English - Global Environment Facility

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION 

GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3889 

GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PN-X1003 

COUNTRY(IES): Panama 

PROJECT TITLE: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation 

through low-impact ecotourism in the SINAP 

GEF AGENCY(IES): IADB 

OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): National Environmental 

Authority (ANAM: Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente), 

Panamanian Tourism Authority (ATP: Autoridad de Turismo 

de Panama) 

GEF FOCAL AREA(s): Biodiversity 

GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAMs: BD-SP1, BD-SP2, BD-SP4, BD-SP5 

NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: n/a 

A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK 

Project Objective: 

CEO Endorsement Template-December-08.doc 1 

Re- Submission Date: February 15, 2011 

INDICATIVE CALENDAR 

Milestones Expected 

Dates 

Work Program (for FSP) March 2009 

CEO 

February 2011 

Endorsement/Approval 

GEF Agency Approval April 2011 

Implementation Start August 2011 

To generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) that 

contributes to biodiversity conservation and sustainability of Protected Areas, in a framework of innovation, entrepreneurial 

integration, and sustainable social development at the local scale. 

Project 

Components 

1. Policies and 

regulatory 

framework for 

biodiversity 

conservation and 

sustainable 

management of 

ecotourism in the 

SINAP. 

Sub-components: 

1.a: Strategies, 

policies and 

regulatory 

framework. 

1.b: PAs financial 

sustainability. 

Investment, 

TA, or 

STA 2 

TA 

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL 

PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project 

THE GEF TRUST FUND 

Expected 

Outcomes 

Establishment of 

an ecotourism 

policy and 

regulatory 

framework, 

reconciling 

Tourism Master 

Plan and 

ANAM`s 

SINAP Plan, 

and contributing 

to biodiversity 

conservation 

and sustainable 

management of 

PAs. 

Expected 

Outputs 

Policy and 

methodology for 

planning and 

management of 

public use of PA`s 

approved by ANAM 

and ATP. 

2 Procedural manuals 

for Public Use Plans 

and granting 

administrating 

concessions, comanagement 

and 

permits approved by 

ANAM and ATP. 

Mid-term Review August 2013 

Project Closing Date August 2015 

GEF 

Financing 1 

Co-Financing 2 Total 

($) % ($) % 

1 

List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively of the total amount for the 

component. 

2 

TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & Technical Analysis. 

($)

2. Planning and 

investments to 

increase quality 

ecotourism 

products in PAs 

conserving 

biodiversity 

TA 

Inv 

est 

me 

nts 

200% increase 

in PA revenues 

generated from 

fees and other 

financial 

mechanisms for 

ecotourism 

activities 

(representing 

30% of SINAPs 

operating 

budget) 

Yearly rate of 

increase of 

visitation to PAs 

improves from 

2.2% to 4.5%. 

All ecotourism 

activities in 

selected PAs 

comply with 

regulations and 

criteria in Public 

Use Plans for 

biodiversity 

conservation. 


60 staff from ANAM 

and ATP trained on 

application of new 

public use planning 

tools. 

5 sets of ecotourism 

related fees revised 

and updated to cover 

operational costs. 

2 financial 

instruments in place 

and monitored. 

7 Public Use Plans 

(PUP) approved by 

ANAM and 4 being 

implemented, 6 

management plans 

updated and approved. 

5 PAs with 

ecotourism facilities 

constructed and in 

operation. 

Ecotourism Impact 

Monitoring System 

(ETIMS) integrated in 

PMEMAP and public 

use plans in 9 Pas. 

Ecotourism unit in 

ANAM-DAPVS in 

place and 

functioning. 

6 PAs have 1 trained 

public use manager 

and 1 assistant. 

Environmental 

management and 

monitoring capacity 

is increased in at least 

10 Municipalities 

around 5 PAs 

513,700 

1,990,600 

20 2,100,000 80 2,613,700 

32 4,185,000 68 6,175,600

3. Strengthening of 

income generation 

potential for local 

stakeholders 

through ecotourism 

in selected PAs. 

TA 5% increase in 

the number of 

local and 

community 

based businesses 

providing 

demand driven, 

quality 

ecotourism 

services in and 

around PAs. 


At least 20 

Organizations and 

operators working in 

PAs trained in 

public use 


ecotourism good 

practices. 

Capacity of existing 

local networks of 

tourism service 

providers to develop 

business 

opportunities around 

5 Pas strengthened. 

5 business plans 

formulated and 

being implemented. 

At least 4 tourism 

concessions and 4 

operating permits 

and 4 comanagement 

agreements granted 

on the basis of 

enhanced 

procedures and 

compliance with 

technicalenvironmental 

criteria. 


education campaign 

on economic 

benefits from PAs 

developed and 

carried out. 

Marketing and 

promotion strategy 

formulated with 

public and private 

sector involvement, 

funded, 

implemented and 

being monitored. 

1.095,700 30 2,600,000 70 3,695,700 

4. Project management 400,000 26 1,115,000 74 1,515,000 

Total Project Costs 

4,000,000 10,000,000 14,000,000 

1 List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively of the total amount for the component.

2 TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & Technical Analysis. 

B. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT 

Name of Co-financier (source) Classification Type Project %* 

Autoridad de Turismo de Panama (ATP) National 

Government 

Marviva – Parque Nacional Isla de Coiba National 

Government /NGO 

Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) / 

Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas 

Protegidas 


FIDECO 


IADB (loan 1912/OC-PN) 

Autoridad Marítima de Panama (AMP)/IADB 

(loan 1724/OC-PN) 

Fondo Manejo del Parque Nacional 

Chagres(TNC) 

IADB-MIF-Marviva: Desarrollo de Alternativas 

Económicas Sostenibles y Estratégicas de 

Conservación en Áreas de Protección Marina del 

Golfo de Chiriquí(MIF grant (ATN/ME-12186- 

PN) 


National 

Government 

National 

Government 

Grant 411,700 4 

Grant 1,700,000 17 

Grant 1,500,000 15 

Grant 1,800,000 18 

Multilateral Loan 2,523,214 25 

Multilateral Loan 300,000 3 

Debt Exchange 

EEUU/Panama 

Grant 865,086 9 

Multilateral/NGO Grant 900,000 9 

Total Co-financing 10,000,000 100.0 

* Percentage of each co-financier‟s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing. 

C. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($) 

Project 

Preparation 

a 

Project 

b 

Total 

c = a + b 

Agency Fee 

For comparison: 

GEF and Cofinancing 

at PIF 

GEF Financing 100,000 4,000,000 4,100,000 400,000 4,500,000 

Co-financing 118,000 10,000,000 10,118,000 8,500,000 

TOTAL 218,000 14,000,000 14,218,000 400,000 13,000,000 

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY(IES), FOCAL AREA(S) AND COUNTRY(IES) 1 n/a

E. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: 

Component 

Estimated 

person weeks 


GEF 

amount ($) 

Cofinancing 

($) 

Project 

total ($) 

Local consultants* 3,489 1,910,400 1,000,000 2,910,400 

International consultants* 158 105,000 450,000 555,000 

Total 3,647 2,015,400 1,450,000 3,465,400 

* Details to be provided in Annex C. 

F. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST 

Cost Items 

Total 

estimated 

person 

weeks 

GEF 

amount 

($) 

Cofinancing 

($) 

Project 

total ($) 

Local consultants* 416 249,600 430,000 679,600 

International consultants* 42 150,000 150,000 

Office facilities, equipment, 

vehicles and 

communications* 

15,400 215,000 230,400 

Travel* 70,000 180,,000 250,000 

Others** 65,000 140,000 205,000 

Total 458 400,000 1,115,000 1,515,000 

* Details to be provided in Annex C. ** „Others‟ includes funds for the audit required. 

G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? No 

H. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M & E PLAN: 

1. The project has two levels of monitoring: 1) monitoring and evaluation of project progress, 

with the principal objective of tracking and assessing progress in achieving outcomes and 

outputs detailed within the Results Framework and other project documents, and 2) the 

establishment of an Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System (ETIMS), fully linked to 

ANAM`s Protected Area Management Effectiveness Improvement Program or PMEMAP 

(Programa de Mejoramiento de la Efectividad de Manejo de las Areas Protegidas), and 

sustainable beyond the execution of the Project. 

2. Monitoring and evaluation at the project level, including the day-to-day monitoring of project 

activities, will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator based within ANAM (the 

Executing Agency), with support from a Financial Specialist assigned for this operation within 

ANAM. The Project Coordinator will liaise with ANAM‟s upper-level management, the Panama 

Tourism Authority (Autoridad de Turismo de Panama – ATP formerly IPAT), and the Bank to 

ensure adequate communication and smooth coordination throughout the execution of the 

project. The total estimated cost for Project progress monitoring and evaluation is US$120,000.

3. For the design and operation of an Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System (ETIMS), during 

the first six months of the project, the Ecotourism Specialist will assist the biodiversity personnel 

at ANAM to develop a locally appropriate, adaptive, integrated and cost-effective data 

management system, building on existing scientific and socioeconomic monitoring initiatives 

and information. Resources for this activity have been incorporated in Component 2 with a view 

to later integrating this program`s monitoring system into the PMEMAP and applying it to the 

entire SINAP. The ETIMS is intended to expand the data already being collected for PMEMAP, 

providing more specific information on the following aspects of ecotourism and biodiversity in 

PAs: (i) an ecological dimension, with a view to assessing the impacts of tourism visitation 

(including specific activities such as hiking, rafting, diving) on ecosystem health through the 

analysis of trends in biological and threat reduction indicators compared against established 

baselines in line-transects or quadrants around visited sites such as trails and overlooks. The 

monitoring approach which is fully described in the Biodiversity Report and summarized in the 

Monitoring and Evaluation Annex calls for the use of biological and threat reduction indicators 

for the following: (a) vegetation (% cover, degree of fragmentation, species/community 

diversity/abundance, presence of threatened and/or endangered species); (b) avifauna 

(resident/migratory populations, species diversity/abundance, nesting concentrations, threatened 

and/or endangered species, critical habitats); (c) mammals (presence/absence of primates, 

predators, carnivores etc…; relative abundance, threatened and/or endangered species, critical 

habitats); (d) freshwater biota (index of biological integrity); (e) coral reefs (live coral cover, 

species diversity and abundance, coral condition including mortality, disease and bleaching); (f) 

marine turtles (species diversity, nesting populations). Biophysical indicators (water quality, soil 

stability and erosion, and solid waste) will also be monitored at and in the vicinity of ecotourism 

sites. Threat reduction indicators will be monitored in each PA on the basis of the specific and 

predominant threats identified (see Annex E), including forest fires, invasive species, illegal 

settlements, illegal logging and other illegal activities etc… Protocols have been recommended 

for each indicator to assess the impact of ecotourism activities on ecosystem condition and 

diversity; (ii) a socioeconomic dimension, with a view to assessing the impact of ecotourism 

visitation on social, cultural and economic context of local communities, as well as local and 

national stakeholders; (iii) an ecotourism management dimension, assessing both demand 

characteristics (visitor demographics and profile, preferences, satisfaction, expenditure patterns 

as well as visitation flows) and supply (facilities, quantity and quality of services offered); and 

(iv) a PA management dimension, including both the application of the GEF Tracking Tools to 

assess implementation effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of PAs management, and the 

linkage of the ETIMS to PMEMAP. The total estimated cost for the development and 

implementation of the program`s monitoring system for the 9 protected areas (Project 

Component 2) is expected to reach US$195,500. 

4. The ETIMS will provide the information for the impact evaluation plan required by the IDB for 

all its projects. The proposal is to use a reflexive methodology relying on the management 

effectiveness monitoring and evaluation tool generated by PMEMAP (expanded to include the 

ecotourism management data) to be applied individually to the 9 protected areas included as 

priorities for the project. PMEMAP is based on an internationally recognized methodology that 

is used for all protected areas that receive GEF financing and enables a comparison of 

CEO Endorsement Template-December-08.doc 6

management effectiveness within national systems and across systems. 3 A preliminary baseline 

of the management effectiveness index exists. A new baseline will be collected in the first year 

of the project using the „expanded‟ PMEMAP methodology. It will involve surveys of protected 

area experts, management staff and stakeholders as well as on-site visitor and ecotourism 

operators. The ex-post impact evaluation will be carried out via follow-up surveys in the year in 

which the project is completely executed (end of Year 4). These follow-up surveys will make it 

possible to compare the PMEMAP index before and after the implementation of the project. 

Costs of the surveys and data analysis have been incorporated in Component 2. 

Internal Evaluations and Reporting 

5. The Project Coordinator will produce the following annual reports to monitor and evaluate 

general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in the Results Framework 

prepared for the Program: (i) a proposed Annual Work Plan (AWP) at the beginning of each year 

of project execution based on progress achieved to date, and it will define activities and expected 

results for the forthcoming year. A series of milestone deliverables will also be identified to 

enable continuous monitoring of the project‟s implementation throughout the year; (ii) a Mid- 

Year Progress Report half-way through each year, which will summarize progress made against 

the content of the Annual Work Plan, and will focus on short-term results and challenges related 

to the execution of the AWP; (iii) an Annual Project Report at the end of each project year, 

which will concentrate on project performance towards achieving the project objective and 

outcomes; project performance in relation to component progress and the fulfillment of 

indicators and outputs; the identification of problems, risks and corrective measures; expenditure 

reporting and the presentation of an updated procurement plan; and recommendations for 

project/component adjustments based on lessons learned (adaptive management); and, (iv) a 

GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) at the end of September of each year, in 

collaboration with the Bank and to be submitted by the IDB to the GEFSEC. The PIR will 

include ratings for the project on overall development objectives and implementation progress, 

as well as risk ratings. Moreover it will comprise the project´s contribution to the Biodiversity 

Focal Area strategic objectives and targets. Within the first 6 months of the project, the Project 

Coordinator will also be responsible for consolidating all baseline information required for the 

indicators identified in the Results Framework. 

6. During the last three months of the project, the Project Coordinator will lead a Comprehensive 

Participatory Evaluation (CPE) with key stakeholders to examine the results, outcomes, and 

processes of the project, as well as to assess the institutional collaborative arrangements and 

progress in mainstreaming biodiversity into the ecotourism sector (including the final application 

of the GEF Tracking Tools during the project‟s executing period). 

7. The Bank will conduct at least one supervision visit per year to Panama and generate the Project 

Monitoring Report (PMR), which is the Bank‟s main tool for day-to-day monitoring of projects 

and for tracking the project‟s progress toward achieving the results indicated in the Results 

Framework. 

3 See Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (Second edition), World Wildlife Fund and World Bank. July 2007. 


Independent Evaluations and Reporting 

8. Following each project year, an independent audit of the Project will be conducted by a national 

external auditor approved by the Bank. The Audit Report will be contracted by the Executing 

Agency, financed by the project, conducted in accordance with Bank requirements and submitted 

directly to the Bank. The Project Coordinator and other specialists will support the auditors as 

needed. 

9. A mid-term and final evaluation of the Project will be carried out by (an) independent 

consultant(s) hired and financed through resources from the GEF (ägency fees¨) received for 

this Project. 

10. The Mid-term Evaluation, carried out when 50% of the GEF resources have been disbursed or 

24 months after the project contract goes into effect, will address such matters as: (1) an 

assessment of general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in the 

Results Framework; (2) a critical assessment of project administration, coordination and 

execution; (3) the effectiveness of project and individual component design including progress in 

inter-institutional coordination, development of a coherent regulatory framework, advances 

towards the long-term financial sustainability of the PAs and implementation of the Ecotourism 

Impact Monitoring System (ETIMS); and (4) local perception (community, private sector and 

other stakeholders) of ecotourism development and community involvement. To ensure that the 

findings of the Mid-term Evaluation are incorporated into future annual operating plans, the 

Project Coordinator will organize a workshop to discuss the evaluation with relevant 

stakeholders and reach clear agreements on adjustments in roles and responsibilities in the event 

that changes are recommended. The Final Evaluation will assess the project‟s contribution to 

achieving global environmental benefits as identified in the project documentation using the 

results from the ETIMS and will make recommendations to on how to further promote 

mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in the SINAP, based on project 

results. The mid-term and final evaluations will be carried out using resources from the fee 

granted to the project by GEF for supervision purposes. 

11. Evaluations will assess the project‟s relevance (to international, national, and local conservation 

priorities), effectiveness (achievement of outcomes), efficiency (cost-effectiveness), results (in 

accord with results framework and other project documents), and sustainability (potential to 

deliver environmental, social, financial, and institutional benefits over time). 

12. As per the new GEF M&E policy, the IDB Team Leader will ensure that the Operational Focal 

Point is fully informed and receives all project documentation including project and program 

implementation reports, mid-term reviews and final evaluations. 

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 

A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO ADDRESS IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED: 

The Role of Ecotourism in Panama´s Protected Area System 

1. With a territory extending 75,517 km 2 , Panama is considered one of the countries with the 

highest biodiversity of the Central American region, performing an important function of natural 

connectivity between North America and South America. Over 1,300 endemic species have 


een identified among plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and fresh water fish 4 . In 

recognition of this significant biodiversity, the Government of Panama has established the 

National System of Protected Areas (SINAP: Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas). The 

system‟s objective is to protect and maintain biological diversity in terrestrial, coastal, marine 

and other ecosystems, and to promote recreation, education, and natural resources research. 

Under the authority of the Panama National Environment Authority (ANAM), the SINAP has 

been expanded and strengthened over the last decade and many of the existing protected areas 

have achieved international recognition as World Heritage Sites, RAMSAR sites and Biosphere 

Reserves. At present, the system includes 89 protected areas (PAs) covering a total area of 

approximately 2,922,648.72 ha, which represents 34% of the national territory. Only 19 (21%) 

of the PAs in the system currently have their management plans and most are still in need of 

developing and implementing strategic planning, operating and financing plans and monitoring 

and supervision plans. In most of these PAs, ANAM is implementing an innovative monitoring 

program of management effectiveness (“Programa de Monitoreo de la Efectividad del Manejo 

de las Areas Protegidas de Panama – PMEMAP”), which is applied on a annual basis in each 

PA with the participation of local communities and stakeholders. 

2. This significant biodiversity and a unique ethnic-cultural base are two of the country‟s greatest 

assets that have helped propel the tourism sector to the forefront of the country`s competitiveness 

efforts. At present, tourism is a driving force in Panama´s economy, with an average 10% annual 

increase registered from 2004-2008. A total of 1,573,070 persons visited Panama in 2008 of 

which 80% were tourists 5 . Past inventories (IPAT/OEA, 1993) have concluded that about 72% of 

the country‟s attractions were within the SINAP at that time. Yet only about 3% of total visitors 

reportedly visited a protected area in Panama between 2004-2009 (compared to 54% in Costa 

Rica, 2006), resulting in significant financial challenges for the SINAP as most of the resources 

for management come from entrance fees, which have amounted to no more than $300,000/year 

according to ANAM´s statistics and a diagnostic conducted during project preparation. 

Challenges 

3. The main issue to be addressed by this project is the limited sustainable use of the high 

biodiversity of Panama‟s PA system, associated mainly with low levels of visitation and limited 

ecotourism services both within the PAs and in surrounding areas. As one of the consequences, 

the PAs in SINAP are exposed to a multitude of threats such as deforestation through illegal 

logging that assign a low value to biodiversity. This situation can be traced to three main root 

causes identified during project preparation, which represent obstacles standing in the way of 

mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas: 

a. Lack of a sound and consistent ecotourism policy and institutional framework for the 

SINAP, including: (i) failure of national sector policies and plans to mainstream the objective 

of sustainable use of biodiversity conservation in the SINAP, shortcomings in terms of 

regulations for public use and the provision of quality, demand-driven ecotourism services in 

PAs (i.e., concessions), as well as norms and procedures for and the availability of public 

use plans for PAs with a high ecotourism potential; (ii) limited coordination between the two 

key sector agencies (ANAM and the Panama Tourism Authority – ATP) and partnerships 

4 ANAM 2007. Estado del Conocimiento y Conservación de la Biodiversidad y de las Especies de Vertebrados de Panamá. 

5 Informe Económico 2008 del Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas de Panamá. 


established between public, private and community-based agencies and organizations; and, 

(iii) lack of innovative financial and legal instruments to enhance financial sustainability of 

the PA system, in particular, for PAs that have a clear competitive advantage in terms of 

visitation and public use. Overall, the projected income from PA visitation fees, concessions 

and other activities represented only 15% of the total projected budget for the SINAP in 

2010. In the case of Parque Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos, one of the most popular sites 

in the system, entrance fees generate approximately US$28,000 yearly while the PA‟s 

business plan estimates that potential annual revenues from ecotourism could reach 

US$250,000. 

b. Limited operational management of ecotourism and associated environmental impacts. 

While some PAs have management plans and research is undertaken on a regular basis, there 

is limited on-site operational capacity to address the findings of the research studies or to 

implement the recommendations of the plans related to ecotourism management. While 

carrying capacity studies have been done for a few of the PAs (e.g., Parque Internacional La 

Amistad, Parque Nacional Volcan Baru), the annual monitoring required to assess 

compliance with carrying capacity limits has not been feasible due to institutional 

weaknesses and other limitations. Contributing to this situation is the significantly low levels 

of investments in ecotourism public facilities and services, equipment, staffing, and 

management systems, which are only in part due to a low level of visitation in a context of 

incipient integration of ecotourism in the promotion of Panama`s touristic assets and 

products. For example, while the management plan for the Parque Internacional La Amistad 

calls for at least 17 officials to manage the protected area, there is only 9 staff working for 

this 256,195 ha site. Coiba National Park is running on a budget deficit of approximately 

US$9 million in five years. As of January 2010, the nine protected areas selected as priority 

sites for this operation had 104 park rangers, providing an average of one park ranger per 

11,000 hectares. 

c. Lack of entrepreneurial capacity of nearby community organizations for offering a 

quality product and the absence of opportunities for participation of local stakeholders in 

tourism services, management of the PAs and conserving biodiversity. For example, only 

five of the nine PAs selected as priority sites for this project have some type of business 

plans and most lack the capacity and resources to implement the plans. Moreover, existing 

concessions or other co-management financing options of the five PAs have focused on the 

installation and operation of telecommunications facilities, not on ecotourism-related 

services. In general, ecotourism tour packages are offered by tourism agencies in Panama 

City, without close coordination with the management personnel of the Parks. This results in 

potential conflicts between tour operators and park personnel over access to and visitation 

limits for fragile sites, as well as missed opportunities to promote activities that are more 

sustainable for the PA. In Parque Nacional Chagres, for example, most tourists are not being 

informed about potential visits to indigenous villages in the area. 

4. In general, the limited coordination and few partnerships established between public institutions, 

private sector and community-based organizations have translated into: (i) limited integration of 

the PAs in the national strategy for tourism promotion; and (ii) limited offer by either the 

surrounding communities or the private sector of quality, demand-driven ecotourism services 

associated with the PAs. The inventory of ecotourism services and associated facilities 

completed during project preparation show that although all selected PAs have walking trails (33 


trails, 103Km), only two PAs have a visitor center building, seven have sanitation facilities, and 

4 have access to potable water. Moreover, only the Altos de Campana Park (PNAC) has trail 

guides onsite. In terms of food and lodging services, less than 6 PAs offer these services. 

Project approach 

5. The project objective is to generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the 

National Protected Areas System (SINAP) that contributes to biodiversity conservation and 

sustainability of protected areas, in a framework of innovation, entrepreneurial integration, and 

sustainable social development. 

6. The project takes a two-pronged approach aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation 

through ecotourism in protected areas both at the national and local scale. At the national level, 

the project will contribute to developing a model for sustainable ecotourism development in the 

SINAP through activities which will: (i) strengthen national-level strategies and norms for 

promoting ecotourism in accordance with the objectives of the SINAP; (ii) improve SINAP´s 

financial sustainability; (iii) create an enabling environment for private and public investment 

that foster replication of similar activities in PAs of considerable socio-economic and ecological 

importance; and (iv) enhance sectorial institutional collaboration and coordination, particularly 

between the environmental agency (ANAM) and the tourism authority (ATP). At the local level, 

the project will finance activities that correspond closely to the particular context encountered in 

nine PAs selected as priority destinations, and it will promote and strengthen community 

participation in the development and implementation of the project. 

7. The selection of the nine PAs that will pilot the Program was based on a set of specific technical 

criteria jointly agreed to by ANAM and ATP, including: (i) biodiversity value; (ii) conservation 

status; (iii) presence of endangered species; and (iv) status of management plans. Furthermore, 

for the selection was also important the presence of biodiversity of global significance and thus 

international criteria were considered (i.e. RAMSAR, Biosphere Reserve and WWF Global 200). 

Priority was given to those sites which register most endangered species (UICN Red List). The 

presence of endemic species was also considered. These criteria were cross referenced with the 

current and potential ecotourism demand statistics, as well as with the close proximity of each 

area to the official tourism destinations included in the Master Tourism Plan for Panama (2007- 

2020). With regards to social and economic aspects the following was taken into account: (i) the 

potential to replicate lessons-learned from those protected areas with representative social and 

environmental conditions within the SINAP; (ii) the level of community participation and the 

capacity of their organizations; (iii) the potential to link this initiative with other projects and (iv) 

the availability of baseline data. The nine selected areas are: Parque Nacional Marino Isla 

Bastimentos (PNMIB), Parque Internacional La Amistad (PILA), Parque Nacional Volcan Baru 

(PNVB), Parque Nacional General de Division Omar Torrijos Herrera (PNGDOTH), Parque 

Nacional Darien (PND), Parque Nacional Soberania (PNS), Parque Nacional Chagres (PNCh), 

Parque Nacional Altos de Campana (PNAC), and, Parque Nacional Coiba (PNC) (see Map in 

Annex F). 

8. The terrestrial extension of the nine PAs represents 42.2% of the total of terrestrial PAs within 

SINAP, while the marine parts of PN Coiba in the Pacific and PN Marino Isla Bastimentos in the 

Caribbean represent 49.3% of the total extension of marine protected areas in the SINAP. Taken 

together, these nine PAs account for 60% of the current visitation to the SINAP. Three of the 

selected terrestrial protected areas are among the most important in size in Panama (PN Darién, 

PN La Amistad and PN Chagres). PN Chagres and PN Soberanía are key protected areas of the 


Panamá Canal watershed, and part of a rich cluster of natural, historical and cultural touristic 

attractions linked to the Canal. Baseline biological data analyzed during preparation and 

presented below (Table 1) confirm the importance of the 9 selected Pas for the protection of 

Panamanian biodiversity, including endemism. 

Table 1: Summary of biodiversity baseline in the nine selected PAs of SINAP 

9. In addition to an analysis of biodiversity, a review was also undertaken of the ecotourism 

resources and ecotourism activities (existing and potential) in each PA. In 2009, visitation to the 

9 PAs totaled in the order of 43,000 with the highest levels reported for PN Chagres, PN Coiba, 

PN Bastimentos and PN Soberania (see Table 2). These are extremely low visitation levels when 

compared to countries with similar ecotourism potential such as Costa Rica and Colombia. 

Annex E summarizes the main characteristics of each protected area in terms of ecotourism 

resources and activities as well as potential threats. 


Table 2: Visitation to selected PAs in 2009 

Protected Area Students Foreign National 

Retired and 

youth 

Total 

Soberanía 1,165 2,742 1,540 132 5,579 

Isla Bastimentos 156 5222 2247 47 7,672 

La Amistad 11 179 10 0 200 

Omar Torrijos Herrera 626 190 373 11 1,200 

Volcán Barú 566 1,655 979 75 3,275 

Altos de Campana 1,259 265 761 48 2,333 

Darién ND 15 ND ND 15 

Chagres 701 13,041 424 17 14,183 

Coiba 441 5,919 1,742 43 8,145 

Total 4,925 29,228 8,076 373 42,602 

Fuente: CBMA, ANAM en Hernandez, A. 2010 

10. Panama´s current tourism sector market targets mostly on the upper-level market niche 

(shopping, conventions, business travelers, etc) and is mostly centered on Panamá City, with the 

exception of specific segments such as bird watching and coastal tourism. Based on studies 

undertaken for the Tourism Master Plan and an analysis conducted during the PPG, market 

potential for Panamanian PAs should clearly differentiate: (i) a cluster of PA which offers an

array of natural, historical and cultural attractions linked to the trans-oceanic route (from colonial 

times to modern era) and benefits from the international image of Panama. This “Panama Canal 

cluster” includes PN Soberanía and PN Chagres and has a very high development potential 

given the rapid rise in the cruise ships business and other high-end segments of the market; 

(ii) Marine PAs such as PN Isla de Bastimentos and PN Coiba, which are experiencing a rapid 

rise in visitation, but are not linked to the mainstream flow of visitors around Panama City; 

(iii) Areas which are part of various bird watching circuits offered by national and international 

tour operators, such as PN Altos de Campana or PN General de Division Omar Torrijos; and 

two large PAs in the extreme East and West of the Country, of more remote access and low 

visitation levels (PN Pila connected to Costa Rican PAs and PN Darien on the border with 

Colombia). 

11. The selected nine PAs were also analyzed in terms of their current management effectiveness 

(see Table 3 below). In summary, overall scores ranged from 45% 6 (PN Bastimentos, Altos de 

Campana, Darien) to 67% (Coiba). The PAs generally received above average scores for 

planning and the lowest scores for outputs and outcomes. 


Table 3 : List of Selected Protected Areas 

Score 

Summary PNMIB PILA PNAC PNCH PNC PND PNS PNVB PNGDOTH 

Context 53 58 58 61 77 61 65 58 54 

Planning 64 71 71 79 71 78 79 64 64 

Inputs 57 57 50 71 50 43 71 50 43 

Process 52 56 44 52 68 44 52 48 60 

Outputs 27 36 27 30 64 27 39 33 52 

Outcomes 37 59 41 52 67 37 55 52 59 

Final Score 

% 45 54 45 53 67 45 57 49 52 

PNMIB: Isla Bastimentos Marine National Park PNC: Coiba National Park 

PILA: La Amistad International Park PND: Darien National Park 

Altos de Campanas National 

Soberania National 

PNC: Park 

Chagres National 

PNS: Park 

PNCH: Park PNVB: Baru Volcano National Park 

PNGDOTH: General Division Omar Torrijos Herrera National Park 

12. The project has been structured into three components. The first component addresses the 

critical gaps and limitations in the institutional and regulatory framework and existing interinstitutional 

coordination and capacities. It also addresses the challenge of increasing sustainable 

financing for SINAP, by promoting the design and establishment of alternative sources of 

financing for development, management and promotion of ecotourism, as these sources also 

depend on policies and regulatory frameworks to operate. The second component will improve 

the quality of planning, operational management and monitoring of the nine PAs selected as 

priorities for ecotourism development. The third component will focus on fostering private 

sector and community participation and the generation of tangible local benefits from ecotourism 

6 Percentage is calculated as total score of PA over an adjusted maximum score of 139.

and alternative sources of income generation in PAs, while promoting the adoption of good 

practices and sound management systems. A description of the activities included in each 

component follows: 

13. Component 1: Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation and 

sustainable management of ecotourism in the SINAP. This component is divided into two 

subcomponents: 

14. The first subcomponent seeks to establish a national strategy shared by ANAM and ATP for the 

development of low-impact ecotourism that enhances the biodiversity values in and around 

SINAP. With the resources allocated to this subcomponent, technical assistance and training will 

be provided for the following activities: (i) the formulation of a national policy for ecotourism 

that reconciles the priorities of the SINAP, including those of the new Strategic Plan 2010-2014, 

and the relevant programs of the National Tourism Master Plan -particularly with respect to 

product development, tourism destination planning, development control and marketing. This 

will be accompanied by the creation of a national-level coordination mechanism (National 

Ecotourism Coordination Committee) with representation from the institutions playing a role in 

the planning, development and management of ecotourism resources (ANAM, ATP, ARAP, 

INAC and ACP). This coordination mechanism, to be created during year 2 of the project, will 

be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the policy, establishing targets for SINAP 

and the ecotourism segment in general, and evaluating performance of SINAP; (ii) elaboration 

and official endorsement of guidelines and a procedural manual for the formulation and 

monitoring of public use plans, including the identification of a nation-wide set of performance 

indicators for ecotourism (i.e., compliance with acceptable levels of change, visitor satisfaction, 

environmental and social impacts, financial sustainability); (iii) definition and validation of a set 

of policies and technical, social and environmental criteria for tourism concessions, comanagement 

agreements and tourism operation permits. This would encompass a diagnostic of 

needs of the SINAP and the potential offer from private sector and local communities; 

(iv) elaboration of a procedural manual for granting and administrating concessions, comanagement 

agreements and permits, including the crafting of administrative procedures to 

streamline the concessions and co-management approval process through a single window 

facility; and (v) training courses and knowledge-building sessions, both at the regional and 

national levels, to improve the technical capacity of at least 60 of ANAM´s DAPVS staff, as well 

as ATP in public use planning, monitoring and financial administration. 

15. The second subcomponent complements the reforms described above by focusing on ecotourism 

as a mean to increase revenues for PA management; and secondly on broadening the array of 

sustainable financing options for the SINAP. Technical assistance will be provided for: (i) the 

definition of a clear ecotourism-based financial sustainability strategy for PAs, using the 

recommendations of various recent studies including the 2009 study undertaken for Coiba which 

recommended six financing mechanisms for that PA (trust fund, co-management, improvements 

in entrance fees and fees for services, fishing licenses, concessions, improvements in fines). This 

will entail the development of a proposal for the revision of the existing entrance fee and feesfor-services 

structure as well as the fees for concessions and operations permits (to be 

accompanied by a financial analysis of alternatives), consultations with stakeholders in the 

tourism sector, and the selection and official endorsement of an improved fee structure; and 

(ii) the definition of alternative financial mechanisms (e.g., cruise ship or airport entry fees, 


payments for environmental services) to support biodiversity conservation through collaborative 

agreements between public and private sector institutions. 

16. Component 2: Planning, operational management and monitoring of ecotourism in PAs. 

This component is aimed at enhancing planning and the quality of ecotourism products in 

selected PAs leading to an increase in quantitative and qualitative indicators of visitation, while 

at the same time improving capacities to monitor the effects of these products on the biodiversity 

of the PAs. The following activities will be financed: (i) conduct studies to define carrying 

capacity 7 , flow management and visitor monitoring for each of the 9 selected PAs. This will 

encompass the design and demonstration of visitor survey methodologies to collect key data on 

ecotourism use (e.g., visitor characteristics, expenditure patterns, willingness-to-pay) as a basis 

for setting fee structures that could be replicated to the entire SINAP. Once the survey 

instruments are designed, data will be collected in Year 1 to establish a baseline and each year 

subsequently; (ii) develop, approve and implement at least seven management and public use 

plans to identify and set objectives for ecotourism attractions, services and visitor use 

management in line with the each area´s conservation mandate and biodiversity values. This will 

entail analyses of the visitor baseline data collected in Year 1, the development of detailed public 

use zoning maps and norms, holding focus group sessions with key stakeholders (hotels, tour 

operators and guides, community representatives, research institutions), reaching consensus and 

approving the plans and promoting their dissemination. The plans will integrate adaptation 

strategies to respond to the impacts of climate change (e.g., coral bleaching, sea level rise, 

increase in storm surges, saltwater intrusion) in coastal, marine and terrestrial areas; (iii) identify 

a public investment portfolio for PAs jointly defined by ANAM and ATP, which will add value 

and attractiveness to ecotourism products (e.g., trails, observation towers, camping sites). Once 

defined and approved by the Bank, the portfolio will be financed by the Program; (iv) adaptation 

and expansion of the existing PMEMAP in the nine selected PAs to include cost-effective 

monitoring of biological and threat reduction indicators associated to the impacts of ecotourism 

on biodiversity (as designed in the ETIMS). The monitoring initiative will be undertaken in 

partnership with national universities and international research institutions with existing 

biological monitoring programs in Panama. It will also involve local businesses and communities 

with a presence in the PAs for the data collection activities after having received the appropriate 

training (see below); (v) training of PA on-site personnel to enhance their capacity to implement 

and enforce public use plans, maintain ecotourism facilities, work with local ecotourism service 

providers (i.e., guides) as well as to promote visitor appreciation and understanding of the 

biodiversity values of the PAs. 

17. Component 3: Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through 

ecotourism in selected PAs: This component encompasses the creation of conditions, which 

allow local key stakeholders in selected PA´s to obtain concrete economic benefits as a result of 

planned and organized management of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural and cultural 

resources within PA´s and their buffer zones. Activities to be financed include: (i) training of a 

minimum of 20 local organizations and operators in various aspects related to demand-driven, 

high-quality ecotourism services and products (e.g., integrating best practices, business 

management, certification and other types of environmental standards). The training and 

7 To support the definition of Public Use Plans, the project will either use carrying capacity-base or Limits of Acceptable 

Change (LAC) based methodologies. 


technical assistance includes dissemination of innovative technologies for ecotourism promotion 

in target markets, .enhancing energy-efficiency in tourism services, visitor safety, and private 

sector and community participation in biodiversity monitoring; (ii) capacity building of existing 

local networks of service providers and development of ecotourism business opportunities. In the 

case of the PAs where indigenous communities are present (e.g., La Amistad, Chagres, Darien), 

capacity building will be preceded by a socio-cultural process of familiarization or 

„rapprochement‟ with the communities to assess their interest in providing ecotourism services 

that are compatible with the principles of development with identity, their needs, expectations 

and concerns; (iii) elaboration of a minimum of 5 individual PAs business plans linking each PA 

to potential services providers, and the articulation of those plans within a broader strategic 

sustainable financing plan for all selected 9 PAs; (iv) development and implementation of 

environmental education campaigns aimed at key local and national stakeholders (public and 

private) and focusing on the economic value of PAs and the benefits of their sound management 

and use; (v) support to ATP and ANAM to undertake market studies, promotion strategies, and 

marketing campaigns to position the 9 pilot PAs and their service networks in the national and 

international ecotourism markets, including tools, participation in trade shows, printed and 

audiovisual material etc; (vi) issuing at least 4 concessions, 4 operating permits and 4 comanagement 

agreements under a streamlined and cost-efficient system, and; (vii) consolidation 

of at least 2 productive value chains connecting tourists, national tour operators and local service 

providers for two PAs with the greatest competitive advantage to ensure that communities and 

small businesses have better access to markets. 

