MONIQUE BAR6UT

Chi~f Executive Officer and Chairperson GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY INVEST I NG IN OUR P LANET 1818 H Street, NW WaShi n ~ton , DC 20431 USA Tel: 202.<411. 1202 Fax: 2 0B 2 2. 3 2~ 0I)24 5 E-mail: mbdrbut@The

Dear Council Member,

1 am writing to notify you that we have today posted on the GEF's website at www.TheGEF.org, a medium-sized project proposaJ fro m UN OP entitled Honduras: SFM Maills/reaming Biodiversity COIIse",atioll i,,/o the Management ofPille-Oak Forests II"der the Globa L: SFM Programme Framework Jar Projects II nder the GEF Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management, to be funded under the GEF Trust Fund (G EFTF).

The project proposes to im plement mOre sustainable and biodiversity-friendl y forest management practices in pine oak forests by mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into sust ainab le forest management , in conformity with the livelihood suppon needs of the local population.

The project proposal is being posted for your review. We would welcome an y comments you may wi sh to provide by October 13, 2010, in accordance with the new procedures approved by the Council. You may send your comments to [email protected].

If you do not have access to the Web, you may request the local fi eld office of the Worl d Bank or UNDP 10 download the document for you. Alternati vely, you may request a copy of the document from the Secretariat. If yo u make such a request, please confirm for us your current mailing address.

Sincerely,

Copy to: Country Operational Focal Point , GEF Agencies, STAP, Trustee

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project THE GEF TRUST FUND

Submission Date: September 16, 2010

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION Expected Calendar (mm/dd/yy) GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3996 Milestones Dates GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 4210 Work Program (for FSPs only) N/A COUNTRY(IES): Honduras PROJECT TITLE: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation Agency Approval date August 2010 into the management of pine-oak forests Implementation Start November GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP 2010 Mid-term Evaluation (if planned) June 2012 OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): The Nature Conservancy, Institute for Forest Conservation, SERNA Project Closing Date November 2014 GEF FOCAL AREA(s): Biodiversity

GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(s): SFM-SP4-Policy, BD-SP4-Policy SFM-SP5-Markets, BD-SP5-Markets NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: NA A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project Objective: To mainstream biodiversity conservation into sustainable forest management in the pine-oak ecoregion, in conformity with the livelihood support needs of the local population Project GEF Financing Co-Financing Total ($) Type Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Components ($) a % ($) b % c=a+ b 1. Forest TA - Forest management - Programme for 332,749 17 1,683,818 83 2,016,567 owners, plans and/or annual generation of knowledge managers and plans of operation on management options users and covering 230,000ha of for the pine-oak forestry pine/oak forest ecoregion authorities have nationwide (10% of the - Regional planning access to forest area with plans) framework for BD management incorporate conservation in prescriptions improved/new management of pine oak that maximize provisions for BD ecorregion the habitat value conservation - Prescriptions for BD- of pine/oak - BD considerations (e.g. friendly management of forests for leaving set-asides, pine-oak forests globally promoting regeneration - Mechanisms for important flora of broadleaved species, facilitating and fauna leaving dead wood and mainstreaming of BD integrated fire into management plans management) - Programme of capacity mainstreamed into development and forestry management outreach programme on plans currently covering BD mainstreaming an estimated 13,500 ha (estimated to reach 135,000 ha ten years after project end) - Approximately 35,000 ha of set aside zones established - Increased institutional capacities to mobilize information and knowledge, and to supervise, evaluate, disseminate and learn - score per Capacity Scorecard (Annex 16 of ProDoc) increases from

1

4/12 to 12/12 2. Forest TA - Population numbers of - Capacity development 207,668 33 421,000 67 628,668 owners, the Golden-cheeked programme for forest managers and warbler Dendroica owners and users users have the chrysoparia, the - Mechanisms for capacities salamanders channeling financial required for the Bolitoglossa diaphora, incentives in support of application of Nototriton barbouri, BD conservation forms of forest Cryptotriton nasalis, - Mechanisms for use and and the frog Isthmohyla increasing and management insolita remain stable diversifying forest that are - Area affected by fires incomes compatible with that cause severe damage biodiversity is reduced by 25% conservation - 62,000 ha of forest in 10 target municipalities is being managed in conformity with BD conservation principles - 50% of forest owners, managers and users in 10 target municipalities have adequate knowledge of options for the integration of BD considerations into forest management - Levels of compliance with targets established in annual plans of operations (baseline and target to be determined at project start) - 50% of forest owners, managers and users in 10 target municipalities are receiving incentives that reward the application of forest management practices in accordance with BD conservation principles 3. Forest TA - 10 municipalities have - Community-based 205,765 33 421,000 67 626,765 management staff members formally rules for BD-friendly practices are designated and trained to forest management subject to support forestry - Mechanisms for regulation and regulation and coordination between enforcement monitoring community, municipal that permits the - Extraction levels of and central Government conservation of firewood and NTFPs do agencies in ensuring the globally not exceed the application of rules for important regenerative capacity of BD conservation biodiversity the resource (to be - Municipal offices with defined at project start) capacities to support - 80% (28,000ha) of no- regulation of forest take zones are in reality management in favour free from significant of BD conservation disturbance in the 10 target municipalities - 80% of ICF inspection reports, covering 496,000ha, make no mention of infractions of management prescriptions with relevance for the conservation of globally

2

important biodiversity 4. Project management 82,909 10 772,750 90 855,659 Total Project Costs 829,091 20 3,298,568 80 4,127,659 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 (expand the table line items as necessary) Name of Co-financier Classification Type Project %* (source) TNC NGO Cash 200,000 6 ESNACIFOR Government In kind 993,568 30 ICF Government Cash 2,105,000 64 Total Co-financing 3,298,568 100% * Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.

C. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($) For comparison: Project Project Total Preparation Agency Fee GEF and Co-financing at b c = a + b a PIF GEF financing 80,000 829,091 909,091 82,909 829,091 Co-financing 80,000 3,298,568 3,378,568 3,295,000 Total 160,000 4,127,659 4,287,659 82,909 4,124,091

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

E. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Estimated GEF Co-financing Project Component person weeks amount($) ($) total ($) (GEF) Local consultants* 290 174,750 250,000 424,750 International consultants* - - 0 0 Total 290 174,750 250,000 424,750 *Details provided in Annex C.

F. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST Total Estimated GEF Cost Items person amount Co-financing Project total weeks/months ($) ($) ($) Local consultants* 16 10,000 90,000 100,000 International consultants* 16 40,000 0 40,000 Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications 3,360 600,000 603,360 Travel 13,344 0 13,344 Others 16,205 82,750 98,955 Total 32 82,909 772,750 855,659 *Details provided in Annex C.

G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? yes no X

3

H. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M &E PLAN: 1. Monitoring and evaluation of the project will be adapted from procedures established by UNDP and GEF for Full Size Projects and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP-GEF. The main components of project M&E will be the following:  Inception workshop.  Day to day monitoring of implementation progress by the Project Coordinator, based on the project’s Annual Work Plan and its indicators.  Periodic monitoring of implementation progress by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary.  Annual Monitoring through Tripartite Programme/Project Review (TPR) meetings, which will occur at least once every year.  External evaluations in years 2 and 4.  Terminal tripartite review, in the last month of the project period.

