DOCSLIB.ORG

United Nations Environment Programme

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Environment Programme Terminal Evaluation of UNEP/GEF project on Strengthening the Network of Training Centres for Protected Area Management through Demonstration of a Tested Approach Svetlana Kozlova Mikhail Paltsyn Evaluation Office October 2012 1 Contents Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................ 6 I. Evaluation background ............................................................................................................................. 10 1.1. Context................................................................................................................................................ 10 1.2. The project ......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 11 1.2.2. Project costs and financing ............................................................................................................ 12 1.2.3. Executing arrangements, target groups and main partners ......................................................... 12 1.2.4. Main modifications made in the project design ............................................................................ 13 1.3. Evaluation objectives, scope and methodology ........................................................................... 13 1.3.1. Evaluation purpose, key questions, criteria and timeframe ......................................................... 13 1.3.2. Limitations of the evaluation ......................................................................................................... 15 II. Project performance and impact ............................................................................................................ 15 2.1. Attainment of objectives and planned results ............................................................................... 15 2.1.1. Achievement of outputs and activities .......................................................................................... 15 2.1.2. Relevance ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3. Effectiveness: achievement of the project goal and of main component objectives ................... 17 2.1.4. Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................ 21 2.1.5. Review of outcomes to impacts (ROtI) .......................................................................................... 22 2.2. Sustainability and catalytic role ....................................................................................................... 25 2.2.1. Socio-political sustainability .......................................................................................................... 25 2.2.2. Financial resources ........................................................................................................................ 26 2.2.3. Institutional framework ................................................................................................................. 27 2.2.4. Environmental sustainability ......................................................................................................... 27 2.2.5. Catalytic role and replication ......................................................................................................... 27 2.3. Processes affecting the attainment of project results .................................................................. 28 2.3.1. Preparation and readiness ............................................................................................................ 28 2.3.2. Implementation approach and adaptive management ................................................................ 29 2.3.3. Stakeholder participation and public awareness .......................................................................... 30 2.3.4. Country ownership and driven-ness .............................................................................................. 31 2.3.5. Financial planning and management ............................................................................................ 31 2.3.6. UNEP supervision and backstopping ............................................................................................. 32 2.3.7. Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................................ 32 2 2.4. Complementarities with UNEP programmes and strategies ...................................................... 33 III. Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations ....................................................................... 34 3.1. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ 34 3.2. Lessons learned ................................................................................................................................ 37 3.3. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 40 Annex 1. Glossary of terms ......................................................................................................................... 42 Annex 2. Stakeholder analysis ................................................................................................................... 43 Annex 3. Original project indicators ........................................................................................................... 45 Annex 4. Lograme (version 2007) .............................................................................................................. 47 Annex 5. The review of the project design ................................................................................................ 50 Annex 6. Logframe revised by the evaluation consultants ..................................................................... 58 Annex 7. The list of the documents available for the Terminal Evaluation .......................................... 63 Annex 8. Evaluation methodology .............................................................................................................. 66 Annex 9. The evolution of the project outcomes ...................................................................................... 