current access tonatural resources, their socioeconomic conditions, andtheir cultural values and beliefs. Thus, for conservation-ists, the MBC represents one of the few options avail-able for promoting the survival of thousands of speciesthat face certain extinction if habitat-loss trends con-tinue. For landless migrants and indigenous groups, theexpansion of protected areas and corridors wouldappear to diminish their prospect of claiming land andcontrolling their own destiny. For urban residents, theMBC could mean more secure clean water supplies andreduced immigration to the major cities as socioeco-nomic conditions in rural areas improve. Meanwhile,the fishing and timber industries may find that theMBC could limit future harvests. Whether and howthese groups bridge their differences will determine theapproaches, policies, and management practices thatbuild the MBC, and ultimately the initiative’s overallsuccess or failure. The prospects for this reconciliationto occur will be strongest if the initiative proceedsthrough three major stages: (1) identification of conflictsand commonalities of interest; (2) creation of a commu-nication process among stakeholders that allowsdifferences to be negotiated, and shared understand-ings created; and (3) implementation of policies andproducts designed to build stakeholder commitment inthe light of the previous scoping and communicationprocesses.

The first step toward reconciling the different views ofstakeholder groups is for planners to identify whatthese interests are, and how they conflict or overlap.Table 3 summarizes the types of outcomes that three of

Despite the existing high level of political commitmentand financial support for the MBC, there are a numberof strategic challenges that must be addressed if it is tobe implemented successfully. The MBC, as articulatedand endorsed by regional leaders, may represent avision shared by environmental ministers and conserva-tion biologists, but it has yet to win widespread alle-giance from government officials, the private sector,and civil society. Owing to its scope and goals, thefuture of the MBC depends more strongly on themobilization of complex institutional, social, andinformational networks than has typically been the casefor conservation initiatives. Given the internal diversityof Mesoamerican societies, the MBC’s design requiresan understanding of the full spectrum of interests atwork at both national and local levels. Its effectiveimplementation will require not just the acquiescence ofkey stakeholder groups, but their willingness to mobi-lize actively behind the initiative. For these reasons, theprocess of planning and implementation must incorpo-rate opportunities for dialogue and participatorydecision-making.

Some of the key challenges facing the MBC include:

• Reconciling stakeholder interests

• Fostering democratic governance and enabling civilsociety participation

• Catalyzing information for participatory decision-making

• Clarifying the function of MBC land-use categories

• Addressing property rights and land-tenure issues

• Capturing benefits from ecosystem goods andservices

• Harmonizing institutional and legal frameworks andpromoting intersectoral coordination

• Setting investment and management priorities


the main stakeholder groups—conservationists, ruralpopulations, and governments/large-scale privatebusiness—are likely to seek from the MBC. Theseoutcomes are based on extensive interviews withstakeholder groups in the region.

There are significant potential contradictions betweenthese interests. For example, the expansion of protectedareas in endangered ecosystems could occur in areasthat are often centers of indigenous cultures as well asbiodiversity. Unless government policies enable indig-enous communities to co-manage protected areas, thisexpansion is likely to conflict with the desire of indig-enous communities to receive official recognition fortheir land claims. The desire of economic developmentadvocates for increased investment in transportationand tourism facilities may run counter to conservation-ists’ goal of preserving endangered species. Addition-ally, increased local authority over natural resourcesmanagement and policy could complicate effortstoward regional economic integration.

Nevertheless, complementarities are not hard to find.Conservationists want to see important ecosystems,such as wetlands and forested headwaters, protectedand restored while rural and urban citizens throughoutthe region want to obtain more reliable supplies ofclean water. By focusing on such ecosystems, the MBCcan simultaneously conserve important biodiversityhabitats, improve water quality, and reduce the poten-tial for destructive flooding. Similarly, the decentraliza-tion of authority and capacity to manage naturalresources should increase local employment opportuni-ties while fostering the development of skills essentialto conserving biodiversity and sustainably managingnatural resources—assuming local governments haveenough revenue to carry out their new roles. Increasedaccess to international markets for “green” products,such as organically produced coffee or biodiversity-friendly cacao, could boost income for small farmers(PROARCA/CAPAS 1999, IUCN 2000). As farmers turnto such crops, a range of bird and small mammal

Table 3. Examples of Desirable MBC Outcomes for Main Stakeholder Groups

Conservationists • Better representation of endangered ecosystems in protected areas• Restoration of natural habitat corridors• Creation of biodiversity-friendly landscapes surrounding core natural areas and corridors• Stabilization and recovery of endangered species populations• Expansion of ecosystem services, reduction of human threats to biodiversity

Rural Populations • Greater access to resource planning and policy• Greater participation in decision-making• Recognition and legitimization of indigenous land rights• Recognition of traditional environmental knowledge and a variety of alternative, sustainable resource

management practices• Protection of cultural traditions and sacred sites• Improved water supplies and public health• Reduced vulnerability to floods and other disasters• Increased employment and income for residents• Improved access to credit• Increased access to international markets for sustainably produced goods and services

Governments/Private Sector

• Emergence of domestic and international markets for environmental goods and services• New tax and policy incentives for sustainable land-use practices• Development of transportation infrastructure and tourism facilities• Increased regional economic integration• Improved education levels and reduced migration to urban centers• Fair payment or recognition for environmental goods and services provided


species would benefit from the expansion of theireffective habitat area.

The second step toward building a shared vision of theMBC is to build trust and confidence among the variousgroups involved by inviting wide participation in MBCplanning and policy discussions at regional, national,and local levels. As the MBC planning process movesout of the capital cities and into the field, it may behelpful to create a process that enables stakeholders toidentify their desired outcomes. This should clarifywhat actions are needed most for building the MBC in agiven locality.

The third step toward reconciling different perspectiveson the MBC is the implementation of policies andprojects that offer a balanced mix of biological andsocioeconomic benefits, taking into account the needsexpressed during the planning process. (A model for suchactivities is described in Box 4.) As implementationproceeds, it is important for planners and stakeholdersto recognize that the types of activity most effectivelypromoted by the MBC will vary over time; indeed,

given the scale of the problems, it will take decades tofully achieve the MBC’s goals. The most effectivestrategy for sequencing will prioritize projects thatbuild support for the initiative in its early stages, beforemoving on to address longer-term conservation andsocioeconomic needs.

The following summarizes an effective sequencingstrategy for MBC activities.

Immediate Term: 1-3 years: The release of start-up fundsfor the MBC’s component projects can provide opportu-nities for employment, social programs, and thestrengthening of protected areas that can benefit peoplerelatively quickly. Jobs can be created within plantnurseries and reforestation projects, protected areas,bio-prospecting projects, and ecotourism enterprises.Social programs can include demarcation of indigenousterritories, credit for rural housing, and road mainte-nance. Key protected areas can be strengthened imme-diately by demarcating boundaries, placing signs, andundertaking outreach meetings with local residents.

Box 4. The Campesino a Campesino1 Movement

The Campesino a Campesino (CAC) movement is adecentralized, farmer-led movement promotingsustainable agriculture in Mesoamerica. It appears tohave originated among the Kaqchikel Mayas of Guate-mala who, facing steadily declining ecological andsocioeconomic conditions, organized themselves toexperiment with simple agricultural techniques on theirown lands. When these techniques began to producevisible benefits on their own plots—yields of corn andbeans reportedly increased 100-200 percent within a fewyears, and the profitability of garlic, onions, coffee, andpotatoes rose substantially—interest among neighborsincreased and with NGO support, the Kaqchikelfarmers founded a 900-member cooperative to dissemi-nate sustainable agriculture techniques. Politicalturmoil in Guatemala in the early 1980s led to thedisbanding of the cooperative, and the flight of manyKaqchikel farmers to Honduras and Mexico where theyestablished dozens of sustainable agricultural projects.In the process, a transnational movement was born, asfarmers throughout Central America began learningand teaching the practices and merits of sustainablefarming.

The CAC movement has produced a combination ofsocial, economic, and environmental benefits in theareas where it has taken root. Social benefits of the CAC

include recognition and legitimization of farmers’sustainable agricultural practices, increased pride andenthusiasm among farmers as they share their knowledgewith others, the broadening of support for farmer-ledagricultural projects, and increased involvement andcommunication among farmers. From an economicstandpoint, the CAC has allowed farmers to raise produc-tion (in northern Honduras, these practices are 30 percentmore profitable than high-input systems) and increasecrop diversification, processing, and sales. Benefits to theenvironment include the regeneration of tens of thousandsof hectares of exhausted soils, the reversal of degenerativeagroecological processes, and a move away from high-input, agrochemically dependent farming practices.

Farmer innovation and involvement, combined withsocioeconomic and ecological imperatives, are key factorsin the replication and continuation of the CAC movement.Its proven ability to deliver social, economic, and ecologi-cal benefits simultaneously, makes the CAC a relevantmodel for future sustainable development and conserva-tion initiatives in Mesoamerica.

Source: Bunch and Lopez 1994; Holt-Giménez 1996; Holt-Giménez, personal communication, February 2001.

1 Farmer to Farmer


Planning at this stage should prioritize projects thatoffer clear biological and socioeconomic benefits to allstakeholders. Early MBC policies and projects could bedesigned to produce a balanced combination of biologi-cal, social, and economic outcomes, rather than focusingon only one type of benefit. For example, an earlyproject might focus on the restoration of a municipalwatershed lying between two protected areas. Such aneffort would produce desired biological outcomes(restored natural habitat linking two previously isolatedprotected areas), social outcomes (increased access toclean water), and economic outcomes (tax incentives toland-owners for sustainable land-use practices). In thisway, confidence can be built among various stakehold-ers that the MBC is worthy of their support and partici-pation.

Medium Term: 4-10 years: Once confidence is establishedamong these interests and constituents, the next phaseof investment can focus on more challenging programs.With time for added consultation and project planning,further options open in the conservation, social, andeconomic spheres. For example, educational programscan be developed to bring people to protected areas,enabling them to appreciate how the area benefits theirlivelihoods and how they can help co-manage the area.New co-management arrangements can be establishedand people trained to staff them. At the same time,improvements in farming and forest managementpractices can be promoted in the Buffer and Multiple-Use Zones that are biodiversity-friendly, sequestercarbon, and conserve water. This implies partnershipswith universities, and agricultural and forestry centersto help test and apply appropriate technology andcropping patterns. Corridors can be defined in the field,featuring adequate consultation with residents andneighbors. Agreements can be negotiated with residentsof corridor areas to establish appropriate croppingpatterns and land/water use. Also in this phase,residents of core and corridor areas can be offered theoption of relocating to other sites in return for immedi-ate and adequate compensation. Analysis of existinglaws, policies, and regulations can suggest how govern-ment regulations can be reformed to foster environmen-tally friendly business activity in the Buffer, Corridor,and Multiple-Use Zones. For example, tax incentives,credit, health and safety standards, and green-practicecodes can be used to promote investment and employ-ment while securing the environment, and promotingcarbon, health, and water quality standards. At thisstage, other sources of development assistance could beencouraged to pick up the needed social investments.Economic programs could generate their own supportthrough the capture of rents from ecosystem services

(for instance, from water, carbon, and ecotourism),while biodiversity conservation funding, such as thatfrom GEF, could be concentrated on biological pro-grams.

Long term: 10-30 years, and beyond: In most parts of theregion, the basic elements of the MBC could be in placeby the end of the medium-term period, that is:

• the key Core Zones will have been demarcated,signed, and staffed and cooperative relationshipswill have been established with neighboring popula-tions;

• the communities living in and around the CoreZones and their linkage corridors will have experi-enced improved opportunities for employment andsubsistence, as well as improved access to adequatehousing, education, and health facilities;

• opportunities for business enterprise will haveexpanded through the establishment of a conducivelegal, policy, and regulatory environment.

Given the background of inequities among culturalgroups, the impacts of warfare, and the resultingdegradation of socioeconomic and environmentalconditions, it may well take the first ten years of theprogram to establish a climate of trust and confidenceamong the region’s stakeholders. This groundwork willallow additional long-term investments to generatehigher returns. For example, new ecotourism enter-prises can be established that will be co-owned and co-managed by rural communities and indigenous groups,with part of the profits going to support local conserva-tion and development needs. The gradual restoration offorests can support the creation of new locally ownedtimber and wood-product enterprises. Fishing commu-nities can diversify into ecotourism and run divingenterprises on the region’s coral reefs. Small-scalehydropower units can provide electricity to ruralhinterland communities. Key Core Zones will havesecure boundaries, and illegal hunting, plant and treeremoval, and settlement will diminish. Erosion willhave decreased, and streams will have cleaner andmore stable year-round flows of water. Coastal villagesand mountain communities will have increased securityagainst storm damage, including floods and mudslides.And, socially equitable economic investment programswill draw residents from sensitive biodiversity sites tonearby towns or other areas that can offer more produc-tive livelihoods.


The following questions can help participants in theplanning process within a particular locality to identifythe outcomes most important to them and build acollective sense of what they would like to see comefrom the MBC:

• What degraded ecosystems in the area should berestored and why?

• Which ecosystem services should be the focus of MBCefforts in the area? (See Table 1.)

• Which endangered species populations should conservationefforts prioritize?

• How can rural and urban residents contribute to theMBC?

• Which basic social needs in the area (for instance, employ-ment, food security, access to clean and reliable watersupplies) should be provided by the MBC?

• How can the MBC protect area residents against floodsand other natural disasters?

• What social traditions and cultural heritage in the areashould be protected by the MBC?

• How can the MBC improve public participation in naturalresource policy, management, and governance?

• What economic benefits and other opportunities should theMBC generate in the area and who should receive them?

• How should the MBC program compensate for economiccosts or losses caused by program activities?

• What types of area businesses should benefit most from theMBC?

Fostering Democratic Governance and Enabling Civil SocietyParticipation

The manner in which state authorities exercise theirresponsibilities and are held accountable for theirdecisions has a major influence on a country’s social,political, and economic development. Participation ofcivil society in public debate and action is a cornerstonefor democratic governance and the establishment of anenvironment conducive to broad-based economicinvestment and growth. As governments decentralizeresponsibilities and authority over natural resources, itis important that local constituents enjoy access to

accountability and transparent decision-makingprocesses.