EXPECTED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED 

18. The project contributes to advance the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the CBD (in 

particular the goals of program elements 1, 2 and 4), the Plan of Implementation of the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development (in particular section IV), the World Ecotourism Summit 

2002 and its Quebec Declaration, and the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism as adopted by the 

UN World Tourism Organization, in order to increase the benefits from tourism resources for 

local communities while mainstreaming the cultural and environmental integrity of those 

communities and enhancing the protection of ecologically sensitive areas and natural heritage. 

19. This project contributes to the generation of global environmental benefits through: 

a. Improved overall management effectiveness and financial sustainability of a network of 

protected areas totalling an extension of 1,264,534 ha of terrestrial PAs (42.2% of the 

national system‟s total) and 213,253 ha of protected marine PAs (49.3% of the national 

system‟s total), including three areas of international recognition (Darien National Park and 

International Park “La Amistad”, which are declared Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO 

World Heritage Sites, while the Coiba Marine National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage 

Site). All nine PAs selected as priorities are also classified as Important Bird Areas (IBA) of 

Panama for their global relevance in providing habitat for the conservation of bird 

populations, including globally threatened and restricted range species. 

b. Contribution to the protection of habitats for globally threatened species, including several 

endangered or vulnerable (as defined by the IUCN Red List) frogs (e.g., Atelopus certus, A. 

glyphus, A. zeteki), marines turtles (e.g., Eretmochelys imbricata, Demochelys coriacea), 

birds (e.g., Ara ambigua) and mammals (e.g., Tapirus bairdii). Moreover, the network of 

nine pilot PAs presents a high level of biodiversity and endemism, such as is the case with 


the International Park “La Amistad”, which alone has 84 species of mammals (of which 24 

are protected by the Panamanian Wildlife Law and 2 are bi-national endemic species), 285 

species of birds (29 bi-national endemic and 23 migratory), 32 species of amphibians (of 

which 23 are endemic) and 25 species of reptiles (of which 9 are endemic). In the Coiba 

National Marine Park, 224 species of vertebrates (of which 7 are amphibians) have been 

recorded. The reptiles are represented by two species of crocodiles, six species of turtles (4 

marine and 2 fresh water turtles), nine species of saurians and 15 species of snakes. Detailed 

studies of birds revealed 147 species of which 121 are resident and 37 migratory. Also 

present are 41 species of land mammals, 7 species of sea mammals and 814 species of 

saltwater fish. 

c. Demonstration of international best practices for the promotion, public use planning, 

monitoring and evaluation of ecotourism resources and services that: (i) enhance the 

economic value of, the biodiversity mentioned above; (ii) accrue local economic 

development benefits; and, (iii) include benefits to indigenous communities (such as the 

Ngöbe-Buglé, Naso y Bribri in La Amistad International Park). Innovative partnerships will 

be created between international research institutions, local universities and public entities 

such as ANAM and ATP to ensure that the results of scientific biodiversity research and 

monitoring conducted in SINAP are fed back into the design of ecotourism and 

environmental education services. The best practices for mainstreaming biodiversity 

conservation in ecotourism services will be replicable throughout the SINAP and 

internationally. 

d. Ensuring that PAs which are part of wider binational or regional conservation initiatives (La 

Amistad between Panama and Costa Rica, and Coiba island as part of the Eastern Pacific 

Marine Biological Corridor) benefit from best practices in the field of ecotourism 

management and monitoring and improved overall management. 

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL AND/OR 

REGIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS 

1. The proposed Project is officially included as one of the measures that will be implemented 

during the current 5-year administration, as presented in the Government Strategic Plan 2010- 

2014(pg. 125). The 5-year Plan consists of an Economic and Social Strategy, a Financial 

Program and an Indicative Public Investment Plan. The Plan recognizes that the natural richness 

of Panama is exceptional, that its ecosystems provide key environmental services for the Country 

that provide unique opportunities for creating high economic revenue in key sectors of the 

Panamanian economy, such as tourism. As such, the proposed Project contributes directly to 

strengthening environmental management in Panama as called for in this Plan. For instance, the 

proposed project will result in national reforms for the regulation and administration of 

ecotourism services in PAs. The project will also lead to a formalization of the cooperation 

between ANAM and the Tourism Authority (ATP) thereby contributing to mainstreaming 

environmental management and biodiversity conservation in tourism planning, development and 

monitoring. 

2. ANAM has updated the National Environmental Strategy or ENA (Estrategia Nacional del 

Ambiente) with the objective of providing both a short- and long-term vision for Sustainable 

Development within the period of 2008-2012. The ENA, officially published under the title 


“National Environmental Strategy: Environmental Management for Sustainable Development 

2008-2012”, has four strategic guidelines that include: (i) Strengthen ANAM´s regulatory 

functions in the environmental arena; (ii) Promote the development of an environmental culture; 

(iii) Work in close collaboration with the State, the private sector, and civil society for the 

promotion of the competitive advantages of Panama in environmental matters; (iv) Protect, 

recuperate, restore, and improve the ecosystems in order to contribute to the creation of 

employment opportunities, population well being, and sustainable development. The Project 

contributes directly to Strategic Guideline 4, Strategic Objective Nine: Conservation and 

Sustainable Use of Protected Areas. 

3. A SINAP National Plan 2010-2014 is currently under preparation by ANAM. This plan is based 

on the principles of the National Biodiversity Policy that will set the bases for the definition of a 

mission, vision, and objectives of the SINAP, as strategic premises of these statements. The 

proposed project is expected to be highly consistent with the system plan under preparation, 

particularly the new focus given to participation in management schemes with the private sector 

and civil society based on social responsibility and the opportunities to create alliances that will 

solidify ANAM‟s initiatives in the SINAP. 

4. The National Biodiversity Policy (approved in December 2008) and its Strategic Plan call for 

action in five areas: (i) scientific and technical knowledge of the biodiversity; (ii) priority 

conservation of biodiversity; (iii) selective, sustainable, and rational use of biodiversity; (iv) 

citizen participation in the attack to poverty and the improvement of the quality of life, and (v) 

contribution to Country competitiveness. The proposed project is consistent with all five areas of 

actions. 

5. The proposed project is consistent with the priorities and plans of tourism development in 

Panama, promoted by the Panama Tourism Authority. For instance, the project contributes to 

the specific objectives, strategic lines and programs contained in the Panama Sustainable 

Tourism Master Plan 2007-2020 in that it fosters programs identified in the Tourism Master 

Plan, such as the Sustainable Development of Sustainable Tourism in the SINAP. Specifically, 

the project is aligned with the subprogram calling for improved management of sustainable 

tourism in the SINAP, an initiative that has been identified as a high priority for ATP. This plan 

also determined priority tourism destinations which were taken into consideration in the selection 

of the project´s 9 pilot PAs. The plan emphasizes specific comparative advantages for increasing 

the participation of Panama in ecotourism, including the SINAP. It also identifies several 

bottlenecks for competitiveness in the tourism sector, among them, that “Panama‟s brand” in not 

highly visible to outsiders and that the promotion directed to visitors is inefficient and has no 

targeted market. The proposed project is consistent with the priorities identified for the tourism 

sector in that it addresses these bottlenecks, as in the area of promotion and development of 

demand-driven quality ecotourism services based on unique „products‟ (the biodiversity of the 

selected PAs) that are differentiated from the competition. 

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES 

AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS: 

1. This project is consistent with the Strategic Programs aimed at: (1) enhancing sustainable 

financing mechanisms of PA systems at the national level (SP-1); (2) increasing representation 

of effectively managed marine PA areas in PA systems (SP-2); (3) strengthening the policy and 


egulatory framework for mainstreaming biodiversity (SP-4); and, (4) fostering markets for 

biodiversity goods and services (SP-5). The project will place particular emphasis on 

establishing a national ecotourism strategy that is shared by both environmental and 

tourism public agencies of the country, and will enable a policy and regulatory frameworks 

to support ecotourism development and PA financial sustainability, together with 

mainstreaming biodiversity conservation. 

2. Contribution to both SP-1 and SP-4 will be achieved mainly through: (i) definition and 

validation of a set of policies and technical, social and environmental criteria related to 

ecotourism management, including, public use planning, co-management, concessions, and 

tourism operation permits; (ii) definition and validation of instruments and mechanisms for 

supporting the financial sustainability of the PAs system, in particular, instruments to support 

biodiversity conservation through collaborative agreements between public and private sector 

institutions; (iii) development and approval of PAs management and public use plans that 

integrate ecotourism aspects and services; and, (iv) development of studies and evaluations that 

support ecotourism adaptive management and enhance biodiversity protection and conservation. 

Contribution to SP-2 will be achieved through improved public use planning, on-site 

management and monitoring of the two most important marine protected areas in the system, 

Coiba Marine National Park, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and Isla Bastimentos 

Marine National Park. Contribution to SP-5 will be achieved through: (i) mainstreaming 

SINAP and biodiversity considerations in national tourism promotion initiatives; (ii) an 

environmental education campaign on the economic benefits of the PAs; (iii) technical assistance 

in the elaboration of individual PAs business plans linking each PA to potential services 

providers, and the articulation of those plans within a broader strategic sustainable financing plan 

for all selected PAs; (iv) training and capacity building for local ecotourism organizations and 

operators in various aspects related to demand driven, high quality ecotourism services and 

products, integrating best practices and business management, including certification and other 

types of environmental standards, protection laws and good practices for biodiversity 

conservation in ecotourism. 

D. JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF FINANCING SUPPORT PROVIDED WITH THE GEF 

RESOURCES. 

1. The financial support provided with the GEF resources will take the form of a grant that will 

serve as a catalyst to significantly improve the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the 

tourism sector in Panama. The grant is needed to finance actions at the national level such as 

regulatory and administrative reforms in the way ecotourism is managed in SINAP and in its 

revenue-generating potential as well as at the local level where measureable results are sought in 

public use planning, on-site management of ecotourism facilities and monitoring. The GEF grant 

financing will strategically complement IDB loan funding and local resources. Although there 

was a potential new loan for tourism included in the IDB pipeline for Panama at the time of 

approval of the PIF, in 2009 the Government of Panama made an adjustment in the list of loan 

investments agreed to with IDB for fiscal reasons. However, the Government also specifically 

requested that the GEF project be maintained in the pipeline and committed to identifying 

alternative sources of co-financing. Co-financing is now currently structured as follows: (a) cofinancing 

resources from ANAM, through funds dedicated to the PA system management 

(FIDECO – see below); (b) co-financing from the Tourism Authority of Panama (ATP) to 

develop a shared promotion strategy and marketing campaign to position the selected PAs, their 


service networks and supply chains in the national and international ecotourism market; (c) funds 

from a debt-for-nature swap with the United States to support management of Chagres National 

Park; and (d) co-financing from three IDB approved projects (Loan PN-L1013, Loan PN-0152 

and Multi-Lateral Investment Fund [MIF] project PN-M1018). The complementarity between 

these projects and the proposed GEF project is explained below. Supporting documentation is 

provided for all sources. 

E. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES: 

1. ANAM and ATP will support and complement the activities funded with the GEF grant through: 

(1) human resources capacity; (2) training and technical assistance; and (3) direct investments. 

ANAM will support the creation of an Ecotourism Unit within the Protected Areas System 

Division (DAPVS), at ANAM, and the required staff needed to support ecotourism management 

in the selected PAs. In addition, ANAM will improve training opportunities for PA staff, in 

particular, the PA-based staff, as well as equip PAs with the minimum infrastructure and 

instruments required for ecotourism management. ATP will strengthen their staff capacity to 

address ecotourism planning and evaluation, in particular, strengthening their ecotourism 

marketing and evaluation capacity. 

2. FIDECO is a trust-fund, created in 1995, with the participation of the Finance Ministry of 

Panama and The Nature Conservancy. The Fund was created to finance natural resources 

conservation and protection, with a special focus on protected areas management. Today, the 

Fund amounts to $25 million dollars and is managed by Fundación Natura of Panama. USAID 

contributes with US$8 million to the Fund, TNC with US$2 million, and the Government of 

Panama with US$15 million. Forty-five percent of FIDECO funds target ANAM`s protected 

areas management capacity; another 45% supporting NGOs executing conservation projects in 

PAs, and the remaining 10% going to management effectiveness monitoring and the Funds 

overall impact. As a complement to this GEF project, the Fund will be used to finance 

equipment, public infrastructure and maintenance in the nine PAs. 

3. The Chagres National Park Debt Swap Fund finances recurrent management programs in the 

Park as well as environmental initiatives implemented by not-for-profit organizations in 

accordance with the Park‟s management plan. The Fund, which will generate $10 million to 

improve management of the Upper Chagres River Basin, provides sustained funding to key PAs 

of the Panama Canal watershed and will be instrumental for exploring deeper coordination 

mechanism with the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) for the sustainable management and 

financing of canal-related PAs. A second debt-for-nature swap, which will generate $11 million 

over 12 years, will help conserve 1.4 million acres (579,000 hectares) of the exceptionally rich 

forests of the Darien National Park, providing a unique opportunity to land bridge North and 

South America, and to ensuring protection of rare species such as the jaguar, harpy eagle, wild 

dog and tapir. As a complement to this proposed GEF project, the Fund will finance communitybased 

tourism initiatives in both national parks. 

4. The ANAM-Marviva “Isla de Coiba National Park” initiative (US$ 5.2 million - 2009-2013) is a 

major marine protected area conservation endeavor in the Pacific Ocean. It aims at strengthening 

the conservation and sustainable use of the main biodiversity components of Coiba National Park 

through activities such as scientific investigation, ecotourism development, environmental 

education, sustainable fisheries. Marviva is a non-profit organization, based in Costa Rica, with 

offices in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia, that specializes in conservation and sustainable use 


of coastal and marine resources. The project in Coiba National Park has three main objectives: 

(1) improve marine conservation and protection by improving the regulatory framework that 

govern and control economic and tourism activities within the Park (e.g., sports fishing guides, 

cetacean observation guides, regulations for boat operators); (2) strengthen capacity of marine 

protected areas` staff, through training and development of best practice guides and manuals to 

support their park management capacity; and, (3) education and information dissemination about 

the Coiba management regulations and the framework in place for responsible use and 

appreciation of marine natural resources. This initiative will complement the proposed GEF 

project through its capacity building activities. 

5. Another initiative being carried forward by Marviva and funded through a grant from the IDB 

Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) (PN-M1018) , will provide significant support to the Coiba 

Marine Protected Area and other marine protected areas in the Chiriqui Gulf. This grant will 

particularly focus on the development of entrepreneurial capacity of local communities to create 

environmentally and economically sustainable alternatives around coastal and marine protected 

areas, including the promotion and development of public use plans, standards and regulations to 

guide ecotourism activities within the PAs (e.g., water sports, recreational fisheries, diving and 

cetacean observation). As such, this Marviva/IDB MIF initiative particularly the surveillance and 

monitoring activities will greatly contribute to the objectives of the GEF project, particularly in 

Coiba. 

6. The IDB-funded project -- “Modernization of Environmental Management for Competitiveness” 

(PN-L1013) is a US$ 12 million loan to modernize the capacity of ANAM and of local 

governments to promptly address the growing environmental management challenges of 

competitiveness. As such, this project complements the goals of this proposed GEF project by: 

(i) enhancing the effectiveness of the environmental management instruments needed to foster a 

business climate that will promote competitiveness (e.g., tourism), help integrate Panama into 

the global market, and make the country's major economic activities and megaprojects 

environmentally sustainable; and (ii) strengthening the capacities of ANAM at the regional level, 

and those of local governments and communities, to carry out their environmental management 

responsibilities and support the government's current policy of decentralizing environmental 

management. In addition, the focus of this operation on upgrading ANAM`s environmental 

systems and standards significantly supports the objective of the GEF project to strengthen the 

regulatory framework and standards for ecotourism management, in the context of global 

tourism competitiveness. 

7. The proposed GEF project will also be complemented with financing from the IDB-funded 

project “Strengthening of the Management Capacity of the Panama Aquatic Resources Authority 

(ARAP) for Integrated Coastal Management” (PN-0152), a US$5 million loan aimed at building 

the environmental management capacity of the Authority, improving revenue-generating 

effectiveness and promoting integrated coastal management at the national, regional and local 

levels. Specifically, the development of four regional integrated coastal management plans and 

pilot projects in coastal management in areas that encompass the 9 targeted PAs will provide a 

coastal and marine spatial planning framework for the public use plans to be financed through 

the GEF project. 

8. In addition to the above co-financing initiatives, the present project complements a number of 

national and international efforts, such as: 


a. The World Bank full size GEF project “Rural Productivity and Consolidation of the Atlantic 

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor” (CBMAP II - US$18.100.000. 2007-2011), supports the 

consolidation of a network of Panamanian PAs, which partly overlaps with the 9 selected 

PAs under the proposed project (Isla Bastimentos Marine National Park, La Amistad 

International Park, Volcán Barú National Park, and the Omar Torrijos Herrera National 

Park). CBMAP II promotes the conservation, use and management of biological diversity of 

Panama, by emphasizing community investments in environmental resources, development 

of co-management policies and operational arrangements. 

b. The UNDP full size GEF project “Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in the operation 

of the tourism and fisheries sectors of Panama‟s archipelagos” approved in 2010 (GEF grant 

US$1,727,066) is aimed at integrating biodiversity conservation into the fisheries, tourism 

and property development sectors that operate in the archipelagos of Panama. Two of the 

archipelagos (Coiba and Bocas del Toro) encompass marine Protected Areas selected for the 

proposed GEF project (Bastimentos and Coiba). The UNDP project is highly 

complementary to the SINAP ecotourism project in that it involves another key agency 

(Aquatic Resources Agency – ARAP) and that it focuses on certification of both tourism and 

fisheries products. 

c. The Project “Red de oportunidades empresariales-propuesta conjunta” initiative 

(US$12.580.466 - 2009-2012), funded by the Spanish Government and implemented by the 

United Nations, aims at contributing to the UN`s Millenium Development Goals through 

supporting start-ups of small local businesses in poverty affected areas, and the consolidation 

of efficient clusters of small-enterprises, including providers of local ecotourism services and 

craftsmen and women. This project is expected to contribute to meeting the targets set under 

component 3 of the GEF project. 

9. ANAM (the DAPVS) will have lead responsibility to coordinate among these related activities as 

most fall under its jurisdiction. Agreed upon coordination mechanisms include (see also below 

under „Coordination‟): (a) a cooperation agreement between ANAM and ATP which must be 

signed as a condition prior to first disbursement; (b) a Steering Committee also to be formally 

established as a condition prior to first disbursement and which is to provide representation of 

the network of institutions involved in the main related initiatives (e.g., ARAP, Marviva); and (c) 

a Project Operating Manual establishing the administrative requirements for managing the GEF 

project including the rules and procedures for the Steering Committee. Finally, a comprehensive 

coordination plan is being prepared by ANAM and ATP and is to be approved by the Steering 

Committee as a condition prior to first disbursement to ensure close coordination between these 

related initiatives. The plan will: (a) establish the formal communication channels and 

responsibilities between executing agencies and corresponding project units; (b) propose 

dissemination mechanisms to ensure timely distribution of information on progress and technical 

areas of common interest; and (c) set a schedule of joint sessions for exchange of experience and 

lessons learned. 


F. DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH 

INCREMENTAL REASONING : 

WITHOUT THE GEF ALTERNATIVE 

1. In the sustainable baseline scenario, the Government of Panama is using its own resources to 

strengthen environmental management of the tourism sector through the implementation of the 

National Tourism Master Plan. The Master Plan includes goals, objectives, strategies and an 

investment plan, all of which recognize the need to ensure that future tourism development is 

environmentally and socially sustainable. However, while the Master Plan identifies ecotourism 

as a target tourism product, it makes limited provisions for mainstreaming biodiversity 

conservation in ecotourism in the SINAP. As a consequence, without GEF involvement, 

ecotourism services derived from the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and its 

scenic value will remain very limited, diminishing the economic value of PAs and their longterm 

viability. In the specific case of the nine prioritized PAs, which account for the bulk of 

visitors today and generate the majority of revenues from entrance fees, concessions and permits, 

there will be limited opportunities for international and national visitors to access the areas and 

enjoy a meaningful experience learning about the biodiversity values of SINAP in both a 

national and international context. As a consequence, the income-generating opportunities 

available to local businesses and communities providing ecotourism services will be diminished. 

2. To exacerbate this situation, the lack of system-wide norms and regulations for ecotourism use in 

Pas will persist, resulting for example, in a lack of technical consistency in public use plans as 

well as the ad-hoc granting of concessions and tourism operation permits. This, in turn, could 

lead to poorly planned ecotourism development in and around popular PAs and the consequent 

negative environmental impacts on critical habitats and species. 

3. The business as usual scenario will also be characterized by: 

a. Ad-hoc institutional coordination between ANAM and ATP (the national Tourism 

Authority), that will translate into poor integration of biodiversity conservation and the goals 

of SINAP in tourism destination planning, development and promotion in target international 

markets. 

b. Absence of a marketing strategy for ecotourism in PAs in Panama in the short term, resulting 

in a continued lack of differentiation of Panama‟s offer in comparison to some of its 

neighbouring competitors, who are better established and more visible on the international 

ecotourism market. 

c. Loss of potential revenues derived from increased demand for ecotourism services, which in 

turn can be re-invested in improving management effectiveness. 

d. Limited or inexistent capacity for monitoring information on ecotourism trends in SINAP, 

including key data needed for planning and effective operations and the consequent inability 

to link biodiversity and socio-economic monitoring.8 

e. Weak linkages between public sector authorities (ANAM and ATP in particular) and 

businesses and community networks interested in the provision of ecotourism services and 

8 Currently, biological monitoring is limited to very few PAs such as PN Chagres, PN Coiba or the Smithonian Institute- 

run Barro Colorado Island reserve. 


the absence of standards for business operations in Pas. This could result in a loss in the 

interest of on the part of stakeholders in supporting the biodiversity conservation objectives 

of SINAP. 

WITH THE GEF ALTERNATIVE 

4. The GEF project will be a catalyst for advancing biodiversity conservation through the 

promotion of ecotourism services across the SINAP, particularly in the nine individual PAs 

selected on the basis of their biodiversity value and competitive potential. GEF funding will be 

instrumental in the following: 

a. Promoting system-wide technical soundness and consistency in public use planning, the 

determination of carrying capacity and the granting of concessions and operations permits in 

PAs. Under the GEF project scenario, measureable gains in terms of the conservation of 

critical habitats and species as well as improvements in the quality and breath of services 

offered to international and national visitors particularly in the nine PAs selected as priorities 

will result. This in turn will increase the level of public appreciation, understanding and 

support for SINAP‟s biodiversity conservation goals. 

b. Coordinated institutional action, particularly on the part of ANAM and ATP, resulting in 

tourism planning, development and promotion that incorporate the unique features of each 

PA, carrying capacity considerations and conservation goals. A permanent Ecotourism 

Coordination Committee will ensure more efficient planning, investment and monitoring, 

including coordinated budgetary allocations. A dedicated ecotourism unit within ANAM 

headquarters and field personnel trained in the management of ecotourism will ensure that 

biodiversity values are protected while also providing the basis for demand-driven quality 

services. SINAP will be fully integrated in national promotion initiatives thus ensuring better 

differentiation of Panama in the international ecotourism market. 

c. Increased revenues from improved tourism assets and services, which can be re-invested in 

enhanced PA operations and which can contribute to the financial sustainability of SINAP. 

At least 5 PAs will also benefit from individual business plans which will include private 

sector participation schemes and define public-private partnerships. GEF funding will allow 

for an effective yearly monitoring of progress made towards attaining increased financial 

sustainability and business development targets identify emerging barriers and propose 

remediation measures. 

d. More efficient and transparent procedures for granting concessions, implementing comanagement 

arrangements, extending tourism operation permits and charging PAs entrance 

fees, will be put in place, resulting in increased “ease of business” for investing and operating 

in the ecotourism sector. This improved enabling environment will allow for the 

strengthening of local networks of trained ecotourism providers linked to national or 

international operators, and progressively lead to the consolidation of more structured and 

efficient ecotourism value chains around at least two PAs. 

e. Accurate monitoring information on ecotourism trends in SINAP will be readily available, 

including key data needed for planning, effective operations and impact evaluation (e.g., data 

on visitation levels, visitor characteristics, activities, expenditure patterns etc). The 

Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System to be piloted through the project will enable PA 

managers to link ecotourism use patterns with biodiversity conditions, enabling them to 

adjust public use plans and meet the standards of an adaptive management approach. 


5. In summary, the incremental reasoning is based on the significant improvements the GEF project 

will bring about in terms of planning and controlling ecotourism services in PAs and monitoring 

their impacts on biodiversity values in key units of the SINAP. Overall, the project will 

contribute to remove or attenuate the main barriers to mainstreaming biodiversity into the 

ecotourism sector. This progress would not be possible under the baseline scenario or would be 

extremely slow. These advances will allow the project to effectively contribute to improved 

conservation of global biodiversity values through improved management effectiveness of PAs 

and increased financial sustainability, while providing increased economic opportunities around 

PAs. 

G. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT 

OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES: 

1. Limited inter-institutional coordination for ecotourism management both at the national and 

local level - The proposed program will address this potential risk by ensuring that both ANAM 

and ATP continue to work jointly together as they have throughout the preparation of this 

project, and that a shared strategy is reached. This will involve not only the formulation and 

establishment of a common coordination mechanism and regulatory framework to strengthen the 

cooperation between governmental agencies (national and local), but also establish mechanisms 

for financial sustainability that will consolidate local and national partnerships for ecotourism 

management in the SINAP. 

2. Lack of specific financing to support private sector involvement in the project – Expectations 

exist for parallel financing of private ecotourism initiatives either on the part of local businesses 

or communities, and this could represent a risk to the project if expectations are unmet. This risk 

is mitigated by activities in components 2 and 3 of the program, particularly the improvements in 

„public goods‟ in PAs (trails, observation towers, etc.) upon which private initiatives are 

dependent, the allocation of new concessions or co-management arrangements which will open 

local income generating opportunities and the development of business plans for the PAs. The 

private sector and local community-based enterprises will also benefit directly from capacity 

building to improve their services to meet the quality standards of international ecotourism 

markets. 

3. The climate change risk assessment carried out by ANAM’s Climate Change and Desertification 

Unit and the specific data for PAs show that risks associated with climate change factors such as 

increased storm and hurricane events, sea level rise, increase in occurrence and severity of 

drought episodes, and invasive species proliferation are low to moderate in the 9 PAs. However, 

ocean warming and coral bleaching constitute higher risks in marine PAs such as Bastimentos 

Island in the Caribbean and Coiba Island in the Pacific. Scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical 

Research Institute (STRI) in Panama recently documented an extensive bleaching event affecting 

the entire Caribbean coast of Panama from Kuna-Yala to Bocas del Toro (where Bastimentos 

Island is located). 9 Coral mortality was limited to shallow areas. A similar event in 2005 in the 

wider Caribbean included intense bleaching in Panama. However, mortality was less than 12% in 

this zone and reefs were reported to be relatively resilient. In experts‟ opinion, the hurricane 

season may be enhancing the current problem, resulting in low water circulation in the 

9 http://smithsonianscience.org/2010/10/coral-bleaching-event-caused-by-warming-ocean 


Southwestern Caribbean and creating warm pockets of water along the coast of Panama and 

Costa Rica. These events could have an impact on coral biodiversity and the ecotourism potential 

of those areas during and post-Project. ANAM‟s Climate Change and Desertification Unit is tasked 

with assessing vulnerability to climate change impacts in key ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors and 

to formulate required adaptation and mitigation measures and plans. To mitigate climate change risk, 

several sites in SINAP, including some sites among the 9 targeted PAs, have been selected for mitigation 

measures such as vulnerability assessments, applied research on the linkages between climate, climate 

variability and ecosystem services, biological monitoring and the development of multi-sector adaptation 

plans. For example, Chagres National Park, which services as the main source of water for the Panama 

Canal, has been selected as the site for a pilot project to determine the impacts of climate change and 

associated mitigation measures on protected area‟s water resources. The findings and lessons learned 

from that pilot project will be used to mainstream climate change adaptation in the formulation and 

update of PA public use plans to be undertaken as part of Component 2 (see Part II, Section A, paragraph 

16). 

H. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN 

1. Ensuring cost effectiveness of proposed solutions has been at the heart of the project design 

during preparation. The following description lays out the principles that were applied during the 

formulation of this Project, which support the cost-effectiveness of its design: 

a. Selection of the nine priority protected areas was made on the basis of cost-effectiveness, 

particularly by focusing the project's interventions in 9 of the 89 protected area units of the 

SINAP which, together, account for over 60% of the current visitation flow to protected areas 

and are located within 50 km of the ten priority tourism destinations in accordance to the 

National Tourism Master Plan. As such, these areas have the highest potential, either on their 

own or when combined with nearby complementary tourism assets, to compete for an 

international demand from target markets (United States and Europe). In addition, these 9 

protected areas accounted for over 95% of the revenues generated by visitor fees for the 

entire SINAP in 2009. 

b. The Project builds on existing institutions and processes, both at local and national levels. 

From an administrative standpoint, the approach will be to rely on existing resources and 

processes with ANAM assigning full-time personnel (2) with professional degrees in tourism 

and training them in ecotourism management and monitoring. In addition, the GEF project is 

intended to build on and improve ANAM‟s existing monitoring system (PMEMAP) so that 

the impacts of ecotourism on biodiversity can be monitored. In this case as well, existing 

trained personnel and logistical resources will be used to implement project activities. The 

project will also support the strengthening of the ecotourism component of the Plan Maestro 

de Turismo being implemented by ATP, and concentrate actions on PAs where management 

is currently taking place and supported by other agencies (USAID in Chagres and Darien, 

MarViva in Coiba, etc). Likewise, the project will build on existing processes, standards and 

protocols. For example, for the definition of carrying capacity, the project will adapt existing 

approaches and protocols from neighboring countries, and tailor them on a case by case 

basis, giving priority to PAs with the highest registered and expected visitation levels. Thus, 

by building on existing institutions and processes, the project can take advantage of existing 

experiences and initiatives and foster improvements at a reduced cost. 


c. Creating the conditions for up-scaling and replication is at the heart of the project strategy 

and will contribute to its cost-effectiveness: a) while the project will concentrate its specific 

field activities on the most promising of the 9 pilot PAs, improvement of the policy and 

regulatory framework under component 1 will create an enabling environment for further 

public and private investment in the SINAP as a whole; b) lessons learned from applying 

specific tools in the PAs (PUPs, business plans, monitoring protocols, etc) will be swiftly 

integrated into normative work and channeled to other PAs as additional financing becomes 

available. 

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT 

A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT: 

1. The institutional framework in which the current project will act is composed of the following 

elements: 

2. Environmental Authority of Panama (ANAM) as the national authority responsible for the 

management of the country`s biodiversity. ANAM was created by the General Environmental 

Law (Ley 41, 07.01.1998), which also established the National Protected Areas System 

(SINAP). Within ANAM, the Division of Protected Areas and Wildlife (DAPVS) is the division 

responsible for managing the network of protected areas in the country. With respect to other 

sectors that have specific interests in natural resources, ANAM has established relationships with 

the Maritime Authority of Panama (AMP), the Aquatic Resources of Panama (ARAP) and with 

the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). 

3. Tourism Authority of Panama (ATP) as the national authority responsible for matters of tourism 

and responsible for the implementation of the national tourism law, recently created (Ley N. 4, 

02/27/2008). The main objective of ATP is: (i) to develop, promote and regulate tourism as a 

national public and social priority; (ii) to identify and protect the tourism attractions of the 

country and promote their use in a responsible and ecologically friendly manner; and, (iii) to 

promote tourism quality and accreditation and harmonization with international tourism 

standards. Tourism Councils operate at the local level and are integrated by representatives of the 

local tourism sector organizations. Although there is a mandate to promote sustainable tourism, 

there is no legal instrument to facilitate collaboration and coordination between ATP and 

ANAM. This deficiency has been identified during the preparation of the National Tourism 

Master Plan. The GEF project proposed here is a key step to addressing this situation, as it is 

aimed at emphasizing and facilitation such collaboration between ANAM and ATP. 

4. Local governments. Panama has a decentralized system, with 4 indigenous areas, 9 provinces, 74 

municipalities and 588 “corregimientos.” The provincial government deals with the 

infrastructure of the province and Municipalities manage key elements of local development 

such as water supply, sewers, solid waste, and tourism. Municipalities can contribute to protected 

areas management through the provision of basic infrastructure and public services to the 

selected protected areas. 

B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT: 

1. The Executing Agency will be the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM), which will 

assume full responsibility for project coordination, administration, financial and accounting 

management, including procurement and the preparation of annual operating budgets and 

progress monitoring and evaluation reports. Specific responsibilities of the Executing Agency 


include, but are not limited to: (i) maintain adequate accounting and financial controls, including 

a separate account for the purposes of this project; (ii) maintain appropriate support 

documentation filing systems for verification by the Bank and the external auditing firm; 

(iii) prepare and submit to the Bank disbursement requests and corresponding justification of 

expenses; (iv) prepare and obtain Bank approval for all bidding documents required to hire 

consulting firms, consultants and for the acquisition of goods; (v) coordinate the bidding 

processes according to Bank policies and Panamanian norms; (vi) monitor quality of the goods 

and services provided by contracted parties and making the corresponding payments; 

(vii) prepare and submit to the Bank the Program`s Financial Plan, which results from the 

procurement plan and the annual plan of operations (APO); and, (viii) record and control the 

results of the project through the agreed indicators. 

2. ANAM will assign a project coordinator and an ecotourism specialist to support the DAPVS to 

carry out the activities of the project and to closely monitor the financial management of the 

program. A financial specialist will also be contracted to assist ANAM in the execution of 

procurement activities, supervision of main contracts and provision of other financial assistance. 

These specialists will be based at DAPVS located within ANAM offices in Panama City. 

Coordination 

3. The coordination between ANAM (responsible for SINAP) and ATP (responsible for tourism 

promotion and development) is a key aspect of for the project‟s success. To formalize the close 

cooperation between these two institutions displayed during the preparation of the project, a 

cooperation agreement has been drafted which establishes the obligations of the parties, the 

agreed coordination mechanisms and the procedures for reaching consensus on the targets, 

annual work plans and any necessary adjustments. Signature of the cooperation agreement will 

be a condition prior to first disbursement. To further support coordination, a Steering Committee 

will be established prior to first disbursement with the following functions: (i) strategic guidance 

for the project; (ii) approval of the comprehensive coordination plan (see above); (iii) approval of 

annual work plans and mid-year and annual progress reports, and (iv) clearance of annual 

financial audits. 

4. Central to the execution of the entire project is the participation of the local community, private 

sector and institutional stakeholders. In this regard, the Steering Committee will ensure that the 

activities of the Program are carried out in active, close collaboration with stakeholders in each 

of the nine PAs, and shall nominate other institutions (such as ARAP in the case of the marine 

protected areas) to participate in the Committee, as required. From year two onwards, an 

Ecotourism National Coordination Structure should be in place with defined participation and 

decision mechanisms, which will open consultation channels towards the private sector, 

governmental entities, NGOs, academic institutions, and local communities. Towards the end of 

the project, it is expected that this structure will become permanent. 

Operating Regulations 

5. The administration of the project will be based on a Project Operating Manual (POM) to be 

approved by the Steering Committee as a condition prior to first disbursement. The POM, for 

which a draft has been prepared, establishes responsibilities, technical criteria for selecting 

activities, standards and procedures for contracts, acquisitions, financial management, 

accounting, audits and monitoring and evaluation of the operation. 


PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF: 

1. The PIF was approved by the GEF Secretariat on February 24, 2009. The project design 

presented here is fully in line with the project rationale, objectives and amounts of funding 

presented in the PIF Request, as explained in the following paragraphs. 

2. The project maintains the original objective of generating a model of low environmental impact 

ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) in Panama, contributing to 

biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas. It adopts a two-pronged approach 

aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas both at 

the local and the national scale. Taking available resources into account, the PPG resulted in a 

better focusing of financed activities based on the particular context encountered in the 9 selected 

PAs. The initial design has been deemed consistent with the analysis of root causes of the low 

development of ecotourism in the SINAP and the identification of opportunities and limitations 

carried out during PPG (See part II.A). 

3. In relation with the original design, the decision was made during the IADB/ANAM/ATP project 

revision workshop (July 2010), to merge the original components 3 and 4 into a single 

component, in order to obtain a slimmer and more efficient design and taking into account: a) 

observed redundancies between outcomes in both original components, and b) the decision of not 

including formal certification of ecotourism products and services, to avoid potential duplication 

with the recently approved UNDP GEF project for the archipelagos (Project ID 3021) and based 

on the results of the capacity assessment of local organizations which indicated that most would 

require basic capacity building in the provision of ecotourism services prior to embarking on a 

formal certification process. A decision was also made to divide component 1 into two separate 

sub-components in order to reflect the need to raise SINAP´s level of financial independence on 

the basis of a wider array of sustainable financing sources, as advocated in various technical 

reports produced during PPG. A specific outcome indicator has been introduced to reflect this 

shift. 