72 Annex 10. Limitations of the evaluation..................................................................................................... 75 Annex 11. Project outputs and immediate outcomes delivery analysis ............................................... 76 Annex 12. Stakeholder participation and public awareness analysis ................................................... 89 Annex 13. Country ownership and driven-ness analysis ........................................................................ 90 Annex 14. UNEP supervision and backstopping analysis ...................................................................... 91 Annex 15. Monitoring and evaluation framework analysis ..................................................................... 92 Annex 16. Criteria to the overall evaluation ratings table ....................................................................... 93 Annex 17. Results rating of the UNEP project ......................................................................................... 95 Annex 18. Evaluation TOR .......................................................................................................................... 96 Annex 19. Country mission schedule ...................................................................................................... 131 Annex 20. List of people interviewed during the country mission ....................................................... 133 Annex 21. List of people for the distribution of the First Draft Report ................................................. 138 Annex 22. CVs of the evaluation consultants ......................................................................................... 139 3 Acknowledgements The Team Leader, Mrs. Svetlana Kozlova, thanks the Supporting Consultant, Mr. Mikhail Paltsyn, who has contributed extensively to writing the Inception Report, to the Evaluation Mission and to the preparation of the Evaluation Report. The evaluation team thanks Carla DeGregorio and Sylvana Rudith King, UNEP Evaluation Office, Nairobi, for effective supervision of the evaluation work, valuable advices on evaluation process, for the documents they provided, and for their careful review of Evaluation Report submissions. The evaluation team especially thanks John R. Mathiason, the Managing Director of Associates for International Management Services (AIMS), Visiting Lecturer at the Cornell Institute for Public Affairs (CIPA) of Cornell University, and Adjunct Professor at the College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry of the State University of New York, for his consultations during the writing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Îõðàíÿåìûå Ïðèðîäíûå Òåððèòîðèè(Àíãë).Pm6
    PROTECTED AREAS IN RUSSIA: LEGAL REGULATION Moscow v 2003 2 Protected Areas in Russia: Legal Regulation. An Overview of ederal Laws. Edited by A.S.Shestakov. KMK Scientific Press Ltd., Moscow, 2003. xvi + 352 p. Reviewer: Dr. O.A.Samonchik, Devision of Agrarian and Land Laws, Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of Sciences G.A. Kozulko, international expert on protected areas, Chief of the Belovezhskaya Puzha XXI Century Public Initiative This research and publication have been made possible by funding from The Service for Implementation of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (Biodiversity Service) established by a consortium of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) and the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) ã 2003 WW Russia ã 2003 M.L.Kreindlin, A.V.Kuznetcova, V.B.Stepanitskiy, A.S.Shestakov, ISBN 5-87317-132-7 E.V.Vyshegorodskih 3 LIST O ACRONIMS ATNM area of traditional nature management of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the ar East of the Russian ederation IUCN The World Conservation Union MNR Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian ederation NP national park PA protected area R Russian ederation SPNA specially protected natural area SSNR state strict nature reserve (zapovednik) WW World Wide und for Nature 4 TABLES AND IGURES Tables: Table 1. Number and Area of Specially Protected Natural Areas in Russia (as of the beginning of 2003) Table 2. Matrix of Management Purposes of Specially Protected Natural Areas of Russia Table 3. Proposals for Establishing State Strict Nature Reserves and National Parks in the Russian ederation for 2001-2010 Table 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Report
    Central and Eastern Europe Darwin Initiative Project No: 162/10/008 Building Capacity in Wetland Biodiversity Conservation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia Report of Workshop 5 Management Planning and Monitoring/Reporting Aviemore, Scotland, UK 25 – 29 June 2003 Eurosite: Le réseau des organismes pour la gestion du patrimoine naturel européen The network of organizations managing Europe’s natural heritage Report No: 82 68282Report NO: Building Capacity in Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia Darwin Initiative: Workshop 5: Management Planning and Monitoring/Reporting EUROSITE Postbus 90154 NL – 5000 LG Tilburg Tel: +31 (0) 13 5 944 970 Fax: +31 (0) 13 5 944 975 [email protected] www.eurosite-nature.org Acknowledgements Special thanks to Eddie Idle (Insh Consultancy), Mike Shepherd and Paul Brooks (Scottish Natural Heritage), Ken Shaw (RSPB), and Tim Bines (Parnassia Ltd) for making all the arrangements, Carl Mitchell and Pete Moore of RSPB (Insh Marshes NNR), Siobhan Egan (Site Condition Monitoring Officer) and Katherine Burdsall (Lowland Peatland Adviser) of Scottish Natural Heritage, Desmond Dugan and Stewart Taylor of RSPB (Abernethy Forest NNR). What about Carl Mitchell & Pete Moore Congratulations Congratulations were offered by the participants to Darius Stoncius for gaining his PhD and to Valdimarts Slaukstins and Janis Kuze for gaining Master of Science degrees since the last meeting. This is a Darwin Initiative Project, grant aided by the UK’s Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Building Capacity in Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia Darwin Initiative: Workshop 5: Management Planning and Monitoring/Reporting 1: Workshop Information 1.1: Workshop location, host and attendance information.
