promoting ecotourism to strengthen the...

PROMOTINGECOTOURISMTOSTRENGTHENTHE

FINANCIALSUSTAINABILITYOFTHE

GUATEMALANPROTECTEDAREASSYSTEM(SIGAP)

PROMOVIENDOELECOTURISMOPARAFORTALECER

LASOSTENIBILIDADFINANCIERADEL

SISTEMAGUATEMALTECODEÁREASPROTEGIDAS(SIGAP)

PRMTodosSantosCuchumatán

TERMINALEVALUATIONREPORT

SílviaR.Ziller,Forester,M.Sc.Dr.

InternationalEvaluator

OCTOBER27,2017

SUMMARY

TitleofprojectsupportedbytheUNDPandfinancedbyGEF..............................................iExecutivesummary............................................................................................................iiProjectsummarytable..........................................................................................................iiBriefdescriptionofproject...................................................................................................iiiEvaluationratingstable........................................................................................................iiiSummaryofconclusions,recommendationsandlessonslearned.......................................iv

1Generalconclusions.....................................................................................................................iv2Conclusionsandrecommendationsonthedesign,implementation,monitoringand

evaluationoftheproject......................................................................................................ivConclusionsonprojectdesign....................................................................................................ivRecommendationsonprojectdesign.........................................................................................ivConclusionsonprojectimplementation.....................................................................................ivRecommendationsonprojectimplementation.........................................................................ivConclusionsonmonitoringandevaluation.................................................................................vRecommendationsonmonitoringandevaluation......................................................................v

3Conclusionsandrecommendationstofollow-uporreinforceinitialbenefitsfromtheproject..vConclusions..................................................................................................................................vRecommendations.......................................................................................................................v

4Conclusionsandrecommendationsforfuturedirectionsunderliningmainobjectives..............viConclusions.................................................................................................................................viRecommendations......................................................................................................................vi

5Summaryofbestandworstpractices.........................................................................................viBestpractices.............................................................................................................................viWorstpractices..........................................................................................................................vii

6Summaryoflessonslearned.......................................................................................................viiAbbreviationsandacronyms............................................................................................viii1Introduction....................................................................................................................11.1Purposeoftheevaluation..............................................................................................11.2Scopeandmethodology.................................................................................................1

1.2.1Revisionofdocumentsandinceptionreport.........................................................................11.2.2MissiontoGuatemala:informationgathering,interviewsandfieldvisits.............................21.2.3Informationanalysis,conclusions,recommendationsandlessonslearned...........................21.2.4FinalreportsinSpanishandEnglish.......................................................................................3

1.3structureoftheevaluationreport..................................................................................32ProJectdescriptionanddevelopmentcontext.................................................................42.1Projectstartandduration...............................................................................................42.2Problemstheprojectsoughttoaddress.........................................................................42.3Immediateanddevelopmentobjectivesoftheproject.................................................42.4baselineindicatorsestablished.......................................................................................52.5Mainstakeholders..........................................................................................................52.6Expectedresults..............................................................................................................5

PromotingecotourismtostrengthenthefinancialsustainabilityoftheGuatemalanProtectedAreaSystem

ii

3Findings..........................................................................................................................73.1Projectdesign/formulation...........................................................................................7

3.1.1AnalysisofLogicalFramework................................................................................................73.1.2Assumptionsandrisks............................................................................................................83.1.3Lessonsfromotherrelevantprojects.....................................................................................83.1.4Plannedstakeholderparticipation..........................................................................................93.1.5Replicationapproach............................................................................................................103.1.6UNDPcomparativeadvantage..............................................................................................103.1.7Linkagesbetweenprojectandotherinterventionswithinthesector..................................113.1.8Managementarrangements.................................................................................................12

3.2Projectimplementation................................................................................................133.2.1Adaptivemanagement.........................................................................................................133.2.2MonitoringandEvaluation:designatentryandimplementation*.....................................153.2.3FeedbackfromM&Eactivitiesusedforadaptivemanagement...........................................163.2.4Partnershiparrangements....................................................................................................173.2.5Projectfinance......................................................................................................................173.2.6UNDPandImplementingpartnerimplementation*,coordinationandoperationalissues.22

3.3Projectresults...............................................................................................................233.3.1Overallresults(attainmentofobjectives)*.........................................................................23

Result1......................................................................................................................................23Result2......................................................................................................................................25AnalysisofLogicalFramework...................................................................................................26

3.3.2Relevance*...........................................................................................................................323.3.3Effectivenessandefficiency*...............................................................................................32

Effectiveness..............................................................................................................................32Efficiency...................................................................................................................................33

3.3.4Countryownership...............................................................................................................343.3.5Mainstreaming......................................................................................................................353.3.6Sustainability*......................................................................................................................37

Financialsustainability...............................................................................................................38Socioeconomicsustainability.....................................................................................................38Sustainabilityofinstitutionalframeworkandgovernance........................................................39Environmentalsustainability.....................................................................................................40

3.3.7Catalyticrole.........................................................................................................................403.3.8Impact...................................................................................................................................42

4Conclusions,recommendationsandlessons..................................................................454.1Generalconclusions......................................................................................................454.2Conclusionsandrecommendationsonthedesign,implementation,monitoringand

evaluationoftheproject............................................................................................45Conclusionsonprojectdesign.......................................................................................................45Recommendationsonprojectdesign............................................................................................45Conclusionsonprojectimplementation........................................................................................46Recommendationsonprojectimplementation.............................................................................46Conclusionsonmonitoringandevaluation...................................................................................46Recommendationsonmonitoringandevaluation........................................................................47


iii

4.3Conclusionsandrecommendationstofollow-uporreinforceinitialbenefitsfromtheproject.........................................................................................................................47

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................47Recommendations.........................................................................................................................47

4.4Conclusionsandrecommendationsforfuturedirectionsunderliningmainobjectives48Conclusions....................................................................................................................................48Recommendations.........................................................................................................................48

4.5Bestandworstpracticesinaddressingissuesrelatingtorelevance,performanceandsuccess........................................................................................................................49

Bestpractices.................................................................................................................................49Worstpractices..............................................................................................................................50

4.6Lessonslearned............................................................................................................505Annexes........................................................................................................................535.1Evaluationconsultantcodeofconductagreementform.............................................545.2EvaluationcriteriamatrixfromTor(Spanish)...............................................................555.3Terminalevaluationtermsofreference(Spanish).......................................................595.4Questionnaireusedandsummaryofresults................................................................675.5Listofdocumentsreviewed..........................................................................................735.6Travelitinerary..............................................................................................................755.7Listofpersonsinterviewed...........................................................................................765.8Summaryoffieldvisits..................................................................................................795.9NewspaperarticlepublishedduringthemissiontoGuatemala...................................815.10SummarytableofManagementEffectiveness(METT)analysis.................................83


i

TITLEOFPROJECTSUPPORTEDBYTHEUNDPANDFINANCEDBYGEF

“PROMOTING ECOTOURISM TO STRENGTHEN THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE

GUATEMALANPROTECTEDAREASSYSTEM(SIGAP)”

UNDPOutputID:81367

PIMSN°:3374

GEFSECID:4191

Evaluationperiod:August–October2017

DateofTerminalEvaluationreport:27October2017

Regionandcountriesincluded:Guatemala

GEFOperationalProgram:Biodiversity

Stakeholdersandotherpartners:CONAP–ConsejoNacionaldeÁreasProtegidas

Evaluationteam:SilviaR.Ziller,internationalconsultant

Acknowledgements: The UNDP Office in Guatemala City was key in supporting and providingguidance and information for the development of this terminal evaluation and for facilitatingmeetings with the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor and the GEF Focal Point; the ProjectManagement Unit organized all the logistics of travel to project sites and meetings for datacollection;theauthoritiesandtechnicalstaffwereverygenerousinallowingmetimeforconsultingwiththemabouttheprojectandtheirimpressions,experienceandactivities.IwouldliketothankINGUATrepresentativesandprivatesectorentrepreneursforhavingreceivedmeandreportedtheirexperiencewiththeproject.TheCoordinatorAlejandroCalventeaccompaniedmetoallprojectsitesand meetings to introduce the evaluation process and could not have been more dedicated inprovidinginformation,documentsandclarificationsthroughouttheevaluationprocess.Iwouldliketothankall thepeoplewhocontributedtimeand informationtotheevaluation,especially thosewhoareonlyindirectlyparticipatinginprojectactivities,suchastouroperatorsandbeneficiariesoftheImpulsaProgram.Ithankallthepeopleinterviewedfortheirhonestyandopenness,whichhavefacilitatedtheevaluationprocess,ensuredtransparencyandallowedmetodrawpotentiallyusefulconclusionsandrecommendationsforfutureprojects.


ii

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

PROJECTSUMMARYTABLE

Projecttitle: PomotingecotourismtostrengthenthefinancialsustainabilityoftheGuatemalanProtectedAreaSystem(SIGAP)

GEFSECProjectidentificationnumber: 4191

CommittedatthemomentofprojectapprovalbyGEF(MillionsofUSDollarsUSD)

Attheendofproject(MillionsofUSDollarsUSD)

UNDPProjectidentificationnumber: 81367/PIMSN°3374 GEFfinancing: 1,295,455 1,295,455

Country: Guatemala UNDPsupport: 0 0Region: LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean Governmentsupport: 1,050,000 1,097,854.87

GEFFocalarea:

Biodiversity

Otherstakeholders: 971,851.79 2,390,021.82

GEFfocalareaobjectives(Operationalprogram/StrategicPriority):

GEF4BD-SP1Financing;BD-SP3PA

Networks

Totalco-financing: 2,021,851.79 3,575,073.56

Executingagency: NationalProtectedAreaCouncil(CONAP) Projecttotalcost: 3,317,306.79 4,783,331.69

Otherstakeholders:

InstitutoGuatemaltecodeTurismo(INGUAT);MunicipalidadesdeSibinal,TodosSantosCuchumatán,SanMarcos,SanPedroySantiagoAtitlán;AsociacióndeAgricultoresEcológicos(ASAECO);AsociaciónAgropecuariayArtesanalparaelDesarrolloLaGuadalupana;MinisteriodeEconomía(MINECO);MinisteriodeCultura(MICUDE);ONGs(Helvetas,TNC,RainforestAlliance,FCG,AsociaciónVivamosMejor,FUNDAECO).

ProjectDocumentsignature(Projectstartdate): 22-Jan-2013

(Operational)Projectenddate:

Enddateatbeginningofproject:22-Jan-2017

Enddateafterextension:31-Oct-2017


iii

BRIEFDESCRIPTIONOFPROJECT

Theoverallaimoftheproject istocontributetotheconservationofbiologicaldiversityofglobalimportance in Guatemala. The objective is to strengthen the financial sustainability of theGuatemalanProtectedAreaSystem(SIGAP)bydevelopingnewfinancialmechanismsinthetourismindustrywhileensuringthattheobjectivesofecotourismarealignedwiththoseofenvironmentalconservation.

Inordertofulfilltheseobjectives,thefollowingoperationalstrategiesweredesigned:(i)reviewandstrengthen legal regulations at the national level to develop ecotourism as part of a strategy topromote the sustainability of the Guatemalan Protected Area System (SIGAP); (ii) improve theinstitutional framework tomanage ecotourism in protected areas, including a pilot program forimplementing ecotourism in seven protected areas in the Western Highlands; (iii) strengtheninstitutionalcapacityatthenational,municipalandlocallevelsinprotectedareamanagement.

Theexpectedresultshaveallbeenachieved.Thelegalandinstitutionalframeworkswereimprovedto favor the development of ecotourism, and an alliance between CONAP and the GuatemalanNationalTourismInstitute(INGUAT)involvingtheprivatesectorwasconsolidated.Documentsandguides for theapplicationof legal regulations,management,publicuse,andbusinessplansweredeveloped for the seven protected areas in the pilot program. A proposal to harmonize legaldocuments and regulations was produced to consolidate a reference framework for thedevelopmentoftourismbasedonenvironmentalsustainabilitycriteria.Thislegacyhasstartedtobeappliedinthesevenpilotareas,butextendstotheentireSIGAPandwillserveasamodelforfutureprojectsinGuatemalaandbeyond.

EVALUATIONRATINGSTABLE

Criteria:1.MonitoringandEvaluation Rating 2.IAandEAexecution: Rating

OverallqualityofM&E S ImplementingAgencyexecution-UNDP HS

M&Edesignatprojectstartup S ExecutingAgencyexecution-CONAP HS

M&Eplanimplementation HSOverallqualityofprojectimplementation/execution: HS

3.Outcomes 4.Sustainability

Overallqualityofprojectoutcomes HS OveralllikelihoodofriskstoSustainability ML

Relevance R Financialresources L

Efectiveness HS Socio-economic ML

Efficiency S Institutionalframeworkandgovernance L

5.Impact Environmental L

Environmentalstatusimprovement M

Environmentalstressreduction M

Progresstowardsstress/statuschange M 6.Overallprojectresults S

Note:Ratingsare:HighlyUnsatisfactory (HI),Unsatisfactory (U),ModeratelyUnsatisfactory (MU),ModeratelySatisfactory (MS),Satisfactory(S)andHighlySatisfactory(HS).Relevanceratingsare:Relevant(R)orNotRelevant(NR).Sustainabilityratingsare:Unlikely(U),ModeratelyUnlikely(MU),ModeratelyLikely(ML)andLikely(L).Impactratingsare:Significant(S),Minimal(M)andNegligible(N).


iv

SUMMARYOFCONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONSANDLESSONSLEARNED

1Generalconclusions

ThegeneralobjectiveoftheprojectwasachievedbecausethefinancialsustainabilityofSIGAPwaseffectivelystrengthenedbytheestablishmentofnewfinancialmechanismsandwaysofpromotingecotourisminGuatemalainalignmentwiththeconservationofbiodiversityofglobalimportance.

Result 1 was fully achieved and left an array of policies, regulations and additional products(manuals,guides,regulations,aproposalforharmonizingotherlegaldocuments)thatconsolidateanimportantbaseforthedevelopmentoftourisminGuatemala.

AlthoughResult2onlypartiallyachievedsomeoftheindicatorgoals inthelogicalframework,astheseweredependentuponexternalcooperation,theaccomplishmentandproductsgeneratedareconsideredexcellent.Amongtheproductsare21plansforthesevenpilotprotectedareaswhicharebeingimplementedandserveasreferencefortheentireSIGAPandbeyond.

2Conclusionsandrecommendationsonthedesign,implementation,monitoringandevaluationoftheproject

Conclusionsonprojectdesign

The lack of written memory and register of decisions made in the design phase of the projectrequired adaptations and corrections during implementation, but did not jeopardize theachievementofresults.

Recommendationsonprojectdesign

(1)Compilea registryof referencesused inprojectdesignandcompareactivitieswithexisting

projectstoavoidduplicationofefforts.Especiallyregisterthedatausedtodefinethebaselineofindicatorsandotherinformationthatsupportsprojectgoals.

(2) Identifyneedsof stakeholders andbeneficiariesduringprojectdesignand include funds tosupportfeasibleactivitiesinthebudget.Evenifmodestinvestmentsaremade,supportingthedevelopment of activities of special interest increases cooperationwith project activities andgoals.

Conclusionsonprojectimplementation

Project implementationwasconsideredHighlySatisfactory(HS),especiallyconsideringtheneedforadaptivemanagementinrecalculatingindicatorbaselines,reductionofCONAPpersonnelduetobudgetary losses and political instability. The coordination between CONAP and the UNDP onoperationalissueswasconsideredHighlySatisfactory(HS).NomajorissuesthatwouldhaverequiredaninterventionfromtheUNDPathigherlevelsoccurredduringprojectimplementation.

Recommendationsonprojectimplementation

(3)Projectsmustinvesteffortsandresourcesinestablishinginstitutionalcooperationinordertosharebenefitsaswellasresponsibilitiesforthesustainabilityofactivities.Thegoalsofthisprojectwere achieved mainly through cooperation agreements with relevant partners, whichcompensatedforpoliticalinstabilityandinstitutionaldifficulties.


v

Conclusionsonmonitoringandevaluation

Project monitoring and evaluation used all tools available except for co-financing activities andvalues,whichendedwithanincompletefollow-up.

MonitoringandevaluationwereconsideredSatisfactory(S).TheMonitoringandEvaluationPlanwas satisfactorily designed. Although a specific M&E plan was not developed beyond what isdescribedinthePRODOC,severalmechanismswereinplace.ApartfromtheCoordinator’sroutineresponsibilities, quarterly meetings with the UNDP and one annual meeting of the tripartitecommissionwereheld.GEFmonitoringinstrumentswerethoroughlyused:AOP,QPR,PIR,annualreports,reportsonsteeringcommitteeandco-financingpartnermeetings,aswellastheTrackingToolsforInstitutionalCapacity,FinancialSustainabilityandManagementEffectiveness(METT).

The lack of written memory and register of decisions made in the design phase of the projectrequired adaptations and corrections during implementation, but did not jeopardize theachievement of results. Follow up of cofinancing activities was not satisfactorymainly due to aspecificcontextoftheproject.Duetothetimeelapsedbetweenprojectdesignin2010andstartin2013, part of the plans for the joint implementation of activities were lost, as organizationsimplemented their projects before the project started. Thiswas compensatedby instating otherpartner organizations. Although the activities of co-financing partners contribute to the generalprojectobjectiveandwereimplementedinthesameregion,mostofthesewerenotdirectlylinkedtospecificprojectobjectives.

Recommendationsonmonitoringandevaluation

(4)Ensurefollowupofpartnerco-financingcommitments.

3Conclusionsandrecommendationstofollow-uporreinforceinitialbenefitsfromtheproject

Conclusions

The replication potential of the main project activities is ensured by the vast referencedocumentationdevelopedandavailable.Theproject ismostlyatthereplication level,aspoliciesandregulationsareapprovedtosupportthedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.Theselegaldocumentsensure the replicationofbenefitsapplied to thesevenpilotprotectedareas tootherareas within SIGAP and can be used as models for similar legislation in other countries whereecotourismisadevelopmentpriority.

The sustainability of the most relevant project activities and products is sufficiently ensured topromote the development of ecotourism in Guatemala. Formal agreements that ensure thecontinuityofprojectresultsand,inmanycases,assurefinancialsustainabilityweresigned:ImpulsaProgram(CONAP,INGUAT),Q-GreenCertificationProgram(CONAP,INGUAT,MinistryofCultureandSports),andMonitoringProgram(CONAP,municipalitiesandcommunityassociationsmanagingpilotprotectedareas).

Recommendations

(5) CONAP and INGUAT must ensure continuity of the development of ecotourism with

sustainabilitycriteriainGuatemalaandapplytheproductsgeneratedbythisprojectthroughoutSIGAP, expandingbiologicalmonitoring and themonitoringof impacts from tourist visitation.


vi

CONAPmustdevelopanonlinetoolforthecalculationofvisitorentryfeesbasedonoperationalcostsofprotectedareassoitiswidelyavailabletoSIGAPandbeyondGuatemala.

(6)CONAPtechnicalstaffmustfollowupandsupporttheimplementationofmanagementplans,

publicuseandbusinessplansinthepilotprotectedareasbenefittedbytheproject,including

biologicalmonitoringandmonitoringofimpactsfromtouristvisitation.

(7)CONAPmustdefineacontinuedcapacitybuildingstrategywithsupportfrompeoplewhowerecapacitated as facilitators through this project to ensure the maintenance and increase oftechnicalcapacityattheregionallevel.

4Conclusionsandrecommendationsforfuturedirectionsunderliningmainobjectives

Conclusions

TheprojectconsolidatedthelegalandinstitutionalframeworksforthedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.Moreconcreteresultswillbevisibleaspolicies,regulationsandmodelsofpublicuseandbusinessplansareextendedtootherprotectedareaswithinSIGAP.

ThelackofprofessionalexpertsinsustainabletourismisarelevantlimitationinGuatemala.

Thelossoftechnicalstaffbyinstitutionsduetopoliticalchangesnegativelyaffectsthecontinuityofactivitiesinitiatedthroughprojectsandcontributestothelossofcapacityimprovedthroughprojectworkshops.

Recommendations

(8)CONAPshouldreconsiderthecomplexityofapprovaloflegalandtechnicaldocumentssuchasmanagementplans andpublic useplans,whichhave tobe submitted to repeatedanalysis atdifferentinstitutionallevelsthattakelongandcausedelaysintheimplementationofprojects.

(9) INGUAT should consider offering second time participants in the Impulsa Program private

tutoringinsteadofgenericcapacitybuilding.Beneficiariesareinterestedinhavingsupporttodevelopspecificissuesintheirbusinesses.

(10)CONAP and INGUAT must design and disseminate more tourist destinations that include

protectedareastopromotevisitationandsupportthedevelopmentofecotourism.

(11)AnefforttoregulateaccessoftouroperatorstoprotectedareasthroughCONAPisimportant

to avoid unregistered services without adequate safety conditions and qualified guides fortourists.

(12)As possible, CONAP should hire tourism experts for the Regional Offices to promote thedevelopmentoftourismactivitieswithsustainabilitycriteriaandsocialparticipation.

(13)FutureprojectsmustsecurestronginvolvementofNGOsandresearch/educationinstitutionsforownershipofprojectknowledgeandproductsaswellassustainability.

5Summaryofbestandworstpractices

Bestpractices

ConsolidatingecotourismintheagendaofCONAP,associationsandmunicipalitiesasafinancial

mechanismforthemaintenanceofprotectedareasandtheconservationofbiologicaldiversity.


vii

Promoting tourism with sustainability criteria includingmonitoring of biological indicators andimpactsfromvisitationasessentialcomponentstopreventthedegradationofnaturalconditionsandgeneratedata.

Involving the private sector in the development of ecotourism andmaintenance of protected

areas.

Participationofpersonnelfromthe10CONAPRegionalOfficesincapacitybuildingworkshops.

ThecommitmentbyCentralCONAPtodevelopanonlinetoolforcalculatingvisitorentryfeesin

protectedareas.

Capacity building and involvement of park rangers and regional technical staff in biological

monitoring.

Not treating the project as though it were an institution, always acknowledging activities andproductstotheexecutingagencyandstakeholders.

Worstpractices

Thelackofmemoryofdatausedinprojectdesign.

6Summaryoflessonslearned

Institutional coordination is essential for best results in the development of tourism withenvironmentalsustainabilitycriteriainprotectedareas.

Itisveryimportanttoadjustprojectstoinstitutionalcapacitiesoftheexecutingagency.

Anassessmentofstakeholderprioritiesiskeytofacilitateprojectownershipandachievementofgoals.

ItisimportanttoinvolveCONAPdirectorsandtechnicalstaffofCONAPRegionalOfficesfromthedesignphaseofprojectssotheycancontributetoconceptsandprovidenotionsofregionalreality.

Involvementoftheprivatesectorincreasesthesustainabilityofprojectactivitiesandprograms.

Theimplementationofmonitoringofbiologicalindicatorsandimpactsofvisitationinprotectedareasmustbeadjustedtolocalcapacity.

It is important that the increase in capacity to performevaluationsof impact causedby touristvisitationisfollowedbyincreasedknowledgeinpossiblemitigationalternative.

Municipalitiesandassociationsdemonstratebetterabilitytoparticipateinprocessesandprojectsand, in second place, to generate, access and use information and knowledge to developstrategies, policies and legislation, while capacity for management and implementation ofactivitiesandformonitoringandevaluationaresignificantlylower.

Capacity building workshops should include open hours to allow participants to exchangeinformationandexperience.

Localcapacitybuildingworkshopsaremoreeffectiveforaddressingparticularneedsofaregionorprotectedarea.

Avoiddisseminatingaperceptionoftourismasthegreateconomicsolutionforthesurroundingsofprotectedareasandtoworkwithintherealitythatitcancreateadditionalincomeopportunitiesforsomepeople,communitiesandtheprivatesectoraswellasforthemaintenanceofprotectedareas.


viii

ABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS

Abbreviation/acronym DescriptionAGN GuatemalanNewsAgencyAOP AnnualoperationalplanASAECO LagunaChicabalEcologicalFarmersAssociationASOCUCH AssociationofCuchumatanesOrganizationsCAMTUR GuatemalaTourismChamberCECON ConservationStudiesCenterCONAP NationalProtectedAreaCouncilFCG GuatemalaFoundationfortheConservationofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentGEF GlobalEnvironmentalFacilityFONACON NationalConservationFundFUNDAECO FoundationforEcodevelopmentandConservationIDAEH AnthropologyandHistoryInstituteIDB InteramericanDevelopmentBankINAB NationalForestInstituteINGUAT NationalGuatemalanTourismInstituteMAGA MinistryofAgriculture,CattlefarmingandFoodMARN MinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesMETT ManagementeffectivenesstrackingtoolMICUDE MinistryofCultureandSportsMIPYMES Micro,smallandmedium-sizeenterprisesMTR Mid-termReviewOCRET StateTerritorialReservesControlOfficeNGO Non-governmentalorganizationPBZ PermanentBanZonePA ProtectedAreaPIF ProjectidentificationformPIR ProjectimplementationreportPNUD UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramPPG ProjectPreparationGrantPRM MunicipalRegionalParkPRODOC ProjectDocumentPROSOL ProjectfortheDevelopmentofSololáQ Quetzales,thecurrencyinGuatemalaQPR QuarterlyProgressReportRNP PrivateNaturalReserveRUMCLA LakeAtitlánMultipleUseReserveSEGEPLAN PresidencyGeneralSecretaryforPlanningandProgrammingToR TermsofReferenceTNC TheNatureConservancyPMU ProjectManagementUnitUNEG UnitedNationsEvaluationGroupWWF WorldWildlifeFund

1INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSEOFTHEEVALUATION

ThemainobjectivesoftheTerminalEvaluationare:

• verifyifthereweredesignflaws,especiallyintheformulationofobjectives,resultsandlogicalframeworkindicators,andhowtheyaffectedimplementation;

• assess general implementation and achievement of results as planned in the ProjectDocumentandrecommendationsinthemid-termreview(MTR);

• assessthepertinenceandrelevanceoftheprojectregardingnationalpriorities,aswellasstrategicobjectivesofGEFandUNDP;

• assesseffectivenessandefficiencyinprojectimplementation;• assessprojectaccomplishmentsandoutcomesaccordingtologicalframeworkindicators

andGEFTrackingTools;• criticallyassessprojectimplementationandmanagement;• assessfinancialexecutionandcompareco-financingarrangementswithoriginalplanning;• assess thesustainabilityofprojectactions in financial, socio-economic,environmental,

governanceandinstitutionalterms;• document achievements and limitations, impacts, lessons learned, best and worst

practices, and products generated in terms of project design, implementation andmanagement;

• assesspotentialreplicationofbestpracticesandlessonslearnedtootherprojectsinthecountryandbeyond.

Theevaluationisbasedoncriteriaofrelevance,effectiveness,efficiency,sustainabilityandimpact,accordingtotheProject-LevelEvaluationGuidanceforConductingTerminalEvaluationsofUNDP-supported,GEF-financedprojects.Thedocumentationoffindingsisbasedon(a)projectdocumentsandproducts, fromthePRODOCtoTrackingTools(METT, financialsustainabilityand institutionalcapacityscorecards)andproductsgenerated;(b)interviewswithstakeholdersand(c)visitstopilotareasbenefittedbytheproject.Allproceduresandinterviewsconductedatthehighestethicallevels,inaccordancewiththeprinciplesestablishedintheEthicalGuidanceforEvaluationsoftheUnitedNationsEvaluationGroup(UNEG).Allinformationreceivedduringinterviewsandmeetingsarrangedforthepurposeofthisevaluationwasdeclaredconfidentialatthebeginningofeverymeeting.TheConsultantAgreementFormandAcceptanceoftheCodeofConductareincludedintheevaluationreport(Annex5.1).

1.2SCOPEANDMETHODOLOGY

1.2.1Revisionofdocumentsandinceptionreport

Theinitialfifteen(15)daysofwork,betweenAugust2ndand18,2017,wereusedforthereviewofmainprojectdocumentsandevaluationquestions(Annex5.2)intheTermsofReference(Annex5.3),designofquestionsfortheinterviewsonthemissiontoGuatemala(Annex5.4)andpreparationoftheinceptionreport.ThelistofdocumentsisavailableinAnnex5.5andincludesproductsandothermaterialsreviewedduringandafterthemission.InitialmeetingswereheldviaskypewiththeprojectCoordinator,AlejandroCalvente,andwiththeUNDPRegionalTechnicalAdvisor,SantiagoCarrizosa.Thelistofpeopletobeinterviewedonthemissionaswellastheagendaforthefieldvisitswereconsolidated.


2

1.2.2MissiontoGuatemala:informationgathering,interviewsandfieldvisits

Themission toGuatemala lasted21days,betweenAugust20andSeptember09,2017.ThevisitbeganwithawelcomemeetingattheUNDPOffice,afterwhichtheCoordinatorprovidedadetailedaccountoftheprojectendeavorsbasedonthelogicalframework,indicatorsandexpectedoutcomes.On the second day, the UNDP Office staff was interviewed about the project and their role asimplementingagency.

ThefieldtripbeganwithameetingthatconvenedthethreeCONAPRegionalDirectorsalongwithtechnical staff in San Pedro Sacatepéquez. Six of the seven pilot protected areas were visited.Interviewswerearrangedwithmanagers,rangersandotherstaff,aswellasmunicipalauthoritiesandcounsellorsandfarmerassociationsinchargeoftwoprotectedareas.

After the field trip, work was concentrated in Guatemala City formeetings and interviewswithstakeholders, especiallywith CONAP and INGUAT authorities and technical staff, theMinistry ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(GEFFocalPoint)andtheUNDP.WorkwascarriedoutinnarrowcollaborationwiththeprojectCoordinatortoensurethatallrelevantdocumentswerereviewedandall relevant stakeholders were consulted. Three key employees (Secretary General, TechnicalDirectorandChiefofEcotourismandCulturalHeritageSection)whoworkedatCONAPwhentheprojectwasdesignedandapprovedwerealsointerviewed,aswellasrepresentativesoftheprivatesector benefittedby the Impulsa Programand tour operatorswho signed agreementswithpilotprotectedareas.Onthelastdayofthemission,apresentationofinitialfindingswasmadetotheUNDPOfficestaffandtheprojectCoordinatortoexposethemostrelevantissuesandseekfeedbackonpointsofview,clarifications,andconsiderationstorefinethefinalreport.

Thetravelitinerary,thelistofpersonsinterviewedandthesummaryoffieldvisitsarerespectivelyavailableinAnnexes5.6,5.7and5.8.

Themethodologicalchoiceofclosedinterviews,preferablywithafewpeopleatatime,isduetotheperceptionthatpeoplefeelmoreateasetomaketruthfulcommentsandexpresstheirimpressions,expectationsand frustrations,whichare important referencematerial for theevaluationand forfutureprojects.Thefactthatallinformationisdeclaredconfidentialalsofacilitatestheexpressionofrealisticdata.Thequestionspreparedduringtheinitialdaysofworkwereadjustedaccordingtothebackground of the interviewees, but repeating content is important to derive themost relevantissuesfromthewholeofparticipants.Frustrationsandprivateinterestsalsobecomevisibleintheinterviews, as well as the difficulty of most people in understanding the structure and lack offlexibilityofGEF-fundedprojectsintermsofbudgetallocationstoactivitiesthatmayseemhighlydesirabletoparticipants.

1.2.3Informationanalysis,conclusions,recommendationsandlessonslearned

Allinformationgatheredininterviews,meetingsandfieldvisitswasorganizedonadailybasis,exceptfor a few very long travel days. The information received from participants was compared toinformation in project documents and products. As days went by and the number of peopleinterviewed increased, themostrelevantconcerns,positiveresults,expectationsandfrustrationsstoodoutby repetition.General impressionsaboutoutcomes, limitations, expectationsandbestpracticesthatweremorerelevanttothemajorityofstakeholderswasregisteredinthisway.

Once the mission to Guatemala ended, the information gathered was carefully inserted in therespective topics in theEvaluationReport in twoweeks, fromSeptember11 to22nd, 2017. The


3

ManagementEffectivenessTrackingTools(METT),institutionalcapacityandfinancialsustainabilityscorecards,andespeciallytheevaluationrankingswereanalyzedasthelastelementstoaddtothereport to ensure that all other documents had been reviewed and that the deepest level ofknowledgeof theprojecthadbeenachievedbeforeadecision couldbemadeon the requestedrankings.ThedraftTerminalEvaluationreportwassubmittedonSeptember22nd,2017.

1.2.4FinalreportsinSpanishandEnglish

TheUNDP staff andProjectManagementUnit sent the draft reportwith commentsback to theevaluatoronOctober11,2017.Thecommentswereusedtoimprovethereport,andsuggestionswereincorporatedandexplanationsregisteredasresponsestoissuesraised.TheSpanishandEnglishversionsoftheTerminalEvaluationFinalReportweresenttotheUNDPonOctober18,2017.MinorchangesweremadefromnewcommentsreceivedfromtheUNDPandtheCoordinator,andthefinalreportsinbothlanguagesweresubmittedonOctober27,2017,fourdaysbeforeprojecttermination.

1.3STRUCTUREOFTHEEVALUATIONREPORT

TheTerminalEvaluationreportisstructuredtocontainacompleteoverviewoftheproject,fromthedesignphasetoprojecttermination.

AnExecutiveSummary is included inthebeginningofthereport, includingtheRankingsTableofUNDP-supported,GEF-fundedprojects.