4. In the PIF and the PPG, the cost of the project was estimated at US$12.5 million, of which 

US$4.0 million were to be GEF funds and most of the remaining US$8.5 million to be provided 

primarily by an IDB-financed loan under preparation which was to implement the National 

Tourism Master Plan (2007-2020) also financed by the IDB and officially approved 

(http://www.atp.gob.pa/archivos/pdf/planmaestro/Resumen%20Ejecutivo-Ingles.pdf). Although 

this potential tourism loan was included in the IDB pipeline for Panama at the time of approval 

of the PIF, in 2009 the Government of Panama made an adjustment in the list of loan 

investments agreed to with IDB for fiscal reasons. The decision was made to maintain the 

National Tourism Master Plan as a priority and to pursue its implementation using national rather 

than multi-lateral funds. At the time, the Government also specifically requested that the GEF 

project be maintained in the pipeline and committed to identifying alternative sources of cofinancing. 

The Government maintains the National Tourism Master Plan as one of the highest 

priorities of its administration and has been implementing its provisions using its own resources 

as exemplified by the ATP 2010-2011 budget (for market research, promotion, development and 

sector coordination). In this regard, the activities that would have been financed by the loan are 

being implemented thus ensuring a sustainable baseline as originally contemplated. . A combined 


effort by ANAM-ATP, the IDB and other stakeholders supportive of the present Project resulted 

in the co-financing structure presented in Part I above. Based on this level of funding, most of 

the expected outputs and outcomes presented in the PIF, with only minor adjustments and 

additions made for technical reasons, have been retained in the project design presented here. In 

addition, in the recently approved IDB Country Strategy for Panama (2010-2014), the 

Government and the Bank have agreed to an environmental action plan aimed at strengthening 

environmental management capacity in key economic sectors and geographic areas and provides 

a renewed basis for the policy dialogue between the Government and the Bank with respect to 

the mainstreaming of environment and biodiversity conservation in the tourism sector. 

PART V: AGENCY CERTIFICATION 

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for 

CEO Endorsement. 

Ricardo Quiroga 

GEF Agency Coordinator 

INE/RND, IADB 

Date: February15th, 2011 


Michele Lemay 

Natural Resources Lead Specialist 

INE/RND, IADB 

Project Contact Person 

Tel.:202-623-1838 

E-mail: michelel@iadb.org

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK 


Results Framework 

PN-X1003 

Project Objective 

To generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) 

that contributes to biodiversity conservation and sustainability of Protected Areas, in a framework of innovation, 

entrepreneurial integration, and sustainable social development 

Outcome Indicators Base Level 2010 Target Level Comments 

Increase in Protected Areas`management 

effectiveness (as measured by GEF 

Tracking Tool for BD-SP2 and PMEMAP) 

Tracking Tool baseline for 9 PAs: 45-67% 

Tracking Tool 

target for 9 PAs: 

60- 75% 

Measures effectiveness of 

PA management and public 

use plans implementation 

and PA protection. 

Increase in PA revenues generated from 

fees and other financial mechanisms for 

ecotourism activities (expressed as gross 

revenues and % of SINAPs‟ operating 

budget) 

Increase in annual number of visitors to 

PAs due to improvements in ecotourism 

products and services in selected Protected 

Areas 

Percentage of international visitors to 

Panama reported to visit at least one of the 

selected PAs 

Percentage increase of local and 

community-based businesses providing 

ecotourism services in PAs 

Baseline 2009: US$300,000/year (17% of 

SINAP operating budget) 

Current annual number of visitors to 9 PAs 

is 42,602 (Current annual rate of increase in 

visitation is 2.2%). 

3% of total visitation 

Baseline to be established through 

surveys in Year 1 

US$530,000/yea 

r 

(30% of SINAP 

operating 

budget) 

50,000 visitors 

(Annual rate of 

increase: 4.5%) 

10% of total 

visitation 

5% increase 

At least 30% of SINAP`s 

budget is to come from 

revised fee structure and 

alternative sources of income 

Yearly rate of increase in 

visitation is expected to 

double between 2011 and 

2015 

Proxy for the positioning of 

Panamanian PA`s offer of 

ecotourism services 

(benchmarking with 

competitive destinations) 

Proxy for the expansion 

and diversification of offer 

of ecotourism services in

# of Protected Areas with linked biological, 

physical and economic use indicators 

clearly selected (wildlife, vegetation, water 

quality, volume of visitor activities, number 

of concessions). 


Baseline: 0 PAs 9 PAs 

PAs 

Integrated monitoring 

system will provide the 

basis for adaptive 

management by ANAM.

Matrix of Indicators 

Component 1 Base Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Target 

Component 1 - Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of ecotourism in 

the SINAP 

Outputs 

Sub-component 1.a: Strategies, policies and regulatory framework 

1.1. Policy and 

methodology for 

planning and 

management of public 

use of PA´s approved by 

ANAM and ATP 

1.2. Criteria for granting 


and 

tourism operation permits 

in PA´s defined 

1.3. Procedural manuals 

for public use plans and 

granting and 



and permits 

approved by ANAM and 

ATP 

1.4. Number of ANAM 

and ATP staff trained in 

application of new public 

use planning tools 

0 1 (publication in Gaceta 

Oficial) 

0 Diagnosis of needs and 

opportunities 

0 

Informal manual 

exist, but not 

implemented 


Applied to 3 PAs Applied to 7 PAs 1 policy and 

methodology 

institutionalized and 

applied across SINAP 

1 set of criteria 

defined and approved 

by ANAM and ATP 

1 procedural manual 

approved (public use 

plans) 

Criteria applied in 9 

PAs 

1 procedural manual 

approved 

(concessions, comanagement 

agreements and 

permits) 

Evaluation of 

application of criteria 

carried out 

Procedural manuals 

improved and 

replicated in remaining 

sites of SINAP 

1 set of criteria 

defined and validated 

2 Procedural 

manuals for Public 

Use Plans and 

granting 



and 

permits approved 

by ANAM and 

0 30 30 60 staff trained (80% 

of DFCA and ANAM 

staff at regional and 

national level) 

Sub-component 1.b: PAs financial sustainability 

1.5. Number of 

ecotourism-related fees 

revised and updated 

0 

1 (entrance fee schedule 

updated) 

3 (concessions/ 

permits-based 

financial 

instruments updated) 

1 (fees for services 

updated) 

5 instruments / 

mechanisms applied 

ATP 

5 set of ecotourismrelated 

fees revised 

and updated to cover 

operational costs


alternative financing 

mechanisms designed 

and approved 

Intermediate outcomes: 

Increase in annual 

revenues from 

ecotourism-related fees 

Outcome: 

Percentage of SINAP 

operating budget 

covered by ecotourismrelated 

fees 

0 Strategy for broadening 

the sources of PAs 

financing (i.e. cruise 

ships/airport taxes, 

environmental services 

etc.) formulated with 

partner projects 


Strategic alliances 

made with key private 

operators, 

municipalities and 

public agencies. 

3 instruments/ 

mechanisms defined, 

ensuring 

compatibility with 

regulatory framework 

1 instrument in place 


mechanisms in place 

and monitored 

Broader financial 

sustainability strategy 

formulated. 


mechanisms in place 

and monitored 

US$300,000 US$530,000 US$530,000 

17% of SINAP 

budget 

25% 30% Revenues generated 

from fees and other 

financial mechanisms 

cover at least 30% of 

SINAP operating 

budget


Component 2 - Planning and investments to increase quality ecotourism products in PAs conserving biodiversity 

Outputs 

2.1. Number of PA 

Management and Public 

use plans (PUP´s) with 

ecotourism programs 

updated and approved 

2.2. Number of PAs with 

carrying capacity studies 

completed 


ecotourism facilities and 

equipment constructed 

and in operation 


Ecotourism Impact 


indicators (ETIMS) 

integrated into monitoring 

(PMEMAP) 

2.5. Number of staff at 

national and local level 

trained in public use 

management 

2 PUPs elaborated and 

without official approval, 1 

PUP under revision 


2 PA management 

plans updated and 

approved 

0 Methodology defined 

and minimum of 15 

staff trained in 

methodology in 9 

PAs 

2 of existing PUPs 

approved with legal 

backup. 

2 more PA 

management plans 

updated and approved 

2 new PUPs, 1 

existing PUP 

approved with 

legal back up. 

2 more PA 

management 

plans updated and 

approved 

5 PAs with 

carrying capacity 

studies completed 

2 new PUPs ; 

4 PUP´s being 

implemented 

 

7 PUP´s approved 

by ANAM and 4 

being implemented, 

6 management plans 

updated and 

approved 

5 PAs with carrying 

capacity studies 

completed and 

applied to control 

visitor flow 

0 2 PAs 2 PAs 1 PA 5 PAs with 

ecotourism facilities 

constructed and in 

operation 

0 

PMEMAP is applied in the 9 

PAs but lacks indicators of 

tourism visitation and its 

impact on biodiversity. 

Monitoring protocols 

fine-tuned. 

Baseline of visitation 

established (visitors 

profile, experience 

and impact) and 

biodiversity 

established in 9 PAs. 

0 Result oriented job 

descriptions approved 

Ecotourism section in 

ANAM-DAPVS with 

3 trained 

professionals in place 

5 PAs 9 PAs 

2 trained public use 

managers and 2 

assistants 

4 public use 

managers and 4 

assistants 

9 PAs Ecotourism Impact 


integrated in 

PMEMAP and 

public use plans in 9 

PAs 

6 public use 

manager and 6 

assistants 

Ecotourism section 

in ANAM-DAPVS 

in place and 

recurrent. 

6 PAs have 1 

trained Public use 

manager and 1


Component 2 - Planning and investments to increase quality ecotourism products in PAs conserving biodiversity 


municipalities trained in 

environmental 

management for 

ecotourism in buffer areas 

Intermediate outcome 

Increase in visitor 

satisfaction with 

ecotourism services as 

measured by average 

visitor expenditure in 

PA survey 

Outcome 

Number of PAs with 

improved ecotourism 

management systems 


0 Identification of 

critical environmental 

management issues in 

up to 15 

municipalities around 

5 PAs 

Average daily expenditure in 

PA in 2009 estimated at 

US$20/day (10% of total 

average expenditure). 

Baseline to be verified in 

Year 1. 

10 municipalities 

receive training and 

technical advice for 

solid waste disposal 

improvement. 

Agreements with at 

least 5 municipalities 

for addressing solid 

waste disposal or 

other key issues. 

Financing 

identified. 


improve solid 

waste disposal 

around PAs 

assistant 


management 

capacity increased 

in 10 municipalities 

around 5 PA´s, with 


investing in 

improved waste 

management 

0 2 5 9 9 

100% increase in 

average daily visitor 

expenditure in PAs


Component 3 - Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through ecotourism in selected PAs 

Outputs 


private sector and 

community-based 

organizations and 


PAs trained in public 

use management and 


practices 

3.2. Number of PAs 

where strategic 

alliances strengthen 


service providers are 

strengthened 


business plans for 

PAs produced and 

implemented 

3.4. Environmental 

education campaign 

on economic benefits 

from PAs developed 

and implemented 

0 Stakeholders analysis 

fine-tuned, 

participants selected 

and training program 

developed 

Networks in 5 PA´s are 

active and need 

strengthening 

2 PAs with business 

plans (no evidence of 

BPs being implemented) 

No strategic financing 

plan for the network of 9 

pilot PAs. 


Synergies in service 

networks identified, 

proposed and 

approved by key 

stakeholders 

Strategic financing 

plan for 9 pilot PAs 

includes a monitoring 

/ benchmarking 

system. 

0 1 

10 organizations and 

operators trained 

around at least 2 PAs 

10 more 

organizations and 

operators trained 

around at least 3 more 

PAs 

1 st monitoring 

reports of good 

practices of 

environmental 

protection and 

biodiversity 

conservation 

received and fine 

tuned 

At least 20 

Organizations and 


PAs trained in public 

use management and 


practices. 

3 PAs 2 PAs Capacity of existing 


tourism service 

providers to develop 

business opportunities 

around 5 Pas 

strengthened. 

3 PA business plans 

formulated and under 

implementation 

2 additional business 

plans formulated and 

being implemented 

 

2 PAs obtain access 

to private banks 

financing 

5 business plans 

formulated and being 

implemented 

1 Environmental 

education campaign on 

economic benefits from 

PAs sound management 

and use, aimed at key 

local and national private 

and public stakeholders, 

including municipalities



3.5. Promotion 

strategy and 

marketing campaign 

for SINAP approved 

by ANAM and ATP 

and implemented 


concessions, 

operating permits, 

and co-management 

agreements granted 

3.7. Number of value 

chains PA´s 

established 

Intermediate 

outcomes 

Number of active 

networks of privatecommunity 

providers involved 

in PAs-related 

activities established 

0 International market 

study elaborated and 

ecotourism niche 

markets identified. 

Joint marketing 

strategy highlights 

adopted best practices 

7 out of 89 of SINAP´s 

PA´s have been granted 

concessions to date, 

procedure not explicit 


ANAM establishes a 

first list of goods and 

services for 

concessions and comanagement 

agreements in at least 

3 priority PAs 

1 marketing and 

promotion strategy 

for 9 PA´s budgeted 

20 local enterprise 

design promotion and 

marketing strategy in 

harmony with ATP´s 

international 

campaigns 

2 co-management 

agreements and 2 

operation permits 

granted 

0 2 PAs selected by end 

of year 2 

0 Diagnostic of 

entrepreneurial 

capacity and 

understanding of 

advantages of 

collaborative 

processes in at least 5 

PAs 

Organized and active 

networks of providers 

of services around at 

least 3 PAs 

ATP-ANAM PAs 

promotional website 

Multilingual 

promotional material 

prepared 

Marketing plan 

conducted, 1 international 

ecotourism 

fair 

2 more comanagement 

agreements and 2 

more operation 

permits 

2 concessions 

granted 

1 st report of 

monitoring system for 

first co-management 

and operation permits 

1 local value chain 

initiatives supported 

and consolidated in 1 

PA‟s 


networks of providers 

of services around at 

least 5 PAs 

First monitoring 

reports 

Marketing and 

promotional strategy 

implemented, niche 

market of Panama 

as international 

ecotourism 

destination created 

2 more concessions 

granted 

2 d report of 

monitoring system 

for first concessions 

1 local value chain 

initiative supported 

and consolidated in 

1 PA‟s 

2 networks evolve 

towards PA-services 

value chains 

Marketing and promotion 

strategy formulated with 

public and private sector 

involvement, funded, 

implemented and being 

monitored 

At least 4 concessions, 4 

operating permits, and 4 

co-management 

agreements granted on the 

basis of enhanced 

procedures and monitored 

2 Value chains in 2 of 9 

PA´s lead to increased job 

creation and added value 


networks of providers of 

services around at least 5 

PAs, including 2 PAservices 

value chains



Percentage of 

international 

visitors reported to 

have visited a PA 

Outcome 

Increase in numbers 

of local businesses 

providing 

ecotourism-related 

services in PAs 

Only 3% of the 1,5 

million foreign visitors 

reportedly visited an AP 

in Panama in 2008 

(against 54% in Costa 

Rica, 2006) 

X number of businesses 

identified in 9 PAs 

Baseline to be fine-tuned 

in year1 


6% 10% 10% 

3% 5% 5%

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and 

Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat 

and STAP at PIF) 

1. GEF Secretariat Review for full/medium size projects 

GEF-SEC IADB response 

Project design 

February 23, 2009 

a) As part of the project rationale, please further 

justify this investment through an analysis of the 

national and international ecotourism market 

and identify the niche that Panama is aiming to 

fill and incorporate this information into the final 

design. 

b) Please clearly distinguish what the IADB loan 

will be supporting and the increment that the 

GEF is paying for that will generate global 

benefits. 

c) Please identify for the nine sites appropriate 

biodiversity impact indicators or measures 

that the project will monitor to assess impact of 

tourism on the protected areas. 

d) Please also include a description of the 

biodiversity of each PA and the threats to the 

biodiversity of each PA. 

e) Please identify how ecotourism development 

will both help reduce site-based funding gaps 

for management and how the GEF project will 

complement ongoing management efforts within 

each PA to address the threats to biodiversity. 

f) Please identify for each protected area the 

revenue shortfalls and propose how the 

ecotourism options will reduce that shortfall and 

include these measures as part of the project 

monitoring framework. 

g) Please also clarify the added value of 

"certification" of the product (Component Four) 

and justify these investments. Please clarify what 

system the project will use and provide a rationale 

for whatever certification system is chosen. 


a) See Part II, A in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement. The market analysis undertaken during 

preparation shows that to date, a handful of protected areas 

around the Panama Canal and specific sites concentrate most of 

national and international visitation. The nine protected areas 

selected to pilot the Program account for 60% of the current 

visitation. The major market potential for ecotourism in Panama 

related to “soft ecotourism” is in the so-called Canal Cluster, 

where ecotourism is part of a combined and unique offer (canal, 

historical sites, and nature), as well as visitation of 

coastal/marine parks and PAs close to the Costa Rican border. 

The marketing strategy should be geared towards increasing of 

the proportion of total visitation to Panama to actually visiting a 

PA, and in articulating Panama´s ecotourism offer with Costa 

Rica. 

b) See Part IV in paragraph 4 of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement. The loan has been postponed indefinitely. See 

Part II Section E for an explanation of how related initiatives 

complement the activities to be financed by the GEF grant. 

c) See Part I Section H of the Request for CEO Endorsement. 

Biodiversity impact indicators have been included into the 

monitoring and evaluation plan (required Annex #3 of the Draft 

Grant Proposal). 

d) See Part II, A in paragraph 19 (b) of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement and Annex E for a summary of biodiversity and 

ecotourism values and threats. See also Biodiversity Report 

(Optional Annex #2 of the Draft Grant Proposal). 

e) See Part II, A in paragraph 15 of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement. As part of Component 1 of the project, entrance 

fees, fees for ecotourism services, concession and operation 

permit fees will be increased to reflect enhanced services and 

willingness to pay data collected in Year 1. It is expected that 

total revenues generated from these sources will be increased 

200% in 5 years and will cover 30-35% operating costs 

(compared to a baseline of 17%), thereby reducing the current 

shortfall. 

f) See Part II, A in paragraph 3 (a) of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement. See also Optional Annex #5 of the Draft Grant 

Proposal. 

g) See Part IV in paragraph 3 of the request for CEO Endorsement. 

The decision was made to shift the focus away from certification 

using an international recognized system to the promotion of 

best practices and quality standards in the provision of 

ecotourism services, recognizing this as a more feasible first 

step given the current capacity of local and community-based 

enterprises in the vicinity of the PAs.


Please ensure coordination activities are clearly identified 

and costs identified 


During project design, please ensure that climate change 

risks are identified for those protected area sites that may 

be susceptible to climate impacts (particularly with regards 


See Part III, B in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement. Component 1 of the project will formalize the current 

cooperation between ANAM, the national tourism authority (ATP) and 

other public entities through the initial formation of a Steering Committee 

which would eventually be established as a National Ecotourism 

Committee with the aim of ensuring consistency between the 

implementation of the National Tourism Master Plan, the SINAP Strategic 

Plan and other policies. Costs are identified in Optional Annex #7 Detailed 

Budget. 

See Part II, Section G, in paragraph 3 of the Request for CEO 

Endorsement. Climate change is addressed in the risk analysis and is 

considered moderate to low, with the exception of the potential impacts of 

coral reef bleaching, with is relevant for 2 of the 9 selected PAs. Mitigation 

to the specific ecotourism product being offered) and design measures have been tailored into the project design and monitoring 

appropriate mitigation actions. 

program, taking advantage of the fact that the Project Executing Agency 

(ANAM) is in charge of the climate change national agenda. Climate 

change adaptation measures, including ecosystem-based measures, are 

to be mainstreamed in the public use plans to be formulated and 

implemented under the project. 

STAP Comments Answers to STAP Comments 

STAP notes this project focuses on developing ecotourism 

in Panama, including the development of eco-labeling and 

certification systems 

The methodology for "analysis of biodiversity data for 

ecotourism purposes" (part of component 2) is not 

described in the PIF and should be discussed in the full 

project document 

Climate change risks are not addressed at part F of the PIF 

and should be considered in the full project document. 

These may include changes that could impact on 

ecotourism opportunities in Panama, for example, coral reef 

bleaching. 

See Part IV in paragraph 3 of the request for CEO Endorsement. The 

decision was made to shift the focus away from certification using an 

international recognized system to the promotion of best practices and 

quality standards in the provision of ecotourism services, recognizing this 

as a more feasible first step given the current capacity of local and 

community-based enterprises in the vicinity of the PAs. 

See Part I Section H of the Request for CEO Endorsement. Biodiversity 

impact indicators have been included into the monitoring and evaluation 

plan (required Annex #3 of the Draft Grant Proposal). 

See Part II, G in paragraph 3 of the Request for CEO Endorsement. 

Climate change is addressed in the risk analysis and is considered 

moderate to low, with the exception of the potential impacts of coral reef 

bleaching, with is relevant for 2 of the 9 selected PAs. Mitigation measures 

have been tailored into the project design and monitoring program, taking 

advantage of the fact that the Project Executing Agency (ANAM) is in 

charge of the climate change national agenda. Climate change adaptation 

measures, including ecosystem-based measures, are to be mainstreamed 

in the public use plans to be formulated and implemented under the 

project.

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT USING GEF RESOURCES 

Title of the Position $/ Estimat 

Week/ 

e 

Week/ 

Tasks to be implemented 

Person person 

Project Operational 

Costs 

600 416 

Project Coordinator 700 208 Planning, coordination and monitoring of the activities 

described in components I, II, and III of the Project. 

Administrative Expert/ 500 208 Planning, coordination and monitoring of the acquisitions 

Acquisitions 

processes and/or the acquisition of goods and services for 

components I, II, and III of the Project. 

For Technical 

Assistance 

International 3500 30 

Component 1 – Total 

Expert on Strategic 

planning and 

monitoring 


Expert on Protected 

Area Planning and 

Management 


Local Economic 

Development Expert 

Local 834 2290 

Component 1 – Total 1000 347 

Sub-component 1.a: 

strategies, politics, 

and legal framework 

Inter-institutional 

Coordination Expert 

(ecotourism) 


3500 10 In charge of the supervision of the different technicaladministrative 

and financial activities done during Project 

implementation. 

3500 10 Definition, planning and implementation of the tourism flow 

management methodology and as related issues. 

3500 10 Responsible for the identification and planning mechanisms 

for the establishment of the value chain at an interinstitutional, 

local, and community level linking the public 

and private sectors for the development of ecotourism 

activities in Protected Areas. 

239 

1000 24 Determine specific and common characteristics of ANAM‟s 

and ATP‟s programs related to for the development of 

ecotourism.


Week/ 

e 

Week/ 


Person person 

Planning and 1000 12 Support the implementation of a national coordination 

Institutional Policy 

structure that responds to the strategic guidelines defined in 

Expert 

relation to ecotourism between ANAM and ATP, in both its 

functional and legal aspects. 

Ecotourism Expert 


Economy and Natural 

Resources Legislation 

Expert 

Protected area 


planning expert 


1000 124 Facilitation of the coordination processes between ANAM 

and ATP in specific aspects related to ecotourism and 

Protected Areas, biodiversity, visitation, and economic 

sustainability. Training course for DFCA and ANAM 

officials in specific aspects of ecotourism associated to 

protected areas, biodiversity, and visitation, as well as 

financial sustainability. 

Analysis of the potential for ecotourism development in 

specific PAs, involving the private and community sector in 

the sustainable management of potential goods and services, 

including concessions arrangements. 

In charge of preparing guidelines that detail the procedures 

for the administration of concessions, co-management, and 

permits for the ecotourism activities. 

Technical support in activities related to the planning, 

coordination, monitoring and control of the preparation and 

legalization of the legal documents that detail natural 

resources use in protected areas. 

Planning of technical, administrative, and financial measures 

that allow the sustainable use of the protected areas through 

tourism development. 

1000 38 Training course for DFCA and ANAM officials in specific 

aspects of ecotourism associated to protected areas, 

biodiversity, and visitation, as well as financial 

sustainability. 

In charge of preparing guidelines that detail the procedures 

for the administration of concessions, co-management, and 

permits in the legal and judicial areas. 

Preparation of Management and investment instruments in 

the protected areas, legalization mechanisms, administrative 

procedures, follow-up on exploitation licenses, and the 

respective adjustments. 

1000 41 Planning of activities related to co-management and 

operation permits. 

Planning, coordinating, monitoring and controlling the 

preparation and legalization of the legal documents for 

protected area natural resources use.


e 

Week/ Week/ 

Sub-component 1.b: 


financial 

sustainability 

Person person 

108 



Ecotourism expert 1000 10 Formulation of the financial sustainability strategy through 

ecotourism. Establishing of strategic alliances with the 

private sector. 


Economy expert 

1000 5 Formulation of the financial sustainability strategy through 

ecotourism. Defining mechanisms for the incorporation of 

protected areas business plans and a strategic financial 

sustainability plan. 

Marketing Expert 1000 47 Definition of at least three financial instruments based on the 

visitation and/or concessions or permits. Definition or 

improvement of these mechanisms with the participation of 

the private sector. 

Investigate and propose ecotourism marketing opportunities 

related to protected areas. Sign work agreements with private 

operators, municipalities and public organisms. 

Natural resources 1000 6 Identification of administrative and legal barriers for the 

legislation expert 

establishment of efficient fee mechanisms. 

Ecotourism planning 1000 40 Definition and support to the implementation of ecotourism 

and strategy Expert 

packages between protected areas and traditional tourism or 

other attractive sites in Panama. 

Componente 2 - 

Total 

722 1170 

Ecotourism Expert 1000 272 Conduction of the Protected Area Management 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program in 9 protected areas. 

Establishment of different protocols and instruments 

(baseline and visitation profiles, monitoring the experience 

and impact, defining key indicators, and data base). 

Preparation, presentation, and approval for the application of 

an ANAM ecotourism program in accordance to the 

protected area management plans. 

Articulation between ANAM / ATP for the supervision of 

the tourism flow supervision for the 9 selected protected 

areas and baseline. 

Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for 

improved in accordance with PA‟s pubic use strategies and 

priorities.


Week/ 

e 

Week/ 


Person person 

Monitoring and 500 156 Monitoring of the Management effectiveness of 9 protected 

Evaluation of Natural 

areas, of the efficient application of public use plans, use of 

Areas Expert 

GEF monitoring Tools, data gathering, regulation and 

capitalization for the PMEMAP. 


planning and 

Management Expert 

GIS Expert 

Staff and protected 

area Management 

expert 


1000 606 Preparation, revision, updating of management and public 

use plans. 

Management of protected areas‟s public use components 

applying the different orientations, models, and instruments 

prepared by ANAM-ATP. 

Definition of human needs and activities corresponding to 

the good Management of 

protected areas and its uses for ecotourism. Validation and 

coordination with ANAM-DAPVS. 

1000 24 Preparation of maps and cartography of the protected areas 

considering geo-morphological, biodiversity and 

anthropogenic aspects. 

1000 16 Definition of job descriptions, employment and job 

descriptions; evaluation of the internal organization of 

protected area staff as well as the required staff number; 

labor and hiring requirements. 

Biodiversity Expert 1000 24 Support the definition of public and tourism use of 

biodiversity in protected areas, limitations, and level of use. 

Environmental Policy 

Expert 


Engineer 

1000 24 Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for 


priorities. 

1000 24 Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for 


priorities. 

Sociologist 1000 24 Supporting capacity development of local municipalities for 


priorities. 

Component 3 - Total 929 773 

Sociologist 1000 26 Identification, awareness-raising and involvement of local 

actors and organizations associated to ecotourism, and the 

formation of public use Management and good practices in 

protected areas.


Week/ 

e 

Week/ 


Person person 

Biodiversity Expert 1000 36 Training actors and ecotourism organizations in 

environmental protection good practices and the 

conservation of biodiversity. 

Ecotourism Expert 1000 220 Supporting the establishing local networks for the 

development of business opportunities for 5 protected areas. 

Support the elaboration of strategic sustainable financing 

plan and of PA-specific business plans. 

Contribute to the elaboration of fact-sheets on the economic 

contributions of protected areas, with emphasis on 

ecotourism. Participate in the planning of a community 

awareness and extension campaign. 

Preparing promotion materials for ecotourism activities in 

the 9 protected area; organizing participation in an 

International ecotourism fair. 

Preparing, managing and monitoring the granting of 

concessions and co-management agreements. 

Supporting the establishing of mechanisms for the 

implementation of an ecotourism value chain in 2 protected 

areas. 

Organization of local commercial networks in 

Protected areas, training actors and organizations in 

ecotourism management and administration. 

Marketing Expert 1000 167 Identification of marketing opportunities to integrate 

established local networks (surveys, negotiation of 

agreements) and support to the implementation of business 

activities. 

Supporting the establishing of mechanisms for the 

implementation of an ecotourism value chain in 2 protected 

areas. 

Marketing studies and establishment of strategic alliances at 

the national and international level; implementing a 

promotion strategy of the 9 protected areas with its 

respective operating plan; supporting promotional activities, 

Information Systems 

Expert 


sales monitoring and reporting, web site reporting. 

1000 20 Set-up of information, communication, and contracting 

system via internet and intranet


Week/ 

e 

Week/ 


Person person 

Financial management 700 226 Development of a strategic sustainable financing plan for the 

Expert 

9 pilot Pas, and of 5 PA-specific business plans. Monitoring 

of Pas financial indicators. Negotiating with the banks to 

obtain financial lines for the implementation of the business 

plans. 

Prepare fact-sheets on the economic contributions of 

protected areas in coordination with the Ecotourism and 

Sociology Experts. 

Preparing, managing and monitoring the granting of 

concessions and co 

Social Sciences and 1000 60 Preparing and implementing awareness campaigns related to 

Social 

the economic benefits of the environmental services that can 

Communications 

be obtained from the protected areas, and community 

Expert 

extension campaigns. 

Preparing multilingual materials that promote the ecotourism 

activities in the 9 protected areas; organizing participation in 

an International ecotourism fair. 


Legislation Expert 


1000 18 Preparing, managing and monitoring the granting of 

concessions and co

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE 

OF FUNDS 

A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES 

UNDERTAKEN. 

1. The purpose of this PPG was to support the preparation of the project for ¨Mainstreaming 

Biodiversity Conservation through Low-impact Ecotourism in the SINAP¨ with its 3 components 

(i) Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management 

of ecotourism in the SINAP; (ii) Planning, operational management and monitoring of ecotourism 

in PAs; and (iii) Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through 

ecotourism in selected PAs. The proposed consultation activities and studies have provided the 

technical basis for planning and project design needed to successfully attain a model of low 

environmental impact ecotourism for SINAP (system-wide) within the nine selected Protected 

Areas. The reports (in Spanish) derived from this process, are in the Bank´s file system and can 

be submitted any time upon request. 

B. DESCRIBE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON 

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IF ANY: 

No issues have been found. 

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR 

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW: 

GEF Amount ($) 

Project Preparation Activities 

Approved 

Implementation 

Status 

Amount 

Approved 

Amount 

Spent To 

date 

Amount 

Committed 

Uncommitted 

Amount* 

Cofinancing 

($) 

System wide review of 

existing national policies, legal 

and technical norms, 

regulatory instruments and 

administrative tools and 

procedures for mainstreaming 

biodiversity in the ecotourism 

sector, including the process of 

granting concessions or 

outsourcing services and the 

management of ecotourism 

services in the SINAP. 

8,000 8,000 0 0 0 


Diagnostic of existing 

ecotourism services and 

analysis of opportunities 

and investments for 

expanded low-impact 

services, including 

community-based small 

business opportunities in 

nine protected areas and 

buffer zones. 

Ecotourism market analysis 

(national and international) 

to identify the niches and 

adequate certification 

schemes 

Diagnostic of biodiversity, 

assessment of biodiversity 

threats, identification of 

impact indicators, and 

assessment of management 

capacity to monitor the 

potential impact of ecotourism 

activities in 9 protected areas 

Financial gap analysis of 

revenue short-falls and 

revenue-generating options 

to reduce shortfalls and 

obtain financial 

sustainability in 9 protected 

areas 

Technical design of project 

components based on costeffectiveness 

analysis 

including results indicators 

with baseline, detailed terms 

of reference and budget 

Institutional capacity and 

coordination analysis . 

(ANAM, ATP and 

municipalities) and design 

of project execution scheme 

(including operating 

manual) 


12,000 12,000 0 0 48,000 

10,000 10,000 0 0 60,000 

11,000 11,000 0 0 0 

15,000 15,000 0 0 0 

12,000 12,000 0 0 0 

8,000 8,000 0 0 10,000

Design of Project 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Framework 

Elaboration of project 

public participation 

strategy, including 

participatory stakeholder 

workshops, and design of 

education campaigns 

Disbursing 

Disbursing 


10,000 10,000 0 0 0 

14,000 14,000 0 0 0 

Total 100,000 100,000 0 0 118,000 

* The US$ uncommitted amounts will be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. This is not a physical transfer of money, but 

achieved through reporting and netting out from disbursement request to Trustee. Please indicate expected date of refund 

transaction to Trustee.

ANNEX E: Ecotourism resources and potential in priority protected areas 

Name of 

Protected 

Area 

Resources 

with 

differenciated 

potential 

Ecotourism 

activities 


Visitor type Ecotourism potential Threats 

PN Isla - Isla - Snorkel, - Foreign tourists. - Leisure ecotourism; emphasis on 

Bastimentos Bastimentos scuba diving 

marine and nautical activities; 

- (13,069.62 and other - Bird watching - National tourists: experience the Caribbean and 

ha: nearby islands and dolphin Panamanian from indigenous cultures; 

Land: with Caribbean observation. Panama City with - Mix between sun & beach 

1,840.90 ha charm - Sailing and high purchasing tourism, and 

Marine: - Keys of boating. power; family trips; adventure/community/cultural and 

11,228.72 Zapatilla I and -. 

young 

scientific tourism. 

ha) II 

- Swimming in professionals and 

- Marine tours natural students 

in to the scenery. 

mangrove - Horseback Annual visitors 

swamps. riding (in Playa average: 6,000 

- Coral reefs Larga). people 

and beaches. - Visits to 

- Unique fauna indigenous 

communities. 

Parque PILA Atlantico 

InternacionaScenery 

along 

l de La the Teribe 

Amistad: river; 

PILA settlements of 

Atlantico Indigenous 

and PILA communities. 

Pacifico 

-Reserve of 

the ¨La 

Amistad¨ 

Biosphere 

(2001) and 

World 

Natural 

Heritage by 

UNESCO 

(1990) 

- 

(215,225.73 

ha) 

PILA Atlantico 

- Bird 

watching; 

scientific 

research. 

- Visits to the 

Naso 

indigenous 

community. 

- Canoe trips. 


Foreign tourists 

(backpackers and 

adventurers). 

Students and 

researchers 

(nationals and 

foreigners). 

Annual visitors 

average: 

225 people 


- Intensive and educational 

ecotourism; emphasis on tours to 

river ecosystems and rain forests; 

- Mix between adventure tourism 

and community/cultural/scientific. 

- Residential 

tourism: 

displacement of 

locals to the reef 

zones; land 

occupation for 

villas, gulf resorts 

and marinas 


- Subsistence 

agriculture, which 

causes habitat 

fragmentation 

and land loss, 

and water 

contamination by 

agro-chemicals. 

- Legal and illegal 

hunting (sports 

and subsistence), 

which cause 

disturbance, 

reduction of 

fauna; flora and 

timber extraction.

Name of 

Protected 

Area 

Resources 

with 


potential 

Parque PILA Pacifico 

Internaciona- 

Cloudy rain 

l de La forest; 

Amistad: - Landscape 

PILA resources; 

Atlantico - Unique 

and PILA avifauna. 

Pacifico 

-Reserve of 

the ¨La 

Amistad¨ 

Biosphere 

(2001) and 

World 

Natural 

Heritage by 

UNESCO 

(1990) 

- 

(215,225.73 

ha) 

PN Volcán 

Barú 

- (15,680.48 

ha) 

Ecotourism 

activities 

PILA Pacifico 

- Bird 

watching; 

- Hiking 

- Nature 

photography; 

- Natural 

history tours; 

- Visits to 

picturesque 

towns. 



Pila Pacifico 

- National and 

foreign tourists; 

- Students and 

international/nation 

al researchers. 


average: 2,476 

people 

PILA Pacifico 

- Educational ecotourism; 

emphasis on picnic/camping 

activities; flora and wildlife 

observation and exploration of 

forest ecosystems; 

- Mix of adventure tourism with 

community/cultural and agrotourism. 

- Crater; - Tour through - National and - Intensive ecotourism; emphasis 

- View from two the path track foreign tourists on geology and study of volcano; 

oceans ¨Los (almost 50%); - Observation of scenery and 

(Atlantic and Quetzales¨; - Students and wildlife; 

Pacific). – Bird international/nation - Mix of adventure tourism with 

- Quetzal birds watching; - al researchers community/cultural and agro- 

- Cool weather Exploration of 

the cloudy rain Annual visitors 

tourism. 

forest; average: 

- Nature 

photography; 

- Visits to 

picturesque 

towns 

4,460 people 

PILA Pacifico 

- Extensive 

ranching and 

permanent 

settlements 

inside the park 

and in its buffer 

zones. 

- Legal and illegal 

hunting (sports 

and subsistence), 

which cause 

disturbance, 

reduction of 

fauna; flora and 

timber extraction. 

- Forest fires 

generally caused 

by agriculture 

activities, 

garbage dumps, 

and 

deforestation; 

- Use of organic 

and chemical 

fertilizers in 

agriculture; land 

erosion and 

invasion.