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO ADDRESS IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED: 2. Honduras (particularly the Department of Olancho), contains the most extensive and intact areas of the Central American Pine-Oak Forests ecoregion, which covers a total area in Mesoamerica of around 111,400km2 and is classified by WWF as “Critical/Endangered”. The ecoregion contains a variety of forest types, including high altitude conifer forests containing mixtures of various pine species, virtually monospecific Pinus oocarpa forests and mosaics of P. oocarpa and various species of oak (Quercus spp.) The global significance of this ecoregion stems from its high levels of biodiversity (BD) and endemism, and its importance as a migration route for neotropical migrant birds such as the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), which is classed in the IUCN Red List as “Endangered”. The North Central American Highlands Endemic Bird Area, of which the pine-oak forests of Honduras form a part, contains 20 extant restricted range species1. The most outstanding characteristic of the pine-oak forests is the richness of the genus Pinus: Honduras has a total of 9 pine species, most of which are confined to this ecoregion. In Honduras this forest type, including both pine and mixed forest, covers 21,563km2, equivalent to around 46% of the forested area of the country. 3. This project will focus principally on the forestry sector, which represents both the major source of threats to the ecoregion and the major source of potential solutions. This sector contributes 9.7% of GNP, and 90% of the timber sawn in the country comes from pine forests. About 45.7% of the country’s forests are on national lands, compared to 37.8% on private lands, 6.9% on municipal (ejidal) lands and 4.9% on community-owned lands. To date, little of the productive potential of national forests has been realized. They only account for 22.6% of the timber production in the country, compared to 61.5% which comes from private forests and 15.9% from ejidal forests. The pine-oak landscape consists of a matrix of forests of different types, interspersed with smallholder agriculture and pasture areas. Agricultural fields are typically small and are used principally for producing staple grains, however at intermediate altitudes vegetables are also grown. More significant in terms of area are the pasture areas, which may be hundreds of hectares in size. Coffee is also produced, typically under planted or semi-natural broadleaved shade. 4. The Forestry Law of 2007 aims to stimulate forestry activity, particularly by community-based forestry cooperatives on national lands, under the Social Forestry System (which was first established in 1974 and has been re-launched under the new law). The Forestry Law allows forest management to be carried out, by landowners, timber companies or cooperatives, according to forest management plans prepared by forestry technicians and approved by the Institute for Forestry Conservation and Development (ICF), which is the State forestry authority. These plans last for the duration of the silvicultural rotation period of the commercial species in question. They normally include specific provisions for no-take zones, normally in order to protect hydrological processes by preventing the disturbance of areas with fragile soils, steep slopes or in proximity to water courses. On national lands, the Government can enter into usufruct agreements with cooperatives

1 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/search/ebas_search.html?action=EbaHTMDetails.asp&sid=14&m=0

4

allowing them to carry out forest management, or can auction lots of standing timber. The Government is in the process of “regularizing” tenure and occupancy rights on national forests, with support from the World Bank funded PATH project, enabling such arrangements to be entered into. To date formal title has been established over around 40% of national forests (the remaining areas are assumed to be national as agrarian law prevents private titles being issued on such forest lands), and around 12% of national forests have ‘informal’ occupants whose occupancy rights need to be clarified before usufruct agreements are entered into. 5. The main threats to this ecoregion arise within the forestry sector. P. oocarpa forests are the mainstay of the country’s forestry industry; although they are capable of being managed sustainably for timber in a manner that is compatible with BD conservation, large areas are subject to inadequate methods of harvesting, timber extraction and silviculture. The extraction of more than the silviculturally permissible annual yield, the removal and poor selection of seed trees and the failure to protect and promote natural regeneration leads to progressive thinning out of the forest canopy and in some cases eventual complete forest loss; even when sustainable in silvicultural terms, timber harvesting also modifies the vertical structure of the canopy and its plant species composition. These changes reduce the habitat value of the forest for mammal, bird and plant species that are sensitive to disturbance and changes in light and moisture regimes. Inappropriate silvicultural practices, such as the opening of large canopy gaps, also lead to outbreaks of pests such as the southern pine beetle Dendroctonus frontalis, which have required the application of drastic sanitary measures involving the elimination of overmature and dead trees that are important nesting sites for birds, as well as providing habitats for epiphytes and other insects. These forms of non-BD friendly forest management are carried out largely by private companies, driven by the high demand for timber and the limited supervisory capacities of forestry authorities. 6. Oak woodlands and pine-oak mosaics are also subject to uncontrolled extraction of oak firewood, which is valued for domestic and commercial use. When extraction rates exceed the regenerative potential of the forest, this leads to thinning out of forest canopy and recession of forest areas, resulting in the loss of BD habitat. This is largely carried out by poor members of rural communities, some of whom sell directly to end users (such as restaurants and bakeries) and some to intermediaries. The whole of the ecoregion is subject to repeated wildfires. Although species such as P. oocarpa are to a certain degree fire tolerant, fires repeated at excessively short intervals do not permit natural regeneration to become established, leading to a simplification of the species composition and vertical structure of the forest and associated loss of habitat value, and an eventual thinning out of canopy cover. Uncontrolled fires occurring after excessively long intervals can cause major mortality of adult trees due to the heat generated by the accumulated undergrowth, causing wholesale loss of forest cover and in particular the loss of overmature and dead trees that are important nesting and habitat sites. Most fires probably originate from agriculture and pasture areas, where they are used to clear fallows and eliminate cattle ticks, though others originate from the careless burning of rubbish and in some cases arson. In addition, the ecoregion is under threat from the agriculture and livestock sectors. Large areas of forest are being lost through conversion to other land uses, principally pasture, staple grains and vegetables. Pine and mixed forests suffered a 28% loss of area over the 10 years up to 2006, equal to an annual loss of 85,546ha. This conversion is motivated by the high demand for beef and the convenience of ranching as a source of income and capital accumulation; demand for staple grains among the growing population, and demand for vegetables, largely in areas within relatively easy reach of cities. 7. The long term solution to the threats described above would involve modifying forest management prescriptions in pine oak forests, in order to include BD-friendly practices, backed up by regulation and technical capacities among forest users and regulators. The modifications sought are as follows : Species Global significance Current threats Management and conservation strategies Puma concolor CITES Appendix II Decreasing landscape Maximization of diversity of diversity due to landscapes and ecosystems deforestation and focus on (e.g. maintenance of high narrow range of proportion of oak relative to commercially important pine) Dendroica chrysoparia IUCN Red List timber species, and Maintenance of an oak/pine ‘Threatened’ uncontrolled harvesting of ratio in the landscape of at oak firewood least 30/70 Cryptotis hondurensis Vulnerable on 1996 IUCN Structural simplification Maintenance of soil coverage

5

(shrew) Red List – currently Data of forests, including loss and understorey, through the Deficient of ground cover and application of appropriate fire Trochylidae (6 sp.) Various regional endemic understorey as a result of regimes (hummingbirds) species fires and timber extraction Quails practices Modification of thinning and Parulidae felling regimes in order to Bolitoglossa diaphora Endemic to Honduras maintain structural diversity Omoadiphas texiguatensis Rhadinaea tolpanorum Nototriton barbouri Regional endemic regional Cryptotriton nasalis Endemic to Honduras (salamander) Loss of bromeliad host Protection of bromeliads host Isthmohyla melacaena plants due to fire plants for salamanders, (salamander) through the application of Bromeliohyla bromeliacia Endemic to Honduras appropriate fire regimes