The end of regional conflicts has enabled CentralAmerica to launch a series of important institutional,political, socioeconomic, and environmental reforms.Regional integration, together with democracy, eco-nomic revitalization, privatization, and decentraliza-tion, has become the framework for the modernizationof the Central American nations. These policies are theresult of government recognition of past failures,international pressure, and national calls for reformfrom the private sector and civil society. The CentralAmerican Integration System (SICA) and the CentralAmerican Alliance for Sustainable Development(ALIDES) are two of the most significant landmarks inthe construction of a new order in the region. Underthese frameworks, the restoration of degraded habitatsand conservation of ecosystems as envisioned under theMBC, have become important arenas for implementingbroader reforms of the region’s economic, political, andlegal institutions.

As countries in the region democratize at the local level,new opportunities are being created for social organiza-tions, the business sector, and traditionallymarginalized groups—indigenous communities,women, and small farmers—to voice their needs andconcerns. Efforts to shift public authority to the munici-pal level have stimulated investment in the strengthen-ing of local government capacity,24 but these effortshave often been insufficient to fill the gaps left by thewithdrawal of central government from many sectors ofdecision-making. This seems to be especially true forthe development and enforcement of environmentalregulations and policies.25 As a result, with few excep-tions (see Box 5), local authorities have not been able tocapitalize on their new responsibilities.

The ability of local governments to play a constructiverole in environmental management is reduced by amyriad of institutional weaknesses, including corrup-tion, lack of administrative, financial, and technicalcapabilities,26 and inability to resolve conflicts amonglocal stakeholders over natural resource use. Theseweaknesses do not, however, diminish local authorities’potential importance within MBC governance andplanning. On the contrary, local governments arecentral to efforts to facilitate citizen awareness andparticipation, and to enforce compliance with land-useregulations.

In most parts of Mesoamerica, central governmentagencies have tended to retain practical control over


local natural resources management; effective devolu-tion of decision-making is the exception rather than therule. In Honduras and Nicaragua, for instance, loggingand mining concessions have been negotiated in secretbetween central government agencies and privatecompanies. Plans to allow oil drilling in the MayaBiosphere Reserve in Guatemala, and to complete theDarien Gap section of the Pan-American Highway inPanama were made in the same manner (Native ForestNetwork 1997, HEED 2000, IGC 2000). Local popula-tions have had little opportunity to voice their needsand concerns.

The same pattern holds true in relations betweencentral government and indigenous communities. Somecountries in the region have officially recognized theexistence of indigenous governance systems andgranted territorial autonomy to indigenous groups(González 1996, Currle et al. 1999, ILRC 1999,27

Kaimowitz et al. 1999). Nevertheless, current policiesfor agricultural development, land reform, and theaward of forestry and mining concessions frequentlyrun counter to these commitments. Even with legalautonomy, therefore, ethnic groups continue to findthemselves in conflict with outsiders and other localgroups.

A top-down approach has also characterized manyconservation efforts impacting indigenous peoples. InNicaragua, the Atlantic Coast Regional Autonomy Lawof 1987 established two separate autonomous regionsalong the Atlantic coast, covering 43 percent of thecountry, governed by bodies with substantial legalauthority over indigenous affairs and the land, forests,and waters of the region. Although this law formallyrecognized the communal property rights of the indig-enous communities, their territories have never beenformally titled or demarcated. When the governmentestablished the 8,000-square-kilometer Bosawas Na-tional Natural Resource Reserve in 1991, the indigenouspeople and their community leaders were not consulted(Kaimowitz et al. 1999). This kind of action has createdconflict and tension over ownership of the resourcesand the conduct of conservation efforts in many parts ofthe region.

However, the region’s changing political and socialconditions are creating opportunities for greater partici-pation by non-state actors in bringing about MBC goals.Partnership arrangements can create a sense of sharedresource ownership that may help to protect publiclands. Governments can involve local people in draw-ing up protective regulations and ensure that they are

Box 5. Local Autonomy in Environmental Planning and Management in Cantón San Ramón, Costa Rica.

mental management and regulation responsibilities.These included organizing workshops to increase publicparticipation in local environmental issues.

However, the decentralization of environmental manage-ment in San Ramón prompted competition between theefforts of the municipality and those of central govern-ment agencies, primarily the Ministry of Environmentand Energy (MINAE). To resolve this problem, in 1996the Ministry and the municipal government signed anagreement that recognized the latter’s responsibilities inenvironmental decision-making and provided forincreased participation by civil society.

The greatest strength of this initiative is that it came fromthe local level, underscoring the vital contribution localgovernment can make to environmental management. Italso served to reinforce confidence in local governmentand create more opportunities for stakeholder participa-tion and cooperation.

Source: Chaves and Loría 1998.

The 60,000 inhabitants of the municipality of San Ramón,Costa Rica depend on the local natural resource base foragriculture (primarily coffee, as well as sugar cane,vegetable gardens, and ornamental plants) and cattleranching. The major environmental problems facing SanRamón include soil degradation, erosion, deforestation ofsteep hillsides, and pollution by agrochemicals.

In the early 1990s, the municipality became involved withthe Ramonense Association for Environmental Conserva-tion (ARCA), a group of students and staff from theUniversity of Costa Rica at San Ramón. Together, theylaunched a successful effort to protect the nearby AlbertoManuel Brenes Biological Reserve from mining, whichencouraged the municipality to mobilize further efforts inenvironmental management.

In 1996, the municipality formed an EnvironmentalAdvisory Commission, and later a Municipal Office ofNatural Resources, to monitor forestry issues and work toensure sustainable use of natural resources. The MunicipalOffice of Natural Resources gained formal authorizationunder the National Forestry Law and was given environ-


provided with adequate legal mechanisms for enforce-ment. State agencies can strengthen rural communities’customary rights of access and forest use by grantingland title, assisting in the demarcation of borders, andfacilitating access to information and financing. Col-laborative management arrangements between stateagencies and local organizations, along with conserva-tion easements with private landowners, can be animportant strategy for effective resource managementand sustainable use (CONAP 1999b, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000, Mejías 2000). (See Box 6.)

Natural resources are embedded in a political contextcharacterized by competition for control. The MBC canalso provide opportunities for training in conflictmanagement as stakeholders test new managementregimes and experiment with different decision-makingmechanisms.

In order to participate meaningfully in MBC planningand management, local people and organizations—including municipal governments, NGOs, civil associa-tions, businesses, and urban residents—need a politicalclimate where respect for human rights and the rule oflaw prevails. Social mobilization behind the MBC willdepend upon building a democratic system for govern-ing Mesoamerica’s natural capital.

The following questions may be useful in generatingmeaningful local participation in planning and manag-ing the MBC:

• What are the most important environmental governanceproblems and opportunities in MBC design, implementa-tion, and monitoring?

• Who should be involved in making local planning andmanagement decisions?

Box 6. Collaborative Management of Sarstoon-Temash National Park in Belize

ministries to move ahead with their plan and havesecured financial backing from several internationaldonors. The International Fund for Agriculture Develop-ment (IFAD) and the EcoLogic Development Fundawarded them a joint grant to register their committeewith the government as the Sarstoon-Temash Institute ofIndigenous Management (SATIIM). SATIIM is currentlyawaiting a three-year grant from the World Bank/GEF tocreate a management plan for the park, document itsbiological resources, record traditional ecological knowl-edge, and enhance its own management capacity.

Under SATIIM’s proposal, indigenous peoples will play acentral role in running the park, working as tour guides,resource managers, park wardens, and ecologicalresearchers. Its activities are already having a practicalimpact. Without waiting for formal arrangements to beput in place, the people of the area have begun to regulateagriculture and resource-use themselves. SATIIM’sultimate goal is to show that giving indigenous communi-ties responsibility for the formal management of theirtraditional resources can serve ecological, economic, andcultural goals simultaneously. SATIIM hopes its achieve-ments will encourage the establishment of similararrangements elsewhere in the region.

Source: Caddy et al. 2000.

The Sarstoon-Temash National Park of Belize containswet forest and wetland of global significance, as well asnumerous bird, amphibian, fish, and reptile species. It islocated in the isolated and underdeveloped ToledoDistrict, an area with the highest proportion of indig-enous peoples in the country. The government’s creationof the park in 1994, involved taking land from fiveindigenous settlements—four of them Q’eqchi’ Maya andone Garifuna—yet this step was taken without priorconsultation with the affected communities.

The first reaction of these communities was to call forthe park’s dismantling on the grounds that it deprivedthem of the land and resources they depended on forsurvival. In 1997, however, representatives from the fivevillages decided to seek an agreement with the govern-ment to co-manage the park. This decision was a boldmove given that the communities had neither previousexperience in resource management, nor any previousexample of such an arrangement to draw upon.

With assistance from government agencies and environ-mental groups, the five communities have since madesignificant progress toward their goal of improving theirmaterial welfare through participation in conservationactivities. They now have the support of all relevant


• What powers do stakeholders have and how are theyaccountable for their decisions?

• Which implicit or explicit policies hinder meaningfulparticipation by MBC stakeholders?

• How can decentralization of resource management inMBC areas be made effective?

• How can customary rights within traditional forms ofgovernance structures—such as ejidos, autonomousterritories, comarcas, and communal lands—contribute tobetter management or control of corridors’ naturalresources?

• What is the role of indigenous cultural knowledge andvalues in biodiversity conservation?

• How do population and migration patterns affect ruralMBC stakeholders’ views on the building of corridors?

Catalyzing Information for Participatory Decision-Making

Planners and managers of the MBC need a range ofsocial, environmental, and economic information atregional, national, and sub-national levels. Informationabout the importance of ecosystem goods and services,in particular, is needed to mobilize public support forthe MBC and to empower community members toparticipate meaningfully in the decisions that will affecttheir lives. (See Box 7.)

Integrating socioeconomic information with environ-mental information will provide new perspectives onsustainable use and conservation of water, soil, andbiodiversity in the MBC. Changes in policy can increasedemand for data and make information more availableand useful to all stakeholders involved. Specific agen-cies can be assigned authority and responsibility forproviding data. Citizens and civil society organizationscan be provided with information to monitor progressand suggest avenues of recourse when obligations arenot met.

Numerous conservation and development projects havebeen collecting data and analyzing information, but thelack of integrated assessments using combined environ-mental, social, and economic data continues to chal-lenge MBC decision-makers. MBC stakeholders atregional and national levels require more informationabout the value of ecological services and emergingconsumer preferences, and markets for non-traditionalor certified natural products. Stakeholders at the

province or department levels are interested in havingbetter information on the technological options avail-able to minimize negative impacts on their environ-ment, and the fiscal incentives available for organicfarming. The integration of information still remains aserious problem despite regional commitments on theissue28 and the investments made by donors andgovernment agencies to improve stakeholder informa-tion access.

Lack of common standards for collection and documen-tation makes it difficult to integrate data from differentsources across the region and to interpret data fromdifferent countries. For example, deforestation rates andpoverty indices in each country are estimated usingdifferent methodologies, which are not used consis-tently over time. The lack of a shared terminology formeasurement and interpretation prevents the cross-national comparison of trends (Lenin Corrales, personalcommunication, August 2000).

Public and private institutions in the region have a richarray of information on biodiversity, protected areas,forest resources, soil and agriculture, and other naturalresources (CATIE/IUCN 1997). Most information,however, remains sector-specific and lacks the analyti-cal and holistic perspective that planning the MBCrequires. For example, statistical data and graphicinformation for road construction in a remote forestmay provide decision-makers with details of the road’seconomic costs and benefits, but not its social andbiological impacts. In other instances, information onland-tenure and ownership in countries that have beenravaged by war and social conflict, such as Guatemalaand Nicaragua, remains unavailable because of itspolitical sensitivity.

The success of the MBC depends upon stakeholdersbeing informed on how a project will affect them, howto participate in its design, and how to monitor itsimplementation. MBC proponents can strengthen thepublic demand for information by promoting aware-ness of the region’s ecosystems and the environmental,cultural, and economic benefits they offer. They canalso support efforts to make public consultation andinformation disclosure part of impact assessments ofdevelopment projects. As MBC planning decentralizes,natural resource managers will require more complexinformation about how the MBC will protect ecologicalservices and biological resources that affect human andeconomic well-being. Without this information, it willbe difficult or impossible to build the support necessaryto implement the MBC.


Box 7. Land-Use Map Empowers Indigenous Group to Assert Land Rights in Honduras

The Mosquitia, a region of northeastern Honduras coveredby rainforest and savanna, is populated by over 35,000inhabitants from the Miskito, Garifuna, Tawahka, and Pechpeoples. Large numbers of settlers are arriving in theregion, at a pace that is jeopardizing both its traditionalcultures and ecological security. Conservationists seestrengthening indigenous land-tenure rights as vital if thisprocess is to be checked. At present, however, indigenouscommunities’ titles are poorly defined and their lands arenot accorded protected status by the government.

One creative response to this problem has been tostrengthen recognition of indigenous land-use by encour-aging indigenous communities to create a map through aparticipatory survey process. In 1993, the people of theregion elected representatives to gather information abouthow the inhabitants of the Mosquitia utilize the land. Thesurveyors administered questionnaires to approximately200 villages about the lands they use for farming, hunting,fishing, construction material, gold prospecting, andcollection of medicinal plants. Often, they were greetedwith hostility and suspicion from villagers who feared thatthe government or private business would exploit theinformation for its own ends. One of the surveyorsremembers: “In one village, they told me they would give

me information only because they knew me, and so if Icheated them, they’d know where to find me.”

A cultural geographer and professor from SouthernLouisiana University, who once lived in the Mosquitia,used the initial surveys to draft a land-use map for each ofthe 22 regions, which the surveyors then took back to thecommunities for review. The surveyors found theirinformants warmed to the project considerably once theywere able to see its tangible results in the form of the draftmaps. At the First Congress on Indigenous Lands of theMosquitia, indigenous representatives and the Honduranland-rights advocacy group, MOPAWI, presented theresulting map of the region to the Honduran Vice Presi-dent, government ministers, and military officials.

Soon after the congress, the Ministry of Defense came outagainst a U.S.-based logging company’s plans to expandits logging operations in the Mosquitia, marking asignificant departure from the Honduran military’s usualpractice. Thus far, the map and the congress have notresulted in any change to the land rights of the indigenouspeople of the Mosquitia, but they have helped them toformulate an independent vision of their present needsand future aspirations.