Thefirstsectionofthereportcoversprojectobjectives,scopeandmethodology.Thesecondpartincludesabriefdescriptionofthelogicalframeworkindicatorsandprojectcontext.

Evaluationfindingsaredetailedinthethirdsection,organizedby(a)projectdesignandformulation,(b)execution,(c)resultsand(d)conclusions,recommendationsandlessonslearned.Annexesincludethe Consultant Agreement Form, Terms of Reference, evaluation questions, matrix of interviewquestions, list of documents reviewed, travel itinerary and the list of people interviewed. AnewspaperarticleabouttheImpulsaProgramfoundbychanceduringthemissionwasincluded,aswellasasummarytablecompiledtofacilitatetheassessmentofmanagementeffectivenessforthesevenpilotprotectedareas.


4

2PROJECTDESCRIPTIONANDDEVELOPMENTCONTEXT

2.1PROJECTSTARTANDDURATION

Theprojectproposalwas initiallywritten in2010, duringGEFphase3,whenecotourismwas anunusualtopicinGEFprojects.TheinitialproposalwasnotapprovedandhadtoberedesignedfromabudgetofaboutUS$10milliontoabout10%oftheamount(US$1,295,455).ThissecondproposalwasapprovedandtheprojectwasinitiatedinJanuary,2013,duringGEFphase4.

The delay between the initial proposal and project start interfered mainly with co-financingarrangementsmadewithNGOs in2010,as the fundscouldnot stayunused.TheprojectdidnotincludespecificgenderorclimatechangeconcernsbecausethesewerenotGEFrequirementsatthetime.

Becausemostoftheoutcomesofthisprojectarechangesinpoliciesandregulationsthatrequirelongprocessesforapproval,andtoensurethatthepilotareaswereabletostartimplementationoftheplansdeveloped,aten-monthextensionwasrecommendedintheMid-TermReview.Theprojectwasthereforeoperativebetween22ndJanuary,2013,until31stOctober,2017,completing4yearsand 10 months of implementation. The extension was sufficient to grant the approval of legaldocumentsandnearlyallplans,consolidatepartnershipsthatwillcontinueimplementingactivitiesinitiatedduringtheprojectandbeginimplementingmanagement,publicuseandbusinessplansinthesevenpilotprotectedareasbenefittedbytheproject.

2.2PROBLEMSTHEPROJECTSOUGHTTOADDRESS

The project aimed to develop ecotourism as a financialmechanism for the sustainability of theGuatemalanProtectedAreaSystem(SIGAP).ThiswasanewapproachinGuatemala,especially intheprotectedareasaddressedbytheproject,managedbylocalstakeholders(fivemunicipalitiesandtwoassociations).

TheprojectobjectivecontributestoGEFStrategicProgram1:FinancialSustainabilityofProtectedAreaSystemsatthenationallevel;andtoStrategicProgram3:StrengthenTerrestrialProtectedAreaNetworks.ItalsocontributestothefinancialsustainabilityofSIGAPbyconsolidatingtoolsandalegalandinstitutionalframeworkforthedevelopmentoftourisminGuatemalawiththehighergoalofconservationofthebiologicaldiversityofglobalimportance.

This projectwasmainly focused on preparing a legal and institutional framework for CONAP toincreasetheopportunitiesofdevelopingecotourisminprotectedareasandinotherareasrelevantfor the conservation of biological diversity. Regulations were reviewed or created to improvemanagement options, include environmental sustainability criteria tomonitor impacts of touristvisitationandgeneratemoreworkandincomeopportunitiesatthelocalandregionallevels.

2.3IMMEDIATEANDDEVELOPMENTOBJECTIVESOFTHEPROJECT

The goal of this project is to conserve biological diversity of global relevance inGuatemala. TheimmediateobjectiveistostrengthenSIGAPbydevelopingecotourismasafinancialmechanismtocontributetobiodiversityconservation.


5

2.4BASELINEINDICATORSESTABLISHED

The Logical Framework contains 15 indicators organized by objective (4 indicators), results fromstrengthening the legal and political framework for ecotourism development (4 indicators) andresults from improvements in the institutional framework at the national level for ecotourismmanagement,includingcapacitybuildingandimplementationinsevenpilotareas(7indicators).

Themain indicatorsmeasure progress on the increase of protected areas (in hectares) and theregistryof newprotected areas in SIGAP,which implies an increase in the level of protectionofrelevantareasfortheconservationofbiodiversity;onchangesinlegalregulationsatthenationalleveltocreateafavorabledevelopmentcontextforecotourismbasedoncriteriaofenvironmentalsustainability;ontheengagementoftheprivatesectorindevelopingtourisminprotectedareas;ontheincreaseintechnicalcapacityinCONAP,INGUAT,municipalitiesandotherorganizationsinvolvedin protected area management; on the decrease of the financial gap of CONAP to cover basicmanagementcostsinprotectedareas;andtoimprovedmanagementofpilotprotectedareaswithapplicationofentrancefees,implementationofmanagementplansandpublicuseplansthatincludemonitoringofbiologicaldiversityandimpactsofvisitation,andbusinessplans.

2.5MAINSTAKEHOLDERS

Themainstakeholders included intheprojectdesignwereCONAP,asexecutingagency,workingwith support from the UNDP as implementing agency; INGUAT, at first mainly for interest inimplementing the Unified Registry of Visitors (URV) in the pilot protected areas and developingprograms thatbenefit SIGAP;and themunicipalities andassociations in chargeofmanaging thesevenprotectedareasselectedbytheproject.

The NGOs Helvetas Guatemala, The Nature Conservancy, Asociación Vivamos Mejor, USAID -CounterpartInternationalandFondodeConservacióndeBosquesTropicalessignedagreementsforco-financingprojectactivitieswithwhichtheirworkhadsynergies.

2.6EXPECTEDRESULTS

Theoutcomesexpectedtocontributetothegeneralobjectiveofbiologicaldiversityconservationwerethedevelopmentofnewtourismroutes inprotectedareaswith lowlevelsofvisitation,theincrease inprotectedareaswithecotourismbenefits in theWesternHighlands, thedefinitionofspeciestobeusedasbiologicalmonitoringindicatorsandanimprovementinthefinancialcapacityofSIGAPmeasuredbytheGEFfinancialsustainabilityscorecard.

Theresultsareorganizedintwocomponents.Thefirstresult includesreviewedpoliciesandlegalregulationsthatwerenotconsideredfunctionalforthedevelopmentoftourisminthecountry,aswell as new regulations to fill legal gaps. The policy on tourism activities, the policy of co-administrationinprotectedareas,theregulationsontheconcessionofservicesforvisitorswithinSIGAPandCONAPregulationsforthecontrolofentrancefeeswerelistedforreview.Thereisoneadditionalgenericitemthatrefersto“ecotourismmanagementinstrumentswithinSIGAP”,whichwas not clearly defined in the original project design, and was subdivided into severalcomplementarydocumentsamongregulationsandpracticalmanuals.

ThesecondresultreferstoanimprovedinstitutionalframeworkwithinCONAPforthemanagementofecotourisminprotectedareas.Activitiesincludedcapacitybuildingonecotourismforprotected


6

areamanagersandotherprofessionals,visitorattentionandmonitoringecotourismimpactsbasedonbiologicalindicatorsandrecordsofimpacts,theinclusionofecotourisminmanagementplansaspartoftheirfinancialstrategies,testingtheentrancefeesysteminpilotareas,andthedevelopmentofmanagement,publicuseandbusinessplansforthesevenpilotprotectedareas.


7

3FINDINGS

3.1PROJECTDESIGN/FORMULATION

3.1.1AnalysisofLogicalFramework

AsnotedintheMTR,thetimeusedinprojectplanninganddesignexceededtheregulardeadlineof18months.Morethanthreeyearspassedbetweenprojectdesignandprojectstart.

The project results were, in general, well devised, and fit the GEF “SMART” criteria (specific,measurable,attainable,relevantandlimitedintime).Theflawsinindicatorsinthelogicalframeworkwerenotduetodifficultyofmeasurement,butduetolackofreference,errorsorchangesinthevaluesassignedasbaselines.

Asthelogicalframeworkisthemainmonitoringandevaluationtooloftheproject,itisimportanttonotethattherewereflawsinthebaselineof6ofthe15indicators,partiallyforcalculationerrors,butmainlyduetothelackofreferenceofhowthesebaselineswerecalculatedduringprojectdesign.Abriefanalysisoftheindicatorsthatrequiredrevisionispresentedbelow.

Indicator2(totalofprotectedareasintheWesternHighlandswithbenefitsfromecotourism)wasredefinedduringprojectimplementationbecausetheexpansionofsomeoftheprotectedareaswasmodified when CONAP reviewed SIGAP data (especially affecting the volcanoes Permanent BanZones)andbecauseupdatesinmanagementplansdevelopedbytheprojectidentifiedandcorrectederrorsforsomeprotectedareas,thereforechangingthetotalnumberofhectaresfortheWesternHighlands. A consultant was contracted to reevaluate the number of hectares consolidated asprotected areas and a new baseline was established for comparison with progress in projectimplementation.TheconceptofthebaselineinIndicator14(SIGAPfinancialgap)wasadjustedbyrecommendation of the MTR, in which this indicator was considered unrealistic. The originalindicator was set for a 15% reduction in the national financial gap of SIGAP, while the revisedindicatorconsideredtheWesternHighlands,theprojectmainregionofinfluence.Aconsultantwascontractedtoperformthecalculation.

Otherthreeindicators (indicator6,whichreferstothenumberofprotectedareas implementingpublicuseplans;indicator7,whichreferstothenumberorprotectedareasapplyingtheURV;andindicator10,whichreferstothenumberofprotectedareasintheWesternHighlandsregisteredinSIGAP)wereadjustedbecausethevalues in therespectivebaselineswerenotclearorcontainederrors.Thesechangesdidnotalterthegoalsofaddinganumberofprotectedareastothebaseline,asonlytheabsolutenumberswerechanged.Althoughthevalueofindicator12(changeinincome)wasnotchanged,itwasconsidereddifficulttoachieve,asofthe22protectedareasanalyzed,15were not directly contemplated by the project. Even with evidence of positive impact on thisindicator due to changes in national policies and regulations, a 30% increase was consideredunrealisticespeciallyastherepercussionofupdatedpoliciesandregulationswilltakelongerthantheprojectexpanseoftimeforimplementation.

ItisalsorelevanttoregisterthatthedescriptionofresultsinthePRODOCincludesthedevelopmentof economic incentives (“68. To encourage investment in the PAs, economic incentives will bedevelopedthroughtheprojectfortheprivatesectorandPAadministrators.”),butnoindicatorswereincludedinthelogicalframework.ManagementplansandbusinessplansarelistedasproductsofResult2inthelogicalframework,againwithoutrespectiveindicators.


8

The lack of clarity or precision in these indicators led the projectmanagement unit to invest inredefiningbaselinesandcarefullyassessothervalues,whichimpliedtheuseofresourcesthathadnotbeenallocatedforthispurpose,aswellastheuseofextratime.AllthechangesinindicatorswereapprovedbytheSteeringCommittee.FouroftheindicatorswererevisedinaccordancewithrecommendationsmadeintheMTR.

3.1.2Assumptionsandrisks

Riskanalysiswaswelldevelopedduringprojectdesign,asthemajorweaknessthatinfluencedtheimplementationoftheprojectwascorrectly identified. It isthesameweaknessthatposesrisktoproject sustainability, and refers to political changes. Political changes in 2015 led to the loss ofCONAP employees, affecting project implementation and disconnecting staff who had receivedtrainingintourismmanagementthroughtheproject.ThesechangesalsoaffectedCONAPregionaloffices,inturnresultingindifficultiestosupportmunicipalities,associationsandcommunitieswhichmanageprotectedareas.Thiscontexthasnotimprovedsinceprojectstartandthereisnotapositivetendencyfor improvementoftheCONAPbudgetinthenearfuturenoranyperspectiveofbetterrepresentationattheregional level,whichcreatesfurtherfinancialrisksfortheinstitution.ThesechangesdonotimplylackofsupporttotheprojectonthepartofCONAP,butinstitutionalfrailtyandlackofpersonnel.

Therisksandimpactsofglobalclimatechangeintheregionarepartofaglobalriskthataggravatesthepressureonendangeredspeciesandfragileorfragmentedecosystemsaswellasonpopulationsthatarestronglydependentuponnaturalresourcesandwatersourceswithoutsupplyservices.Thisrisk,althoughidentifiedintheinitialanalysis,wasnotarequirementoftheGEFatthetimeofprojectdesign, and was not directly approached in the project. All activities that contribute to theconservation of natural areas also contribute to the stability of climate, but the project did notincludespecificactionstoimprovesuchresults.

TheriskoflackofconsensuswithintheGuatemalangovernmentaboutreinstatingvisitorentryfeeswasnotconfirmed,andtheregulationsforthemanagementofvisitoractivitiesintheSIGAPwereapprovedin2013.

IntheriskanalysesconductedbytheUNDP,theriskoflackofsupportforimplementingResult1wasconsideredlowin2012.Nochangesweremadetotheattributionofrisksfromclimatechange;thelackofconsensusaboutreinstatingvisitorentryfeesactuallycausedadelayinapprovalofthepolicy;andtheinstitutionalrepresentationofCONAPattheregionalleveldidnotimprove.Nochangesweremadetotheseriskswhentheanalysiswasupdatedin2015.Thisshowsthattheinitialriskanalysiswas realistic and coherent, having correctly identified themain factors that could have affectedprojectimplementationandresults.

3.1.3Lessonsfromotherrelevantprojects

Theproject indirectlyexchangedexperienceswithother initiatives inbiodiversityconservation. Itwas apparently designed as a continuity to the project “Consolidation of a system of RegionalMunicipalParksintheGuatemalaWesternHighlands”(Probosques,Helvetas),terminatedin2009.Lessons about creating incentiveswere taken from the project “EstablishingNational Priorities”.Someworkshopsonmonitoringprotocolsandtoolswereplannedandconductedwiththeproject“Sustainableforestmanagementwithmultipleglobalenvironmentalbenefits”.


9

ThisprojectfilledagapleftbytheGEF-IDBproject“ImprovingmanagementeffectivenessintheMayaBiosphereReserve”,whichdidnotincludelegalreviewsofregulationsforincomegenerationfrom tourism toenforce their reinstatement foruse inprotectedareas.Nootheractivitiesweredevelopedwiththisprojectbecausetheywereimplementedingeographicallyseparateregions.

The GEF-UNDP regional project “Central American markets for Biodiversity (CAMBio):Mainstreaming conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within micro, small andmedium-sizes enterprise development and financing”,mentioned in the PRODOC, aimed toconcede credit through intermediary financial institutions. It had an agricultural focus inGuatemala, but included tourism services and businesses in other countries, generating usefulconclusionsforthedesignoftheImpulsaProgram.AlthoughthealternativeofcreditwasofferedtoentrepreneurswhoenrolledintheImpulsaProgram,therequirementswereperceivedastoohighforsmallcompanies,andnonehaveappliedforcreditsofar.

The design of tourist destinations by INGUAT and Helvetas for San Marcos, San PedroSacatepéquezandSibinalwereusedasabasisforthedestinationsproducedbythisproject.AsFUNDAECOstaffhaddevelopedthemanagementplanfortheTodosSantosCuchumatánRMP,it was contracted by the project to design the public use plan and ensure coherence withconservationmeasuresalreadydefined.

3.1.4Plannedstakeholderparticipation

CONAP was the main institution involved in the project from the design phase, also to makeadaptations to the original proposal which had not been accepted by the GEF. The projectmanagementunitwascoherentlyestablishedintheCONAPCentralOfficeinGuatemalaCityatthebeginningofimplementation.

ThesevenprotectedareasparticipatinginprojectimplementationarerestrictedtotwocategorieswithinSIGAP(RegionalMunicipalParkandPrivateNaturalReserve)andonePermanentBanZone(whichisnotconsideredamanagementcategorywithinSIGAPdespitebeingaprotectedareainthesystem),noneofthemdirectlymanagedbyCONAP.

Severalorganizationsmentioned inthePRODOCaspartnersfor implementationandco-financingwereneverdirectlyinvolved(SEGEPLAN,IDAEH,MAGA,MARN,CECON,INAB,OCRET,CAMTUR,aswell as the NGOs The Nature Conservancy, WWF, Counterpart International – USAID, PROSOL,ASOCUCH).Thedelaybetweeninitialprojectdesignin2010andprojectstartin2013explainstheselosses in partnerships, as funds could not be reserved andwere spent as planned. CounterpartInternational supportedworkshops and developedmanuals in 2012, during the PPG, before theofficialprojectstart.

As implementation progressed, other more relevant partners with common objectives wereidentified. The roleof INGUATaspartner gradually gained importance; theMinistry of EconomycontributedseedfundingtotheImpulsaProgram,andtheMinistryofCultureandSportsisinvolvedinthedevelopmentofsustainabilitybasedcertification,bothworkingwithINGUAT.Thesepartners,atprojecttermination,representthebestguaranteeofsustainabilityfortheactionsinitiatedduringtheprojectforthedevelopmentofecotourisminprotectedareas,especiallyduetothesuccessoftheImpulsaProgramandthedevelopmentoftheQ-GreenCertificationLabel.Theinvolvementoftourismentrepreneursintheprivatesector,althoughnotexactlyprojectpartners,wasessentialfor


10

thepracticalapplicationoftheregulationsupdatedandapprovedbytheproject,whichoffernewalternativestofacilitatethedevelopmentoftourism.

3.1.5Replicationapproach

Theexpectedresultsoftheprojectconsolidatea legaland institutional frameworkthatservesasreferenceforthedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.TheyarealsousefulasmodelswithinSIGAPandothercountriesorregions.Adetailedreplicationplanwasnotdevelopedintheproject,but thepotential of replicationwasmade clear by thepotential extrapolationof thebenefits ofreviewing legal regulations andpolicies for application to protected areas in SIGAPwith tourismpotentialandreplicationofknowledgegainedincapacitybuildingworkshopsandprograms.

Thechangesandimprovementsinlegalregulationsrepresentanopeningofnewopportunitiesinprotectedareamanagement,especially for thereinstatementof revenues fromvisitorentry feesandthepossibilityofsharedmanagement.ThetechnicalreferencedocumentssuchasthemanualforthemanagementandreinstatementofvisitorentryfeesinprotectedareasmanagedbyCONAP,thetoolforassessmentoftourismpotential,theguidefordesigningpublicuseplans,theguidefordefiningvisitationfees,theguidefordesigningbusinessplansandtheprotocolsformonitoringtheimpacts of tourism and biological monitoring compose an important set of references for thedevelopmentofecotourismbeyondthesevenpilotprotectedareasintheWesternHighlands.

Aspecificbudgetforpressreleasesanddisseminationofresultsfromcapacitybuildingworkshops,approvalofregulationsandpolicies,activitiesdevelopedinpilotareas,bestpracticesandlessonslearnedwasincludedinprojectdesign.Othernetworks,publicationsanddocumentsproducedbytheUNDPandGEFwerealsoconsideredtohelpdisseminatebestpracticesandlessonslearnedfromtheprojectforuseinthedesignandimplementationoffutureecotourismprojectsinGuatemalaandinothercountries.

3.1.6UNDPcomparativeadvantage

The UNDP provides assistance to the Government of Guatemala in promoting, designing andimplementingactivitiesintheGEFmandateandnationalsustainabledevelopmentplans.TheofficeinGuatemalaCityiswellstructured,withpersonnelandexperienceintheimplementationoflargeprojects as well as in supporting the executing agency in case of problems that arise duringimplementation. The UNDP maintains a network of offices specialized in technical assistanceprojects.ConsideringGEFstrategicpriorities,theglobalnetworksoftheUNDParealsorelevantfortheirroleindisseminatingresults,bestpracticesandlessonslearnedfortheiruseinnewprojectsandregionsbeyondtheinfluenceofeachproject.

Stakeholders were consulted during themission about the UNDP performance as implementingagency. The UNDP staff experience and capacity in project implementation, support in case ofproblemsandeffortstopromotecontinuityarewellacknowledgedfromthenationaltotheregionallevel. Although, in the case of this project, no extreme situations arose that required UNDPinterventionsathigher levels, thestaffwasconstantlyavailable tohelpandensure theactivitieswerecarriedoutandreportsweretimelyproduced.UNDPstaffplayedarelevantroleinkeepingtheSteeringCommitteeinformed,requestingreportsasrequiredbyGEFandsupportingadministrativeprocesses,aswellascommunicatingwiththeGEFfocalpoint,theVice-MinisterofNaturalResourcesandClimateChangeoftheMinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,andtheUNDPRegionalTechnicalAdvisor,SantiagoCarrizosa.


11

TheUNDPalsohadtheroleofcommunicatingwithpublicauthoritiesinthemainagenciesinvolvedintheprojectaboutGEFprojectrequirementsandcriteriafortheirunderstandingandsupporttotheproject, functioningasmediator fromahigher level toensurecorrect implementationat thelocallevel.Thisisespeciallyrelevantgiventhatenvironmentalresponsibilitiesarescatteredinthegovernmentstructure,withtheGEFfocalpointintheMinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesandprotectedareamanagementdistributedbetweenCONAPandotherorganizationsinchargeofhistoricheritagesites (MinistryofCultureandSports, InstituteofAnthropologyandHistory)andforestareas(NationalForestInstitute).

3.1.7Linkagesbetweenprojectandotherinterventionswithinthesector

Attheinternationallevel,theprojectispartofGEFFourthOperationalPhase.Strategicpriorities,especiallyResults1and2,contributetoimprovingthemanagementofprotectedareasregisteredinnational systems by communities and the sustainable use of biological diversity in productivelandscapes,includinginnovativeapproachesandmarketingmechanismswhich,inthecaseofthisproject,refertoecotourism.

The project also contributes to the GEF Program in the Fifth Operational Phase, as StrategicObjective1forBiodiversityspecificallyproposesimprovingthefinancialsustainabilityofprotectedareasystems,whichismaintainedasapriorityintheSixthOperationalPhase.Lessonslearnedfromthis project will also contribute to Objective 4, to mainstream biodiversity conservation andsustainableuse inproductive landscapesandsectors.This is the reality in twoof thesevenpilotprotectedareasselectedintheproject,wherethemanagersareagriculturalassociationswithadrivefornatureconservation.

TheprojectcontributestotheprogrammaticareaofInclusiveandSustainableDevelopmentofthe

UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2015-2019 for investing in “policies andinvestmentsthatpromoteandareresponsiblefortheprotection,useandconservationofnaturalresources,especiallyintheareasofbiodiversity,climatechange,watermanagementandenergy.”

TheprojectcontributestotheintegrityoftheMesoamericanEcologicalCorridoranduseslessonslearnedfromtheGEF-UNDPproject“ConsolidationofamunicipalparksystemintheGuatemala

WesternHighlands”,executedbytheNGOHelvetasGuatemala.ItindirectlycomplementedtheGEF-IDBproject“ImprovingmanagementeffectivenessintheMayaBiosphereReserve”forproposingtoreviewandupdatepoliciesandregulationsontourism,whichwasconsideredagapinthatproject.ItalsocontributestotheGEF-UNDPproject“EstablishingnationalprioritiesandassessingneedstobuildcapacityonbiodiversityinGuatemala”,especiallyforpromotingnumeroustechnicalcapacitybuildingworkshops.

The UNDP Office, in its role as implementing agency, promotesmeetings for the exchange of

experiences and lessons learned between project coordinators. The UNDP had 12 projects indevelopment during this period. Although none of the other projects were set in the WesternHighlands,thesemeetingswereconsideredusefulespeciallyfortheexchangeofexperiencesandlessonslearnedaboutdifficultprocessessuchastheapprovalofpolicydocumentsandregulationsandotherbureaucraticissues.


12

3.1.8Managementarrangements

TheUNDPwasdefinedastheimplementingagencyandCONAPasexecutingagencyoftheprojectinthedesignphase.TheUNDPEnvironmentandEnergyOfficial,theFinanceOfficialandtheM&EOfficialprovided technical, financial, administrativeandmanagement support for theproject.AllpaymentsweremadedirectlybytheUNDP.AnnualauditswerearrangedbytheUNDPtoensuretransparencyandverifytheefficiencyoffinancialmanagement.

GiventhelimitationsofCONAPintermsofpersonnel,anexternalcoordinatorwashiredtoenablefulltimededicationtotheproject,aswellasanadministrativeassistant,whichformedtheProjectManagementUnit,allocatedintheCONAPCentralOfficeinGuatemalaCity.ThePMUworkedwithsupportandtotalintegrationwithCONAPtechnicalandadministrativepersonnel.

The project Steering Committee was formed by the CONAP Executive Secretary and the UNDPCountryDirector.Althoughtheguidelinesestablishedforthecompositionofthiscommitteeinthedesignphaseoftheprojectwerenotfollowed,theadaptationsdidnotaffectprojectdevelopment.TheCommitteehastheroleofmakingdecisionsabouttheprojectbasedontheconsensusof itsmembers and considering criteria of investment, equity, integrity, transparency and effectiveinternationalcompetence.Insituationswhennoconsensusisreached,thefinaldecisionlieswiththeUNDP.Inthecaseofthisproject,annualmeetingswereheldtopresentprojectresultsoftheformer year and the Annual Operational Plan (AOP) for the following year and grant approval.AdditionalmeetingswerearrangedfordecisionsonotherrelevantissuessuchasthechangesmadetologicalframeworkindicatorsandprojectextensionbyrecommendationoftheMTR.Inordertoavoidconflictsofinterest,thePMUdecidednottoappointonerepresentativeofthemunicipalitiesnoroftheNGOsbecausetherewerenootheropportunitiesforthesestakeholderstomeetinordertodiscussprojectmatters.TocompensatefortheirabsenceintheSteeringCommittee,theprojectCoordinatorestablishedaroutineofannualvisitstoallmunicipalauthoritiesviaMunicipalCouncilsandheldmeetingswith theNGOswhichcompromisedco-financing fundsto theproject tomakeprogress reports based on the AOP, gather opinions and ensure that all stakeholderswerewellinformed.Thisarrangementfacilitatedgoodrelationsandthe integrationofstakeholders.Duringtheinterviewswiththeseveralstakeholdersfromthenationaltothelocallevel,nocomplaintseverarose about the Coordinator or lack of information about the project. The Coordinator wasrepeatedlyacknowledgedforhisavailabilityandwillingnesstointeractandrespondtoanydemandsordoubtsaboutprojectactivities.

The projectAdvisory Committeewas formed by co-financing partners, NGOs for themost part(HelvetasGuatemala, TheNatureConservancy,VivamosMejor,RainforestAllianceand INGUAT).Follow-upmeetingswereheldeverythreemonths,butbecausetheNGOswerenotdirectlyinvolvedinprojectactivities,theirrepresentativesoftendidnotattend.So,thePMUscheduledshorterandlessfrequentmeetingstoincreaseparticipation,andincludedtheNGOsintheperiodicfieldvisitstoensuretheywerekeptwellinformed.Wheneverchangesinplannedactivitieswerenecessary,theAdvisoryCommitteemaderecommendationsfordecisionsbytheSteeringCommittee.

TheGEFFocalPoint,Vice-MinisterofNaturalResourcesandClimateChange,aswellastheUNDPRegionalTechnicalAdvisor,weresystematicallyinformedaboutprogressonprojectactivitiesbytheUNDPProjectOfficialinGuatemala.

The fact that there was no mention of lack of information or communication with the projectCoordinator during themission and interviewswith stakeholders shows that thesemanagement


13

arrangementswere efficient. The Coordinator ensured good communication by visiting partnersperiodicallyandsharingannualprogressreports.

3.2PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION

3.2.1Adaptivemanagement

Thefirstadaptivemanagementexerciseintheprojectoccurredinthephaseofprojectdesign.ItisregisteredinthePRODOCthatthegoalformerlyincludedinthePIFwhichaimedtochangeDecree4-89wasadjustedforupdatinginternalCONAPproceduresandregulationsforco-administrationofprotectedareas.Thischangefavoredtheachivementofprojectgoals,astheformerproposalwouldentitlesubmittingalegalproposaltotheNationalCongressofGuatemala,whichmighthavetakenlonger toapprove than theproject timeframewouldallow.Anotheradaptivemanagement issuecamealongastheprojectCoordinatorwasreplacedduringthefirstyearofexecution,whenonly70%oftheplannedexpenseswerefulfilled.Afterthisperiod,bothtechnicalandfinancialexecutionweretimelyandnootherdelayswereregistered.

The organizational structure and internal processes established by CONAP for the approval ofdocuments suchaspolicies, regulations,managementplansand the registrationofnewareas inSIGAP required adaptive management capacity of the PMU. CONAP is managed by a Councilrepresented by several institutionswith diversified interests. As the Council is in charge of finaldecisions,thisheterogeneitycanentailextensivenegotiationsfortheapprovalofregulationsandpolicies.Moreover, theapprovalofmanagementplans,publicuseplans and the registryofnewprotectedareasinSIGAPundergoesrevisionbysevendifferentdepartments(technicalandlegalattheregionalandcentrallevelsofCONAP)beforeitisgrantedbytheCONAPExecutiveSecretary.Themainoutputsofthisprojectarepolicies,regulationsandmanagementinstruments,suchasplansforprotectedareas,andtheregistryoftwonewprotectedareasinSIGAP(PNRCorazóndelBosqueandMiradorReyTepepulRMP).TheregistryofMiradorReyTepepulRMPisespeciallyrelevantastheprocesswas initiated in 1993 and, despite efforts organized by different institutions at differenttimes,ithadnotbeenconcludedduetovarioustechnicalandpoliticalissues.

The fact that none of the seven pilot protected areaswere directlymanaged by CONAP, but bymunicipalitiessubjecttopoliticalchangesandinterests,andassociations,demandedmoreflexibilityandnegotiationskillsoftheCoordinator inestablishingsufficientagreementsandcooperationtoreachtheexpectedresults.

The original objective, goals and products were maintained along project implementation.Restructuringatthis levelwasnotnecessary,butsomeoftheindicators inthelogicalframeworkwere recalculated or adjusted. A generic item listed as part of Result 1, “SIGAP ecotourismmanagementinstrumentsupdated”,wasdividedinseveraladditionalproductsthathadnotbeenanticipated.

Somenon-structuralchangesweremadebyrecommendationoftheMTR.Aformalagreementwassigned between CONAP and INGUAT to ensure the continuity of the Impulsa Program and thecertificationprogramforsustainability(Q-GreenCertificationLabel)withsupportfromtheMinistryofCultureandSports.Thelogicalframeworkindicators2,6,7and14wereadjustedtoreflecttherealityoftheprojectandthefeasibilityofachievingestablishedgoals.


14

TheMTRrecommendedaten-monthextensiontoensurethatsomeactivitiesunderwaycouldbecompleted before the project ended. This was especially important to grant approval of legaldocumentsandfortheregistryofMiradorReyTepepulRMPinSIGAP,aswellastohavemoretimetoinitiatetheimplementationofpublicuseplansinthesevenpilotprotectedareas.TheextensionallowedthePMUtobetterconcludetheactivitiesinitiatedandensurethesustainabilityofsomeoftheprojectinitiativesbyformalizinginstitutionalagreements.ThePMUwasabletofollow-upontheapplication of approved regulations, guides andmanuals produced by the project in pilot areas,consolidate more alliances with tour operators, confirm ownership of tourism development inmunicipalitieswhichhiredstafftoimplementtourismactivitiesandmanageprotectedareas,andconsolidate an agreement between CONAP and INGUAT. The extension granted benefitted theproject because more solid arrangements were made to ensure sustainability of several of theactivities.

The recommendations in theMTRwere taken into account and implemented and registered asmanagement responses. Only recommendation number 2, which referred to supporting theconstructionofbasicinfrastructureinthepilotprotectedareas,wasnotviableduetogovernmentalagreements approved in 2016, after the MTR. The Governmental Agreement 137-2016 andMinisterial Agreement 199-2016 established that any intervention in protected areas requirespaymentofawarrantandalicensebytheadministrativeinstitution(Q5,000every3years).Thesenewregulationshavehandicappedsmallinterventionsinprotectedareassuchastheconstructionofvisitorentryboothsorbirdwatchingtrails,especiallyinsmallRegionalMunicipalParksandprivatereserves. Recognizing these measures as counterproductive for the development of sustainabletourism inprotected areas thePMU, guidedby theCONAPPlanningDepartment, requested theagreement to be repealed, causing it to be revised by theMinistry of Environment andNaturalResources.Theinstitutionsinchargeofthepilotprotectedareaswereinformedabouttheprocessandallagreedthatsmallinvestmentsinbasicinfrastructurewillentailmorelossthangainwhiletheregulationsarenotrevoked.Theyalsoagreedthatiftheregulationsarenotrevokeditisonlyworthinvestinginmoresignificantinfrastructurethatenablesopportunitiesfornewtouristservicesorasignificantimprovementofexistingservices,whichwereoutofreachoftheproject.