Glaucomys volans (flying Extreme southern limit of Conversion of pine forests Sustainable management and squirrel) natural range to agriculture and pasture conservation of pine forests Accipiter bicolor CITES Appendix II (biciloured hawk) Picidae (6 sp) Possibly agents of Timber harvesting, drastic Maintenance of overmature (woodpeckers) biologicalo control of sanitary measures and and dead trees insect pests high temperature wildfires Increased tolerance of Psittacidae CITES listed, also seed occasional low temperature dispersers burns and use of deliberate prescribed burns Isthmohyla insolita (frog) Endemic to Honduras Destruction of gallery Protection of gallery forest forests during timber operations Increased sediment load Designation of no take zones in streams due to poor to avoid increases in sediment construction of access loads in water courses where it routes reproduces

8. The project will seek to remove a number of barriers to the achievement of this situation, combining GEF resources with a number of major initiatives by Government, NGOs and international cooperation agencies. 1. Forest managers and owners do not have access to management prescriptions and instruments that provide for the incorporation of BD considerations in management planning 9. The norms and consequently the forest management plans provided for under the Forestry Law focus mainly on silvicultural aspects such as standing volumes, class sizes, growth rates and regeneration rates, and make little specific reference to biodiversity conservation. Similarly, the interests and capacities of foresters in Honduras tend to focus principally on silvicultural and productive considerations, which in turn is a function of the curricular content of the forester training schools in the country and much of the rest of the region. There is at present limited receptivity among forest stakeholders at institutional and local levels to taking additional factors, such BD conservation, into account in forest management planning, due to their perception that this would make the procedures for legal approval of forest management operations even slower and more costly than at present. BD mainstreaming is further hindered by the limited levels of communication and integration between the production- and conservation-oriented directorates in ICF, and between ICF and the environment ministry SERNA. 10. There is limited information available on the forest ecology of this ecoregion to guide foresters, regarding for example the implications of different forest management regimes for the status of its biodiversity, or on the potential for sustainable management and extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), such as pine resin, orchids and bromeliads. What knowledge does exist is largely focused on the management of pure stands of mainly P. oocarpa, and there is little experience of, or interest in, the management of the

6

broadleaved (oak) component of the ecoregion. Institutions such as ICF lack effective mechanisms for incorporating emerging information, for example regarding biodiversity, into planning and decision-making; the Forestry Research System (SINFOR) established under the 2007 Forestry Law has yet to generate significant impacts in practice. 11. At present, management plans are developed on a site-specific basis, which means that region-wide implications of forest management for biodiversity fail to be taken into account, and opportunities are not taken for maximizing region-wide benefits. This shortcoming is particularly important for migratory species, such as nearctic warblers, or resident species which habitually range widely throughout the landscape, such as felines, for which landscape-wide habitat diversity and connectivity are of importance. 2. Forest owners, managers and users have limited capacities for undertaking sustainable forest management that contributes to biodiversity conservation 12. In order for the pine-oak ecoregion and its constituent biodiversity to be conserved effectively, it is necessary for forest owners, managers and users to have the means and motivation to maintain forest cover, by combating threats such as uncontrolled wildfires and illegal logging, and avoiding the temptation to convert the forest to other, potentially more profitable, uses. It is also necessary for them to have the capacities to take biodiversity considerations specifically into account within the overall context of sustainable forest management. At present, capacities are deficient at both of these levels. Although advances have been made with raising awareness regarding sustainable forest management (SFM), it is evident that motivation to participate in such processes is still lacking among a number of forest owners and users, who continue to apply a short-term vision focused principally on extraction rather than sustainability. Capacities to carry out sustainable forest management are most lacking among the campesino forestry cooperatives operating in State owned forests. These cooperatives are typically lacking in the technical capacities required to carry out silvicultural and harvesting operations, and to add value locally to the timber and other forest products through product transformation; the marketing capacities required to maximize the prices received for their products; and the organizational and administrative capacities required to function effectively as businesses and to feed the benefits generated in an equitable manner to their members. 13. The limited degree of confidence among many forest stakeholders regarding their long term legal rights over the resources leads them to adopt a short-term approach to forest management. While forestry legislation does make provision for secure long term access to be granted to forest resources, in practice there are many conflicts over rights between competing forest stakeholders: large areas of forest that, in strict legal terms, should form part of the public forest estate, are in practice held by private stakeholders who have established de facto occupancy by fencing and introducing livestock. There is in addition widespread ignorance regarding what forestry legislation actually says. 14. Forest owners and users, particularly community-based cooperatives, have limited access to the financial resources required for the preparation of management plans and for investments in equipment, necessary for them to be able to carry out SFM. The new Forestry Law makes provision for a Fund for Forestry Reinvestment, however to date this is unproven. There is no provision at present for this fund specifically to reward forms of management that are compatible with BD conservation, beyond a general requirement that eligible forestry activities must be carried out in compliance with ICF-approved forest management plans. Finally, limited economic value or consideration has been given to the environmental goods and services generated by forests in the region, such as water and recreation, which have always been considered “free”. 3. Forest management is hindered by the existence of inadequate conditions of regulation and enforcement. 15. Forest products harvested illegally present forest owners with unfair competition, given that they are produced without paying taxes and royalties and are therefore able to undercut the prices offered by legitimate producers. This represents a disincentive to forest owners to manage forests in accordance with laws and regulations, and to invest in sustainable forms of harvesting and management. Laws, regulations and norms in Honduras are often poorly enforced, and there is limited knowledge among institutional actors regarding how to gather evidence and bring about convictions. Centralization of responsibilities for the application of forestry legislation in the ICF means that little advantage is taken of the opportunity to complement the institution’s limited enforcement capacities by involving local communities or municipal Governments in the definition and implementation of norms for forest use and management.

7

16. In addition to the limited availability of human, financial and logistical resources, the control in practice of activities with negative implications for the condition of biodiversity is hindered by the limited technical knowledge among the members of the institutions responsible for enforcing the law, regarding biodiversity issues, given that these have traditionally been seen as the responsibility of the Directorate of Protected Areas and Wildlife of ICF, or of SERNA. 17. There is a large amount of baseline activity related to forest use and management in the ecoregion, including the following: - Promotion of sustainable forest management The ICF has carried out a process of promotion of the benefits of SFM among diverse stakeholders, with support from international cooperation organizations. This has had significant impacts in terms of the receptiveness of forestry businesses and cooperatives to SFM and to the role of forestry technicians, and awareness among the population in general regarding the requirement for forest management plans. By 2008, however, there were 1.2 million ha with management plans and to date only 212 agroforestry groups have been incorporated in the Social Forestry System, including 7,681 direct beneficiaries and 55,500 indirect beneficiaries, equivalent to 3.4% of the 4.2 million people living in forest areas. - Development of Planning and Regulatory Framework for SFM. At present there are 24 forestry norms with direct or direct application to the management, conservation and sustainable use of BD. Of these, 11 contribute directly to BD conservation, specifically aspects of management of buffer zone management and wildlife. There are in addition regulations for the declaration of protected areas, micro-catchments and private reserves, as well as technical and administrative norms to regulate management; a manual for the control of the pine weevil (Dendroctonus sp.); and strategies for the management of fire and the control of illegal felling. In general terms, the current norms are flexible and applicable in all forest types, although in some cases silvicultural modifications are required to adapt them to specific ecosystems, for example in relation to cutting intensity, number of seed trees to be left, thinning regimes and needs for canopy opening in order to promote forest regeneration. Technical norms exist for integrated fire management. These allow fire to be used in fire-adapted ecosystems as a means of reducing fuel buildup and favouring natural regeneration. - Incentives for investing in forest management: a Law for Incentives for Afforestation, Reforestation and Forest Protection was passed in 1993, but was never implemented. In 2006, the Executive detemined that 1% of the National Budget would be destined to the National Reforestation Programme: this is also provided for in the 2007 Forestry Law. It is established that these resources will be used in a Forestry Reinvestment Fund, which is, however, yet to be made functional. - Forest certification. A small number of forestry operators have begun to explore the possibility of forest certification, without specifically taking into account BD conservation. To date 5 forests have been certified (4 pine and 1 broadleaved), covering 37,009 ha (19,588 ha or 53% broadleaved and 17,421 ha or 47% pine), and 7 chains of custody. There are currently three operations in Honduras that export and sell certified furniture on the international market and one national initiative accredited by the FSC, through the Honduran Council for Voluntary Certification. (CH-CFV), in La Ceiba. Although one of the main objectives of forest certification is to gain access to improved prices for timber products, there has been limited success in this regard to date. - Regularization of tenure and occupancy rights. The Government has made advances with the “regularization” of tenure and occupancy rights on national forests, with support from the recently- finished Forests and Rural Productivity Project (PBPR), funded by the World Bank, and the ongoing PATH project. To date formal title has been established over around 40% of national forests (the remaining areas are assumed to be national as agrarian law prevents private titles being issued on such forest lands), and around 12% of national forests have ‘informal’ occupants whose occupancy rights need to be clarified before usufruct agreements are entered into. - Research. During the 1970s and 1980s, the then UK Overseas Development Administration supported an intensive programme of research into fire management in pine forests in Honduras, which resulted in a large number of technical recommendations and documents, which are however not widely available to foresters. The main forestry training centres in the country, ESNACIFOR and