    [Show full text]
  • IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Technical Reports And
    IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Technical Reports and Goals 2014‐2015 2 IUCN WCPA Steering Committee Meeting 2015 – Technical Reports 2014 Table of Contents WCPA Chair Technical Report and Goals 7 WCPA Deputy Chair Technical Report and Goals 11 WCPA Regions Africa East Africa Technical Report and Goals 17 North Africa, West Asia, Middle East Technical Report and Goals (no report) West and Central Africa Technical Report and Goals 19 America Caribbean Technical Report and Goals 22 Central America Mexico and Hispanic Caribbean Technical Report and Goals 27 North America Technical Report and Goals 29 South America Technical Report and Goals 33 Asia East Asia Technical Report and Goals 37 South Asia Technical Report and Goals 39 Southeast Asia Technical Report and Goals 42 Europe Technical Report and Goals 46 North Eurasia Technical Report and Goals 50 Oceania Technical Report and Goals 58 WCPA Policy CBD Technical Report and Goals (no report) Climate Change Technical Report and Goals (no report) WDPA Technical Report and Goals (no report) World Heritage Technical Report and Goals 65 Young Professionals Technical Report and Goals 69 WCPA Thematic Vice Chairs Natural Solutions Technical Report and Goals 83 Marine Technical Report and Goals 86 Connectivity conservation and Mountains Technical Report and Goals 96 Science and Management Technical Report and Goals 101 Capacity Development Technical Report and Goals 104 TILCEPA Technical Report and Goals 106 WCPA Specialist Groups Urban Grasslands Technical Report and Goals 111 Caves and
    [Show full text]
  • Rcn #37 Stuff
    No. 37 Fall 2004 PROMOTING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN RUSSIA AND THROUGHOUT NORTHERN EURASIA CONTENTS CONTENTS Voice from the Wild (A letter from the editors)......................................1 CONSERVATION HEROES Nina Litvinova: A Strong Force RCN LOOKS BACK ON THE LAST TEN YEARS for Nature Conservation.........................................................……....………………...19 The Beginnings and History Elena Shatkovskaya: A Northern Light ........................……....………………...21 of Russian Conservation News......................................................…………………...2 Galina Sedova: An Undanted Ranger............................……....………………...23 From the Pages of Zapovednik History: Zapovedny Vestnik Celebrates its Tenth Anniversary ..........................6 Ancient Trees and Sprouting Acorns: Kronotsky’s Greatest Discovery ........................................……....………………...25 History of the Historian...........................................................……....………………...28 A Reflection on the Green Wall of Russia .....................................................7 Vladimir Flint: Remembering Business for Nature................................................………………………………………………9 a Respected Scientist and Conservationist ..............……....………………...30 High-Speed Railroad: Ten Years Later, Still Just a Plan ........................................................………………………………………………10 STORIES OF FOREIGNERS IN RUSSIA AND RUSSIANS IN FOREIGN LANDS PROTECTED AREAS CELEBRATING THEIR The Life I Never Expected (to Love)..............................................................31
    [Show full text]
  • Communities of Ground Beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera) in Broad-Leaved Forests of Protected and Urban Areas of the Kaluga Oblast (European Russia)
    Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e58688 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.8.e58688 Data Paper Communities of ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera) in broad-leaved forests of protected and urban areas of the Kaluga Oblast (European Russia) Maxim Shashkov‡,§, Sergei Alexeev |, Natalya Ivanova§ ‡ Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science of Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Russia § Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology RAS – the Branch of Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Russia | State Budgetary Institution of the Kaluga Oblast "Parks Directorate", Biodiversity Conservation Department, Kaluga, Russia Corresponding author: Maxim Shashkov ([email protected]), Natalya Ivanova ([email protected]) Academic editor: Dmitry Schigel Received: 15 Sep 2020 | Accepted: 15 Nov 2020 | Published: 26 Nov 2020 Citation: Shashkov M, Alexeev S, Ivanova N (2020) Communities of ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera) in broad-leaved forests of protected and urban areas of the Kaluga Oblast (European Russia). Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e58688. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e58688 Abstract Background This sampling-event dataset provides primary data about species diversity, population and seasonal activity of ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera). The study was carried out in broad-leaved forests of protected ("Kaluzhskiye Zaseki" Nature Reserve and Ugra National Park) and urban areas (the Kaluga City) of the Kaluga Oblast. Carabids were collected from April to October during 1995-1998 by pitfall traps. In total, 108,000 adult individuals of the Carabidae family were sampled; 105 species from 38 genera were counted. © Shashkov M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]