FiscalincentivesandaCONAPcertificationlabelhadbeenincludedinprojectdesignasmechanismstopromoteecotourism.ConsideringthelowrateoftaxrevenuebythegovernmentofGuatemalaandthevulnerabilityofCONAPintermsofensuringsufficientfundingfromthefederalgovernment,it was decided that these strategies would not be viable for development by CONAP. Theimplementationofsuchasystemrequiresasignificantbudgetandtechnicalstafffullydedicatedtoitsdevelopment.CONAPdoesnothavethiscapacity,especiallyastechnicalstaffweredismissedin2015andthebudgetwassignificantlyreduced.Establishingcollaborationwithotherstakeholdersbetterequippedtodeveloptheseinitiativesbecamemoreimportantandastrategicsolutionfortheprocesstobeviable.TheprojectestablishedanalliancewithINGUAT,whichhadbetterconditionsofinvestinginnewstrategies.TheImpulsaProgramwasdesignedtoreplacethestrategyoffiscalincentivesandoffersupportandseedfundstoentrepreneursprovidingtouristserviceswithpositiveimpactontheconservationofprotectedareas,andthecertificationofnaturalareaswasincludedinthe certification program that INGUATwas already developing (Q-Green Certification Label). Inadditiontotouristservicesinprotectedareas,aspecificlabelwasdesignedfortouristdestinations,soprotectedareasfollowingsustainabilitystandardsfortouristvisitationcanbecertified.Hadthecertification been developed exclusively by CONAP, this would not have been feasible, as the


15

institutionwouldhavebecome its own judge. Part of this product added to theproject andnotincludedinthePRODOCcreatesincentivesnotonlyfortheprivatesector,butalsotoprotectedareamanagers for the development of sustainability strategies in the development of tourism. Thisstrategy had excellent results and ascertained the continuity of the programs after projecttermination.Moreover, theconceptof certification ispartof theGuatemalaMasterPlan for theDevelopmentofSustainableTourism2015-2025.AnagreementwasreachedbetweenCONAP,theMinistryofCultureandSportsandINGUAT,compromisingfundsfromINGUATforthedevelopmentofthecertificationsystem.Theagreementwassignedon27September,2017,InternationalDayofSustainableTourism,strengtheninginterinstitutionalcooperation.

In2015,duetothechangeofnationalgovernment,CONAPunderwentbudgetcutsofUS$1million,whichresultedinrelevantlossesintechnicalstaffandchangesinformerprioritiesandcommitments.The CONAP Executive Secretary, who had strong ownership of the project, was dismissed. ThischangerequiredadaptivemanagementmeasuresofthePMUtoestablishmorecooperationoutsideCONAPtomakeupfor lostpersonnelandimprovethechancesofprojectsustainability.Learninghowtoapproachtheprivatesectortosignagreementswithtouroperatorshasincreasedthelevelofsupporttoprotectedareas.WiththeperspectivesofreinvestmentofvisitorentryfeesandtheopportunitiesofsharedmanagementintroducedintheCo-AdministrationPolicymoreresourceswillbemadeavailable to improve the structureand tourist servicesofprotectedareas,generatingapositiveretro-feedingcycleandafavorableenvironmentforeconomicdevelopment.

Nevertheless, the agreement to be signed between CONAP, CECON, theMinistry of Culture andSports,INABandINGUATfortheimplementationoftheUVRhadnotbeensignedatthetimeofthisterminalevaluation.TheMinistryofCultureandSportshadofficiallynominatedtheGeneralDirectorofCulturalandNaturalHeritagewhoisinchargeofsigningtheagreement.ExpectationswerethattheagreementandjointworkevolvedquicklysothattheUVRslipscanbeprocessedwithinINGUAT,wherethereisenoughcapacityandstructurefortheworktobedone.

3.2.2MonitoringandEvaluation:designatentryandimplementation*

SATISFACTORY1

TheMonitoring&Evaluationplanwasgenerallywellconceivedasactivitiesincludedtheinceptionworkshop;SteeringCommitteemeetings;annualexternalaudits;theMid-TermReviewandTerminalEvaluationoftheprojectandthesewereproperlybudgeted(US$104,525).

Theplanalsoreservedfundsforreportsonspecificaspectsorareasoftheproject,compilationofbest practices and lessons learned and the final report. The budget lacked funds for the closingworkshop,whichareespeciallyneededtosupportattendanceofstakeholders,includingtravelandlodging,inoneofthemunicipalities.FundsnotusedforworkshopsbudgetedfortheMTRandTEwererelocatedtocoverthecostsoftheclosingmeeting.

AlthoughaspecificM&EplanwasnotdevelopedbeyondwhatisdescribedinthePRODOC,severalmechanismswereinplace.ApartfromtheCoordinator’sroutineresponsibilities,quarterlymeetingswith theUNDPandoneannualmeetingof the tripartite commissionwereheld.GEFmonitoringinstrumentswerethoroughlyused:AOP,QPR,PIR,annualreports,reportsonsteeringcommittee

1AccordingtotheGuideforTerminalEvaluationsofUNDPsupportedprojectsfinancedbyGEF,M&Emustbequalifiedaccordingtoasetofsixratings:Highlysatisfactory,Satisfactory,Moderatelysatisfactory,Moderatelyunsatisfactory,UnsatisfactoryandHighlyunsatisfactory.


16

andco-financingpartnermeetings,aswellastheTrackingToolsforInstitutionalCapacity,FinancialSustainabilityandManagementEffectiveness(METT).Consultantswereengagedtocarefullyreviewthecriteriaandfilloutthescorecardsatthebeginning,mid-termandfortheterminalevaluationsoprogresscouldbeclearlymeasured.Thisensuredthatsufficientfundingandtimewerededicatedtogenerateconsistentanalyses.AnotherconsultancyverifiedthenumberofhectareswithecotourismbenefitsimplementingvisitorentryfeesintheWesternHighlandsandtheincreaseofincomein22protectedareas.

Asmentionedbefore insection3.1.1,theanalysisof indicators inthe logical frameworkrequiredsome adaptive management as some of the baselines needed to be redefined. This requiredredirectingfunds,althoughnotsignificantly,andtheuseofextratimeforworkthathadnotbeenplanned,includingforconsultants,toensurethatthebaselineswouldbecomparablewithupdatedvaluesastheworkprogressed.

3.2.3FeedbackfromM&Eactivitiesusedforadaptivemanagement

At the administrative level, considering that CONAP is a Council formed by institutions in theenvironment, historic heritage, agriculture and forestry, the PMU had to exercise adaptivemanagementinordertoexplainandgrantapprovalofthemanydocumentsproducedbytheproject.TheCoordinator’scommunicationabilitiesandUNDPsupportcontributedtomaintaintheCouncilinformedandtoobtainapprovaloflegalandtechnicaldocuments.Relevantadaptivemanagementdecisions, such as revision of indicators, project extension, changes of strategy to ensure thesustainability of incentives (Impulsa) and certification programs were taken by the SteeringCommitteewithinformationprovidedbytheAdvisoryCommittee.

PoliticalchangesrequiredstrongadaptivemanagementcapacityofthePMU,asstafflosseswithinCONAPreducedthepaceofprojectimplementation.TheninetechnicalpositionsintheDepartmentfor theDevelopmentofSIGAPat theprojectstartwerereducedto five (formerlyProtectedAreaDepartment, in charge of providing support to the project). In addition, none of the currentemployeesofthisdepartmentworkedthereatthebeginningoftheprojectduetohighemployeerotationandreplacement.Thereductionofstaffintheareaoftourismisespeciallyrelevant,asonlyone out of three employees is left. Therefore, the time needed for CONAP staff to review andtechnicallyapproveproducts increasedsignificantly. Inorder toensureenoughtimetocompleteproject activities and as a management response to MTR recommendations, an extension wasrequestedtopresenttheprojecttothenewauthoritiesandgaintheirsupport;finishtheactivitiesthatweredelayedduetolossofpersonnel;supporttheimplementationofmanagementandpublicuseplans;andconsolidatecommitments forproject sustainability.The ten-monthextensionwassufficientforprojectactivitiestobecompleteddespitethechangesincurred.

AnothersourceofdelayintheimplementationofactivitiesreferstothelackofexpertsinecotourisminGuatemala,assomeoftheconsultancycontractshadtobecancelledbecausetheproductswerenot properly delivered, and thehiring process had to start over. Thesedelays did not affect theproject in terms of the delivery of expected results because the processes were well managed.Accordingtosomeoftheinterviewees,consultancieswerebetterfulfilledbyex-CONAPemployeeswhowerealreadyfamiliarwithprotectedareamanagementandtheregionalcontextoftheWesternHighlands.


17

3.2.4Partnershiparrangements

NoneofthesevenprotectedareaschosenaspilotareasfortheprojectareunderdirectmanagementbyCONAP.Theyaremanagedbyfivemunicipalitiesandtwoassociations.Thesearethestakeholdersmoredirectlyinvolvedandbenefittedbyprojectactivitiesandresults.CooperationagreementsweresignedbetweenCONAPandsixofthesevenpilotprotectedareamanagers,withtheexceptionofTodosSantosCuchumatán,toensurethecontinuityofbiologicalmonitoring.

ThemostsignificantcollaborationestablishedbetweennationalinstitutionsreferstotheagreementreachedbetweenCONAPandINGUAT.Cooperationbeforetheprojectwasrestrictedtopunctualissues,while during the project INGUAT became a strategic partner to CONAP, coordinating theimplementation of strategic joint activities. INGUAT increased its support to CONAP not only bypromotingtourisminprotectedareasbutalsobyprovidingfundsforthecontinuityoftwoprojectinitiatives,theImpulsaProgramandtheQ-GreenCertificationLabelforProtectedAreas.Thisdoesnotonlyensurethefinancialsustainabilityofpartoftheprojectresults,butalsostrengthensandincreasestheirpotentialimpact.Inbothcases,formalinterinstitutionalagreementsweresignedandarevaliduntil2019.

TheImpulsaProgramiscoordinatedwithothertwoinstitutions,theMinistryofEconomyandtheGuatemalaTourismChamber.TheMinistryplaysarelevantroleineconomicdevelopment,inwhichtourismisgainingimportance,andtheChamberisthehighestrepresentationoftheprivatesectortowhichtheprogramisdirected.CoordinationofthecertificationsysteminvolvedtheMinistryofCulture and Sports, in charge of archeological sites contained in several protected areas of highinterestforpublicvisitation.

Collaboration and co-financing agreements were signed during the phase of project design. Asformerlyexplained,duetothetimeelapsedbetweenprojectdesign(2010)andstart(2013),partoftheplansforthejointimplementationofactivitieswerelost.TheNGOsthereforecontributedwithactivitiesofcommoninterestintheWesternHighlands,butthesewerenotdirectlyrelatedtotheproject. Experts from The Nature Conservancy contributed in designing biological monitoringprotocols; Asociación Vivamos Mejor contributed in the process of registry of the Mirador ReyTepepulRMPinSIGAP,andbyrebuildingthemaintrailinthepark;HelvetasGuatemalawillprovidesupportfortheimplementationofthemanagementplanandpublicuseplanattheSibinalRMP,andRainforestAlliancehasbeenpromotingtheImpulsaProgram.AnintentoffurthercollaborationwithHelvetasGuatemaladidnotcomethroughbecausetheirprojectintheTacanáareawascancelledbythefundingagency.

Althoughthenumberofstakeholders involved intheproject isnothigh, theyarerelevant in theWesternHighlands.TheNGOsarenotaffectedbypoliticalchangesinthemunicipalities,thereforeensuringthecontinuityofknowledgeandcapacitydevelopedthroughtheproject.Theyalsobecomeasourceofaccesstotheproductsdevelopedbytheproject.

Oneofthemeritsoftheprojectmentionedbysomeintervieweeswastoapproachconservationandprotectedareaexpertswithecotourismexperts,resultinginmutualbenefit.

3.2.5Projectfinance

ThefundsprovidedbyGEF(US$1,295,455.00)totheprojectwerecomplementedbygovernmentfunds(US$779,786.41incashandUS$318,068.56inkind),totalingUS$1,097,854.87asCONAPco-financingtotheprojecton31October,2017.Theamountinitiallyplannedforexpensesindeveloping


18

Result1,basicallyforthereviewofpoliciesandlegalregulations,was14.1%;76.8%wereallottedforResult2,whichincludedworkinthepilotprotectedareas;and9.1%forprojectadministration.Thesepercentageschangedduringprojectimplementation.Bytheendoftheproject,36.3%hadbeenusedforResult1,56.4%forResult2andonly7.3%foradministration.

Financialexecutionstartedwithlowerexpensesthanplannedin2013.Projectactivitiesduringthefirst year were focused on updates of legal documents, which entailed relatively low expenses.Financialexecutionfromthesecondyearofimplementationwashighlysatisfactory,soitishighlylikelythat100%ofthebudgetwillbeusedbytheprojectterminationdateof31October,2017.Atthetimeofterminalevaluation,allremainingfundshadbeencommittedforexpenseson(a)anewserverforCONAP;b)theterminalevaluation;c)publicationofmaterialsdevelopedbytheproject;d)expensesfortheclosingmeetinginQuetzaltenango.

Projectexpensesaccordingtoannualbudget.

Year Annualbudget Executedbudget Annualexecution%2013 140,065.00 97,699.16 702014 290,482.00 278,902.89 962015 374,325.00 383,461.36 1022016 315.737.10 315,467.34 99.9

2017-16oct. 219,739.76 187,259.51 85.5

Audit reports donot include findings thatposeproblems to the transparencyor competenceoffinancialexecution.Onlytwoissueswerereported.Thefirstonereferstofourinvoicesthatwerepaidaftertheirexpirydatein2014.Asaresponse,thePMUdefinedverificationmeasurestoensurenoexpiredinvoiceswerepaid.In2016,theauditobservedthelackofregisterofthedatesonwhichconsultancyproductsweredelivered.ThePMUrespondedbyrequestingconsultantstosubmitworkplansthatincludeddeadlinesandbykeepingemailmessagessentalongwithproductstoensuretheregistryofdeliverydates.

The co-financing initially planned was partially lost. The partners that signed co-financingcommitments in 2010 implemented their projects before project start in 2013. CounterpartInternationalcontributedwiththeSIGAPJointAdministrationandSharedManagementPolicyandRegulationsbypromotingworkshopsandbydevelopingthe“Evaluation,preventionandmonitoringimpacts of tourism in protected areas tool” during the project preparationphase (PPG) in 2012.Whentheprojectstarted, in2013,theoffice inchargeofprojectsontourismhadbeenclosed inGuatemala.ThisisregisteredinthefirstQPRoftheproject,aswellastheco-financingcommitmentofINGUATandFUNDAECOasnewpartners,andtherenewedcommitmentofHelvetasGuatemalaand FCG, which supported the Sibinal RMP with infrastructure and technical assistance forsustainable tourism.RainforestAlliance supported commitmentsbetween theprivate sectorandprotectedareamanagers.FUNDAECOprovidedsupportforthedevelopmentofecotourisminTodosSantos Cuchumatán. As the management plan had been prepared by the Foundation, it wascontractedbytheprojecttodevelopthepublicuseplan.AsociaciónVivamosMejorrenovatedthevisitor trail atMiradorReyTepepulRMP, supported theprocessof registration inSIGAPand thedevelopmentofanurseryattheCorazóndelBosqueNPR.TheNatureConservancycontributedwithexpertsinthedevelopmentofbiologicalmonitoringprotocols.

Althoughnotalloftheseactivitiesweredirectlyrelatedtothespecificobjectivesoftheproject,theywereconsideredasco-financingandcontributedtotheoverallgoalofbiodiversityconservation.ThissituationexplainsthedifficultyofthePMUinfollowingupwithco-financingvalues,asexpenseswere


19

madeinparallelprojectswithcommonconservationobjectivesintheWesternHighlands,butnotdirectly linked to the project. The co-financing table shows that the initial amount was nearlydoubled,showingasignificantinvestmentintheregionandthepilotprotectedareas,evenmakingupforthelackofprojectfundsallottedforthedevelopmentofbasicinfrastructure.

TheamountoffundingcontributedbyCounterpartInternationalduringthePPGphasein2012wasnotregisteredatthetime.Itwasnotincludedintheco-financingtablebecausetheorganizationwasunabletoreportonspecificexpensesattheendoftheproject,asfiveyearslatertherewerechangesinpersonnelandtherecordswerenoteasilyavailable.

AlthoughINGUATwasnotinitiallylistedasaco-financingpartnerintheprojectdesign,itgraduallybecamethemostrelevantorganizationforsecuringthecontinuityofseveralactivitiesinitiatedbythe project. For this reason, the table includes INGUAT as co-financing institution, as well asFUNDAECO.Consideringtheseadditionalinstitutions,atotalco-financingofUS$2,390,021.82wasachievedapartfromCONAP,morethantwicetheoriginalplanning.

The activities designed were carried out and generated the expected results as planned, withrelativelysmalldifferencesinnumericalgoals(around20%)ofthreeofthefifteenlogicalframeworkindicators.Theprojectcanthereforebeconsideredasefficientasinitiallyplanned,orevenmore,

forhavingproducednineextra referencedocuments thathadnotbeenanticipated.Besides, thenumericalgoalsweresurpassedinsixofthefifteenlogicalframeworkindicators.

Someadditional resources canbeconsideredasassignedasaresultof theproject.Threeof themunicipalitiesbenefittedbytheprojecthiredstafftooverseethedevelopmentoftourism(TodosSantosCuchumatán,SantiagoAtitlánandSibinal,thelastonehiringapersononoccasionforspecificevents)andasmanagerstoprotectedareas(TodosSantosCuchumatán,SanPedroSacatepéquezandSantiagoAtitlán).


20

Detailedprojectco-financingtable

Co-financing

organization

Amountconfirmed

byCEOatmoment

ofinclusioninthe

project(US$)

Cofinancing2013–2015(Mid-TermReview)

Cofinancing2016–2017(TerminalEvaluation)

Totalco-

financing

executed

(US$)

%contribution

todate

comparedwith

expected

amount

Co-financing

type

Amount

contributedto

dateofMTR

(US$)

%contributionto

datecompared

withexpected

amount

Co-financing

type

Amount

contributed

todateofTE

(US$)

CONAP 840,000.00 Cash 530,824.07 63% Cash 248,962.24 779,786.31 92.8%

CONAP 210,000.00 In-kind 248,094.26 118% In-kind 69,974.30 318,068.56 133.3%

TheNatureConservancy

45,000.00 Cash 45,000.00 100% - 0 45,000.00 100%

HelvetasGuatemala 240,000.00 Cash 178,803.00 74% Cash 128,600.66 307,403.66 128%

FondoparalaConservacióndeBosquesTropicales

338,000.00 Cash 93,607.00 28% Cash 1,040.00 94,647.00 28%

USAID-CounterpartInternational

*

144,700.00 - - - Cash

Asoc.VivamosMejor 104,151.79 - - - Cash 116,586.00 116,586.00 111.9%

RainforestAlliance 100,000.00 Cash 256,671.00 257% Cash 217,674.00 474,345.00 474.4%

INGUAT** - Cash 349,968.00 - Cash 1,002,072.16 1,352,040.16 -

FundaciónparaelEcodesarrolloylaConservación

-FUNDAECO-**

0.00 Cash 66,796.87 - Cash 20,400.00 87,196.87 ***

TOTAL 2,021,851.79 1,769,764.20 87% 3,575,073.56 176,82%

*Theco-financingcommittedwasexecutedbeforeprojectstartduetodelayinfinalapproval.TherearerecordsofCounterpartInternationalsupporttoactivitiesrelatedtotheprojectobjectivesin2012,butitwasnotpossibletolocateofficialverifiersofexpensesmadebytheorganizationonbehalfoftheproject.

**Organizationsthatwerenotincludedasco-financingorganizationsinprojectdesign,butgainedrelevanceduringimplementation,especiallyINGUAT.

***Astheseorganizationswerenotincludedasco-financingorganizations,thereisnoinitialamountcompromisedforcomparisonwiththefinalamounttogenerateapercentageofexecution.


21

Projectco-financingsummarytable

Co-financing

(type/sources)

IA-UNDPownfinancing

(USD)

IE-Governmentfunds(CONAP)

(USD)

Othersources

(USD)

Totalfinancing

(USD)

Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual

Grants - - - - - - - -

Credit - - - - - - - -

In-kind - - 210,000.00 318,068.56 65,830.36 0 275,830.36 318,068.56

Cash - - 840,000.00 779,786.31 906,021.43 2,477,218.69 1,746,021.43 3,257,005.00

Non-grant - - - - - - - -

Total - - 1,050,000.00 1,097,854.87 971,851.79 2,477,218.69 2,021,851.79 3,575,073.56


22

3.2.6UNDPandImplementingpartnerimplementation*,coordinationandoperationalissues

HIGHLYSATISFACTORY2

Projectimplementationbecameexcellentandworkedaccordingtoplanning,whichiscorroboratedbyallresultsbeingachieved.Initialdifficultiesandotherissueswereovercome,especiallythepartialuseoffundsintheAOPandreplacementoftheprojectCoordinatorinthefirstyear;theredefinitionof baselines of some logical framework indicators,which involved unplanned consultancies; andreductioninthepaceofprojectimplementationduetolossofCONAPtechnicalstaffandsignificantbudgetaryreductionfrompoliticalchanges.

Itisimportanttoregisterthatthesuccessoftheprojectdependedontheformalapprovalofmanydocuments,frommanagementplans,publicuseplansandbusinessplanstolegalregulationsandpolicies(updatedandnew).Thiscouldeasilycauseimplementationdelaysandaffecttheoutcomes,especiallybecauseofthemanydecisionmakersinvolvedintheprocessofapproval.Atthemomentof this terminal evaluation, practically all documents had been approved, even the policies andregulations which depend on higher levels. Municipal approvals were pending for plans of twoprotectedareas.Theseare ready foruse,but lack formalapproval in theminutesofaMunicipalCouncilmeeting,afterwhichtheyhavetobesenttotheregionalCONAPofficeforapproval,thentotheCentralCONAPOfficeforfinalapproval.ThePMUisfollowingtheprocess,butitdoesnotrequireexternalsupport(financialortechnical),soeveniftheprojectisterminated,themunicipalitieswillbeabletogothroughwithitindependently.

Financial auditswere conducted in2015 for theyears2013-2015and in2016.The2017audit ispendingandwillbeconductedafterprojecttermination,coveringthefullexpanseoftheproject.ThereportsrequestedbyGEFweregeneratedanddeliveredaccordingly.AnAOPwaspreparedatthebeginningofeveryyearsince2013,withonerevisionforadjustmentsperyear,exceptfor2015,whennorevisionwasnecessary.ThePIRwerewrittenbetweenJuneandJulysince2014andincludecommentsbytheprojectCoordinator,theUNDPProjectOfficerandtheUNDPRegionalTechnicalAdvisor. FourQPRwere developed per year since 2013. The Tracking Toolswere used to verifyprogress during implementation based on indicators of institutional capacity, managementeffectivenessandfinancialsustainability.AnadditionalreportwaswrittenbytheCoordinatorattheendofeachyeartoregisterprogressandinformprojectparticipants.

There were no major difficulties or obstacles during project implementation that requiredinterventionsoftheUNDPathigherlevels.ProjectmanagementwaswellharmonizedbetweentheUNDPandCONAP–PMU,withanexcellent levelofcollaborationtowardsprojectobjectivesandresults.NoneoftheintervieweesintheterminalevaluationhadanynegativecommentsabouttheCoordinatorandhisabilities,respect,attention,dedicationandcapacitytoreachagreementsthatsuitedallpartiesinvolved.Apersonwithsuchqualitiescreatesanenablingenvironmenttofacilitateachievements – a conciliatory profile might, in this case, be more important than specializedtechnicalknowledge,sofindingsomeonewhocombinestheseabilitiesmayinpracticeensurethesuccessofaproject.

2AccordingtotheGuideforTerminalEvaluationsofUNDPsupportedprojectsfinancedbyGEF,implementationbytheIAandEAmustbequalifiedaccordingtoasetofsixratings:Highlysatisfactory,Satisfactory,Moderatelysatisfactory,Moderatelyunsatisfactory,UnsatisfactoryandHighlyunsatisfactory.


23

During the terminal evaluation, both the UNDP staff and the project Coordinator were keen toprovide information and documents with transparency and objectivity, impartially explainingpositive andnegativeprocesses and situations to contribute to a realistic TE report thatmaybeusefulasareferenceforfutureprojectsintermsoflessonslearned,mistakesandsuccesses.Thisisreflectedintheprojectreports,fromthePIRandQPRtoannualreportsvoluntarilywrittenbytheCoordinatortofacilitateinformationonprojectadvancestostakeholders.

3.3PROJECTRESULTS

3.3.1Overallresults(attainmentofobjectives)*

HIGHLYSATISFACTORY3

ThegeneralobjectiveoftheprojectwasachievedbecausethefinancialsustainabilityofSIGAPwaseffectively strengthened by the establishment of new financialmechanisms and alternatives forpromoting ecotourism inGuatemala in alignmentwith the conservation of biodiversity of globalimportance.OneoftheintervieweesperceivedtheinclusionofecotourismasalineofworkinsideCONAP as one of the most important outcomes of the project. A strong link was establishedbetweentheobjectivesoftourismandbiodiversityconservationwiththedefinitionofbioindicatorspeciesforeachofthesevenpilotareas.

OneoftheinitialgoalswastodeveloptwonewtouristdestinationsthatincludedprotectedareasintheWesternHighlands.IncollaborationwithINGUAT,sixnewdestinationsweredesignedwithafocus on natural areas the cultural heritage of Guatemala, available online at www.turismo-sigap.com.TheCONAPwebsitewasredesignedbetween2016and2017toincludeinformationonthesedestinations.Toaddtotheseefforts, INGUATrecentlyapprovedfundstomanufactureandinstallroadsignsindicatingthewaytothepilotprotectedareas,whichshouldcontributetoincreasevisitation.

TheSIGAP financial sustainability assessment basedon theGEF Tracking Tools shows a generalincreasefrom26.4to41.3%.Thisisduetoimprovementsinthelegalandinstitutionalframework,theconsolidationofbusinessplansanddiversificationofincomealternativesdevelopedthroughtheproject.Thelastoneisaconsequenceofapprovaloftheregulationsthatreinstaterevenuesfromvisitorentryfeestoprotectedareas,ofmoreflexibilityinmanagementarrangementsgrantedbytheregulationsonco-administrationandtotheImpulsaProgram,whichengagestheprivatesector.

Result1

The legalbase forthedevelopmentofecotourismusingenvironmentalsustainabilitycriteriawasstrengthenedduetothereviewandcreationofthefollowingnationalpoliciesandregulations,whichwereapprovedatthenationallevel:

• Co-Administration and Shared Management Policy (with supporting regulations as anadditional product). Themost important point is the inclusion of the concept of sharedmanagement,whichdidnotformerlyexistinthecountryandnowalsoappliestootherareasofrelevanceforbiodiversityconservationthatarenotprotectedareas,reachingbeyondthe

3AccordingtotheGuideforTerminalEvaluationsofUNDPsupportedprojectsfinancedbyGEF,theoverallobjectivesmustbequalifiedaccordingtoasetofsixratings:Highlysatisfactory,Satisfactory,Moderatelysatisfactory,Moderatelyunsatisfactory,UnsatisfactoryandHighlyunsatisfactory.


24

SIGAPnetwork.Newworkopportunitieshavebeencreatedandthepotentialforgeneratingincomefromecotourismwasincreased;

• PolicyonVisitationActivities inProtectedAreas, inwhich theprinciplesof sustainability,distributionofbenefitsandequitableparticipationwereincluded;

• ManagementRegulationsforVisitationActivitiesinSIGAP.TheseregulationsareinnovativeespeciallyforArticles20and21,whichensurethereinstatementofrevenuesfromvisitorentry fees to protected areas, as well as for defining rules for the distribution andadministrationofthesefunds.Thisisanachievementofhighrelevancebecause,asmuchasreinstatingsuchfundsmayseemlogicalandfair,itisrarelythecaseanywhereintheworld.Visitorfeesaremostoftendepositedinacommongovernmentalfundandusedforotherprioritiesthatarenotrelatedtoprotectedareasorbiodiversityconservation.Reinstatingthesefundsimpliesprovidingmeansofimprovinginfrastructure,maintenanceandservicesforvisitors,whichinturntendstoincreasevisitation,generatingeconomicbenefitsatalllevelsandapositiveretro-feedingcycle.TheonlylimitationisthatthispolicyisonlyvalidforprotectedareasmanagedbyCONAP,which innumberare justunder20%ofthe337protectedareasinSIGAP,butrepresent88.74%oftheprotectedterritoryinGuatemala;

• RegulationsfortheconcessionofvisitorservicesinSIGAP.Theseregulationswereapprovedatthebeginningoftheproject,beforetheLawonContractswaschanged.Oncethischangebecameeffective,theregulationsbecamelimiting,asallcontractshavetobeapprovedbyNationalCongressandsmallservicesarenotseenaspriorities,sosuchprocessescantakevery longor not evenbe voted. INGUATandCONAParenowworkingon an alternativeproposalforsmallconcessionstobeviableinthefuture,suchastouristservicesprovidingfood, bike rentals, internal transport in protected areas, souvenir shops andother smallbusinesses.

Sustainability-basedenvironmentalstandardswereincludedinthecertificationprocessbyINGUATforservicesinsideprotectedareasandforprotectedareasasawhole.Theseareorganizedinfouraxes: administrative, protected areas and archeological parks, occupational security, andsustainability. These standards form the base of evaluation for INGUAT to confer the Q-GreenCertification Label to protected areas. Although no area has been granted the label so far,expectationsarethattheNaturalMonumentYax-há,Nakum,Naranjowillbethefirsttoreceiveitandwillthenbeadvertisedasamodelforotherareas.

Inaddition to theciteddocuments,whichwere listedasprojectoutputs,an important legacyofcomplementarydocumentswasproducedto facilitate theapplicationofpolicies, regulationsandplansforthedevelopmentofecotourisminprotectedareas.Thesemustbeconsideredasadded-valueproductsthatincreaseprojectsustainability:

• updateofinternalregulationsoftheTechnicalCommitteeforTourisminProtectedAreas(COTURAP);

• toolfortheevaluationoftourismpotentialinprotectedareas;• guidefordesigningpublicuseplansforSIGAP;• guidefordesigningbusinessplansforSIGAP;• practicalguidefordefiningvisitorentryfeesinprotectedareas.Duetotherelevanceand

usefulnessofthisguideacommitmentwasmadebyCONAPfordevelopinganonlineversionsothatallprotectedareashaveaccesstothetoolandareabletocalculatetheiroperationalcostsasthebaseforestimatingvisitorfees;


25

• analysis of legal instruments that regulate the development of ecotourism in protectedareas;

• harmonizationstrategyoflegalinstrumentsthatregulatethedevelopmentofecotourisminprotectedareas;

• proposal formodifications incurrent legal regulations that regulate tourism inprotectedareas.

Publicuseplanshavebeendevelopedforthesevenpilotprotectedareasandwereapprovedforfiveofthem(pendingapprovalforMiradorReyTepepulRMPandTodosSantosCuchumatánRMP).Thishasledtoanincreaseinthenumberofprotectedareasimplementingmanagementandpublicuseplansfrom4to11,whiletheimplementationoftheUVRincreasedfrom2to5protectedareas.Thepilot areas where approval is pending are using the plans as management guidance, but theyacknowledgethatbetteropportunitiesforimplementationwillbeavailableoncetheseinstrumentshavelegalvalue.

IncreasedcoordinationbetweentheprivatesectorthroughINGUATgeneratedahighlysatisfactoryresultduetoincreasedinterestintheImpulsaProgram,whichwasextensivelyannouncingacallfornewprojectsduringtheterminalevaluation(Annex5.9),andforsettlingnineagreementswithtouroperators forbirdwatchingandvisits toVolcánChicabal.Someof thepilotprotectedareashavemorepotentialforlocaltourism,soatleastfornownotallofthemwerebenefittedwithagreementstoreceivetouristscomingfromfartherdestinations.Astheknowledgeimpartedbytheprojectonimprovingvisitorattentionservicesandofferingcomplementaryaspectsoftouristinterestsuchascultural heritage, and as at least some of the sustainability criteria developed for the Q-GreenCertificationLabelareapplied,moreopportunitiesfortheseprotectedareastobeincludedintouristdestinationsshouldarise.

Result2

All the expected products were generated. The capacity building goal was surpassed, with 524participants registered in 11of themain capacitybuildingworkshops. CONAP staff from the tenregionalofficesparticipatedinsomeoftheworkshops,significantlyenhancingprojectbenefitsastourism experts aremost often not part of the staff. Positive feedbackwas received frommostinterviewees,whosaidtheyweregratefulforallthenewknowledgetheygained,especiallyasmostofthemdidnothaveanybackgroundontourismmanagement.Theopportunitiesgrantedtoafewpeople to be certified as birdwatching guides and park rangers were highly valued. Children ofASAECO (the associationwhichmanages theNPRCorazóndel Bosque) associatesparticipated inworkshops,whichhelpstopassoncurrentknowledgeand involvetheyoungergeneration inthemanagement of the area. People working in protected areas that formerly received visitorsacknowledgedtheopportunitiestoimprovethequalityoftheirservicesduetoprojectworkshops.ACapacityBuildingManualforManagersandTechnicalStaffandaFacilitatorGuideonTourismandProtectedAreasweredevelopedassupporttoolsforfutureworkshopsthatwillextendthebenefitsoftheprojecttomoreprotectedareas.

Inadditiontoguidesforthedevelopmentofpublicuseandbusinessplans,21plansdevelopedforthepilotareas(includingmanagementplans)remainasmodels.ThemanagementplanforTodosSantosCuchumatánRMPhadbeeninitiatedin2004,concludedbytheprojectandapprovedin2015,before the change ofmunicipal administration. The fact that these documents have legal value


26

increasesopportunitiesfor investmentandimplementation,alsograntingjudicialcertaintytotheareasandpreventingadvancesfromagriculturalorforestextractionactivities.

