10 February 2016

1. Parks needs discussion

Aruba – dissolving current director’s contract, therefore many priorities were not met. Arikok has weak foundation: admin, finance, personnel etc. Changing external environment – subsidy system will change and thus pension schemes for employees. Board has no insight into financial status of Arikok. Want to work with US National Park Service, which requires a functioning team. Daily business ongoing and visitors still coming to park.

Petition to parliament (2012) to add 16 new areas to the park. Spanish Lagoon currently being evaluated. This will increase pressure on Arikok. There exist 22 privately owned areas of the park that Arikok would like to purchase in order to prevent development. Need supporting partner in the form of DCNA to assist with knowledge, expertise etc. TEEB study will go ahead on , funded by SETA.

Refinery will re-open on Aruba, owned by Setgo(?). Agreement will be signed this month. This will stop hotels being built in an important area for terns.

General discussion: Trust fund: lump sum cannot be touched, only revenues. Parks must decide what to do. There is a risk that local governments will cut park subsidies when they learn that parks will receive revenues from the trust fund.

Bonaire – STINAPA made ambitious strategic plan in 2015. However, basic organization of STINAPA is weak (similar to Aruba). First revisit the foundation in order to achieve the goals of the strategic plan. Is STINAPA a protected area management organization or is it responsible for the whole of ?

DCNA should continue its work post-2016. It is an important partner for the park, and should also focus on individual parks (not just the Dutch ). For example, STINAPA requires assistance with fundraising to build a new visitor’s center. Therefore DCNA should also consider -specific needs. A large focus of DCNA should be on fundraising in the and in the USA.

Structural finance for nature management – STINAPA receives funds from user fees and for projects eg. groenen gelden. It does not receive funds from local government except for environmental education, nor from Den Haag. Dutch government is responsible for nature management of BES but Ministry EZ is unwilling to recognize this. DCNA could assist with lobbying in this respect. Dutch elections will take place in 2017 – the situation could change. It would be wise to focus on lobbying for the DC in the NL.

General discussion: Ministry of Internal Affairs has committed to conserve biodiversity in the DC, however they keep avoiding their obligation. It is important to have allies in the NL – not

1 necessarily government – to assist with lobbying. Consider using corporate partners. BZK will not add to the trust fund. NL only concerned with public relations with the islands but does not offer structural support. Park organizations do not have the capacity to lobby – it should be the role of DCNA. Require 501-c status in order to get into the US market.

Ron, Jaap and Leendert met with Princes Beatrix and discussed the need for a lobbyist in the NL. List of priorities required. Invite potential lobbyist to DCNA board meeting? DCNA’s reputation in the NL is questionable due to its glossy publicity materials.

Saba – SCF has begun an institutional review of the organization at governance level. Yves Renard was a neutral consultant who continued one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders, staff and board members. The results revealed that there are different perceptions of SCF compared with its strategic plan. A final meeting among all stakeholders was held to present the findings. While PA management has existed on for some 3 decades, which has contributed to local development, the review is useful for SCF to take stock of issues, revisit plans and prevent potential crises.

DCNA’s support is crucial in order for SCF to develop in the future. It is seen as a leader in the DC by other OTs/islands. SCF suffers similar problems to Aruba and Bonaire – lack of capacity, funding, assisting the community with needs that are irrelevant to PA management. Role of SCF is not clearly defined; expectations are too high for SCF’s limited capacity.

SCF lacks mandate and service agreement with the local government. Relationship with local community and government was poor. Interviews highlighted tensions between stakeholders as a result of PA legislations. MOU will result from the institutional review process. Kai looking to ensure SCF is regarded as an integral partner on Saba instead of a foreign enemy. This is slowly improving due to environmental education efforts.

Mission statement from 1987 was reviewed and all stakeholders agreed it should remain the same (with slight re-wording). New vision statement required; mandate should be communicated; improve relations in community; formulate comprehensive strategic action plan. The institutional review was supported by DCNA. Process will be complete by the end of 2016, thus the board of SCF is unwilling to make a decision on the trust fund until then. Board lacks motivation due to hyperbaric chamber, which was initially thought to generate revenue for SCF and link it more closely with the dive sector. However, diving has become safer and the chamber has become a financial and personnel burden. SCF’s institutional review will be useful for the other parks.

St. Eustatius – similar problems to the other parks. Island still under financial supervision due to lack of good governance. Many organizations’ subsidies were cut by 20%, which has resulted in financial difficulties. STENAPA is running at a deficit but also requires assistance with the management of funds in order to avoid this. Internal issues are prevalent within the foundation eg. lack of evidence-based research that leads to effective policy. Institutional review is required. Lack of director and poor relationship within the community.

2 Education and outreach activities require improvement. Issues are sensitive and require strategic assistance. Ron Gomes Casseres is a financial expert who could assist. Ron contacted Irving Brown for a meeting in 2014 but did not receive a response from the board. Ron is on SXM every few months and will be happy to meet with the board. DCNA can play a facilitating role.