8

CURLA, have also been responsible for supporting research into other aspects of forest management in the pine oak ecoregion. This has included, for example, the establishment of a number of permanent sample plots. This research has largely been in the form of thesis studies by students of these institutions, however, and has had little centralized coordination and its results are not widely distributed. 18. The strategies of the project will focus principally on promoting the sustainable management of pine-oak forests for timber, in order to increase local motivations to protect the resource within the context of the forest and non-forested landscape as a whole; developing and promoting norms to ensure that this management is compatible with the conservation of globally important BD; and strengthening regulation to minimize the risks of abuses of the opportunities that are opened up for harvesting timber. 19. The project will focus directly on 10 municipalities in the north of Olancho. This area contains the most extensive areas of pine-oak in the country, covering 3,523km2 or around 20% of the national total. In this area, 72% of the forest is national, 23% is private and 5% is municipal or ejidal. Areas of pine and pine/oak forests in the target municipalities Municipality Pine and mixed forest (ha) Campamento 33,613 Concordia 7,210 Catacamas 33,613 Gualaco 99,276 Guata 40,851 Jano 25,309 La Unión 29,639 Salamá 26,231 San Esteban 46,247 Silca 10,270 Total 352,260

20. The project will have major replication potential throughout the rest of the ecoregion in Honduras and Mesoamerica. This will be facilitated by the fact that the project will form part of an ecoregion-wide programme for the conservation of Mesoamerican pine-oak forests coordinated by The Nature Conservancy, which will be the main implementing partner in this project, and by its association with the nationwide EU- funded Forest Sector Modernization Project (MOSEF), which will constitute its main source of co-financing. 21. Under the GEF alternative, incremental support would focus first on ensuring the formulation, promotion and application of BD-friendly management prescriptions for sustainable forestry management. The three outcomes of the project, which will make this possible, are as follows: Outcome 1: Forest owners, managers and users and forestry authorities have access to forest management prescriptions that maximize the habitat value of pine/oak forests for globally important flora and fauna Output 1.1 Programme for generation of knowledge on management options for the pine-oak ecoregion 22. The project will generate and disseminate information, in a highly focused and applied manner including the synthesis of existing information, short term studies and long term sample plots, on BD-friendly management options and products in the pine-oak ecoregion, to a target audience of decision- and policy- makers in central and local Government, and forest owners and managers. Aspects to be studied will include, for example, the relation between forest management practices and the conservation status of globally important elements of BD such as D. chrysoparia, the response of Quercus spp. to different fire regimes, and sustainable extraction limits for firewood and NTFPs. The project will in additional generate maps of BD hotspots and key connectivity routes, that will function as guides for planning at regional level of forest management and conservation. It will also establish the bases for collaboration between the members of SINFOR for the realization of a programme of applied research in the long term, with the aim that this will feed in a continuous manner into the policies, legal instruments and management norms developed by the

9

Government and other forest stakeholders at diverse levels: agreements on such collaboration will be formalized through a strategic planning document for research into BD aspects of the pine-oak ecoregion. Output 1.2 Regional planning framework for BD conservation in management of pine oak ecoregion 23. Based on solid scientific evidence, which will be brought together from existing sources and complemented with specific highly targeted studies, the project will generate regional planning documents for BD conservation in the pine oak ecoregion. These documents will take into account regional and municipal development priorities and, at the same time, will constitute a planning framework that will guide the formulation, modification and application of such plans in the future. In complement to this, the project will develop the capacities of Intermunicipal Technical Units (UTIs) to provide ongoing guidance and information support to their member municipalities. Output 1.3 Prescriptions for BD-friendly management of pine-oak forests 24. The project will generate a set of management prescriptions for pine-oak forests that will combine goals of timber and NTFP production with the conservation of biodiversity and will complement existing norms that focus primarily on productive concerns rather than biodiversity conservation. These prescriptions will include, for example, the establishment of local level biological corridors and no-take zones based in part on BD criteria; the modification of harvesting and extraction practices in order to allow for overmature trees to be left and damage to understorey to be minimized; the definition of the location of trees to be felled in order to optimize light and humidity regimes and the structural diversity of the forest; and the application of fire regimes that allow the development of an adequate understorey while avoiding the accumulation of excessive quantities of vegetation that might result in damaging high temperature fires. Output 1.4: Mechanisms for facilitating mainstreaming of BD into management plans 25. The project will support studies on the costs, benefits and alternative strategies for achieving the incorporation of BD considerations into forest management plans, in order to overcome the opposition to this that may be encountered among forestry technicians and forest owners and users. Meetings will be held with these stakeholders and with ICF in order to review how the process of management plan formulation functions in practice at present, and to identify key entry points where mechanisms for considering BD issues can be introduced without furthering complicating or slowing the process. Output 1.5: Programme of capacity development and outreach programme on BD mainstreaming 26. An essential fifth part of the process of making BD-friendly management prescriptions available is the development of capacities and awareness among those institutional actors responsible for ensuring that the prescriptions are applied by forest managers. The principal target audience for this outreach will be members of the sub-directorates of forest development and protected areas and wildlife in ICF. Outcome 2: Forest owners, managers and users have the capacities required for the application of forms of forest use and management that are compatible with biodiversity conservation Output 2.1: Capacity development programme for forest owners and users 27. In addition to the overall outreach programme proposed above, the Project will support a programme of training and awareness raising among private forest owners, the forest industry and agroforestry cooperatives, into specific aspects of forest management and biodiversity conservation, through a combination of training workshops, field visits and accessible publications. These aspects will include, for example, fire management, promotion of pine and oak regeneration, low impact harvesting, forest road design and species habitat requirements. In addition, the project will provide forest owners and managers with information and guidance on the legal context and assist them to make contact with representatives of ICF and IP responsible for forest regularization. 28. Scoping studies carried out during the PPG phase suggest that NTFPs have relatively limited potential to contribute to the viability of SFM and thereby to provide additional motivation for forest owners and users to conserve the forest instead of converting it to other uses. The project will therefore place only limited emphasis on the development of capacities for NTFP production. The project will, however, validate this on a case-by-case basis by providing support to the realization of participatory inventories of biodiversity and evaluations of the productive options of pine/oak forests.