Source: Swenarski 1993.

The following are questions that may help clarify therole of information in MBC planning, implementation,monitoring, and evaluation:

• What socioeconomic information do MBC stakeholdersneed most?

• What environmental information (including biological,physical, and chemical data) do MBC stakeholders needmost?

• What regional, national, and local institutions currentlycollect and manage these data?

• How do local stakeholders access information?

• Which are the main laws and policies impacting access togovernment information and public participation indecision-making?

• For whose benefit is environmental and developmentinformation being used?

• What are the costs of implementing new informationpolicies, including increased data collection, improvedanalysis, and greater outreach to stakeholders? Whatoptions exist for meeting these costs?

Clarifying the Functions of Core, Buffer, Multiple-Use, andCorridor Zones

At present, there is confusion and disagreement aboutthe function of different land-use zones in the MBC.This makes it more difficult to discuss, plan, andimplement priority actions. It is important to developmore clarity and agreement about the essential rolesand functions of each of the zones.

Core Zones. There are currently nearly 400 legallyestablished protected areas in Mesoamerica, covering


about 11 percent of the region’s land surface. Anadditional 300 protected areas are proposed, whichwould more than double the area of land in protectedstatus (García 1996b, CCAD 1998a, UICN 2000, WCMC2000). The high number of existing and proposedprotected areas may create the impression that there issufficient protected habitat to maintain the region’sbiodiversity. However, it is not the number of sites thatdetermine the potential to conserve biodiversity butrather their size, their habitat coverage, and the effec-tiveness with which those habitats are managed. Asillustrated in Table 2, most sites are less than 100,000hectares. Moreover, the financial and human resourcespresently assigned to them are insufficient to managethe existing, let alone proposed, protected areas. Theregion’s governments have neither the budget, thehuman capacity, nor the skills to effectively manage allCore Zones on their own, resulting in continuingdegradation by agricultural incursions, illegal logging,mining, hunting and gathering, and little or no localcapture of the ecotourism and other potential benefitsthat they could provide (Primack et al. 1998).

Two steps can enhance the functioning of the CoreZones in the MBC. First, countries in the region canprioritize their protected areas and work over the long-term to consolidate a smaller number of more extensiveCore Zones capable of anchoring the MBC. Ideally,there should be several large Core Zones, that togethercover at least 10 percent of each ecoregion (includingcoastal and marine habitats). This consolidation willrequire a long-term strategy shared by governments,NGOs, and the private sector. Second, governmentsshould offer a broader role to non-governmentalorganizations, local communities, universities, and theprivate sector in the management of Core Zones. Byentering into creative co-management arrangementswith local organizations, governments can effectivelyexpand the nation’s management capacity. This shiftwill require governments to concentrate on facilitatingplanning and negotiation, providing education andtraining opportunities, developing environmental andinvestment funds, and providing oversight of manage-ment quality. Meanwhile, they should reduce their rolein direct field management. Naturally, the options andopportunities for co-management arrangements withlocal government, campesino, and indigenous communi-ties will vary from country to country in the region(CONAP 1999b, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000, Caddyet al. 2000, UICN 2000).

Buffer and Multiple-Use Zones. In general, the functionsof Buffer and Multiple-Use Zones are not well definedor understood. Buffer Zones function to protect Core

Zones from the negative impacts of external activitiesand to minimize damage to agriculture and otheractivities from wildlife coming out of the Core Zone. Incontrast, the function of Multiple-Use Zones is topromote a diverse, mosaic-like landscape that featuresmixed crops and land uses that are biodiversity friendlywhile offering livelihoods to residents. Buffer zones,even when they are under multiple-use management,feature a series of restrictions designed to ensure agentle transition from wildland to the domesticatedlandscape beyond the Core Zone. For example, no land-clearing activities along the Core Zone boundaryshould take place within Buffer Zones, nor shouldpesticide use be permitted. On the other hand, a BufferZone might be an ideal location for visitor facilities,ecotourism lodges, and environmental educationcamps. By contrast, Multiple-Use Zones beyond Bufferand Corridor Zones, will feature farms, managedforests, villages, and infrastructure. Restrictions theremight be limited to the protection of certain species,securing carbon balances, and the protection of watersupplies.

Another problem is that the Buffer Zones and Multiple-Use Zones are often poorly demarcated in the field.This leads to conflicts between residents and protectedarea managers. Without a clear definition of the func-tions Buffer and Multiple-Use Zones are to fulfil, it willbe difficult for planners to negotiate the actual locationof these zones in the field with other land-users.

Corridor Zones. To many people the MBC is synonymouswith a set of continuous forest pathways from one CoreZone to the next. The real issue, however, is biologicalconnectivity, or the degree to which the region’s biotacan disperse and respond to environmental change.MBC planners will need to consider a range of tools toincrease biological connectivity depending uponbiological, social, and economic circumstances. Consid-erations include: What kinds of plants and animals willbe dispersing and migrating? At what distances? Dothey need continuous pathways, or do they move step-by-step? (Quetzal birds have been shown to fly amongold stag trees in the fields, while large mammals needcontinuous pathways.) What is the prevailing pattern ofland use and tenure? Is the land divided into small-holdings or large plantations? Is the area occupied bymany small farmers or by large, indigenous communityholdings? Each of these distinctions will call for varia-tions in the design of corridors across the landscape.

The following questions can help MBC planners andstakeholders to clarify the role of Core, Buffer, Multiple-Use, and Corridor Zones:


• What biological and social criteria are being used toplan the network of Core, Buffer, Multiple-Use, andCorridor Zones?

• Will the corridors feature wildland or be “re-wilded”through restoration? Or, will they consist of small farms,indigenous lands, or forestry operations, and thus beinternally zoned for Multiple-Use?

• Do any large Core Zones cross international borders andare there mechanisms for coordinating management withneighboring countries?

• What species are likely to move outward from the CoreZones thus requiring special consideration in planningBuffer Zones?

• What will be the role of Buffer Zones in your area? Arethey well-demarcated on the ground?

• What kinds of land uses exist in the Core, Buffer, andCorridor areas in your region? Are these likely to persistover long periods of time, implying the need for Multiple-Use classification for the foreseeable future? Or, mightthese zones be “re-wilded” in the longer term? What typeof restoration work will be required if this is to happen?

Addressing Property Rights and Land-Tenure Issues

Clear property rights and secure land tenure are criticalrequirements for responsible land management prac-tices and conservation of natural resources. The com-plex task of improving tenure security and strengthen-ing property rights will play an important role indeveloping the MBC. This is especially true in indig-enous communities, from the ejidos29 in Quintana Roo,Mexico, the communal lands in Momostenango,Guatemala, and the Miskito lands in Honduras, to thecolonos in the Darien region of southern Panama. (SeeBox 8.) Property rights and tenure security have beensome of the most contentious issues in Mesoamerica.They have been at the root of ethnic, civil, and politicalunrest for decades. The issues are complex because landownership is an expression of socioeconomic andpolitical power, and subject to keen competition bymany groups who often have conflicting interests.

Most countries in the region have undertaken landreform and redistribution programs during the pastfifty years, but land access remains highly unequal. InGuatemala, Honduras, and Panama, governmentpolicies have permitted concentration of large tracts of“idle” land into a few hands. These latifundios haveconverted forest and traditional agricultural lands into

pastures. This has limited the supply of land availableto the rural poor and forced many to settle in marginallands, which in turn has created widespread environ-mental degradation. The adverse environmentalimpacts of migration by people displaced by landexpropriations, invasions, resettlement schemes, andpolitical patronage have been widely documentedthroughout much of Mesoamerica (Williams 1986;Heckadon 1992; Strasma and Celis 1992; Pasos 1994;Kaimowitz 1995, 1996; Sunderlin and Rodriguez 1996;Jaramillo and Kelly 1997; Segura et al. 1997; Youth1998).

Most small landholders acquired land when they werebrought to work for large farms and were given plots tocultivate. Displaced migrants or colonos have beenformally or informally settled in open, “unclaimed”public lands that are fragile and often unproductive. Toestablish their rights they cleared the forest. Most have

Box 8. Land Rights and Ownership Issues in the RíoPlátano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras

The Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve is located in theMosquitia region of Honduras. It was established as aprotected area in 1980 and expanded to its current sizeof 800,000 hectares in 1992. The reserve covers 7percent of Honduras’s remaining rain forest, mangrove,flooded forest, and savanna; and is home to a numberof endangered wildlife species, including the jaguar(Panthera onca), scarlet macaw (Ara macao), jabiru stork(Jabiru mycteria), and Baird’s tapir (Tapirus bairdii).

The traditional inhabitants of the reserve include about16,000 people from four ethnic groups—the Miskito,Tawahka-Sumu, Pech, and Garifuna—who are beingjoined by a growing number of land-hungrycampesinos. Because the boundaries of the reserve arestill unmarked and land uses within the proposedindigenous and ladino1 settlement areas have not beenlegally defined, much less regulated, these populationsare in constant territorial conflict. The indigenousinhabitants of the reserve have no rights to the landthey have used traditionally, and no legal means torepel squatters. Indigenous claims to be granted cleartitle remain unresolved.

Source: Youth 1998.

1 Ladino is a popular term used to distinguish eitherindividuals of mixed Spanish and Indian descent, orindividuals of any indigenous heritage who have losttheir cultural identity.


provisional, partial, or no legal title. In Panama, forexample, 46 percent of farmlands are not legallytitled—particularly those occupied by small landhold-ers (Segura et al. 1997). Without title, farmers have fewincentives to protect and manage their land’s resourcesfor the long term. Most are poor and live in remoteareas, making it nearly impossible for them to obtaincredit. With no legal claim, they cannot qualify for mostgovernment subsidies or incentive programs. This locksthem out of programs that are available to largerlandowners for reforestation, or payments for protec-tion of environmental services.

Nevertheless, there have been significant investments inland-titling programs in Central America. This has beenparticularly true since the end of regional conflicts, asgovernments, with donor assistance, have sought tobuild peace through programs to title public land forthe poor and improve their access to private landthrough market mechanisms (World Bank 1998).

Although clear property rights and secure tenure arenecessary conditions for sustainable land use, inthemselves they cannot guarantee that natural resourceswill be well managed—and in some cases they mayeven provide motive for further exploitation. Addi-tional institutional and policy reforms are required. Forexample, the institutions that guarantee and enforceproperty rights—cadastre registry, judicial, and policysystems—often fail to operate in a transparent manner.Other factors, such as the economic gains offered bycertain unsustainable land-use practices, may providestrong incentives for forest conversion even if landtenure is secure. (See Box 9.) Some studies in Guatemalaand Brazil suggest that it is unclear whether providinggreater security of land tenure will reduce deforestationor improve natural resource management. For thisreason, tenure security must be preceded by removingpolicy biases that foster land concentration, eliminatinglegal provisions that threaten farmers with expropria-tion for the “under-utilization” of productive lands, andabolishing programs that encourage migration oflandless farmers onto unproductive lands (Kaimowitz1995; Jaramillo and Kelly 1997).

Government and civil society should be encouraged toexplore alternative property regimes and managementarrangements under which customary rights and localpower structures enhance wider civil society participa-tion and promote civic responsibilities. Some of thepossible options include legalizing land claims of ethniccommunities, as well as developing legal and economicinstruments for private property conservation througheasement agreements.

The growing interest of private landholders in conser-vation and sustainable management provides anopportunity for public agencies and civic associations towork in partnership with one another. For example, in1995, a group of private landholders in Costa Ricacreated a network of private nature reserves to protectremnants of primary and secondary forestlands andwildlife. By developing alternative economic strategiesthat are friendly to the ecosystem—such as ecotourism,butterfly farms, and medicinal plant crops—theseowners have benefited economically from conservation

Box 9. Land Tenure Regimes and Deforestation inPetén, Guatemala

The Petén department of northern Guatemala hasexperienced rapid deforestation in recent decades,owing to the expansion of ranching, commerciallogging, road building by the government and oilcompanies, and an influx of settlers practicing slash-and-burn cultivation. By the mid-1990s, over 60 percentof forest area in the department had been lost.

A World Bank study (1995) on the influence of land-tenure regimes on forest exploitation in the Peténidentified four major types of property regime in theregion: public, municipal (or ejidal), cooperative, andprivate. On both public and municipal land, whichcover the great majority of the Petén, illegal loggingand land clearance is virtually unchecked, owing tolack of effective control over access by the titularauthorities.

From an ecological perspective, the situation is nobetter on cooperative and private land. In the 1960s and1970s the government supported the creation ofcooperatives to encourage settlement in the region. Itdid not, however, provide adequate roads or agricul-tural and social services, causing the settlers to rely onexploitation of timber resources. Similarly, privatelandholders in the Petén, whether large cattle ranchersor small farmers, have cleared forest at unsustainablerates because economic returns from agriculture arehigher than those from forest management.

The case of the Petén suggests, therefore, that evensecurity of tenure fails to halt deforestation if theimmediate gains from agriculture and natural timberharvesting exceed those from sustainable forestry, andif economic actors have high incentives and lackexpertise in sustainable resource-use strategies.

Source: Jaramillo and Kelly 1997.


on their own lands. The network currently has overone hundred members, with the properties set aside asreserves ranging in size from 8 to 23,000 hectares(Martha Marín, Executive Director, Costa Rican Net-work of Private Natural Reserves, Personal Communi-cation, September 12, 2000).

Another type of policy initiative may be to grant legaltitle and establish clear territorial demarcation withincommon or community lands30 where the social andcultural structure allows it. For example, in the depart-ment of Totonicapan in Guatemala, most remainingforestlands are under an indigenous communal prop-erty regime that dates back to the early colonial pe-riod.31 These groups (K’icheans), have a strong tradi-tional social structure that effectively controls the rightsof community members to exploit their ancestral land’sresources—thus preventing further deforestation—while securing the benefits they need, includingfuelwood, building material, fiber for craft products,medicinal plants, and water (Elías 1997b, Reyes 1998).

Some of the following questions may be useful toclarify the issues concerning land-tenure regimes andproperty rights in corridor areas:

• What economic and legal incentives can promote respon-sible stewardship of the land under different tenureregimes?