Name of 

Protected 

Area 

Resources 

with 


potential 

PN Coiba - Coiba Island; 

- World landcaping 

Natural resources; 

Heritage by - Granito and 

UNESCO Ranchería 

(2005) beaches. 

- 

- Reefs, 

(270,125.00 mangroves, 

ha: marshes; 

Land: - Species of 

68,100.51 sharks and 

ha whales 

Marine: 

202,024.49 

ha) 

- Endemism 

PNGD 

Omar 

Torrijos 

Herrera 

- World 

Natural 

Heritage by 

UNESCO 

(2005) 

- (25,275.00 

ha) 

Ecotourism 

activities 

- Marine 

mammal 

observation; 

- Scuba diving, 

snorkeling, 

swimming 

- Surfing in the 

buffer zones; 

- Bird 

watching; 

- Sport fishing; 

- Hiking 



- Foreign tourists 

exceed almost 4 

times national 

tourists. 



people 

-Mountain - Hiking; - More national 

landscapes; - Bird tourists than 

- Cool weather; watching; foreign tourists; 

-Unique - Horse riding; - Panamanian 

avifauna; -research; families seeking 

- Cloudy rain - River bathing; cool weather and 

forest; - Visits to coming from the 

- Sightseeing of historical beaches or other 

both oceans places; central provinces 

(Atlantic and - Visits to besides Panama 

Pacific) at ¨La picturesque City; 

Cruz¨ towns. - Students and 

viewpoint. 

researchers. 



people 

- Ecotourism; emphasis on marine - The inadequate 

activities – nautical and tours to the management of 

mangroves, reefs and the endemic livestock 

rain forest. 

ranching causing 

- Mix of sports fishing tourism with land 

cruises, adventure, sun & beach deforestation; 

tourism and also scientific tourism. - Land 

speculation, hotel 

development, 

summer houses, 

marinas, harbors 

and other 

infrastructures for 

traditional 

tourism; 

- illegal fishing. 

- Educational and leisure 

ecotourism; Emphasis on activities 

such as fauna, flora and waterfalls 

observation; river bathing. 

- Mix of community/cultural tourism 

with agro-tourism and scientific 

tourism 

- There are 

settlements 

inside the park 

and in its buffer 

zones, with 

agricultural 

activities such as 

subsistence 

crops and 

extensive 

ranching. This 

causes 

deforestation, 

pressures on 

wildlife and land 

erosion.

Name of 

Protected 

Area 

PN Altos de 

Campana 

- (4,925.00 

ha) 

PN 

Soberanía 

- (19,543.55 

ha) 

Resources 

with 


potential 

- Landscapes; 

- Cool weather; 

- Species of 

amphibians 

and reptiles; 

- Unique 

avifauna; 

- Hills of: 

¨Trinidad¨, ¨La 

Cruz¨ and 

¨Campana¨ 

- Panama 

Canal and 

watershed; 

- Unique 

avifauna; 

- Humidtropical 

forest 

close to 

Panama City; 

- River 

Chagres 

- Paths: 

¨Camino de 

Cruces¨ and 

¨Venta de 

Cruces. 

Ecotourism 

activities 



- Hiking; - National tourists: - Educational and leisure 

- Climbing and students from ecotourism; emphasis on hiking, 

rappel nearby and central picnic, camping; 

- Scientific provinces, and - Observation of flora and fauna; 

research; Panama City; - Mix of community/cultural/agro- 

- Visits to local - Panamanians tourism/scientific and adventure 

fairs; who live abroad; tourism. 

- Observation - Foreign tourists; 

of stars; -National and 

- Landscape international 

photography researchers. 

- Hiking; 

- Scientific 

research; 

- Bird 

watching; 

- Canopy at 

the 

observation 

tower; 

- Canoeing; 

- Mountain 

biking; 

- Visits to 

historical 

places 



people 

- Foreign tourists; - Casual and educational 

- Bird watchers ecotourism; emphasis on hiking, 

and business flora and fauna observation and 

people who visit natural history. 

the country for a - Mix of community/cultural/agro- 

short time; tourism/scientific and adventure 

- National tourists: tourism 

primary and high 

school students 

from Panama City; 

-During summer it 

is a recreational 

destiny for low and 

medium income 

families from 

nearby 

communities; 

- It is the only park 

with sports 

facilities for 

mountain biking 

and nature´s 

exploration. 



people 

- Land conflicts 

inside the park; 

Contamination by 

agro-chemicals, 

use of land for 

stockbreeding 

(??); 

accumulation of 

solid waste along 

the access road 

to the park; 

-Illegal hunting 

- Illegal hunting; 

- Some roads are 

a threat to 

animals crossing 

through the 

adjacent forests; 

subsistence 

agriculture and 

extraction of 

resources (timber 

and palms) for 

constructions in 

buffer zones; 

- Forest fires

Name of 

Protected 

Area 

PN Chagres 

- 

(131,260.77 

ha) 

Resources 

with 


potential 

- Indigenous 

villages; 

- Panama 

Canal 

watershed; 

- Alajuela Lake; 

¨Camino Real¨, 

- Jaguars, 

Arpía eagle; 

- High plant 

endemism 

Ecotourism 

activities 



- Visitation to - Foreign tourism - Educational, casual and intensive - The 14 

indigenous exceed nine times ecotourism; 

indigenous 

villages; national tourists; - Mix of various activities, where groups present in 

- Rafting - Tourists coming cultural and historical attractions the area practice 

- Horse riding; from cruises that have development potential; subsistence 

- Bird arrive to the - Coexistence with indigenous agriculture and 

watching; Panama and communities, nature and extensive 

Boating; Colon harbors and adventure; 

stockbreeding 

Sports fishing, going to visit the - Mix of sports fishing tourism, (??) causing 

Visits to indigenous adventure, scientific and 

deforestation and 

historical villages. cultural/community. 

land erosion; 

places; - National tourists: 

- Urban 

- Scientific students, 

development 

research; researchers, 

within and in the 

- River bathing. religious churches 

park´s buffer 

and journalists. 

zone including 

some primary 


services, rural 


paths and 

people 

clandestine solid 

waste disposal is 

a major issue, 

which contributes 

to erosion and 

soil and water 

contamination. 

- Mining activities 

and gold 

extraction are not 

regulated and the 

few concessions 

in place are not 

operating.

Name of 

Protected 

Area 

PN Darién 

-Reserve of 

the La 

Amistad 

Biosphere 

(1983) and 

World 

Natural 

Heritage by 

UNESCO 

(1981) 

- 

(569,429.51 

ha) 

Resources 

with 


potential 

- Tropical 

forest; 

- Indigenous 

Peoples 

(Kunas, 

Embera, 

Wounaan) and 

afrodescendents; 

- Majestic and 

large rivers; 

- Fishing 

resources; 

- Mammals, 

Arpía Eagle 

and macaws. 

Ecotourism 

activities 

- Bird 

watching; 

- Coexistence 

with 

indigenous 

communities; 

- Use of buffer 

zones´ 

resources; 

- Crossing of 

the Darien 

isthmus (Route 

of Vasco 

Nuñez de 

Balboa); 

- Sports 

fishing. 



- It is the least 

visited PA 

according to 

registry data; 

-Foreign tourists; 

- National and 

international 

researchers. 


average: N/A 

- Intensive and educational 

ecotourism; Tours of the 

humid tropical forest; 

Fauna observation; 

experimentation of 

coexistence with 

indigenous communities 

and äfrodarienitas¨; 

- Mix of adventure 

tourism/community/cultural 

/scientific and sports 

fishing.

ANNEX F: SINAP AND PRIORITY PROTECTED AREAS 


DOCUMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 

PANAMA 

MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION THROUGH LOW-IMPACT 

ECOTOURISM IN THE SISTEMA NACIONAL DE AREAS PROTEGIDAS (SINAP) 

(PN-X1003) 

DRAFT GRANT PROPOSAL 

This document was prepared by the project team consisting of: Michele Lemay 

(INE/RND), Project Team Leader; Alexandra Ortega (INE/RND); Denise Urias Levy 

(VPS/ESG); Viviana del Carmen Alva Hart (RND/CPN); Juan Carlos Dugand 

(PDP/CPN); Karina Diaz (PDP/CPN); Gerardo Arias Tatis (CID/CPN); Bernadete 

Buschbaum (LEG/SGO); and Elizabeth Chavez (INE/RND) who was in charge of 

document production.

-iii- 

CONTENT 

PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 5 

I. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS MONITORING .................................................................... 2 

A. Background ........................................................................................................ 2 

1. The Role of Ecotourism in Panama´s Protected Area System ................. 2 

2. Challenges and lessons learned ................................................................ 3 

3. Strategy and justification .......................................................................... 5 

B. Objective, Components and Cost ....................................................................... 6 

1. Objective and Component Description .................................................... 6 

2. Cost and Financing ................................................................................... 8 

C. Key Results Indicators ....................................................................................... 9 

D. Viability ........................................................................................................... 10 

II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS .................................................................. 10 

A. Financing Instruments ...................................................................................... 10 

B. Environmental and Social Safeguard Risks ..................................................... 10 

C. Fiduciary Risk .................................................................................................. 12 

D. Other Key Issues and Risks ............................................................................. 12 

III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................. 13 

A. Summary Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 13 

1. Executing Agency .................................................................................. 13 

2. Coordination ........................................................................................... 14 

3. Operating Regulations ............................................................................ 14 

4. Procurement............................................................................................ 14 

B. Summary of Arrangements for Monitoring Results ........................................ 14

-iv- 

ANNEXES 

ANNEX I: Summary Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM) 

ANNEX II: Results Framework 

ANNEX III: Summary Procurement Plan 

ANNEX IV: Safeguard Screening Form and Safeguard Policy Filter Report 

REQUIRED 

ELECTRONIC LINKS 

1. Development Effectiveness Matrix (DEM) questionnaire 

http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getDocument.aspx?DOCNUM=35360935 

2. POA (Plan of activities for first disbursement and the first 18 months of implementation) 


3. Monitoring & Evaluation Arrangements 


4. Complete Project Procurement Plan 


OPTIONAL 

1. Ecotourism Report 


2. Biodiversity Report 


3. Biodiversity Tracking Tools 


4. Social Report 


5. Financial sustainability Study 


6. Institutional and Legal Framework Analysis 


7. Detailed Budget 


8. Risk Assessment 

http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getDocument.aspx?DOCNUM=35387317

-v- 

PROJECT SUMMARY 

PANAMA 

ABREVIATIONS 

ANAM Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente 

APO Annual Plan of Operations 

AP's Áreas Protegidas 

ATP Autoridad de Turismo de Panamá 

BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo 

DAPVS Departamento de Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre 

DFCA Departamento de Fomento de la Cultura Ambiental 

ESMR Environmental and Social Management Report 

ESS Environmental and Social Strategy 

FSP Full Sized Project 

GEF Global Environment Facility 

IDB Inter-American Development Bank 

OEA Organization of American States 

PA Protected Area 

PILA Parque Internacional La Amistad 

PMEMAP Programa de Monitoreo de la Efectividad del Manejo de las Áreas 

Protegidas 

PNAC Parque Nacional Altos de Campana 

PNC Parque Nacional Coiba 

PNCH Parque Nacional Chagres 

PND Parque Nacional Darién 

PNGDOTH Parque Nacional General de División Omar Torrijos Herrera 

PNMIB Parque Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos 

PNVB Parque Nacional Volcán Barú 

POD Proposal for Operation Development 

SINAC Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación 

SINAP Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas 

SSF Safeguard and Screening Form for Screening and Classification of Projects

- 1 - 

Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation Through Low-Impact Ecotourism in the 

Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas (Sinap) 

(PN-X1003) 

Financial Terms and Conditions 

Beneficiary: Republic of Panama Amortization Period: n/a 

Grace Period: n/a 

Executing Agency: National Environmental 

Authority (ANAM: Autoridad Nacional del 

Ambiente) 

Disbursement Period: 48 months 

Source Amount 

IDB (Grant from the 

Global Environment 

Facility - GEF) US$4.0 million 

Supervision and 

Inspection Fee: 

Other/Cofinancing US$4.248 million Interest Rate: n/a 

Credit Fee: n/a* 

Total US$8.248 million Currency: US$ dollars 

Project at a Glance 

Project Objective/Description: 

To generate a model of low environmental impact ecotourism in the national protected areas system 

(SINAP) that contributes to biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas, in a 

framework of innovation, entrepreneurial integration, and sustainable social development at the 

local scale. To this end, the project will finance three components: (a) Policies and regulatory 

framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of ecotourism in the SINAP; 

(b) Planning, operational management and monitoring of ecotourism in Protected Area (PA)s; and 

(c) Strengthening of income generation potential for local stakeholders through ecotourism in 

selected PAs. 

Special contractual clauses: 

Prior to the first disbursement: (i) signature of the agreement between ANAM and ATP (3.3); 

(ii) the approval of the Project Operating Manual (POM) by the Steering Committee, in accordance 

with terms previously agreed between the Borrower and the Bank (3.5). 

Exceptions to Bank policies: None 

Project qualifies for: 

n/a* 

SEQ[ ] PTI [ ] Sector [ ] Geographic[ ] Headcount [ ] 

(*) The credit fee and inspection and supervision fee will be established periodically by the Board of Executive Directors as part of its 

review of the Bank’s lending charges, in accordance with the applicable provision of the Bank’s policy on lending rate methodology for 

ordinary capital loans. In no case will the credit fee exceed 0.75% or the inspection and supervision fee exceed, in a given six-month 

period, the amount that would result form applying 1% to the loan amount divided by the number of six-month periods included in the 

original disbursement period.

A. Background 

- 2 - 

I. DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS MONITORING 

1. The Role of Ecotourism in Panama´s Protected Area System 

1.1 With a territory extending 75,517 km 2 , Panama is considered one of the countries 

with the highest biodiversity of the Central American region, performing an 

important function of natural connectivity between North America and South 

America. Over 1,300 endemic species have been identified among plants, 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and fresh water fish 1 . In recognition of this 

significant biodiversity, the Government of Panama has established the National 

System of Protected Areas (SINAP: Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas). The 

system’s objective is to protect and maintain biological diversity in terrestrial, 

coastal, marine and other ecosystems, and to promote recreation, education, and 

natural resources research. Under the authority of the Panama National 

Environment Authority (ANAM), the SINAP has been expanded and 

strengthened over the last decade and many of the existing protected areas have 

achieved international recognition as World Heritage Sites, Ramsar sites 2 and 

Biosphere Reserves. At present, the system includes 89 protected areas (PAs) 

covering a total area of approximately 2,922,648.72 ha, which represents 34% of 

the national territory. Only 19 (21%) of the PAs in the system currently have 

their management plans and most are still in need of developing and 

implementing strategic planning, operating and financing plans and monitoring 

and supervision plans. In most of these Protected Area (PA)s, ANAM is 

implementing an innovative monitoring program of management effectiveness 

(“Programa de Monitoreo de la Efectividad del Manejo de las Areas Protegidas 

de Panama – PMEMAP”) which is applied on a annual basis in each PA, with the 

participation of local communities and stakeholders. 

1.2 This significant biodiversity and a unique ethnic-cultural base are two of the 

country’s greatest assets that have helped propel the tourism sector to the 

forefront of the country`s competitiveness efforts. At present, tourism is a driving 

force in Panama´s economy, with an average 10% annual increase registered from 

2004-2008. A total of 1,573,070 persons visited Panama in 2008 of which 80% 

were tourists 3 . Past inventories (IPAT/OEA, 1993) have concluded that about 

72% of the country’s attractions were within the SINAP at that time. Yet only 

about 3% of total visitors reportedly visited a protected area in Panama between 

2004-2009 (compared to 54% in Costa Rica, 2006), resulting in significant 

financial challenges for the SINAP as most of the resources for management 

come from entrance fees and these raise no more than $300,000/year, according to 

ANAM statistics and a diagnostic conducted during project preparation. 

1 ANAM 2007. Estado del Conocimiento y Conservación de la Biodiversidad y de las Especies de Vertebrados 

de Panamá. 

2 Sites recognized under the Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance) 

3 Informe Económico 2008 del Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas de Panamá.

2. Challenges and lessons learned 

- 3 - 

1.3 The main issue to be addressed by this project is the limited sustainable use of the 

high biodiversity of Panama’s PA system, associated mainly with low levels of 

visitation and limited ecotourism services both within the PAs and in surrounding 

areas. This situation can be traced to three main root causes identified during 

project preparation, which represent obstacles standing in the way of 

mainstreaming biodiversity conservation through ecotourism in protected areas: 

a. Lack of a sound and consistent ecotourism policy and institutional 

framework for the SINAP (see Legal and Institutional Framework Analysis), 

including: (i) failure of national sector policies and plans to mainstream the 

objective of sustainable use of biodiversity conservation in the SINAP, 

shortcomings in terms of regulations for public use and the provision of 

quality, demand-driven ecotourism services in PAs (i.e., for concessions), as 

well as norms and procedures for and the availability of public use plans for 

PAs with a high ecotourism potential; (ii) limited coordination between the 

two key sector agencies (ANAM and the Panama Tourism Authority – ATP) 

and partnerships established between public, private and community-based 

agencies and organizations; and, (iii) lack of innovative financial and legal 

instruments to enhance financial sustainability of the PA system, in 

particular, for PAs that have a clear competitive advantage in terms of 

visitation and public use. Overall, the projected income from PA visitation 

fees, concessions and other activities represented only 15% of the total 

projected budget for the SINAP in 2010. In the case of Parque Nacional 

Marino Isla Bastimentos, one of the most popular sites in the system, 

entrance fees generate approximately US$28,000 yearly while the PA’s 

business plan estimates that potential annual revenues from ecotourism could 

reach US$250,000 (see Financial Sustainability Study). 

b. Limited on-site operational management of ecotourism and associated 

environmental impacts (see Biodiversity and Ecotourism diagnostics). While 

some PAs have management plans and research is undertaken on a regular 

basis, there is limited on-site operational capacity to address the findings of 

the research studies or to implement the recommendations of the plans related 

to ecotourism management. While carrying capacity studies have been done 

for a few of the PAs (e.g., Parque Internacional La Amistad, Parque 

Nacional Volcan Baru), the annual monitoring required to assess compliance 

with carrying capacity limits has not been feasible due to institutional 

weaknesses and other limitations. Contributing to this situation is the low 

levels of investments in ecotourism public facilities and services, equipment, 

staffing, and management systems, which are only in part due to a low level 

of visitation in a context of incipient integration of ecotourism in the 

promotion of Panama`s touristic assets and products. For example, while the 

management plan for the Parque Internacional La Amistad calls for at least 

17 officials to manage the protected area, there is only 9 staff working for this 

256,195 ha site. Coiba National Park is running on a budget deficit of 

approximately B/. 9 million in five years. The annual budget invested per

- 4 - 

hectare in SINAP is about half the budget invested per hectare in Costa Rica 

(US$2.63/ha and US$6.50/ha respectively. See Financial Sustainability 

Study). 

c. Lack of entrepreneurial capacity of nearby community organizations for 

offering a quality product and the absence of opportunities for participation 

of local tourism stakeholders in managing the PAs and conserving 

biodiversity, limit the generation of tangible local benefits from ecotourism 

and alternative sources of income generation in the PA system (see social 

diagnostic). For example, only five of the nine PAs selected as priority sites 

for this project have some type of business plans and most lack the capacity 

and resources to implement the plans. Moreover, in terms of concessions or 

other co-management financing options, of the five PAs with concession 

mechanisms in place, such concessions are for the installation and operation 

of telecommunications facilities and not necessarily for ecotourism-related 

services. In general, ecotourism tour packages are offered by tourism 

agencies in Panama City, without close coordination with the management 

personnel of the Parks, resulting in potential conflicts as well as missed 

opportunities to promote activities that are more sustainable for the PA. In 

Parque Nacional Chagres, for example, most tourists are not being informed 

about potential visits to indigenous villages in the area (see Financial 

Sustainability Study). 

1.4 In general, the limited coordination and few partnerships established between 

public institutions, private sector and community-based organizations have 

translated into: (i) limited integration of the PAs in the national strategy for 

tourism promotion; and (ii) limited offer by either the surrounding communities 

or the private sector of quality, demand-driven ecotourism services associated 

with the PAs. The inventory of ecotourism services and associated facilities 

completed during project preparation show a broad variation in terms of quality 

and supply of services and a disconnection between existing services and visitor 

needs. For example, although all of the nine PAs have walking trails, only two 

PAs have a visitor center and one has trail guides onsite. 

1.5 Recognizing that one of the main challenges to implementing the Convention on 

Biological Diversity is the failure to incorporate and integrate biodiversity 

considerations in other sectors, 4 and that ecotourism is a poorly developed but 

growing and promising segment of tourism, the Government of Panama has 

solicited the Bank’s assistance, in its role as a GEF Agency, in the preparation and 

presentation of this Full-Sized Project (FSP) to the GEF, which has been included 

in the project portfolio of the Government`s Strategic Plan 2010-2014. 

1.6 Experience in Latin America 5 in the development of ecotourism in protected areas 

points to several lessons learned that are applicable to Panama: (i) as is the case 

4 Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente. Tercer Informe Nacional de Biodiversidad. 2007. 

5 See “El turismo en América Latina y el Caribe y la Experiencia del BID” “Ecotourism and Economic 

Growth in the Galápagos”, E. Taylor. 2009; and World Ecotourism Summit Final Report, Quebec City. 

World Tourism Organization, 2002 (www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/FinalReport-WES-eng.pdf).

- 5 - 

for all tourism initiatives, successful projects focus their interventions on 

destinations with the greatest competitive advantages and promote demand-driven 

services; (ii) even in the case of ecotourism, instruments and trained human 

resources for managing public use and guiding public and private sector 

investments must be in place at the outset to maintain the environmental quality 

of protected areas and their buffer zones; (iii) local communities and businesses 

must derive measureable benefits from the sustainable use of biodiversity to 

meaningfully support the conservation goals of protected areas; and (iv) local 

residents must be the main beneficiaries of the direct benefits of ecotourism and 

must be given an opportunity to participate in all phases, from planning, 

implementation and monitoring of ecotourism. 

3. Strategy and justification 

1.7 The project takes a two-pronged approach aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity 

conservation through ecotourism in protected areas both at the national and local 

scale. At the national level, the project will contribute to developing a model for 

sustainable ecotourism development in the SINAP through activities which will: 

(i) strengthen national-level strategies and norms for promoting ecotourism in 

accordance with the objectives of the SINAP; (ii) improve SINAP´s financial 

sustainability; (iii) create an enabling environment for private and public 

investment and foster replication of similar activities in PAs of considerable 

socio-economic and ecological importance; and (iv) enhance sectorial institutional 

collaboration and coordination, particularly between the environmental agency 

(ANAM) and the tourism authority (ATP). At the local level, the project will 

finance activities that correspond closely to the particular context encountered in 

nine PAs selected as priority destinations, and it will promote and strengthen 

community participation in the development and implementation of the project. 

1.8 The selection of the nine PAs that will pilot the Program was based on a set of 

technical criteria jointly agreed by ANAM and ATP, including: (i) current and 

potential ecotourism demand; (ii) close proximity to the official Tourism 

Destinations, as included in the Master Tourism Plan for Panama (2007-2020); 

(iii) biodiversity values and vulnerabilities; and, (iv) potential to maximize 

community participation in the development and implementation of the project. 

The nine selected areas are: Parque Nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos (PNMIB), 

Parque Internacional La Amistad (PILA), Parque Nacional Volcan Baru (PNVB), 

Parque Nacional General de Division Omar Torrijos Herrera (PNGDOTH), 

Parque Nacional Darien (PND), Parque Nacional Soberania (PNS), Parque 

Nacional Chagres (PNCh), Parque Nacional Altos de Campana (PNAC), and, 

Parque Nacional Coiba (PNC). Taken together, these nine PAs account for 60% 

of the current visitation to the SINAP and approximately 40% of the system’s 

territory. 

1.9 Through the strengthening of appropriate planning and management tools 

(e.g. public use guides, concession and co-management policies and procedures), 

the project will support the development of financial mechanisms to increase PA 

conservation and sustainability. It is expected that ecotourism products,

- 6 - 

infrastructure, technology and equipment for mainstreaming biodiversity 

conservation will be significantly improved and that PA managers, municipalities, 

and the business community will be trained to better handle increased visitation, 

while at the same time contributing to the monitoring and control of potential 

impacts on these areas` biodiversity values. Community organizations and 

tourism operators will be part of local environmental education campaigns, which 

will give them a sense of ownership and stewardship of the natural resources that 

provide them with viable livelihoods. 

1.10 Monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of ecotourism in PAs is a key element 

that permeates most activities of the project. The project will assist the country to 

implement its official PA monitoring program – PMEMAP and, as such, will 

provide the information necessary for the government to consolidate its efforts to 

develop payment for environmental services schemes (e.g., for the contribution of 

PAs to the Panama Canal watershed), which require economic valuation of 

effectively preserved natural resources. 

1.11 The project is consistent with the objectives of the Bank`s Country Strategy 

with Panama (EBP-PN 2010-2014) in that it contributes directly to consolidation 

of the institutional and regulatory framework for environmental management as 

well as strengthening of the capacity for monitoring environmental compliance 

called for in the action plan included in the Strategy. The project is also included 

in the Country Program Document 2010 (CPD 2010, Annex II of Operational 

Program Report 2010, GN-2576). Moreover, and in line with the main 

institutional priorities of the latest capital increase of the Bank, the project aims 

at closing the growth gap while contributing to global environmental 

sustainability, through the development of the right mix of regulations and market 

incentives for protected area management that is responsive to climate change 

adaptation in both terrestrial and coastal and marine areas. As such, the project is 

consistent with the institutional priority of protecting the environment, responding 

to climate change, and promoting renewal energy and food security. 

B. Objective, Components and Cost 

1. Objective and Component Description 

1.12 The project objective is to generate a model of low environmental impact 

ecotourism in the National Protected Areas System (SINAP) that contributes to 

biodiversity conservation and sustainability of protected areas, in a framework of 

innovation, entrepreneurial integration, and sustainable social development. 

1.13 The first component addresses the critical gaps and limitations in the institutional 

and regulatory framework and existing inter-institutional coordination and 

capacities. It also addresses the challenge of increasing sustainable financing for 

SINAP, by promoting the design and establishment of alternative sources of 

financing for development, management and promotion of ecotourism. The 

second component will improve the quality of planning, operational management 

and monitoring of the nine PAs selected as priorities for ecotourism development. 

The third component will focus on fostering private sector and community 

participation and the generation of tangible local benefits from ecotourism.

- 7 - 

1.14 Component 1: Policies and regulatory framework for biodiversity 

conservation and sustainable management of ecotourism in the SINAP. This 

component is divided into two subcomponents. 

a. The first subcomponent seeks to establish a national strategy shared by 

ANAM and ATP through the implementation of various coordination 

mechanisms, including a national coordination structure for the development 

of ecotourism in and around SINAP. With the resources allocated to this 

subcomponent, ANAM will hire consultants to provide technical assistance 

and training for: (i) the formulation of a national policy for ecotourism that 

reconciles the priorities of the SINAP and National Tourism Master Plan; 

(ii) elaboration of formally endorsed guidelines for the formulation and 

monitoring of public use plans, including the identification of a nation-wide 

set of performance indicators for ecotourism; (iii) definition and validation 

of a set of policies and technical, social and environmental criteria related to 

tourism concessions, co-management agreements and tourism operation 

permits; (iv) elaboration of a procedural manual for granting and managing 

concessions, co-management agreements and permits, including the crafting 

of administrative procedures to streamline the concessions and 

co-management approval process; (iv) introductory training courses and 

knowledge-building sessions, both at the regional and national levels, to 

improve the technical capacity of ANAM´s staff in the Departamento de 

Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (DAPVS) and the Departamento de 

Fomento de la Cultura Ambiental (DFCA), as well as ATP in public use 

planning, monitoring and financial administration. 

b. The second subcomponent focuses firstly on ecotourism as a mean to 

increase PA´s income; and secondly on broadening the array of sustainable 

financing options for the SINAP. ANAM will hire consultants to provide 

technical assistance for: (i) the definition of a clear ecotourism-based 

financial sustainability strategy for PAs; and, (ii) the definition of alternative 

financial mechanisms (e.g., cruise ship or airport entry fees, payments for 

environmental services) to support biodiversity conservation through 

collaborative agreements between public and private sector institutions. 

1.15 Component 2: Planning, operational management and monitoring of 

ecotourism in PAs. This component is aimed at enhancing planning and the 

quality of ecotourism products in selected PAs through the design and 

implementation of public use plans and ecotourism management systems, leading 

to an increase in quantitative and qualitative indicators of visitation. ANAM will 

use the resources of this subcomponent to contract services and purchase goods 

for the following purposes: (i) develop, approve and implement at least seven 

management and public use plans with a view to identifying and setting objectives 

for ecotourism attractions and services that are in line with the PA’s conservation 

mandate and that promote knowledge and appreciation of its biodiversity. The 

plans will integrate adaptation strategies to respond to the impacts of climate 

change (e.g., coral bleaching, sea level rise, increase in storm surges, saltwater 

intrusion) in coastal, marine and terrestrial areas; (ii) conduct studies to define

- 8 - 

carrying capacity 6 , flow management and visitor monitoring for each of the 9 

selected PAs. This will encompass the design and demonstration of visitor survey 

methodologies to collect key data on ecotourism use (e.g., visitor characteristics, 

expenditure patterns, willingness-to-pay) as a basis for setting fee structures and 

with a view to expanding to the entire SINAP; (iii) identify a public investment 

portfolio for PAs jointly defined by ANAM and APT, which will add value and 

attractiveness to ecotourism products (e.g., trails, observation towers, camping 

sites). Once defined and approved by the Bank, the portfolio will be financed by 

the Program; (iv) implement of a participatory monitoring process of the impact 

of ecotourism in the 9 PAs, in coordination with the existing PMEMAP; 

(v) enhance PA on-site personnel’s capacity to implement and enforce public use 

plans, and to enhance their guidance capacity towards the public through 

appropriate training and capacity building. 

1.16 Component 3: Strengthening of income generation potential for local 

stakeholders through ecotourism in selected Pas. This component seeks to 

support local stakeholders in obtaining concrete economic benefits from the 

mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in ecotourism within PA´s and their 

buffer zones. With the resources allocated to this component, ANAM will hire 

consultants for the following purposes: (i) training of a minimum of 20 local 

organizations and operators in providing demand driven, high quality ecotourism 

services and products, integrating best practices and business management. This 

will include training and technical assistance in innovative technologies for 

ecotourism promotion in target markets, the provision of energy-efficient 

services, visitor safety and private sector and community participation in 

biodiversity monitoring; (ii) capacity building of existing local networks of 

service providers and development of business opportunities; (iii) elaboration of a 

minimum of 5 individual PAs business plans linking each PA to potential 

services providers; (iv) development and implementation of environmental 

education campaigns aimed at key local and national stakeholders (public and 

private) and focusing on the economic value of PAs and the benefits of their 

sound management and use; (v) support to ATP and ANAM to undertake market 

studies and develop a shared promotion strategy and marketing campaign to 

position the 9 pilot PAs and their services networks in the national and target 

international ecotourism markets, including tools, participation in trade shows, 

printed and audiovisual material etc; (vi) issuance of at least 4 concessions, 4 

operating permits and 4 co-management agreements using a streamlined and costefficient 

granting system, and; (vii) consolidation of at least 2 productive value 

chains connecting tourists, national tour operators and local service providers for 

two PAs with the greatest competitive advantage. 

2. Cost and Financing 

1.17 Total project cost is estimated at US$8,248,000, US$4 million of which will be 

provided as grant funding from the GEF, through the Bank in its role as GEF 

6 To support the definition of Public Use Plans, the project will either use carrying capacity-base or Limits of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) based methodologies.

- 9 - 

Agency. As parallel co-financing, a total of US$4,248,000 will be contributed 

jointly by both ANAM and ATP. The contributions of the counterpart are 

confirmed through Letters of Commitment, as required by the GEF, and a 

Memorandum of Understanding will be signed at project initiation. Table 1 

provides the summary cost table for the project. 

Component 

1. Regulatory framework 

and financial sustainability 

2. PAs ecotourism 

management system 

3. Private sector 

participation 

Project Administration 

(including coordinator, 

evaluations and audits) 

C. Key Results Indicators 

Table 1- Summary Cost Table (USD) 

1.18 The Project has adopted the key results indicators presented in Table 2. The 

complete Results Framework is presented in Annex II. 

Table 2- Key Results Indicators 

Indicator Rationale 

Improved Protected Areas` management 

effectiveness (as measured by GEF Tracking Tool 

for BD-SP2 and PMEMAP) 

Percentage increase in SINAP´s external sources 

of income 

Percentage increase of visitation due to 

improvements in ecotourism products and 

services in selected PAs 

Percentage of international visitors to Panama 

reported to visit at least one of selected PAs 

Percentage increase of local and communitybased 

businesses providing ecotourism services in 

PAs 

IADB 

(GEF) 

Local 

ANAM 

Local 

ATP 

Total 

% of 

Total 

513,700 800,000 0 1,313,700 16% 

1,990,600 1,248,000 800,000 4,038,600 49% 

1,095,700 1,000,000 200,000 2,295,700 30% 

400,000 200,000 0 600,000 5% 

TOTAL 4,000,000 3,248,000 1,000,000 8,248,000 100% 

% of Total 48.5% 39.4% 12.1% 100% 

Measures effectiveness of PA management 

and public use plans implementation & PA 

protection 

Measures financial independence of 

SINAP and the potential for sustaining 

improved ecotourism management systems 

in PAs 

Measures increase in attractiveness of PAs 

with investment in improved public use 

and ecotourism management 

Proxy to the positioning of Panamanian 

PA´s offer of ecotourism services 

(benchmarking with competitive 

destinations) 

Measures increase of provision of 

ecotourism services by local stakeholders 

and the capacity to generate higher income

- 10 - 

# of PA with linked biological, physical and 

economic use indicators clearly selected (wildlife, 

vegetation, water quality, volume of visitor 

activities, number of concessions); baseline 

completed; and monitoring methodology defined 

D. Viability 

Although overall monitoring of 

biodiversity will take place during the 

Project, it is important to define keystone 

indicators that will enhance quality of 

monitoring efforts in the long run 

1.19 Selection of the nine priority protected areas was made on the basis of 

cost-effectiveness. This selection was the main factor in ensuring effectiveness of 

the interventions, particularly the operational improvements in planning, 

monitoring, and on-site training (Components 2 and 3). Cost effectiveness was 

achieved by focusing the project's interventions in 9 of the 89 protected area units 

of the SINAP. These protected areas account for over 60% of the current 

visitation to protected areas and are all located within 50 km of the ten 

priority tourism destinations selected in the National Tourism Master Plan. As 

such, these 9 protected areas are rated as having the highest potential either on 

their own or when combined with nearby complementary tourism assets 

to compete for an international demand from target markets (United States and 

Europe). In addition, these 9 protected areas accounted for over 95% of the 

revenues generated by visitor fees for the entire SINAP in 2009. With the US$4 

million investment of the project, 50% of the protected areas annual operating 

costs would be covered by the revenues generated from entrance fees by the end 

of the project. A comparable investment of US$4 million in the next ten most 

visited protected areas would have covered only 35% of annual operating costs. 

A. Financing Instruments 

II. FINANCING STRUCTURE AND MAIN RISKS 

2.1 The project was designed as a technical cooperation grant. It will be financed 

through non-reimbursable resources from the Global Environment Facility and 

local counterpart contributions. The disbursement schedule is based on the 

referenced amount for priority activities to be initiated in each year of the Project. 

The predicted flow of financial resources is as follows: 

Table 3-Anticipated Disbursement Timetable 

Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 

GEF 35% 30% 25% 10% 

B. Environmental and Social Safeguard Risks 

2.2 While most impacts from this operation are expected to be positive and to derive 

from the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and the socio-economic 

improvement of local people, the Environmental and Social Review of the Bank 

(ESR 09-09) assigned a Category “B” classification, mainly due to the 

anticipation of potential direct, indirect or cumulative impacts that could result

- 11 - 

from the development of small ecotourism investments in the selected PAs object 

of this operation, and/or the presence of indigenous communities. ESG did not 

require an Environmental and Social Management Report for this operation. 

2.3 The likelihood for such anticipated impacts was fully studied during project 

preparation and measures have been integrated into the project’s design to prevent 

and minimize their potential occurrence. Given its focus on the protection, 

conservation and sustainability of natural resources in the selected areas, 

on-the-ground activities will only be initiated or promoted once the required legal 

and administrative framework is in place at the national level (i.e., the policies 

and procedures included in Component 1). Potential ecotourism concessions, 

co-management or other management alternatives will be based on the 

conclusions and recommendations from the management and public use plans and 

carrying capacity studies, and will take place under rigorous scrutiny and 

evaluation by the authorizing agency (ANAM). The same studies that will orient 

the definition of management alternatives for each protected area will also guide 

the identification of a portfolio of investments that are geared towards 

environmental viability and sustainability (component 2), thus minimizing risks 

that could occur during construction and operation of ecotourism services (which 

in general are small and localized). Finally, the project has been designed to 

integrate substantial support for training and capacity building, and for monitoring 

and evaluation. These two elements permeate the components of the project, and 

are tools to enhance monitoring capacity at the local, national and international 

levels, guaranteeing the achievement of global environmental benefits required 

for all GEF-supported projects. 

2.4 Regarding the local communities, the project has integrated key aspects to ensure 

participation on the planning as well as on the reaping of economic benefits from 

ecotourism activities (Component 3). Local communities (inclusive of indigenous 

groups) will have equal access to environmental education campaigns, and 

economic and business development opportunities, through training on 

developing alternatives for sustainable use of natural resources. 