  • New Forms and Possibilities for Promotion of Russian National Parks in the Internet Environment
    Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 16 (9): 1238-1244, 2013 ISSN 1990-9233 © IDOSI Publications, 2013 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.16.09.12011 New Forms and Possibilities for Promotion of Russian National Parks in the Internet Environment Elena A. Dzhandzhugazova Russion State University of Tourism and Service, Pushkin Area, Moscow Region, Russia Abstract: The paper considers specific features of organization of tourist activity in national parks, which are the most important category of specially protected natural areas. Basic tasks of national parks in the system of ecological education of the population and the development of programs of ecological tourism are discussed. The author emphasizes the need in competent and efficient tourist offer of the Russian national parks in the Internet environment and discusses the basic approaches to creating the contemporary tourism-related content which can attract attention of consumers of tourist services to natural tourist resources in Russia. On the basis of careful analysis of the structure and content of websites of Russian national parks, websites are suggested to be grouped in four websites categories, depending on the completeness and quality of the information provided. The results of analysis, carried out by the author, allowed him to conclude that only a quarter (23%) of websites of national parks contain information necessary for tourists and a part of national parks (7%) have either very poor tourist content, or no own informational web resource at all. Also, based on analysis of appeal of websites of national parks, the author can identify the key factors, either increasing or decreasing the website appeal, which allows him to suggest basic directions of optimization and development of web recourses for Russian national parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Ugra National Park (The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, 2013A)
    Improving Visitor Experiences and Water Quality in Ugra National Park, Kaluga Worcester Polytechnic Institute • Interactive Qualifying Project Submitted to: Professor Svetlana Nikitina Submitted by: Matthew Crivello and Madeleine Gomel i Improving Visitor Experiences and Water Quality in Ugra National Park, Kaluga Interactive Qualifying Project Report completed in partial fulfillment of the Bachelor of Science degree at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA Submitted To Professor Svetlana Nikitina In Cooperation With Ugra National Park Matthew Crivello ______________________________ Madeleine Gomel ______________________________ Submitted on October 15th, 2013 ______________________________ Professor Svetlana Nikitina Improving Visitor Experiences and Water Quality in Ugra National Park, Kaluga Page ii Abstract This project focused on Ugra National Park in the Kaluga region of Russia, which needed help in increasing its visibility to tourists and protecting its river from industrial pollution. To investigate possible contamination, the team took water samples along the river and analyzed them for two different types of paper factory byproducts. Negative results showed that alternative hypotheses and tests for other contaminants are needed. In order to increase the park’s tourism the team conducted on-site research of the visitor accommodations and services. Comparing Ugra to other parks prompted the team to recommend adding more signs, indicating historic sites and creating a public outreach campaign. These measures will attract more tourists to see the park’s historic and natural treasures. Improving Visitor Experiences and Water Quality in Ugra National Park, Kaluga Page iii Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the people who helped us during the course of this project. Thank you to the professors who helped us back at Worcester Polytechnic Institute: James Chiarelli and Jeanine Plummer.
    [Show full text]
  • List of National Parks in Russia
    SNo Name Location Area (ha) Established 1 Alaniya National Park Republic of North Ossetia–Alania 54,926 1998 2 Alkhanay National Park Zabaykalsky Krai 138,234 1999 3 Anuysky National Park Khabarovsk Krai 429,370 2008 4 Bashkiriya National Park Republic of Bashkortostan 79,800 1986 5 Buzuluksky Bor National Park Orenburg Oblast 106,000 2007 6 Chavash Varmane Bor National Park Chuvash Republic 25,200 1993 7 Kalevalsky Bor National Park Republic of Karelia 74,343 2006 8 Kenozersky National Park Arkhangelsk Oblast 139,663 1991 9 Khvalynsky National Park Saratov Oblast 25,514 1994 10 Kurshskaya Kosa National Park Kaliningrad Oblast 6,621 1987 11 Losiny Ostrov National Park Moscow, Moscow Oblast 12,881 1983 12 Mariy Chodra National Park Mari El Republic 36,600 1985 13 Meshchyora National Park Vladimir Oblast 118,900 1992 14 Meshchyorsky National Park Ryazan Oblast 103,014 1992 15 Nechkinsky National Park Udmurt Republic 20,753 1997 16 Nizhnyaya Kama National Park Republic of Tatarstan 26,587 1991 17 Orlovskoye Polesye National Park Oryol Oblast 77,745 1994 18 Paanajärvi National Park Republic of Karelia 104,473 1992 19 Pleshcheyevo Ozero National Park Yaroslavl Oblast 23,790 1988 20 Pribaykalsky National Park Irkutsk Oblast 418,000 1986 21 Prielbrusye National Park Kabardino-Balkar Republic 100,400 1986 22 Pripyshminskiye Bory National Park Sverdlovsk Oblast 49,050 1993 23 Russkaya Arktika National Park Arkhangelsk Oblast 1,426,000 2009 24 Russky Sever National Park Vologda Oblast 166,400 1992 25 Samarskaya Luka National Park Samara Oblast 134,000