• What are the opportunities for conservation and develop-ment created by providing secure land tenure to indig-enous peoples?

• How can government agencies guarantee user-rights onland that has been legally granted or formally recognizedas autonomous or communal?

• What policies can foster clear and secure profit opportuni-ties for landowners?

Capturing Benefits from Ecosystem Goods and Services

Mesoamerica is richly endowed with timber, minerals,fertile volcanic soils, freshwater, and beautifully variedland- and seascapes. The economic benefits derivedfrom these natural resources can provide income andemployment for rural people and could be a vitalsource of funds to build and sustain the MBC. Today,the region’s natural resources often do not provideenough benefits to enable poor people to make asustainable living on the land. Meanwhile, very little ofthe potential value of timber, minerals, water, andecotourism is reinvested to maintain national parks,

forest reserves, watersheds, and the proposed corridorsthat make up the MBC. These chronically under-fundedareas provide the region with immense value and sodeserve more investment. Promoting wider sharing ofbenefits from natural resource use and investing aportion of the proceeds in sustainable resource manage-ment will help to ensure that the MBC can be imple-mented and maintained in decades to come.

Trends in agriculture, tourism, and forestry illustratethe potential benefits from sustainable natural resourcemanagement as well as the obstacles to capturing thosebenefits. Rapidly growing international markets fororganic shade-grown coffee and cacao, for example,could generate hundreds of millions of dollars inrevenues for the region and substantially improveincomes for small farmers and indigenous people. Mostimportantly for the MBC, shade-grown coffee andorganic cacao also provide habitat for a much widerarray of species than conventional open-grown crops.Government policies such as pesticide subsidies,however, tend to favor conventionally grown crops anda lack of research and extension efforts slows theadoption of shade-grown crops by farmers.

Ecotourism is also growing rapidly in Mesoamerica. Itis already the leading source of foreign exchange inCosta Rica and is swiftly increasing in importance inBelize, Panama, Guatemala, and elsewhere. (See Box 10.)Ecotourism has the potential to provide better liveli-hoods in rural communities and generate sorely neededrevenues for protected areas and conservation activities.Still, it is principally large companies, many of themforeign-owned, that capture these benefits. Further-more, relatively little of the tourism revenue is beingreinvested in conserving the spectacular national parksand wildlands that attract tourists in the first place.

The new markets that are emerging for forest productsand services could contribute substantially to buildingthe MBC. For example, over 650,000 hectares of forest inCentral America and southern Mexico have beencertified as sustainably managed by the Forest Steward-ship Council (FSC 2001). While this represents less thanone percent of the region’s forests, recent commitmentsby large international retailers such as IKEA, HomeDepot, Lowe’s, and B&Q to purchase certified woodproducts indicate a dramatic expansion in internationaldemand for wood produced in ways that generate localsocial benefits and protect biodiversity.

Mesoamerica has also been a leading region in themanagement of forests for their environmental services.The potential contribution such approaches can make to


forestry and to ensure that local populations receive anequitable share of the benefits. National and localgovernments can establish tax incentives, low-interestcredits, and update regulatory processes to create amore level playing field for environmentally sustain-able forms of agriculture, tourism, and forestry. Na-tional governments can establish user fees, visitor fees,stumpage fees, and mineral royalty payments tocapture an equitable amount of the “rent” from the saleor use of publicly owned natural resources. A portion ofthese proceeds should be reinvested in the managementof these resources. Research and training institutions, inpartnership with agriculture, tourism, and naturalresource agencies, can promote better extension pro-grams for organic farming, ecotourism, and forestmanagement. Such efforts can be targeted to strategiccorridor areas. Local farmer, tourism, forestry, business,and campesino associations can network successfulpioneering individuals with those who desire entry intogrowing markets for sustainably produced environ-mental products and services. International conserva-tion organizations can help build markets in NorthAmerica, Europe, and elsewhere for sustainablyproduced Mesoamerican products. They can also helpreform trade laws to enable these products to competefairly in their home countries.

The following questions may be useful in assessingoptions for capturing benefits from natural resources tohelp build the MBC:

• Which natural resources are economically important (orpotentially so) in your area?

• Who owns and who uses those resources?

• If the government owns the resources, how much revenuedoes it receive for their use?

• What portion of user fees, visitor fees, stumpage fees,mineral royalties, and other payments are reinvested innatural resource management?

• Are extension services available to help farmers andlandowners adopt sustainable agricultural and forestmanagement practices?

• How does the area market its potential for organic agricul-ture, ecotourism, and sustainable forestry?

• What government policies hinder sustainable agriculture,tourism, and forest practices?

Box 10. Ecotourism and Community-Based Conserva-tion in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary

The Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS), founded in1985 by the residents of Bermudian Landing in Belize isan innovative experiment in community-basedecotourism and conservation on private lands.

The CBS began as a community-based conservationprogram to protect the habitat of black howler mon-keys. Over time, it moved into ecotourism activities toprovide income to its participants. By 1996, over 4,000visitors were arriving annually. More than 120 privatelandowners manage their land to ensure speciesconservation within the sanctuary, which works withthe Belize Audubon Society and is supported byfunding from the World Wildlife Fund-US.

The project has not been without difficulties, however.No local management body was formed at the outset,leading to recurring organizational problems, while theunequal distribution of tourist income has generatedtension among community members. Nevertheless,CBS’s example has encouraged other communities inBelize to become involved in ecotourism. The projecthas stimulated local pride and provided a mechanismfor the community to engage in natural resourcemanagement decisions. It shows that rural communi-ties have the capacity to participate in and manageconservation and ecotourism efforts if their needs andviews are taken into account from the start.

Source: Horwich and Lyon 1998.

MBC goals was demonstrated in 1995 when a consor-tium of U.S. electric utilities funded a $5.6 millioncarbon sequestration project in Belize’s Rio BravoConservation and Management Area (Niiler 2000). Arecent analysis indicates the MBC could provide theregion with important opportunities to capture carbonsequestration investments. (See Box 11.) In Costa Rica,an environmental services fund financed by a gasolinetax pays landowners $50 per hectare each year torestore forest on degraded lands. Efforts underway inthe San José metropolitan water district to invest aportion of water fees in better watershed managementpractices by farmers and local communities providefurther illustration of such an approach.

Steps by a variety of actors, however, are needed topromote biodiversity-friendly agriculture, tourism, and


• What market conditions limit investment in sustainablenatural resource production?

Harmonizing Institutional and Legal Frameworks andPromoting Intersectoral Cooperation

As presently conceived, the MBC is one of the mostambitious conservation and sustainable developmentstrategies in the world. As such, building the MBC isclearly a cross-sectoral challenge that will require notonly the cooperation of all government agencies whoseinterests and roles are affected by the MBC, but afundamental transformation in their institutionalstructures and legal frameworks.

At present, existing regional and national institutionsfor conservation and natural resource management arepoorly adapted to carry out the new roles the MBC willrequire as they are not cross-sectoral in their approach,lack clarity in their mandates, and frequently lack thepower or authority needed to make decisions. As aresult, their efforts are dispersed, duplicated, or conflictwith other bodies’ legal mandates and provisions,creating constant jurisdictional conflicts (Chang et al.1996; Earth Council et al. 1997; Segura et al. 1997;CCAD 1998a, 1999). For example, in the Petén, theNational Council on Protected Areas (CONAP) and theMinistry of Energy and Mines produced policies thatdesignate the same lands for conservation and petro-leum extraction (Ponciano 1998:108). Neither the policyfor petroleum concessions nor the conservation policyhave successfully reconciled these opposing goals, andno government entity has been granted enough author-ity to negotiate a solution. In Costa Rica, the ForestryLaw and the Law of Multiple Land Titling32 outlineprocedures for coordination between the Institute forAgrarian Development (IDA) and the Ministry ofNatural Resources, Energy and Minerals (MIRENEM)33

in granting land titles to campesinos and establishingforest reserves (Johnston and Lorraine 1994). Despitethe existence of this legal framework, IDA has grantedland titles in protected areas without Forestry Depart-ment approval. Mistrust and competition for financialresources and power among agencies at local, national,and regional levels threaten to undermine cooperation,compliance, and accountability in MBC implementa-tion.

The more powerful ministries and public agencies,such as those of land reform, agriculture, trade, andtransportation, can easily frustrate the attempts ofenvironmental ministries to build the MBC. A trans-portation ministry, for example, decides where to routea new highway. If it is not engaged in the MBC plan-

ning process, and neither its legal mandate nor itspolicies support MBC goals, it is unlikely that it willintegrate the location of proposed corridors or BufferZones into its plans.

Regional, national, and local agencies need to establishorganizational structures and management styles that

Box 11. Potential for Carbon Sequestration in theMBC

Owing to its large potential size and extensive forestarea, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor plays animportant role in the sequestration of carbon dioxideand the mitigation of global climate change. Accordingto a study conducted by the Programa AmbientalRegional para Centroamérica/Central American Pro-tected Areas System (PROARCA/CAPAS), it isestimated that the more than 20 million hectares of theMBC has stored 5,721 million tons of carbon dioxide.They go on to note that the MBC has the potentialcapacity to capture approximately 32 million tons ofcarbon dioxide per year, if forest cover is restored inareas that have been heavily harvested.

In the Multiple-Use Zone of the Maya BiosphereReserve, five community forestry concessions wereevaluated for their potential to reduce emissions ofgreenhouse gases. The study determined that the115,703 hectares of forest in the concessions wereresponsible for capturing 8.7 million metric tons ofcarbon, an ecosystem service estimated at more than$63 million.1 In addition to the carbon currentlycaptured in the area, proper forest management by theconcessions could reduce future carbon emissions by716,061 metric tons over the next 25 years. Communityforestry concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reservesupply a valuable ecosystem service while at the sametime providing an income to their residents, and theopportunity for participation and self-management ofnatural resources.

The CCAD has supported the creation of projectsinvolving renewable energy and carbon sequestration—activities that can help mitigate global climate change.These projects will also offer, in the very near future,economic resources for promoting sustainable develop-ment in Central America.

Sources: PROARCA/CAPAS 2000, Tattenbach et al.2000

1Based on a market value of $7.31 per metric ton ofcarbon.


can pursue the full range of social, economic, andconservation objectives envisioned for the MBC. TheMBC provides an opportunity for the region to rethinkthe relationship between government and civil societyorganizations, and to reform the existing agencies’sectoral responsibilities to align them with MBC goals.From granting legitimacy to emerging governancestructures within the non-state sector, to developinginvestment, financing, and accountability mechanismsfor MBC planning and implementation, the challengefor Mesoamerican societies is to redesign and harmo-nize current institutional and legal frameworks in waysthat will enable policies to be consistent and unified.

The MBC needs to bring together the authoritiesresponsible for natural resources, environment, agricul-ture, transportation and public works, tourism, forestry,and economic planning because each of these agencieshas knowledge, skills, and authority essential forbuilding the initiative. An intersectoral approachtoward horizontal cooperation and collaborativeproblem solving is vital. For example, the transporta-tion ministry can design bridges, culverts, and tunnelpassages to facilitate the movement of fish and wildlifeacross roadways that otherwise isolate populations.Likewise, the agriculture ministry and extensionprograms can target their resources to promote shade-grown organic coffee in areas that are priority land-scape linkages between protected areas. Water andenergy agencies may be able to supply MBC plannerswith vital expertise in hydrology to help design corri-dors that not only maintain biodiversity but also protectwater supplies. No sector acting in isolation can suc-cessfully build the MBC. Ultimately, its success willdepend on the strength of commitments made by non-environmental agencies.

Partnerships and alliances among public authorities arealso important to facilitate the protection, management,and regulation of transnational ecosystems. (See Box 12.)The MBC consists of species, land, and water resourcesthat traverse political boundaries, which means thatgovernments must work collaboratively to protect theircommon natural heritage.

Strategies for harmonizing the legal and institutionalframeworks for intersectoral cooperation will varysignificantly from one location to another. One strategyis to look for opportunities to exchange information,identify common interests and potential conflicts, andplan collaborative efforts at a sub-national level. Theregional conservation areas designated in Costa Rica,Guatemala, and Nicaragua are perhaps the ideal scaleat which to promote intersectoral collaboration. At this

scale, the issues, opportunities, and problems are morespecific than they are at national level. Also, decentrali-zation trends have already transferred many of therelevant authorities to the sub-national level. A public,annual, interagency workshop to review MBC progressand plans could help to build intersectoral cooperation.

The following questions may be useful in assessingoptions for harmonizing legal and institutional frame-works to implement the MBC:

• What non-environmental agencies and policies (forinstance, agriculture, mining, energy, transportation, andpublic works) are most relevant to building the MBC?

• How can each agency’s legal mandate, responsibilities, andfunctions be harmonized with the requirements of MBCimplementation, compliance, and monitoring?

• Are there overlapping sub-national administrative regionsthat could be useful for organizing interagency collabora-tion to build the MBC?

• What incentives might bring other government andnongovernmental actors to the planning table?

• What private sector organizations could contribute to theMBC? What are their potential interests in the MBC?

• How active are non-environmental agencies in MBCplanning? How active are private sector organizations?

Setting Investment and Management Priorities

Governments, donor agencies, and non-governmentalorganizations have begun to make major financialcommitments to develop the Mesoamerican BiologicalCorridor. Already, governments in the United Statesand Europe, private foundations, and internationaldevelopment agencies have made commitments esti-mated at anywhere from $85 million to $600 million,while governments in the region have assigned addi-tional human, technical, and financial resources(Burnett 1998; WRI field interviews, 2000, 2001). By anymeasure, this is an impressive commitment to conserva-tion and sustainable development. Still, the challengeremains: how to invest these resources wisely. Many ofthe commitments have been made at regional andnational scales. The challenge now is to translate thosecommitments into site-specific actions that move theMBC forward on the ground. Which ecosystems aremost threatened? What private sector incentives aremost needed? What investments would create the mostsocial benefits? These are just a few of the questions that


must be resolved in light of local needs and circum-stances.

A number of general considerations could help orientthe use of resources in the most effective manner. Forexample, MBC commitments thus far appear to beheavily biased toward terrestrial areas. Yet, coastal andmarine habitats are vital to biodiversity and humanlivelihoods in Mesoamerica. The Costas project fundedby USAID and the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef projectare helping to integrate coastal ecosystems into theMBC. Other needs and opportunities to integratecoastal and marine areas into the MBC should beconsidered.