2.5 In compliance with OP-765, the Program also includes a process to build 

awareness and relationships as a first step to identifying the cultural values to be 

safeguarded and highlighted through the tourism experience. The executing 

agency will promote the involvement of indigenous peoples and provide them 

with culturally appropriate information to access the opportunities presented by 

the Program. 

2.6 This operation is in line with ecotourism`s basic principles (i.e., conservation, 

education, traveler responsibility and active community participation) and, 

although it is located in environmentally valuable and sensitive areas, it has been 

designed to protect, conserve and sustain the responsible use of the area, resulting 

in positive net impacts. By design, the project triggers the Convention on 

Biological Diversity given that it falls within the Biodiversity Focal Area of the 

Global Environment Facility.

C. Fiduciary Risk 

- 12 - 

2.7 Based on the risk analysis conducted during project preparation, the project has a 

moderate to low fiduciary risk. The GEF grant will be administered by DAPVS 

within ANAM (the Executing Agency) which has adequate experience and tools 

to administer projects. ANAM managed the execution of two recent loans 

(PN-0122; 1222/OC-PN and PN-L1013; 1912/OC-PN), a National Environmental 

Program and a Modernizing Environmental Management for Competitiveness, 

respectively). ANAM will have overall responsibility for the financial 

management of the program comprising accounting and financial reporting, flow 

of funds and external auditing arrangements. The proposed operation will build on 

the existing organizational and management structures of the ANAM/DAPVS. 

2.8 The project annual financial statements will be audited under Terms of Reference 

prepared in line with Bank guidelines to be performed by independent auditors 

and following auditing standards acceptable to the Bank. The audit report shall be 

submitted to the Bank within 120 days of each fiscal year end. 

D. Other Key Issues and Risks 

2.9 The present limited inter-institutional coordination for ecotourism management 

both at the national and local levels could affect conditions for efficient 

implementation of the project. The proposed program, however, has been 

designed to ensure that both ANAM and ATP continue to work jointly together as 

they have throughout the preparation of this project, and that a shared strategy is 

reached, which involves: (i) the formulation of a common coordination 

mechanism and regulatory framework to strengthen the cooperation between 

governmental agencies (national and local); and, (ii) the design of financial 

sustainability mechanisms to foster and consolidate local and national 

partnerships for ecotourism management in the SINAP. 

2.10 The development of a model for sustainable ecotourism through activities that 

enable an environment for private and public investment could raise private sector 

expectations for special funding opportunities. To counter such situation, the 

program will support key investments in public goods improvements, such as 

improved infrastructure and facilities that will indirectly benefit private providers 

of ecotourism services, in particular those of concessions or co-management 

opportunities, and minimize expectations for special funding. 

2.11 The long-term financial sustainability of the nine selected PAs could be at risk if 

insufficient or inappropriate financial mechanisms are approved by the 

Government. This situation could also undermine full implementation of 

ecotourism management systems that will result from the activities of this project. 

To mitigate this risk the project will: (i) establish public-private strategic alliances 

to explore innovative mechanisms, and (ii) support the elaboration and 

implementation of PAs business plans.

- 13 - 

2.12 The climate change risk assessment carried out by ANAM’s Climate Change 

Unit in 2010, along with specific data for PAs, show that climate change factors 7 

have a low to moderate risk regarding the activities of this project. However, 

factors such as ocean warming and coral bleaching could constitute strong risks 

for the biological diversity of marine PAs such as Bastimentos Island in the 

Caribbean and Coiba Island in the Pacific. To mitigate such risk, the project will 

work in close collaboration with ANAM’s Climate Change Unit to streamline 

ecological monitoring programs and integrate protocols for climate change and 

invasive species on a regular basis as part of the PMEMAP and the project`s 

monitoring schedule. 

III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 

E. Summary Implementation Arrangements 

1. Executing Agency 

3.1 The Executing Agency will be the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM), 

which will assume full responsibility for project coordination, administration, 

financial and accounting management, including procurement and the preparation 

of annual operating budgets and progress monitoring and evaluation reports. 

Specific responsibilities of the Executing Agency include, but are not limited to: 

(i) maintain adequate accounting and financial controls, including a separate 

account for the purposes of this project; (ii) maintain appropriate support 

documentation filing systems for verification by the Bank and the external 

auditing firm; (iii) prepare and submit to the Bank disbursement requests and 

corresponding justification of expenses; (iv) prepare and obtain Bank approval for 

all bidding documents required to hire consulting firms, consultants and for the 

acquisition of goods; (v) coordinate the bidding processes according to Bank 

policies and Panamanian norms; (vi) monitor quality of the goods and services 

provided by contracted parties and making the corresponding payments; 

(vii) prepare and submit to the Bank the Program`s Financial Plan, which results 

from the procurement plan and the annual plan of operations (APO); and, 

(viii) record and control the results of the project through the agreed indicators. 

3.2 ANAM will assign a project coordinator and an ecotourism specialist to support 

the DAPVS to carry out the activities of the project and to closely monitor the 

financial management of the program. A financial specialist and a procurement 

specialist will also be contracted to assist ANAM in the execution of procurement 

activities, supervision of main contracts and provision of other financial 

assistance. These specialists will be based at DAPVS located within ANAM 

offices in Panama City. 

7 Such as increased storm and hurricane events, sea level rise, increase in occurrence and severity of drought 

episodes, and iinvasive species proliferation.

2. Coordination 

- 14 - 

3.3 A Steering Committee will be established to ensure close coordination between 

ANAM and ATP. The Committee will have the following functions: (i) strategic 

guidance for the project; (ii) approve annual work plans and mid-year and annual 

progress reports, and (iii) acknowledge annual financial audits. Before the 

initiation of the project a Cooperation Agreement between ANAM and ATP will 

be signed to establish the obligations of the parties. Signature of the agreement 

between the Executing Agency and the ATP will be a condition prior to first 

disbursement. 

3.4 Central to the execution of the entire project is the participation of the local 

community, private sector and institutional stakeholders. In this regard, the 

Steering Committee will ensure that the activities of the Program are carried out 

in active, close collaboration with stakeholders, and shall nominate other 

institutions to participate in the Committee, as required. From year two onwards, 

an Ecotourism National Coordination Structure should be in place with defined 

participation and decision mechanisms, which will open consultation channels 

towards the private sector, governmental entities, NGOs, academic institutions, 

and local communities. Towards the end of the project it is expected that this 

structure will become permanent. 

3. Operating Regulations 

3.5 The administration of the project will be based on a Project Operating Manual 

(POM) agreed by the parties. The POM includes the responsibilities, standards 

and procedures for contracts, acquisitions, financial management, accounting, 

audits and monitoring and evaluation of the operation. The approval of the POM 

by the Steering Committee, in accordance with terms previously agreed 

between the Borrower and the Bank, will be a condition prior to the first 

disbursement of the Financing. 

4. Procurement 

3.6 The procurement of contracts to be financed with resources of the financing will 

be carried out in accordance with the Policies for the Procurement of Works and 

Goods Financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (GN-2349-7); and the 

Policies for the Selection and Contracting of Consultants Financed by the 

Inter-American Development Bank (GN-2350-7) both of July 2006. A 

procurement plan for the first 18 months has been produced (see Annex III) and 

will be reviewed by the Executing Agency and the Bank every 6 months. 

F. Summary of Arrangements for Monitoring Results 

3.7 The Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) System will be coordinated by the Project 

Coordinator within the DAPVS of ANAM and will: (i) monitor the progress of 

outputs and outcomes based on the Results Framework (See Annex II), and

- 15 - 

(ii) assist in the preparation of Mid-Year Progress Reports and Annual Project 

Reports. The Annual Project Reports will present: (i) progress towards achieving 

the expected outcomes and the project objective, referencing the baseline for the 

indicators provided in the Results Framework; (ii) progress in generating the 

expected outputs, (iii) an updated Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, 

Opportunities and threats (SWOT Analysis) and a list of lessons learned and 

recommendations for adjustments to the project strategy and Results Framework, 

(iv) Budget Execution Report (BER), and (v) updated Procurement Plan. The 

Mid-Year Progress Reports and Annual Project Reports will be analyzed and 

approved by the Steering Committee. 

3.8 An independent external mid-term review and a final evaluation will be 

undertaken (Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Project) upon disbursement 

of 50% and 905 of the resources of the Financing. Both evaluations will be 

undertaken by consultants with demonstrated experience in the evaluation of PA 

management and to be contracted by ANAM with resources of the loan. The midterm 

review will evaluate if the project is achieving the expected outcomes and 

adequately moving towards the project objective. The final evaluation will: 

(i) verify that all expected outputs and outcomes and the project objective have 

been achieved; and (ii) identify project impacts. A key element to assess will be 

the long-term sustainability of the PAs selected for development of ecotourism 

activities. An external financial audit of the project financial statements, to be 

contracted by ANAM, will be performed each year by a firm acceptable to the 

Bank 8 . The findings of these evaluations will be shared with all the key 

stakeholders. 

8 Financial statements and the hiring of auditing firm must comply with OP-273-1 and with document: “Guías 

de Informes Financieros y Auditoría Externa de las Operaciones Financiadas por el BID.”

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: 

Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems 

Applying the GEF Tracking Tools in GEF-4 

Note: Given changes in the GEF’s biodiversity strategy in GEF-4, a slightly modified Tracking Tool for this 

strategic objective has been developed. Please use this tool for all GEF-4 funded projects that fall under this 

strategic objective. Please also note the addition of the “Financial Sustainability Scorecard for National Systems of 

Protected Areas” that UNDP developed and that the GEF is using for GEF-4 for projects focused on sustainable 

financing. 

Objective: To measure progress in achieving the impacts and outcomes established at the portfolio level 

under the biodiversity focal area. The following targets and indicators are being tracked for all GEF-4 

projects submitted under Strategic Objective One and the associated Strategic Programs. 

Impact and Outcome Indicators for Strategic Objective One and Associated Strategic Programs 

Strategic Objective 

One 

To catalyze 

sustainability of 

protected area 

systems 

Strategic Programs 

for GEF-4 under 


One 

1. Sustainable 

financing of 

protected area (PA) 

systems at the 

national level 

Expected Long-Term Impacts Indicators 

Biodiversity conserved and 

sustainably used in protected area 

systems 

Expected Outcomes 

• PA systems secure increased 

revenue and diversification of 

revenue streams to meet total 

expenditures required to meet 

management objectives 

• Reduction in financing gap to 

meet PA management objectives 

• Extent of habitat cover (hectares) 

by biome type maintained as 

measured by cover and 

fragmentation in protected area 

systems 

• Extent and percentage increase of 

new habitat protected (hectares) 

by biome type in protected area 

systems that enhances ecosystem 

representation 

• Protected area management 

effectiveness as measured by 

protected area scorecards that 

assess site management, financial 

sustainability, and capacity 

Indicators 

• Total revenue and diversification 

in revenue streams 

1




One 

2. Increasing 

representation of 

effectively 

managed marine 

PA areas in PA 

systems 

3. Strengthening 

terrestrial PA 

networks 




• Increased coverage of marine 

ecosystems globally and in 

national PA systems 

• Improved management of marine 

PAs 

• Improved ecosystem coverage of 

under-represented terrestrial 

ecosystems areas as part of 


• Improved management of 

terrestrial PAs 

Indicators 

• Number and extent (coverage) of 

national marine PAs compared to 

2006 global baseline for GEFeligible 

countries 

• PA management effectiveness as 

measured by individual PA 

scorecards 

• Terrestrial ecosystem coverage in 




scorecards 

Rationale: Project data from the GEF-4 project cohort will be aggregated for analysis of directional 

trends and patterns at a portfolio-wide level to inform the development of future GEF strategies and to 

report to GEF Council on portfolio-level performance in the biodiversity focal area. 

Structure of Tracking Tool: Each tracking tool requests background and coverage information on the 

project and specific information required to track the indicator sets listed above. 

Please note that Section Two of the tracking tool provides an assessment of protected area management 

effectiveness and is derived from the “World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and 

Sustainable Use Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Protected Areas” and 

complete instructions on how to apply the METT are provided with the METT. Please note that this is a 

revised version to reflect experience gained with the version of the METT that the GEF used in GEF-3. 

Please note that Section Three of the tracking tool, “Financial Sustainability Scorecard” is new in GEF-4 

and is to be submitted for all projects that are being submitted under Strategic Program One of this 

Strategic Objective: “Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level.” 

Guidance in Applying the Tracking Tool: The tracking tools are applied three times: at CEO 

endorsement 1 , at project mid-term, and at project completion. 

In GEF-4, we expect that projects which fall clearly within Strategic Objectives and support specific 

Strategic Programs under each Strategic Objective hence only one tracking tool will need to be completed. 

On very rare occasions, projects may make substantive contributions to more than one strategic objective. 

In these instances, the tracking tools for the relevant strategic objectives should be applied. It is important 

to keep in mind that the objective is to capture the full range of a project’s contributions to delivering on 

the targets set for each of the strategic objectives. The GEF Implementing Agency/Executing Agency will 

guide the project teams in the choice of the tracking tools. Please submit all information on a single 

project as one package (even where more than one tracking tool is applied). 

1 For Medium Sized Projects when they are submitted for CEO approval. 

2



Multi-country projects may face unique circumstances in applying the tracking tools. The GEF requests 

that multi-country projects complete one tracking tool per country involved in the project, based on the 

project circumstances and activities in each respective country. The completed forms for each country 

should then be submitted as one package to the GEF. Global projects which do not have a country focus, 

but for which the tracking tool is applicable, should complete the tracking tool as comprehensively as 

possible. 

The tracking tool does not substitute or replace project level M&E processes, or GEF Implementing 

Agencies’/Executing Agencies’ own monitoring processes. Project proponents and managers will likely be 

the most appropriate individuals to complete the Tracking Tool, in collaboration with the project team, 

since they would be most knowledgeable about the project. Staff and consultants already working in the 

field could also provide assistance in filling out the Tracking Tool. 

Submission: The finalized tracking tool will be cleared by the GEF Implementing Agencies and 

Executing Agencies before submission. The tracking tool is to be submitted to the GEF Secretariat at 

three points: 

1.) With the project document at CEO endorsement 2 ; 

2.) Within 3 months of completion of the project’s mid-term evaluation or report; and 

3.) With the project’s terminal evaluation or final completion report, and no later than 6 months after 

project closure. 


3



Section One: Project General Information 

1. Project Name: Program for the Conservation of Biodiversity through the Ecotourism in 

protected Areas of Panama 

2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): FSP 

3. Project ID (GEF): 3889 

4. Project ID (IA): PN-X1003 and PN-X1004 

5. Implementing Agency: Inter-American Development Bank 

6. Country(ies): Panama 

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates: 

7. Project duration: 4 years 

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): National Environmental Authority, Autoridad Nacional 

del Ambiente (ANAM) 

9. GEF Strategic Program: 

Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level (SP 1) 

10. Project coverage in hectares: 

Targets and Timeframe 

Total Extent in hectares of protected 

areas targeted by the project by 

biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 

Project Mid-term 

Final 

Evaluation/project 

completion 

Name Title Agency 

Marta C. Biologist Consulting 

Moreno Specialist 

Foreseen at 

project start 

Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems 1,262,626.50 

ha in total for 

the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 



Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable. 

Name of Protected 

Area 

Marine National Park 

Bastimentos Island 

Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 

Global designation or 

priority lists 

(E.g., Biosphere 

Reserve, World 

Heritage site, Ramsar 

site, WWF Global 200, , 

etc.) 

• Component of the 

nucleus area of the 

Reserve of the 

Biosphere La 

Amistad (2001) 

• Important areas for 

I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection 

II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation 

III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features 

IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention 

V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation 

VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems 

Local Designation of 

Protected Area (E.g, 

indigenous reserve, 

private reserve, etc.) 

Marine National Park X 

IUCN Category for each 

Protected Area 3 

I II III IV V VI 

5

La Amistad 

International Park 

Altos de Campana 

National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 

ha terrestrial 

ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 

Chagres National Park No 131,260.77 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 

Birds in Panama (BT- 

5) 

• UNESCO World 

Heritage site (1990) 

• Reserve of the 

Biosphere La 




10) 

• Important Areas for 

Birds in Panama 

(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 

National System of 

Protected Areas 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X

Coiba National Park No 256,195 ha 

aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 

Darien National Park No 579,000 ha 

Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 




area nucleus of the 


Biosphere of Darien 

7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 

Baru Volcano National 

Park 

Omar Torrijos Herrera 

National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 

Important Areas for 

Birds in Panama (DR- 

4) 



(PM-8) 




Biosphere of the La 

Amistad Biosphere 

Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 


Birds in Panama (C- 

1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic 

Objective One: 

Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area 

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for 


Please complete the management effectiveness tracking 

tool for each protected area that is the target of the GEF 

intervention. 

9




Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1 

Protected Area 2: La Amistad International Park 

Name, affiliation and contact details of person 

responsible for completing the METT (email etc.) 

Date assessment carried out August 6, 2010 

Name of protected area 

WDPA site code (these codes can be found 

on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) 

Designations 

Country Panama 

National 

National Park 

Location of protected area (province and 

if possible map reference) 

10 

Marta C. Moreno, Biologist 

morenomc61@hotmail.com 

La Amistad International Park 

IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 

- Important Bird 

Area of Panama 

(BT-10); 

- La Amistad 

Biosphere Reserve 

(2001) 

-UNESCO World 


Province of Bocas del Toro (district of 

Bocas del Toro, Changuinola and 

Chiriquí Grande), Province of Chiriquí 

(district of Renacimientos, Bugaba, 

Dolega, Boquete, Gualaca and part of 

David) and part of the Native Region 

Ngäbe Bugle (district of Kankintú, 

Mironó, Müna, Nole Duima, Ñürüm, 

Kusapín and Besiko) 

Date of Establishment INRENARE Resolution of the Board of Directors 022- 

88 of Sept 2, 1988. (Resolución de Junta Directiva 022-88 

del 2 de sept. 1988) 

Ownership details (please 

tick) 

State 

X 

Private 

X 

Community 

X 

Other 

Management Authority 

National Environmental Authority (Autoridad 

Nacional del Ambiente) (ANAM) 

Size of protected area (ha) 215,225.73 ha Terrestrial ecosystem 

Number of staff 

Permanent 

PILA (Pacific side) – One Protected 

Area Chief and 4 park rangers 

PILA (Caribbean side) – One 

Protected Area Chief and 3 Park 

Temporary 

0

Annual budget (US$) – excluding 

staff salary costs 

What are the main values for which 

the area is designated? 



Catalyzing Recurrent Sustainability (operational) of funds Protected Area Project or other 

-FIDECO (2010)= 53,200.00 

US$ 

-SINAP (2010)= 81,124.00 

US$ 

List the two primary protected area management objectives 

Management objective 1 


No. of people involved in completing assessment 

Including: 

(tick boxes) 

PA manager 

Local community 

11 

supplementary funds 

- CBMAP II = 385,500 US$ 

The presence of a great biodiversity and endemic, the 

key function of the ecosystem of the present 

mountain in the high basins of the hydrologic 

network, that is born in the Pacific and Atlantic 

slopes; in order to guarantee its functions of strict 

conservation of the present cultural and natural 

resources. The provision of environmental services 

and the improvement of the quality of life of the 

settlers of the area of influence. 

- To protect a significant sample of the biological 

diversity of one of the richest zones in fauna and flora that 

still remain a little altered in the Republic of Panama. 

- To maintain a natural environmental framework and 

stable that assure the cultural and socioeconomic 

development of the settlers down the water, 

diminishing the risks of flood and ensuring the 

continuity of the activities industrial farming that are 

given at present in the adjoining areas of the provinces 

of Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, as well as, in the 

Republic of Costa Rica. 

PA staff 

Donors 

Please note if assessment was carried out in association 

with a particular project, on behalf of an organization or 

donor. 

2 

- FIDECO 

- SINAP 

- CBMAP II 

Other PA 

agency staff 

External experts 

NGO 

Other




Information on International Designations 

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list) 

Date listed Tentative 

UNESCO World 

Heritage site 

(April 1990) 

Criteria for designation 

(i.e. criteria i to x) 

Statement of Outstanding 

Universal Value 

Site name 

La Amistad 

International 

Park 

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/) 

Date listed 

Reason for Designation (see Ramsar 

Information Sheet) 

12 

Site area 

215,225.73 ha 

Geographical 

coordinates 

N 9 24 25.5 

W 82 56 

-They are outstanding examples that represent significant, 

progressive, and geological processes of biological evolution and the 

interaction of the man with their natural environment. 

- It Contains samples of the natural habitats more important and 

significant, where there is conservation of species of animals or 

threatened plants. 

Site name Site area Geographical number 

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml) 

Date listed 

2000 


Fulfillment of three functions 

of MAB (conservation, 

development and logistic 

support.) 

Site name 

La Amistad 

Biosphere 

Reserve 

(vii)(viii)(ix)(x) 

Site 

area 

655,558 ha 

Geographical coordinates 

-Maintaining a natural environmental framework and stable that 

assure the cultural and socioeconomic development of the settlers. 

- To Guarantee the continuity of the industrial farming activities. 

Those are given at present in the adjoining areas of the provinces of 

Bocas del Toro and Chiriquí, as well as, in the Republic of Costa Rica. 

- To take advantage of the tourist potential of the stable natural 

landscape, as well as, their biological components. 

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting information below 

Name: Important Bird Area 

Important areas for Birds in Panama (BT-10)

Protected Areas Threats: Data Sheet 2 




Please tick all relevant existing threats as high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as high significance are those 

which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low 

are threats which are presen,t but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the 

protected area. 

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area 

Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint 

High Medium Low N/A 

x 1.1 Housing and settlement 

x 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas 

x 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure 

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area 

Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, 

mariculture and aquaculture 


x 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation 

x 2.1a Drug cultivation 

x 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations 

x 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing 

x 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture 

3. Energy production and mining within a protected area 

Threats from production of non-biological resources 


x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling 

x 3.2 Mining and quarrying 

x 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams 

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area 

Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality 


x 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) 

x 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) 

x 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals 

x 4.4 Flight paths 

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area 

Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting 

effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) 


x 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of 

animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 

x 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 

x 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 

x 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources 

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area 

Threats from human activities that alter destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of 

biological resources 


x 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism 

x 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises 

x 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas 

x 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, 

artificial watering points and dams) 

x 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area 

staff and visitors 

13




7. Natural system modifications 

Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions 


x 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) 

x 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use 

x 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area 

x 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without 

effective aquatic wildlife passages) 

x 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values 

x 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) 

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes 

Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have 

or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase 


x 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) 

x 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals 

x 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased 

problems) 

x 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) 

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area 

Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources 


x 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water 

x 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, 

hotels etc) 

x 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water 

quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, 

other pollution) 

x 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or 

pesticides) 

x 9.4 Garbage and solid waste 

x 9.5 Air-borne pollutants 

x 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) 

10. Geological events 

Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a specie or 

habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of 

these changes may be limited. 


x 10.1 Volcanoes 

x 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis 

x 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides 

x 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) 

11. Climate change and severe weather 

Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events 

outside of the natural range of variation 


x 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration 

x 11.2 Droughts 

x 11.3 Temperature extremes 

x 11.4 Storms and flooding 

12. Specific cultural and social threats 


x 12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management 

practices 

x 12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values 

x 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc 

14




15




Assessment Form 

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box 

per question 

1. Legal status 

Does the protected area 

have legal status (or in 

the case of private 

reserves is covered by a 

covenant or similar)? 

Context 

2. Protected area 

regulations 

Are appropriate 

regulations in place to 

control land use and 

activities (e.g. 

hunting)? 

Planning 

3. Law 

enforcement 

Can staff (i.e. those 

with responsibility for 

managing the site) 

enforce protected area 

rules well enough? 

Input 

The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 

There is agreement that the protected area should be gazetted/covenanted but 

the process has not yet begun 

The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but the 

process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under international 

conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community 

conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) 

The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 

There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 

area 

3 3 

Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 

exist but these are major weaknesses 

1 

Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist 

but there are some weaknesses or gaps 

2 2 

Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 

protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management 

3 

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 

legislation and regulations 

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 

area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, lack of 

institutional support) 

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 

legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain 

The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 


Comment/Explanation Next steps 

0 The PILA was declared on 

1988 INRENARE. By 

1 

Resolution of Board of 

Directors 022-88 of Sept. 2, 

1988 and it was published 

2 

in Official Gazette No. 

21.129 of September 6, 1988 

0 The Resolution that creates 

The PILA, establishes some 

prohibitions and regulations, 

above all in resources 

extraction matter, likewise in 

the management plan 

regulations as for the zoning 

they exist and the type of 

activity that is permitted. 

0 Although the staff of the 

protected area has the 

1 

capacity to implement 

environmental regulations 

2 2 

within the protected area, 

resources are limited. 

3 

Currently the staff is not 

sufficient to monitor the area, 

so great efforts have to be 

done to control illegal 

activities in the area. 

16





per question 


objectives 

Is management 

undertaken according 

to agreed objectives? 

Planning 

5. Protected area design 

Is the protected area the 

right size and shape to 

protect species, 

habitats, ecological 

processes and water 

catchments of key 

conservation concern? 

Planning 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a 

The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to 

1 

tool of support to the 

these objectives 

management of the park that 

The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed 

according to these objectives 

2 2 establishes the 

norms and 

objectives, 

guidelines, 

The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 

objectives 

3 

possible uses and strategies. 

To improve the common 

participation, the protection, 

conservation and sustainable 

management of the 

ecosystem and its zone of 

neighborhood. 

Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of 

the protected area is very difficult 

Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 

objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. 

agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of 

appropriate catchment management) 

Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 

objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological 

processes) 

Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for 

species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as 

surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance 

patterns etc 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 

17





per question 


boundary demarcation 

Is the boundary known 

and demarcated? 

Process 

The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 

or local residents/neighbouring land users 

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 

is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users 

The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 

authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but is not appropriately 

demarcated 

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority 

and local residents/neighbouring land users and is appropriately demarcated 

0 

1 

2 2 


per question 

7. Management plan 

Is there a management 

plan and is it being 

implemented? 

Planning 

Additional points: Planning 

3 


The Limit of PILA counts 

between him 50% and 75%on 

the demarcation of the area, 

the same are acquaintances 

by the authorities and local. 

Nevertheless, it is 

recommended chiefly in the 

Caribbean, to finish 

indicating the area limit with 

Costa Rica and recommends 

revising the limit with the 

Bosque Protector de Palo 

Seco, since both areas 

recover. 


There is no management plan for the protected area 

0 The management plan of 

the PILA has a specific 

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1 

activity that are established 

implemented 

to carry out in a period of 5 

A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because 

of funding constraints or other problems 

A management plan exists and is being implemented 

2 

3 

2 years with the elaboration 

of the annual operating 

plans (POA), as well as the 

responsible 

execution. 

for their 

18





per question 

7a. Planning process 

The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to 

influence the management plan 


+1 +1 Management plan brought 

up to date (Resolution AG- 

0304-2004, force of 5 years 

G.OR. 25,116), at present 

an extension of the 

management plan was 

granted to so much be 

concluded with the 

updating of the same one. 

Upon having inside the 

territory of the PILA 

diverse indigenous groups, 

it is considered in the 

planning, their 

participation in the 

management of the area. 

The annual operating plans 

(POA 2009), the goals, 

activities, dates and 

responsible for the 

execution of some 

activities of the 

management plan. This 

POA devises with the 

participation of the 

stakeholders and activities 

that are identified, which 

are executed with the 

support of these groups. 

19





per question 

7b. Planning process 

7c. Planning process 

8. Regular work plan 

Is there a regular work 


implemented 

Planning/Outputs 

9. Resource inventory 

Do you have enough 

information to manage 

the area? 

There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating 

of the management plan 

The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated 

into planning 

No regular work plan exists 

A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 

A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and 

cultural values of the protected area 

Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 

values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision 

making 


values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and 

decision making 


+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring 

of the Effectiveness of 

Management of the Protected 

Areas (PMEMAP) compiles 

information on the 

management and orients it to 

take decisions on the 

protected areas of the 

country. The total praised of 

the PMEMAP (2009) of PILA 

(average among, both 

results) was of 680 points 

that corresponds to good 

management; this evaluation 

was carried out with the 


stakeholders. 

+1 +1 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

0 

1 

2 

20





per question 

Input Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 

values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and 


3 3 

10. Protection systems 

Are systems in place to 

control access/resource 

use in the protected 

area? 

Process/Outcome 

11. Research 

Is there a programme 

of managementorientated 

survey and 

research work? 


Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in 

controlling access/resource use 

0 

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource 

use 

1 

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 2 

Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 

resource use 

3 

There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 

0 The plan of management 

There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not directed 

towards the needs of protected area management 

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards 

the needs of protected area management 

1 

2 2 

contains a research program 

and monitoring, but alone it 

defines some of the actions 

that have to be carried out, 

21





per question 

Process 

12. Resource 

management 

Is active resource 

management being 

undertaken? 

Process 

13. Staff numbers 

Are there enough 

people employed to 

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, 

which is relevant to management needs 

Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 

Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 

species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented 

1 

Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 

ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key 

issues are not being addressed 

2 2 

Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological 

processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented 

3 

There are no staff 

Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 


3 among this to devise the plan 

of investigation that contain 

the priority lines. 

The protected area is being 

located in a private 

ecosystem, contains a high 

endemism, besides the studies 

of other sciences are required. 

It is being proposed in the 

plan to establish the capacity 

of load, but even it has not 

been elaborated. 

Nevertheless, in the area they 

have developed important an 

investigation of bi-national 

interest with foreigner’s 

contributions was Darwin 

Initiative; likewise they 

develop activities of 

investigation and tours of 

verification to the Paramo 

Fábrega Mountain. 

0 The management plan, 

contemplates the quantity of 

1 

17 officials to carry the 

management of the protected 

22




Issue 

manage the protected 

Criteria Score: Tick only one box 

per question 

area? 

Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area 3 

Inputs 

14. Staff training 

Are staff adequately 

trained to fulfil 

management 

objectives? 

Inputs/Process 

15. Current budget 

Is the current budget 

sufficient? 


Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 2 area, likewise proposes a new 

Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 

Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1 

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully 

achieve the objectives of management 

Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 


There is no budget for management of the protected area 

The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a 

serious constraint to the capacity to manage 

chart of work, but this has not 

been implemented. 

It was indicated that there were 

not an agreement between the 

requests of personnel and it 

cited in the MP; personnel is 

needed to administer the 

infrastructures, support the 

programs and monitoring of the 

organizations and communities, 

attention to the tourists and 

environmental promotion; 

besides locate park rangers in 

the new areas (Candela, Los 

Pozos and Boquete). 

0 The personnel of the 

protected area is qualified to 

carry out the works of 

2 2 

management. Nevertheless it 

is required to devise a plan or 

programs of training with the 

3 

purpose of bringing up to 

date and to reinforce the 

abilities and know-how of the 

officials. 

Among some of the training that 

are required there, are related to 

the functions of the park ranger, 

besides, they request a devise of 

a training plan. 

0 The PILA = TOTAL B/. 

134,324 budget assigned in 

1 

2010 (SINAP + FIDECO). 

23





per question 

Inputs 

16. Security of budget 

Is the budget secure? 

Inputs 

17. Management of 

budget 

Is the budget managed 

to meet critical 

management needs? 

Process 

18. Equipment 

Is equipment sufficient 

for management needs? 

Input 

19. Maintenance of 

equipment 

The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully 

achieve effective management 

2 2 

The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 


There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 

reliant on outside or highly variable funding 

3 

There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function 

adequately without outside funding 

1 

There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected 

area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding 

2 2 

There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3 

Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 

(e.g. late release of budget in financial year) 

Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 

Budget management is adequate but could be improved 

Budget management is excellent and meets management needs 3 

There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 

There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for most 

management needs 

There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain 

management 

There are adequate equipment and facilities 

There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 


0 (FIDECO) PILA Pacific 28,200 

0 

1 

2 2 

US$ - PILA Caribbean 25,000 

US$ 

-(SINAP) PILA Pacific 35,998 


US$ 

(CBMAP) PILA Pacific 385,500 


US$ 

0 The PILA -it has been built , 

but from the 75% of the 

1 

necessary infrastructure for 

the adequate management of 

2 2 the area, besides to have 

acquired between the 50% 

3 

and 75% of the necessary 

team for the management of 

the area 

0 

24





per question 

Is equipment 

adequately maintained? 

Process 

20. Education and 

awareness 

Is there a planned 

education programme 

linked to the objectives 

and needs? 

Process 

21. Planning for land 

and water use 

Does land and water 

use planning recognise 

the protected area and 

aid the achievement of 

objectives? 

Planning 

Additional points: Land and water planning 

There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities 

There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities 

Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 

There is no education and awareness programme 

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme 

There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly meets 

needs and could be improved 

There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and awareness 

programme 

Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 

the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the 

area 

Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the long 

term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the area 

Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long 

term needs of the protected area 

Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long term 

needs of the protected area 

1 

2 2 


0 The protected area counts on a 

plan of environmental education 

1 

that is carried out as a group 

with community organizations 

2 2 

of the area. A greater 

participation of the authorities 

for the achievement of the 

3 

objectives is required, besides 

carrying out an evaluation on 

the results 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

The environmental education 

plan is executed in some areas of 

neighborhood of the PILA. And 

it contemplates activities such 

as: Radio programs, videos, 

chats, posters, contests, 

environmental drawings, etc 

25





per question 

21a: Land and water 

planning for habitat 

conservation 

21b: Land and water 

planning for 

connectivity 

21c: Land and water 

planning for ecosystem 

services & species 

conservation 

22. State and 

commercial neighbours 

Is there co-operation 

with adjacent land and 

water users? 

Process 

23. Indigenous people 

Do indigenous and 

traditional peoples 

resident or regularly 

using the protected area 

have input to 

management decisions? 

Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing the 

protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conditions 

(e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to 

sustain relevant habitats. 

Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife 

passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish 

to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal 

migration). 

"Planning adresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of 

particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and 

timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire management to 

maintain savannah habitats etc.)" 

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate 

land and water users 

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate 

land and water users but little or no cooperation 


land and water users, but only some co-operation 

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or 

corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management 

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the 

management of the protected area 

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating 

to management but no direct role in management 

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant 

decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved 

+1 

+1 +1 

+1 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 Part of the protected area is 

located inside the Region of 

Ngäbe-Buglé, likewise inside the 

1 

PILA we have the ancient areas 

of the Naso, who for many years 

have demanded the creation of 

2 2 

their region and likewise inside 

the lands of the PILA, we have a 

population of natives of the 

26





per question 

Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 

relating to management, e.g. co-management 

24. Local communities 

Do local communities 

resident or near the 

protected area have 

input to management 

decisions? 

Process 

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 

the protected area 

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 

but no direct role in management 

Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to 

management but their involvement could be improved 

Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to 

management, e.g. co-management 

Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 

24 a. Impact on 

communities 

24b. Impact on 

communities 

24c. Impact on 

communities 

25. Economic benefit 

Is the protected area 

providing economic 

benefits to local 

communities, e.g. 

There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous 

people, stakeholders and protected area managers 

Programmes to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected area 

resources, are being implemented 

Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area 

The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 

communities 

Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are 

being developed 

There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 


3 ethnic group Bri-Bri, who are 

located chiefly among the limit 

of Panama and Costa Rica. 

Besides, diverse communities of 

the Ngäbe-Buglé, inside the 

limits of the Park exist. 

These communities and ethnic 

groups participate in organized 

group’s activities of 

management and management 

of the protected area. 

0 Through the work Plan, the 

interest groups participate in the 

1 1 activities and in some decisions 

on the management of the 

2 


3 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

0 

1 

2 2 

27





per question 

income, employment, 

payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 

26. Monitoring and 

evaluation 

Are management 

activities monitored 

against performance? 

Planning/Process 

27. Visitor facilities 

Are visitor facilities 

adequate? 

There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 

activities associated with the protected area 

There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 

and/or no regular collection of results 

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but 

results do not feed back into management 

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and 

used in adaptive management 

There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1 

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but 

could be improved 

2 2 

3 


0 The Program of Monitoring of the 

Effectiveness of Management of 

1 

the Protected Areas (PMEMAP) 

compiles information on the 

2 

management and orients it to take 

decisions of the protected areas. 

This program evaluates 37 

3 3 indicators that permit to measure 

the level of management of the 

protected area. This program 

already carries 10 years of 

execution, and for the 2009 The 

total praised of the PMEMAP 

(2009) of the PILA was of 680 

points that corresponds to good 

management. 

0 

Nevertheless, the 

implementation of new 

indicators is required to permit 

the verification of the relation 

of the protected area and its 

impact in the quality of life of 

the users and the communities 

involved; likewise an indicator 

is required to help to 

corroborate if the management 

of the protected area has 

impacted the effective form in 

the conservation of the 

biodiversity 

The protected area has a potential 

for the tourism development, 

being increased in the sector of 

Las Nubes in PILA Pacific; the 

28





per question 

Outputs 

28. Commercial 

tourism operators 

Do commercial tour 

operators contribute to 


management? 

Process 

29. Fees 

If fees (i.e. entry fees or 

fines) are applied, do 

they help protected area 

management? 