Biologicalmonitoringprotocolswereadjustedtoeachofthesevenpilotareas.Protocolstomonitorimpactsofvisitationwerealsodevelopedforthesevenareas.Monitoringroutineswereestablishedandimplementedinthesevenareas.

Businessplansbegantobeimplementedinallsevenpilotareas.Examplesofactiontakenare(a)implementingvisitorentryfeesinRMPQuetzalí(formerAstilleroIandII)inSanPedroSacatepéquez,promotingtheparkandfindinglocalpartnersformaintenanceandimprovement,aswellasplanningforbetterinfrastructure;(b)visitorentryfeesimplementedatSanMarcosRMPandimprovementsto the infrastructurewereapprovedby themunicipality; (c) revised feeshavebeenapprovedatVolcánChicabalandnewagreementsweresignedwithtouroperators;theassociationdistributedsmallprofitsamongassociatesforthefirsttimein2016;(d)thePNRCorazóndelBosquerevisedvisitorentryfeesandmanagedtopayoffapendingdebttotheTaxAdministration;(e)atechnicalexpert on tourismwas hired forMirador Rey Tepepul RMP, where visitor fees are about to beapprovedandavisitorentranceboothtobebuilt;(f)anincreaseinthevisitorentryfeesofSibinalRMPwasapproved,theparksecuredfundingtobuildarestaurant,andapersonishiredonoccasiontopromotevisitation;(g)inTodosSantosCuchumatánonepersonwashiredbythemunicipalitytopromotevisitation.

TheSIGAPfinancialgapwasreducedby18.67%intheWesternHighlands,apositive indicatorofchangeduetotheincreaseofecotourismservices.

TheManagementEffectivenessTrackingTool(METT)showsthatallsevenpilotareasreachedthehighestscoreforlegalstatus,while4of7reachedthehighestscorefordefinitionofobjectivesanddesignthatfavorsspeciesconservation.Allsevenareimplementingmanagementplans,butonlytwoachievedthehighestscore.Localparticipationofindigenouscommunitiesandothersalsoreacheshighscoresintheareaswherethisisrelevant.

The only indicator in which all pilot areas remain at the intermediate level refers to adequateinfrastructure for visitors. Most of the areas are in intermediate condition for most indicators:protection,managementplans,managementofresources,staffnumberandcapacity,managementofcurrentbudget,equipmentandmaintenance,planningforwaterandresourceuse,visitorentryfees,somelevelofbenefittocommunities,monitoringandevaluationprocesses,infrastructureforvisitors and good conservation of attributes. The indicator of education and public awareness,currentbudgetandresearcharelessdeveloped(4/7),followedbymaintainingregularworkplans(seethesummaryoftheanalysisinAnnex5.10).

AnalysisofLogicalFramework

ThelogicalframeworkispresentedbelowwithcommentsfromtheTerminalEvaluationandrankingsaccordingtotheresultsachieved.TheGEFrankingscalehas6points:HS–HighlySatisfactory;S-Satisfactory;MS–ModeratelySatisfactory;MU–ModeratelyUnsatisfactory;U-Unsatisfactory,andHU–HighlyUnsatisfactory.

Thecolorscaleis:green-complete,theindicatorwassuccessfullyachieved;yellow–theindicatorshowsthattheactiontendstobecompletedbytheendoftheproject;red-theindicatorshowsscarceresults,andisunlikelytobecompletedbytheendoftheproject.


27

Objectives/results

Indicator Baseline Goal(ofindicator) TerminalEvaluationcomments Ranking

ProjectObjective:StrengthenthefinancialsustainabilityoftheGuatemalanProtectedAreaSystem(SIGAP)bydevelopingnewfinancialmechanismsinthedevelopingecotourismsector,atthesametimeensuringthealignmentofecotourismwithbiodiversityconservationobjectives

1NumberoftouristdestinationsinfivepilotlandscapesintheWesternHighlands(RUMCLA-LakeAtitlán,TodosSantosCuchumatán,TacanáVolcano,TajumulcoVolcano,andVolcanoandLakeChicabal)thatcontributetotheconservationof152,146hectareswithbiodiversityofglobalimportance.

- Five(5) - Seven(7) Achieved300%-surpassed.Twonewdestinationswereexpected,whilesixweredesigned.SixnewtouristdestinationsweredesignedincollaborationwithINGUATbasedonnaturalandculturalattractions.InformationisavailablefromtheCONAPtourismwebsite,whichwasredesignedbetween2016and2017.Thedestinationsare:Thethreevolcanoes,Guate-avatar,Authenticcommunities,Adventureandscenicvisits,ThebestofCuchumatanesandWeekendsandFamilycamping.

HS

2Totalarea(ha)underprotectionintheWesternHighlandswithecotourismbenefits.

- 7,255.4hectares(RMPTodosSantosCuchumatán)

- 12,972.60hectares Achieved127.75%.

Estimatesarethat16,573.43haintheWesternHighlandsarebenefittedbyecotourism.

ThisindicatorwasrecalculatedduetoupdatesintheSIGAPregistryandtothemanagementplansdevelopedbytheproject,whichledtocorrectionsinareaofprotectedareas.TheMiradorReyTepepulRMPandthePNRCorazóndelBosqueamountto3,518.85ha.Thecomplementarynumberofhectaresconsidersother14protectedareasthathaveimplementedvisitorentryfeesandanother13withincomegeneratedbyservices(food,tours,lodging,recreationalactivities).

HS

3Numberofkeyspeciesperbiologicalgroup(mammals,birdsandplants)insevenpilotprotectedareas:

1. RMPTodosSantosCuchumatán;2. RMPAstilleroMunicipal1y2deSanPedroSacatepéquez;

3. RMPAstilleroMunicipaldeSanMarcos;

4. RMPCanjuláTocapote,LosMaijones;

5. PNRParqueEcológicoCorazóndelBosque;

6. RMPMiradorReyTepepul;7. PBZVolcánChicabal.

PA Mammals

Birds Plants PA Mammals Birds Plants Achieved100%.Biologicalmonitoringprotocolsweredefinedinaccordancewith the biological diversity of each of the seven pilotprotectedareas.Asetofspecieswasidentifiedforeachareaasbioindicators.

HS

1. 4 3 5 1. 4 3 5

2. 4 3 5 2. 4 3 5

3. 4 4 5 3. 4 4 5

4. 5 4 5 4. 5 4 5

5. 3 2 5 5. 3 2 5

6. 4 4 5 6. 4 4 5

7. 4 2 5 7. 4 2 5


28

4ChangeinthefinancialcapacityofSIGAPbasedontheaveragescoreintheUNDP–GEFFinancialSustainabilityScorecard

- Legalandinstitutionalframework:39.2%

- Businessplanning:11.5%

- Toolsforrevenuegeneration:24.6%

- Total:26.4%

- Legalandinstitutionalframework:51.6%

- Businessplanning:23.7%- Toolsforrevenue

generation:42.3%- Total:41.3%

Achieved.ThisindicatorwasadjustedbyrecommendationoftheMTRbecausetheoriginalvaluesreferredtoSIGAPatthenationallevel.ItnowconsiderstheWesternHighlandsonlybecauseitistheregionwheretheprojectimplementedpracticalactionandgenerateddirectbenefits.Financialcapacitywasimprovedbecausethelegalandinstitutionalframeworkswerereviewedandcomplemented,alternativesforincomegenerationwerecreated,businessplansweredevelopedforthesevenpilotareas,theImpulsaProgrambenefittedtheprivatesectorandagreementswithtouroperatorsweresigned.

HS

Result1:LegalandpolicyframeworkstrengthenedfortheimplementationofecotourismaspartofastrategytopromotethefinancialsustainabilityofSIGAP

5Changeinlegalandpolicyframeworkatthenationallevel

- PolicyonTouristActivitiesinProtectedAreas- PolicyofCo-administrationinProtectedAreas- RegulationsfortheConcessionofServicesforVisitorsinSIGAP- ManagementinstrumentsforecotourisminSIGAP

- PolicyonTouristActivitiesinProtectedAreasreviewed

- PolicyofCo-administrationinProtectedAreasreviewed

- Regulationsforcontrolofrevenuesupdated

- RegulationsfortheConcessionofServicesforVisitorsinSIGAPupdated

- Environmentalstandardsforthecertificationlabeldesigned.

Achieved100%andsurpassed.Besidesgrantingapprovalforalllegaldocuments,whichisrelevantespeciallyduetothelongchainofapprovalsrequired,additionalproductsweredevelopedthatincreasepotentialreplicationtootherareasandthesustainabilityofthesemodels.Nine(9)additionalproductsweredeveloped:(a)SupportingregulationstothePolicyofCo-administrationandSharedManagementinProtectedAreas;(b)updateoftheinternalregulationsoftheTechnicalCommitteeofTourisminProtectedAreas(COTURAP);(c)toolfortheevaluationoftouristpotentialinprotectedareas;(d)guideforthedevelopmentofpublicuseplansinSIGAP;(e)guidefordevelopmentofbusinessplansinSIGAP;(f)practicalguideforestablishingvisitorentryfeesinprotectedareas,includingacommitmentfromCONAPtodevelopanonlineversion;(g)analysisoflegalinstrumentsthatregulatethedevelopmentofecotourisminprotectedareas;h)harmonizationstrategyoflegalinstrumentsthatregulatethedevelopmentofecotourisminprotectedareas;i)proposalformodificationsincurrentlegalregulationsthatregulatetourisminprotectedareas.

HS

6Numberofprotectedareasimplementingpublicuseplans

- Two(2)

- Nine(9)

Achieved100%.ThisindicatorwasadjustedbyrecommendationoftheMTRbecausethePMUwasunabletoidentifythe4protectedareasindicatedinthebaselinethatwereimplementingpublicuseplans.The7pilotareaswereconsideredasimplementingtheirplans,althoughtwooftheplanswerenotofficiallyapprovedatthetimeofevaluation(RMPMiradorReyTepepulandRMPTodosSantosCuchumatán).All7PAarealsoimplementingtheirbusinessplans.

HS

7NumberofprotectedareaswithUnifiedVisitorRegistry(UVR)inprojectpilotlandscapes

- Two(2)

- Five(5)

Achieved100%.FiveofthesevenpilotareasimplementedtheURV(RMPQuetzalí(AstilleroIandII),SanPedroSacatepéquez;RMPSibinal;RMPAstilleroMunicipaldeSanMarcos;RMPTodosSantosCuchumatán;andPBZVolcánChicabal).ThedifficultyofimplementationatRMPMiradorReyTepepulisthelackofareceptionbooth;andatPNRCorazóndelBosquethegroupsarrivingarelarge,soamoreexpedientprocessisneededtomakeitviable.

HS

8NumberofagreementsbetweentheprivatesectorandSIGAPauthoritiesfortourismoperationswithinprotectedareasintheWesternHighlands

- One(1):RMPCanjuláTocapote,LosMaijones(Sibinal)

- Eight(8) Achieved128,5%.Atthemomentofevaluation,9newagreementshadbeensigned.Theagreementconsideredasbaselinewasnotrenewed.TherearesixnewagreementswiththeNationalBirdwatchingAssociationandthreewithtouroperatorsinQuetzaltenangoandthecapitalfortourstoVolcánChicabal.Notall7PAwerebenefittedbyagreementssofarbecauseofdifferenttouristpotential,somebeingmoreinterestinglocallythannationallyorinternationally.

HS


29

Result2:Improvedinstitutionalframeworkfortourismmanagementinprotectedareas,includingapilotprogramforimplementationofecotourismintheWesternHighlandsofGuatemala.

9ChangeinindicatorsintheGEF-UNDPinstitutionalcapacityscorecard(100protectedareamanagers[CONAP,INGUAT,co-managers,municipalities,touroperatorsandlocalcommunityorganizations]trainedintouristattentionandevaluation,monitoringandmitigationofimpactsfromecotourism)

A.Participation:(a)Municipalities76.67;(b)Associations77.78;(c)Regionalinstitutions53.33;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity55.56

B.Generate,accessanduseinformationandknowledge:(a)Municipalities51.67;(b)Associations58.33;(c)Regionalinstitutions31.67;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity33.33

C.Developmentofstrategies,policiesandregulations:(a)Municipalities40;(b)Associations66.67;(c)Regionalinstitutions35.56;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity44.44

D.Managementandimplementation:(a)Municipalities33.33;(b)Associations41.67;(c)Regionalinstitutions30.00;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity66.67

E.Monitoringandevaluation:(a)Municipalities16.67;(b)Associations41.67;(c)Regionalinstitutions0;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity0.

A.Participation:(a)Municipalities82.67;(b)Associations83.78;(c)Regionalinstitutions59.33;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity61.56

B.Generate,accessanduseinformationandknowledge:(a)Municipalities57.67;(b)Associations64.33;(c)Regionalinstitutions37.67;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity39.33

C.Developmentofstrategies,policiesandregulations:(a)Municipalities46;(b)Associations72.67;(c)Regionalinstitutions41.56;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity50.44

D.Managementandimplementation:(a)Municipalities39.33;(b)Associations47.67;(c)Regionalinstitutions36.00;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity72.67

E.Monitoringandevaluation:(a)Municipalities22.67;(b)Associations47.67;(c)Regionalinstitutions6.00;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity6.00.

Notachieved-80%.Only4outof20indicatorswerenotachieved,althoughimprovementsandprogressarenoticeableinmostofthemunicipalitiesinvolvedintheproject.ErrorswerefoundinthebaselineandgoalvaluesforDevelopmentofstrategies,policiesandregulationsfortheInstitutionsinthecapitalcityduringthepreparationofTrackingToolsfortheMTR.Thesewereadjusted,butthegoalofimproving6pointsinthisindicatorremainedthesame.

A.Participation:(a)Municipalities73.33–didnotachievethegoalforlackofinvolvementofTodosSantosCuchumatán,wheretheadministrationinplacesince2015hasnotcollaboratedeffectivelywiththeproject.(b)Associations83.33–didnotachievethegoalforonly0.45points.Thisismostlyduetothevalueofeachcriteriathatdefinesprogress;astherearefewcriteria,thenextlevelwouldreachthemaximumscore,butthatrequirestheinvolvementoflocalstakeholdersandwasnotpartoftheplan;(c)Regionalinstitutions66.00–surpassedby6.67points;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity66.67–surpassedby5.11points.

B.Generate,accessanduseinformationandknowledge:(a)Municipalities63.33–surpassedby5.66points;(b)Associations70.83–surpassesby6.5points;(c)Regionalinstitutions50.00–surpassedby12.33points;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity66.67–surpassedby27.34points.

C.Developmentofstrategies,policiesandregulations:(a)Municipalities62.22–surpassedby16.22points;(b)Associations66.67–goalnotachievedby6pointsbecausetheassociationslackcapacitytorevisetheirinternalstrategiesandpolicies,dependinguponexternalsupport;(c)Regionalinstitutions42.22-surpassedby0.66points;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity56.66–surpassedby6.12points.

D.Managementandimplementation:(a)Municipalities50.00–surpassedby10.67points;(b)Associations50.00–surpassedby2.33points;(c)Regionalinstitutions43.33–surpassedby7.33points;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity66.67–notachievedby6pointsduetotheuncertaintyoffundingandlackofpersonnelinCentralCONAPwhichinturnpreventstheactivitiesintheannualworkplantobefulfilled.

E.Monitoringandevaluation:(a)Municipalities46.67–surpassedby24points;(b)Associations50.00–surpassedby2.33points;(c)Regionalinstitutions10.00–surpassedby4points;(d)Institutionsincapitalcity33.33–surpassedby27.33points.

Anassessmentoftheseresultsshowsthatthereismorecapacityforabstracttaskssuchasparticipation,planninganddevelopmentofstrategiesthanforimplementation,monitoringandevaluation,whichneedtobeimproved.ACapacityBuildingManualforManagersandTechnicalStaffandaGuideforFacilitatorsintopicsrelatedtotourismandprotectedareasweredevelopedassupporttoolsforcapacitybuildingworkshops.ThesematerialswillbeavailablefromCONAPandprojectpartnerwebsites.

S


30

10NumberofprotectedareasintheWesternHighlandsestablishedandregisteredinSIGAP

- Forty-one(41) - Forty-three(43) Achieved100%.Thisindicatorwascorrected:thebaselinewasadjustedfrom39to41,andthegoal,from41to43–thegoalofincreasing2pointsremainedthesame.Theregisterofnewprotectedareaswasachievedduetodirectactionfromtheproject.TheregisterofMiradorReyTepepulRMP,inSantiagoAtitlán,waspendingsince1993andisthereforenotedasamajoraccomplishment.Itgrantsprotectionto3,509.91haintheWesternHighlands(theareawasalreadyconsideredinSIGAPbecauseitispartoftheRUMCLA–MultipleUseReserveoftheLakeAtitlánBasin).ThePNREcologicalParkCorazóndelBosqueaddsanother8.94ha.Other19newareasintheWesternHighlandswereregisteredinSIGAPduringprojectimplementation.

HS

11NumberofprotectedareasintheWesternHighlandswithevaluation,monitoringandmitigationofimpactsfromtourisminecologicallysensitiveareas

- Zero(0)

- Seven(7)

Achieved100%.Biologicalmonitoringprotocolswereadjustedforthe7pilotprotectedareasandarebeingimplemented.Thebiologicalmonitoringprotocolshadtobesimplifiedfromtheoriginaldesigntobecompatiblewithimplementationbyparkrangers.Monitoringactivitiesareexecutedeightmonthsintheyear.Monitoringimpactsofecotourismisacomplementaryactivitythatsupportsthemaintenanceoftrailsandinfrastructure,trashcollection,etc.

HS

12Changeinrevenuesgeneratedannuallyin22protectedareasbytouristvisitation

- $1,393,123 - $1,811,060(30%increase) Notachieved-71.5%.The30%increaseinrevenuesfromtourismwasnotachievedduringthetimeofprojectimplementation;anincreaseof21.44%wasachieved.Thisindicatorwasdifficulttoachievebecausetheprojectonlyhadinfluenceon7ofthe22protectedareas.Forthisreason,theindicatorisnotconsideredrealisticinconceptionandtheprojectwasnotlongenoughtobeabletofulfillthisgoal.Althoughthegoalwasnotachieved,thisincreaseissignificantbecausetherehasnotbeenenoughtimeforthepoliciesandregulationsdevelopedandapprovedthroughtheprojecttobefullyimplemented,especiallyregardingsharedmanagementandreinstatementofrevenuesfromvisitorentryfees.Thesepossibilitiesarenewinthe7pilotareasandmoretimeisneededforconsistentresults.Thebusinessplansareready,butnotfullyimplemented,theagreementswithtouroperatorsarerecent,aswellastheincreaseincapacityforimprovingtouristattentionservices.TheImpulsaProgramhadacallforproposalsopenatthetimeoftheTerminalEvaluationandisguaranteeduntil2019.Consideringthenewopportunitiesoriginatedbytheproject,thegoalfortheincreaseofrevenuesfromtourismwillprobablybesurpassedinthecomingyears.

S

13NumberofprotectedareasintheWesternHighlandswithafunctionalsystemofvisitorentryfeesandtouristservices

- Two(2):PermanentBanZoneVolcanoandLakeChicabalandRMPConcepciónChiquirichapa

- Eight(8):baseline+6pilotareas.

Achieved200%.Sixoutofsevenpilotprotectedareashaveimplementedvisitorentryfeesaswellasother6protectedareasintheregion,withatotalof14protectedareasintheregionwhenincludingthetwodefinedasbaseline.Thisimpliesrelevantchangesforprotectedareasbecause(a)regulationsthatreinstaterevenuesfromvisitorentryfeestoprotectedareaswereapproved;(b)localpopulationsinitiallyresisttheideaofpayingentryfees,aspeopleareusedtofreeaccess;(c)animportanteffortwasmadeinseekingpoliticalsupport,asmanyauthoritiesfindtheideaofentryfeesdisagreeableforfearoflosingsupportinelections.

HS


31

14ChangeinthefinancialgaptocoverbasicmanagementcostsandSIGAPinvestmentsasaresultofincreasedrevenuesinprotectedareasfromvisitorentryfeesandprovisionoftouristservices

- $1,209,132.79 - $1,054,762.87(15%reductioninfinancialgap)

Achieved124.5%.ThisindicatorwasrevisedbyrecommendationoftheMTRbecauseitinitiallyreferredtotheentireSIGAPanditwasnotfeasibletoexpecttheprojecttoimpact15%ofthefinancialgapatthenationallevelbyworkingwithonlysevenprotectedareasintheWesternHighlands.Theindicatorwasthereforeadjustedtotheregion.Thegoalwasachieved,andthefinancialgapwasreducedby18.67%.

HS

15ChangeinmanagementeffectivenessoftheselectedprotectedareasinpilotlandscapesthroughMETT

- RMPTodosSantosCuchumatán:58

- RMPAstilleroMunicipal1and2deSanPedroSacatepéquez(RMPQuetzalí):27

- RMPAstilleroMunicipaldeSanMarcos:54

- RMPCanjulá,Tocapote,LosMaijones:32

- PNRParqueEcológicoCorazóndelBosque:55

- RMPReyTepepul:48- PBZVolcánChicabal:38

- PRMTodosSantosCuchumatán:58(goal77points)

- RMPAstilleroMunicipal1and2deSanPedroSacatepéquez(RMPQuetzalí):59(goal47points)

- RMPAstilleroMunicipaldeSanMarcos:75(goal74points)

- RMPCanjulá,Tocapote,LosMaijones:63(goal52points)

- PNRParqueEcológicoCorazóndelBosque:75(goal75points)

- RMPReyTepepul:64(goal68points)

- PBZVolcánChicabal:60(goal58points)

Notachieved-71.4%-5of7protectedareasFiveofthesevenpilotprotectedareasincreasedthescoreformanagementeffectiveness.ManagementandpublicuseplansRMPMiradorReyTepepularereadyandawaitformalapprovalbytheMunicipalCouncil,fromwhereitwillbesubmittedtoCONAPattheregionalandnationallevels.ThisprocesscouldnotbeinitiatedbeforetheofficialregistryoftheParkinSIGAP.Theplanswereexpectedtobeapprovedbeforeprojecttermination;hadthishappened,thescorewouldhaveincreasedandtheoverallgoalwouldhavebeenachieved.Buttheplansarecompletedandnofurtherdifficultiesshouldariseintheprocessofapprovalaftertheprojectisterminated.NoeffectiveprogresswasmadeinTodosSantosCuchumatánforpoliticalreasons.Themunicipalityhadreached78pointsby2015,beforethelastchangeinmunicipalgovernment,butthenewadministrationdiscontinuedtheactivitiesandthepointsintheMETTscorecardwerereducedtothelevelofinitialevaluation.ThecommunitiesmanagingtheRMPhavenotestablishedafavorablerelationshipwiththemunicipalauthorities,whichdonotmanifestmuchinterestinparkmanagementbecausetheydonotperceivedirectbenefitstothemunicipality.Thedifficultyingrantingapprovaltothepublicuseplanisunfortunate,astheinfluxoftouristsgoesthroughthecityandcreatespotentialopportunitiesforrevenuefromservices,especiallyasthecityhasinterestingtourismpotentialforculturalreasons.Despitethissituation,themunicipalityhiredapersonforthedevelopmentoftourismactivities,butnoefforthadbeenmadeatthetimeoftheTerminalEvaluationtointegrateneitherthecommunitieswhoinpracticemanagetheRMP,norlocaltouristguides.

S

ProductsResult1:1.1. UpdateofCo-administrationPolicyandmanagementinstruments.1.2. UpdateofTouristActivitiesinProtectedAreasPolicy,whichregulatesinterinstitutionalcooperation,planning,investmentandmanagement.1.3. CONAPregulationsforthereinstatementofrevenuesfromvisitorentryfeesandconcessionsinprotectedareas.1.4. Environmentalstandardsandcertificationsystemforthedevelopmentofecotourismregulateprivatesectorinvestmentinprotectedareasandenablebiodiversityconservation.

ProductsResult2:2.1. Capacitybuildingprogramincreasestechnicalcapacityofprotectedareamanagers(CONAP,INGUAT,co-managers,municipalities,touroperatorandlocalcommunityorganizations)for(a)implementation

ofenvironmentalandsocialsafeguardsforecotourism;b)visitorattention;yc)evaluation,monitoringandmitigationofecotourismimpacts(acceptablelimitsofchangeinecologicallysensitiveareasinpilotareas).

2.2. Thirty(30)CONAPofficialstrainedonvisitorattentionandmonitoringimpactsofecotourism.2.3. Monitoringstrategydevelopedtoassessacceptablelimitsofchangeinecologicallysensitiveareasinpilotareas.2.4. Managementplansforprotectedareasincludeecotourismaspartoffinancialstrategies.2.5. Businessplansdefinedforprotectedareasinpilotlandscapespromotethedevelopmentofnewtouristdestinationsinareaswithfewvisitors,butwithecotourismpotential.2.6. Pilotexperienceinapplyinganvisitorentryfeesystemandconcessionsthatincludereinstating,assigningandlevellingfees.


32

3.3.2Relevance*

RELEVANT4

TheprojectobjectiveiscoherentwithGEF-6StrategicObjective1forBiodiversity,whichaimstoimprovethesustainabilityofprotectedareasystems:“Improvedefficacyinthemanagementofnewandexistingprotectedareas;protectedareasystemsensureincreaseinrevenuesanddiversificationofincomesourcestocoverallexpensesnecessaryformanagementobjectives.”

The project contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in terms ofprotection,restorationandpromotionofthesustainableuseofterrestrialecosystems,sustainablemanagementofforestsandreductionoflanddegradation,andhabitatandbiodiversityloss.ItalsocontributestoGoal7oftheUnitedNationsMilleniumDevelopmentGoals,toensureenvironmentalsustainability.

The project isperfectly suited to local and national development priorities and organizational

policies:theCONAPNationalPolicyonTouristActivitiesinProtectedAreasandRegulations(2000and2003), SIGAPEnvironmentalManagementFramework (2003), INGUATNationalEcotourism

Policy(2003),GuatemalaNationalPolicyfortheDevelopmentofSustainableTourism(2004-2014and 2012-2022), the Guatemalan Government Agendas for Change (2012-2016) andCompetitiveness(2012-2021).TheprojectisalsoalignedwiththeGuatemalaManagementPlanfor

SustainableTourism2015-2025.

TheGuatemalaGovernmentincludedtourisminoneofthefiveaxesofpresidentialprioritiesoftheGeneralGovernmentPolicy2016-2020(“supporttomicro,smallandmedium-sizeenterprises,tourism,housing,anddignifiedanddecentwork”).Theopportunitiesoffinancialimprovementandlegal certainty due to the reinstatement of revenues from visitor entry fees from ecotourism toprotectedareas,aswellasnewsharedmanagementopportunities,increasepotentialinvestmentintheconservationofprotectedareas,speciesandecosystems,contributingtotheconservationofbiological diversity of global importance, to the increase of resilience to climate change and themaintenanceofecosystemservices.

3.3.3Effectivenessandefficiency* SATISFACTORY5

Effectiveness

Effectivenessisdefinedastheextenttowhichanobjectivewasachievedorthehowlikelyitistobeachieved.

Structural changes and unforeseen situations normally occur during project implementation,requiringadaptivemanagementmeasures.Inthecaseofthisproject,someturmoiltookplaceuponthetransitionofgovernmentin2015,afterwhichtherewerereductionsinCONAPpersonneland

4AccordingtotheGuideforTerminalEvaluationsofUNDPsupportedprojectsfinancedbyGEF,theprojectmustberatedasRelevantorNotrelevant.

5AccordingtotheGuideforTerminalEvaluationsofUNDPsupportedprojectsfinancedbyGEF,Effectivenessandefficiencymustbequalifiedaccordingtoasetofsixratings:Highlysatisfactory,Satisfactory,Moderatelysatisfactory,Moderatelyunsatisfactory,UnsatisfactoryandHighlyunsatisfactory.


33

budgetallocations.Politicalchangesinthemunicipalitieslinkedtotheprojectequallyrequiredneweffortstoreestablishcooperation,whichdidnotalwaysreachtheformerlevelofsupport.

At the beginning of implementation, the PMU realized that two of the goals were not feasible:developing economic incentives and an environmental certification system within CONAP. Thealternative was to establish cooperation with INGUAT, which had appropriate conditions toimplementequivalentsolutions.

Atthebeginningoftheprojectsomeofthecollaborationandco-financingcommitmentswerelostduetothetimebetweenprojectdesignandstartup.Thisledtochangesalongimplementationinthemostrelevantpartnersandstakeholders.

Adjustments were required for six of the indicators in the logical framework, some for lack ofreference to baseline calculations, others due to the initial design or to updates in SIGAP data.Baselines were recalculated and indicators adjusted to enable comparisons along projectimplementation, which required funds for consultancies and working hours that had not beenplanned.

Theavailabilityofspecializedconsultantswithexpertiseintourismwasfoundtobelimited.Someofthecontractshadtobecancelledandredrawnwithnewconsultants,extendingthetimeneededtogeneratethedesiredproducts.

Despite the several issues towhich the PMUhad to adapt and create solutions, all resultswereachieved and all products generated, including other documents that were not planned duringprojectdesign.Theonlyindicatorthatwasnotachievedrefersto30%increaseinrevenuesfrom22protectedareasintheWesternHighlands.Thisindicatorwasnotrealisticbecausetheprojectonlyhadinfluenceon7ofthe22protectedareas.Otherindicatorswereonlypartiallyachievedbecausethe scores in the Institutional Capacity Scorecard (4/20) andManagement Effectiveness did notimproveasmuchasexpected(seeanalysisoflogicalframework).

The general objectivewas also effectively achieved for creating new financing opportunities forSIGAP while respecting environmental conservation criteria. Despite unforeseen situations andpoliticalturmoil,projecteffectivenesswashighlysatisfactoryintermsofachievingtheexpected

results.

Result1wasachievedandsurpassed,asinadditiontoupdatingexistingpolicies,developingandapprovingnewpolicies and regulations,manuals and guideswereproducedas support tools forimplementation.Thisconsolidatesalegalandtechnicalbaseforthedevelopmentofecotourisminthecountryandcreatesnewworkandsocioeconomicdevelopmentopportunities,atthesametimeestablishingafinancialmechanismfortheconservationandmaintenanceofprotectedareas.

Result2wasequallyachieved,withtheinclusionofecotourismintheCONAPprogramofworkinharmonywith national development policies and plans. Institutional capacities, especially at themunicipallevel,cansurelybeimprovedinthefuture,aswellasmanagementeffectiveness,eitherthrough new projects or simply by the application of the legal base and themanagement toolsdevelopedaspartofResult1ofthisproject.

Efficiency

Efficiencyisdefinedastheextenttowhichresultshavebeendeliveredwiththeleastcostlyresourcespossible.Forreasonsalreadyexplained,astheneedtorecalculatebaselinevaluesforindicatorsin


34

thelogicalframework,replacementofconsultants,financialexecutioninyearone(70%oftheAOP),andthedifficultyinfollowingupwithco-financinginstitutions,efficiencyisconsideredsatisfactory.

Nootherdifficultiesinfinancialexecutionwereobserved:thetrackingtoolswerewellusedandadjustedwhennecessaryinthelogicalframework;accountingsystemswereapprovedbyexternalaudits,whichonlyregisteredtwominorissuesthatwereimmediatelycorrected;progressreportswere punctually produced and management responses to the MTR were registered andimplemented.TheEAdemonstratedgoodadaptivemanagementcapacityespeciallyforproblemsin project design and political turmoil, as unrealistic goals for the structure of CONAP had beenplanned.Thesewereachievedthroughinterinstitutionalcooperation.

ItisrelevanttoregisterthatfinancialexecutionwascarriedoutbytheUNDP,whichensuredthatallexpenseswereverifiedandadequatelymadeaccordingtoplanning.

Result1canbeconsideredmoreefficientthanResult2,as itwas lessdependentuponexternalcooperation,andbecausenineextraproductsweregeneratedwhichofferrelevantsupportforthedevelopment of ecotourism in Guatemala. Result 2 was dependent on cooperation withmunicipalitiesandassociationsandwasmoreaffectedbyfrailtiesinprojectdesign.

3.3.4Countryownership

Theproject iswell integratedwiththeCONAPNationalPolicyonTouristActivities inProtectedAreas and regulations (2000 and 2003), which was updated as part of the project goals. OtherrelevantpoliciestowhichtheprojectisrelatedareSIGAPEnvironmentalManagementFramework(2003),INGUATNationalEcotourismPolicy(2003),GuatemalaNationalPolicyfortheDevelopmentof Sustainable Tourism (2004-2014 and 2012-2022), the Guatemalan Government Agendas forChange (2012-2016) and Competitiveness (2012-2021). The project is also aligned with theGuatemalaManagementPlanforSustainableTourism2015-2025.