STENAPA should play an important role within the community – interdepartmental collaboration required. Need to educate government workers. Link to lobbying need. Long-term planning is required; DCNA can assist. STENAPA board should work more closely with the boards of other parks, especially SSS.

St. Maarten – 3 staff members at NFSXM; marine park maintenance fees can barely be covered. Similar issues to other islands. Lack of business approach towards nature conservation. Lofty goals but financial limitations. Need to prioritize what can do with funds available. DCNA can offer knowledge, scientific assistance, community assistance. NF does too many things that are not directly related to PA management. General public and government expect too much.

MOU up for review end 2016. Staff salaries are paid by government but payment is usually late. Additional staff capacity desperately required. Two new rangers will be employed via the shark project funds, but only for 2 years. The majority of funds for the SOS project will not reach the islands.

2. SSS meeting update and vision DCNA

SSS islands urgently require additional funding to bridge the financial gap or risk closing their offices in the near future.

DCNA emergency fund? Extended through low/no-interest loan but parks must repay the loan. Shows as a deficit on the audit. That is only a very low temporary solution.

Request an advance?

If SSS islands receive funds from the trust fund, this may act as a temporary band aid for financial relief but the structural problems within parks still need to be resolved.

SCF board expecting to receive some funding from the TF this year. SCF and STENAPA are both surviving from a bereavement that will run out this year, whereas NFSXM is surviving from overdrafts and bank loans.

3 11 February 2016

Next DCNA meeting will be 5-7 April, possibly in Bonaire instead of St. Maarten as requested by Kalli due to health issues. Ron vd Veer has already organized appointments with SXM prime minister and other key stakeholders – decide by March 1st.

Glenn Thode unable to attend meeting due to sickness. Would like the meeting to focus on dialogue for the ideal future of parks; forging a new approach for DCNA; our own roles in DCNA; ensuring that the needs of the parks are met without creating further division in DCNA.

10 Feb meeting review: parks need support of DCNA for activities, however SSS islands face financial crisis. It should not appear as though DCNA is only investing in SSS islands over ABC, however the SSS islands require significantly more support than the latter. Structural solution required for nature management in DC.

At least 3 parks identified issues with weak foundations eg. governance, admin and finance that financial assistance alone will not solve. An institutional review may be required. Kalli and Tadzio met with STENAPA and NFSXM boards in Dec 2015 to identify struggles in order to try to find a solution for the common issues that the northern islands face. This resulted in the Jan meeting. ‘Superboard’ of the SSS islands – improved communication between islands, fundraising, pooled resources etc.

Do the SSS islands require permanent assistance with day to day activities? Especially financial administration is weak. Ask DCNA to fund a staff member. Combining the islands will bring down overhead costs and assist with economies of scale. Transparency required to identify specific park issues. SCF not in a position to decide until the results of the institutional review (mid-2016). A decision on this should be made before the April board meeting. Suggest social event between SSS boards in SXM for the meeting in order to better facilitate communications.

Dutch SXM government will not address environmental issues unless the French side of SXM is included. Organizations on SXM cannot work together; dynamics exist between stakeholders. Rueben would have liked to been included in the January meeting in SXM. Stichting Nationale Parken Nederlandse Antillen was created but fell apart due to funding and ego issues.

Would have liked to have a copy of the document at trust fund meeting yesterday. What will happen with money and for what? Can use information in the Netherlands in order to lobby and fundraise for the trust fund. Next meeting: March 8 – require information by March 4. ‘Kingdom’ meets with adverse reactions from islands.

Curacao park issues: CARMABI was lagging in terms of infrastructure, operated as a club and was an activist organization. Paul has worked the past 6 years to address this and CARMABI is now more businesslike with clear internal guidelines and focuses on core issues: research, PA management etc. Curacao government does not recognize nature as an important resource to be managed. More government funds are being invested into landscaping than nature

4 management. CARMABI needs to work closer with government or issues will never be resolved. DCNA’s role would be valuable in improving this. Trust fund is also important. DCNA’s knowledge and experience is useful for inter-park collaborations, cohesion, fundraising and (international) lobbying.

There was discussion about enlightening policy-makers about importance of nature conservation to the islands and explore how DCNA can assist in supporting this. Ron vd Veer/Leendert might be able to enlighten policy-makers. Link between other issues could be highlighted eg. Zika, climate change, food security etc in order to better bring this to their attention. Politicians often do not see the relevance of nature conservation alone.

Aruba Birdlife Conservation working on educational materials at university level. Aruba has a construction shortage; managed to get government to agree on a TEEB study but they see nature conservation as preventing their activities. Strategies must be island-specific. Parks should offer assistance to governments instead of trying to tell them what not to do. SXM taxi drivers could be approached for nature education that will give them new earning opportunities.