Another important issue is the balance and timing ofinvestments in protected areas as against those directedat new corridor regions. Today, there are over 700declared and proposed protected areas in Mesoamerica(WCMC 2000). This raises the question of whetherenough resources are being targeted up front to safe-

guard the protected areas and wildlands that are thekeystones for the MBC.

One issue that will also be vital to orienting resourcesfor the MBC is determining the appropriate mix ofdirect financial investments, policy development andreforms, and targeted incentive and subsidy programs.For example, creating new incentives for biodiversity-friendly crops like organic shade-grown coffee andcacao is sometimes characterized as necessary forcorridor development. However, it may be moreeffective to eliminate existing subsidies for cropsincompatible with biodiversity maintenance, like sugarand cattle, or to shift these subsidies towardbiodiversity-friendly crops and land uses. (See Box 13.)Another important issue is the role of investments inthe public versus the private sector. Should directinvestments be targeted primarily at improving publicsector resources, such as staff and basic facilities, whilepolicy reforms, tax incentives, and targeted investmentsin demonstration projects become the principal tools for

Box 12. A Trinational Effort to Conserve Coastal Resources in the Gulf of Honduras

The Gulf of Honduras, off the Caribbean coasts of Hondu-ras, Guatemala, and Belize, contains a great variety ofcoastal and marine habitats and supports high levels ofbiodiversity and marine productivity. The gulf is home tothe Caribbean’s largest manatee population, totaling 300to 700 individuals, sustains the largest stand of mangrovesin all of Belize and coastal Guatemala, and includes theBelize Barrier Reef, which was classified as a WorldHeritage Site in 1996. The high productivity level of thegulf and its surrounding coastal habitat enables a varietyof economic activities, including commercial and sportfishing, banana cultivation, industrial shipping, andecotourism. The coast’s inhabitants are largely of theGarifuna ethnic group, whose occupation of the areapredates the establishment of national boundaries.

The Gulf of Honduras is experiencing a general decline inthe health of its natural resources, including decliningwater quality, diminishing commercial fish stocks, andwaning manatee populations. Effective internationalcoordination is needed to ensure sustainable managementof coastal and marine resources, promote environmentallysound economic development, deal with transnationalmigration of commercially exploited species, addresscross-national contributions to degrading water quality,and handle overlapping responsibilities of various

government actors within each country. In spite of existinglegislation and enforcement authorities, the ability of allthree countries to enforce regulations effectively is limitedby scarce resources, lack of institutional coordination, andconflicts over use-rights in the gulf due to overlappingExclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in the territorial watersof the three countries.

Despite these limitations, the governments of Belize,Guatemala and Honduras do share strong commitmentsto developing and managing multiple-use coastal andmarine protected areas, which will promote ecotourismdevelopment, environmental protection and monitoring,fisheries management, and marine environmentaleducation. With technical and institutional support fromPROARCA/Costas1 and various local NGOs, the goal ofthese governments is to establish a trinational system ofcoastal and marine protected areas to serve both environ-mental protection and sustainable development objec-tives.

Source: PROARCA/Costas 1996.

1PROARCA/Costas is addressing transboundary coastaland marine issues at a variety of additional sites through-out Central America, including the Gulf of Fonseca, theMiskito Coast, and the Gandoca/Bocas del Toro region.


encouraging greater private sector participation in theMBC?

A substantial proportion of the resources committed tothe MBC will be used to build human and institutionalcapacity to develop this initiative. There is no doubtthat these investments are much needed, but whatcapacities are needed most? Developing the MBC will

require skills and capacities in fields ranging from thebasic biological, social, and economic sciences throughto practical fieldwork, policy analysis, business man-agement, conflict management, community organiza-tion, and rural extension.

All of these skills are relevant, but the exact mixnecessary will vary by location and will depend on thestage of the MBC’s development. An important step isto develop a capacity assessment. Such an assessmentcould take place once a basic MBC plan or strategy hasbeen developed. It would identify skills needed toimplement key elements of the strategy, assess wherethose skills already exist and how they can be har-nessed, and propose how new ones could be devel-oped. However, building capacity is neither cheap norquick. For example, to bolster Costa Rica’s limitedcapacity in taxonomy, local people were provided withbasic training and employed by the NationalBiodiversity Institute (INBio) to help inventory thecountry’s biotic wealth. The program found that it costmore than $50,000 to train, employ, and support eachparataxonomist over ten years (Janzen et al. 1993).Clearly, investments in capacity building must bechosen carefully in response to the most pressing needs.

Ultimately, prioritizing resource use to build the MBCwill take into account local needs and opportunities.The following questions may be useful in assessingoptions for targeting resources to where they areneeded most:

• Have ecological, social, and project priorities for the MBCbeen identified in your area? Are they being used to directfinancial, human, and other resources?

• Are there obvious gaps in current investments in the MBC(for instance, coastal areas, protected areas, or communityextension)? Are there plans to address these gaps? If not,how can they be addressed?

• Are policy reforms, such as shifting subsidies frombiodiversity-unfriendly to biodiversity-friendly crops incorridor areas, being considered in addition to directfinancial investments?

• What additional human and institutional capacities aremost needed in your area to implement the MBC?

Box 13. Environmental Services and Cattle Subsidies inCosta Rica

In 1996, an environmental service payments programwas initiated by the Costa Rican government to provideforest owners with monetary incentives not to fell trees.Initially, the program was considered to be a model forsuccessful forest management and conservation and isbeing replicated in other Latin American countries,such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. Lowearnings from ranching, combined with governmentsubsidies to landowners who allowed their fields torevert to forestland, convinced many ranchers to agreeto reforestation quotas and participate in the program.

However, the environmental service payments pro-gram is now in danger of collapse. Forestry groups areblaming the threatened future of the program on theCosta Rican government’s failure to invest revenuesfrom a fuel tax into the program, as required by law.They claim that the government has been investingonly 40 percent of the total funds earmarked for theprogram, which has severely limited its effectiveness.The president of the Costa Rican Forestry Chambernoted that while almost 235,000 hectares of privateforests have been incorporated into conservation andmanagement programs since 1996, forest owners,representing an additional 500,000 hectares of forest,have expressed interest in participating in the program.If the Costa Rican government had been investing thestipulated funds all along, these demands could havebeen met, allowing a greater proportion of thecountry’s forests to benefit from improved manage-ment and conservation practices.

Sources: Dulude 2000, Kaimowitz 2000.


IV.Conclusions

A deliberate, place-based effort to engage stakeholdersmay be a key step toward establishing confidence andtrust in the MBC. One approach would be for each ofthe Mesoamerican countries to develop a pilot partici-patory action plan. Goals of such a plan would includeestablishing a widely supported MBC action plan foreach area, and developing skills in MBC planning andimplementation. Expertise gained through this actionplan can be shared among countries and used topromote planning and implementation of corridorprojects in other parts of each country. Adoption of thisstrategy could include three major steps:

First, a draft framework could be designed that wouldhelp guide the countries as they establish their pilotparticipatory action plans. This framework might bedeveloped by the CCAD’s MBC Regional Office Coor-dinating Unit and its team of national liaisons, incollaboration with regional institutions such as CATIE,IUCN-Mesoamerica, the University for Peace, the Pan-American School El Zamorano, and internationalorganizations such as WWF, the Nature Conservancy,and the World Bank. The framework would includeoptions or questions that each country might considerfor dealing with planning and implementation issues inthe pilot area. It would also contain information andtools to help the countries address those issues. Forexample, it might include methodologies for promotingdialogue and discussion among stakeholder groups;participatory strategies for identifying social needs;data sets on ecological, social, and economic features ofthe pilot areas; candidate criteria for identifying Corri-dor, Buffer, and Multiple-Use Zones; maps showingbiodiversity, carbon, and other environmental servicevalues; and summaries of the biodiversity impacts ofdifferent crops and cropping patterns. The frameworkwould be a checklist of issues and options, accompa-nied by a set of tools and data to help each countryorient its pilot implementation plan. Each countrycould adapt the framework to its local circumstances.Countries would be encouraged to track and explain

The MBC is a visionary effort to safeguard one of theworld’s biodiversity hotspots while meeting the socialand economic needs of the region’s people. Althoughgovernments and donors have made important finan-cial and political commitments to the initiative, publicawareness, local support, and broad public and privateagency involvement remain quite limited. Amongpeople and institutions that are aware of the MBC, thereare often different and sometimes conflicting expecta-tions about its goals and objectives and how to proceedwith implementation. This reflects very real differencesin values and opinions as well as a lack of understand-ing about the conservation, social, and economic rolesof the MBC. The MBC now stands at a critical thresholdbetween concept and reality. Its vision will not berealized unless most of the region’s people understandthe MBC’s purpose and commit to its goals and objec-tives.

The ability to build trust and confidence among variousstakeholders of the MBC will, in the end, determine itsfate. Identifying and employing strategies that buildsuch conviction should be a major goal of early imple-mentation efforts. These efforts should assure peoplethat the MBC will improve their livelihoods whilepreserving the region’s biological richness. Initialactions taken to address local and national social andeconomic priorities should provide incentives forresidents to participate actively in the design andmanagement of the MBC. In addition, early measures toaddress important conservation priorities shouldreassure conservationists that the MBC will yield long-term benefits for biodiversity. Giving broadly equiva-lent attention to social, economic, and conservationpriorities in the early stages of implementation willbuild public support for addressing more complicatedissues later on. Even so, frequent negotiation andconflict management between stakeholders and projectproponents will be essential. Out of this dynamicprocess, a more broadly shared vision of the initiativemay emerge, which can both inform general strategyand prioritize particular activities.


their changes to the framework and identify whichparts were of greatest and least use.

Second, each country would select a proposed corridorpilot site where the government and stakeholdergroups could develop a participatory action plan for theMBC. This process would enable proponents of theMBC to test and evaluate options for moving forwardwith implementation. Issues addressed in developingthe participatory action plan would be similar to thoseidentified in the previous section. These include publicparticipation; accessing and sharing information andstewardship for the resources; refining criteria forcorridors, Buffer and Multiple-Use Zones; addressingtenure issues; generating and distributing economicbenefits; promoting intersectoral cooperation; andestablishing investment and management priorities.The order in which issues would be addressed and theeffort devoted to each would vary between pilot areasaccording to local circumstances.

Third, after each country has implemented its pilotparticipatory action plan, the countries would meet tocompare experiences. This comparison will helpplanners and decision-makers to understand thecomplex interactions and tradeoffs that will occur indifferent settings as the MBC moves toward implemen-

tation. Based on the pilot experiences, the draft frame-work would be revised by CCAD and the regionalinstitutions. Each country would then be able to adoptand adapt the planning framework to develop corridoraction plans in other parts of the country.

While pilot projects are one option to begin the processof long-term development and implementation of theMBC, there are surely others. Participants and stake-holders should be encouraged to continue undertakingfurther analysis of the challenges facing implementa-tion. It is vital that MBC planners and decision-makerstake into account the different strategies required foreach setting.

Regardless of how they choose to build trust andconfidence, no challenge is more urgent for govern-ments and other proponents of the MBC. Lack of trustand understanding can slow implementation of theMBC just as surely as can a shortage of money orpersonnel. The best way to forestall this danger is to usea participatory approach to planning and implementa-tion of the MBC, and to modify the approach as appro-priate for each particular setting. In this manner, theMBC can become a central mechanism for achievingMesoamerica’s long-term development and conserva-tion goals.


About the Authors

Dr. Kenton Miller is WRI’s Vice President for Interna-tional Development and Conservation. His work atWRI has included extensive analysis of biodiversityand bioregional management around the world and heled the international team that formulated the GlobalBiodiversity Strategy. He holds degrees in ForestManagement from the University of Washington and aPh.D. in Forest Economics from State University ofNew York, Syracuse.

Ms. Elsa Chang is Senior Associate and Director of theMesoamerican Biological Corridor project in WRI’sBiological Resources Program. Formerly a

Mesoamerican archaeologist, she holds an MA inInternational Development Policy from the SanfordInstitute of Public Policy at Duke University.

Mr. Nels Johnson is Deputy Director of WRI’s Biologi-cal Resources Program. His research over the lastdecade has concentrated on sustainable forest manage-ment and biodiversity conservation in Asia, the Carib-bean, and the United States. Mr. Johnson received a BAin Biology from Reed College and a Master of ForestScience from Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmen-tal Studies.


Annex 1. Highlights of a Decade of Central American Environmental Achievements and the Evolution of the MBCInitiative

1989 –The Central American Commission on Environment and Development (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente yDesarrollo, CCAD) is established as a regional inter-governmental mechanism to promote cooperation and coordinationof environmental policies and actions, protect the environment, manage and conserve natural resources, and controlpollution by member countries

1990-91 – The Tropical Forestry Action Plan for Central America (TFAP-CA) is developed to address deforestation and provideguidelines for forestry concessions and policies

1992 –The Central American Agenda for Environment and Development is prepared and presented at the UNCED—thisrepresented the first consensus-based regional position statement that encourages sustainability– Governments sign the Central American Convention on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, thus creating under theCCAD, the Central American Council for the Protected Areas (CCAP)– Governments sign the Central American Convention for the Management and Conservation of Natural ForestEcosystems and the Development of Forest Plantations

1993 – The ratification of the Forest convention creates the Central American Council on Forests (CCAB) to bring togetherthe region’s national forest service directors and TFAP national coordinators– The Central American Integration System (SICA) begins operation as the new regional institutional structure andframework for decision-making and implementation of regional commitments for peace, democracy, socioeconomicdevelopment, and the environment

1994 – The regional wildlands conservation project, Path of the Panther (Paseo Pantera), is launched to establish naturalbiological corridors along the Caribbean coast–The Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) is established as the regional agenda forglobal economic cooperation and development, social equity, environmental protection, and conservation of naturalresources—to strengthen the Central American Protected Areas System (SICAP), through the establishment of theCentral American Biological Corridor. Therefore, the CCAD is assigned to oversee and take the lead in implementingthe Corridor Initiative

1995-96 – The Mexican government joins the CCAD in a pledge to establish the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor– CCAD with support of GTZ and GEF conducts a planning phase for a regional project to implement the MBC– Technical assessments are conducted at the National level

1997 – The heads-of-state of Central America endorse the establishment of the MBC through the strengthening of SICAP,as a regional priority for conservation and sustainable development– The governments of Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras sign the Tulum Declaration, which establishes acommitment to conserve and manage the Mesoamerican Caribbean Reef System in a sustainable manner

1998 – CCAD finalizes a proposal for a regional project entitled, “Program for the Consolidation of the MesoamericanBiological Corridor,” which is submitted to UNDP/GEF-GTZ– CICAFOC (Coordinadora Indígena y Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria Centroamericana), a regionalcoordinating body for indigenous and farmers’ associations formulates a unified position asserting their role andenvisioning the MBC as an option for local sustainable development for indigenous peoples, blacks, and farmers

1999 – The CCAD’s regional Project for the MBC is approved and funded by the UNDP/GEF-GTZ; National TechnicalLiaisons are hired and offices are created

2000 -A CCAD-UNDP/GEF-GTZ Regional Coordinating Office for the MBC Project is established in Nicaragua

Sources: WRI 1995; Page and Schwarz 1996; Earth Council et al. 1997; CCAD 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 2000a, 2000b;CICAFOC 1998, 1999.