TheGuatemalaGovernmentincludedtourisminoneofthefiveaxesofpresidentialprioritiesoftheGeneralGovernmentPolicy2016-2020(“supporttomicro,smallandmedium-sizeenterprises,tourism, housing, anddignified anddecentwork”). Theproject contributes to four objectives ofpriorities in the samepolicy, in components (a) financial sustainability (BiodiversityConservationStrategies),(b)developmentofecotourismandincreaseinlocalparticipationforsharedbenefitsofecotourisminprotectedareas(ManagementofGoodsandServices),(c)developmentofcapacityforthemodernizationoftheStateandapplicationofmanagementinstrumentsfortheconservationofbiodiversity(InstitutionalModernizationStrategy),and(d)socialparticipationintheapplicationofmanagementinstrumentsforthepublicuseofprotectedareas(SocialParticipationStrategy).ThispolicyisintegratedwithprioritiesestablishedintheNationalDevelopmentPlanK’atun2032,whichalsoincludestourismasamechanismofeconomicdevelopment.

TheGEF Focal Point, Vice-Minister ofNatural Resources andClimateChange, acknowledged theimportance of this project, the strategic relevance of tourism for Guatemala and the potentialcontribution of ecotourism to the sustainability of protected areas and as an additional incomegenerationopportunityforcommunitiesandpopulationsintheirsurroundings.

TheGuatemalaNational Policy for Sustainable Development of Tourism 2012-2020 designatedINGUAT the task of developing a certification program for tourist service providers consideringquality,sustainabilityandsafety.Theexistenceofthispolicyfavoredtheprojectandisreflectedin


35

the increasing role of INGUAT as project partner and assurance of continuity for some of theprograms initiated through theproject. Thepostof community tourist guidewascreateddue tosignificantcommunity interest, togetherwithtrainingprovidedby INGUAT.The INGUATQ-GreenCertification Programwas expanded to incorporate the certification of protected areas and theImpulsa Program was developed to promote and support tourism services in the country. TheMinistryofEconomyandtheTourismChamberplantograntImpulsawinnerswithamembershipforaccesstoothercapacitybuildingopportunitiesandbenefits.INGUAThasdecidedtoregistertheImpulsaProgramasatrademark.Thefactthat2017istheInternationalYearofSustainableTourismforDevelopmentalsofavoredtheprojectfortheinvolvementofINGUAT,whichisworkingonthecertificationof theYaxháNakumNaranjoNationalPark,managedby theMinistryofCultureandSports,asthefirstprotectedareawithenvironmentalcertification(Q-Green)inthecountry.

Manyofthepersonsinterviewedforthisterminalevaluationconsideredthatthemostimportantresult of this project is to have institutionalized a program of work for the development of

ecotourismasafinancialmechanismfortheconservationofprotectedareaswithinSIGAP.Atthemunicipal level, interviewswith authorities revealed a clear understandingof the relevance andopportunities that tourismoffersasa sourceof regionaleconomicdevelopment.Evidence is thesearchforfundsandpartnerstoimproveinfrastructureinprotectedareasandsupportmanagement,includingvolunteeringschoolstudents,scoutsandcommunitiesforenvironmentaleducationandreforestationactivities.

Within CONAP, among authorities and technical staff, ecotourism is perceived as an importantfinancial mechanism that can help balance institutional shortcomings in the conservation ofprotectedareas.Forseveralpeople,thisprojecthasbrokenaninstitutionalparadigm,asprotectedareaswereoftenseenassuitableexclusivelyforconservationpurposes.Ecotourismisnowseenas

compatibleduetotheintroductionofmonitoringprotocolsforimpactsoftourismandbiological

monitoring,asthesetoolshelpsetlimitsforvisitation.Thepotentialofincreaseofworkandbenefitsfor nearby communities is acknowledged. Another benefit is that project implementation hasstrengthenedtheimageofCONAP,facilitatingcooperationfortheprotectionofnaturalareasandthe development of sustainable tourism. Positive project results as well as a conceptual baseprovidedthroughcapacitybuildinghavecertainlycontributedtoprojectownershipbypeopleatalllevelsofparticipation.

Havingstronglyinvestedinpolicies,regulationsandotherdocumentsdevelopedwithCONAPstafftoimprovetheexistinglegalframework,theprojectleavesasolidlegalbaseforthedevelopment

oftourismwithavisionofsustainabilitythatincludesmonitoringimpactsonbiologicaldiversity,

akeyelementtoassuretheconservationofthenaturalheritage.Governmentrepresentativesatthemunicipal,regional(CONAP)andnationallevelswereinvolvedintheprocessofapprovaloflegalandotherdocuments.Theselegaldocumentsfunctionasguidanceforprotectedareamanagementandare innovative for creating new shared management opportunities and eliminating formerlimitations.

3.3.5Mainstreaming

TheprojectcontributestotheprogrammaticareaofInclusiveandSustainableDevelopmentofthe

UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2015-2019 for investing in “policies andinvestmentsthatpromoteandareresponsiblefortheprotection,useandconservationofnaturalresources,especiallyintheareasofbiodiversity,climatechange,watermanagementandenergy.”


36

TheprojectisalignedwiththeUNDPCountryProgramforGuatemala2015-2019forthecomponenton inclusive and sustainable development, which includes strengthening alliances betweengovernmentinstitutions,includingtheMinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesandCONAP.ThisiscontinuedfromtheUNDPCountryProgramforGuatemala(2010-2014),whichincludestheobjectiveof incomegenerationopportunities fromecotourismandprovisionof tourist services,contributingtotheenvironmentandsustainabledevelopmentcomponent.Thiscomponentincludessupporttostrengthenlocalandnationalinstitutions,tothecivilsocietyforimprovedinter-sectorialanddecentralizedenvironmentalmanagementandtothedevelopmentofecologicallysustainableproduction projects that benefit rural populations. Although no specificmention ismade in thisdocumentabouttourismasagoaloftheprogram,someprojectactivitieshavecorroboratedtheinterestofthegeneralpublicandtheprivatesectorindevelopingecotourismasasourceofincome.The project therefore contributes to the components of poverty alleviation, environmental

conservationandsustainabledevelopment.TheSibinal–CanjuláRMP,forexample,hadrevenuesofQ26,000in2016,withthesameamounthavingbeengainedbyAugust2017duetothereviewofvisitorentryfees,structuralimprovementsandpromotionoftheparktoincreasevisitation.AtthePBZ Volcán Chicabal visitor entry feeswere increased after the assessment of operational costsprovidedbytheproject, increasingthe levelof income.ASAECOthereforemanagedtodistributeprofitsforthefirsttimein2016tothe19associatedfamilieswhohadalwaysonlydonevoluntaryworksincetheareawaspurchasedin1999.Themanagementplandevelopedthroughtheprojectwasusedtoorganizevisitation,establishingrulestopreventtouristsfrommakingnoiseduringthenightandensuringthelakeiskeptfreeoflitter.TheNPRCorazóndelBosquealsoreviewedvisitorentry fees. Themanaging committee acknowledged the importance of the protected area plansprovidedandthebiologicalandimpactmonitoringefforts,especiallybecausetheyformerlyworkedwithout planning. They also acknowledged that, with support from the project, more efficientcommunicationwasestablishedwiththeCONAPRegionalOffice,whichprovidesthemwithbettersupportformanagementinthefuture.

Theapprovalofmanagementregulationsforvisitationactivities,whichreinstatesrevenuesfrom

visitorentryfeestoprotectedareasmanagedbyCONAPisofnationalrelevance,astheyimprovemaintenancepossibilitiesandinvestmentsintouristservicestoincreasevisitationandrevenues.TheapprovalofSIGAPregulationsforco-administrationandsharedmanagement isalsorelevantforallowing specific services tobeprovidedbyothers, facilitatingcooperationwithassociationsandcommunities,andcreatingnewincomeopportunities.

Despitepolitical instabilityand lossofCONAPpersonnel, theprojecthasproventhatecotourism

initiativesandservicespromoteeconomicdevelopment.Forexample,646newbusinesseswerelegalizedand/orestablishedbetween2013and2017byindirectinfluenceoftheprojectornot.OneoftheImpulsaProgrambeneficiariesreportedthat,beingtheonlytouroperatorinhisarea,tourismnowbenefitsthelocalpopulationbecausetouristarrivalshaveledtotheopeningofnewbusinesses.Anotherbeneficiaryreportsa15-20%increaseofrevenuestohisbusinessafterhewasselectedbytheImpulsaProgram.Thesearepositiveindicatorsforthepromotionofecotourisminotherareasofthecountry,creatingopportunitiesofincomegenerationforlocalpopulationsandforprotectedareas while improving visitor infrastructure in cooperation with the private sector, indirectlyimprovingthefeasibilityoftheconservationofprotectedareas.


37

ClimatechangemitigationwasnotpartoftheGEFprogramwhentheprojectwasdesigned.Theincrease inprotectedareas inSIGAP,biologicalandvisitor impactmonitoring,aswellascapacitybuilding for protected areamanagement focused on sustainable tourism indirectly contribute toincreaseresilienceandmitigateeffectsofclimatechange,butnospecificactivitieswereplannedorexecutedforthispurpose.

ProjectdesigndidnotincorporatecriteriaofgenderequalityascurrentlyrequiredbytheGEF,asthesewerenotrequiredatthetime(GEF3-4).Ananalysisofcapacitybuildingworkshopscarriedoutthroughtheprojectrevealstronggenderinequalityforculturalreasons.EvenifthePMUhadtriedtohaveequalnumbersofmenandwomenintheworkshops,thiswouldhardlybeachieved.Parkrangers are nearly all men, so very few women were available to participate. Six of the sevenprotectedareamanagerslinkedtotheprojectaremen,withanexceptiontoQuetzalíRMP(formerAstillero I and II San Pedro Sacatepéquez), where the manager is a woman with a degree inAgronomicalEngineering;themayorsandmunicipalcouncilmembersaremen.Theparticipationofwomeninprojectactivitiesinthepilotsiteswasnotedintraditionallyfemaleroles.AfewpositionswithinCONAPareoccupiedbywomen,butnotthehigherones;thethreeregionaldirectorsintheWesternHighlandsaremen.AlthoughthePMUmadeeffortstoimprovegenderequalityfromtheyear2016,thepercentageoffemaleparticipationinworkshopspromotedbytheprojectreached20.8%.Ahigherpercentageoffemaleparticipationisregisteredinworkshopsdirectedtotechnicalstaffthantootherpositionssuchasparkrangers,directorsandprotectedareamanagers.

Examplesoffemaleparticipationwereregisteredinactivitiessuchasprovisionoffoodinfestivitiespromotedinprotectedareas,suchasthePrayerforRainatPBZVolcánChicabal;anathleticracepromotedatQuetzalíRMP(formerAstilleroIandIIinSanPedroSacatepéquez);andmanagementoftherestaurantatPNRCorazóndelBosque.

AGender Equality Strategy for CONAP is in development since 2015. The Council requested anumberofchangesuponreviewofthedocument,butthepersoninchargewasdismissedwhenthegovernmentchanged.Anewpersonwashiredin2017tooverseegenderissuesinCONAP,soatthetime of the Terminal Evaluation the document “CONAP Gender Equality Strategy with CulturalConsiderations2017-2022”wasbeingprepared forpresentation to theCouncil.Thedocument isorganizedaccordingtofourstrategies:(a)mainstreaminggenderissueswithculturalconsiderationsinto the CONAP institution; (b) promote the principles of equality and equity with culturalconsiderations in planning, policies, strategies, plans, programs and projects implemented byCONAP;(c)improvingtheknowledgeoftechnicalandadministrativestaffintopicsofhumanrightsandwomenrights,withculturalconsiderations;(d)promotionanddisseminationofmanagementpractices in public services focused on gender equality and cultural considerations. These areimportant references for future projects and to help change public perception ofmasculine andfemalerolesinthecountry.

3.3.6Sustainability*

MODERATELYLIKELY6

Project sustainability was considered moderately likely especially due to political and socio-economic instability, insufficient budget and personnel in Central CONAP, Regional Offices and

6AccordingtotheGuideforTerminalEvaluationsofUNDPsupportedprojectsfinancedbyGEF,Sustainabilitymustbequalifiedaccordingtoasetoffourratings:Likely,Moderatelylikely,ModeratelyunlikelyorUnlikely.


38

municipalitiesandassociationsthatmanagethepilotprotectedareas.Thelackoftecnicalcapacityin the country to take responsibility for the development of ecotourism with environmentalsustainabilitycriteriaisanotherweaknessthatwasexperiencedduringprojectimplementation.

Financialsustainability

Likely

Several measures are in place to ensure the continuity of activities initiated during projectimplementation:

a) consolidationof legal framework for thedevelopmentof ecotourism inprotectedareas,withtourismembeddedinnationalpoliciesasapriorityfordevelopment;

b) approvalofManagementRegulationsforVisitationActivitieswithinSIGAP,whichreinstatesrevenuesfromvisitorentryfeestoprotectedareas;

c) approvaloftheCo-AdministrationandSharedManagementPolicy,creatingnewworkandincomegenerationopportunitiesfromtouristservices;

d) visitorentryfees inprotectedareasare institutionalizedbasedonoperationalneedsandprojectedincome.AlthoughMiradorReyTepepulRMPhasnotyetestablishedvisitationfeesforlackofinfrastructure,conditionsarebeingimprovedforshort-termimplementation;

e) ownershipoftheImpulsaProgrambyINGUAT,withacontinuitycommitmentofthreeyearssince2017,aswellasoftheCertificationofProtectedAreaswithcriteriaofenvironmentalsustainability(Q-GreenLabel);

f) developmentofbusinessplans andpublicuseplans for the sevenpilotprotectedareas,whichserveasmodelsfortheentireSIGAP;

g) institutionalcapacitiesstrengthenedatthenational,regionalandmunicipal levelsforthedevelopment of ecotourism, changing the perception project participants about thepotentialofecotourismasa financialmechanism forprotectedareas,municipalitiesandcommunities.

Socioeconomicsustainability

Moderatelylikely

At themoment of the terminal evaluation, ownership of project products andbenefits is strongwithin themainorganizations involved.The risk lies inpolitical instability that can lead toamplechanges in personnel with exception to a few positions within CONAP that have been grantedstability.Thissituationcreatestheriskoflossofinstitutionalmemory,technicalcapacityandtoolsproducedbytheproject.Afterthelastelectionsin2015andlossesofCONAPpersonnel,thePMUstrategicallyinvestedmoreeffortsinconsolidatingexternalcollaborationtoachieveprojectgoals.These alliances favor the continuity of project activities and the register of project memory byallocatingcapacityandknowledgebeyondinstitutionsthataremorepoliticallyunstable.

CommunitiesandassociationsinvolvedintheprojectandCONAPpersonnelattheregionallevelandmunicipalitiesacknowledgethebenefitsoftheprojectintermsofcapacitybuilding,especiallyforimprovingtouristattentionservices(ex.PNRCorazóndelBosque)andmanagementplans(ex.PBZVolcánChicabal).Participantsalsoacknowledgethevalueofmanagementandpublicuseplans,asmanyrealizethattheirformerworkwasdoneatrandomandthattheydidnothaveplanswithlegalvalue to support implementation. Benefits go beyond associations managing protected areas


39

becauseotherpeoplefromnearbyareashadopportunitiestoprovideservicestovisitors,especiallyonspecialoccasions.Thepublic ingeneraldemonstrated interest in thedevelopmentof tourismespecially once sacred areas were protected to ensure respect for cultural traditions, and thatincomeopportunitieswerecreated.Thisbecameevident in thepilotareas,aseven localvisitorsacceptedtopayentryfeessothatmoreinvestmentscouldbemadeandmorevisitorservicesweredeveloped.

Notwithstandingpoliticalinstability,participationoftheprivatesector,ofNGOs,localassociationsanduniversitiesincapacitybuildingworkshopspromotedbytheprojecthelpsafeguardcapacities,productsandthememoryofwhatwasachieved,atleastintheWesternHighlands.InTodosSantosCuchumatán,forexample,tourismcommissionsretainthepresidentoftheformeradministrationintheroleofsecretaryforthenewadministrationtoensurethecontinuityoftheworkwithoutlosingpreviousreferences.

TheconsolidationofcooperationagreementsbetweenCONAPandINGUATinDecember,2016,forthecontinuityoftheImpulsaProgram,andinSeptember,2017,forthedevelopmentoftheQ-GreenCertificationLabel,justbeforeprojecttermination,isanimportantpillartoensurethesustainabilityofprogramsatleastuntilanationalpoliticalchangeinterferes.Althoughthischangeispossible,thelessonslearnedfromcooperationandthevalueithasbeengivenbyCONAPandINGUATpersonnelmight suffice to further promote continuity throughout new governments, especially becausetourismisembeddedinnationalpoliciesasanengineforeconomicandsocialdevelopmentstronglylinkedtotheGuatemalannaturalheritage.

Sustainabilityofinstitutionalframeworkandgovernance

Likely

Policies and regulations have been updated as well as the institutional framework to promoteecotourism in protected areas. The Co-Administration and Shared Management Policy and theManagementRegulationsforVisitationActivitieswithinSIGAPareespeciallyrelevant.Theselegaldocumentsarealignedwithnationalplansandpolicies,withtourismasapriorityfordevelopment.ThemostrelevantnationalreferencesaretheGeneralGovernmentPolicy2016-2020,theINGUATNational Ecotourism Policy (2003), the Guatemala National Policy for the Development ofSustainable Tourism (2004-2014 and 2012-2022) and the Guatemala Management Plan forSustainableTourism2015-2025.The sustainabilityof legaldocumentsupdatedor createdby theproject is ensured by their official approval and by the inclusion of ecotourism as a financialmechanismfortheconservationofprotectedareas.

ThesustainabilityensuredinchangesintheCONAPinstitutionalframeworkismoreatriskduetoinsufficientfundsorpersonnelforproperimplementation,as85-90%ofthecurrentCONAPbudgetisused for institutionalmaintenance.There isuncertainty in thereinstatementof revenues fromvisitor entry fees to protected areasmanagedbymunicipalities, as the funds are deposited in acommonmunicipalfundandmostoftenusedforotherpurposes,astheregulationsapprovedonlyrefer toareasmanageddirectlybyCONAP. Instability inpersonnel inregionalCONAPofficesandmunicipalitiescouldhinderthecontinuityofbiologicalmonitoring.TheagreementsestablishedwithNGOsandeducationalinstitutionsarerelevantespeciallybecausetheyarenotaffectedbypoliticalchanges.TheinternallimitationsofCONAParemorerelatedtofinancialissuesthantothelegalorinstitutionalframework,whichhavebeenconsolidatedbytheproject.


40

Therisktotheinstitutionalframeworkandgovernanceislowbecausethelegalframeworkisnowadequate and includes criteria of environmental sustainability. The likelihood of sustainabilityincreasedwithcapacitybuilding,whichbenefittednotonlytheWesternHighlandsbuttheentireSIGAP, as staff from all 10 Regional CONAP Offices, communities, stakeholders, NGOs anduniversities participated in workshops. The Universidad del Valle requested copies of the “BestPractices Manuals for Protected Areas”, upon their publication in September, 2017, for use asteachingmaterials in amaster degree course on sustainable tourism. INGUATbecame themostrelevantstakeholderforembracingbusinessconceptslinkedtotheconservationofprotectedareasandensuringthecontinuityofprojectprogramsbasedonlegaldocuments,manualsandguidesthatbenefitSIGAP.

Environmentalsustainability

Likely

Themainenvironmental risks tosustainabilityareassociatedtoclimatechange,suchasextremeevents,aswellasthemisuseofnaturalresourcesthatcausesdegradation.Conversionofforeststootherusesandilegalwoodextractionarethemostcommonproblems.Althoughtheprojectdidnotwork directly on these threats to protected areas, a decline in illegalwood extraction has beenobservedintheprotectedareaswheretheareasformerlyservedthispurposeforthepopulation(SanPedroandSanMarcos,butalsoinSibinal).TheincreasedlevelofprotectionattheMiradorReyTepepulRMPalsocontributestoenvironmentalsustainabilityandmayleadtoagradualdecreaseinagricultural cultivation, especially as organized visitation increases and visitor entry fees areimplemented.

The measures introduced by the project to increase the level of protection in some areas andimplementmonitoring to detect significant changes in biological diversity are relevant for SIGAPbecausetheyincludeenvironmentalcriteriathatcanbeusedtolimittouristactivitiesandvisitationinecologicallysensitiveareasbasedonchangesofbehaviororpresenceof indicatorspecies.ThesustainabilityofthemonitoringsystemisensuredbyitsinclusioninmanagementplansofthesevenpilotprotectedareasandbytheenthusiasmandcommitmentwithwhichparkrangersandCONAPstaffareimplementingit.

Themain limitationforsustainabilityexpressedduringthe interviewsfortheTerminalEvaluationreferred to lack of personnel in CONAP Regional Offices to continue biological monitoring andespeciallyforthereplicationofprojectactivitiestootherprotectedareasinSIGAP.Althoughthelackof technical personnel in Regional Offices is a budgetary issue, it is also a political issue withconsequencesforenvironmentalsustainability.So,eventhoughpeopleatthedirectiveandtechnicallevelshavetakenownershipoftheprojectconceptsandgoals,theyfeellimitedintheircapacitytoexpandtootherareas.

3.3.7Catalyticrole

Ratingsforthecatalyticroledependonthelevelofreplicationachievedandisevaluatedaccordingtothefollowingcriteria:(a)scalingup-approachesdevelopedthroughtheprojectaretakenuponaregional/nationalscale,becomingwidelyaccepted,andperhapslegallyrequired;(b)replication-activities,demonstrations,and/ortechniquesarerepeatedwithinoroutsidetheproject,nationallyorinternationally;(c)demonstration-stepshavebeentakentocatalyzethepublicgood,forinstancethroughthedevelopmentofdemonstrationsites,successfulinformationdisseminationandtraining;and(d)productionofpublicgood-thelowestlevelofcatalyticresult,includingforinstancedevelopmentofnewtechnologiesandapproachesornosignificantactionsweretakento


41

buildonthisachievement,sothecatalyticeffectisleftto‘marketforces’.

Theprojectismostlyatthereplicationlevel,aspoliciesandregulationsareapprovedtosupportthedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.TheselegaldocumentsensurethereplicationofbenefitsappliedtothesevenpilotprotectedareastootherareaswithinSIGAPandcanbeusedasmodelsforsimilarlegislationinothercountrieswhereecotourismisadevelopmentpriority.

Becausethemainoutputsoftheprojectarepoliciesandlegalregulations,theywillbenecessarilyreplicatedthroughoutSIGAP,andcanbeusedasmodelsbyothercountries.Inalongertimeframe,theseresultsmaybescalingup.Thefivepoliciesandregulationsupdatedordevelopedintroducenewalternatives for themanagementof protected areas and the increase and reinstatementofrevenuesfromtourism.Inthisspecificcase,theratingshouldbe“scalingup”,asthesemeasuresarebeingimplementedinthepilotprotectedareas.

Theguides for thedevelopmentofplans and the tools toestimate tourismpotential anddefinevisitorentryfeesbasedonoperationalcostsareconsideredofhighreplicationpotentialforofferingresourcesnotformerlyavailable.Thesameappliestothecapacitybuildingmanualformanagersandtechnicalstaffandtherespectiveguideforfacilitatorsintopicsoftourism.

Nineadditionaldocuments to support themanagementofecotourismnot initiallyplannedwereproduced. These include an update of the COTURAP regulations, guides for the development ofpublic use plans and business plans. A formal agreement was signed with CONAP for thedevelopmentofanonlineversionofthetoolforestimationofvisitorentryfeesbasedonoperationalcostsofprotectedareasandpaymentcapacityofvisitors.Oncethistool isonline,protectedareamanagersinanyregioninGuatemala,aswellasinothercountries,canusethesystemtoorganizetheircostsandadjustvisitorentryfees,atthesametimegainingasolidviewofwhatisneededtoachieveself-sustainability.Althoughnotenoughtimehaspassedforthistooltobeusedbyotherprotectedareas,institutions,projectsorcountries,thesevenpilotprotectedareasareusingitanddevelopingpublicuseandbusinessplans,reachingthedemonstrationranking.

The biological monitoring protocols are available for replication throughout SIGAP, with sevenconsolidated examples in the pilot areas. The protocols are currently being replicated to otherprotectedareasintheHuehuetenangoDepartmentwithfundsfromthe“Lifeweb”projectfinancedbytheGermanBankKfW.ThisprojectaimstoconsolidateSIGAPinthedepartmentbyinvestinginimprovements for 38,000 hectares of protected areas. As more time goes by, the results frombiologicalmonitoringwillgenerateimportantdatasetsfortheWesternHighlands,basedonwhichitwillbepossibletoassesspositiveandnegativeaspectsoftheecologicalconditionofecosystemsandprovideinformationtoguideenvironmentalmanagement.Inthiscase,therepetitionrankingwasachieved.

Apart from the expected outputs, including staff from the 10 CONAP Regional Offices to learnconceptsandprinciplesofecotourismdevelopmentandprojectimplementationincapacitybuildingworkshopswasastrategicdecision.SomepersonnelwithinCONAPstatedthattheprojectbrokeaninstitutional paradigm by changing their perception on tourism as beneficial for environmentalconservation.Thismentalitychangeisbeneficialforgraduallymainstreamingtourismmanagementas a financial mechanism for the maintenance of protected areas. This initiative is attributed ademonstrationranking.


42

Professionalsinchargeofpromotingtourismwerehiredbythreeofthemunicipalitiesbenefittedbytheproject,anotherindicatorofreplication.AsignificantnumberofnewbusinessesintourismwasopenedorlegalizedduringprojectimplementationintheWesternHighlands.Evenifnotbydirectinfluence of the project, this demonstrates a favorable perception of the general public for thedevelopmentoftourismwhich, inturn,willbesupportedbythelegalframeworkupdatedbytheproject.

TheprivatesectorwasofferedopportunitiesfordevelopingbusinessesintourismwiththeImpulsaProgram,createdbytheprojectincollaborationwithINGUATtobenefittwentywinnersperyearin2017.ThecertificationofnaturalareasdefinedasQ-GreenLabel,alsoundertheresponsibilityofINGUAT,promotes theadoptionof regulations,manualsandguidesdevelopedby theprojectbythosewillingtoimprovethequalityoftourismservicesinprotectedareas.Thisleadstomoreinterestin visitation, increasing revenues and positively affecting the development of ecotourism inGuatemala.

Ninenewagreementswithtouroperatorsweresignedwithpilotprotectedareas.Touroperatorsinterviewed during the Terminal Evaluation see these agreements as leverage in their servicesbecausetheycanassuretheirclientsthatthevisitswillworkoutasplanned,astheyareofficiallyauthorized.Beforetheagreements,eachvisithadtobearrangedseparately,whichconsumedmoretimeandcreated insecurity.TheGo2Guate touroperator, forexample, isgoing to increase thenumberofannualtourstoVolcánChicabal.Theseinitiativesqualifyasscalingupespeciallybecausetheyareindevelopmentregardlessoftheexistenceoftheproject.

TheachievementpotentialofprojectresultswillbeincreasediftheyaredisseminatedthroughtheUNDPandGEFnetworks,aswellasiftheyareusedinuniversitycoursesintheareaoftourismandmadeavailablefromwebsitesofuniversities,NGOsandotherinstitutionsthatworkontourisminGuatemala.

3.3.8Impact

Impactwasratedasminimalduetothenatureofthisproject,whichdidnotincludedirectactions

for ecosystem improvement.Due to the lack of direct intervention on ecological status duringproject implementation itwas not possible to devise improvements at the time of the TerminalEvaluation.Theresultsoftheprojectcannotbedirecltylinkedtotheecologicalstatusofecosystemsinthepilotareasintheshortterm.Asolidbasisforthedevelopmentofecotourismandafinancingmechanismfortheconservationofprotectedareaswasestablishedbystrengtheningthepoliticalandinstitutionalframeworks,buildingcapacityandprovidingsupportto7pilotprotectedareasbydesigning planning instruments. Direct impacts on the ecological status of ecosystems will be

observed in themid-long term, as policies and regulations arewidely applied and revenues areinvestedintheconservationandmanagementoftheprotectedareaswheretheyweregenerated.

ThetotalprotectedareainSIGAPincreasedduetotheregistryoftwoofthepilotprotectedareas

(3,518.85ha). This prevents public land from being donated to private owners through politicalmisconduct. The development and implementation of management plans, public use plans andbusinessplansestablishmorefavorableconditionsfortheconservationofspeciesandecosystemservices and create pressure for action and support by the municipalities in charge of theirmanagement.Besides,theplansserveasmodelsforotherprotectedareas.Allchangesunderway,fromtheimplementationofvisitorentryfeestotheprohibitionofpracticesformerlyallowed,such


43

aswoodharvesting,contributetoconservation,butitwillbeawhilebeforecommunitiesunderstandand accept the new rules and stop illegally extracting natural resources from these areas. Theincreaseintheinvestmentonservicesandrecreationoptionsshouldbeinstrumentaltoexpediteacceptanceofrules,disseminateconservationobjectivesandenvironmentaleducation initiatives.After a longer period of biologicalmonitoring it will be easier to draw conclusions about the

ecologicalconditionoftheseareas,defineandmitigatethreatstotheconservationofspeciesand

ecosystem services. A few years of biological monitoring will provide data for the definition ofecologicalbaselinesintheWesternHighlands,wherethistypeofinformationisnotyetavailable,accordingtoCONAPtechnicalstaff.

Themanagementeffectivenesstrackingtools(METT)demonstrateincreasedmanagementcapacity

forallpilotprotectedareas,althoughtwoofthesevenmunicipalitiesdidnotachievetheexpectedscores.Ananalysisofthescorecardsclearlyshowsmorecapacityinparticipationandplanningthanin implementationandmonitoring.Although theexpected scoresweremostlyachieved, there iscertainlyroomforfutureimprovementinmanagementcapacity.

TheresultslistedbelowindirectlyimpacttheconservationoftheecologicalstatusofprotectedareasinSIGAPand,particularly,ofthesevenpilotprotectedareasintheproject.

Thelegalframeworkwasadjustedtofacilitatethedevelopmentofecotourisminprotectedareas,especially the Management Regulations for Visitation Activities within SIGAP and the Co-administrationandSharedManagementPolicyandsupportingRegulations.Theimpactofthefirstisonensuringasourceofincomeforprotectedareasfromthereinstatementofrevenuesfromvisitorentryfees,whichisinitselfanincentivefortheimprovementofconditionsandtouristservicestoincreasevisitation.Theimpactofthepolicyis increatingnewopportunitiesforserviceproviders,consequentlyforincomegeneration,throughsharedmanagement,whichdidnotformerlyexist,andfortheadministrationofotherareasofrelevancefortheconservationofbiodiversitythatarenotprotectedareas.Theselegalregulationsarecomplementaryandcreateafavorableenvironmentforthe development of ecotourismwhich, in turn, creates better conditions for investments in theconservationofprotectedareasandthebiodiversitytheywereestablishedtoprotect.

Interviewees stated changes of vision on the part of protected areamanagers and institutionsinvolvedinmanagementintermsoftheirperceptionofecotourismasafinancialmechanismforthemaintenanceofprotectedareasandbiodiversityconservation.

MiradorReyTepepulRMPwasregisteredinSIGAP.Asthiswaspendingsince1993,itisconsideredbymostof the intervieweesawareof the situationasa triumphat thenational level. The3,509hectares are especially important becauseoneof the last knownpopulations of spidermonkeys(Ateles geoffroyi) along thePacific Coast ofGuatemala lives there.Although this parkdoesnotrepresentanincreaseinthenumberofhectaresinprotectedareasinSIGAPbecauseitwasalreadyconsidered for being part of the Multiple Use Reserve of the Atitlan Lake Basin, the registryrepresentsachangeinthelevelofprotectionwhichisrelevanttoensuretheconservationofthearea.TheregistryofthePNREcologicalReserveCorazóndelBosque(8.94ha)inSIGAPisrelevantforrepresentingamodelofmanagementbyanassociationoffarmerswhohaslongunderstoodtheimportance of conserving natural areas, especially for its value inwater production and speciesconservation.


44

Thenumberofprotectedareasimplementingvisitorentryfeesincreased.Thisresultbecameclearasstudiesweredevelopedbytheprojecttoestimatetheiroperationalcosts.Thisisadirectimpact

onthe increaseofrevenuesfortheconservationofprotectedareaswhichhaveadoptedorwilladopt this model. The seven pilot protected areas benefitted by the project also startedimplementingbusinessplans.

Biological monitoring and monitoring for impacts of ecotourism became part of the SIGAP

institutionalframework.Monitoringroutinesareimplementedinthesevenpilotprotectedareasandserveasmodelsforotherareas.

Practical actions have been registered from the implementation of planning documents

(management plans, public use and business plans). The pilot protected areas implemented orreviewedvisitorentryfees;promotedeventsinprotectedareastoincreasevisitation;searchedforpartnersandsignedagreementswithtouroperatorstoincreaserevenuesandbuildinfrastructure;andimprovedtrailsforvisitationandbirdwatching.Thesearepositivecircumstancesthatputtheecotourismmarketinmotionbasedonsustainabilitycriteriatoavoidnegativeimpacts.

Investmentandrevenuegenerationopportunitieswerecreatedbasedonsustainableecotourism

throughtheImpulsaProgramandthecertificationforservicesandprotectedareas(Q-GreenLabel).

Atthemunicipal level,changesduetoprojectactivitiesaredemonstratedby investments inSanPedroSacatepéqueztocreateatechnicalpositionforthemanagementoftheQuetzalíRMP(formerAstilleroIandII);inTodosSantosCuchumatánthemunicipalityhiredapersontodeveloptourismactivities in protected areas; the Santiago Atitlánmunicipality hired amanager forMirador ReyTepepulRMPandacoordinatorforthedevelopmentoftourism;aninSibinalapersonishiredonoccasion to promote tourism events. Considering the limitations of staff and funding, theseinvestmentsconfirmpoliticalinvolvementandabroaderviewoftourismasasourceofsocialandeconomicdevelopment.