UniekCuracao faces similar problems to other parks. Some areas of Curacao are threatened by development and not all visitors travel to the Cristoffelpark. Additional nature areas required. Some cooperation with LVV and tourist board to keep areas clean. Consider using corporate sponsors to assist with conservation activities.

ABC islands expect DCNA to be a partner. Parks and board have much expertise that is currently being under-utilized. DCNA useful for networking, lobbying, facilitating researchers, learning opportunities, low-interest loans, assistance with governance, financial support. Concerned about potentially losing government subsidies if parks receive funds from trust fund. This can be addressed through SLA/MOU.

Herman suggestions from 10 Feb (fundraising, lobbying, park image, education & outreach)

Emilio Wilson Estate: DCNA has added value for SXM, both for NFSXM and EWE. Should not underestimate the importance of patrons ie. Gov. Holliday. DCNA can and should be doing more lobbying, especially in NL. Trust fund affects non-park conservation NGOs. Need for more structured facilitation between organizations on SXM. Thanks to DCNA, SXM is working on a nature policy plan; Duncan’s McRae’s assistance has been useful. Need for better advocacy in future with regard to new development plans.

Ron GC request that relevant documents (eg. SSS islands meeting minutes) are sent to TF Committee before TFC meeting in order facilitate timely information flow. Finance requests from the parks could undermine receiving financial support from DCNA as a result of inadequate financial administration. The TFC will not be able to evaluate financial needs of the parks without seeing up-to-date financial statements.

5 DCNA website -> documents - Articles of incorporation of DCNA - Bylaws (eventual distribution of funds from the TF) - Tijdelijke subsidieregeling (Dutch funds allocated to DCNA)

Future of DCNA secretariat – maximum 20% of revenues can be spent. Parks must set priorities for DCNA operations as funds will come out of the trust fund.

‘Frensel model’ Use 6 steps as a guide to come up with action points to substantiate what parks need, why, and pinpoint why parks do not have them. Effective management of the funds by parks will be essential.

12 February 2016

Trust fund: arrangement will BZK will cease and the 750,000 Euro donation to the fund will stop. This means the Secretariat will lose c. 200,000 per year.

The target of 24 million Euros for the trust fund was not achieved due to fundraising issues and the economic crisis. Many institutions felt it was the responsibility of the Dutch government to fill the fund. TFC still in communications with BZK and Ministry EZ, however this has not resulted in funding. Groenfonds is not an option for the TF.

BZK has donated 6.75 million Euro to the TF. NPL donated 500,000 Euro (200,000 TF/ 300,000 DCNA for projects) = 1.2 million End 2015: value of TF = 14.8 million. Will receive 950,000 in 2016, bringing the total to almost 16 million. Calculations on returns are approximately 7%.

NPL donations will continue until 2018. NPL does not want to donate >50% of funds per year, thus we may have to renegotiate that clause.

Action 1: Initiate discussions with NPL about the continuation of their donation. KdM has always been the contact person with NPL. It may be useful to bring in Ron vd Veer to assist. Action 2: Do not open the trust fund in 2016 – all parks have reserves except NFSXM. Open TF for distribution in 2017. - Pay out a fixed amount annually - Maximum amount that can be distributed without eroding principal capital & investment strategy was requested to asset managers. The response will be discussed in April - Fixed amount can be included in park annual planning

6 - Conditions: require annual accounts (mid-year) in order to make distribution at the end of the year. Justification of what parks will do with funds (financial discipline). - Fund allocation stipulated in 2009 bylaws. Percentage defined. Time period: 3 years, followed by evaluation in 2018. This will require an external assessment of the operational costs and financial needs of the parks, whereby future allocations from the fund will be determined. - Relations with governments: uncertainties. - Aim to keep 16 million in TF, however there is an option for a sinking fund that could be discussed in 2018.

Action 3: Request DCNA board to allow TF Committee to proceed and allow funds for

Secretariat

(see notes from TFC)

Action plan of the trust fund

Action 1: approved Action 2: approved by >3/4 board. SCF gives conditional approval with the proviso that a final decision is submitted within one week. Action 3: approved. SCF conditional. Action 4: approved. SCF conditional. Action 5: approved Action 6: approved Action 7: change wording “…upon request be prepared to support each park’s board and management in their efforts to increase their income, including for instance approach the government of each country or Netherlands Caribbean territory to discuss the importance of nature conservation in that territory and lobby for funds to be included in a ‘nature conservation’ line…”. Concern that this may backfire among some island governments. Approved Action 8: approved. SCF conditional Action 9: approved

Letter from Ingvild Harkes, WNF

A letter was received from WNF stating its vision of DCNA. Some board members did not feel comfortable with the document. The relationship with WNF/DCNA is unclear. Exec. Committee will send a written response stating board will consider her proposal at the April meeting. Parks can work independently with WNF but DCNA not willing.

7 Next meeting

Will be held in St. Maarten. Shark committee meeting will take place the day before.

ABC representative (NGO) on DCNA board

Frensel may have to step down as NGO representative; has served his maximum two terms.

8