30. Condition of values 

What is the condition 

of the important values 

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation 

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the 


There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely 

confined to administrative or regulatory matters 

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 

enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values 

There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 

enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values 

Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 

Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or its 

environs 

Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area and its 

environs 

Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected area 

and its environs 

Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely 

degraded 

Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded 


3 area has paths, the administrative 

headquarters offers the service of 

lodging and also camping. While 

the sector of Caribbean PILA, it 

should develop more 

infrastructure. It causes lacks of 

personnel to attend the visitors, as 

well as tourist guides. 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

Upon being a protected area with 

ecosystems of mountain, the access 

to the area is difficult. The majority 

of the visitors use adventurous type 

of activities and the area can be 

very dangerous, but the necessary 

measures are taken. 

0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by 

the use is established and the 

1 1 services offered in the protected 

area of the National System of 

2 

Protected Areas. The collection of 

fines and by services, the fund 

collected is transferred to the 

3 

Wildlife and SINAP, and somehow 

this is how the money goes to 

finance the SINAP activities. 

0 

1 

Although the indicator on the 

decrease of the threats 

maintained stable, the condition 

of the resources has improved 

29





per question 

of the protected area as 

compared to when it 

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded 

but the most important values have not been significantly impacted 

2 2 

was first designated? Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 

Outcomes 

Additional Points: Condition of values 

30a: Condition of 

values 

30b: Condition of 

values 

30c: Condition of 

values 

TOTAL SCORE 

The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or 

monitoring 

Specific management programmes are being implemented to address threats to 

biodiversity, ecological and cultural values 

Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are a 

routine part of park management 

3 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

72 


and the measure to endow the 

Park of the facilities for the 

necessary management (Budget 

and personnel), the condition of 

these resources improved 

notably. 

30








financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X








intervention. 

9



Reporting Catalyzing Progress Sustainability at Protected Area of Protected Sites: Data Area Sheet 1 

Protected Area 4 : CHAGRES NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact details of 

person responsible for completing the METT 

(email etc.) 

Date assessment carried out June 10, 2010 


WDPA site code (these codes can 

be found on www.unepwcmc.org/wdpa/) 

Designations 


National 

National Park 

Location of protected area (province 

and if possible map reference) 

Chagres National Park 

10 



IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 

- Important Bird Area of Panama 

(PM-15); 

In the Province of Panamá, districts of Panamá 

and Chepo; and in the Province of Colon, 

districts of Colon, Portobelo, Nombre de Dios, 

and Santa Isabel. 

Date of establishment INRENARE. Executive Decree No. 73 of october 2, 1984 

(GO20,238) 


tick) 

Stat 

e 

Private 

X 

Communi 

ty 

Other 

X 

X 


National Environmental Authority. Autoridad Nacional del 

Ambiente (ANAM)) 

Size of protected area (ha) 131,260.77 ha 


Annual budget (US$) – 

excluding staff salary 

costs 

What are the main values 

for which the area is 

designated 

Permanent 

One Protected Area Chief and 16 

Park Rangers 

Recurrent (operational) funds 


Temporary 

0 

Project or other 


-FIDECO (2008)= 

30,000.00 US$ 

- Chagres Fund= 223,268.00 US$ 

-SINAP (2008)= 

170,634.00 US$ 

Preserving the natural forest for: a) the production of water of quality and in 

sufficient quantity for the operation of the Panama, b) industrial, domestic 

and hydroelectric generation to be provided to the cities of Panama and 

Colón, c) to conserve the zones of life (4) and, d) to maintain the ecological 

diversity, the genetic flow and evolutionary processes of the flora and fauna.

. 

Management Objective 1 



Catalyzing Conserving Sustainability the natural of Protected resources, Area the biological diversity, 

and the natural scenic beauties of a key portion of the central 

mountain range for the consolidation of the Corredor 

Biológico Mesoamericano del Atlántico Panameño (CBMAP) 

Management Objective 2 Protecting the hydrologic state of the rivers that drain from 

the protected area toward the Caribbean side, the Pacific, 

and the Central region of Panama, which are of singular 

importance for the hydroelectric generation projects 

execution, production of drinking water, and river 


Includin 

g: (tick 

boxes) 

PA manager 


PA staff 

Donors 

Please note if assessment was carried out in 

association with a particular project, on behalf 

of an organization or donor. 

11 

2 

Other PA 

agency staff 

External 

experts 

NGO 

Other 

In preparation of FSP GEF Project “…….” Using 

PPG funds managed by IADB, with inputs from: 

- Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá (FIDECO) 

- SINAP 

- Chagres Fund 

-ACP. Measures of mitigation – Clearing of the 

Program of Expansion of the Panama Canal - 

the reforestation of 40 ha in the Chagres 

National Park in its zone of neighborhood. The 

recovery of areas degraded is included and 

activities to sustainable agriculture.






Date listed Tentative ( Site name Site area 






12 

km2 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical 

number 




Date listed 





support.) 

Site name 

Site area 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 



Important areas for Birds in Panama (PM-15) 

4





Please tick all relevant existing threats as either high, medium, low or N/A. Threats ranked as of high significance are those 


are threats which are present, but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the 









Threats from farming and graz ing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, Mari 

culture and aquaculture 











x(*) 3.2 Mining and quarrying (*) but possible in near future 










Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also 

persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) 













x 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected 

areas 

x 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle 

use, artificial watering points and dams) 

x 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected 

area staff and visitors 

5 

13















Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or 

are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase 





problems) 







hotels etc) 

x 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor 

water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- 

oxygenated, other pollution) 


pesticides) 





Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat 

is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes 

may be limited. 

















practices 



14






per question 







Context 


regulations 





hunting)? 

Planning 

3. Law 

enforcement 






Input 








The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3 


area 

















0 The Chagres National Park was 

declared in 1985 by Executive 

1 

Decree No. 73 of October 2, 1984. 

Publisher in Oficial Gazette No. 

20,238 of February 4, 1985; by 

INRENARE (ANAM´s present). 

2 

The Park is administered continuing 

the features established by the plan 

of management approved in 2005, 

at present in force (ANAM 

Resolution No. AG-0296-2004, 

August 2, 2004). 

0 Chagres National Park has a 

management plan that indicates the 

1 

programs to assist and establish 

mechanisms to regulate 

2 2 

unsustainable human activities; 

however, it has limitations for the 

3 

actual human activities practices. 

There we have the hunting area, the 

expansion of the agricultural 

frontier (although this has 

decreased), the activities of cars in 

the Indigenous areas 

0 Although the staff of the protected 

area has the capacity to implement 

1 

environmental regulations within 

the protected areas, the resources 

are limited. Presently, the staff is 

2 2 

not sufficient to monitor the area, 

so great efforts have to be made to 

3 

control illegal activities in the area. 

15





per question 


4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool of 

objectives 

Is management 



Planning 






objectives 

1 

2 

3 3 

support to the management of the 

park that establishes the 

objectives, norms and guidelines, 

possible uses and strategies; to 

improve, the common 

participation, protection, 


management of the ecosystem and 

its zone of neighborhood. 

Also, funds provided by both the 

SINAP, FIDECO and Chagres 

5. Protected area design Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of 0 

Fund contribute to achieve these 

objectives. 

The boundaries of the protected 


area are known both for staff and 








Planning 







processes) 

1 

2 2 

most inhabitants of the area, 

however there are three different 

limits: the one established by 

Executive Order, field survey and 

management plan. However, to 

verify Executive Decree versus the 

management plan, the current limits 

are more in line that the ones set in 

the Executive Decree. 




patterns etc 

3 

A field survey where the 

boundaries were changed, but never 

published officially, keeping 

problems of ambiguity in the 

interpretation of them. Moreover, 

according to Law 21 of 1997 (Ley 

21 de la ARI), areas under the 

category of protected wilderness 

area that apparently had to enter the 

Park, but have not yet been 

transferred. These areas are mainly 

located on the shores of Alajuela 

Lake and most are occupied by 

locals, is to be determined based on 

16





per question 





Process 







demarcated 



0 

1 

2 2 


per question 



3 


current land use feasibility of 

joining the protected area or not. 


area are known both for staff and 

most inhabitants of the area, 

however there are three different 

limits: the one established by 

Executive Order, field survey and 

management plan. However, to 

verify Executive Decree versus the 

management plan, the current limits 

are more in line that the ones set in 

the Executive Decree. 

A field survey where the 

boundaries were changed, but never 

published officially, keeping 

problems of ambiguity in the 

interpretation of them. Moreover, 

according to Law 21 of 1997 (Ley 

21 de la ARI), areas under the 

category of protected wilderness 

area that apparently had to enter the 

Park, but have not yet been 

transferred. These areas are mainly 

located on the shores of Alajuela 

Lake and most are occupied by 

locals, is to be determined based on 

current land use feasibility of 

joining the protected area or not. 



0 The plan of management of the PN 

Chagres has a specific activities 

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1 

established to carry out in a period 

17




Issue 



per question 

implemented? 



2 

Planning 

A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 3 








implemented 





the area? 


implemented of 5 years with the elaboration of 






into planning 









making 

the annual operating plans (POA), 

as well as, the responsible for their 

execution. 

+1 +1 The annual operating plans 

(POA 2009) goals, activities, 

dates and responsible for the 

execution of some of the 

activities of the plan of 

management. 

+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of 

the Effectiveness of 

Management of the Areas 

Protected (PMEMAP) compiles 

information on the management 

and orients to make decisions of 

the country protected areas. The 


(2009) of the PN Chagres was of 

914 points, that corresponds to a 

good management. 

+1 +1 Monitoring results are taken into 

account when preparing the 

operational planning. 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

0 

1 

18





per question 

Input 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 


Process 







2 

3 3 




0 


use 

1 



resource use 

3 


0 There is a monitoring 

program in Alto Chagres, 


1 

together with staff from 


SOMASPA, ANAM officials 





2 

3 3 

and personnel of the Park 

have been done. Among the 

conservation targets that we 

monitor amphibians, aquatic 

insects, the jaguar. 

This monitoring program has 

increased the knowledge of the 

state of biodiversity and helped to 

implement 

actions. 

better conservation 

12. Resource 


management 



1 



undertaken? 




2 2 

Process 



3 

13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 The Plan of Management for the 

19





per question 




area? 

Inputs 




management 

objectives? 




sufficient? 

Inputs 




Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 2 

Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area 

3 

1 


PN Chagres proposed, 

approximately 40 staff but only has 

16 actual. 


0 The personnel of the park 

Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 





1 

2 

3 

2 

concentrate on a basic training in 

administrative management, legal 

base and procedure for 

retentions/seizures, besides 

elaboration of annual operating 

plans (POA). That more training 

would be required to fully realize 

objectives). 














0 PN Chagres= 423,902.00 US$ 

1 

TOTAL budget assigned in 2010 

(SINAP+FIDECO) 

2 

3 3 

Through the Chagres Fund 

there is a long-term budget for 

10 years, but the ANAM must 

meet an annual compensation to 

ensure the management of the 

park. 

0 Chagres Funds 223,268.00 US$ 

1 

2 2 

20





per question 

Inputs There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3 


budget 




Process 

18. Equipment 



Input 


equipment 

Is equipment 


Process 


awareness 




and needs? 










management 










Process 


programme 

21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 0 

0 

1 

2 2 


0 The protected area has facilities and 

equipment necessary for operation, 

1 

also is given the annual 

maintenance required for 

2 2 

equipment. 

3 

0 

1 

2 2 

0 Environmental education plan 

Chagres NP actively run impact is 

1 

measured annually according to 

indicators established in the plan, 

2 2 

also drawing up a document that 

contains the evaluations and 

systematization in a table the 

3 

indicators. 

21





per question 

and water use 





objectives? 

Planning 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 




water users? 

Process 







area 














migration). 

















1 

2 2 

3 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 Indigenous and traditional 

1 1 

communities living within the area, 

do not understand the established 

legal status, however, they are 

respected and considered in 

management planning and activities 

22





per question 

have input to 


Process 



Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 


24. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 


Do local communities Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 

resident or near the but no direct role in management 



decisions? 

Process 







communities 


communities 


communities 







payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


evaluation 







communities 







2 within the protected area, allowing 

tourism activities in their 

communities. 

3 

0 Interest groups participate in certain 

management decisions. There is 

1 

also some interest from other 

organizations to establish some 

2 2 

mechanism for management, and 

this is being studied. 

3 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

+1 

0 

1 1 


0 The Program of Monitoring of 


There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1 


2 

3 

23




Issue 



per question 





2 2 




3 



adequate? 

Outputs 






management? 

Process 

29. Fees 




management? 







and/or no regular collection of results Areas (PMEMAP) compiles 


Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1 1 



2 


3 











environs 


environs 




degraded 


0 

0 

1 

2 2 

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded 2 2 

3 


and orients to make decisions of 

the protected areas. 

The protected area currently lacks 

basic services and facilities for 

tourism and recreation levels, 

occurring within the Park. The aim 

is to build a visitors center and 

improve access by the sector of 

Alajuela. 

0 In 2008, a new rate of collection by 

the use is established and the 

1 1 services that offer the protected 

areas of the National System of 

2 

Protected Areas. The collections of 

fines and by services pass to the 

3 

fund of the Wildlife and SINAP, 

and somehow, this is how that 

money SINAP Financing activity 

goes. 

0 As documented in recent years, 

both by other sources PMEMAP, as 

the condition of resources has 

1 

improved somewhat. 

24





per question 


was first designated? 

Outcomes 


Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 


30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or 

values 

monitoring 

30b: Condition of Specific management programmes are being implemented to address threats to 

values 



values 

TOTAL SCORE 



3 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

+1 

69 


25








financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X







intervention. 

9




Protected Area 5: COIBA NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact details for person 


Date assessment carried out July 5, 2010 


WDPA site code (these codes can be 

found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) 

Designations 


National 

National Park 

Location of protected area (province and if 

possible map reference) 

Coiba National Park 

10 

Marta C. Moreno 


IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 

- UNESCO World Heritage site 

(2005) 

- Important Bird Area of 

Panama (VR-3); 

Gulf of Chiriquí, in the South-Western region of the 

Panamanian Pacific 

Date of establishment - Law 44 of July 26, 2004 – (Ley 44 del 26 de julio de 2004) (GO 

25,104). 

Ownership details (please tick) 

State 

X 

Private 

Community 

Other 


National Environmental Authority - Autoridad Nacional del 

Ambiente (ANAM) 

Size of protected area (ha) 256,195 ha 


Annual budget (US$) – 

excluding staff salary 

costs 

What are the main values 

for which the area is 

designated 

Permanent 

One Protected Area Chief and 

18 park rangers 


-FIDECO (2010)= 41,000.00 US$ 

-SINAP (2010)= 97,040.00 US$ 

Temporary 

0 



- MarViva Foundation 

(2010) 

It contains outstanding examples that represent the significant 

ecological and biological processes that influence in the evolution 

and the development of the terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic 

freshwater, coastal and marine, and of plants and animal of the 

communities, besides possessing places that contain the most 

important and significant natural habitat for the conservation of 

the biodiversity; including those that contain universal species 

threatened of value, by the point of view of the science or the 

conservationists.







Including: 

(tick 

boxes) 

PA manager 

Local community 

To conserve the marine and terrestrial ecosystems, the biological 

diversity and the cultural resources of the PN Coiba 

To protect the outstanding species of the flora and wild fauna, 

as well as, those species threatened or in danger of extinction. 

PA staff 

11 

4 

Donors 


association with a particular project, on behalf of an 

organization or donor. 

- FIDECO 

- SINAP 

- MarViva 

Other PA 

agency staff 

 


 

NGO 

Other






(date of submission) 

July 17, 2005 





Site name 

Coiba National 

Park and its 

Special Zone of 

Marine Protection 


12 

Site 

area 

256,195 ha 


7° 10’04” to 7° 53’37”N 

8° 32’37” to 8° 56’15”W. 

Criterion IX, stands out the outstanding examples that represent the 

significant ecological and biological processes that influence the 

evolution and development of the terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic 

freshwater, coastal and marine, and of the communities of plants and 

animal 

-Criterion X stands out those places that contain the most important 

and significant natural habitats for the conservation of the biodiversity, 

including those that contain universal species threatened of value, since 

the point of view of the science or the conservation. 

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number 




Date listed 





support.) 

Site name 

Site 

area 

Geographical co-ordinates 


Name: Important Bird Area of 

Panama (2003) 

Important areas for Birds in Panama (VR-3)




Please tick all relevant existing threats as high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those 









X 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure 


Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture 

and aquaculture 




































areas 





13





















problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 





Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or 

habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these 

changes may be limited. 

















practices 



14






per question 







Context 


regulations 




15 



0 The Coiba National Park was 

created by means of the 



1 

Resolution of board of 

directors of the INRENARE 

No. 21-91 of December 17, 



2 

1991 (Official Gazette No. 

21,958). And then in 2004 its 


creation was raised to Law of 


the Republic (Law 44 of July 

The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3 26, 2004 (GO 25,104). 


area 





Since July 17, 2005 in the 

meeting of Durban, the Park 

has been appointed as World 

Heritage Site for mankind. 

0 Through the Law 44, that creates 

the MPA norms, they established 

1 

the mechanisms to regulate the 

activities of uses inside the Park, 

2 2 

as for example: 

Art. 5: prohibiting certain





per question 


hunting)? 

Planning 

3. Law 

enforcement 














16 


3 activities inside the park such as: 

long, human occupation, 

agribusiness activities, 

construction of infrastructures of 

high impact, among others 

Art. 10: the special zone of 

marine protection is established 

Art. 11: creates a zone of 

exclusion prohibiting fishing 

with networks of tuna fence 

Art 12: creates the commission 

for the sustainable management 

of the fishing in the special zone 

of marine protection, whose 

function will be to regulate the 

activities of uses and to define 

the conservation policies 

Art. 14: creates the scientific 

committee, who will support and 

assess the board of directors in 

technical and investigation 

questions 

Art. 19: creates the executive 

counsel that will have the task to 

approve and monitor the 

management plan 

Nevertheless, although, these 

instances have been recognized, 

it still exist a gap that prevents 

the application of the regulation 

in his totality 

0 The personnel of the protected 

area and related officials have the 

1 

capacity to enforce the 

application of the norms and 

laws, nevertheless, the lack of 

2 2 

appropriate resources limits a 

little bit their performance; in the





per question 


Input 




per question 


objectives 

Is management 



Planning 









Planning 

17 


3 case of the Coiba MPA, diverse 

instances exist that support the 

work that refers to the control and 

caution. 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan of the Coiba 





1 

2 

NP is the tool of support to the 

management of the park, which 

establishes the objectives, norms 

and guidelines, for possible use and 

strategies, to improve the common 


3 3 participation, the protection, 

objectives 


management of the terrestrial and 

marinate resources and its zone of 

neighborhood. The 

implementation of the management 

plan supports the compliance of the 

objectives, in order that at the age 

of five, they have themselves, 

reduced the threats. 



0 







processes) 

1 

2





per question 





Process 




patterns etc 







demarcated 



18 

3 3 

0 

1 

2 2 


per question 




implemented? 

Planning 



A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 

implemented 



A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 

3 


The Law 44 establishes which are 

the limits of the national park, all 

the marine zone, nevertheless, has 

had limitations to demarcate them 

physically because of the costly 

process. 


0 The plan of management is the 

document guidance counselor for 

1 

the management of the PN Coiba, 

which contemplates objectives, 

norms, guidelines, actions and 

2 2 strategies to continue. In an 

extensive process of planning 

developed by the technical analysis 

of the natural resources with the 

participation of different actors 

involved. The management plan is 

approved in 2009, at present in 

force (ANAM Resolution No. AG- 

0449-2009) by a period of 5 years.





per question 







implemented 





the area? 






into planning 









making 




19 


+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plan 

(POA 2008), the goals, the 


responsibility for the execution 

of some of the activities of the 

management plan. 

+1 +1 The Program of Monitoring of the 



compiles the information on the 

management and orients to make 

decisions of the protected areas of 

the country. The total praised of 

the PMEMAP (2009) of the Coiba 

NP was of 719 points that 

corresponds 

management. 

to a good 

+1 +1 The results of the monitoring are 

taken into account in the devise of 

the operating planning. 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

0 

1 

2





per question 




3 3 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 





use 

20 


0 ANAM and an NGO, MarViva are 

working together to strengthen the 

1 

protection systems in place. 



resource use 

3 


0 The scientific investigation in the 

Coiba NP, particularly in the 





1 

2 

country marine, has been an 

important component that has 

been developed from the 

principles of the 1970´s, but has





per question 

Process 



21 


3 3 not been until recent years that 

has been utilized for the 

management of the park. In some 

coral reefs manipulative 

experiments for more than 35 

years have been carried out, and 

of to date, they have not caused 

significant negative effects. On 

this matter, the dive scientist is an 

important component of the 

scientific activities that are 

carried out in the marine middle. 

Likewise, the studies on the 

terrestrial flora have contributed 

to the enlargement of the 

knowledge on the terrestrial 

ecosystems of the Coiba NP, but 

without greater impact in its 

management. Nevertheless, the 

present management plan has 

incorporated happiness 

information to the decisions of 

management and proposes to 

carry out monitoring, particularly 

in the one that refers to the coral 

reefs, fisheries and the vegetation 

of the wetlands. 

The management plan establishes 

a research program and 

monitoring, whose objectives to 

orient chiefly the management of 

the Park, besides, the 

management plan creates the 

Scientific Committee, who 

supported these activities, so 

much in the elaboration of the 

plan of investigation and 

evaluation of said investigations. 

It is counted also with strategic 

allies that support these activities 

of investigation. Nevertheless, 

even themselves, not all the count 

on personnel and supplies for this 

program, for which limitations 

exist.





per question 

12. Resource 

management 



undertaken? 

Process 





area? 

Inputs 




management 

objectives? 




sufficient? 




1 




2 2 



3 
















22 

0 The management plan of Coiba 

NP, proposes 5 programs of 

1 


management and an organizing 

structure. To be able to comply 

with the objectives established in 

the plan, the same one proposes 40 

officials; nevertheless, alone the 

Park 19 officials work carrying out 

above all, works of control and 

caution. 

0 During the PMEMAP sessions of 

2009, the personnel of the Coiba 

NP explained, that they require 

2 2 

greater training and updates in 

order to execute the actions 

according to the Management Plan; 

3 

the personnel indicated that they 

require training in the English 

language; it was suggested to 

maintain the continuity of the 

personnel that labors in the park. 

0 The Coiba NP maintains 

a current budget (2010) 

1 1 of B/. 

divided 

138.040,00, 

between the 

2 

financing of the 

SINAP and FIDECO:





per question 

Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 


3 

23 


-FIDECO (2010)= 

41,000 US$ 

-SINAP (2010)= 97,040 US$ 

Nevertheless, this budget is not 

sufficient for the management of a 

marine area as in the Coiba NP. 

The Law 44 creates the Fund of the 

Coiba NP, the same one that should 

supply the financial needs for the 

management of the Park; it has not 

yet been regulated neither 

implemented. In spite of the no 

culmination of the process of 

regulation of the fund, it has been 

achieved (August 2008) the partial 

disbursement of resources to attend 

the compliance established with the 

local governments and the 

University Regional Center (CRU) 

of Mildews. 

The transparency in the 

administration of said fund will 

serve of guarantee and 

compensation to the local and 

international management of 

sources of financing, with which 

the strategic alliances will be 

established as indicated. It is 

proposed, also, to carry out the 

pertinent studies to prepare the 

design of a conducive proposal to 

the application of measures oriented 

to the financial sustainability of the 

Management Plan of the Coiba NP, 

that permit 13 to define the 

financial mechanisms to vote for 

the costs of implementation of the 

operations in the Coiba NP during 

the next fifteen years.





per question 



Inputs 


budget 




Process 

18. Equipment 



Input 


equipment 

Is equipment 

















management 




24 


0 In the interim, themselves they are 

identifying short-term investment 

1 

funds, through CI, TNC, 

Foundation MarViva and the 

2 2 

UNESCO. The SENACYT and the 

CYTED have signed a Covenant of 

Cooperation to establish a scientific 

station in the Coiba NP, and at the 

same time, the SENACYT will 

offer funds for the scientific 

investigation in the same one, 

through a process of public 

assembly directed by the 

investigators. 

0 

1 

2 2 

0 The Coiba NP has acquired teams 

of field and of office, According to 

1 

the PMEMAP, between the 50% 

and less than 75% of the team for 

2 2 

the priority activities of 


3 

has been acquired. 

0 

1





per question 

adequately maintained? There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities 

2 2 

Process 


awareness 




and needs? 

Process 


and water use 





objectives? 

Planning 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 







programme 



area 














migration). 





25 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

+1 

+1 

+1 

Comment/Explanation Next steps





per question 

22. State and 




water users? 

Process 






have input to 


Process 




























26 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 So much inside the protected 

area as in the buffer zone and of 

influence of the protected area, 

1 

it does not exist any established 

towns or native communities, 

nevertheless, natives exist and 

2 2 live in the communities of the 

coast in firm land, that just like 

they are all able in some 

3 

moments to make use of the 

resources of the protected area, 

whenever they are adjusted to 

the regulations of the area. 

Likewise, the same has spaces 

of consultation through the 

0 

diverse instances created for it. 

During the PMEMAP sessions 

(2009), in the Coiba NP, in spite of 

1 

the fact that the groups have a vote 

in the Counsel and Scientific 

2 2 

Committee and in the Committee 

of the special zone; they perceive





per question 

decisions? 

Process 





communities 


communities 


communities 







payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


evaluation 











communities 













27 


3 that themselves do not feel 

sufficiently represented. It is 

suggested that they utilize room 

courtesy and to cause the arrival of 

the local authorities, and the 

anxieties to be transmitted to the 

Counsel and Committees. The 

actors have participated in diverse 

moments in the 

elaboration/updating of the 

management plan of the Coiba NP. 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 

0 The Coiba NP has acquired 

teams of field and of office, 

1 

According to the PMEMAP, 

between the 50% and less than 

2 

75% of the team for the priority 

activities of management of the 

protected area has been 

3 3 

acquired.





per question 



adequate? 

Outputs 






management? 

Process 

29. Fees 




management? 






2 2 


3 











environs 


environs 



28 

0 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 


Facilities and infrastructure that 

exist for the visitors of the 

protected area, which is one of 

those visited, a center of visitor’s 

counts on themselves and a station 

where rooms exist where they can 

remain, besides the camp areas, 

among others. 

0 In 2008, a new rate of collection 

by the use is established and the 

1 

services that offer the protected 


2 2 

Protected Areas. The collections 

of fines and by services, they 

pass fund to the SINAP. As for 

3 

this new rate, the Coiba NP 

differentiates itself, of the other 

marine protected area, by having 

different rates for admission, 

lodging, anchorage and to camp, 

relating to other protected areas. 

During the PMEMAP sessions 

of 2009, the personnel of the 

Coiba NP explained, that they 

requires greater training and 

updating to execute the actions 

according to the Management 

Plan of the personnel indicated 

that they require training in the 

English language.





per question 

30. Condition of values Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely 

degraded 

0 





1 



Outcomes 




2 



values 


values 


values 

TOTAL SCORE 


monitoring 





29 

3 3 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 

75 


To weigh that themselves none of 

the threats have been able to be 

eradicated, the state of the 

resources is considered in good 

conditions, above all by the 

location of the protected area 

(distance) and the state in which 

was found, you said resources, to 

the moment to be declared 

protected area, has contributed to 

that so they be maintained. One 

must say that they have contributed 

to the management of the ANAM 

with the program of Control and 

Caution and the organizations and 

Institutions that collaborate, I gave 

to I gave with the management of 

the Park.








financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X








intervention. 

9





Protected Area 3: ALTOS DE CAMPANA NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact 

details for person responsible for 

completing the METT (email etc.) 

Date assessment carried 

out 


WDPA site code (these 

codes can be found on 

www.unep- 

Designatio 

ns 

National Park 

Countr Panama 

Location of protected area 

(province and if possible 

map reference) 

Date of 

establishment 

Ownership details 

(please tick) 

July 10, 2010 

10 



Campana National Park 

IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 



(PM-1); 

Province de Panamá, district 

of Capira and Chame 

Decreto No. 153 del 28 de junio de 1966. Gaceta Oficial 

No. 15,655 del 6 de julio de 1966. 

State 

X 

Private 

X 

Communit 

y 

Other 

National Environmental Authority X - Autoridad 

Management 

Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM)) 

Authority 

Size of protected area 4,816 ha 

Permanent 

Temporary 

Number of 

One Protected Area Chief 

0 

staff 

and 8 Park Rangers 

Annual budget 

Recurrent 

Project or 

(US$) – excluding 

other 


(operational) funds supplementary 

funds 

What are the main 

values for which the 

area is designated 

-FIDECO (2010)= 

8,250.00 US$ 

-SINAP (2010)= 

25,950.00 US$ 

At the time, was classified as a National Park 

and Biological Reserve, because it contained 

species of fauna and flora important and of 

great interest for scientific research, in addition 

to a scenic value and protect important water 

sources.



List the two primary Catalyzing protected Sustainability area management of Protected objectives Area 

Management 

objective 1 

Management 

objective 2 

No. of people involved in completing 

assessment 

Includi 

ng: 

(tick 

boxes) 

PA manager 

Local 

community 

Please note if assessment 

was carried out in 

association with a 

particular project, on behalf 

of an organization or 

donor. 

Support integrated and sustainable rural 

development in the region of Altos de Campana, 

through the conservation of basic resources of 

land, nature tourism, environmental education, 

recreation, directed and sustainable agricultural 

production. 

Maintain water supply sources supplying agroindustries, 

irrigation systems and drinking water of 

the region and providing substantial inputs to Lake 

Gatun and coastal-marine ecosystem of the Bay of 

Chame 

PA staff 

Donors 

11 

2 

Other PA 

agency staff 

External 

experts 

NGO 

Other 

- Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá 

(FIDECO) 

- SINAP 

- ACP. Mitigation - Compensation Program 

Expansion of Panama Canal - the 

reforestation of 30 hectares in the PN Altos 

de Campana in their neighborhood. The 

recovery of areas degraded is included and 

activities to sustainable agriculture.






Date listed Tentative ( Site name Site area 






12 

km2 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 


number 




Date listed 


Fulfilment of three functions of 

MAB (conservation, 


support.) 

Site name 

Site area 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 



Important Bird Area of Panama (PM-1); 2004



Catalyzing Protected Sustainability Areas Threats: of Protected Data Sheet Area 2 

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are 

those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterised as 

low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in 

the protected area. 







































Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of 






areas 





5 

13















Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or 

genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following 

introduction, spread and/or increase 





problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 
























practices 



14




15






per question 







Context 


regulations 





hunting)? 

Planning 










area 







16 


0 Was The Campana National Park 

Declared in 1966 by Decree No. 

1 

153 of June 28, 1966 (Official 

Gazette No. 15.655 of July 6, 1966) 

and amended by Decree No. 35 of 

April 28, 1977. (GO. N º 18.645 of 

2 

21 August 1978). 

The Park is Administered 

Established Continuing the features 

of management plan by the year 

1999, approved by resolution AG - 

0033-2004, as amended by 

resolution AG - 0259-2007 

0 Was The Campana National Park 

Declared in 1966 by Decree No. 

1 

153 of June 28, 1966 (Official 

Gazette No. 15.655 of July 6, 

2 2 

1966) and amended by Decree 

No. 35 of April 28, 1977. (GO. N 

3 

º 18.645 of 21 August 1978). 

Campana National Park, has a 

management plan that indicates 

which programs to assist and 

establish mechanisms to regulate 

unsustainable human activities, 

however it has limitations for the 

actual, Human activities practiced 

in the we have the hunting area, the 

agricultural frontier expansion, 

tourism and infrastructure 

development.





per question 

3. Law 

enforcement 






Input 











per question 


objectives 

Is management 



Planning 









Planning 

17 


0 Although the staff of the protected 

area has the capacity to implement 

1 

environmental regulations within 

the protected area, the resources are 

limited. Currently the staff is not 

2 2 

sufficient nor has the resources to 

monitor the area. 

3 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The boundaries of the protected 



1 

area, are known both for staff and 

most inhabitants of the area 



2 


objectives 









processes) 

3 3 

0 

1 

2





per question 





Process 




patterns etc 







demarcated 



18 

3 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 


per question 




implemented? 

Planning 





implemented 








area, are known both for staff and 

most inhabitants of the area 


0 The plan of management of the 

Campana NP has a specific 

1 

activities are established to carry 

out in a period of 5 years with the 

elaboration of the annual operating 

2 

plans (POA), as well as the 

responsible for their execution. 

+1 +1 The annual operating plans 

(POA 2008) the goals, activities, 

dates and responsible for the 

execution some activities of the 

plan of management





per question 






implemented 





the area? 

Input 




into planning 









making 







19 




the Areas Protected (PMEMAP) 

compile information on the 

management and orients to it takes 

of decisions of the areas protected 

of the country. The total praised of 

the PMEMAP (2009) of the 

Campana PN was of 699 points 

that corresponds to good 

+1 +1 

management. 

The results of the monitoring are 

taken into account when devises 

the operating planning 

0 The plan of management is 

approved 2009, at present in force 

1 

(ANAM probado por Resolución 

AG - 0033-2004; modificado por 

2 2 

Resolución AG - 0259-2007 by a 

period of 5 years 

3 

0 

1 

2 

3 3





per question 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 


Process 

12. Resource 

management 



undertaken? 

Process 







0 


use 

1 1 

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 


resource use 


3 







20 


0 The management plan has a sub- 

1 

2 2 




1 




2 2 



3 

3 

program of research. Which 

contains a series of research 

activities both biological, social, 

economical to use the results to 

the proper management of 

protected area. Although there are 

investigations that have been done 

in the area, very few respond to 

the needs of park management 

However, despite having a list of 

research activities have not yet 

succeeded in establishing the sub. 


0 The Plan of Management for the 

Bell NP, suggests the number of 26 


1 

staff (20 ranger) but currently has 

only nine staff members including 


the head of the area.





per question 

area? 


Inputs 




management 

objectives? 




sufficient? 

Inputs 



Inputs 


budget 


















1 



2 2 




21 


0 The protected area staff is trained to 

perform their duties, however have 

indicated that they require more 

2 2 

staff participation in training on the 

foreigner who as representatives of 

organized groups. Additionally, it 

3 

requires training in the use of 

software and mapping, internships 

and experiences in other protected 

areas 

0 budget assigned in 2010. 

1 1 

PN Campana B/. 8,250 

(FIDECO) + B/. 25,905 (SINAP) = 

B/. 34,155 

2 

3 

0 FIDECO $ 8,250 

0





per question 




Process 

18. Equipment 



Input 


equipment 

Is equipment 


Process 


awareness 




and needs? 

Process 








management 











programme 

22 

1 

2 2 


0 The Campana NP has acquired 

teams of field and of office , 

1 

Segun the PMEMAP, between the 

50% and less than 75% of the team 

2 

3 

0 

2 

for the priority activities of 

management of the area protected 

has been acquired. 

They are currently building new 

facilities in the park. 

1 1 

2 

0 

1 1 

2 

3





per question 


and water use 





objectives? 

Planning 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 




water users? 

Process 



area 














migration). 













23 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 






per question 






have input to 


Process 






decisions? 

Process 



















communities 


communities 


communities 









communities 

24 


0 In the area there are no indigenous 

communities. Local communities 

are composed mostly of peasants 

1 1 

working in agriculture and 

livestock. It is these that are part of 

the interest groups to which they 

2 

are invited to meetings and 

participate, but still not considered 

in making decisions. 

3 

0 Interest groups participate in some 

planned activities in the protected 

1 1 area. Although not considered in 

management decisions. In 

2 

PMEMAP sessions participants 

consider that to be taken into 

account and involve groups of Ares 

3 

planned activities, incentives for 

producers in the area to improve 

their income and thus enhance the 

conservation of the AP. 

+1 +1 

+1 

+1 +1 

0





per question 


providing economic Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are 

1 1 

benefits to local being developed 




2 

payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 



3 

26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 


evaluation 












1 

2 

3 3 




and orients to it takes of 

decisions of the areas protected. 



adequate? 

Outputs 

















25 

0 The Campana NP is one of the 

major areas visited, especially 

towards its proximity to the city, 

and increasing tourism in the 

2 2 west, Chame and San Carlos. 

3 

0 

1 1 

2 

There are facilities for visitors, a 

viewpoint, several paths, the 

administrative headquarters, but 

still lacking to establish other 

facilities to support tourism and 

public use as a visitors center and 

others





per question 


management? 

Process 



3 

29. Fees 







management? 


environs 


environs 

1 

2 2 

services that offer the areas 

protected of the National System 

of Areas Protected. The 

collections of fines and by 

services they pass to the fund of 




3 

the SINAP. 


The condition of resources, may 

degraded 

0 

have been maintained, however 


although it may have decreased the 




1 1 

threat and the advancement of the 

agricultural frontier, the perceived 





2 

loss of biodiversity in the area. 

Outcomes 


3 



values 


values 


values 


monitoring 





26 

+1 

+1 +1 

TOTAL SCORE 60 

+1








financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X







intervention. 

9




Protected Area 1: MARINE NATIONAL PARK BASTIMENTOS ISLAND 

Name, affiliation and contact details for person 


Date assessment carried out June 10, 2010 


Morenomc61@hotmail.com 

Name of protected area Marine National Park Bastimentos Island 

WDPA site code (these codes can be 

found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) 

Designations 


National 




Date of establishment 


IUCN Category 

II 

10 

International (please also 

complete sheet overleaf ) 

- Important Bird Area of 

Panama (BT-5); 

- Biosphere Reserve 

Province of Bocas del Toro, archipelago of Bocas del Toro, districti 

of Bocas del Toro 

INRENARE. Resolution of board of directors JD-022-88, September 2, 

1988 (GO 21,129) 

State 

X 

Private 

X 

Community 

X 

Management Authority National Envrionmental Authority – Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) 

Size of protected area (ha) 13,069.62 





the area is designated 

Permanent 

4 


-FIDECO (2008)= 

62,020.00 US$ 

-SINAP (2008)= 26,290.00 US$ 




No. of people involved in completing assessment 2 

Temporary 

0 

Other 

Project or other supplementary 

funds 

- CBMAP II (2008)= 236.000.00 

US$ 

Conserves a representative sample and unique of the 

marine ecosystems of the Caribbean and the protection 

of insular forests and in the conservation of the unique 

insular fresh water lagoon in the island of Bastimentos of 

the Archipelago of Bocas del Toro. 