Notes

1. The mean GNP per capita of the region is US$1,900, whichhas grown very little during the past decade (INEGI 1997,2000; World Bank 2000). A large proportion of the region’spopulation (40 percent) lack access to basic health careservices (CCAD 1998a). Most of the reported diseasecases (80 percent) are water-borne, many of which areeasily preventable given access to clean water (CCAD1998a). Illiteracy in the region is relatively high by worldstandards—21 percent for women and 17 percent for men(WRI 2000). The rate is higher still for older age cohorts.

2. Income from agriculture represents 16 percent of GDP inthe region, and an average of 27 percent of CentralAmerica’s workforce was employed in the formalagricultural sector between 1990 and 1996 (Inter-Ameri-can Development Bank 2000, World Bank 2000). Morethan one fifth of Mesoamericans live in coastal areaswhere fishing is an important or sole source of income andlivelihood, worth at least US$750 million annually (CCAD1998a). Fuelwood remains an important source of energyin Mesoamerica—an estimated 92 percent of woodproduction in the region is for fuelwood (CCAD 1998a).

3. This figure represents the deforestation rate in CentralAmerica. It does not include data from Mexico.

4. A study in Costa Rica has estimated the economic value ofenvironmental services provided by its forest ecosystems(including conservation of water quality and biodiversity,and carbon sequestration) to be between US$29 and $87per hectare per year for primary forest, and betweenUS$20.88 and $62.64 for secondary forests. This translatesto an annual economic value for Costa Rican forests ofbetween US$17.8 and $87.6 million (Carranza et al. 1996).

5. The CCAD is the regional intergovernmental forum of theseven Central American ministers of environment andnatural resources. Mexico participates in this forum as anobserver. CCAD’s Executive Secretariat is housed in theGeneral Directorate for the Environment (DGMA) withinthe General Secretariat of the Central American Integra-tion System (SICA) in El Salvador. CCAD promotescooperation and coordination of policies and actions bymember countries to protect the environment, manageand conserve natural resources, and control pollution.

6. These included the Convention on Biodiversity and theConvention for the Management and Conservation ofNatural Forest Ecosystems and the Development of ForestPlantations. Along with the establishment of theseregional treaties, a set of new institutions were createdunder the CCAD framework, including the CentralAmerican Council on Forests (CCAB) and the CentralAmerican Council for Protected Areas (CCAP).

7. The signing of ALIDES provided a framework for interna-tional cooperation for Central America. Countries in theregion sought financial and technical assistance frommultilateral and bilateral agencies (USAID, World Bank,CIDA, and others) to implement conservation andenvironmental protection projects.

8. The term “initiative” is used in this document to refer tothe Mesoamerican Biological Corridor as a range ofactivities carried out at regional, national, and local levelsto establish corridors for the conservation of biodiversityand improvement of socioeconomic conditions.

9. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and CaribbeanConservation Corporation (CCC) with financial supportfrom the USAID.

10. Originally, ALIDES endorsed the Central AmericanBiological Corridor. However, after the region’s heads-of-state met with the Mexican government at the Tuxtla IInegotiations, they agreed to incorporate the five states ofsouthern Mexico within the initiative, now known as theMesoamerican Biological Corridor (McCarthy et al. 1997).

11. We refer to the activities of the GEF and GTZ fundedregional CCAD MBC project office and the technicalliaisons as “the Program.”

12. The primary roles of the ROCU are: program coordinationand strategic planning, resource mobilization, informationand monitoring on biodiversity, education and citizenparticipation, training and capacity building efforts,communication and outreach, and legal framework andpolicy harmonization.


13. This is a separate initiative endorsed by the heads-of-stateof Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras in QuintanaRoo, Mexico on June 5, 1997 under the Tulum Declaration.The endorsement pledges the inclusion of wetlands andcoastal and marine management and conservation in theMBC (CCAD 1998d, PROARCA/COSTAS 1999).

14. A bioregion is “a geographic space that contains onewhole or several nested ecosystems. It is characterized byits landforms, vegetative cover, human culture, andhistory, as identified by local communities, governments,and scientists” (Miller 1996).

15. There has, however, been active debate about the conser-vation benefits of corridors. Some critics have raisedconcerns about their potential role as a vector of disease,invasive species, and other disturbances, and their costrelative to other conservation options such as creatingnew protected areas (Simberloff et al. 1992, Bonner 1994).

16. For example, in the early 1980s, cattle pastures clearedfrom the forest threatened to surround the La SelvaBiological Station in Costa Rica’s Atlantic lowlands, abiologically rich but relatively small area, world famous asa research and educational reserve. Some species, such asthe Jaguar (Panthera onca), Emerald Toucanet(Aulacorhynchus prasinus), Bare-throated Umbrella Bird(Cephalopterus glabricollis), Green Hermit (Phaethrinis guy),and Silver-throated Tanager (Tangara icterocephala)regularly move between the reserve and Braulio CarrilloNational Park nearly 30 km. away. Researchers estimatedthat more than 90 species of birds would eventuallydisappear from La Selva if the reserve were totallyisolated (Pringle et al. 1984). To safeguard the biodiversityat the research station, a corridor of primary forest andrestored secondary forest was established joining La Selvaand Braulio Carrillo in the late 1980s.

17. For example, the endangered Resplendent Quetzal(Pharomachrus mocinno) breeds in the montane forests ofCosta Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve. Thebirds, however, spend half of the year feeding in remnantlower elevation forest habitats on the Pacific and Atlanticslopes below the Monteverde Preserve. Because almostall the surrounding lands are privately owned dairyfarms, a contiguous corridor is not possible. Instead,efforts are focusing on developing a patchwork ofinterconnected forest fragments along streams and steepslopes that together can function as a system of suitablehabitat for the Quetzal (Powell and Bjork 1995).

18. The regional heads-of-state recognized these zones whenthey endorsed the MBC in 1997 (XIX Reunión Ordinaria dePresidentes Centroamericanos, Julio 1997).

19. A protected area is “an area of land and/or sea especiallydedicated to the protection of biological diversity, and of

natural and associated cultural resources, and managedthrough legal or other effective means” (IUCN 1994).

20. The term “corridor” is used throughout this discussion inorder to maintain consistency with the terminologyadopted by the MBC initiative. However, from a biologicalperspective, the pertinent issue is the “connectivity” of alandscape—the extent to which it supports or inhibitsmovement between suitable habitats—rather than thespecific form of connecting habitat. A high level ofconnectivity can be achieved through the use of a varietyof formats, including corridors, stepping stones, andhabitat mosaics (Bennett 1999).

21. Some transportation corridors, such at the Braulio CarrilloParkway in Costa Rica, are characterized by the mainte-nance of their scenic values, and other developmentcorridors may include some natural elements, such asgreenways, gardens, urban forestry, and animal under-passes.

22. A palm of the genus Chamadorea, native to CentralAmerica that is exported and used locally in floralarrangements.

23. The Maya Forest constitutes one of the last large blocks oftropical forest remaining in North and Central America. Itstretches from the Mexican state of Chiapas acrossnorthern Guatemala into the southern Yucatan Peninsula,and across Belize. The region is rich in biological resourcesand archaeological sites.

24. Constitutions in Central America generally specify thatthe municipal government is autonomous, both finan-cially and politically, leading mayors to press strongly forincreased revenues and control over resources. Nationalassociations of Municipalities in El Salvador, Honduras,and Nicaragua, have played pivotal roles in gettingmunicipal interests onto the legislative agenda in theirrespective countries (USAID 1999). Together with theirregional federation, FEMICA—the Federation of CentralAmerican Municipalities—these associations havecontinued to fight for decentralized power by coordinat-ing actions and policies to strengthen municipal au-tonomy and gain independence from national partypolitics. FEMICA was created in 1991 and consists of allsix National Municipal Associations (it excludes Belize),which represent a total of 1,185 local municipal govern-ments.

25. Most municipal governments devote the majority of theirbudget and attention to urban issues—sanitation, garbagecollection, improvement of water systems, and buildinginfrastructure—their demands for policy reform andmunicipal autonomy, therefore, have been limited todecisions over these issues, rather than those regardingforestry concessions, biodiversity conservation, orwatershed management.


26. Municipalities are able to set and adjust user fees but maybe unable to levy their own taxes and raise their ownrevenues. In addition, in most countries in the region, thecurrent system for budgeting, accounting, and reportingof municipal revenues and expenditures is deficient anddoes not comply with international standards for financialmanagement (USAID 1999).

27. Relevant precedents cited in ILRC 1999 include theConstitution of Nicaragua (1987), Articles 49, 89, 180, 181;Estatuto de Autonomía de las Regiones de la Costa Atlántica deNicaragua, Law No. 28 (7 September 1987); and Panamá:Sobre el Regimen Especial de la Comarca Kuna Yala, Articles 3,11, 12, 20.

28. Such as (ALIDES) and the CONCAUSA agreement signedbetween the United States and the Central Americangovernments in the Summit of the Americas in 1994, andlater at a similar regional event in 1996 in Santa Cruz,Bolivia. The countries of the region agreed upon theestablishment of a country-level information clearing-house and an environmental information system (CCAD1994, Corrales 2000).

29. The term ejido refers to collective or communal landmostly used for agriculture. In Mexico, an ejido propertyregime was established following the Revolution in 1910.It takes the form of a land grant administered by a groupof individuals called ejidatarios, who hold usufruct rightsto their ejido accorded to them by the Mexican federalgovernment (Ericson et al. 1999). At least 80 percent offorestlands in Mexico are community-owned (Santos et al.1998). In Guatemala, these collective lands—established

during colonial times as a way to control the distributionof indigenous populations and collect taxes—are similarlyused by a community, but are administered undermunicipal provisions and bylaws, therefore they are morecommonly known as ejidos municipales (Elías 1997a).

30. Research conducted by Ostrom and other scholars suggestthat common property regimes can be an appropriateinstitutional arrangement for the effective management offorest resources. They point out that this type of tenureseems to work best in areas with low migratory pressures,where there is a reduced disparity in wealth and a strongsocial organization, and when such administrativearrangements reaffirm long-standing customary rights ofaccess and forest use by local communities (Jaramillo andKelly 1997).

31. Titles over the lands were granted to these groups by theSpaniards during colonial times, but the titles are moresignificant in their historical value than in their ability toact as legal guarantees of land rights (Elías 1997a, Reyes1998).

32. The 1994 Law of Multiple Land Titling (#5064) wasdeclared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of CostaRica. Due to this change, all issues relating to multipleland titling now fall under the Law of Land Titling inNational Reserves (#7599) (Lenin Corrales, personalcommunication, May 2001).

33. Currently, the Ministry of Environment and Energy(MINAE).


References

Bunch, Roland, and Gabino López. 1994. “Soil Recuperationin Central America: Measuring the Impact Three to FortyYears after Intervention.” Paper presented at the Interna-tional Institute for Environment and Development’sInternational Policy Workshop. Bangalore, India,November-December 1994.

Burke, Lauretta, Yumiko Kura, Ken Kassem, Mark Spalding,and Carmen Revenga. 2000. The Pilot Analysis of GlobalEcosystems: Coastal Ecosystems. Washington, DC: WRI.

Burnett, J. 1998. “After the Wars: Protecting Central America’sEnvironment.” Online at: http://www2.planeta.com/mader/planeta/0898.

Caddy, Emma, Gregorio Ch’oc, and Shaun Paul. 2000. “CaseStudy of the Sarstoon-Temash National Park.” Unpub-lished paper. Boston: Ecologic Development Fund.Online at: http://www.ecologic.org/sarstoon.htm.

Carr, Margaret H., J. David Lambert, y Paul D. Zwick. 1994.Mapeo de la Potencialidad de un Corredor Biológico Continuoen América Central/Mapping of Continuous BiologicalCorridor Potential in Central America. Final Report, PaseoPantera. Florida: University of Florida.

Carranza, Carlos Francisco, Bruce A. Aylward, JaimeEcheverría, Joseph A. Tosi, y Ronald Mejías. 1996.Valoración de los Servicios Ambientales de los Bosques deCosta Rica. Centro Cientifico Tropical, San José, CostaRica. 1 de Agosto de 1996.

Castañeda, Anselmo. 1996. The Belize National Report on theMesoamerican Biological Corridor Project. Proyecto SistemaRegional Mesoamericano de Areas Protegidas, Zonas deAmortiguamiento y Corredores Biológicos. RLA/95/G41. Belmopán, Belize: PNUD.

Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza/Unión Mundial para la Naturaleza (CATIE/UICN). 1997.Directorio de Estudios Ambientales en América Central. SerieBibliotecología y Documentación. Directorios No.2.Turrialba, Costa Rica: CATIE/UICN.

Amillien, Caroline, Carlos M. Chacón, Rolando Castro,Stephen Mack, y Andrea Meza. 1998. “MecanismosLegales para la Conservación de Tierras Privadas enAmérica Central,” en Conservación de Tierras Privadas enAmérica Central. Carlos Chacón y Rolando Castro, eds.Pp. 19-52. San José, Costa Rica: CEDARENA.