Illegalwoodextractiondeclinedinthepilotprotectedareas.ThisisespeciallyrelevantinQuetzalí(formerAstilleroIandIISanPedroSacatepéquez)andSanMarcosRMP,whichwerelongusedforthe purpose of wood extraction by nearby communities. The administration of these areas asprotected areas based on management plans is gradually decreasing impacts due to externalinfluence and increasing their potential for self-sustainability and conservation for futuregenerations.


45

4CONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONSANDLESSONS

4.1GENERALCONCLUSIONS

ThegeneralobjectiveoftheprojectwasachievedbecausethefinancialsustainabilityofSIGAPwaseffectivelystrengthenedbytheestablishmentofnewfinancialmechanismsandwaysofpromotingecotourisminGuatemalainalignmentwiththeconservationofbiodiversityofglobalimportance.

Result 1 was fully achieved and left an array of policies, regulations and additional products(manuals,guides,regulations,aproposalforharmonizingotherlegaldocuments)thatconsolidateanimportantbaseforthedevelopmentoftourisminGuatemala.

AlthoughResult2onlypartiallyachievedsomeoftheindicatorgoalsinthelogicalframework,asthegoalsweredependentuponexternalcooperation,theaccomplishmentandproductsgeneratedareconsideredexcellent.Amongtheproductsare21plansforthesevenpilotprotectedareaswhicharebeingimplementedandserveasreferencefortheentireSIGAP.

4.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION,

MONITORINGANDEVALUATIONOFTHEPROJECT

Conclusionsonprojectdesign

The lack of written memory and register of decisions made in the design phase of the projectrequired adaptations and corrections during implementation, but did not jeopardize theachievementofresults.

Recommendationsonprojectdesign

(1)Compilea registryof referencesused inprojectdesignandcompareactivitieswithexisting

projectstoavoidduplicationofefforts.Especiallyregisterthedatausedtodefinethebaselineof indicatorsandother informationthatsupportsprojectgoals.Lackofreferencedataonthebaselinecalculationsforseveralindicatorsinthisprojectrequiredthemtoberedefinedattheexpenseofextrafundsandtime.

(2)Identifyprioritiesofstakeholdersandbeneficiariesduringprojectdesignandincludefundsinthe project budget to support feasible activities. Even if modest investments are made,supportingthedevelopmentofactivitiesofspecial interest increasescooperationwithprojectactivitiesandgoals.Thisisespeciallyrelevantinenvironmentalprojectsinvolvingmunicipalitieswhere conservation is often not seen as a priority. Authorities often prioritize actions thatgenerate outcomes that are visible, politically interesting and focused on economic growth.Includingactivitieswiththesecharacteristicscanbeaninterestingstrategyinprojectdesign.Inadditiontospecificenvironmentalconservationneedsofpartnersandbeneficiaries,identifyingprioritiesofotherstakeholdersandincludingfundstosupportcompatibleactivitiescansecuretheirinterestandincreasetheviabilityofactivitiesthatarekeyfortheachievementofprojectgoals.Someoftheintervieweessuggestedthatprojectsshouldhaveregionalfocalpointsforpilotareastoensurelocalcommitmenttotheproject.Inthecaseofthisproject,itwouldhavebeenimportanttoprovideequipmenttoCONAPregionalofficesandmunicipalities,suchaswaterproofclothingforbiologicalmonitoring,aswellassupporttheconstructionofverybasicinfrastructurein pilot protected areas and take pilot areamanagers to visit other protected areas that areadvanced in tourismmanagement. Identifyingsynergies thatarepriorities for theprojectand


46

stakeholdersincreasespotentialachievementandthesustainabilityofactivitiesinitiatedduringproject implementation. This issue was brought up repeatedly during interviews during theterminal evaluation. Many people involved in protected area management maintained theimpressionthat,oncetheprojectprovidedmanagement,publicuseandbusinessplans,itwouldhavebeenessentialtoincludesomefundingatleastforbasicinfrastructure.Smallinvestmentswouldhavehelpedtoconsolidateandapplyguidelines,aswellasjustifiedtheimplementationofvisitorentry fees.Complementarily,hadsuch fundsbeen included in theprojectbudget, itwouldhavebeeneasier tonegotiate agreements and increase collaborationespecially at themunicipallevel,aswellastostartimplementationofmanagementandpublicuseplans,includingthe application of visitor entry fees and approved policies and regulations in the pilot areas,yieldingmoresubstantialresultsinthefield.

Conclusionsonprojectimplementation

Project implementationwasconsideredHighlySatisfactory(HS),especiallyconsideringtheneedforadaptivemanagementinrecalculatingindicatorbaselines,reductionofCONAPpersonnelduetobudgetary losses and political instability. The coordination between CONAP and the UNDP onoperationalissueswasconsideredHighlySatisfactory(HS).NomajorissuesthatwouldhaverequiredaninterventionfromtheUNDPathigherlevelsoccurredduringprojectimplementation.

Recommendationsonprojectimplementation

(3)Projectsmustinvesteffortsandresourcesinestablishinginstitutionalcooperationinordertosharebenefitsaswellasresponsibilitiesforthesustainabilityofactivities.Thegoalsofthisprojectwere achieved mainly through cooperation agreements with relevant partners, whichcompensatedforpoliticalinstabilityandinstitutionaldifficulties.

Conclusionsonmonitoringandevaluation

Project monitoring and evaluation used all tools available except for co-financing activities andvalues,whichendedwithanincompletefollow-up.

MonitoringandevaluationwereconsideredSatisfactory(S).TheMonitoringandEvaluationPlanwas satisfactorily designed. Although a specific M&E plan was not developed beyond what isdescribedinthePRODOC,severalmechanismswereinplace.ApartfromtheCoordinator’sroutineresponsibilities, quarterly meetings with the UNDP and one annual meeting of the tripartitecommissionwereheld.GEFmonitoringinstrumentswerethoroughlyused:AOP,QPR,PIR,annualreports,reportsonsteeringcommitteeandco-financingpartnermeetings,aswellastheTrackingToolsforInstitutionalCapacity,FinancialSustainabilityandManagementEffectiveness(METT).

The lack of written memory and register of decisions made in the design phase of the projectrequired adaptations and corrections during implementation, but did not jeopardize theachievement of results. Follow up of cofinancing activities was not satisfactorymainly due to aspecificcontextoftheproject.Duetothetimeelapsedbetweenprojectdesignin2010andstartin2013, part of the plans for the joint implementation of activities were lost, as organizationsimplemented their projects before the project started. Thiswas compensatedby instating otherpartner organizations. Although the activities of co-financing partners contribute to the generalprojectobjectiveandwereimplementedinthesameregion,mostofthesewerenotdirectlylinkedtospecificprojectobjectives.


47

Recommendationsonmonitoringandevaluation

(4)Ensurefollowupofpartnerco-financingcommitments.Inthecaseofthisproject,co-financingcommitmentswerepartially lostdueto thedelaybetweenprojectdesignandstart.ActivitiesdevelopedbypartnerorganizationsintheWesternHighlandsinsynergywithprojectobjectiveswerestillconsideredasco-financing,butastheywerenotdirectlylinkedtotheproject,followupwasnotprioritized.TheamountofexpensesmadebyCounterpartInternationalonbehalfoftheprojectduringthePPG,in2012,waslostforlackofregistryandthereforenotincludedintheco-financingcontributions.

4.3CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONSTOFOLLOW-UPORREINFORCEINITIAL

BENEFITSFROMTHEPROJECT

Conclusions

The replication potential of the main project activities is ensured by the vast referencedocumentationdevelopedandavailable.Theproject ismostlyatthereplication level,aspoliciesandregulationsareapprovedtosupportthedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.Theselegaldocumentsensure the replicationofbenefitsapplied to thesevenpilotprotectedareas tootherareas within SIGAP and can be used as models for similar legislation in other countries whereecotourismisadevelopmentpriority.

The sustainability of the most relevant project activities and products is sufficiently ensured topromote the development of ecotourism in Guatemala. Formal agreements that ensure thecontinuityofprojectresultsand,inmanycases,assurefinancialsustainabilityweresigned:ImpulsaProgram(CONAP,INGUAT),Q-GreenCertificationProgram(CONAP,INGUAT,MinistryofCultureandSports),andMonitoringProgram(CONAP,municipalitiesandcommunityassociationsmanagingpilotprotectedareas).

Recommendations

(5) CONAP and INGUAT must ensure continuity of the development of ecotourism with

sustainabilitycriteriainGuatemalaandapplytheproductsgeneratedbythisprojectthroughoutSIGAP, expandingbiologicalmonitoring and themonitoringof impacts from tourist visitation.CONAPmustdevelopanonlinetoolforthecalculationofvisitorentryfeesbasedonoperationalcostsofprotectedareassoitiswidelyavailabletoSIGAPandbeyondGuatemala.

(6)CONAPtechnicalstaffmustfollowupandsupporttheimplementationofmanagementplans,

publicuseandbusinessplansinthepilotprotectedareasbenefittedbytheproject,including

biological monitoring and monitoring of impacts from tourist visitation. The support fromCONAPishighlyvaluedinprotectedareasandisespeciallyimportantincasepoliticalchangesinthemunicipalities result in thedismissalofpersons currently in chargeofmanagement.Datageneratedthroughbiologicalmonitoringmustbeadequatelyprocessedandpreferablymadeavailableonlineforthebenefitofallwhoworkinbiodiversityconservation.

(7)CONAPmustdefineacontinuedcapacitybuildingstrategywithsupportfrompeoplewhowerecapacitated as facilitators through this project to ensure the maintenance and increase oftechnical capacityat the regional level. This is especially relevantaspolitical changes incur inlossesofpersonnelbenefittedbycapacitybuildingworkshopsdeliveredbytheproject.Forthesamereasonandtoincreasethechanceofperpetuationandwideruse,practicalmanualsand


48

guidesgeneratedbytheprojectshouldbemadeavailablefromwebsitesbeyondCONAP,suchasin universities providing courses linked to tourism and environmental management, partnerNGOs,INGUATandotherorganizationsworkingonecotourism.

4.4CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONSFORFUTUREDIRECTIONSUNDERLINING

MAINOBJECTIVES

Conclusions

TheprojectconsolidatedthelegalandinstitutionalframeworksforthedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.Moreconcreteresultswillbevisibleaspolicies,regulationsandmodelsofpublicuseandbusinessplansareextendedtootherprotectedareaswithinSIGAP.

ThelackofprofessionalexpertsinsustainabletourismisarelevantlimitationinGuatemala.

Thelossoftechnicalstaffbyinstitutionsduetopoliticalchangesnegativelyaffectsthecontinuityofactivitiesinitiatedthroughprojectsandcontributestothelossofcapacityimprovedthroughprojectworkshops.

Recommendations

(8)CONAPshouldreconsiderthecomplexityofapprovaloflegalandtechnicaldocumentssuchasmanagementplans andpublic useplans,whichhave tobe submitted to repeatedanalysis atdifferentinstitutionallevelsthattakelongandcausedelaysintheimplementationofprojects.TheapprovalofplansfortheprotectedareasmanagedbymunicipalitiesfirstrequireswrittenmentionintheminutesofaMunicipalCouncilmeeting.TheplansthenhavetobeprotocoledattheCONAPRegionalOffice,wheretheyaretechnicallyandlegallyreviewed.FromtheRegionalOffice,theyaresenttoCentralCONAP,wheretheyareagaintechnicallyandlegallyreviewed.Ifapprovalisgrantedatalllevels,theplansaresenttotheExecutiveSecretaryforratification.Ifatany instance the documents are not approved they are returned to the municipality forimprovementwithoutfurtherassistanceprovidedbyCONAPtoensureapproval.ConsideringthereducedtechnicalstaffinCONAPandthenumberofprotectedareaslackingmanagementplans,timewouldbebestemployedinsupportingthedevelopmentofmoreplansthanreviewingthemmorethanonce.Optimizingtheseprocedureswouldbebeneficial toCONAPtechnicalstaff intermsoftheirworkloadand,iftheyareinsteadabletosupportthedevelopmentofplans,bythetimeplansare ready there shouldbenoobstacle for approval and lessneedof revision. It isimportanttooptimizetheseprocessessothatdifferentdocumentscanbeapprovedeitherbytheRegionalorCentralOffice,with criteriadefined foreach case. In the caseof thisproject,expeditedapprovalwouldhavemeantmoretimeforimplementationofmanagementandpublicuseplanswithsupportfromtheproject.

(9) INGUAT should consider offering second time participants in the Impulsa Program private

tutoringinsteadofgenericcapacitybuilding.Beneficiariesareinterestedinhavingsupporttodevelop specific issues in their businesses. Some of the topics offered in capacity buildingworkshops in the Impulsa Program seemed fairly basic to beneficiaries who had long termexperienceintourismbusiness.Amoreflexibleprogramwouldhelpthemdevelopnewbusinessperspectivesandvisionaswellasseekcomplementaryexpertisemorerelevanttotheirindividualenterprises.


49

(10) CONAP and INGUATmust design and disseminate more tourist destinations that include

protected areas to promote visitation and support the development of ecotourism. TheAssociationinchargeofthePBZVolcánChicabalperceivestheneedforpromotingtheareaasitsmainweaknessandgreatlywelcomesanyformofsupport.PersonnelattheMiradorReyTepepulRMPpresumethattheparkwasonlyincludedinatouristdestinationbecauseitwaspartofthisproject,whichcorroboratestherelevanceofexternalsupporttopromotevisitationtoprotectedareasthatarenotwidelyknown.

(11)AnefforttoregulateaccessoftouroperatorstoprotectedareasthroughCONAPisimportant

to avoid unregistered services without adequate safety conditions and qualified guides fortourists, as well as to prevent disloyal competition with tour operators who are formallyregisteredandfollowlegalobligations,suchasthosecontemplatedbytheImpulsaProgram.

(12)As possible, CONAP should hire tourism experts for the Regional Offices to promote thedevelopment of tourism activities with sustainability criteria and social participation. Theseexpertswouldideallyprovidesupporttomunicipalitiesandcommunitygroupsinpromotingtheprotectedareastheyareinchargeof.Ananalysisofexistingprotectedareasandtheirtourismpotential should help prioritize regions where experts would have more potential fordevelopment.

(13)ConsideringtheinstabilityofpublicpositionsinGuatemala,themainthreattothememoryandsustainabilityofprojectbenefits,futureprojectsmustsecurestronginvolvementofNGOsand

research / education institutions for ownership of project knowledge andproducts. Thiswillincreasethepotentialofsustainabilitygiventhattheseinstitutionsarenotsusceptibletopoliticalchanges.

4.5BESTANDWORSTPRACTICESINADDRESSINGISSUESRELATINGTORELEVANCE,

PERFORMANCEANDSUCCESS

Bestpractices

ConsolidatingecotourismintheagendaofCONAP,associationsandmunicipalitiesasafinancial

mechanism for the maintenance of protected areas and the and conservation of biological

diversity. This is evinced by funds allotted for tourism by protected area managers. Themunicipalities of San Pedro Sacatepéquez, San Marcos, Todos Santos Cuchumatán, Sibinal andSantiagoAtitlán,theAssociationofEcologicalFarmersinQuetzaltenango(VolcánChicabal)andLaGuadalupana Agricultural and Artisanal Development Association in Sololá (Corazón del Bosque)improvedtheirknowledgeandvisionofthepotentialoftourismatthesametimetheperspectivesof biodiversity conservation improve due to monitoring biological indicators and impacts fromtourism.Pilotprotectedareamanagersattributemorevaluetoecotourismandaremoreawareofthepotentialself-sustainabilityandgenerationofrevenuesformunicipalitiesandlocalpopulations.

Promoting tourism with sustainability criteria includingmonitoring of biological indicators andimpactsfromvisitationasessentialcomponentstopreventthedegradationofnaturalconditionsandgeneratedatathatshouldbeusedtodefinevisitationlimits,especiallyinecologicallysensitiveareasthathostendemicorthreatenedspecies.Thisiscorroboratedbytheinclusionofprinciplesofsustainability, benefit sharing andegalitarianparticipation in thePolicyonVisitationActivities inProtectedAreas”.


50

Involvingtheprivatesectorinthedevelopmentofecotourismandmaintenanceofprotectedareasiskeyforthistypeofproject.Theprivatesectorincreasesthechancesofsustainabilityofprojectactionsandproductsbyapplyingtheminpracticeandnotbeingaffectedbypoliticalchanges.

Participationofpersonnel fromthe10CONAPRegionalOffices incapacitybuildingworkshops,whichextendsbenefitsoftheprojecttotheentirecountry,complementingthescopeofpoliciesandregulations,increasingreplicationpotentialandcontinuityofprojectactions.Thenationalbiologicaldiversity information system (in development) and the review of the CONAP internalmanual ofprocedureswiththeinclusionofguidesandmanualsdevelopedbytheprojectwillcomplementarilyensurethetechnicalreferencesarenotlostduetopoliticalchanges.

ThecommitmentbyCentralCONAPtodevelopanonlinetoolforcalculatingvisitorentryfeesin

protectedareas.Thiswillfacilitatetheuseofthetoolthroughoutthecountry(SIGAP)andbeyond,helpingprotectedareamanagerstoreviewfeesbasedonoperationalcosts.To increasestability,thistoolshouldalsobemadeavailablefromotherwebsitessuchasINGUAT,theTourismChamberandotherinstitutions.

Capacity building and involvement of park rangers and regional technical staff in biological

monitoring.Inadditiontoacknowledgingthevalueoflocalcapacityandknowledge,ahighlevelofsatisfactionwasobservedduringtheTerminalEvaluationonthepartofparkrangersbecausetheylearnedtoperceiveelementsofnaturetheydidnotnoticebefore.Someparkrangersweretakingphotographs and making videos to share their monitoring experiences, which demonstrates anincreaseintheirappreciationofnatureandtheprotectedareaswheretheywork.Thisenthusiasmisimportantasitispassedontocommunitymembers,creatingreplicationeffectsandmoreinterestinconservation.

Not treating the project as though it were an institution, always acknowledging activities andproductstotheexecutingagencyandstakeholders.Hadreferencebeenmadeoftheprojectasaplayerinimplementation,especiallyinformaldocumentsthatwillcontinueinuse,thePMUavoidedtheriskofcreatingtheimpressionthatthesedocumentswouldnolongerhavevalueoncetheprojectended.Thesamereferstonothavingdevelopedaspecificwebpagefortheproject,whichhelpedtoaddrelevanceandvisibilitytotheCONAPwebsite.HavingintegratedprojectactivitiesaspartoftheCONAPagendagavetheseactionsaninstitutionalplacementandhelpedthestakeholders,andeventheexecutingagency,toseethemasactionsthatmustbesustained.

Worstpractices

Thelackofmemoryofdatausedinprojectdesign,whichpreventedthePMUfromunderstandingandbeingabletousesomeofthe logicalframeworkindicators.Someofthebaselinevaluesthatreferredtofinancialamountsandprotectedareashadtoberecalculatedtoenablecomparisonwithprogressmadeinimplementation.

4.6LESSONSLEARNED

Institutional coordination is essential for best results in the development of tourism withenvironmental sustainabilitycriteria inprotectedareas.Thiswasexpressedby representativesofINGUATandCONAPwhounderstoodandsawtheadvantagesofcooperationtoboth institutionsduetotheimplementationofactivitiesofmutualinterestfacilitatedbytheproject.


51

Itisveryimportanttoadjustprojectstotheinstitutionalcapacityoftheexecutingagency.Largeprojects generate many new activities and an extra work load to employees, who are ofteninsufficientinnumber.Simultaneousprojectsarealsocommon.Theseconditionscreaterisksfortheprojectsintermsofachievingexpectedresults.

Activities thatmaystrengthenenvironmental institutions shouldbeconsidered for inclusion in

projects. Especially large projects should support specific activities focused on strengtheninginstitutionalbudgetaryrequirements.TodevelopspecificstudiesonconservationissuesconsiderednationalprioritiesforpresentationtotheNationalCongress,suchasnaturaldisastersduetoclimatechangeor themaintenanceof ecosystem services essential for production,mayhelp authoritiesbetetrperceivethevalueofinstitutionsinchargeofenvironmentalissues.

Anassessmentofstakeholderprioritiesiskeytofacilitateprojectownershipandachievementof

goals. This applies more specifically to municipalities, but also to protected areas not directlymanaged by CONAP. Such an analysis would identify activities and needs that could have beenincludedintheprojecttofavortheestablishmentofagreementsandbettercooperationtoachieveexpected results. Although such an assessmentwas carried out in the design phase, changes inpersonnelandintheexternalcontextoftheprojectoftencomplicatepracticalapplication.

ItisimportanttoinvolveCONAPdirectorsandtechnicalstaffofCONAPRegionalOfficessincethe

designphaseofprojectssotheycancontributetoconceptsandprovidenotionsofregionalreality.Thispromotesprojectownershipasimplementationprogresses,aswellassustainabilityoncetheproject isterminated.Technicalstaffwithregionalexperienceshouldalsobe involved incapacitybuilding workshops so they can later function as facilitators. Staff in CONAP Regional Officesexpressedsomeregretfornothavingbeeninvolvedintheselectionofconsultants.ThisismorethananythingduetothefactthatsomeoftheconsultancyreportsthatwerenotconsideredsatisfactoryrequiredrevisionandcorrectionsbyCONAPstaff.Althoughqualityissuesinconsultancyreportswillmost likely not be solved if technical staff participate in selectionprocesses, participationwouldincreasecollaborationandengagementinimprovingunsatisfactoryproducts.

Involvementoftheprivatesectorincreasesthesustainabilityofprojectactivitiesandprogramsforapplying,inpractice,whatwasdesignedandapprovedindocumentsandproducts,whilereducingtheimpactofpoliticalchanges.

Theimplementationofmonitoringofbiologicalindicatorsandimpactsofvisitationinprotected

areas must be adjusted to local capacity. Simple protocols are more easily adopted andimplemented,whilecomplementarydatacanberequestedinthelongtermafterparkrangersandothersinchargehavegainedmoreexperience.

It is important that the increase in capacity to performevaluationsof impact causedby tourist

visitation,objectiveofseveralcapacitybuildingworkshopsorganizedbytheproject,isfollowedbyincreasedknowledgeinpossiblemitigationalternativessothatprotectedareamanagersareabletotakeimmediatecorrectiveactiononceproblemsaredetected.

Managersof thepilot protectedareas representedbymunicipalities andassociationsevaluatedusingtheUNDPInstitutionalCapacityScorecardclearlydemonstratebetterabilitytoparticipateinprocesses and projects and, in second place, to generate, access and use information and

knowledge to develop strategies, policies and legislation, while capacity formanagement and

implementationofactivitiesandformonitoringandevaluationaresignificantlylower.Thesethree


52

groups of criteria are clearly separated in the scorecard,whichmight be related to the span ofpolitical administration in municipalities: four years grants enough time for participation inprocesses,useofinformationandplanningstrategies,butnotenoughtimeforimplementation.Thissubstantiates the relevanceof conserving technical staff forpracticalapplicationofdevelopmentplans. It is importantforfutureprojectstoconsiderexistingcapacityso investmentsaremadetoimprovetheweakestpoints.Inasimilarway,applicationoftheinstitutionalcapacityscorecardatthebeginningofprojectscanidentifyfrailtiesofprojectpartnersandstakeholdersthatshouldbeaddressedbyprojectactions.

Capacity building workshops should include open hours to allow participants to exchangeinformationandexperience,identifycommonagendasandopportunitiesforcollaborationbetweenregionsand/orinstitutions.

Localcapacitybuildingworkshopsaremoreeffectiveforaddressingparticularneedsofaregionorprotectedarea,whichcontributestosolvingpracticalproblemsandincreasesthelevelofinterest.Inaddition,travelandlodgingcostswhichoftenpreventpeoplefromparticipatingarespared.

Itisveryimportanttoavoiddisseminatingaperceptionoftourismasthegreateconomicsolution

forthesurroundingsofprotectedareasandtoworkwithintherealitythatitcancreateadditional

income opportunities for some people, communities and the private sector aswell as for the

maintenanceofprotectedareas.Althoughpracticallyallgoalsdesignedintheprojectwereachievedand that ecotourism gained importance in the perception of the general public and institutionsinvolved for creating income alternatives for communities, families and people living aroundprotected areas, this process is still in its initial phase. For example, in the PBZVolcán Chicabal,although revenueswere distributed for the first time among 19 families in 2016, theywere notsignificantintermsofprovisionofincome.


53

5ANNEXES


54

5.1EVALUATIONCONSULTANTCODEOFCONDUCTAGREEMENTFORM

Evaluators:

1. Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths andweaknessessothatdecisionsoractionstakenarewellfounded.�

2. Mustdisclosethefullsetofevaluationfindingsalongwithinformationontheirlimitationsand have this accessible to all affected by the evaluationwith expressed legal rights toreceiveresults�

3. Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They shouldprovidemaximumnotice,minimizedemandson time, and: respectpeople’s rightnot toengage.Evaluatorsmustrespectpeople’srighttoprovide information inconfidence,andmustensurethatsensitive informationcannotbetracedto itssource.Evaluatorsarenotexpectedtoevaluateindividuals,andmustbalanceanevaluationofmanagementfunctionswiththisgeneralprinciple.�

4. Sometimesuncoverevidenceofwrongdoingwhileconductingevaluations.Suchcasesmustbereporteddiscreetlytotheappropriateinvestigativebody.Evaluatorsshouldconsultwithotherrelevantoversightentitieswhenthereisanydoubtaboutifandhowissuesshouldbereported.

5. Shouldbesensitivetobeliefs,mannersandcustomsandactwithintegrityandhonestyintheir relationswithall stakeholders. In linewith theUNUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights, evaluatorsmust be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and genderequality. They should avoid offending thedignity and self-respect of those personswithwhomtheycomeincontactinthecourseoftheevaluation.Knowingthatevaluationmightnegatively affect the interests of some stakeholders, evaluators should conduct theevaluation and communicate its purpose and results in a way that clearly respects thestakeholders’dignityandself-worth.�

6. Are responsible for their performanceand their product(s). They are responsible for theclear,accurateandfairwrittenand/ororalpresentationofstudylimitations,findingsandrecommendations.�

7. Shouldreflectsoundaccountingproceduresandbeprudentinusingtheresourcesoftheevaluation.�

Evaluationconsultantagreementform7AgreementtoabidebytheCodeofConductforEvaluationintheUNSystemNameofconsultant:SÍLVIARENATEZILLER

Nameofconsultancyorganization(whererelevant):UNDPGUATEMALAI confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code ofConductforEvaluation.

SignedinFlorianópolis-SC,Brazil,02August,2017.

Firma:

7 www.unevaluation.org/unegcodeofconduct


55

5.2EVALUATIONCRITERIAMATRIXFROMTOR(SPANISH)

Criteriosdeevaluación Preguntas Indicadores Fuentes Metodología

Relevancia:¿CómoserelacionaelproyectoconlosobjetivosprincipalesdeláreadeinterésdelFMAMyconlasprioridadesambientalesydedesarrolloanivellocal,regionalynacional?

¿Esrelevanteelproyectoparalos

objetivosdeláreafocaldebiodiversidady

paralasprioridadesestratégicasdel

FMAM?

¿Cómorespaldaelproyectoaláreade

interéssobrebiodiversidaddelFMAMylas

prioridadesestratégicas?

Existenciadeunaclararelaciónentrelosobjetivos

delproyectoyeláreafocaldebiodiversidaddel

FMAM.

Documentosdelproyecto.

Estrategiasydocumentosdelárea

focalbiodiversidaddelFMAM.

Análisisdedocumentos.

SitioWebdelFMAM

EntrevistasconpersonaldelPNUDy

delproyecto.

¿Esrelevanteelproyectoparael

ambienteylosobjetivosdedesarrollo

sostenibledeGuatemala?

¿Elproyectohatomadoenconsideración

lasrealidades(culturales,socio-

económicosetc.)delazonade

intervencióntantoensudiseñocomo

implementación?

¿Cómoelproyectoapoyalasprioridades

ambientalesydedesarrolloanivel

nacional?

¿Cuálhasidoelniveldeparticipaciónde

losinteresadoseneldiseñodelproyecto?

¿Elproyectotomaenconsideraciónlas

realidadesnacionales(marcodepolíticase

institucional)tantoensudiseñocomoen

suimplementación?

¿Cuálhasidoelniveldeparticipaciónde

losinteresadosenlaimplementacióndel

proyecto?

Existenciadeunaclararelaciónentrelosobjetivos

delproyectoyelobjetivodemanejosostenible

delmedioambientedelaPolíticayEstrategia

NacionaldeDesarrollo.

Apreciacióndeinteresadosclaveconrespectoal

niveldeadecuacióndeldiseñoeimplementación

delproyectoalasrealidadesnacionalesy

capacidadesexistentes.

Coherenciaentrelasnecesidadesexpresadaspor

losinteresadosnacionalesyelcriterioPNUD-GEF.

Niveldeinvolucramientodefuncionarios

gubernamentalesyotrossociosenelprocesode

diseñodelproyecto.

PolíticaNacionaldeDesarrollo

(SEGEPLAN,K´atun2023)

PolíticaNacionalparaelDesarrollo

TurísticoSostenibledeGuatemala

2012-2022.


Socioseinteresadosclavedel

proyecto.



delproyecto.

Entrevistasconinteresadosclave.

¿El proyecto es internamente coherente

ensudiseño?

¿Existenvínculoslógicosentreresultados

esperadosdelproyectoyeldiseñodel

proyecto(entérminoscomponentesdel

proyecto,eleccióndesocios,estructura,

mecanismosdeimplementación,alcance,

presupuesto,usoderecursos,etc.)?

¿Esladuracióndelproyectosuficientepara

alcanzarlosresultadospropuestos?

¿Lasáreasdeintervencióndelproyecto

presentanlascaracterísticasnecesarias

paraalcanzarlosresultadospropuestos?

Niveldecoherenciaentrelosresultados

esperadosyeldiseñodelalógicainternadel

proyecto.

Niveldecoherenciaentreeldiseñodelproyectoy

suenfoquedeimplementación.

Niveldecoherenciaentrelasáreasdeintervención

ylosresultadosesperados.



proyecto.



delproyecto.


¿El Proyecto proporciona lecciones y

experiencias relevantes para otros

proyectossimilaresenelfuturo?

¿Laexperienciadelproyectohabrindadola

posibilidaddeobtenerleccionesrelevantes

paraotrosproyectosfuturosdestinadosa

objetivossimilares?

Datosrecolectadosentodala

evaluación

Análisisdedatos


56

Efectividad:¿Enquémedidasehanlogradolosresultadosyobjetivosprevistosdelproyecto?

¿Hasidoelproyectoefectivoenalcanzar

losresultadosesperados?

¿Sealcanzaronlosresultadosprevistos? Indicadoresenelmarcoderesultados

estratégicos/marcológicodelproyecto.


Reportesdeavancetrimestraly

anual.



Entrevistasconelequipodel

proyecto.

¿Cómosemanejaronlosriesgosy

supuestosdelproyecto?

¿Enquémedidasegestionaron

adecuadamentelosriesgos?

¿Cuálhasidolacalidaddelasestrategias

demitigacióndesarrolladas?

¿Existenestrategiasclarasparala

mitigacióndelriesgorelacionadasconla

sostenibilidadalargoplazodelproyecto?

Integridaddelaidentificaciónderiesgosy

supuestosdurantelaplaneaciónyeldiseñodel

proyecto.

Calidaddelossistemasdeinformación

establecidosparaidentificarriesgosemergentesy

otrascuestiones.

Calidaddelasestrategiasdemitigacióndelriesgo

quesedesarrollaron


Reportesdeavancetrimestraly

anual.

Equipodelproyecto,PNUDe

interesadosclave.


Entrevistas.

Eficiencia:¿Elproyectoseimplementódemaneraeficienteenconformidadconlasnormasylosestándaresinternacionalesynacionales?

¿Elproyectoestuvorespaldadode

manerasuficiente?

¿Seutilizóonecesitóelmanejoadaptativo

paraasegurarunusoeficientedelos

recursos?

¿Hansidoutilizadoscomoherramientasde

gestióndurantelaimplementacióndel

proyectoelmarcológico,losplanesde

trabajoocualquiercambiorealizadoa

estos?

¿Hansidolossistemasfinancierosy

contablesadecuadosparalagestióndel

proyectoyparaproducirinformación

financieraprecisayatiempo?

¿Hansidolosreportesdeprogresos

adecuados?¿Respondenalos

requerimientosdereporte?

¿Hasidolaejecucióndelproyectotan

efectivacomofuepropuestaoriginalmente

(planeadovs.real)?

¿Elcofinanciamientohasidosegúnlo

planeado?

¿Losrecursosfinancieroshansidousados

eficientemente?

¿Cómohasidousadoelenfoquedegestión

basadaenresultadosdurantela

implementacióndelproyecto?

Disponibilidadycalidaddelosreportesfinancieros

ydeprogreso.

Puntualidadyadecuacióndelosreportes

entregados.

Cofinanciamientoplaneadovsreal.

Cuánadecuadashansidolasopciones

seleccionadasporelproyectoenfuncióndel

contexto,lainfraestructurayelcosto.