10

Output 2.2 Mechanisms for channeling financial incentives in support of BD conservation 29. The project will support the development of detailed criteria for the provision of funding to forest owners and managers through the Forestry Reinvestment Fund, in order to compensate the financial costs arising from the application of management practices required to favour BD. It will also raise awareness among forest owners and managers regarding incentives for BD conservation. Output 2.3 Mechanisms for increasing and diversifying forest incomes 30. The project will investigate and, where appropriate, support, opportunities for increasing and diversifying forest incomes in ways that favour biodiversity conservation and increase the motivations among forest owners and users to continue managing and maintaining forests rather than converting them to other uses. Options to be investigated include forest certification, payment for environmental services and the marketing of non-traditional (including non-timber) forest products.

Outcome 3. Forest management practices are subject to regulation and enforcement that permits the conservation of globally important biodiversity Output 3.1: Community-based rules for BD-friendly forest management 31. In addition to the technical prescriptions that will be developed and modified under Outcome 1, the project will support the development and application of rules for forest management and use in the pine-oak ecoregion, that will complement and be integrated with the provisions of forest management. The community-based rules will provide general, community-wide limitations on aspects such as movement volumes of forest products, timing of activities such as forest product collection and burning and overall zoning of activities with implications for forest condition and BD. The project will also support municipal authorities in developing rules, to be contained within municipal regulations. This support will be inserted into the pilot initiatives of community-based forest management currently being supported by ICF in association with GTZ, within the context of the PRORENA programme. Output 3.2 Mechanisms for coordination between community, municipal and central Government agencies in ensuring the application of rules for BD conservation 32. The project will facilitate and advise on the development of coordination mechanisms between community-based actors, municipal authorities and ICF: in this way, community-level actors will be in a position to report apparent infringements to the authorities, who in turn will be able to provide support in a more informed way that reflects local priorities. This coordination will also help to ensure that ICF norms, forest management plans, and rules developed by local communities and municipal authorities are fully harmonized. Output 3.3: Municipal offices with capacities to support regulation of forest management in favour of BD conservation 33. The project will provide training to the members of municipal Governments in order to raise their awareness of the legal context in relation to forest management and the incorporation of BD considerations. This will be complemented by training aimed at raising their awareness of the implications of different forms of forest management and use for BD status, in order to equip them to interpret and apply the law in a more relevant and effective manner. 34. The global benefits to be generated by the project will include the maintenance and improvement of the conservation status of the Critically Endangered Central American Pine Oak Forests Ecoregion (much of which is an Endemic Bird Area) and improve the habitat quality of existing forest. Improvements in forest management practices (such as avoiding the creation of large canopy gaps, designating set asides, controlling and managing fires and respecting the regenerative capacity of the forest when carrying out extraction) will lead to reductions in the rate of the thinning out of forest canopy and thereby maintain the stability of light and moisture regimes, maintain structural and plant diversity, and avoid the wholesale loss of forest areas. This will benefit, for example, globally important species such as the endemic Horned guan (Oreophasis derbianus), endangered neotropical migrants such as the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), and numerous orchids and other epiphytes. D. chrysoparia would particularly benefit from the improved protection of oak forests which constitute its preferred habitat.

11

Relation between threats, overall solution, barriers and strategies Threats Overall solution Barriers Baseline Strategies ‐ Timber harvesting: Owners and Barrier 1: Forest managers and owners do ‐ 24 forestry norms with direct Outcome 1: Forest owners, managers and application of poor managers of pine/ not have access to management prescriptions or direct application to the users and forestry authorities have access to practices leads to oak forests have and instruments that provide for the management, conservation forest management prescriptions that degradation of the access to, and ability incorporation of BD considerations in and sustainable use of BD, of maximize the habitat value of pine/oak growing stock and its to implement, management planning which 11 relate to PA buffer forests for globally important flora and fauna habitat value, and management zone management simplifies species prescriptions that are ‐ Limited attention of norms and forest ‐ Support to highly focused research to fill management plans to BD aspects. ‐ Technical Commission specific gaps in knowledge regarding composition, and poor viable in productive, generated 9 recommendations construction of access economic and ‐ Focus of foresters and forestry training management options for pine/oak forest curricula on silvicultural and productive on manual for operational types roads leads to erosion biological terms and plans, with implications for and consequent at the same time considerations ‐ Facilitation and consolidation of inter- ‐ Limited information on implications of BD institutional cooperation in knowledge degradation of aquatic maintain or increase ‐ Research carried out into fire habitats levels of different forest management regimes for generation and adaptive management BD status and of NTFP management management in 1970s and regarding pine/oak forests, under ‐ Forest fires: frequent biodiversity. 1980s, but results not widely fires impede tree possibilities SINFOR ‐ Limited receptivity among forest accessible ‐ Development of regional planning regeneration and lead ‐ Ongoing research by to eventual forest loss, stakeholders to BD issues in forest framework for forest management and management planning. educational institutions, but conservation and remove the largely dispersed and understorey which is a ‐ Lack of effective mechanisms in forestry ‐ Development and dissemination of institutions for incorporating information uncoordinated with management prescriptions that favour BD habitat for fauna, while inadequate dissemination occasional hot fires on BD and management options conservation ‐ Limited integration between institutional mechanisms ‐ Development of awareness regarding the cause widespread tree ‐ ICF has emitted technical mortality actors responsible for productive and BD adoption of BD-friendly management aspects of forest management norms on integrated fire prescriptions ‐ Conversion of forests management, but limited to other uses leads to ‐ Site-specific approach to management plan development incorporation of BD forest and habitat loss considerations ‐ Firewood extraction Barrier 2: Forest owners, managers and ‐ Promotion of technical and Outcome 2: Forest owners, managers and leads to reduction of users have limited capacities for undertaking organizational capacities of users have the capacities required for the Quercus populations sustainable forest management that community groups for forest application of forms of forest use and and reduced habitar contributes to biodiversity conservation management within the SSF management that are compatible with value for species such ‐ Legal establishment of biodiversity conservation

as Dendroica ‐ Short-term vision of forest owners and Forestry Reinvestment Fund managers focused principally on ‐ Development of technical capacities chrysoparia ‐ Pilot experiences on extraction. among forest owners, users and managers ‐ Collection of non- regularization of tenure and for the application of BD-friendly timber forest products: ‐ Limited technical, organizational, occupancy rights administrative and marketing capacities management prescriptions excessive collection ‐ Some dispersed experiences of forestry cooperatives Support to development of BD-related can lead to local with forest certification but ‐ Limited confidence regarding long-term criteria for financial incentives for forest population declines ‐ limited economic benefits as management security of resource use rights yet ‐ Limited knowledge of provisions of ‐ Support to forest owners, users and forestry legislation. managers for gaining access to financial ‐ Limited access among forest owners and incentives in support of BD-friendly managers to financial resources for forest management