Ascher, William. 1995. Communities and Sustainable Forestry inDeveloping Countries. San Francisco, CA: Institute forContemporary Studies.

Barbault, R, and S.D. Sastrapradja. 1995. “Section 4: Genera-tion, maintenance, and loss of biodiversity,” in GlobalBiodiversity Assessment. V.H. Heywood, ed. UnitedNations Environment Programme, Nairobi, and Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Barraclough, Solon and Daniel Moss. 1999. Toward GreaterFood Security in Central America Following HurricaneMitch: Rethinking Sustainable Rural Development Priorities.Washington, DC: Oxfam America.

Bennett, Andrew F. 1990. “Habitat Corridors and the Conser-vation of Small Mammals in a Fragmented ForestEnvironment.” Landscape Ecology 4: 109-122.

Bennett, Andrew F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role ofCorridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN.

Bonner, J. 1994. “Wildlife’s Road to Nowhere?” New Scientist143 (1939): 30-40.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, M. Taghi Farvar, Jean ClaudeNguinguiri, and Vincent Ndangang. 2000. Co-managementof Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. GTZ and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg,Germany.

Bryant, Dirk, Daniel Nielsen and Laura Tangley. 1997. “TheLast Frontier Forests.” Issues in Science and Technology14:85-7.


Centro Latinoamericano para la Competitividad y elDesarrollo Sostenible (INCAE/ CLACDS), HarvardInstitute for International Development (HIID), ySecretaría General del Sistema de la IntegraciónCentroamericana (SG-SICA). 1998. Estrategia para laReconstrucción y la Transformación de Centroamérica despuésdel Huracán Mitch. Propuesta para la preparación yseguimiento del Grupo Consultivo Regional. Washing-ton, DC. 10-11 December 1998.

Chacón, Carlos y Rolando Castro, eds. 1998. Conservación deTierras Privadas en America Central. San José, Costa Rica:CEDARENA.

Chang, Elsa, Alfonso González y Aarón Zazueta. 1996. Hacia elFortalecimiento del Marco Institucional de la GestiónAmbiental en Centroamérica. Washington, DC: WRI.

Chaves Q., Silvia E. y Mario Loría. 1998. “La Municipalidadde San Ramón y la Gestión Ambiental Descentralizada,”en Manejo Descentralizado y Colaborativo del MedioAmbiente en Centroamérica, Memoria del Encuentro. Pp. 67-72. San José, Costa Rica. 20-22 abril 1998.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1989. Central American Agreement for theProtection of the Environment. Signed at the Summit, SanIsidro Coronado, Costa Rica. 10-12 December 1989.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1993. Plan de Acción Forestal Tropical paraCentroamerica. Convenio Regional para el Manejo yConservación de los Ecosistemas Naturales Forestales yel Desarrollo de Plantaciones Forestales. Guatemala City,Guatemala: CCAD.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1994. Central American Alliance for SustainableDevelopment. San José, Costa Rica: CCAD.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1998a. State of the Environment and NaturalResources in Central America 1998. San José, Costa Rica:CCAD.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1998b. Programa Estratégico del Corredor BiológicoMesoamericano. Micronoticias de Integración Ambiental.Guatemala: CCAD.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1998c. Incendios: Problemática y Perspectivas.Memoria de la Reunión Técnica. San Pedro Sula, Honduras.23-24 June 1998.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1998d. Taller de Expertos Legales de los PaísesSignatarios de la Declaración de Tulum, Respecto al SistemaArrecifal del Caribe Mesoamericano (SAM). EdiciónEspecial. Boletín Semanal No. 30/98. Julio, 1998.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 1999. Documento de Proyecto, RLA/97/G31,Establecimiento de un Programa para la Consolidación delCorredor Biológico Mesoamericano. Managua, Nicaragua:CCAD.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 2000a. Plan Ambiental de la RegiónCentroamericana. Dirección General del Medio Ambiente,Sistema para la Integración Centroamericana (DGMA-SICA). San Salvador, El Salvador: Ediciones Sanabria.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD). 2000b. Programa para la Consolidación delCorredor Biológico Mesoamericano. Managua, Nicaragua:CCAD.

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo(CCAD) – Programa Frontera Agrícola (PFA), EuropeanUnion. 1998. Atlas Centroamericano de Incendios: lasQuemas e Incendios de la Temporada 1998 en la RegiónCentroamericana. Panamá: CCAD.

Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas, Guatemala (CONAP).1999a. A un paso del Siglo XXI en la Reserva de la BiosferaMaya. Guatemala: Serie Documentos Técnicos No. 04.Julio 1999.

Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas, Guatemala (CONAP).1999b. Estado Actual de la Gestión y Avances 1999. Memo-ria de Labores, Guatemala.

Coordinadora Indígena Campesina de AgroforesteríaComunitaria (CICAFOC). 1998. “Corredor BiológicoCampesino e Indígena en América Central.” Paperpresented at the Donor Coordinating Meeting. Paris,France. 29-30 October 1998.

Coordinadora Indígena Campesina de AgroforesteríaComunitaria (CICAFOC). 1999. Componente Social yProductivo del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. San José,Costa Rica: CICAFOC.

Corrales, Lenin. 2000. “Manejo de Datos e Información sobreRecursos Naturales en Centroamérica: un AnálisisPiloto.” Unpublished draft manuscript. Costa Rica.

Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano- Sección Costa Rica(CBM-CR). 2000. Puentes de Vida. Organo Informativo delCorredor Biológico Mesoamericano- Sección Costa Rica.CCAD/GTZ/PNUD/MINAE. Número 2, Abril 2000.


Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B.Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Maeem, R.V. O’Neil, J. Paureulo,R. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. “TheValue of the World’s Ecosystem Services and NaturalCapital.” Nature 387: 253-260.

Currle, Jochen, Bernadina Nixon, Maike Potthast, RitaReinhardt, Stefan Schukat, y Anna Steinschen. 1999.Posibilidades de Protección Sostenible de Areas Protegidas conla Participación de Etnias Indígenas- un Estudio de Caso de laReserva de Biosfera BOSAWAS, Nicaragua. UniversidadHumboldt, Berlin.

Dulude, Julie. 2000. “Pioneer Program in Peril.” Tico Times6(5). San José, Costa Rica.

Durán de Jager, Patricia. 1997. “The Roles and Relationshipsof the Social Investment Funds, Local Governments andCommunities in Central America.” Central AmericanFederation of Municipalities (FEMICA). Paper presentedat the Inter American Development Bank workshop onDecentralization. May 1997. Online at: http://www.iadb.org/regions/re2/consulta…p/groups/decentralization _workshop_2htm.

Earth Council, Central American Commission for Environ-ment and Development (CCAD), Ministry of Tourismand Environment of Belize, Cooperation Foundation forSustainable Development (Fundecooperación), Guate-malan Association for Research and Social Studies(ASIES), United Nations Development Programme(UNDP). 1997. Regional Evaluation Report for CentralAmerica: Evaluation of Accomplishments of the CentralAmerican Commitments Acquired Within the Framework ofAgenda 21 and the Central American Alliance for SustainableDevelopment Towards the Rio+5 Forum. Belize City, Belize:27-30 January 1997.

Elías, Silvel. 1997a. Bosques Comunales en Guatemala.Cuadernos Chac. Guatemala: Facultad de Agronomía,Universidad de San Carlos.

Elías, Silvel, 1997b. Autogestión Comunitaria de RecursosNaturales, Estudio de Caso en Totonicapán. Guatemala:FLACSO.

Ericson, Jenny, Mark S. Freudenberger, and Eckart Boege.1999. Population Dynamics, Migration, and the Future of theCalakmul Biosphere Reserve. Occasional Paper No.1.Washington, DC: American Association for the Advance-ment of Science and Program on Population andSustainable Development.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO). 1999. State of the World’s Forests 1999. FAOForestry Programme. Online at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/SOFO99/sofo99-e.stm.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2001. List of forests certifiedby FSC-accredited certification bodies. January 31, 2001.Online at: http://www.fscoax.org/html/5-3-3.html.

García V., Randall. 1996a. Propuesta Técnica de OrdenamientoTerritorial con Fines de Conservación de Biodiversidad enCosta Rica: Proyecto GRUAS. Working Paper No. 10. NewYork: WCS.

García V., Randall. 1996b. Proyecto Corredor BiológicoMesoamericano. Informe Técnico Regional. ProyectoSistema Regional Mesoamericano de Areas Protegidas,Zonas de Amortiguamiento y Corredores Biológicos.Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrrollo,PNUD-GEF, RLA/95/G41. San José, Costa Rica: CCAD.

Godoy, Juan Carlos y Jorge Cardona. 1996. Propuesta Técnicapara Desarrollar el Sistema Guatemalteco de Areas Protegidasy sus Corredores Ecológicos. Informe de país. ProyectoSistema Regional Mesoamericano de Areas Protegidas,Zonas de Amortiguamiento y Corredores Biológicos.RLA/95/G41. Guatemala: PNUD.

Gonzalez, Leonel. 1997. Diagnóstico Sobre el Manejo de laInformación Ambiental en Centro América: Informe Final.Manuscrito impreso. Guatemala: PNUMA/CCAD.

González, Otoniel. 1996. “Kuna-Yala, Panama: Sustainabilityfor Comprehensive Development,” in Strategies forSustainability: Latin America. Arturo López Ornat (ed.),IUCN: SSP/CESP, 1996. Online at: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssp/panama.html.

Gurdián, Galio C. 2000. Sección Socio-Cultural: Aportes a la Nota#1 del WRI Sobre el CBM. Informe de investigación deconsultoría con WRI. Managua, Nicaragua.

Heckadon, Stanley. 1992. “Central America: Tropical Land ofMountains and Volcanoes,” in Toward a Green CentralAmerica, Integrating Conservation and Development. ValerieBarzetti and Yanina Rovinski, eds. Pp. 5-20. Connecticut:Panos Institute.

Holdridge, Leslie R. and Joseph A. Tosi, Jr. 1964. Life ZoneEcology. San José, Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center.

Holdridge, Leslie R. and Joseph A. Tosi, Jr. 1972. The World LifeZone Classification System and Forestry Research. San José,Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center.

Holt-Giménez, Eric. 1996. The Campesino A Campesino Move-ment: Farmer-Led Sustainable Agriculture in CentralAmerica and Mexico. Food First Development Report No.10. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and DevelopmentPolicy.


Horwich, Robert H. and Jonathan Lyon. 1998. “Community-Based Development as a Conservation Tool: The Com-munity Baboon Project and the Gales Point ManateeProject,” in Timber, Tourists, and Temples: Conservation andDevelopment in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala, andMexico. Richard B. Primack, et al, eds. Pp. 343-363.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Human, Economic & Environmental Defense (HEED). 2000.No Gold Mining in the Rainforest! The International LawProject; A project of the National Lawyers Guild, LosAngeles. Online at: http://www.heed.net/bill/cr/gold4.html.

Indian Law Resource Center (ILRC). 1997. Maya Atlas:TheStruggle to Preserve Maya Land in Southern Belize. Berke-ley, California: North Atlantic Books.

Indian Law Resource Center (ILRC). 1999. Proposed AmericanDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples- Authoritiesand Precedents. Articles XIV, XV. Inter-American Commis-sion on Human Rights. Online at: http://www.indianlaw.org/briefing_book.html.

Institute for Global Communications (IGC). 2000. Stop OilExploration in Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. GlobalResponse Action, March 16, 2000. Online at: http://www.igc.org/igc/en/ aa/100031619265/aa4.html.

Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) y Secretaría de MedioAmbiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP).1996. Propuesta Corredores Biológicos del Sureste Mexicano.Proyecto Sistema Regional Mesoamericano de AreasProtegidas, Zonas de Amortiguamiento y CorredoresBiológicos. RLA/95/G41. México: PNUD.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía, e Informática(INEGI). 1997. Encuesta Nacional de la DinámicaDemográfica. México: INEGI.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía, e Informática(INEGI). 2000. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda.México: INEGI.

Inter-American Development Bank. 2000. Basic Socio-EconomicData Reports: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Statistics and Quantita-tive Analysis Unit, Integration and Regional ProgramsDepartment, 21 December 2000. Online at: http://www.iadb.org/int/sta/ ENGLISH/staweb/index.htm.

Janzen, D.H., W. Hallwachs, J. Jiménez, and R.G., Elmez. 1993.“The Role of Parataxonomists, Inventory Managers, andTaxonomists in Costa Rica’s National BiodiversityInventory,” in Biodiversity Prospecting. W.V Reid, S.A.Laird, R.G. Elmez, A. Sittenfeld, D.H. Janzen, M.A.Gollin, and G. Juma, eds. Pp. 223-254. Washington, DC:WRI.

Jaramillo, Carlos and Thomas Kelly. 1997. Deforestation andProperty Rights in Latin America. Washington, DC: IADB.Online at: http://www.iadb.org/sds/publication/publication_1030_e.htm.

Johnston, George and Hilary Lorraine. 1994. The Green Book.Vols. 1 (Policy Source Book), 2 (Methodologies), 3(Applications). Regional Environmental and NaturalResources Management Project, USAID/G-CAP,Chemonics, and Development Strategies for FragileLands (DESFIL). Washington, DC: USAID.

Kaimowitz, David. 1995. “Land Tenure, Land Markets, andNatural Resource Management by Large Landowners inthe Peten and the Northern Transversal of Guatemala.”Unpublished draft paper presented at the Latin Ameri-can Studies Association (LASA) Conference, Washington,DC.

Kaimowitz, David. 1996. Livestock and Deforestation in CentralAmerica in the 1980s and 1990s: A Policy Perspective.Indonesia: CIFOR.

Kaimowitz, David. 2000. “Costa Rican Ranchers Let ForestsGrow Back.” Posting to POLEX listserv. 18 January 2000.

Kaimowitz, David, Angelica Faune, and Rene Mendoza. 1999.“Your Biosphere is My Backyard: The Story of Bosawasin Nicaragua.” Unpublished draft paper.

Kelleher, Graeme. 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas.World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) BestPractice Area Guidelines Series No. 3. Gland, Switzer-land: IUCN.

Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB). 2000. How areBiosphere Reserves Organized? United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Online at: http://www.unesco.org/mab/ brfaq-3.htm.