Costoasociadoalmecanismodedeliveryy

estructuradegestión,encomparaciónconotras

alternativas.


Equipodelproyecto.

PNUD.


Entrevistasclaves.


57

Sostenibilidad:¿Enquémedidahayriesgosfinancieros,institucionales,socioeconómicosoambientalesparasostenerlosresultadosdelproyectoalargoplazo?

¿Lascuestionesdesostenibilidadse

encuentranadecuadamenteintegradasen

eldiseñodelproyecto?

¿Hansidointegradasestrategiasde

sostenibilidadeneldiseñodelproyecto?

Evidencia/calidaddelaestrategiade

sostenibilidad.



¿Hansidointegradasestrategiasde

sostenibilidadenlaimplementacióndel

proyecto?

Evidencia/calidaddelasaccionesllevadasacabo

paraasegurarlasostenibilidad.

Evidenciadecompromisodesocios

internacionales,gobiernosyotrosinteresados

paraapoyarfinancieramentesectores/actividades

relevantesluegodelafinalizacióndelproyecto.

Equipodelproyecto,PNUDe

interesadosclave.


Entrevistas.

Sostenibilidadfinanciera ¿Hansidointegradasestrategiasde

sostenibilidadfinanciera?

¿Sonsosteniblesloscostosrecurrentes

luegodelafinalizacióndelproyecto?

Nivelyfuentederespaldofinancierofuturoque

debeproporcionarseaactividadesysectores

relevantesluegodelafinalizacióndelproyecto.

Compromisosdesociosinternacionales,gobierno

uotrosinteresadosenrespaldarfinancieramente.

Documentosderespaldode

acuerdos.


proyecto.

Entrevistas

Sostenibilidadinstitucionaly

gubernamental

¿Existeevidenciadequelossociosy

beneficiariosdelproyectodarán

continuidadalasactividadesmásalládela

finalizacióndelproyecto?

¿Cuáleselgradodecompromisopolítico

paracontinuartrabajandosobrelos

resultadosdelproyecto?

¿Esadecuadalacapacidadexistenteanivel

nacionalylocalparagarantizarla

sostenibilidaddelosresultados

alcanzados?

Gradoenquelasactividadesdelproyectoylos

resultadoshansidoasumidosporlascontrapartes

ybeneficiarios.

Equipo del proyecto, PNUD e

interesadosclave.


Entrevistas

Sostenibilidadambiental ¿Existenriesgosparalosbeneficios

ambientalesquefueronocasionadosque

seesperaqueocurran?

¿Existenamenazasambientalesqueel

proyectonohayaabordado?

Pruebasdelasposiblesamenazas.

Evaluacióndelasamenazas

Documentos y evaluaciones del

proyecto

Evaluacionesdeamenazas


interesadosclave.

Análisisdedocumentos

Entrevistas

Desafíosalasostenibilidaddelproyecto ¿Cuálessonlosprincipalesdesafíosque

puedendificultarlasostenibilidaddelos

esfuerzos?¿Sehanabordadodurantela

gestióndelproyecto?

¿Quépotencialesmedidaspodrían

contribuiralasostenibilidaddelos

esfuerzoslogradosporelproyecto?

Cambiosquepodríansignificardesafíosal

proyecto.


interesadosclave.


Entrevistas.


58

Impacto:¿Hayindiciosdequeelproyectohayacontribuidoareducirlatensiónambientaloamejorarelestadoecológico,oquehayapermitidoavanzarhaciaesosresultados?

¿Seprevéqueelproyectoalcancesu

objetivodeconservarlabiodiversidadde

importanciaglobalenSistema

GuatemaltecodeÁreasProtegidas?

CambioenlasostenibilidadfinancieradelSistema

GuatemaltecodeÁreasProtegidas

EvidenciadeimplementacióndePlanesMaestroy

PlanesdeGestiónyManejodeVisitantes

Cambioenlascapacidadestécnicasdelpersonal

deCONAPysociosadministradores


interesadosclave.

TrackingTools


Entrevistas.


59

5.3TERMINALEVALUATIONTERMSOFREFERENCE(SPANISH)

ContratoparaunContratistaIndividual

INTRODUCCIÓN

DeacuerdoconlaspolíticasylosprocedimientosdeSeguimientoyEvaluación(SyE)delPNUDydelFMAM,todoslos

proyectosdetamañomedianoyregularrespaldadosporelPNUDyfinanciadosporelFMAMdebensometerseauna

evaluación final. Estos términos de referencia (TdR) establecen las expectativas de la Evaluación Final (EF) del

proyectoPromoviendoelEcoturismoparaFortalecerlaSostenibilidadFinancieradelSistemaGuatemaltecodeÁreas

Protegidas–SIGAP-(PIMS:3374),ejecutadoporelConsejoNacionaldeÁreasProtegidas(CONAP)eimplementado

porelProgramadelasNacionesUnidasparaelDesarrollo-PNUD-condotaciónfinancieradelFondoparaelMedio

AmbienteMundial(FMAM).

CUADROSINÓPTICODELPROYECTO

TítulodeProyecto:Promoviendo el Ecoturismopara Fortalecer la Sostenibilidad Financiera del SistemaGuatemalteco de

ÁreasProtegidas

Identificacióndel

proyectodelFMAM: 3374

almomentodeaprobación(millonesdeUSD)

almomentodefinalización(millones

deUSD)Identificacióndel

proyectodelPNUD: 81367

Financiacióndel

FMAM: 1,295,455

“Pendiente de

determinar al cierre

deproyecto”

País:

Guatemala

IA8yEA

9poseen:

CONAP:1,050,000

“Pendiente de


deproyecto”

Región:

Centroamérica

Gobierno:

-

“Pendiente de


deproyecto”

Áreadeinterés:

Biodiversidad

Otro: TNC:45,000

Asociación Vivamos Mejor:

104,151.79

HelvetasGuatemala:240,000

FCG:338,000

USAID:144,700

RainforestAlliance:100,000

“Pendiente de


deproyecto”

Programaoperativo:

GEF-3

Cofinanciacióntotal:

2,021,851.79

“Pendiente de


deproyecto”

Organismode

Ejecución:

Consejo Nacional

de Áreas

Protegidas

Gastototaldel

proyecto: 3,317,306.79

Otrossocios

involucrados:

INGUAT

MICUDE

MINECO

Municipalidades

ONGs

Firmadeldocumentodelproyecto(fechadecomienzo

delproyecto):22/01/2013

Fechadecierre

(Operativo):

Propuesta:

31/01/2017

Real:

Pendiente de Cierre.

Fecha prevista:

31/10/2017

OBJETIVOYALCANCE

ElSistemaGuatemaltecodeÁreasProtegidas–SIGAP-,integradopormásde330áreas,ocupaalrededordel30%del

territoriodelpaís.EnlaregióndelAltiplanoOccidentaldeGuatemala,lasáreasprotegidasocupanaproximadamente

2,490km²,aproximadamenteel2%delterritorionacional.Estaregiónalbergagranvariedaddeespeciesendémicas

graciasasuvariaciónaltitudinalydiversidaddemicroclimas.ElSIGAPesclaveparalaconservacióndelabiodiversidad

enGuatemala,lacualesconsideradadeimportanciaglobal.Sinembargo,enlaactualidadelSIGAPcuentaconuna

importantebrechafinancieraquelimitasucapacidaddeadministrartanimportantepatrimonio.

8AgenciaImplementadora

9OrganismoNacionaldeEjecución


60

Por otro lado, el turismo es una industria de creciente importancia, tanto a nivel mundial como nacional. La

OrganizaciónMundial del Turismo,organismode lasNacionesUnidasencargadode lapromocióndeun turismo

responsable, sostenibleyaccesiblepara todos,en su informe“PanoramaOMTdel turismo internacional.Edición

2016”estimóqueelturismosuponeel10%delProductoInteriorBrutoMundial,yque1decada11empleosestán

relacionadosconlaindustriaturística.Asuvez,prediceuncrecimientocontinuadodelturismo,yproyectaqueenel

2030sealcancenlos1,800millonesdellegadasdeturistasinternacionalesanivelmundial.

Guatemalacuentaconunaltopotencialturístico,ymuyespecialmentesusáreasprotegidas,sirviendodeejemplo

quetresdeloscuatroprincipalesdestinosturísticosdelpaíssonenlaactualidadáreasprotegidas.Enestecontexto,

el turismosuponeunaoportunidadparagenerar ingresosquepuedanserdestinadosa lareducciónde labrecha

financieradelSIGAPyendefinitivaalaconservacióndelabiodiversidad.

Elproyecto“PromoviendoelEcoturismoparaFortalecerlaSostenibilidadFinancieradelSistemaGuatemaltecode

ÁreasProtegidas”,comenzósu implementaciónenelaño2013con lametadecontribuira laconservaciónde la

biodiversidadde importanciaglobalexistenteenGuatemalaa travésde fortalecer lasostenibilidad financieradel

SistemaGuatemaltecodeÁreasProtegidas–SIGAP–medianteeldesarrollodenuevosmecanismosfinancierosenel

sectordelecoturismo.

Paralograrsumeta,elproyectocontemplalossiguientesresultadosyproductos:

Resultado1: Marco legal y político fortalecido para la implementación del ecoturismo como parte de una

estrategiaparapromoverlasostenibilidadfinancieradelSIGAP

Producto1.1:ReformadelaPolíticadeCo-administracióndeAPsysusinstrumentosdegestiónactualizadaProducto 1.2: Política sobre la Actividad Turística en Áreas Protegidas que rige la cooperacióninterinstitucional,laplanificación,lainversiónyelmanejoactualizadaProducto1.3:NormativodelCONAPparalarecolecciónyreinversióndelastarifasdeentradayconcesionesenAPsdiseñado.Producto1.4:EstándaresambientalesysistemadecertificaciónparaeldesarrollodelecoturismoregulanlasinversionesdelsectorprivadoenlasAPsyposibilitanlaconservacióndelabiodiversidad.

Resultado2: Unmarcoinstitucionalmejoradoparaelmanejodelecoturismoenlasáreasprotegidasincluyeun

programapilotodeimplementacióndeecoturismoenAltiplanoOccidentaldeGuatemala

Producto2.1:ProgramadeentrenamientoincrementalacapacidadtécnicadelosadministradoresdeAPs.

Producto2.2:Treinta(30)oficialesdelCONAPentrenadosenlaatencióndevisitantesyenelmonitoreode

losimpactosdelecoturismo

Producto2.3:Estrategiademonitoreodesarrolladaparaevaluarloslimitesaceptabledecambioenáreas

ecológicamentesensiblesenlospaisajespiloto

Producto2.4.PlanesMaestrosparaAPsincluyenelecoturismocomopartedesusestrategiasfinancieras.

Producto2.5:PlanesdenegociodefinidosparaAPsenlospaisajespilotopromueveneldesarrollodenuevas

rutasturísticasenáreasconpocosvisitantesperoconpotencialecoturístico.

Producto2.6:Experienciapilotoparalaaplicacióndeunsistemadetarifasdeentrada.

LaEFserealizarásegúnlaspautas,normasyprocedimientosestablecidosporelPNUDyelFMAM,segúnseestablece

enlaGuíadeEvaluacióndelPNUDparaProyectosFinanciadosporelFMAM.Losobjetivosdelaevaluaciónsonanalizarellogrodelosresultadosdelproyectoeidentificarleccionesaprendidas

quecontribuyanalasostenibilidaddelosbeneficiosdelproyectoyquecontribuyanamejorarlaprogramacióndel

PNUD.

ENFOQUEYMÉTODODEEVALUACIÓN

Sehadesarrolladoconeltiempounenfoqueyunmétodogeneral10pararealizarevaluacionesfinalesdeproyectos

respaldadosporelPNUDyfinanciadosporelFMAM.Seesperaqueelevaluadorenmarqueeltrabajodeevaluación

utilizandoloscriteriosderelevancia,efectividad,eficiencia,sostenibilidadeimpacto,segúnsedefineyexplicaenla

GuíapararealizarevaluacionesfinalesdelosproyectosrespaldadosporelPNUDyfinanciadosporelFMAM.Se

redactóunaseriedepreguntasquecubrencadaunodeloscriteriosincluidosenestosTdR(AnexoC).Seesperaque

10Paraobtenermásinformaciónsobrelosmétodosdeevaluación,consulteelManualdeplanificación,seguimientoyevaluación

delosresultadosdedesarrollo,Capítulo7,pág.163


61

elevaluadormodifique,completeypresenteestamatrizcomopartedeuninformeinicialdelaevaluación,ylaincluya

comoanexoenelinformefinal.

Laevaluacióndebeproporcionarinformaciónbasadaenevidenciaqueseacreíble,confiableyútil.Seesperaqueel

evaluadorsigaunenfoqueparticipativoyconsultivoqueasegureparticipaciónestrechaconhomólogosdegobierno,

enparticularelCentrodeCoordinacióndelasOperacionesdelFMAM,laOficinaenelPaísdelPNUD,elequipodel

proyecto,elAsesorTécnicoRegionaldelFMAM/PNUDeinteresadosclave.Seesperaqueelevaluadorrealiceuna

misióndecampoenGuatemala,incluidoslossiguientessitiosdelproyecto:

• MunicipiodeSibinal,SanMarcos

• MunicipiodeSanPedroSacatepéquez,SanMarcos

• MunicipiodeSanMarcos,SanMarcos

• MunicipiodeTodosSantosCuchumatán,Huehuetenango

• MunicipiodeSantiagoAtitlán,Sololá

• MunicipiodeSantaLucíaUtatlán,Sololá

• MunicipiodeSanMartínSacatepéquez,Quetzaltenango

Lasentrevistassellevaránacaboconlassiguientesorganizacioneseindividuoscomomínimo:• DirectordelProyecto

• OficialdeProgramadeAmbienteyEnergíadelPNUD

• CoordinadordeProyecto

• AsesorTécnicoRegionaldelPNUD/FMAM

• FuncionariosdeCONAPanivelcentralyregional

• SociosclavedelProyecto:

a. RepresentantesdelInstitutoGuatemaltecodeTurismo-INGUAT-

b. Representantesdegobiernoslocales:MunicipalidadesdeSibinal,TodosSantosCuchumatán,SanMarcos,

SanPedroSacatepéquezySantiagoAtitlán.

c. Representantes de áreas protegidas administradas por asociaciones comunitarias: Asociación de

AgricultoresEcológicosde laLagunaChicabal–ASAECO-yAsociaciónAgropecuariayArtesanalparael

DesarrollolaGuadalupana.

d. SociosCo-financistas

Elevaluadorrevisarátodaslasfuentesdeinformaciónrelevantes,talescomoeldocumentodelproyecto,losinformes

delproyecto,incluidoselPIR11anualyotrosinformes,revisionesdepresupuestodelproyecto,examendemitadde

período,informesdeprogreso,herramientasdeseguimientodeláreadeinterésdelFMAM,archivosdelproyecto,

documentosnacionalesestratégicosy legales,ycualquierotromaterialqueelevaluadorconsidereútilparaesta

evaluaciónconbaseempírica.EnelAnexoBdelos"TdR"deestosTérminosdeReferenciaseincluyeunalistade

documentosqueelequipodelproyectoproporcionaráalevaluadorparaelexamen.

Se espera que el/la contratista elabore y presente en su oferta técnica, unametodología detallada sobre como

conducirálaevaluación.Estapropuestametodológicadebeincluirlosinstrumentosdeevaluaciónaserutilizados.

CRITERIOSYCALIFICACIONESDELAEVALUACIÓN

Sellevaráacabounaevaluacióndelrendimientodelproyecto,encomparaciónconlasexpectativasqueseestablecen

enelMarcológicodelproyectoyelMarcoderesultados(AnexoA),queproporcionaindicadoresderendimientoe

impactoparalaejecucióndelproyecto,juntoconlosmediosdeverificacióncorrespondientes.Laevaluacióncubrirá

loscriteriosde:relevancia,efectividad,eficiencia,sostenibilidadeimpacto.Lascalificacionesdebenproporcionarse

deacuerdoconlossiguientescriteriosderendimiento.Sedebeincluirlatablacompletaenelresumenejecutivode

evaluación.LasescalasdecalificaciónobligatoriasseincluyenenelAnexoDdelosTdR.

Calificacióndelaevaluación:

1.SeguimientoyEvaluación calificación Comentarios

DiseñodelSeguimientoyEvaluaciónaliniciodelproyecto

EjecucióndelplandeSeguimientoyEvaluación

CalidadgeneraldeSeguimientoyEvaluación

2.EjecucióndelosIAyEA: calificación Comentarios

CalidaddelaimplementacióndelPNUD

Calidaddeejecución:organismodeejecución

Calidadgeneraldeaplicaciónyejecución

3.Evaluacióndelosresultados calificación Comentarios

11ProjectImplementationReview


62

Relevancia

Efectividad

Eficiencia

Calificacióngeneraldelosresultadosdelproyecto

4.Sostenibilidad calificación Comentarios

Recursosfinancieros:

Socio-políticos:

Marcoinstitucionalygobernanza:

Ambiental:

Probabilidadgeneraldesostenibilidad:

5.Impacto:Considerable(C),Mínimo(M),Insignificante

(I)

Mejoradelestadoambiental

Reduccióndelatensiónambiental

Progresohaciaelcambiodelatensiónyelestado

Resultadosgeneralesdelproyecto

FINANCIACIÓN/COFINANCIACIÓNDELPROYECTO

Laevaluaciónvalorarálosaspectosfinancierosclavedelproyecto,incluidoelalcancedecofinanciaciónplanificaday

realizada.Serequeriránlosdatosdeloscostosylafinanciacióndelproyecto,incluidoslosgastosanuales.Sedeberán

evaluar yexplicar lasdiferenciasentre losgastosplanificadosy reales. Debenconsiderarse los resultadosde las

auditoríasfinancierasrecientes,siestándisponibles.El/lacontratistarecibiránasistenciadelaOficinaenelPaís(OP)

ydelEquipodelProyectoparaobtenerdatosfinancierosafindecompletarlasiguientetabladecofinanciación,que

seincluiráenelinformefinaldeevaluación.

Cofinanciación

(tipo/fuente)

Financiaciónpropia

deCONAP

(USD)

Organismo

asociado1

(USD)

Organismo

asociado2

(USD)

Total

(USD)

Propuesto Real Propuesto Real Propuesto Real Propuesto Real %ejecutado

Subvenciones

Préstamos/

concesiones

Ayudaen

especie

Otrotipo

Totales

INTEGRACIÓN

Los proyectos respaldados por el PNUD y financiados por el FMAM son componentes clave en la programación

nacionaldelPNUD,asícomotambiénenlosprogramasregionalesymundiales.Laevaluaciónvaloraráelgradoen

queelproyectoseintegróconotrasprioridadesdelPNUD,entreelloslareduccióndelapobreza,mejorgobernanza,

laprevenciónyrecuperacióndedesastresnaturalesyelgénero.

IMPACTO

El/lacontratistavaloraránelgradoenqueelproyectoestálograndoimpactosoestáprogresandohaciaellogrode

impactos.Losresultadosclavealosquesedeberíallegarenlasevaluacionesincluyensielproyectodemostró:a)

mejorasverificablesenelestadoecológico,b)reduccionesverificablesenlatensióndelossistemasecológicos,y/o

c)unprogresodemostradohaciaellogrodeestosimpactos.12

CONCLUSIONES,RECOMENDACIONESYLECCIONES

Elinformedeevaluacióndebeincluiruncapítuloqueproporcioneunconjuntodeconclusiones,recomendacionesy

lecciones.

ARREGLOSDEIMPLEMENTACION

LaresponsabilidadprincipalparagestionarestaevaluaciónradicaenlaOPdelPNUDenGuatemala.LaOPdelPNUD

contrataráalevaluador(a)yapoyaraenlosarreglosdeviajedentrodelpaís(solicituddereunionesyconfirmación).

ElEquipodelProyectoseráresponsabledemantenerseencontactoconel/lacontratistaparaestablecerentrevistas

conlosinteresados,organizarvisitasdecampo,coordinarconelGobierno,etc.

12UnamedidaútilparamedirelimpactodelavancerealizadoeselmétododelManualparalaRevisióndeEfectosDirectosa

Impactos(RoTI,porsussiglaseninglés)elaboradoporlaOficinadeEvaluacióndelFMAM:ROTIHandbook2009


63

PLAZODELAEVALUACIÓN

Laduracióntotaldelaevaluaciónseráde90díasdetrabajo,enuntiempode5meses,deacuerdoconelsiguiente

plan:

Actividad Díasdetrabajo

efectivo

Preparación 10díasReunionesconequipodeproyecto,personaldelaOPdePNUDyasesortécnicoregional 5días

Misióndeevaluación(visitasdecampo) 20días

Reunionesconpersonasclave 7días

Presentaciónderesultadosiniciales13 1día

Borradordelinformefinal 15días

RevisiónycomentariosdelaOPdePNUD 5días

RevisiónporCentrodeOperacionesdelGEFyotrosinteresados 5días

Informefinal 7días

Informefinaleninglés 15días

PRODUCTOSDELAEVALUACIÓN

Productosesperados:

No Resultadofinal Contenido Período Responsabilidades

1 Informeinicial Elevaluadorproporciona

aclaracionessobrelos

períodosymétodos

15díasdelafirmadelcontratoy

previoalamisiónalterreno

El/lacontratistaloenvíaalaOP

delPNUD

2 Borradordel

informefinal

Informecompleto,(por

plantillaanexoF)con

anexos

21díasdehaberfinalizadola

misiónalterreno

AserrevisadoporOP(Oficialde

ProgramayOficialde

Monitoreo),AsesorTécnico

Regional

3

Informefinal* Informerevisado 10díastrashaberrecibidolos

comentariosdelPNUDsobreel

borrador


ProgramayOficialde


Regional

Informefinal

eninglés

Informetraducidoa

idiomainglés

14díastrashaberrecibido

aprobacióndelinformefinalpor

partedePNUD


ProgramayOficialde


Regional

*Cuandosepresenteelinformefinaldeevaluación,tambiénserequierequeelevaluadorproporcioneun'itinerariodelaauditoría',dondesedetallecómosehanabordado(ono)todosloscomentariosrecibidosenelinformefinaldeevaluación.

PERFILDELCONTRATISTA

El/lacontratistadeberátenerexperienciapreviaenevaluacióndeproyectossimilares. Esunaventajacontarcon

experienciaenproyectosfinanciadosporelFMAM.El/lacontratistaseleccionadonodebenhaberparticipadoenla

preparaciónoejecucióndelproyectonidebentenerningúnconflictodeinteresesconlasactividadesrelacionadasal

proyecto.Disponibilidadparaviajarazonasrurales.

El/lacontratistadebereunirlassiguientescalificaciones:

a) Formaciónacadémicaü Títulouniversitarioencienciasambientales,ingenieríaencienciasambientalesounadisciplinarelacionada.

ü Estudiosdemaestríaengestióndeproyecto,evaluación,ocarreraafin.

b) ExperienciaGeneral:• 5añosdeexperienciaenevaluandoproyectos

• 5añosdeexperienciaendirigirsesionesdecapacitación,incluyendocapacidadesparafacilitar

talleres,reunionesycapacitaciones

• 5añosdeexperienciaengestióndeproyectosc) Experienciaespecifica:

• Dos experiencias comprobadas sobremanejo práctico y teórico de los enfoques de sostenibilidad

ambientalyturismoenáreasprotegidas.

13Alfinalizarlamisiónenterrenoel/lacontratistapresentaralosresultadosdelamisiónqueincluyenvaloracionesiniciales.


64

• Dosexperienciascomprobadassobreelabordajeyconceptosdelagestiónbasadaenresultadosy

gestióndeconocimientos.

• Competenteenambosidiomas,españoleinglés.

• Completamentecompetenteenlaaplicacionesdelsiguientesoftware:Word,Excel,Powerpoint.

d) Competenciasyvalorescorporativos• Cualidadesdeliderazgoytrabajoenequipo

• Conocimientodeplanificaciónestratégica

• Conocimientoyhabilidadenelmanejodeprogramasdecómputo

• Excelentecomunicaciónyhabilidadpararedactardocumentoseinformes

• Habilidaddeanálisis,redacciónycomunicación.

• Habilidadpararedactarpublicaciones,reportesypresentaciones.

• Habilidadparamanejarytrabajarconequiposmultidisciplinariosymulticulturales.

• Fuertemotivaciónyhabilidadparatrabajarbajopresiónyconlímitesdetiempos.

• Experienciaendirigirsesionesdecapacitación, incluyendocapacidadesparafacilitartalleres,reuniones,

etc.

• Capacidaddetrabajardemaneraindependienteoconpocasupervisión.

• Familiarizaciónconelcontextogubernamental(deseable).

• Excelenteshabilidadeseneláreafinancieraydemanejodepresupuestos.

• Integridadyética

• Respetoporladiversidad

• Excelentesrelacioneshumanas

• Actituddeservicio

• Efectividadoperacional

ÉTICADELEVALUADOR

LosconsultoresdelaevaluaciónasumiránlosmásaltosniveleséticosydeberánfirmarunCódigodeconducta(Anexo

E)alaceptarlaasignación.LasevaluacionesdelPNUDserealizandeconformidadconlosprincipiosquesedescriben

enlas'Directriceséticasparaevaluaciones'delGrupodeEvaluacióndelasNacionesUnidas(UNEG).

MODALIDADESYESPECIFICACIONESDEPAGO

% Hito

10% TraslaaprobacióndelInformeInicial

40% Despuésdelapresentaciónyaprobacióndelprimerborradordelinformefinaldeevaluación.

50% Despuésdelapresentaciónyaprobación(OPdelPNUDyATRdelPNUD)delinformefinaldefinitivo

deevaluaciónenespañolyeninglés.

LafacturaseemitiráanombredeProgramadelasNacionesUnidasparaelDesarrollo,NIT312583-1,enQuetzales

[cuandoaplique,altipodecambiodelasNacionesUnidasalafechadefacturación].ElPNUDnoesagente

retenedordeimpuestos,porloqueelProveedordeberáprocederconformelalegislacióntributariaqueleaplique.

Ladescripcióndelafacturadeberáincluirlosiguiente:“PagocorrespondientealproductoNo.xxdexx,según

contratoxxx”.

“LospagosacontratistasnacionalesseharánefectivosenQuetzales,ycuandoaplique,seemitiráexencióndeIVA”.

LospagosacontratistasubicadosenunpaísdistintoaldelComprador,seefectuaránenDólaresdelosEstados

UnidosdeAméricayserealizarápormediodetransferenciabancaria,presentandolafacturacorrespondiente.El

costodelatransferenciaserádeducidodelpagoyaqueesresponsabilidaddelcontratistacubrirlo.

DOCUMENTACIÓNREQUERIDAPARALAPRESENTACIÓNDELAOFERTA

Los Contratistas Individuales interesados, deben presentar su propuesta en digital (física es opcional, en sobre

cerrado), foliada, con índice del contenido en el orden solicitado, y debe incluir los siguientes documentos para

demostrarsuscalificaciones:

1. CartadelOferentedirigidaaPNUDconfirmandointerésydisponibilidad(formatoadjunto).

Anexos:


65

1.1. Curriculum Vitae o Formulario P11 firmado, que incluya fechas de inicio y fin, experiencias en

actividadessimilares,detalledelastareasyunmínimodetres(3)referenciasprofesionalesfácilmente

localizables.

1.2. Propuesta Financiera que indique el precio fijo total de la oferta –todo incluido–, expresado en

Quetzales o Dólares de los Estados Unidos de América (para extranjeros no domiciliados en

Guatemala) y sustentadoconundesglosede los costos según formatoadjunto,el cualpuede ser

modificadosegúnlosrubrosqueelContratistaconsiderepertinente.

1.3. TérminosdeReferenciafirmados.

2. PropuestaTécnica:

2.1. Cartaexplicandoporquéseconsideracomoelcandidatomásidóneoparadesarrollarlosservicios.

2.2. DocumentoquedescribasustantivamentelaMetodologíapormediodelacualenfocaráyconducirá

lasactividadesparacumplirconlosserviciosdeConsultoría.

2.3. Plandetrabajoqueincluyacronogramadetalladodelasactividadesmínimasespecificadasenestos

TdRyotrasqueelContratistaenbasea suexperiencia considereconvenientes; fechasenbasea

duracióndelosserviciosestipuladaparalaconsultoría,considerandoentregayrevisióndeproductos.

3. Documentosadicionales:

3.1FotocopiadeDocumentoPersonaldeIdentidad(DPI)oequivalente

3.3Fotocopia(s)decredencialesacadémicas:Constancia(s)deTítulosUniversitario(s)y/o Diplomaspor

cursosdeespecializaciónycursosuniversitariosaprobados.

3.5Fotocopiadeporlomenostres(3)cartasdereferenciaslaborales/contratos/finiquitosporactividades

similaresalasrequeridasenestostérminosdereferencia.

CRITERIOSPARALASELECCIÓNDELAMEJOROFERTA

La evaluación de las ofertas se hará por medio del método de puntuación combinada, en donde la evaluación

curricularylapropuestatécnicaseponderaránconunmáximode70%,combinándoseconlaofertafinanciera,que

seponderaráconunmáximode30%.

CriteriosPuntuación

Niveles Máxima

Formación

académica

Títulouniversitarioencienciasambientales,ingenieríaenciencias

ambientalesounadisciplinarelacionada.10

15Estudiosdemaestríaengestióndeproyecto,evaluación,ocarrera

afin5

Experiencia

General

5añosdeexperienciaenevaluandoproyectos 10

40

5 años de experiencia en dirigir sesiones de capacitación,

incluyendo capacidades para facilitar talleres, reuniones y

capacitaciones

10

5añosdeexperienciaengestióndeproyectos 10

Dosexperienciascomprobadassobremanejoprácticoyteóricode

los enfoques de sostenibilidad ambiental y turismo en áreas

protegidas.

5

Dosexperienciascomprobadassobreelabordajeyconceptosdela

gestiónbasadaenresultadosygestióndeconocimientos.5

Propuesta

Técnica

Metodológica

Plenamente armónica con Términos de Referencia y con sólido

nivel técnico. Presenta propuesta metodológica que demuestra

sólidoconocimientoycorrectaaplicacióndelatécnicaenelalcance

deresultados.

35

35

Armónica con los Términos de Referencia y técnicamente

aceptable. Presenta propuesta metodológica que demuestra

conocimientoyaplicacióndelatécnicademaneraaceptablepara

elalcancederesultados.

30

ArmónicaconlosTérminosdeReferencia,perotécnicamentedébil.

Débilpropuestametodológicaquedemuestradébilaplicacióndela

técnicaenelalcancederesultados.

20

No armónica con los Términos de Referencia. Propuesta

metodológicayaplicacióndelatécnicadébilyfueradecontextoen

cuantoalosTdR.

0


66

Plandetrabajo

yCronograma

Incluye cronograma y plan de trabajo descriptivo ajustado a la

realidad del proyecto, considerando las actividades a realizar de

maneraintegradaycoherente.

10

10Incluyecronogramayplandetrabajocondescripcióndébildelas

actividades, no presenta las actividades de forma integrada y

coherente.

7

Soloincluyecronograma 1

Sub–Total Sub–TotalporEvaluaciónCurricularyPropuestaTécnica 100 70%

PropuestaFinanciera (Propuestamásbaja/PropuestaEvaluada)*30% 30%

TOTALPUNTUACIONDEOFERTA 100%

FIRMADELCONTRATISTAINDIVIDUAL

Laevaluacióndelasofertasseharápormediodelmétododepuntuacióncombinada,endonde

Declarodeconformidadquetodoslostérminosdereferenciasostenidoshansidocomprendidosperfectamente,queseránsostenidosycumplidosanteelContratante,encasodeseradjudicado/da.

NombredeOferente:___________________________________________________

Firma:______________________________Fecha:___________________________


67

5.4QUESTIONNAIREUSEDANDSUMMARYOFRESULTS

Stakeholders Questions Indicators Sources Methodology

Relevance

UNDP,CONAP,INGUAT,ProtectedAreamanagers

Howcantheprojectorcontinuedactionschangetherealityintheregionofintervention?Generatingworkopportunitiesintourisminprotectedareasforlocalpeople.

Evidenceofchangesofperceptionandprojectactivitiesindevelopment Interviews;PIRs;METT

Closedinterviewsandrevisionofprojectdocuments

Effectiveness

UNDP,PMU,NGOs

Doestheprojectinvolvestakeholdersbyinformationexchangeandfeedback,andwastheirparticipationpromotedinthedesign,implementationandM&E?Yes,althoughstakeholderschangedalongimplementationforoperationalissuesandimportantopportunitiestoconsolidatealliancesandcooperation.

Stakeholdersdeclaretoparticipateinprojectdesignandtakerolesinimplementation

PRODOCcomparedwithPIRsandprojectreports;interviews


UNDP,PMU,NGOs

Didtheprojectconsultwithandmakeuseofabilities,experienceandknowledgefromcompetentgovernmentalinstitutions,NGOs,communitygroups,privatesectorenterprises,localgovernmentsandacademicinstitutionsinthedesign,implementationandevaluationofprojectactivitiesinordertogenerateeffectiveenvironmentalandsocialimpacts?Yes,especiallyfromCONAPfortheexperienceinmanagingprotectedareas,alsofromINGUAT,NGOs,communityassociationsandmunicipalities. Informationduringprojectdesign

PRODOC,UNDPCountryProgram,GEFStrategiesandObjectives

Revisionofprojectdocuments

UNDP,PMU,INGUAT,NGOs

Didstakeholderstakeownershipoftheproject?Yes,ahighlevelofownershipwasverified,includingcommitmentsforthecontinuityofactionsstartedthroughtheproject.