Conserve a significant sample of the coastal and marine 

ecosystems, with special attention to those of vital importance for 

the sea turtles 

Take advantage of the tourism potential of the natural landscape, as 

well as their biological components.

Including: 

(tick 

boxes) 



PA manager ⎩ PA staff 

Other PA 

agency staff 

11 

NGO 

Local community Donors External experts Other 



organisation or donor. 

In preparation of FSP GEF Project “…….” Using PPG 

funds managed by IADB, with inputs from: 

- Fidecomiso Ecológico de Panamá (FIDECO) 

- SINAP 

- CBMAP II 

- The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Delimitation of the 

marine area of the PNMIB.






co-ordinates 







number 

Reason for Designation (see 

Ramsar Information Sheet) 


Date listed 

2000 


Fulfilment of three functions of 

MAB (conservation, 


support.) 

Site name 

La Amistad Reserve of 

the Biosphere (2001) 

Site area 

Total: 655,558 ha 

Core: 

Buffer: 

Transition: 

12 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 

9°22’47”- 9°14’17” 

North 

82°12’03”-82°01’05” 

East 

These are outstanding examples that represent significant progressive 

and geological processes of biological evolution and the interaction 

between man and its natural environment. 

It contains samples of the more important and significant natural 

habitats, where important species of threatened animals or plants are 

conserved 

-Maintain a stable natural environment that supports the cultural and 

socioeconomic development of the settlers. 

-Guarantee the continuity of the agro-industrial activities that take 

place in the adjoining areas of the provinces of Bocas del Toro and 

Chiriquí, as well as in the Republic of Costa Rica. 

-Take advantage of the tourism potential of the natural landscape, as 

well as of its biological components. 


Name: Important areas for 


Name: Detail: 

Name: Detail: 

Detail: 

Important areas for Birds in Panama (BT-5)




Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are 

those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as 

low are threats which are present, but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in 

the protected area. 








Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, Mari 

culture and aquaculture 










x 3.1 Oil and gas drilling (*) but possible in near future 


























areas 





13


















x 8.1a Invasive non native/alien animals 


problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 






habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these 


















practices 



14





per question 

15 


1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 

0 The Marine National Park 

Bastimentos Island was declared 










1 

2 

in 1988 by the INRENARE 

(ANAM at present); the first 

marine park established in the 

Republic of Panama and is the 

unique one that conserves a 

Context 



sample of the marine 

ecosystems of the Caribbean 

The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3 side of the country. The Park is 

administered continuing the 

features established by the Plan 

of Management approved in 

2004, at present in force 

(ANAM Resolution No. AG- 

0296-2004, August 2, 2004). 

2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 0 Fishing is taking place with no 

regulations 

area 

control (Lobster, mollusks, 





hunting)? 







1 

2 

3 

1 

cucumber of sea, and other 

species), furtive shooting (agouti 

and sea turtles), sea turtles eggs 

harvesting, and extraction of woods 

trees. The marine, terrestrial 

patrolling in critical areas have 

been carried out with different 

Planning 

levels of intensity and success in 

different periods; because they 

depend on the number of available 

officials, fuel and other supplies 

assigned. 

3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 


0 The national authority of the 

environment (ANAM) receives




per question 


enforcement 

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 1 the support of other governmental 


institutions: 











2 

3 

2 

The Authority of the Aquatic 

Resources of Panama (ARAP) 

develops a Plan of Coastal 

Management for the province of 

Bocas del Toro. It is a plan of 

Input 

action for the sustainable fisheries 

and strengthening of the 

organizations fishing grounds in 

the region. 


per question 


objectives 

Is management 



Planning 

16 

The Department of Government 

and Justice in Panama inaugurated 

the Naval Air Base of Rambala 

(Bocas el Toro) to give security to 

the area and to protect it from 

criminal acts. 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The plan of management of the 





1 

2 2 

PNMIB is a tool of support to the 

management of the park that 


and guidelines, possible uses and 

strategies. To improve, the 


3 

common participation, the 

objectives 

protection, conservation and 

sustainable management of the 

terrestrial and marine resources of 

the PNMIB and its zone of 

neighborhood.




per question 









Planning 





Process 









processes) 




patterns etc 







demarcated 



17 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 


per question 


In the first months of 1989 the 

establishment of the demarcation 

of the terrestrial limits was initiated 

to cover some 16 lineal km (sector 

east and western), this process was 

completed in 1991. The initial 

demarcation of the marine zone, 

with buoys, was lost partly with the 

earthquake of April of 1991. At 

present The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC) has supported the marine 

delimitation. 





per question 




implemented? 

Planning 








implemented 




implemented 



A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 






into planning 





18 



PNMIB has specific activities that 

1 

are established to carry out in a 

period of 5 years with the 

2 2 

elaboration of the annual operating 

plans (POA), as well as, the 

responsible for their execution. 

+1 +1 The plan of management is 

approved in 2004, at present in 

force (ANAM Resolution No. 

AG-0296-2004, August 2, 2004). 

+1 +1 The annual operating plans (POA 

2008), the goals, activities, dates 

and responsible for the execution 


plan of management. 


Effectiveness of Management of the 

Areas Protected (PMEMAP) 


0 

1 

management and orients to decision 

making of the protected areas of the 

country. The total praised of the 

PMEMAP (2007) of the PNMIB 

was of 604 points that corresponds 

to a regular management. 

POA 2008 approved, executed and 

it evaluated in 2009. 

2 2 

3




per question 




the area? 

Input 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 


Process 

12. Resource 

management 



undertaken? 





making 







19 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 



0 Inside the Park there are several 


activities that take place, due to 


use 

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 


resource use 

1 

2 

3 

1 communities living inside the Park, 

like agriculture, pasture. Currently, 

it is still very difficult to control 

and monitor protection systems 

established by the environmental 

authorities. 




0 

1 

The Smithsonian Tropical 

Research Institute is the main 

investigator of the area, through 

its Station of Investigations 



2 2 (Colon Island) which carries out 

the majority of the studies in the 



3 

park and its 

neighborhood. 

zones of 

Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 Protection systems (permits, 






1 

2 2 

patrols) need to be strengthened in 

order to achieve active management 

of critical habitats.




per question 

Process 





area? 

Inputs 




management 

objectives? 




sufficient? 

Inputs 




















16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 


20 

3 


0 The Plan of Management for the 

1 

PNMIB proposed the most 

minimum number of seven 

officials [a director, five park 

rangers and a responsible for 

relations with the community]. 

At present, it counts with four 

officials (a director and three 

park rangers). 


concentrates on a basic training in 

administrative management, legal 

2 2 

base and procedures 


for 

the 

3 

elaboration of Annual Operating 

Plans (POA). 

0 PNM Bastimentos Island = 

TOTAL 322,290 US$, budget 

1 

assigned in 2010 

2 2 

3 

0 0 FIDECO 60,000 US$




per question 





1 SINAP 26,290 US$ 

CBMAP II 236,000 US$ 



2 

Inputs 



budget 




Process 

18. Equipment 



Input 


equipment 

Is equipment 


Process 


awareness 










management 







21 

0 

1 1 

2 

0 The PNMIB has acquired teams of 

field and office equipment that 

1 1 include rowboats, outboard motors, 

and life preservers, as well as, 

2 

filing cabinets and desks. The 

PNMIB has less than the 50% 

3 

of team required 

0 

1 1 

2 

0 The production of basic informative 

pamphlets on the unit of




per question 




and needs? 

Process 


and water use 





objectives? 

Planning 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 






programme 



area 














migration). 







22 


1 conservation has been one of the 

main activities, which are 

2 2 

distributed at the local level 

(schools and institutions) and to 

national level, on displays and other 

events environmentalists. There are 

3 

0 

activities for the program of 

environmental education. 

1 

2 2 

3 

+1 

+1 +1 

+1 

0




per question 



water users? 

Process 






have input to 


Process 






decisions? 

Process 

























communities 


communities 





23 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 There is monitoring of the 

projects of CBMAP II in the 

communities of the zone of 

1 1 neighborhood: San Cristobal 

Island, Tigre Island and 

Marañón ravine 

2 

3 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

+1 +1 

+1 +1




per question 


communities 







payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


evaluation 







adequate? 

Outputs 






communities 














24 

+1 +1 

0 

1 

2 2 




2 


3 





3 


0 The Program of Monitoring 


1 1 Management of the Areas 

Protected (PMEMAP) 

2 


management and orients to it 

3 

takes of decisions of the 

areas protected. 

0 

0 

1 1 

Basic facilities, natural paths 

and visitor center, counts on 

itself




per question 

operators contribute to There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 

2 



management? 


3 

Process 


29. Fees 




management? 








Outcomes 




environs 


environs 




degraded 





25 



for the use is established and the 

1 

services offer by the protected 


2 2 Protected Areas and the 

collections of fines goes to the 

3 

fund of the SINAP. 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 

The different ecosystems of the 

PNMIB are found in good 

conditions, the threats of the 

residential tourism in the areas of 

neighborhood are stopped by legal 

actions toward the construction 

companies.




per question 


values 


values 


values 

TOTAL SCORE 


monitoring 





26 


+1 1 The condition of values in the Park 

is constantly being evaluated. The 

two most critical management 

activities are: monitoring to 

conserve sea turtles and community 

projects as alternatives for residents 

of the island to alleviate poverty 

and inappropriate use of natural 

resources, through achieving 

financial sustainability to support 

long-term management of the Park. 

+1 1 

+1 1 

62








financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3




1. Project Name: PROGRAM FOR THE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY 

THROUGH THE ECOTOURISM IN PROTECTED AREAS OF PANAMA 
















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X








intervention. 

9





Protected Area 8 : VOLCAN BARU NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact 

details of person responsible for 

completing the METT (email etc.) 

Date assessment carried 

out 


WDPA site code (these 

codes can be found on 

www.unepwcmc.org/wdpa/) 

Designatio 

ns 

National 

National Park 


Location of protected area 

(province and if possible 

map reference) 

Date of 

establishment 

Ownership details 

(please tick) 

Management 

Authority 

August 6, 2010 

10 



Barú Volcano National Park 

IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 



(CH-2); 

- La Amistad 

Biosphere Reserve 

Province of Chiriquí, including 

the districts of Bugaba, 

Boquerón, Boquete, Dolega and 

David 

Executive Decree No. 40 of Jun 24, 1976. Official 

Gazette No. 18,619 of Jun 13, 1978. (Decreto Ejecutivo 

No. 40 del 24 de junio 1976. Gaceta Oficial No. 18,619 

de 13 de julio 1978) 

State 

X 

Size of protected area 13,069.62 ha 

Number of 

staff 

Annual budget 

(US$) – excluding 


Private 

X 

Community 

X 

Other 

National Environmental Authority (Autoridad 

Nacional del Ambiente) (ANAM) 

Permanent 

One Protected Area 

Chief and 3 park 

rangers 

Recurrent (operational) 

funds 

-FIDECO (2010)= 12,550 US$ 

-SINAP (2010)= 31,855US$ 

Temporary 

0 


supplementary 

funds 

- CBMAP II (2010)= 

348,000 US$



area is designated? 




The presence of great biodiversity and endemic 

relies in the Barú Volcano, as the highest point 

in Panama (3.474 msnm), the weather depends 

on both, Pacific and the Atlantic (Not 

Carribbean) oceans. This mountain range is the 

source of the main hydrographic basins of the 

Caldera, Chiriquí, Chiriquí Viejo, David, 

Cricamola, Piedra, Fonseca and Gariché Rivers, 

which are considered the most important 

within the country. This is located in the 

Talamanca region of forests mount, tropical 

forests (very humid) and virgin rivers, where 

we find zones in the country that are very well 

conserved. 


Management 

objective 1 

Management 

objective 2 


Including: 

(tick 

boxes) 

PA manager 


To protect a significant sample of the natural 

ecosystems found in the area and of the characteristic 

ecological processes of these environments. 

To conserve the basins hydrographic superior areas 

of the region of Talamanca by its hydroelectric 

potential of vital importance for the future 

development of the country. 

PA staff 

Donors 



organization or donor. 

11 

2 

Other PA 

agency staff 


NGO 

Other 

- Ecological Trusts of Panama (Fidecomiso 

Ecológico de Panamá) (FIDECO) 

- SINAP 

- CBMAP II





Date of 

Inscription 


(i.e. criteria i a x) 

Statement of 

outstanding universal 

value 

International Designation Information 

Site name 

Ramsar Site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/) 

Date 

listed 



12 

Site 

area 

Geographical 

Coordinates 

Site name Site area Geographical number 


Date listed 

2000 





support.) 

Site name 

La Amistad 


Biosphere (2001) 

Site 

area 

655,558 

ha 


9°22’47”- 9°14’17” North 

82°12’03”-82°01’05” 

East 

- Outstanding examples that represent significant, progressive, and 

geological processes of biological evolution and the interaction of man with 

their natural environment. 

- Samples of the most important and significant natural habitats, where 

there are conserved animal species or plants threatened. 

- To maintain a natural and stable environmental framework that ensures 

the cultural and socioeconomic development of the settlers. 

- Guaranteeing the continuity of industrial farming activities that are taken 

place at present in the adjoining areas of the provinces of Bocas del Toro 

and Chiriquí, as well as, in the Republic of Costa Rica. 

- Take advantage of the potential tourism of the stable natural landscape, as 

well as, their biological components. 


Name: Important Bird Area of 

Panama (2003) 

Important areas for Birds in Panama CH-2.







are threats that are present, but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the 






















x 3.3 Energy generation, including hydropower dams 




x* 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) (*) but possible in 

near future 
























13





Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions. 
















problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 





Geological events may be part of natural disturbances in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat 

is damaged has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these 



x 10.1 Volcanoes (Although not activity) 



x 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed) )changes) 












practices 



14




15






per question 







Context 


regulations 





hunting)? 

Planning 

3. Law 

enforcement 






Input 










area 
















16 


0 The Baru Volcano was declared 

as NP in 1976 by Executive 

1 

2 

Decree No. 40 of June 24, 1976 

and published in the Official 

Gazette No. 18.619 of July 13, 

1978 

Component of the nucleus area 

of the La Amistad Reserve of the 

Biosphere (2001) and the 

Important areas for Birds in 

Panama (CH-2). 

0 The Barú Volcano NP has 

established the basic norms to 

1 

control the unsustainable 

2 2 

human activities, likewise, the 

management plan, is the legal 

tool for the activities of 

3 

management, through the 

established zoning and to 

regulate the activities inside the 



protected area has the capacity 

1 1 to implement environmental 

regulations within the protected 

area, resources are limited. 

2 

Currently, there is not enough 

staff to monitor the area, so 

3 

there are great efforts to control 

illegal activities in the area.





per question 


objectives 

Is management 



Planning 









Planning 

17 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool 


1 

of support to the management 


of the park which establishes the 


2 

objectives, norms and 


guidelines, possible uses and 


objectives 

3 3 

strategies, to improve 

common participation, 

protection, conservation 

the 

the 

and 



neighborhood. 









processes) 




patterns etc 

0 

1 

2 2 

3





per question 





Process 







demarcated 



18 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 


per question 




implemented? 



implemented 




The land demarcation (limits) 

of the Barú Volcano NP area 

is between 50% and 75%, the 

same are acquaintances by the 

authorities and locals. 

Nevertheless, in the 

management plan, proposals 

exist to modify the limits, as 

for the affectation of the areas, 

where some communities are 

located, and besides 

themselves are suggested to 

include natural increase of the 

area, including natural 

ecosystems of importance for 

the objectives of the Park. 


0 The management plan of the 

Baru Volcano NP has specific 

1 

activities that are established 

to be carried out in a period of 

2 2 

5 years with the elaboration of 

the annual operating plans





per question 


Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 (POA), as well as, the 

responsible 

execution. 

for their 





19 

The Management plan brought 

up to date (Resolution AG-0295- 

2004, force of 5 years G.OR. 

25,116). At present, an extension 

of the management plan was 

granted so that it could be 

concluded with the updating of 

the same one. 

+1 The annual operating plans 

(POA 2009) the goals, 

activities, date and 

responsible for the execution 

are some of the activities of 

the management plan. This 

POA was devised with the 


stakeholder and the activities 

identified are executed with 

the support of these groups.





per question 






implemented 





the area? 




into planning 









making 




20 


+1 The Monitoring Program of the 




management and orients the 

taking of decisions of the 

protected areas of the country. 

The total of the PMEMAP (2009) 

of the Barú Volcano NP was of 

661 points that corresponds to a 

good management. This 

evaluation will be carried out to 

the stakeholders. 

+1 Monitoring results are taken into 

account when preparing the 

operational planning. 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

0 

1 1 

2





per question 




3 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 




0 


use 

1 1 



resource use 


3 





21 


0 It exists inside the 

1 1 

2 

management plan a 

subprogram of Investigation 

(Program of Environmental 

Management), the same one





per question 

Process 

12. Resource 

management 



undertaken? 

Process 






1 




2 2 



3 

22 


3 does not gives details of the 

investigations, but 

recommends to devise a 

prioritized list of 

investigations for the 


area. 

The management plan 

contains a research program, 

but alone it defines some of 

the actions that have to be 

carried out, among which is to 

devise the plan of 

investigation that contain the 

priority lines. 

The protected area is being 

located in a private 

ecosystem, and it contains one 

high endemic, besides that, 

the studies of other sciences 

are required. It is proposed in 

the plan to establish the 

capacity of load, but still has 

not been elaborated.





per question 





area? 

Inputs 




management 

objectives? 




sufficient? 



Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 











23 


0 The management plan does 

not determine the quantity of 

1 1 

officials. Nevertheless, a 

proposal exists that the NP 

have as a minimum 8 park 

rangers. At present, only 4 

officials exist. 


protected area are qualified to 

carry out the work of 

2 2 

management. Nevertheless, it 

is required to devise a plan or 

3 


purpose to be up to date and 

to reinforce the abilities and 

know-how of the officials. 

Some of the required training is 

related to the functions of the 

park ranger, for example: team 

management, data 

processing/GPS, maps, 

compass, first aids, basic 

English, control of fires, 

interpretation 

rescue of fauna. 

of paths and 

0 The Barú Volcano NP = 

1 

TOTAL 44,405 US$ budget 

assigned in 2010.





per question 

Inputs 



Inputs 


budget 




Process 

18. Equipment 





2 2 



3 



0 



1 1 



2 











management 

24 

0 

1 

2 2 

0 

1 

2 2 


B/.12,550 (FIDECO) 

B/.31,855 (SINAP) 

The Barú Volcano NP maintains an 

adequate infrastructure, besides it has 

acquired between the 50% and 75% of the 

necessary team for the management of the 

area. Nevertheless, it requires to repair the





per question 

Input There are adequate equipment and facilities 

3 


equipment 

Is equipment 


Process 


awareness 




and needs? 

Process 


and water use 












programme 



area 



25 

0 

1 1 

2 


access roads to certain zones of the Park, 

likewise, it is required to repair The 

Quetzals path, to indicate the areas of 

access to the Volcano, among others. 

At present it counts with the support of 

ATP and CONADES, who are interested 

in financing some adaptations that are 

required to facilitate the tourist’s access to 

the Park. 

0 The protected area counts with a 

plan of environmental education 

1 

that is carried out as a group 

with community organizations 

2 2 of the area. A greater 

participation of the authorities is 

required for the achievement of 

3 

the objectives, besides carrying 

out an evaluation on the results. 

0 

1





per question 

the protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long 

2 2 

aid the achievement of term needs of the protected area 

objectives? 

Planning 



3 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 




water users? 

Process 













migration). 

















26 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 


0 According to the management 

plan most of the native 

population, nine small towns 

1 1 

that conforms the area of 

influence of the PNVB; mostly 

belonging to the Ngäbe-Buglé





per question 


have input to 


2 ethnic group. Said the 

management decisions? decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved 

population concentrated are in 

the areas of Bajo Boquete, 

Process 

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 3 

Palmira Central, Cerro Punta 


and Volcán, in conglomerates of 

over 300 inhabitants, above all, 

they are dedicated to agrarian 

activities in the farms of the 

region. Just likely the remainder 

of the communities 

participating, the native groups 

have participated on some 

activities of management, but 

nevertheless, their participation 

is minimal. 






decisions? 

Process 











communities 


communities 





27 

0 During the elaboration of the 

management plan through 

1 1 workshops information was 

obtained where groups, 

2 

organizations and communities 

participated. Nevertheless, at 

3 

present, the interest groups 

participate on some activities 

that were planned in the area. 

The results of the PMEMAP 

2009, shows this situation; for 

which it was recommended that 

annual workdays with the 

participation of the groups to 

devise the annual planning. 

+1 +1 

+1





per question 


communities 







payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


evaluation 






communities 











28 

+1 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 


0 The Program of Monitoring of the 

Effectiveness of Management of the 

1 

Protected 

compiles 

Areas (PMEMAP) 


2 

management and orients to take 

decisions of the protected areas.





per question 




adequate? 







2 

29 


3 3 This program evaluates 37 

indicators that permit to measure 

the level of management of the 


expects to carry 10 years of 

execution, and for 2009. The total 

praised of the PMEMAP (2009) of 

the Barú Volcano National Park 

was of 661 points that corresponds 

to good management. 

0 

Nevertheless, the implementation of 

new indicators is required to permit 

the verification of the relation of the 

protected area and its impact in the 

quality of life of the users and the 

communities involved. Likewise an 

indicator is required to help to 

corroborate if the management of 

the protected area has impacted of 

effective form in the conservation 

of the biodiversity. 

Upon being a protected area 

with ecosystems of mountain, 

the access to the area used to be 

difficult, for which the majority





per question 

Outputs 






management? 

Process 

29. Fees 




management? 













environs 


environs 



30 


3 

0 

of the visitors are adventurous 

type. The area can be very 

dangerous, but it is necessary to 

take measures to reach the top 

as to enter the paths on top of 

the Park. At present the access 

roads to a part of the Park 

remains in the administrative 

headquarters, the access roads 

are not in good conditions, so 

the entrance is limited. It 

should be fixed and adapt these 

deficiencies if really this area is 

proposed for tourist destiny. 

1 1 

2 

3 

0 In 2008, a new rate was 

1 1 

established of collection for the 

use and services of the protected 


2 

Protected Areas. The collections 

of fines and services were 

3 

passed to the funds of the 

Wildlife and SINAP, and 

somehow this money is used by 

SINAP to financing activities.





per question 


degraded 

0 





1 



Outcomes 




2 



values 


values 


values 

TOTAL SCORE 


monitoring 





31 

3 

+1 

+1 

+1 

49 


The personnel of the protected 

area are qualified to carry out the 

works of management. 

Nevertheless, it is required to 

devise a plan or programs of 

training with the purpose of 

bringing up to date and to 

reinforce the abilities and 

knowledge of the officials. 

Some of the training required are: 

Related to the functions of the park 

ranger, for example: team 

management, data processing/GPS, 

maps, compass, first aids, basic 

English, control of fires, 

interpretation of paths and rescue of 

fauna.








financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X








intervention. 

9




Protected Area 9 : OMAR TORRIJOS NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact details for 


(email etc.) 

Date assessment carried out August 6, 2010 




Designations 

Country Panamá 

National 

National Park 



10 



General of Division Omar Torrijos National Park 

IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 

- Important areas for 

Birds in Panama (C-1) 

Province of Coclé, Districts of La 

Pintada and Olá, besides a small 

area belonging to the district of 

Donoso in the province of Colon. 

Date of establishment - Executive Decree No. 18 of July 31, 1986. Official Gazette 

No. 21,211 of January 21, 1989 ( Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18 de 

31 de julio 1986. Gaceta Oficial No. 21,211 de 21 de enero 

1989). 



State 

X 

Private 

Communi 

ty 

Othe 

r 

National Environmental Authority (Autoridad Nacional 

del Ambiente) (ANAM) 

Size of protected area (ha) 25,275.00 ha terrestrial ecosystem 


Annual budget (US$) 

– excluding staff 

salary costs 

Permanent 


and 2 park rangers 


funds 

- FIDECO 21,650 US$ 

- SINAP 54,600 US$ 


Temporary 

0 


supplementary 

funds



area is designated? 



Catalyzing The presence Sustainability of great of diversity Protected and Area endemism, is the key 

function of the ecosystems of the present mountain range 

in the high basins of the hydrologic network which born 

in the Central mountain range, that divides the water line 

between the Caribbean and the Pacific; this biogeographical 

characteristic does the PNGDOTH, because 

of its environments diversity and natural communities, an 

important area with the presence of flora species 

exchange and Fauna of North and South America. Also 

the conservation of the present natural and cultural 

resources presents contribute to the improvement of the 

quality of life of the settlers of the area of influence. 





Includin 

g: (tick 

boxes) 

PA manager 


To conserve the natural resources, the biological 

diversity, and the natural beauties scenic of a key 

portion of the central mountain range for the 

consolidation of the Central American Biological 

Corridor. 

To protect the hydrologic state of the rivers that drain 

from the protected area toward the side of the Caribbean 

and the Pacific side of the Central region of the country, 

of singular importance for the hydroelectric generation 

projects execution, production of drinking water, 

irrigation and river navigation 

11 

2 

PA staff ⌧ 

Donors 




Other PA 

agency staff 

⌧ 

External 

experts 

⌧ 

NGO 

Other ⌧ 

- Ecological Trusts of Panama (Fidecomiso Ecológico 

de Panamá) (FIDECO) 

- SINAP 

-CBMAP II 

- ACP. Measurements of mitigation – clearing of the 

Program of Enlargement of the Panama Canal - the 

reforestation of 150 has in the PNGDOTH in its zone 

of neighborhood





Date of 

Inscription 

Designation Criteria 

(i.e. criterio i a x) 

Statement of outstanding 

universal value 

International Designation Information 

Site Name 

Sitio Ramsar (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/) 

12 

Site 

Area 

Geographical 

Coordinates 





Date of 

Inscription 

Designation Criteria 




support.) 

Please list other 

designations and any 

support information 

below 

Name: Directory of Important 

Bird Areas of Panama (2003) 

Site Name: 

Site Area 

Important area for Birds in Panama (C-1) 

Geographica 

l 

Coordinates





Please tick all relevant existing threats as of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those 

that are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are 

threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the 











































x 6.1 Recreational and tourism activities 







13





















problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 
























practices 



14




15






per question 







Context 


regulations 





hunting)? 

Planning 

16 



0 The GD Omar Torrijos National 

Park was declared in 1985 by 



1 

Executive Decree No. 18 of 31 of 

July 1986 published in Official 




2 

Gazette Not. 21.211 of 21 of 

January 1989 by the INRENARE 

(ANAM at present). The limits 


were established through the 

The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3 Executive Decree No. 27 of 

August 5, 1996 (Limits of the 

PNGDOTH) Official Gazette 

No. 23.099 of August 12, 1996. 


area 







3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 



GD Omar Torrijos H. National 

1 

Park contains the guidelines and 

norms that regulate the 

2 2 activities, through the zoning 

and the management programs. 

3 

Although deficiencies the 

personnel in charge, has 

managed to diminish the illegal 

activities. Likewise, the support 

of the CBMAP II has contributed 

in diminishing the pressure on 

the natural resources. 

0 Although the staff of the





per question 


enforcement 

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 1 protected area has the capacity 


to implement environmental 

Can staff (i.e. those institutional support) 

regulations within the protected 









2 

3 

2 area, the resources are limited. 

Currently, the staff is not 

sufficient to monitor the area, so 

great efforts had been made to 

Input 

control illegal activities in the 

area. 


per question 


objectives 

Is management 



Planning 







17 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The management plan is a tool 






objectives 







1 

2 

3 3 

0 

1 

of support to the management 

of the park that establishes the 

objectives, norms and 

guidelines, the possible uses 

and strategies. To improve, 

the common participation, the 




neighborhood.





per question 

catchments of key Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 

2 


Planning 


processes) 




patterns etc 

3 3 

6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 0 

boundary demarcation or local residents/neighbouring land users 

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 1 






2 2 

Process 

demarcated 



3 


per question 




implemented? 



implemented 



18 


The protected area has 

demarcated approx. 40% of the 

area and the limits are so many 

acquaintances by the personnel 

as by the local communities. 



GD Omar Torrijos H.National 

1 1 

Park has specific activities that 

are established to carry out in a 

period of 5 years with the 

2 

elaboration of the annual





per question 


Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 operating plans (POA), as well 

as, the responsible for their 

execution. Nevertheless, the 

management plan is conquered, 

itself until the legal 

promulgation of the extension 

till we find the resources to 

bring it up to you. 








19 

The Plan of Management is 

approved GD Omar Torrijos 

H.National Park, by Resolution 

AG-0301-2004, Force from 5 

Years from the promulgation of 

the present Resolution G.O. 

25,116. 

+1 The annual operating plans 



+1 


some activities of the plan of 

management. 

The Program of Monitoring of 





and orients it to make decisions 

of the protected areas of the 



Omar Torrijos GD National Park 

was of 855 points that 

corresponds to the satisfactory 

management.





per question 





implemented 





the area? 

Input 





area? 


11. Research 



into planning 









making 







20 


+1 The results of the monitoring 

are taken into account when 

devising the operating 

planning. 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 

0 

1 1 



0 


use 

1 1 



resource use 

3 


0 The management plan counts on 



2 

3 

1 

a research program applied and 

monitoring of resources,





per question 


of management- There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards 2 2 although this program has not 

orientated survey and the needs of protected area management 

been executed. The protected 

research work? There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, 3 

area is recognized as an 


interesting area and of high 

Process 

biodiversity by the presence of 

diverse habitats. Recently, I am 

publishing the findings of a new 

species of lizard that was 

discovered in this Park, which 

indicates that the same one has a 

high potential value for the 

biological investigations. 

12. Resource 

management 



undertaken? 

Process 





area? 

Inputs 





1 1 




2 



3 


0 The Management Plan for the 

GD Omar Torrijos H.National 


1 1 Park proposes to enlarge of a 

staggered form in 5 years to 40 

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 


2 

3 

officials. Nevertheless, at 

present it counts with 3 officials, 

which limits of form criticize the 

execution of the management 

plan. 


21 


concentrates on a basic training





per question 


Are staff adequately Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1 in administrative management, 


management 

objectives? 






2 

3 

2 legal base and procedure for 


elaboration of annual operating 

plans (POA). That more training 

would be required for the 

fulfillment of the objectives). 

15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 

0 GD Omar Torrijos H.National = 

TOTAL 76, 250 US$ Budget 


sufficient? 



1 1 assigned in 2010 (SINAP + 

FIDECO) 


2 

Inputs 




3 

FIDECO 21,650 US$ and 

SINAP 54,600 US$ 



Inputs 


budget 






0 



1 1 



2 






22 

0 

1 

2 2 


(environmental investments)





per question 

Process 

18. Equipment 



Input 


equipment 

Is equipment 


Process 


awareness 




and needs? 

Process 






management 











programme 

23 


0 The protected area has facilities 

and equipment adequate for 

1 

operation, also is given the 

annual maintenance required 

2 2 for equipment. Nevertheless 

greater budget is required to 

3 

acquire new teams, besides 

necessary more institutional 

presence in the installations of 

the Park, it is done so that the 

same one receive maintenance. 

0 

1 1 

2 

0 The GD Omar Torrijos 

1 

H.National Park, counts with an 

environmental education plan, 

which is executed and besides 

2 

his impact is measured with the 

same one exercise to the groups 

evaluated yearly. 

3





per question 


and water use 





objectives? 

Planning 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 




water users? 

Process 



area 














migration). 













24 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 






per question 






have input to 


Process 






decisions? 

Process 



















communities 


communities 


communities 






25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 

communities 

25 


0 In the protected area natives of 

the ethnic group live like the 

Ngäbe Bugle, who just likes the 

1 1 remainder of the locals to 

participate in activities planned 

of the Park. 

2 

3 

0 An active participation is 

1 

observed in the PNGDOTH and 

it evidence that the groups are 

consulted for projects, activities, 

2 2 among others questions related 

to the protected area. 

3 

Nevertheless personnel are 

required to attend these themes 

specifically. 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 0





per question 






payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


evaluation 














26 

1 

2 

3 




1 



2 


management and orients it to





per question 




adequate? 

Outputs 







2 2 


3 

27 


3 3 make decisions of the 

protected areas. This program 

evaluates 37 indicators that 

permit to measure the level of 


area. This program already 

carries 10 years of execution, 

and for the 2009, the total 

praised of the PMEMAP (2009) 

of the GD Omar Torrijos 

H.National Park was of 855 

points that corresponds to 

satisfactory management. 

0 



indicators is required for the 

verification of the relation of 

the protected area and its 



involved; likewise an indicator 




impacted of effective form in 


biodiversity. 

The protected area counts with 

some facilities and services for the 

visitors, counts with a visitor’s 

center, nevertheless, the 

construction of new installations in 

other entrances is required so that 

they can support the access of 

visitors to the Park.





per question 






management? 

Process 

29. Fees 




management? 








Outcomes 












environs 


environs 




degraded 





28 

0 0 

1 

2 

3 




1 1 services that offer the protected 


2 

the Protected Areas. The 

collection of fines and by 

3 

services, pass to the fund of the 


somehow this is how that 

money finances the SINAP 

activities. 

0 

1 1 

2 

3





per question 


values 


values 


values 

TOTAL SCORE 


monitoring 





29 

+1 +1 

+1 

+1 

46 









financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X







intervention. 

9




Protected Area 6 : DARIEN NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact details of person 




WDPA site code (these codes can be found 

on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) 

Designations 


National 

National Park 



Darién National Park 

10 



IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 



(DR-4); 

- Biosphere Reserve 

(1983) 

-UNESCO World 

Province of Darién, district of 

Chepigana and Pinogana 

Date of Establishment Executive Decree No. 21, August 7, 1980 (Decreto 

Ejecutivo № 21, del 7 de agosto del año 1980) 

Gaceta Oficial No. 19,142 de 27 de agosto de 1980 


tick) 


Size of protected area (ha) 579.000 ha 





the area is designated 

State 

X 

Private 

X 

Community 

X 

Other 

Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM)) 

Permanent 

One Protected Area Chief y 

12 Park Rangers 

Recurrent 

(operational) funds 

-FIDECO (2010)= 

52,485.00 US$ 

-SINAP (2010)= 

23,000.00 US$ 

Temporary 

11 staff between park 

ranger and 

administrative 


supplementary 

funds 

- Darien Fund 

(2010)= 264.202.00 

US$ 

Protecting scenic and natural areas of national 

and international significance, for spiritual, 

scientific, educational, and recreational or 

tourist purposes.







Including: 

(tick boxes) 

PA manager 


- To conserve biological diversity that will guarantee 

the recovery of the territorial integrity of the park; to 

protect various ecosystems, to ensure internal and 

external connectivity of park essential areas, to 

maintain the diversity of fauna; and to improve 

knowledge of the biodiversity of the park. 

- to promote respect for the ecological, geomorphological, 

religious or aesthetic attributes 

which have justified the designation 

PA staff 

Donors 

Please note if assessment was carried out in association 

with a particular project, on behalf of an organization or 

donor. 

11 

2 

Other PA 

agency staff 


NGO 

Other 

In preparation of FSP GEF Project “…….” Using 

PPG funds managed by IADB, with inputs from: 

- FIDECO 

- SINAP 

- Darién Fund







UNESCO World 

Heritage site 

( October, 1981) 





Site name 

Darién 

National Park 


12 

Site area 

579.000 ha 

Geographical 

coordinates 

7° 49´ N 

77°44’ W 

-This is a representative example of the different historical periods of the land, including the 

registration of its evolution, significant geological processes under way, development of 

terrestrial forms, and significant geo-morphological or physio-graphic, elements 

-it contains extraordinary natural phenomena or areas of a natural beauty and important, 

exceptional aesthetic elements. 





Date listed 

1983 





support.) 

Site name 


Biosphere 

Darién 

iii, iv 

Site 

area 

859.333 ha 


7° 49´ N 77°44’ W 

- The Darien National Park is long enough to ensure the 

continuation of the evolutionary processes and survival of the 

endangered species contained therein. 

-The park is one of the richest anthropological zone in the 

New Tropic World, with two major indigenous groups: Kuna 

and Embera-Wounnan 



Important bird area in Panama (DR-4) in 2004





Please tick all relevant existing threats as high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as high significance are those 


are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the 


























x(*) 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) (*) but possible in 

near future 

x(*) 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) (*) but 

possible in near future 













Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of 








13























problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 
























practices 

14



x Catalyzing 12.2 Natural Sustainability deterioration of of Protected important cultural Area site values 


15






per question 







Context 


regulations 













area 





16 


0 The Darién National Park was 

declared by Executive Decree 

1 

21, of August 7, the year 1980 

and published in Official 

2 

Gazette Not. 19.142 of August 

27, 1980 

UNESCO World Heritage 

site ( October, 1981) and 

Reserve of the Biosphere 

Darién (1983) 

Important Birds areas in 

Panama (DR-4). 