Mathews, Emily, Richard Payne, Mark Rohweder, andSiobban Murray. 2000. The Pilot Analysis of GlobalEcosystems: Forest Ecosystems. Washington, DC: WRI.

McCarthy, Ronald y Alberto Salas. 1998. Talleres de Intercambiode Información sobre Corredor Biológico Meosamericano yGrupos Indígenas y Campesinos de Centroamérica. Resumende las Reuniones Nacionales. Febrero 1998. CCAD/UICN-ORMA, y DANIDA.

McCarthy, Ronald, Juan Carlos Godoy, Alberto Salas, y JuanCarlos Cruz, eds. 1997. Buscando Respuestas: NuevosArreglos para la Gestión de Areas Protegidas y del CorredorBiológico en Centroamérica. San José, Costa Rica: CCAD/CCAB-AP/UICN-ORMA/PFA.


Mejías Esquivel, Ronald. 2000. Incentivos para la Conservaciónde Tierras Privadas en América Central. Documento detrabajo. San José, Costa Rica: CEDARENA.

Metrick, Craig. 2000. “Towards an Implementation Frame-work for Regional Sustainable Development andConservation Strategies: the Mesoamerican BiologicalCorridor (MBC).” Manuscript, Masters in Science thesis.Virginia: George Mason University.

Miller, Kenton. 1996. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines forIncreasing Biodiversity’s Chances Through BioregionalManagement. Washington, DC: WRI.

Mittermeier, R.A., C.G. Mittermeier, N. Myers, G.A.B. daFonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. “Biodiversity Hotspots forConservation Priorities.” Nature, 403(6772): 853.

Morales G., Roger. 2000. Mesoamerican Biological Corridor:Building a Shared Vision. Documento de Trabajo deConsultoría con WRI. San José, Costa Rica.

Native Forest Network. 1997. Chainsaw Concessions ThreatenPrimary Rainforest in Nicaragua. Native Forest NetworkAction Alerts and Info, No. 7, October 1997. Online at:http://www.nativeforest.org/ alerts/alert11.html.

Niiler, E. 2000. “Kyoto Opponent Authors Carbon Legisla-tion.” EcoAmericas. August 2000:4.

Page, Kara D. and Martin J. Schwarz. 1996. USAID CapacityBuilding in the Environment: A Case Study of the CentralAmerican Commission for Environment and Development.Washington, DC: USAID.

Pasos, Ruben. 1994. El Ultimo Despale, la Frontera AgrícolaCentroamericana. Costa Rica: Fundación para elDesarrollo Económico y Social de Centro América yPanamá.

Plant, Roger and Soren Hvalkof. 2000. Land Titling andIndigenous Peoples. Washington, DC: IADB.

Plath, Clarence V. 1967a. La Capacidad Productiva de la Tierra enla América Central. Turrialba, Costa Rica, IICA, Centro deEnseñanza e Investigación.

Plath, Clarence V. 1967b. Uso Potencial de la Tierra: Programa delas Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Rome: FAO.

Plath, Clarence V. y Arjen von der Sluis. 1968. Uso Potencial dela Tierra del Istmo Centroamericano: Evaluación Basada en losRecursos Físicos. Rome: FAO.

Ponciano, Ismael. 1998. “Forestry Policy and Protected Areasin the Petén, Guatemala,” in Timber, Tourists, and Temples:Conservation and Development in the Maya Forest of Belize,Guatemala, and Mexico. R.B. Primack, D. Bray, H. Galletti,and I. Ponciano, eds. Pp. 99-110. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Population Reference Bureau. 2000. 2000 World PopulationData Sheet. Online at: http://www.prb.org/pubs/wpds2000/.

Powell, G.V.N. and R. Bjork. 1995. “Implications ofIntratropical Migration in Reserve Design: a Case StudyUsing Pharomarchrus moccino.” Conservation Biology 9:354-362.

Primack, R.B., D. Bray, H. Galletti, and I. Ponciano, eds. 1998.Timber, Tourists, and Temples: Conservation and Develop-ment in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Pringle, C, I. Chacón, M. Grayum, H. Greene, G. Hartshorn, G.Schatz, G. Stiles, G. Gómez, and M. Rodríguez. 1984.“Natural history observations and ecological evaluationof the La Selva Protection Zone, Costa Rica.” Brenesia 22:189-206.

Prins, Kees. 1998. “Gestión y manejo de recursos encondominio- el caso de las concesiones forestalescomunitarias.” Revista Forestal Centroamericana, No. 23,Año 7, 1998.

Programa Ambiental Regional para Centroamérica/CentralAmerican Protected Areas System (PROARCA/CAPAS).1999. Estudio Centroamericano de Certificaciones de Café,Vol. 1 Situación Actual del Café Certificado. Guatemala:PROARCA/CAPAS.

Programa Ambiental Regional para Centroamérica/CentralAmerican Protected Areas System (PROARCA/CAPAS).2000. La Región Responde al Cambio Climático. HojaInformativa. January 2000. Guatemala: PROARCA/CAPAS.

Programa Ambiental Regional para Centroamérica/Componente de Manejo de la Zona Costera (PROARCA/Costas). 1996. Gulf of Honduras: Preliminary Site Overview.Guatemala: PROARCA/Costas.

Programa Ambiental Regional para Centroamérica/Componente de Manejo de la Zona Costera (PROARCA/Costas). 1999. Project Summary, Coastal Zone ManagementProject in Central America.

Programa Bosques, Arboles y Comunidades Rurales de laFAO (FAO/FTPP). 2000. “Agroforestería Comunitaria yGestión Local del Desarrollo.” Boletín Electrónico, 4(4).


Revenga, Carmen, Jake Brunner, Norbert Henninger, KenKassem, and Richard Payne. 2000. Pilot Analysis of GlobalEcosystems: Freshwater Systems. Washington, DC: WRI.

Reyes, Enrique Virgilio. 1998. Poder Local y Bosques Comunales,Estudio de Caso: Totonicapán. Debate 43. Guatemala:FLACSO.

Contreras, Reyna, Ana Violeta, Silvel Elías Gramajo, CarmenCigarroa, y Pablo Moreno. 1999. Comunidades Rurales yAreas Protegidas: Análisis de la Gestión Colectiva en DosSitios de El Petén. Guatemala: FLACSO.

Ribot, Jesse. 1999. “Framework for Environmental Gover-nance.” Draft essay presented at the Workshop onEnvironmental Governance in Central Africa. 26-27 April1999. Washington, DC: WRI.

Rosenberg, D.K., B.R. Noon, and E.R. Meslow. 1997. “Biologi-cal Corridors: Form, Function, and Efficacy.” BioScience47:677-687.

Santos, Victoria, Rosa Ledesma, and Patricia Negreros. 1998.“Community-based Forest Management: Organizaciónde Ejidos Productores Forestales de la Zona Maya,Yucatán.” Unpublished paper. The World Bank/WB’sCommunity-Based Natural Resources ManagementInitiative. 6 February 1998. Online at: http://srdis.ciesin.org/cases/mexico-010.html.

Secaira, Estuardo. 2000. La Conservación de la Naturaleza, elPueblo y Movimiento Maya, y la Espiritualidad en Guate-mala: Implicaciones para Conservacionistas. Guatemala:PROARCA/CAPAS.

Segura, Olman, David Kaimowitz, y Jorge Rodríguez, eds.1997. Políticas Forestales en Centro América: Análisis de lasRestricciones para el Desarrollo del Sector Forestal. IICA-Holanda/Laderas C.A: Impresión Edicsa.

Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox, and D.W. Mehlman. 1992.“Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or PoorInvestments?” Conservation Biology 6:493-504.

Solórzano-Soto, Raúl. 2000. Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano:Contribución a una Visión Compartida. Informe deinvestigación de consultoría con WRI. San José, CostaRica.

Somos UNO. 1999. “Dos Concesiones ForestalesComunitarias y dos Cooperativas en La Reserva de laBiósfera Maya, reciben Certificación Verde.” Somos UNO,Expresiones vivas para una tierra nueva, Vol. 1, Edición 7.

Soule, M.E.and M.A. Sanjayan. 1998. “Conservation Targets:Do They Help?” Science 279: 2060.

State of the Region. 1999. First Report on Sustainable HumanDevelopment in Central America. Human Development forDemocratic Consolidation and Peace in Central AmericaProject (State of the Region), San José, Costa Rica, May31, 1999. Online at: http://www.estadonacion.or.cr/InfoRegion/ english1/prologue.html.

Strasma, John D. and Rafael Celis. 1992. “Land Taxation, thePoor, and Sustainable Development,” in Poverty, NaturalResources, and Public Policy in Central America. SheldonAnnis et al., eds. Pp. 143-169. Washington, DC: ODC.

Sunderlin, William D. and Juan A. Rodríguez. 1996. Cattle,Broadleaf Forests and the Agricultural Modernization Law ofHonduras: The Case of Olancho. Occasional Paper No. 7.Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

Swenarski de Herrera, Lisa. 1993. “Unusual Map HelpsIndians of Honduras Push for Land Rights,” in TheTropical Conservation Newsbureau. 17 March 1993. Onlineat: http://www.generation.net.

Tattenbach, Franz, Brenda Kleysen, William Alpízar, PauloManso, Lenin Corrales, Juventino Galvez, Mario Leiva,Pablo Imbach, y Gabriela Mora. 2000. Propuesta deProyecto de Reducción de Emisiones de GEI para CincoConcesiones Forestales Comunitarias en la Reserva de laBiosfera Maya, Peten, Guatemala. Reporte Final,Septiembre 2000. USAID.

Tremblay, Claude J., Manfred Peters and Daniel Malenfant.1996. Case Study on Development of Environmental Capaci-ties: The Arenal Conservation and Development Project inCosta Rica. Rome: OECD.

Trolldalen, Jon Martin. 1992. International EnvironmentalConflict Resolution: The Role of the United Nations. Wash-ington, DC: WFED.

Umaña, Alvaro. 1999. Options for WRI Involvement inMesoamerica: Opportunities posed by the MesoamericanBiological Corridor (MBC) and Reconstruction Efforts AfterHuricane Mitch. Internal Position Paper 1/14/99.

Unión Mundial para la Naturaleza (UICN). 2000. Comunidadesy Gestión de Bosques en Mesoamérica. Perfil Regional delGrupo de Trabajo sobre Participación Comunitaria en elManejo de los Bosques. Gland, Switzerland: UICN.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2000.Human Development Report. Online at: http://www.undp.org/hdro/.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1996.Global Biodiversity Assessment. V.H. Heywood, ed.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


United States Agency for International Development(USAID). 1999. Municipalities in the Reconstruction andTransformation of Central America and the Caribbean.Stockholm, Sweden. 25 May 1999. Online at: http://hurricane.info.usaid.gov/ stockmun.htm.

Williams, Robert G. 1986. Export Agriculture and the Crisis inCentral America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of NorthCarolina Press.

Windevoxhel, N., J. Rodríguez. y E. Lahmann. 1998.“Situación del Manejo Integrado de Zonas Costeras enCentroamérica: Experiencias del Programa deconservación de humedales y zonas costeras de UICNpara la región.” Unpublished document. San José, CostaRica: IUCN.

World Bank. 1998. Land Issues in Central America. Land PolicyNetwork. Online at: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Networks/ES.

World Bank. 2000. World Development Indicators 2000. Onlineat: http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/ wdrpoverty/report/index.htm.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). 2000.Protected Areas Searchable Database. Online at: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/nat.htm.

World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1994. Guidelines forProtected Area Management Categories. Commission onNational Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA)/WCMC.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

World Neighbors. 2000. Reasons for Resiliency: Toward aSustainable Recovery after Hurricane Mitch. Lessons fromthe Field Series. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: World Neigh-bors.

World Resources Institute. 1995. Remarkable Events in CentralAmerica: International Perspectives on Sustainability.Washington, DC: WRI.

World Resources Institute. 2000. World Resources 2000-2001:People and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: WRI.

Youth, Howard. 1998. “Green Awakening.” World Watch: 28-36.


World Resources Institute

WRI’s Board of Directors

William D. Ruckelshaus, ChairmanJulia Marton-Lefèvre, Vice ChairFrances G. BeineckeDavid T. BuzzelliDeb CallahanMichael R. DelandSylvia A. EarleAlice F. EmersonJosé María FigueresDavid GergenJohn H. GibbonsPaul GormanWilliam M. Haney, IIIDenis HayesCynthia R. HelmsSamuel C. JohnsonCalestous JumaYolanda KakabadseAditi KapoorJonathan LashMahmood MamdaniWilliam F. MartinJeff MillerQian YiPeter H. RavenFlorence T. RobinsonJose SarukhanScott M. SpanglerJames Gustave SpethRalph TaylorPieter WinsemiusWren Wirth

Jonathan LashPresidentMatthew ArnoldSenior Vice President and Chief Operating OfficerAnthony JanetosSenior Vice President and Chief Program OfficerMarjorie BeaneVice President for Administration and Chief Financial OfficerLucy Byrd DorickVice President for DevelopmentKenton R. MillerVice President for International Development and Conservation

The World Resources Institute is an environmen-tal think tank that goes beyond research to createpractical ways to protect the Earth and improvepeople’s lives. WRI’s mission is to move humansociety to live in ways that protect Earth’s envi-ronment and its capacity to provide for the needsand aspirations of current and future generations.

Because people are inspired by ideas, empoweredby knowledge, and moved to change by greaterunderstanding, the Institute provides-and helpsother institutions provide-objective informationand practical proposals for policy and institutionalchange that will foster environmentally sound,socially equitable development. WRI’s particularconcerns are with globally significant environ-mental problems and their interaction witheconomic development and social equity at alllevels.

The Institute’s current areas of work includeeconomics, forests, biodiversity, climate change,energy, sustainable agriculture, resource andenvironmental information, trade, technology,national strategies for environmental and resourcemanagement, and business liaison.

In all of its policy research and work with institu-tions, WRI tries to build bridges between ideasand action, meshing the insights of scientificresearch, economic and institutional analyses, andpractical experience with the need for open andparticipatory decision-making.

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE10 G Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20002, USAhttp://www.wri.org/wri

defining common ground for the mesoamerican biological ...pdf.wri.org/mesoamerica_english.pdf · iv...

Documents