Stakeholdersknowtheprojectwell,participateinimplementationandhaveavisionofprojectsustainability

Interviews;listofstakeholdersfromPRODOCandPIRs


Efficiency

UNDP,CONAP,INGUAT,regionalauthoritiesandprotectedareamanagers,NGOs

Howeffectivewasprojectcoordination?Itwasexcellentanddemonstratedrelevantabilityinestablishingcooperationatalllevels.NoneofthepeopleinterviewedexpressedanythingbutpositiveremarksabouttheCoordinator.

Examplesofcoordinationandintegrationwithstakeholders

Interviewswithstakeholders;PIRs;QPRs

Comparisonofprogressinproductsinlogicalframework;reviewofscorecardsandanalyses


68

Coordinator,CONAP,INGUAT,MinistryofEnvironmentandNR

HowdoyouseetheUNDPasImplementingAgency?Excellent,forthestructureinGuatemalaandexperience.

Evidenceofconflictandproblemsolvingduringprojectimplementation Interviewswithstakeholders

CollectionofevidenceininterviewsandPIRs

UNDP,INGUAT,regionalauthoritiesandprotectedareamanagers,NGOs

Didtheexecutingagencyadequatelyrespondtosignificantimplementationproblems(inyourcase)?Yes,buttherewerenoproblemsthatrequiredinterventionathigherlevels.

Evidenceofconflictandproblemsolvingduringprojectimplementation Interviewswithstakeholders

Collectionofevidenceininterviewsanddocuments:PIR,coordinatorreports,QPRs

UNDP,INGUAT,NGOs

Wastheexecutingagencyadequatelychosentoimplementtheproject,basedonprojectdesign?Yes,despitecurrentpersonnelandbudgetarylimitations.

Evidenceofconflictandproblemsolvingduringprojectimplementation

Documents:PRODOC,PIR,QPR,otherreports

Collectionofevidenceinreviseddocuments

UNDP,CONAP

Pleasetellmewhatyouthinkofthequalityanddifficultiesofriskmanagement.Riskswerewellassessedatthebeginningandcoherentlyfollowedupduringprojectimplementation.

Comparisonbetweeninitialriskassessmentandsituationsduringprojectimplementation Interviews

Sustainability

UNDP,CONAP,INGUAT,PMU,NGOs

Aretheresocialorpoliticalrisksthatthreatenthesustainabilityofprojectresults?Yes,especiallypoliticalinstability.

Evidenceofpoliticalorfinancialinstability

Interviews,projectdocuments,PIR,QPR,MTR


UNDP,CONAP,INGUAT,PMU,NGOs

Isthereenoughawarenessandownershipbystakeholders?Yes,includingexpressionsofchangeofvisionregardingtourismasafinancialmechanismandatthelocallevelpeopleexpressedsatisfactionwithcapacitybuildingprogramsandinimplementingmonitoringprotocols.

Evidenceofownershipandchangesofattitudeorinitiativeinpilotprotectedareas


Closedinterviews,revisionofprojectdocuments,visittoprotectedareasandreportsonchangesbyregionalauthoritiesandPAmanagers

UNDP,CONAP,INGUAT,PMU

Aretherefinancialaspectsthatmaythreatenthesustainabilityofproject results?Are theremechanisms inplace toensurefinancial and economic sustainability once GEF fundingceases?Several mechanisms are in place to ensure continuity,especially the inclusion of tourism in national policies andplans.

Evidenceofpoliticalorfinancialinstabilityorinsufficientprojectownershipbygovernment



UNDP,CONAP,INGUAT,PMU

Arethererisksfromthelegalandinstitutionalframeworksthatthreatenthesustainabilityofbenefitsfromtheproject?Sustainability is best ensured in legal documents due to theupdate and development of policies and regulations thatfacilitatethedevelopmentofecotourisminGuatemala.

Evidenceofpoliticalorfinancialinstabilityorinsufficientprojectownershipbygovernment




69

UNDP,CONAP,protectedareamanagers,regionalauthorities,NGOs

Howwillactionsstartedduringtheprojectbecontinued?Whatrisksarethere?Why?Theactivitiesinitiatedwillbecontinuedduetoformalcommitmentsandtotheirrelevance,althoughtheriskofchangeofpersonnelandlossofpeoplewhowerecapacitatedexistsateveryelection.Lackoffundsisanotherrealisticrisk.

EvidenceofincorporationofconceptsandactionsinpilotprotectedareasaninSIGAP

Interviews,projectdocuments,PIR,projectoutputs


Resultsandimpacts

ALL

Whatarethemainoutcomesoftheproject?Achievementofthegeneralobjectiveofestablishingecotourismasafinancialmechanismfortheconservationofprotectedareas;approvalofpoliciesandregulations;increasedtechnicalandinstitutionalcapacity;developmentofplansforpilotprotectedareas;reductionofSIGAPfinancialgapintheWesternHighlands;theImpulsaProgramandprocessofcertificationofnaturalareas;thealliancewithINGUAT;theinvolvementoftheprivatesector.

Evidenceofpositivechangesofvision,attitude,andlogicalframeworkresults Interviews,logicalframework

Comparisonofindicationsfrominterviewsandexpectedprojectresults,andlessonslearned

ALL

Whatarethemainlimitationsoftheproject?Nothavingfundstosupporttheconstructionofbasicinfrastructureinpilotprotectedareas;lackoffollow-upofco-financingcommitments;logicalframeworkindicatorswithproblems;policiesandregulationsarelimitedtoprotectedareasunderdirectmanagementbyCONAP;difficultytograntsmallconcessions.

Difficultiesfoundandhowtheyaffecttheresultsandthesustainabilityoftheproject Interviews,logicalframework

Comparisonofindicationsfrominterviewsandexpectedprojectresults,andlessonslearned

Monitoring&Evaluation

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

TheM&Eplanwasadequatelybudgetedandfinancedduringprojectimplementation?Yes,thefundswerewellplannedandwellapplied.

EvidencethattheM&Eplanwaswellobservedandhadadequateresponses

Interviews;scopeofco-financing;adaptivemanagement

EvaluationofanswersandchangestofindingsinMTR

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

Weremanagementresponseoradaptivemanagementactionscarriedoutbyrecommendationofprojectreports(PIRs)andtheMTR?Yes,recommendationswereimplemented. Indicationsofneedforadaptation

Interviews;managementresponsesandchangesrecommendedbyMTR

Evaluationofdocumentsthatregisterchanges(PIR,managementresponsetoMTR)

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

WasthelevelofevaluationinthePIRsconsistentwiththefindingsintheMTR?Ifnot,why?Yes,thePIRreflectrealityandthereportsaretransparent. Coherenceofevaluations PIR,MTR

ComparisonofPIRswithMTRfindings


70

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

HoweffectivewastheSteeringCommitteeinfollowingprojectadvancesandsupportingtheproject?TheSCsupportedimplementationandapprovedallextraordinarychangesrequestedbythePMU,suchasadjustmentsinlogicalframeworkindicators.

EvidenceofparticipationandactionbytheSteeringCommittee

Interviews;projectdocuments

CollectionofevidenceofactionbySteeringCommittee

Countryownership

UNDP,PMU,CONAP,INGUAT,NGOs

Did the government publish laws or develop policies andregulationsalignedwithprojectobjectives?Yes,thesewerethemaingoalsoftheprojectandallpolicies,regulationsandtechnicaldocumentswereapproved. Listoflaws,policiesandregulations

createdorupdatedProjectoutputs;logicalframework

Comparisonofobjectivesandexpectedresultswithproductsandtheirapplication,verifiedinpilotprotectedareasandininterviews

UNDP,PMU,CONAP,INGUAT,NGOs

Whatchangesdidtheprojectproduceinthecountrylegalstructurethatcanensurethatecotourismwillbemoredevelopedinnewareasinthefuture?Themorerelevantchangesarethereinstatementofrevenuesfromvisitorentryfees,thepossibilitiesofsharedmanagementandtheinclusionofareasofrelevanceforbiodiversitythatarenotprotectedareasformanagementbythirdparties.

Listoflaws,policiesandregulationscreatedorupdated;capacitybuilding

Projectoutputs;logicalframework

Comparisonofobjectivesandexpectedresultswithproductsandtheirapplication,verifiedinpilotprotectedareasandininterviews

Projectfinance

UNDP,PMU,CONAP,NGOsandotherco-financists

Weretheresignificantdifferencesbetweenexpectedco-financingandtheamountcontributedand,ifso,why?Co-financingcontributionsmorethandoubledtheexpectedamountespeciallyduetotheallianceestablishedwithINGUATandinvestmentsintheImpulsaProgrammadebytheMinistryofEconomy.

Expectedandactualco-financingdata

Projectco-financingtable;interviewstoverifydiscrepancies

Comparisonbetweenexpectedandobtained;co-financingtableatendofproject

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

WereprojectcomponentsexternallyfinancedadequatelyintegratedwithcomponentsfinancedbyGEF?Notreally,mainlyduetothedelaybetweenprojectdesignandstartup,whichmadeco-financingorganizationsuseupthefundscommittedbeforeimplementationbegan.Furthercontributionswereconsidered,butwerenotdirectlyrelatedtoprojectactivities,althoughcontributingtothehighergoalofbiodiversityconservation.ThissituationwascompensatedalongprojectimplementationbythealliancewithINGUAT.

Externalfinancingisconvergentwithprojectoutputs Interviews;QPR,PIR

Evaluationoffinancialsourcesthatledtoproductsandresults


71

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

Were there other financial contributions obtained duringprojectimplementation(FONACON,NGOs,others)?Yes,especiallybyINGUATandtheMinistryofEconomyasseedcapitalfortheImpulsaProgram.

Additionalco-financingobtainedduringprojectimplementation

Projectco-financingtable;detailsofadditionalfunds

Co-financingdocumentationbeyondamountplannedorexpected

Mainstreaming

UNDP,PMU,CONAPINGUAT,regionalauthoritiesandprotectedareamanagers,NGOs

Didtheprojectproducepositiveornegativeimpactsonlocalpopulationsandtheirlivelihoodstodate?Yes,butthesearenotyetsignificantimprovementsbecausethelegalchangesarerecentandtherehasnotbeenenoughtimeforimplementationofnewincomegeneratingopportunitiessuchasvisitorentryfees,sharedmanagementandmoreinvestmentformtheprivatesector.

Evidenceofchangesinvision,ecotourismconceptsandeffectivechangesinpilotprotectedareas

Interviews,visittopilotprotectedareas Documentationofchanges

UNDP,PMU,CONAP

Weregenderequalityissuestakenintoaccountduringprojectdesignandimplementation?Ifso,howandtowhatextent?No,becausetheseissueswerenotpartoftheGEF3-4directiveswhentheprojectwasdesigned.

Percentageofmenandwomeninvolvedandbenefittedbytheproject

Participantlistsinworkshops,inchargeofprojecttasksandinvolvedinprojectactivities

Verificationofpercentagesinreportsonworkshopsoractivities;visittopilotprotectedareas

UNDP,PMU,CONAPNGOs

Isthereevidenceofthatprojectresultscontributedtoincreasetheresilienceofnaturalareastonaturaldisastersintheregionofintervention?OnlyindirectlyfortheregistryoftwoprotectedareasinSIGAP.Nospecificactivitiesforthispurposewereincludedinthedesignoftheproject.

Evidenceofimplementationofbiologicalmonitoring,increasedprotectionandconnectivityofnaturalfragmentsandknowledgeofinterventionsites

Interviews,visittopilotprotectedareas,PAconnectivitymaps,monitoringdocuments

Recordsofimprovedconnectivityandprotectionofnaturalremnants,monitoringimplemented,peoplewithknowledge

Lessonslearnedandrecommendations


Whatarethelessonslearnedasaresultofthisproject?Betterunderstandtheneedsofstakeholdersandbeneficiariestoincludefundsthatcansupportthemandincreaseintegrationandownership.Institutionalcoordinationiskeyforsuccess.Itisimportanttoinvolveregionalstakeholdersfromthedesignphase.Involvementoftheprivatesectorincreasesthechanceofsustainabilityofactionsinitiatedthroughtheproject.Monitoringprotocolsmustbeadjustedtolocalcapacity.

Intervieweesknowtheprojectwellenoughtosuggestrelevantissues

Interviews;reportsonlessonslearned,MTR

Collectionoflessonslearnedwithmorerelevancetothosemostoftenrepeated


72


Whatarethebestpractices?Consolidation of ecotourism in the agenda of CONAP,associationsandmunicipalities.Promotion of ecotourism with criteria of environmentalsustainability.Involvingtheprivatesectorinthedevelopmentofecotourismandtheconservationofprotectedareas.Participationofpersonnelfrom10CONAPRegionalOfficesincapacitybuildingworkshops.The commitment of CONAP to develop an online tool forcalculatingvisitorentryfeesbasedonoperationalcosts.Involvement of park rangers and regional technical staff inbiologicalmonitoring.Nottreatingtheprojectasthoughitwereaninstitution.

Intervieweesknowtheprojectwellenoughtosuggestrelevantissues

Interviews;reportsonlessonslearned,MTR

Collectionoflessonslearnedwithmorerelevancetothosemostoftenrepeated


Whatshouldbedifferentinfutureprojects?Ensurethatinadditiontoplanningtheoreticalactivitiesfundsare budgeted for practical implementation to consolidateresults.Leavearegistryofdocumentsanddatausedinprojectdesignandthedefinitionofindicatorsandotherreferences.

Intervieweesknowtheprojectwellenoughtosuggestrelevantissues Interviews

Recordofopinionsindicatingfutureneedsorrequirementsaswellaslimitationsoftheproject


73

5.5LISTOFDOCUMENTSREVIEWED

Document Generalcontents

UNDAFGuatemala Guatemala:UnitedNationsDevelopmentAssistanceFramework

GEFPrioritystrategies ProgramdocumentwitheligibilitycriteriaforGEF4-5-6BiodiversityFocalArea

UNDPProgramDocumentforGuatemala

UNDPActionprogramforGuatemala2010-2014y2015-2019andCountryProgramActionPlans2010-2014and2015-2019

Initiationplan Projectstart-upplan

ProjectIdentificationForm(PIF) Projectsummary

ProjectDocument(PRODOC) PRODOCsignedbytheUNDPandtheGuatemalaGovernment

LogicalFramework Objectives,expectedresults,indicatorsandprogress

ProjectImplementationReports(PIR) Annualreport:2014–2017

AnnualOperationalPlan(AOP) Annualworkplans:2013–2017

QuarterlyProgressReports(QPR) Reports2013-2017

Auditingreports Financialaudits2014-2016

Mid-TermReviewReport Report

ManagementresponsesManagementresponsestoMTRRequestformodifyingindicatorsrespondingtotheMTRJustificationforprojectextension(MTRrecommendation)

UNDPRiskanalysis Projectprogressreportandprojectrisks2013-2017

Budgetrevisions ApprovedbytheGovernmentandUNDP

Co-financingrecords Co-financingresultsobtainedforprojectimplementation

GEFTrackingtools Evaluationofprogressininstitutionalcapacity,managementeffectivenessandfinancialcapacityoftheSIGAP

Nationalpolicies

PolíticaNacionalparaelDesarrolloTurísticoSostenibledeGuatemala2012-2022;PlanMaestrodeTurismoSostenibledeGuatemala2015-2025;PolíticaGeneraldeGobiernodeGuatemala2016-2020;PlanNacionaldeDesarrolloK’atun–nuestraGuatemala2032(SEGEPLAN);EstrategiadeEquidaddeGéneroconpertinenciaculturaldelConsejoNacionaldeÁreasProtegidas2017-2022

Coordinatorreports Annualrecordsofprojectimplementation

Media

Severalmaterials:inceptionworkshop,capacitybuildingseminarsandworkshops,coursefordesigningtourismprojects,biologicalmonitoring,visitstopilotareas,SelloQVerdeCertificationSystem,ImpulsaProgram,exchangeofexperiencesbetweenprotectedareamanagers,deliveryofmanagement,publicuseandbusinessplanstothesevenpilotprotectedareas,presentationofreviewedpolicies,celebrationoftheinternationaldayforbiologicaldiversity,launchoftheRMPQuetzalí(formerAstilleroIandII)andthePNRCorazóndelBosque,projectfolders


74

Documentsandproductsresultingfromtheproject

� Policyonvisitationactivitiesinprotectedareas2015-2025PolicyonjointadministrationandsharedmanagementinprotectedareasandsupportingRegulations

� ManagementregulationsforvisitationactivitieswithinSIGAP� RegulationsontheconcessionofvisitorserviceswithinSIGAP� COTURAPRegulations� OfficialregistrydocumentsofthePAMRPMiradorReyTepepulandPNRParque

EcológicoCorazóndelBosqueinSIGAP� Newtouristdestinations(6),includingCONAPandINGUATwebsites� EnvironmentalstandardsoftheCertificationProgram� Studyonvisitorentryfeesforprotectedareasandnewbusinesses(since2013)and

touristservicesthatpromotetourismintheWesternHighlandsconductedfortheTerminalEvaluation

� Biologicalmonitoringagreementsandprotocols� Logicalframeworkandtrackingtoolsforinstitutionalcapacity,management

effectivenessandfinancialsustainabilityofSIGAP,includingthefinancialsustainabilityscorecardforSIGAPthatconsidered19protectedareasforindicator12ofthelogicalframework

� ReportandagreementCONAP–INGUATfortheImpulsaProgram� Manualforthemanagementandinvestmentofvisitorentryfeesontourist

visitationinprotectedareasmanagedbyCONAP� Toolfortheevaluationoftouristpotentialinprotectedareas� Toolfortheevaluation,preventionandmonitoringofimpactsinprotectedareas� GuideforthedevelopmentofpublicuseplanswithinSIGAP� Practicalguidefortheestablishmentofvisitorentryfeesinprotectedareas� Guideforthedevelopmentofbusinessplansforprotectedareas� Managementplansofthe7pilotprotectedareas� Publicuseplansofthe7pilotprotectedareas� Businessplansofthe7pilotprotectedareas� Diagnosticoflegalinstrumentsthatregulatethedevelopmentofecotourismin

protectedareas� Harmonizationstrategyforlegalinstrumentsthatregulatethedevelopmentof

ecotourisminprotectedareas� Proposalforchangestothelegalinstrumentsthatregulatethedevelopmentof

ecotourisminprotectedareas� Capacitybuildingmanualontourisminprotectedareasformanagersandtechnical

staff� Guideforfacilitatorsoncapacitybuildingontourismandprotectedareas� Fluxogramoftheprocessofrevisionofprojectproducts� Reportonthedesignandimplementationofamonitoringsystemforimpactson

biologicaldiversityfromtouristvisitation� ConsultancyreportontheUVR–UnifiedVisitorRegistry� Reportwithsummarytableoninstitutionalcapacity� Reportsoncapacitybuildingworkshops(several)� Reportonbiologicaldiversity,sustainabletourismandthreatstoconservationin

theWesternHighlandsofGuatemala� AgreementssignedbetweenPAmanagersandtouroperators� CONAPparkrangermanual� Bestpracticesmanualsinprotetedareas:ManagementofSustainableTourism,

Lodging,Foodservices,TourismOperatorsandGuides,andTransportation� Callforproposalsforthedesignofanonlinesystem/webapplicationforthe

calculationofvisitorentryfeesinprotectedareas(2017)� Summaryoflessonslearned(PowerpointpresentationbytheCoordinator)� Mapofprojectinterventionsites� Lettersofco-financingcommitmentsbyFUNDAECOandFCG� Co-financingtables2013-2015and2016-2017


75

5.6TRAVELITINERARY

From21Augustto09September,2017

21/08 22/08 23/08 24/08 25/088:30hUNDPInitialmeeting–GuatemalaCity

8:00-12:00hOfficework

8:00hTraveltopilotprotectedareas

10:00hRMPQuetzalí(AstilleroIandII),SanPedroSacatepéquez

8:00hRMPCanjulá,Sibinal

11:30-17:00hMeetingwithprojectCoordinator

14:00hInterviewwithUNDPstaff

14:00hCONAPOficinasregionales

15:00hAuthoritiesSanPedroSacatepéquez

16:00hAuthoritiesSibinalmunicipality

26/08 27/08 28/08 29/08 30/0810:00hRMPLagunaChicabal,ASAECOAssociation

9:00hNPRCorazóndelBosque11hManagementCommittee

6:00hPRMTodosSantosCuchumatán11hAuthoritiesandtechnicalstaffTodosSantosC.

6:00hRMPMiradorReyTepepul11:30hAuthoritiesSantiagoAtitlán

8:00-12:00hOfficework–GuatemalaCity

Travel Travel Travel Viaje–ReturntoGuatemalaCity

14:00hExCONAPstaff,GuatemalaCity16:00hTouroperatorGo2Guate

31/08 01/09 02/09 03/09 04/09Officework 10:30hGEFFocal

Point–Vice-MinisterMERN

Officework Officework 10:00-13:15hCONAPCentral

Officework–meetingwithCoordinadorforclarifications

Officework Officework Officework Officework

05/09 06/09 07/09 08/09 09/099:00hClarificationswithCoordinator10-12hINGUAT

8:00hBeneficiariesofImpulsaProgram

Officework 08:30hUNDPPresentationinitialfindings

10:00hArrivalatFlorianopolis,Brazil

16:00-17:00hUNDPFlordeMaríaBolañosyNelyHerrera

Officework Officework 14:00hAirport16:00hDeparturefromGuatemala

---


76

5.7LISTOFPERSONSINTERVIEWED

Names Organization PositionCONAPRegionalOffices,WesternHighlands23.08.2017

CristinaVásquez CONAP-AltiplanoOccidentalOffice SIGAPTechnicalStaffSamuelEstacuy CONAP-AltiplanoOccidentalOffice DirectorEnriqueMérida CONAP-AltiplanoNor-OccidentalOffice DirectorEliezerPeralta CONAP-AltiplanoCentralOffice Directora.i.GlendyCuztalChavajay CONAP-AltiplanoCentralOffice SIGAPTechnicalStaffAstilleroIyIISanPedroSacatepéquezRegionalMunicipalPark24.08.2017

KarinaPoxtorGonón SanPedroMunicipality CoordinadoradeÁreasProtegidas

ConsejoMunicipalSanPedroSacatepéquez-24.08.2017

MynorEmilioNavarro SanPedroMunicipality CouncilMemberIIIAroldoOrozco SanPedroMunicipality CouncilMemberI-EnvironmentCarlosBautista SanPedroMunicipality MayorSibinal–CanjuláRegionalMunicipalPark25.08.2017

ElfidoPérez SibinalMunicipalityCoordinatorforProtectedAreas,EnvironmentandTourism

IldebertoRoblero SibinalMunicipality CouncilMemberIIISibinalMunicipalCouncil25.08.2017

SilvestrePérezOrtiz SibinalMunicipalityCouncilMemberfortheEnvironment

AmilcarRoblero SibinalMunicipality MayorVolcánChicabalPermanentBanZone/ASAECO26.08.2017

JuanGarcíaGarcía ASAECO LegalRepresentativePNRCorazóndelBosque/laGuadalupanaAssociation27.08.2017

JuanAlfonsoGarcía LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteeJuanOmocht LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteePantaleónAndrésDeLeón LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteeJoséTimiteos LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommittee

AntonioCamiloTai LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteeManuelTrinidadAjú LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteeRafaSantosSaloj LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteeAndrésVasquez LaGuadalupanaAssociation ManagementCommitteeSelvyPérez Ut'zeAssociation TodosSantosCuchumatánRegionalMunicipalPark28.08.2017

EstebanMarías CONAP ParkRanger


77

TodosSantosCuchumatánMunicipalCouncil28.08.2017

OliverHernández TodosSantosMunicipality MunicipalAdvisorFortunatoMendoza TodosSantosMunicipality CouncilMemberJuanOrtiz TodosSantosMunicipality EnvironmentCoordinatorDanielPabloBautista TodosSantosMunicipality CouncilMemberHilarioNmaríasCarrillo TodosSantosMunicipality CouncilMemberMiradorReyTepepulRegionalMunicipalPark29.08.2017DiegoArmandoPabloMendoza SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality ProtectedAreaCoordinatorPedroChiviliu CONAP ParkRanger

DanielReandaEsquivel SantiagoAtitlánMunicipalityEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOffice

JoséArnaldoOrtíz SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality ParkRangerRolandoTolGozález IndependentBirdwatchingGuide SantiagoAtitlánMunicipalCouncil29.08.2017

LucíaAcertia SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality DiegoArmandoPabloMendoza SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality ProtectedAreaCoordinatorPedroChiviliu CONAP ParkRangerDiegoSosotYatas SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality CouncilMemberJonatanSay SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality DirectorPlanningOfficeRobertoMendoza SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality TechnicalstaffMarvinPetzey SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality CouncilMemberAngélicaMendoza SantiagoAtitlánMunicipality MunicipalSecretaryCONAPCentralOffice30.08.2017

MinorGarcía CONAP ExecutiveSub-Secretary

AndreaFernández CONAPDirectorInternationalCooperation

ElderFigueroa CONAP ExecutiveSecretaryAndreaDíaz CONAP FinancialDirectorCONAPextechnicalstaffandauthorities30.08.2017

DafneEdithDomínguez ExDirectorofDevelopmentforSIGAP

ManuelAlbertoHenry ExProjectandTechnicalDirectorManuelBenedictoLucas ExExecutiveSecretaryTouroperator30.08.2017

GustavoMorales Go2Guate Director


78

GEFFocalPoint–MinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources01.08.2017

CarlosFernandoCoronado

MinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources

Vice-MinisterofNaturalResourcesandClimateChange

CentralCONAPTechnicalstaff04.08.2017

LucilaPérez CONAPSustainableTourismTechnicalstaff

LuisQuiyuch CONAP CooperationwithmunicipalitiesMelisaOjeda CONAP BiodiversityTechnicalstaffFernandoCastro CONAP DirectorSIGAPDevelopmentSamyPalacios CONAP SIGAPCoordinatorEulaliaCamposeco CONAP LegalDepartmentLeonelaMauricio CONAP LegalDepartment

AnaLuisadeLeón CONAPDirectorEducationforSustainableDevelopment

INGUAT05.08.2017

JorgeMarioSamayoa INGUATDirectorNaturalResourcesSection

EdithAnavisca INGUATInternationalCooperationandInvestmentPromotion

SandyTello INGUAT CertificationLabelsImpulsaProgrambeneficiaries06.08.2017

MarvinPop JardínlasConchas IndependentEntrepreneurOscarCampollo ONCA IndependentEntrepreneur


79

5.8SUMMARYOFFIELDVISITS

23August,2017

CiudaddeGuatemala-SanPedroSacatepéquez

MeetingwiththeDirectorsofthethreeCONAPRegionalOfficesandtheirtechnicalstaff:SamuelEstacuyandCristinaVásquez,WesternHighlandsregion;EnriqueMérida,North-WesternHighlandsregion;EliezerPeraltaandGlendyChavajay,CentralHighlandsregion.

ThismeetingwasveryimportanttoprovidetheevaluatorwithanoverviewoftheregionsandtheresponsibilitiesandchallengesoftheCONAPRegionalOffices,aswellastocollecttheirimpressionsandexperienceintheproject.

24August,2017

Quetzalí(formerAstilleroIandII)RegionalMunicipalPark,SanPedroSacatepéquez

Morning:meetingwiththeParkManager,AgronomicalEngineerKarinaPaxtor,andwalkalongthevisitortrail.Illegalharvestingoftreeswasobservedduringthevisit.

Afternoon:meetingwith theMunicipal Council in San Pedro Sacatepéquez,with theMayor, theSecretaryofEnvironment,andthePresidentoftheCouncil.

25August,2017

SibinalRegionalMunicipalPark-Canjulá

Morning:walkalongthevisitor trailwiththeCoordinatorof theEnvironmentDepartment,ÉlfidoPérez,the2ndCouncilMemberGerardoGarcíaMiguelandtheparkrangerIldebertoRoblero.

Afternoon:meetingwiththeMayorandCouncilMemberfortheEnvironment.

26August2017

VolcánChicabalPermanentBanZone,SanMartínSacatepéquez

MeetingwiththeLegalRepresentativeofASAECO,JuanGarcíaGarcía,visittothevisitorreceptioninfrastructureandaccommodations.

Walktothevolcanocrateraccompaniedbythesonofoneoftheassociates,whoisgettinginvolvedinthemanagementofthearea;reviewofinfrastructure,trailsandritualareas.Muchgarbageisseenalongtrailsdespiteeffortsofawarenessbythemanagers.

27August,2017

PNRCorazóndelBosque,Quetzaltenango

WiththeManagementCommitteeoftheLaGuadalupanaAssociationwewalkedaroundthereserve,visitingtherestaurant,theswimmingpoolunderconstruction,theenergygenerationplant,thenewnurseryandthevisitortrailwithrestingandritualareas.Duringthewalkthememberssharedtheirvisionandexperienceof theproject, and their viewsofnature conservation.Once thewalkwasfinishedwewerejoinedbySelvynPérezAju,thesonofoneoftheassociates,arepresentativeoftheyoungergenerationwhoisgettinginvolvedinthemanagementofthearea.


80

28August,2017

TodosSantosCuchumatánRegionalMunicipalPark,TodosSantosCuchumatán

The interviewwith theCONAPParkRanger,EstebanMatías,wasconducted in theRegionalParkduring a birdwatching exercise. Thiswasmeant tomix data collectionwith one of the practicalapplicationsdevelopedunderinfluenceoftheproject.

Laterintheday,ameetingwasheldwithrepresentativesoftheMunicipalCouncilinTodosSantosCuchumatán.TheMayor,whoisstilltosignoffontheparkmanagementandpublicuseplans,didnotattendthemeeting.

29August,2017

MiradorReyTepepulRegionalMunicipalPark,SantiagoAtitlán

Thevisitstartedwithahikealongthebirdwatchingtrailwithacertifiedbirdwatchingguide,theParkManager, two park rangers and a Park Ranger of the CONAP Regional Office. Interviews wereconductedalongthewaybutespeciallyonthewoodenplatformlookoutsbuiltalongthewayforvisitors.

Laterintheday,ameetingwasheldintownwiththeDirectorofPlanning,theParkManager,the1stCouncil Member, who represented the Mayor, a Park Ranger of the CONAP Regional Office, atechnical representative of the municipality and other three Council Members, as well as theSecretarywhoregisteredthemeeting.


81

5.9NEWSPAPERARTICLEPUBLISHEDDURINGTHEMISSIONTOGUATEMALA

This newspaper articlewas foundby chanceon “Prensa Libre” during themission toGuatemalawithoutanyinfluenceofprojectmanagers.

It covers theplantingofnative trees inoneof thesevenpilotprotectedareasandopportunitiesofferedbytheImpulsaProgramtoprivateentrepreneursinecotourism.Itwasconsideredapositiveindicatorofprojectimpactsforhavingbeenpublishedwithoutdirectinfluenceoftheproject,astheCoordinatorwasnotawareofitbeforeIshowedittohim.

Date:September1st,2017.


83

5.10SUMMARYTABLEOFMANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS(METT)ANALYSIS

No. CriterionRMPSibinal

CorazóndelBosque

RMPReyTepepul

RMPSanMarcos

RMPSanPedro

RMPTodosSantos

PBZChicabal

1 Legalstatus 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 Regulations 2 2 2 3 2 2 23 Lawenforcement 2 2 2 2 1 2 24 PAobjectives 2 3 2 3 3 3 25 PAdesign 2 3 3 3 2 3 26 Boundarydemarcation 2 3 2 2 2 2 27 Managementplan 2 3 2 3 2 2 27a 1 1 1 1 1 1 17b 1 1 1 1 1 1 17c 1 1 1 1 8 Regularworkplan 2 1 2 2 2 1 19 Resourceinventory 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

10 Protection 3 2 1 2 2 2 111 Research 1 2 2 1 1 112 Resourcemanagement 1 2 2 2 2 2 113 Staffnumbers 1 2 2 2 2 1 214 Stafftraining 3 2 2 2 2 2 215 Currentbudget 1 2 2 1 2 1 116 Securityofbudget 1 2 2 2 2 1 217 Managementofbudget 1 2 2 2 2 218 Equipment 2 2 1 2 2 1 2

19Maintenanceofequipment 1 2 2 3 2 2 2

20Educationandawareness 2 1 1 2 1 1

21Planningforlandandwateruse 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

21a 1 1 1 1 1 1 121b 1 1 1 1 1 121c 1 1 1 1 1 1

22Stateandcommercialneighbours 2 1 2 2 1 2 2

23Participationofindigenouspeoples 3 2 1 1 3 3

24Localcommunities+management 1 2 3 2 2 2

24a 1 1 1 1 1 124b 1 1 1 1 1 1 24c 1 1 1 1 1

25Economicbenefittolocalcomm. 2 1 2 2 1 2 2

26Monitoringandevaluation 2 1 2 1 2 2

27 Visitorfacilities 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

28Commercialtouroperators 1 2 2 1 2

29 Fees 2 3 2 1 1 230 Conditionofvalues 2 3 2 2 2 1 230a 1 1 1 1 1 30b 1 1 1 1 30c 1 1 1 1 1

Totalscore 63 75 64 75 59 57 60