0 In this PA a special situation is 

presented, since inside the park 

1 

1 native communities live 

permanently, that makes use of 

2 

the resources, like the shooting 

for family consumption, the





per question 




3 long one of trees and the 

hunting)? 


extraction of another type of 

products of the forest (lianas or 

Planning 

reeds). These uses are not 

controlled on the part of the 

Administration of the PND, they 

are not regulated in specific 

form, and this means that not 

regulations for the use of each of 

these resources exist for the 

communities that live inside the 

park. 

3. Law 

enforcement 






Input 










17 

0 

1 

2 2 


per question 


objectives 

Is management 


3 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The Darién National Park had 



1 



2 2 

you defined its objectives in 

the Management Plan of 2004, 

the organizing structure that 

has the PND, at present, does




Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps 

per question 

to agreed objectives? The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 

3 not respond to the needs for 

Planning 

objectives 

the compliance of these 

objectives. In the first case, the 

program of management that 

functions traditionally is that 

of Control and Caution, does 

not yet develop in an optimum 

form, but is working itself in its 

adaptation with the 

implementation of the Control 

and Caution Plan. 

18 

In the same objective, in the 

theme of the knowledge of the 

biodiversity of the park, since a 

year ago the administration of 

this PA has placed a special 

interest by developing this 

specific objective, appointing 

the resources, as for example, a 

professional in charge. 

For the objectives of 

conservation of the cultural 

patrimony, the development of 

the recreation and tourism, the 

actions that are carried out are 

sporadic; they do not obey to 

programs of management 

structured. The previous thing 

has their justification, so much 

like in the financial and human 

resources, with whom the 

Administration of the park 

counts, are not sufficient. 

Besides, there is a situation that 

has not permitted to orient the 

management from the objectives 

of conservation which is the 

high rate of rotation of the 

personnel caused by the changes 

of government that occurs every 

five years.





per question 









Planning 





Process 









processes) 




patterns etc 







demarcated 



19 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 Although, it is indicated that the 

limits are known in the country, 

1 

there is confusion between the 

limits existence of the creation of 

2 2 the park and the interpretation 

of the location of the limits in 

the country, according to the 

3 

technology of GPS carried out 

by the business that devised the 

Plan Management of 2004. The 

totality of the limits is not 

demarcated physically in the 

country (milestones).





per question 




implemented? 

Planning 







implemented 









into planning 

20 


0 The PND counts on a Plan to 

elaborate a Management Plan 

1 

in the year 2004, the same one 

is not executed in its totality 

2 

by the limitations of the 

financial resources. Besides, 

the administration of the 

park, ANAM considers that 

this plan does not orient the 

management of the park 

accordingly to the 

expectations, for which the 

implementation of the 

Management Plan is the 

product that will help them to 

implement it. 

+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plan, 


activities, date and 



plan of management. 

+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plan, 

(POA 2009) the goals, activities, 

date and responsible for the 

execution of some of the 

activities of the plan of 

management. 

+1





per question 

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 

0 



implemented 





the area? 

Input 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 









making 







21 

1 1 

2 

3 

0 

1 

2 2 



0 


use 

1 1 



resource use 


3 





3 


0 The park does not count with a 

1 1 

2 

Program formally established, 

with human and financial 

resources, and with the 

definition of the priorities of 

investigation. The





per question 

Process 

12. Resource 

management 






1 1 

22 


3 Administration of the park is 

doing an important effort 

assigning a professional to be in 

charge of a program of this type 

that is fundamental for the 

management of a protected area, 

more if it has being considered 

with international designations 

as a World Heritage Site and 

Reserve of Biosphere. 

On the other hand, the 

investigation that has been 

carried out to date, usually 

national and international 

investigators of universities 

carry out it to comply private 

objectives, already these themes 

will be of specific interest with 

specific financing. Also, the 

investigation in most cases 

obeys the studies for thesis, as 

requirements for graduation. In 

general, the majority of these 

investigations do not respond to 

the needs of the administration 

of the park (ANAM); in fact, this 

affirmation comes from the 

opinions of the personnel of the 

park, since it does not exist in 

the PA a list of the 

investigations that have been 

carried out since the creation of 

this national park.





per question 


Is active resource Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 2 

management being ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key 

undertaken? 


Process 



3 

13. Staff numbers There are no staff 

0 The theme to define the 

optimums quantity for the 




1 1 management of a protected area 

has always been a theme of a lot 


area? 

Inputs 

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 


2 

3 

of discussion. Nevertheless, if 

the management plan devise 

objectively and with a well 

specific horizon, yes it is 

possible to establish the 

optimum quantity to do 

management of a PA. The 

Management Plan put into 

operation defines 45 people as 

the necessary quantity to handle 

of efficiently the National Park. 




management 

objectives? 










23 

0 The Administration has carried 

out an effort to give training to 

the personnel. It is organizing 

2 2 events of training to improve 

the capacity of the personnel, 

3 

considering inclusive that there 

is a new personnel that never 

worked in protected areas. This 

effort should be promoted so 

that they remain not as remote 

facts. 

0 As opposed to many protected





per question 


sufficient? 

Inputs 



Inputs 


budget 




Process 

18. Equipment 
























24 


1 areas of Panama and of other 

countries of Latin-American 

2 2 region, the Darien National Park 

counts with the same important 

3 

budget that stems from different 

sources of financing, such as: 

SINAP, FIDECO and Fund 

Darién. Nevertheless, this 

budget, but yet is not the 

required one to carry out an 

integral management of the 

park. 

0 There is a fund for long-term 

financing from FIDECO. 

1 1 

2 

0 

1 1 

2 

0 The protected area has facilities 

and equipment necessary for 

1 

operation, also is given the 

annual maintenance required





per question 

Input 


equipment 

Is equipment 


Process 


awareness 




and needs? 

Process 


and water use 






management 


25 

2 2 for equipment. 

3 






1 

Management of the 

Protected Areas (PMEMAP) 


2 2 


management and orients it 


to make decisions of the 

protected areas. 






programme 



area 





0 Although, the officials indicate 

that a Program of 

1 

Environmental Education exists, 

in the practice what exists are 

2 2 activities of same, remote 

environmental education that 

depend on the availability of 

3 

extraordinary resources. It 

exists within the personnel of 

the park, a person appointed, 

professionally qualified that 

initiates the development of a 

Program of Environmental 

Education. 

0 

1 

2 2





per question 

objectives? 

Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long term 3 

Planning 





conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 




water users? 

Process 






have input to 









migration). 



















26 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 Somewhat important in this 

protected area is that inside the 

park native communities live, 

1 1 

such as: Emberá-Wounaan and 

Kunas. 

2 

The access to take decisions for 

the management of the PND is 

not direct, because no legal





per question 


Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 3 structures exist designed with 


that purpose. The participation 

is indirect and as an example, it 

can be cited that native leaders 

of different communities 

participated in the workshops of 

elaboration of the Management 

Plan (2004) for the discussion of 

the different themes of 

24. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 0 

management of the park, but 

after that fact, there is not 

evidence of access in it to make 

of decisions 

Interest groups participate in 


certain management decisions. 

Do local communities Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 1 1 

resident or near the but no direct role in management 



decisions? 

Process 





2 

3 



communities 


communities 


communities 












communities 




27 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 1 

2





per question 


income, employment, There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 

3 

payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 


evaluation 












1 

2 

3 

2 

Management of the 

Protected Areas (PMEMAP) 


management and orients it 

to make decisions of the 

protected areas. 



adequate? 





2 2 

28 

0 

The current demand of visitors 

to the Darién National Park is 

very low, reason by which any 

path is appropriated for this





per question 

Outputs 






management? 

Process 

29. Fees 














environs 

29 


3 number of visits. Potentially, 

Rancho Frío could be an 

important point to develop a 

zone of public use, by the 

present natural attractions and 

by the relative proximity with 

The Real community of Santa 

Maria (13 Km.). 

It is important to indicate that in 

the central part of the park, 

there is a place called Santa 

Cruz of Cana, which is awarded 

to ANCON Expeditions of 

Panama, for the use ecotourism. 

In this operation, the personnel 

of the park do not have control 

for the tourist’s number 

verification; the activities carry 

out by the visitors and the 

collection of the rights of 

income. 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 

0 In 2008, a new rate of collection, 

by use, is established and the 

1 1 

services offer by the protected 

areas of the National System of





per question 


they help protected area Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area and its 2 Protected Areas (SINAP). The 

management? 

environs 

collections of fines and by 


3 

services pass to the fund of the 

Inputs/Process and its environs 


somehow, this is how that 

money goes to SINAP Financing 

activities. 


The natural values affected are 

degraded 

0 

several species of mammals by 








1 

2 

the illegal shooting (piggish of 

mount, rabbit painted, deer, 

among others); there is 

extraction of palm and long 

30





per question 

was first designated? Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 

Outcomes 



values 


monitoring 

31 

3 

+1 


illegal, shooting of loudmouths, 

parrots and hawks; and 

permanent erosion in the edges 

of the rivers, because of the 

establishment of native 

communities in those places. 

Also, there are other indirect 

activities that are affecting the 

protected resources and that are 

difficult to handle because they 

are carried out of the limits of 

the PND, like they are the 

growth of the border 

agribusiness that favors the 

biological isolation and the 

fragmentation of habitats; the 

contamination and 

sedimentation of rivers and 

wetlands by the erosion. 

Of all forms, is it necessary more 

and better information of this 

type to have a more detailed 

precision? The establishment of 

a Resources Management 

Program, with investigation and 

monitoring, would help 

medium time limit to determine 

the conditions of the natural 

values of the most important 

park.





per question 


values 


values 

TOTAL SCORE 





32 

+1 

+1 

49 









financing. 






One 

To catalyze 



systems 




One 


financing of 







systems 













systems 











Indicators 



1




One 

2. Increasing 


effectively 



systems 



networks 








PAs 







Indicators 




countries 



scorecards 





scorecards 

























2








possible. 








three points: 






3





















biome type 

Work Program 

Inclusion 


Final 


completion 




Foreseen at 

project start 



the nine 

Protected 

Areas 

Achievement 

at Mid-term 

Evaluation of 

Project 

Achievement 

at Final 

Evaluation of 

Project 

4

3 





Area 



Is this a 

new 

protected 

area? 

Please 

answer yes 

or no. 

Area in 

Hectares— 

please 

specify 

biome type 

No 13,069.62 ha 

marine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystem: 

- 1,840.90 ha 

terrestrial 







etc.) 




Biosphere La 

















5

La Amistad 



National Park 



ecosystem 

- 11,228.72 

ha of marine 

ecosystem 

No 215,225.73 


ecosystem 

No 4,816 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystem 


terrestrial 

ecosystem 


5) 




Biosphere La 




10) 



(PM-1) 



(PM-15) 

6 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



(SINAP) 

National Park 



X 

X 

X


aarine and 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 



53,732 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

202,463 ha 

marine 

ecosystems 


Terrestrial 

ecosystem 





(VR-3) 







7 

(SINAP) 

National Park 



National Park 



X 

X


Park 


Park 


National Park 



No 22,104 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 15,680.48 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

No 25,275 ha 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

(1983) 



4) 



(PM-8) 






Reserve (2001 



(CH-2)) 



1)) 

8 

National Park 



National Park 



National Park 



X 

X 

X








intervention. 

9




10




Protected Area 7 : SOBERANIA NATIONAL PARK 

Name, affiliation and contact details for 


(email etc.) 





Designations 

Country Panamá 

National 

National Park 



11 



Soberanía National Park 

IUCN 

Category 

II 

International 

- Important areas for 

Birds in Panama (PM- 

8) 

Provinces of Panama small towns of 

Ancon, and Chilibre; Province of 

Colon, small towns of Santa Rosa, 

Limon and Cristobal. 

Date of establishment - Executive Decree No. 13 of May 27, 1980, G.O. 20,333 of 

June 24, 1980 (Decreto Ejecutivo Nº13 de 27 de mayo de 

1980. GO. 20,333 del 24 de junio de 1980) 



State 

X 

Private 

Communi 

ty 

Othe 

r 

National Environmental Authority (Autoridad Nacional 

del Ambiente) (ANAM) 

Size of protected area (ha) 22,104 ha. terrestrial ecosystem 


Annual budget (US$) 

– excluding staff 

salary costs 



area is designated 

Permanent 


and 14 park rangers and an 

administrator 


funds 

-FIDECO (2010)= 30,000.00 US$ 

Temporary 

0 


supplementary 

funds 

The National one of the Park contains representative 

ecosystems and restored of tropical forests, aside from 

being a corridor where the flora fauna species 

conserves still habitats adequate for its reproduction.




To conserve a significant sample of the present 

natural ecosystems in the reverted areas, that 

guarantees the preservation of the native species and 

its genetic diversity. 



Management Objective 2 To create and maintain the necessary spaces for the 

active participation of the local actors that permit the 

best performance of the management of the protected 

area, contributing to the development of economic 

activities based on the maintenance of the so much 

environmental services for the Panama Canal, as for the 

city of Panama and neighboring communities. 


Includin 

g: (tick 

boxes) 

PA manager 


PA staff 

Donors 




12 

2 

Other PA 

agency staff 

External 

experts 

NGO 

Other 

- Ecological Trusts of Panama (Fidecomiso Ecológico 

de Panamá) (FIDECO) 

- SINAP






Date listed (Tentative ) Site name Site area 






13 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 


number 




Date listed 





support) 

Site name 

Site area 

Geographical 

co-ordinates 



Important area for Birds in Panama (PM-8)



























x(*) 3.1 Oil and gas drilling (*) but possible in near future 






























14













15 

Threats from 

other actions 

that convert 

or degrade 

habitat or 

change the 

way the 

ecosystem 

functions 








problems) 







hotels etc) 





pesticides) 






habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of 

these changes may be limited. 

















practices 


x 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc






per question 







Context 


regulations 





hunting)? 

Planning 

3. Law 

enforcement 












2 

The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 


area 

3 3 



1 



2 2 



3 








16 


0 The Soberanía National Park 

was declared in 1980 by 

1 

Executive Decree Nº13 of May 

27, 1980 and published in GO. 

20.333 in Jun 24, 1980. 

0 Soberanía NP has established 

the norms through the 

management plan. Likewise, 

the supports to the 

communities, the application of 

the program of control and 

caution, have permitted the stop 

of illegal actions inside the 

limits of the park. 


protected area has the 

1 

capacity to implement 

environmental regulations 

within the protected area, 

2 2 

resources are limited. 

Currently, the staff is not





per question 


rules well enough? The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 

3 sufficient to monitor the area, 


so they have to make great 

Input 

efforts to control illegal 

activities in the area. The 

protected area counts also 

with the support of the 

ecological police and the users 

of the Park. 


per question 


objectives 

Is management 



Planning 









Planning 

17 


No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The Soberanía NP management 


1 

plan is a tool of support to the 


management of the park which 


2 



and guidelines, possible uses 


objectives 

3 3 

and strategies; to improve the 

common participation, the 




neighborhood. 









processes) 

0 

1 

2





per question 





Process 




patterns etc 







demarcated 



18 

3 3 

0 

1 

2 

3 3 


per question 




implemented? 

Planning 




implemented 





Biological, economic, social 

information exists so much that 

support the planning and the 

take of decisions for the 

management of the area. 

Besides, the management plan, 

there is the plan of business and 

studies among others 

documents. 



Soberanía NP has specific 

1 

activities established to carry 

out in a period of 5 years, with 

2 

the elaboration of the annual 

operating plans (POA), as well 

as, the responsible for their 

execution.





per question 







implemented 



There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and 

updating of the management plan 


into planning 




19 


+1 +1 The Annual Operating Plans 

(POA 2009) the goal, 



are some activities of the 

management plan. This POA 

devises with the participation 

of the stakeholder and the 

activities are identified, 

which are executed with the 

support of these groups. 

+1 +1 

+1 +1 The Monitoring Program of 





management and orients to 

make decisions of the 

protected areas of the 



Soberanía NP was 796 points 

that corresponds to a good 

management; this evaluation 

is carried out with the 

stakeholder. 

0 

1 

2 2





per question 





the area? 

Input 





area? 


11. Research 



survey and 







making 










use 

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource 

use 


resource use 






20 

3 

0 

1 

2 2 

3 


0 There are park guards, but the 

number of parks is no sufficient for 

1 

complete and effective control of 

the Park. 

2 2 

3 

0 It exists inside the 

management plan a 

1 

subprogram of Investigation 

(Program of Environmental 

2 

Management), the same one





per question 

Process 

12. Resource 

management 



undertaken? 

Process 





There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research 

work, which is relevant to management needs 




1 


ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some 

key issues are not being addressed 

2 2 



3 

21 


3 3 does not give you details of 

the investigations, but 

recommends to devise a list 

of prioritized investigations 

for the management of the 


According to the results of 

the PMEMAP in the area they 

develop diverse types of 

investigation, but very few 

are directed to improve the 


area, nevertheless, these 

investigations support the 

increment of the knowledge 

of the rich biodiversity that 

exists in the zone. 


0 The Management Plan for the 

Soberanía NP proposed that 


1 

it requires 57 people; to 

supply the needs of the 


management of the area.





per question 

area? 


Inputs 




management 

objectives? 




sufficient? 

22 


It fits to mention that the 

Park receives students for 

practices of profession, and 

besides that, it maintains 

agreement of contribution 

with: Ecological police for 

the caution and with the STRI 

for investigations. 

At present, alone there are 16 

officials in the Park, 

including the leader of the 

area. 



Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 





1 

2 

3 

2 

protected area are qualified 

to carry out the management 

work. Nevertheless, it is 

required to devise a plan or 


purpose of bringing up to 

date and to reinforce the 

abilities and know-how of the 

officials. Among some of the 

training that are required 

they are: 

• Visitors/tourism 

management 

• GPS management 


0 Soberanía NP = TOTAL B/. 

101,060 Budget Assigned in 

The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents 

a serious constraint to the capacity to manage 

1 1 

2010.





per question 

Inputs 



Inputs 


budget 




Process 

18. Equipment 


for management 



The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of 




0 



1 1 

There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the 

protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside 

funding 

2 










23 

2 B/. 30,000 (FIDECO) 

3 

0 

1 

2 2 


B/, 71,060 (SINAP) 

Other financing funds for the 

protected area exist but there 

are not counted, since they stem 

from the support of NGO and 

are not in-kind support 

necessarily. 

0 The Soberanía NP is 

1 

equipped and has sufficient 

infrastructure to carry out the 

works of management and to





per question 


needs? 


2 2 attend visitors. The area has 

management 

paths, house of park ranger, 


3 

administrative headquarters, 

Input 

and administrative secondary 

venues. Nevertheless, the 

personnel think that although 

the lack of infrastructures, 

itself should not be built 

more, since there is not 

sufficient personnel to guard 

these offices. 

Additionally, I built a harbor 

center of Visitors, but said what 

I built was given for harbor, a 

fauna rescue center. It then 

should request that they build 

another center of visitors. 


equipment 

Is equipment 

adequately 

maintained? 

Process 


awareness 




and needs? 









24 

0 

1 1 

2 

0 The protected area does not 

count on a plan of 

1 1 environmental education, 

2 

although the management plan 

contains a series of activities in 

the subprogram of 

environmental education.





per question 

Process 


and water use 





objectives? 

Planning 




conservation 


planning for 

connectivity 




conservation 

22. State and 



programme 



area 












passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory 

fish to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow 

animal migration). 







25 


3 Educational activities exist and 

they are carried out in the 

schools of the zone of 

neighborhood; the 

administration of the area 

recognizes that this deficiency 

exists, but even so they have 

not elaborated the plan. 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 

+1 

+1 

+1 

0





per question 



water users? 

Process 





using the protected 

area have input to 

management 

decisions? 

Process 






decisions? 

Process 







Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to 

the management of the protected area 





Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant 

decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management 

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management 

of the protected area 









communities 



26 

1 1 

2 

3 


0 In the zone of neighborhood a 

native community exists, which 

is dedicated to the eco tourism 

1 1 activities. Likewise, they are 

invited to participate in the 

meetings, coordinated with the 

2 

activities, but its participation 

in making decisions is limited. 

3 

0 The interest groups participate 

in the planning and actions of 

1 


area. Even it lacks by reaching 

2 2 their full participation, but in 

many cases the groups take the 

3 

initiative to improve the 


area. 

+1 +1





per question 


communities 


communities 







payment for 

environmental 

services? 

Outcomes 


evaluation 








communities 











27 

+1 

+1 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 




1 



2 


management and orients to





per question 




adequate? 







2 2 

28 


3 3 the making of decisions of the 

protected areas. This program 

evaluates 37 indicators that 

permit the measurement of the 

level of management of the 


already carries 10 years of 

execution, and for 2009 the 


(2009) of the Soberanía 

National Park was of 796 

points, which corresponds to a 

good management. 

0 



indicators is required, that 

permit to verify the relation of 

the protected area and its 



involved, likewise an indicator 




impacted the effective form in 


biodiversity. 

The Soberanía National Park 

is one of the parks of great 

visitation of Panama, thanks 

to his proximity to the city; the





per question 

Outputs 






management? 

Process 

29. Fees 

If fees (i.e. entry fees 

or fines) are applied, 

do they help protected 

area management? 



There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using 










environs 


environs 



29 


3 same one has many attractions 

as paths, cafés, rivers, facilities 

for cyclists and it counts with 

tourist facilities and of public 

use. 

Nevertheless, the same one 

does not count with a center of 

visitors, since the one that was 

built, was delivered to harbor a 

fauna rescue center, which is 

required to redefine, if the 

same one was delivered to the 

Park or will continue harboring 

in fauna rescue center. 

0 

1 1 

2 

3 


for its used is established and 

1 1 the services that offer the 

protected areas of the National 

2 

System of Protected Areas 

(SINAP). The collections of 

3 

fines and for services, they pass 

the fund of the Wildlife and 

SINAP, and somehow this is 

how that money finances the 

SINAP activities.





per question 


degraded 

0 





1 



Outcomes 

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially 

degraded but the most important values have not been significantly impacted 


2 2 



values 


values 


monitoring 

Specific management programmes are being implemented to address threats 

to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values 

30 

3 

+1 +1 

+1 


Although, the indicator on 

the decrease of the threats is 

maintained stable, the need 

of the resources has 

improved and in the 

measure to endow the Park 

of the facilities for the 

necessary management 

(Budget and personal), the 

condition of these resources 

have improved notably. 

Although, inside the 

protected area there are no 

communities exist, studies 

should be carried out to 

determine if the existence of 

the park has improved the 

quality of life of the 

surrounding populations. 

In every case the existence of 

the native community of San 

Antonio has been fortified, 

since the incomes that they 

perceive of the tourism are 

owed in part to the presence 

of the protected area.





per question 


values 

TOTAL SCORE 



31 

+1 

62 


1 

MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION THROUGH LOW-IMPACT 

ECOTOURISM IN THE NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM (SINAP) 

PN-X1003 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 

A. Monitoring Plan and Impact Evaluation Plan 

1.1 The project has two levels of monitoring: 1) monitoring and evaluation of project 

progress, with the principal objective of tracking and assessing progress in 

achieving outcomes and outputs detailed within the Results Framework and other 

project documents, and 2) the establishment of an Ecotourism Impact 

Monitoring System (ETIMS), fully linked to ANAM`s PMEMAP (Programa de 

Mejoramiento de la Efectividad de Manejo de las Areas Protegidas), and 

sustainable beyond the execution of the Project. 

1.2 Monitoring and evaluation at the project level, including the day-to-day 

monitoring of project activities, will be the responsibility of the Project 

Coordinator, based within ANAM (the Executing Agency), with support from the 

Financial Specialist assigned for this operation within ANAM. The Project 

Coordinator will liaise with ANAM’s upper-level management, ATP, and the 

Bank to ensure adequate communication and smooth coordination throughout the 

execution of the project. The total estimated cost for Project progress monitoring 

and evaluation is US$120,000. 

1.3 For the design and operation of an Ecotourism Impact Monitoring System 

(ETIMS), during the first six months of the project, the Ecotourism Specialist 

will assist ANAM to develop a locally appropriate, adaptive, integrated and costeffective 

data management system, building on existing scientific and 

socioeconomic monitoring initiatives and information. Resources for this activity 

have been incorporated in Component 2 for the 9 protected areas selected as 

destinations for this project with a view of eventually incorporating the system to 

the PMEMAP and applying it to the entire SINAP. The ETIMS is intended to 

expand the data already being collected for PMEMAP, providing more specific 

information on the following aspects of ecotourism in PAs: (i) an ecological 

dimension, with a view to assessing the impacts of tourism visitation (including 

specific activities such as hiking, rafting, diving) on ecosystem health through the 

analysis of trends in biological and threat reduction indicators compared against 

established baselines in line-transects and quadrants around highly visited sites 

such as trails, overlooks, dive sites and anchoring locations. The monitoring 

approach which is fully described in the Biodiversity Report calls for the use of 

biological and threat reduction indicators for the following: 

(a) vegetation (% cover, degree of fragmentation, species/community 

diversity/abundance, presence of threatened and/or endangered species). Data 

collection protocols will include: satellite imagery/aerial photo interpretation of 

cover; line transects, collection and measurement of specimens. Data to be

2 

registered: number of individuals by species to determine abundance and relative 

frequency; absolute and relative dominance of class sizes; conservation status 

(threatened, endangered, endemic etc.) 

(b) avifauna (resident/migratory populations, species diversity/abundance, nesting 

concentrations, threatened and/or endangered species, critical habitats). Data 

collection protocols will include: bird counts at congregation sites and vulnerable 

habitats, capture and release by mist nets. Data to be collected include: species 

richness, geographic distribution, relative abundance, ecological assemblages, 

conservation status. 

(c) mammals (presence/absence of primates, predators, carnivores etc…; relative 

abundance, threatened and/or endangered species, critical habitats). Data 

collection protocols include: species counts by line-transects. Data to be collected 

include: species richness, relative abundance, ecological assemblages, 

conservation status. 

(d) freshwater biota (index of biological integrity IBI); Recommended data 

collection protocol is based on Karra, J.R. and Chu, E.W. 1999. Restoring Life in 

URGN Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press. 

(e) coral reefs (live coral cover, species diversity and abundance, coral condition 

including mortality, disease and bleaching). Data collection protocols include line 

transects and quadrants. Data to be collected include: species richness (corals and 

fishes), size, abundance, condition, water quality parameters. 

(f) marine turtles (species diversity, nesting populations). Recommended data 

collection protocol is based on Chacon et al. (2001). Data to be collected include: 

estimate of nesting females, number of nests, number of juveniles liberated. 

Further details on the recommended protocols are included in the Biodiversity 

Annex. Protocols have been recommended for each indicator to assess the impact 

of ecotourism activities on ecosystem condition and diversity. Biophysical 

indicators (water quality, soil stability and erosion, and solid waste) will also be 

monitored at and in the vicinity of ecotourism sites. Threat reduction indicators 

will be monitored in each PA on the basis of the specific and predominant threats 

identified (see Annex E), including forest fires, invasive species, illegal 

settlements, illegal logging and other illegal activities etc…; 

(ii) a socioeconomic dimension, with a view to assessing the impact of ecotourism 

visitation on social, cultural and economic context of local communities and 

stakeholders; (iii) an ecotourism management perspective to assess visitor 

characteristics, preferences, satisfaction, expenditure patterns as well as visitation 

flows versus carrying capacity; and (iv) a PA management perspective, including 

both the application of the GEF Tracking Tool for BD-SP2 as a means to assess 

implementation effectiveness, with a view to evaluating strengths and weaknesses 

of PAs management, and the linkage of the ETIMS to PMEMAP. The total 

estimated cost for the development and implementation of the program`s 

monitoring system for the 9 protected areas (Project Component 2) is estimated at 

US$195,500, which include US$144,000 for a biodiversity monitoring specialist,

3 

US$40,500 for travel and US$11,000 for equipment and other monitoring 

instruments required. 

1.4 The ETIMS will provide the information for the impact evaluation plan. The 

proposal is to use a reflexive methodology relying on the management 

effectiveness monitoring and evaluation tool generated by PMEMAP (expanded 

to include the ecotourism management data) to be applied individually to the 9 

protected areas included as priorities for the project. The index is a score based on 

six indicators of management effectiveness: context, planning, inputs, process, 

outputs and outcomes. PMEMAP is based on an internationally recognized 

methodology which is used for all protected areas that receive GEF financing and 

enables a comparison of management effectiveness within national systems and 

across systems. A partial baseline of the management effectiveness index exists 

[see Tracking Tools]. A new baseline will be collected in the first year of the 

project using the ‘expanded’ PMEMAP methodology. It will involve surveys of 

protected area experts, management staff and stakeholders as well as on-site 

visitor and ecotourism operators. The ex-post impact evaluation will be carried 

out via follow-up surveys in the year in which the project is completely executed 

(end of Year 4). These follow-up surveys will make it possible to compare the 

PMEMAP index before and after the implementation of the project. Costs of the 

surveys and data analysis have been incorporated in Component 2 (see above). 

B. Internal Evaluations and Reporting 

1.5 The Project Coordinator will produce the following annual reports to monitor and 

evaluate general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in 

the Results Framework (Annex II of the Project Document): (i) a proposed 

Annual Work Plan (AWP) at the beginning of each year of project execution; (ii) 

a Mid-Year Progress Report half-way through each year; (iii) an Annual Project 

Report at the end of each project year; and, (iv) a GEF Project Implementation 

Review (PIR) in October of each year, in collaboration with Bank and to be 

submitted to the GEF via the Bank. Within the first 6 months of the project, the 

Project Coordinator will also be responsible for consolidating all baseline 

information required for the indicators identified in the Results Framework. 

1.6 The Project Coordinator will lead the development of detailed Annual Work 

Plans at the beginning of each project year. These AWPs will be developed with 

the full participation of the project team and with input from the Advisory 

Committee and other suitable mechanisms allowing for proactive responsive 

project planning and participatory project implementation based on informed 

decision-making. The AWPs will be based on progress achieved to date and will 

define activities and expected results for the forthcoming year, ensuring an 

adequate framework for the day-to-day monitoring of project progress. A series of 

milestone deliverables will also be identified to enable continuous monitoring of 

the project’s implementation throughout the year. 

1.7 The Project Coordinator will produce a concise Mid-Year Progress Report for 

the Bank, GEF, ANAM and ATP upper-management, half-way through each

4 

project year, which will summarize progress made against the content of the 

Annual Work Plan. The Mid-year Progress Report will focus on short-term results 

and challenges related to the execution of the AWP to be resolved in the 

remainder of the year. 

1.8 The Project Coordinator will lead the production of an Annual Project Report at 

the end of each project year. These Annual Project Reports will be developed with 

the full participation of the project team and with input from the Steering 

Committee and other suitable mechanisms. Annual reporting will precede the 

production of the following year’s AWP. Annual Project Reports will be more 

detailed than the Mid-Year Progress Report and will concentrate on project 

performance towards achieving the project objective and outcomes; project 

performance in relation to component progress and the fulfillment of indicators 

and outputs; the identification of problems, risks and corrective measures; 

expenditure reporting and the presentation of an updated procurement plan; and 

recommendations for project/component adjustments based on lessons learned 

(adaptive management). The Bank will evaluate the main findings of the Annual 

Project Report and discuss its implications for the subsequent AWP. The results 

of the Annual Project Report will be presented to the Bank as well as to ANAM 

and ATP upper-management and summarized for their annual reports. 

1.9 In addition to the Annual Project Report, the Project Coordinator will, in October 

of each year, prepare the mandatory GEF Project Implementation Review 

(PIR), following the GEF’s format, in collaboration with the designated Bank 

contact. The PIR will include reports on project performance ratings and 

contribution to the Biodiversity Focal Area strategic objectives and targets. 

1.10 During the last three months of the project, the Project Coordinator will lead a 

Comprehensive Participatory Evaluation (CPE) with key stakeholders to 

examine the results, outcomes, and processes of the project, as well as to assess 

the institutional collaborative arrangements and progress in mainstreaming 

biodiversity into the ecotourism sector (including the final application of the GEF 

Tracking Tools during the project’s executing period). 

1.11 The Bank will conduct periodic supervision visits to Panama and maintain a 

Project Monitoring Report (PMR), the Bank’s main system tool for day-to-day 

monitoring of projects and for tracking the project’s progress toward achieving 

the results indicated in the Results Framework. 

C. Independent Evaluations and Reporting 

1.12 Following each project year, an independent audit of the Project will be conducted 

by a national external auditor approved by the Bank. The Audit Report will be 

contracted by the Executing Agency, financed by the project, conducted in 

accordance with Bank requirements and submitted directly to the Bank. The 

Project Coordinator and other specialists will support the auditors as needed.

5 

1.13 A mid-term and final evaluation of the Project will be carried out by (an) 

independent consultant(s) hired and financed through resources from the GEF 

(ägency fees¨) received for this Project. 

1.14 The Mid-term Evaluation of the Project will be carried out when 50% of the 

GEF resources have been disbursed or 24 months after the project contract goes 

into effect, whichever comes first. This review will principally ascertain if project 

objectives are in the process of being met by current implementation strategies 

based on project component design and execution, and quality of project 

coordination. The review will address such matters as: (1) an assessment of 

general project progress and the fulfillment of the indicators identified in the 

Results Framework; (2) a critical assessment of project administration, 

coordination and execution; (3) the effectiveness of project and individual 

component design including progress in inter-institutional coordination and 

development of a coherent regulatory framework, and advances towards the longterm 

financial sustainability of the PAs; and (4) local perception (community, 

private sector and other stakeholders) of ecotourism development and community 

involvement. The Mid-Term Review will serve as a formative evaluation, 

meaning that it will be geared towards improving project implementation, the goal 

being to improve effectiveness of future implementation by examining 

implementation to date. Based on the findings, recommendations will be made to 

ANAM and ATP, the project team, partners and stakeholders of ways to 

strengthen implementation. 

1.15 The Final Evaluation will be performed at the end of the project to determine if 

the project has achieved its outcomes. The consultant(s) will evaluate project 

outputs and outcomes as provided in the Results Framework and will assess the 

project’s contribution to achieving global environmental benefits as identified in 

the project documentation. The evaluation will make recommendations to ANAM 

and ATP, the Ecotourism coordination committee, the new Ecotourism and public 

use staff and partner institutions, on further consolidation of ecotourism in the 

SINAP, based on project results. The Bank will conduct a final administration 

mission to discuss the results of the Final Evaluation with the Government of 

Panama (ANAM ATP, national and departmental government partners, and 

interested public institutions). 

1.16 Evaluations will assess the project’s relevance (to international, national, and 

local conservation priorities), effectiveness (achievement of outcomes), efficiency 

(cost-effectiveness), results (in accord with results matrix and other project 

documents), and sustainability (potential to deliver environmental, social, 

financial, and institutional benefits over time). 

1.17 The evaluations will identify good practices and key results, and highlight lessons 

learned, which will be disseminated through the Project website and to relevant 

local, national and international institutions and organizations, and to other 

relevant Bank and GEF projects in the region. The combination of internally and 

externally led final evaluations will ensure that the best possible, most 

comprehensive information is available to inform Protected Areas` management 

in the future and to strengthen project replicability and sustainability.

6 

1.18 The Project may be asked to participate in other evaluations, such as programspecific 

or thematic evaluations performed by the GEF Evaluation Office to 

determine effectiveness and impact of the overall GEF portfolio. The Project may 

also be asked to participate in evaluations of country programs to determine 

effectiveness of the project portfolios of participating institutions. 

D. Information Dissemination, Education and Knowledge Sharing 

1.19 Throughout the course of the Project’s execution, the project team will document 

project processes and results that arise during the course of the execution of each 

project component. Knowledge generated, best practices and lessons learned will 

be shared by means of technical reports, publications, presentations, media 

releases, etc., as well as at public meetings, stakeholder consultations, island-wide 

education programs, conferences, workshops. Information will be disseminated 

locally, nationally, regionally and internationally, and will be made available on 

the project and ANAM and ATP’s web-sites, at institutional document centers, 

and through project networking with all interested national, regional and 

international parties, related GEF projects and ecotourism-related informationexchange 

networks like the International Center for Responsible Tourism, the 

Iniciativa de Operadores de Turismo para el desarrollo de turismo sostenible, 

Centro de Ecoturismo y Desarrollo Sostenible (CREST), and UNESCO’s 

Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). Collaboration will also be sought 

with international technical partners such as UNEP, WWF, CI, Universidad 

Marítima de Panamá, Corredor Marino del Pacífico Este, and others, in terms of 

disseminating best practice in matters relating to specific project activities,. All 

technical outputs will be of the highest quality and, when appropriate, subject to a 

process of peer review prior to distribution.

E. Detailed Budget and Timeline 

Detailed Budget 

7 

- Project execution progress 

monitoring, estimated at US$ 120,000 

- Project impact monitoring and 

evaluation (ETIMS), estimated at 

US$ 195,500 

Timeline 

Month 1 AWP (Annual 

Work Plan) 

Month 6 Baseline for 

impact 

evaluation 

consolidated 

Month 7 Mid-Year 

Progress Report 

Month 10 PIR (Project 

Implementation 

Review - GEF 

Format) 

Month 12 APR (Annual 

Project Report) 

Personnel: US$ 80,000 

Travel: US$ 40,000 

Personnel: US$ 144,000 

- biodiversity monitoring 

specialist- 

Travel: US$ 40,500 

Equipment and other 

monitoring instruments 

required: US$ 11,000 

Total US$ 315,500 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 

AWP AWP AWP 

-- -- -- 

Mid-Year 

Progress 

Report 

-- Independent 

Audit 

Mid-Year 

Progress 

Report 

Mid-Year 

Progress 

Report 

PIR PIR PIR 

APR APR APR 

Independent 

Audit 

Independent 

Audit

8 

Independent 

Mid-Term 

Evaluation 

Independent 

Final 

Evaluation 

Impact 

evaluation

English - Global Environment Facility

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?