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly fium the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from 1 ^ to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infimnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 The Emergence of National Parks in Russia With Studies of Pribaikalski and Zabaikalski National Parks In the Lake Baikal Region of South-Central Siberia by Michael William Tripp B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 1968 M.A., San Francisco State University, 1980 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Geography We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Новые Находки – New Records New Liverwort Records from Мurmansk South-Faced Rocks of 2-4 M in Height, with Trick- Province
    Arctoa (2011) 20: 247-268 Новые находки – New records New liverwort records from Мurmansk south-faced rocks of 2-4 m in height, with trick- Province. 3. – Новые находки печеночников ling water somewhere, with nitrophilous green в Мурманской области. 3. E.A. Borovichev – alga Prasiola crispa (Lighft.) Menegh. and soli- Е.А. Боровичев tary high plant cushions on walls, (a) in crevi- New for the province – Новые для области ces, with gametangia, #Б3/6-10; (b) under moist overhanging rock, on rather dry rock wall, with- Asterella lindbergiana (Corda ex Nees) Ar- out sporophytes, #Б3/8-10; (2) Bol'shoi Ainov nell – Lovozero Area, Voron’i Tundry Mts., near Island, two localities. (a) (69°50'15''N – 31°33' the bottom of the Leschaja Mt., stream flowing 9''E), south-western coast of island, 4 m alt., or- into the Lagernoe Lake (68°29'49''N – 35°36' nithogenic meadow with grass, Sanionia unci- 07''E), 298 m alt., SW-faced slope of calcareous nata (Hedw) Loeske and a lot of bird's droppings, rock, under the overhanging stone, on fine soil, among outcrops on a sea coast, on soil and par- in compact patches, Borovichev #БЕ16-11-11; tially on soil over a base of outcrops, without 16-14-11 [Боровичев] {KPABG}. sporophytes, #Б72/8-10; (b) (69°50'25''N – Fossombronia wondraczekii (Corda) Lindb. 31°33'24''E), western coast, 5 m alt., meadow – Lapponia Imandrae, Khibiny Mts., on soil, with Rhodiola rosea L., Rubus chamaemorus L., with sporophytes, 16.VII.1892, Kihlman Chamaepericlymenum suecicum (L.) Aschers. et [Чильман] {H}.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Eco-Tourism in Foreign and Russian National Parks
    E3S Web of Conferences 296, 05011 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202129605011 ESMGT 2021 Development of eco-tourism in foreign and Russian national parks Elvira Rogozina, Tatiana Okonnikova, Ekaterina Pimenova, Elena Kalach, and Tatiana Ovsyannikova Udmurt State University, Universitetskaya str., 1, 426034 Izhevsk, Udmurt republic, Russia Abstract. The article gives a comparative analysis of eco-tourism development in North American, European and Russian national parks. The most successful examples of eco-tourism development in Russia and foreign countries are represented. North American and European national parks are noted to be the most attractive for visitors and possess a highly developed infrastructure. There are visitor centers, rental centers, cafes, camping sites, hiking trails, signboards, etc. In Russia, such factors as shortage of specialized tour operators, lack of solid collaboration between national parks and tour operators, poor mechanisms of creating awareness among independent tourists and encouraging their involvement in eco-tourism as well as lack of effective legislative and regulatory framework harden the development of eco-tourism. High transportation costs which contribute to the overall cost of eco-travel have a negative impact on the development of tourism in general making eco-tourism even less attractive. In January 2021 a questionnaire survey was carried out in order to reveal the significance of eco-tourism, its attractiveness for the citizens of the Udmurt Republic and prospective lines of its future development. The survey, based on a questionnaire method and random sampling, involved citizens of the Udmurt Republic. According to the survey findings, the respondents consider Russia to have all the necessary conditions for the development of eco-tourism.
    [Show full text]
  • International Alliance of Protected Areas 2020-2029 Strategic Plan
    International Alliance of Protected Areas 2020-2029 Strategic Plan Approved on 10 Jan. 2020 by All IAPA members Contact: [email protected] International Alliance of Protected Areas 2020-2029 Strategic Plan 目录 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 I. Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Strategic objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 4 III. Strategic Tasks ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Promote transboundary conservation cooperation ........................................................................................ 7 2. Develop the IAPA Members network ............................................................................................................... 8 3. Promote social support for PAs ........................................................................................................................ 9 4. Promote communication and
    [Show full text]