12

Threats Overall solution Barriers Baseline Strategies management ‐ Exploration of opportunities for ‐ Limited consideration paid to diversifying forest incomes environmental goods and services generated by forests. Barrier 3: Forest management is hindered ‐ ICF has Regional and Local Outcome 3: Forest management practices by the existence of inadequate conditions of Offices in Olancho are subject to regulation and enforcement regulation and enforcement. ‐ ICF collaborates with police that permits the conservation of globally and public prosecutors important biodiversity ‐ Limited knowledge among institutional ‐ Grassroots movements actors regarding how to gather evidence Support to community-based against illegal logging ‐ and bring about convictions on BD- development of norms for BD

related issues. management and use ‐ Limitations in financial, logistical and ‐ Support to development of mechanisms human resources in institutions of central for coordination between community, Government municipal and central Government ‐ Excessive centralization of agencies in ensuring application of rules responsibilities for the application of for BD conservation forestry legislation ‐ Development of capacities of municipal offices to support regulation of forest management in favour of BD conservation

13

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL AND/OR REGIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS: 35. The country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper recognizes the importance of sustainable forest management for poverty reduction. The approval of the new Forestry Law in 2007 reflects the priority accorded by the Government to sustainable forest management as a means of achieving the combined goals of poverty reduction, protection of environmental services and BD conservation. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan promotes “the conservation of biological diversity through the sustainable use of its components”, including “the strengthening of the Social Forestry System through the participation of municipal authorities and local communities” and “review, adjustment, discussion and approval of the new Forestry Law with the objective of achieving sustainable exploitation of the forest resource”.

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS: 36. The project will contribute to the objectives of the Biodiversity Focal Area, within the context of the framework strategy on the Sustainable Forest Management. Within this Focal Area, it will contribute specifically to Strategic Objective 2, “To Mainstream Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors”. Its main emphasis will be on Strategic Priority 4, “Strengthening the Policy and Regulatory Framework for Mainstreaming Biodiversity” as it will focus on mainstreaming BD into the management prescriptions and plans which are legal prerequisites for the approval of forest management activities, and on strengthening local capacities for planning and regulation of forestry activities. It will also include elements of Strategic Priority 5, “Fostering Markets for Biodiversity Goods and Services” as it will orient the provision of marketing support to NTFPs produced in accordance with BD principles. The cross-cutting theme of the project will be the promotion of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The project will contribute to Strategic Objective 2 of the SFM framework strategy, “Sustainable management and use of forest resources” as it will focus on the sustainable management of production forests.

D. JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF FINANCING SUPPORT PROVIDED WITH THE GEF RESOURCES. 37. GEF resources consist of a donation which will be used in a one-off manner to create lasting capacities. GEF Financing Co-Financing Total ($) Project Components ($) % ($) % Outcome 1. Forest owners, managers and users and 332,749 17 1,683,818 83 2,016,567 forestry authorities have access to forest management prescriptions that maximize the habitat value of pine/oak forests for globally important flora and fauna Outcome 2. Forest owners, managers and users 207,668 33 421,000 67 628,668 have the capacities required for the application of forms of forest use and management that are compatible with biodiversity conservation Outcome 3. Forest management practices are 205,765 33 421,000 67 626,765 subject to regulation and enforcement that permits the conservation of globally important biodiversity 4. Project management 82,909 10 772,750 90 855,659 Total Project Costs 829,091 20 3,298,568 80 4,127,659

E. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES: 38. The recently approved project “Conservation of Biodiversity in the Indigenous Productive Landscapes of the Moskitia” (GEF ID 3592) focuses strongly on forest management of pine (P. caribaea) forests in indigenous landscapes of the Moskitia lowlands: while this is a different species to the predominant pine species in the current project (P. oocarpa) there are some ecological similarities between these two ecosystems and the teams implementing the two projects will interchange lessons and experiences. This is particularly relevant in the case of fire management, which is a major issue in both projects: the major partner in the present project, The Nature Conservancy, has major experience 14

with research into fire management in the Moskitia, and will be constitute an obvious channel for communication of lessons on this issue. 39. The project will also be closely coordinated with the EU-funded Forest Sector Modernization Project (MOSEF), which will constitute the principal element of its programmatic baseline, and the expected next phase of the GTZ- funded Natural Resources Programme (PRORENA), which is currently under discussion. This baseline coordination will be furthered by the fact that the Project Coordinator will be based physically in the Tegucigalpa offices of ICF, which will be the main institutional counterpart of both of these initiatives, and that the regional staff of the project in Juticalpa are expected to share the ICF regional office there with regional staff of those initiatives. The MOSEF project is programmed to start on January 01, 2011, and the ICF has already named its National Project Director in early August 2010.

F. DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH INCREMENTAL REASONING : 40. The value-added of GEF involvement, in terms of the difference between the baseline (without project) scenario and the GEF alternative (with project scenario) is summarized below. Comparison of baseline scenario and GEF alternative Baseline Scenario GEF Alternative GEF increment There is a wide range of forestry norms, A range of economically and technically Forest management prescriptions include and a recent Forest Law that provides for viable forest management prescriptions specific consideration of how to combine community participation in forest are available for diverse vegetation types the conservation of globally important management. Due to inadequate in the pine/oak ecoregion, that enable BD with productive forest management; knowledge of the characteristics of forestry production to be combined with forest management planning incorporates pine/oak forests, forest management BD conservation, and permanent a landscape-wide perspective on BD (e.g. would result in unintentional and capacities exist to generate, adopt and priority setting and connectivity); forest unnecessary impacts on BD and would implement such forest management owners, managers and technicians have fail to realize the full productive prescriptions. increased receptiveness to modifying potential of the forest, leading to limited forest management in order to favour BD motivations to maintain forest habitat instead of converting it to other land uses. Forest owners and managers would lack Private forest owners and community Incentives for forest management are the capacities required to manage their cooperatives have the capacities required provided subject to specific conditions forests in an optimum manner (in either to manage pine/oak forests in such a way regarding their implications for the productive or BD terms) and as a result as to ensure the maintenance of forest conservation status of BD would have limited motivations to retain cover and to optimize conditions for its forest cover, and also would not be able constituent BD, while delivering social to implement any alternative (BD- and economic benefits friendly) management options that may be generated Even if forest owners, managers and Forest owners and users work in close Community-based and municipal norms users had access to viable BD-friendly collaboration with Government entities and developed and applied in such a way management options and the capacities in ensuring the existence of the that threats to BD are combated with the to implement them, their initiatives conditions of forest governance required maximum of effectiveness would face unfair competition from for threats to BD to be combated illegal felling, which (together with fires) effectively, and for BD-friendly SFM would also result in direct negative practices to be technically and impacts on BD. economically feasible

41. Under the baseline scenario, forest management would be carried out by forest owners and usufruct holders in ways that would, in many cases, protect the productive potential of the growing stock, but would fail to maintain its ecological functioning and biological diversity; in addition, significant levels of forest management and use would be carried out that is not sustainable in either productive or biological terms. Significant levels of support would be provided to owners and forestry cooperatives by the Government and externally-funded projects and NGOs, in order to increase the financial, organizational and technical feasibility of forest management for timber but limited support15

would be provided to specifically BD-friendly forms of management and production such as the sustainable management of non-timber forest products. The principal element of the project’s baseline will be the EU-funded Forest Sector Modernization Project (MOSEF), which will help to create the technical, institutional and governance conditions required for sustainable forest management, compatible with the maintenance of globally important biodiversity, to be practically and financially feasible (see paragraph 39 above). 42. GEF incremental support would focus principally on mainstreaming BD considerations into management tools and providing technicians and local communities with the ability to develop and apply BD-friendly management prescriptions. Under the GEF alternative, therefore, major global benefits for biodiversity would be generated, in the form of improved ecological functioning (for example the maintenance of nutrient cycles, trophic structures, predator/prey balances and overall species diversity levels), which is important in order to ensure the value of the forest as a habitat for diverse globally important species (such as insectivorous migratory birds) and on the other hand to minimize the risks of uncontrolled explosion of pest species in the absence of predators. The project will generate improvements in the conservation status of rare ecosystems and habitats (including the pine-oak region as a whole), increased species richness within habitats of the pine-oak ecoregion, and improved conservation status (measured in terms of population numbers) of rare and endemic species of fauna and flora. A key point in the rationale of the project is that it will seek to manage the interspecific impacts of forest harvests, over and above the baseline which is only concerned with the productivity of harvested species (and intra specific impacts).

G. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES:

Risk Level Mitigation measures Limited Medium Public policies strongly recognize the role of forest protection and SFM in reducing commitment to environmental risk. The project will focus on identifying management strategies which allow the addressing BD combination of BD conservation with maintained economic viability, such as the modification of issues within the felling practices in order to minimize canopy disturbance, and integrated fire management that context of SFM will protecting timber growing stock as well as BD. Weak institutional Medium The ICF is being re-launched, with institutional strengthening support from the European Union framework, and IDB, which also focus on municipal strengthening. EU support will be included in the co- particularly in ICF financing of the project. The project would provide complementary support to the technical and municipalities. capacities of these institutions. Increased Medium The project will contribute to increasing the value of the forest to local people relative to profitability of alternative land uses, through the promotion of sustainable forest management. It will also alternative land support local schemes of social auditing, which have weight in the area due to the importance of uses the forest to local people as a source of water. Limited economic Low The ICF is strengthening technical, administrative and marketing capacities of forestry viability of SFM cooperatives and supporting the development of the forestry sector in general. GEF funds will be under existing used to complement these initiatives by identifying BD conservation strategies that minimize marketing and negative impacts on economic viability. Markets for timber from the project area, which are organizational principally in the utility (non-luxury) sector, are likely to remain relatively stable despite possible conditions. occasional fluctuations in reflection of the overall economic climate. Climate change Low The most significant potential implication of climate change for the achievement of the project’s objectives is a possible increase in the frequency of forest fires due to modifications of rainfall patterns. The project’s emphasis on promoting community-based use of forest resources will provide motivation for local communities to invest efforts in combating such fires. In addition, the project will make specific provision for developing fire management strategies as an element of forest management plans.

H. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN: 43. This Medium Sized Project will result in changes in how forestry management is carried out across the biologically most important part of the pine-oak ecoregion in Honduras. The models applied in the direct area of influence of the project will subsequently be mainstreamed into the regulations and strategies affecting management of the ecoregion nationwide. The project’s SO2 approach is a more feasible and cost-effective means of achieving conservation of16

globally important BD than the strengthening on protected areas, given the importance of the timber industry in the ecoregion for the national and local economies (which would make a prohibitive approach hard to enforce), the presence of large numbers of stakeholders already involved in forest management (who can be enlisted for the application of BD-friendly SFM, at their own expense in the long term) and the limited coverage of PAs at present (which would imply major investment in new areas if a PA approach were to be effective). Given the modest scale of the project and the need to maintain focus, it would not be cost effective for it to attempt directly to address landscape level sector-based threats such as cattle ranching and market gardening; rather, it would focus on shifting the balance of attractiveness towards retention rather than conversion of forest and creating conditions wherein forests (especially those on State land) would cease to be an open access resource. The project would explore forest certification as a complementary approaches to SO2, however it will receive secondary emphasis due to its relatively high transaction costs and therefore possibly low cost-effectiveness (at least in the short term until procedures are further ground-tested and streamlined). Likewise, payments for REDD were considered but not included, given that mechanisms for putting this into practice are as yet unproven in Honduras.

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT A. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT: 44. UNDP will be the sole implementing agency of the project. B. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT: 45. The project will be executed under the NGO Execution modality with The Nature Conservancy as the Implementing Partner. The duration of the project would be 4 years.

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF: 46. The differences in project design from that proposed in the original PIF are as follows: - Increase in the duration of the project from 3 to 4 years, in order to increase the probability of achieving sustainable impacts. This implies some increase in fixed project management and staffing costs, however the implications of this for the availability of GEF funds for technical activities are minimized by the fact that a large proportion of project management and staffing costs will be directly cofinanced in concrete terms by TNC. - Substantial increase in the amount of cofinancing, which is reflected in the increased indicator targets, in particular the incorporation of national BD considerations into management plans nationwide, covering 230,000ha during the life of the project. - Reduction of the number of target municipalities from 14 to 10, in order to improve the focus and therefore effectiveness of project actions at local level. Despite this, the indicator targets are all either equal to or greater than those originally proposed in the PIF. - Reduced emphasis on NTFP production as a strategy for sustainable forest management and conservation, given the findings of the PPG studies regarding the limited potential of these to make a significant difference in the pine-oak ecoregion.

PART V: AGENCY (IES) CERTIFICATION This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement.

Agency Coordinator, Signature Date Project Contact Telephone Email Address Agency name (Month, day, year) Person Yannick Glemarec, September 16, Santiago 507-302- [email protected] UNDP/GEF Executive 2010 Carrizosa 4510 Coordinator 17

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP or CPD: 5.1 By the year 2008, an appropriate integrated national environmental policy promote the equitable access, sustainable use and conservation of natural resources 5.3 From 2007 on, new sector-based policies and strategies incorporate concerns of environment and risk management. Country Programme Outcome Indicators:

Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area (same as that on the cover page, circle one): 4. Managing energy and the environment for sustainable development Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program: SFM-SP4-Policy, BD-SP4-Policy SFM-SP5-Markets, BD-SP5-Markets Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes: . Policy and regulatory frameworks governing the forest sectors incorporate measures to conserve biodiversity . Global certification systems for forest products include technically rigorous biodiversity standards Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators: . The degree to which forest polices and regulations include measures to conserve biodiversity as measured by GEF tracking tools . Published certification standards for biodiversity friendly forest products

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of verification Risks

Project Objective Frequency of sightings of the Golden- Previous surveys (in 19 transects An average of 20 individuals Reports of results of Climate change, extreme To mainstream cheeked warbler Dendroica in the pilot municipalities) found observed per year in the original monitoring carried out in environmental events, biodiversity chrysoparia in 10 target 19 individuals in 2008 and 21 in 19 transects biological transects pests, inadequate conservation into municipalities 2009 (additional surveys will be Frequencies of observations in governance conditions sustainable forest carried out in the target new transect sites remain stable management in the municipalities at project start up) throughout the project pine-oak ecoregion, in Frequency of sightings of the Baseline survey to be carried out Frequencies of observations in Reports of results of conformity with the salamanders Bolitoglossa diaphora, at project startup target municipalities remain monitoring carried out in livelihood support Nototriton barbouri, Cryptotriton stable throughout the project biological transects needs of the local nasalis, and the frog Isthmohyla population insolita in 10 target municipalities Area of pine/oak forest in the 10 100% of existing forest 10% (13,500 ha) of forest Review of a sample of target municipalities that are covered management plans and/or in management plans and/or management plans and by forest management plans and/or annual plans of operation in annual plans of operation in annual plans of operation annual plans of operation which pine/oak forest nationwide pine/oak forest nationwide in incorporate improved/new provisions (covering approximately 135,000 the country incorporate for biodiversity conservation (leaving ha) contain provisions stipulated improved/new provisions for no take zones, promoting regeneration in current norms biodiversity conservation by the of broadleaved species, leaving dead end of the project. wood and applying integrated fire management)

18

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of verification Risks

Area of pine/oak forest in the 10 An average of 23,033ha of forest Area affected by fires that cause ICF statistics, field visits by target municipalities affected by (6.9% of the total) in the 10 little or no severe damage project staff damaging forest fires (that cause municipalities has been burnt remains stable severe tree mortality, reductions in annually over the last 6 years. Area affected by fires that cause canopy density and changes in the The proportion of these fires that severe damage is reduced by vertical structure of the forest) caused severe damage will be 25% (figures in hectares to be estimated at project start. estimated at project start) Area of pine/oak forest in the 10 All of the existing management 100% of the area of Field inspections and ICF target municipalities with forest plans in the 10 target management plans in the 10 files management plans approved by ICF municipalities (covering municipalities (62,000ha) is that are being managed in practice in approximately 62,000ha) are being managed in conformity conformity with principles of currently being implemented in with biodiversity conservation biodiversity conservation (leaving no conformity with existing norms. principles take zones, promoting regeneration of The area being managed in broadleaved species, leaving dead conformity with biodiversity wood and applying integrated fire conservation principles will be management) determined at the start of the project Area of pine/oak forest nationwide 100% of existing forest 10% of forest management Review of a sample of covered by forest management plans management plans and/or in plans and/or annual plans of management plans and and/or annual plans of operation that annual plans of operation in operation in pine/oak forest annual plans of operation incorporate improved/new provisions pine/oak forest nationwide nationwide in the country for biodiversity conservation (leaving (covering approximately 2.3 (covering 230,000ha) no take zones, promoting regeneration million ha) contain provisions incorporate in addition of broadleaved species, leaving dead stipulated in current norms improved/new provisions for wood and applying integrated fire biodiversity conservation management) Outcome 1: Existence of specific norms Norms exist regarding fire Norms are updated and Norms and approval Limited institutional Forest owners, nationwide for the conservation of management, pests, thinning, approved for fire and pest documents commitment in ICF managers and users and globally important biodiversity within extraction and road construction, management, thinning, Limited political will forestry authorities have the context of the management of but they do not incorporate extraction, forest road Limited receptiveness of access to forest pine/oak forests adequate provisions for construction and use and forest technicians due to management biodiversity conservation management of non-timber concerns over possible prescriptions that forest products, making specific reductions in productivity maximize the habitat and adequate provision for the of pine timber value of pine/oak conservation of globally forests for globally important biodiversity

19

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of verification Risks important flora and Area (outside of protected areas) in Approximately 35% of existing Approximately 40% (35,000ha) Review of management fauna the 10 target municipalities that is management plans in the north of the area included in forest plans formally excluded from productive east of Olancho (an area of management plans is excluded activities with potentially negative 30,285ha) is excluded from from forms of extractive implications for the status of globally- extractive timber management, management with potentially important biodiversity but not on the basis of negative implications for the considerations of the status of globally-important conservation of globally biodiversity (including Wildlife important biodiversity, nor Sites) (the precise figure will be placing limitations on forms of defined during the project on activity rather than timber the basis of conservation needs) harvesting Institutional capacity to mobilize Score Score Institutional capacity information and knowledge (see Institutions have 2 Institutions have 3 analysis consultancy Annex 16 of the Project Document – information and strategies information and maximum score per criterion is 3) needed to supervise action strategies needed to plans supervise action plans Institutions have 2 Institutions have 3 information and strategies information and needed to carry out their strategies needed to carry other responsibilities out their other responsibilities Individuals who work in 1 Individuals who work in 3 biodiversity conservation biodiversity conservation in pine/oak work in pine/oak work effectively in teams effectively in teams Institutional capacity to supervise, Score Score Institutional capacity evaluate, disseminate and learn (see Frequency of updating of 1 Frequency of updating of 3 analysis consultancy Annex 16 of the Project Document – policies policies maximum score per criterion is 3) Adaptability and 1 Adaptability and 3 responsiveness responsiveness Internal mechanisms for 1 Internal mechanisms for 3 supervision, evaluation, supervision, evaluation, dissemination and learning dissemination and learning Individual capacity to 1 Individual capacity to 3 adapt and learn adapt and learn Output 1.1: Programme for generation of knowledge on management options for the pine-oak ecoregion Output 1.2: Regional planning framework for BD conservation in management of pine oak ecorregion Output 1.3: Prescriptions for BD-friendly management of pine-oak forests Output 1.4: Mechanisms for facilitating mainstreaming of BD into management plans Output 1.5: Programme of capacity development and outreach programme on BD mainstreaming

20

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of verification Risks

Outcome 2 Number of forest owners, managers In general forest owners, 50% of forest owners, managers Consultancy/ Forest Reinvestment Fund Forest owners, and users in the 10 target managers and users are aware of and users in the 10 target questionnaire including fails to function as managers and users municipalities with awareness and the provisions of current norms municipalities (including rankings foreseen have the capacities knowledge of options for the (the baseline will be private landowners and Limited interest in forest required for the integration of biodiversity characterized and quantified in agroforestry cooperatives, owners and users due to application of forms of conservation principles into forest more detail at project start) responsible for approximately concerns over possible forest use and management 40 management plans) have reductions in profitability management that are adequate knowledge of options of forest-based businesses compatible with for the integration of biodiversity biodiversity conservation conservation principles into forest management (precise criteria and target values will be defined at project start) Numbers of forest owners, managers Baseline to be defined at project Target to be defined at project Review of reports of and users in the 10 target start start inspections carried out by municipalities who are complying ICF with targets established in annual plans of operations Percentage of forest owners, 0 50% ICF registers of incentives managers and users in the 10 target municipalities who are receiving incentives that reward the application of forest management practices in accordance with biodiversity conservation principles Output 2.1: Capacity development programme for forest owners and users Output 2.2: Mechanisms for channeling financial incentives in support of BD conservation Output 2.3: Mechanisms for increasing and diversifying forest incomes Outcome 3. Number of municipalities with 0 (responsibility for regulation 10 municipalities have staff Inspections of municipal Local governance Forest management installed capacities for the effective and monitoring is centralizad in members formally designated offices conditions en general practices are subject to regulation and monitoring of the ICF) and trained to support forestry Limited technical and regulation and status of biodiversity and forest regulation and monitoring financial capacities in enforcement that management practices municipal and ICF offices permits the Levels of firewood extraction in 10 Baseline levels of extraction and Extraction levels do not exceed Standardized field studies Resistance of ICF to conservation of globally target municipalities, relative regenerative capacities to be the regenerative capacity of the decentralization of important biodiversity regenerative capacity of the resource defined at project start resource (to be defined at responsibilities to project start) municipalities Levels of NTFP extraction in 10 Baseline levels of extraction and Extraction levels do not exceed Standardized field studies Resistence among forest target municipalities, relative regenerative capacities to be the regenerative capacity of the owners to the regenerative capacity of the resource defined at project start resource (to be defined at establishment of no take project start) zones

21

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of verification Risks

Proportion of no-take zones that are To be defined 80% (28,000ha) Standardized field studies in reality free from significant disturbance in the 10 target municipalities Percentage and area of forest To be defined (ICF inspection 80% of ICF inspection reports, Reports of ICF technicians management plans without reports of reports do not currently make covering 496,000ha, make no carrying out inspections of infractions of management specific mention of management mention of infractions of management areas prescriptions with relevance for the prescriptions with relevance for management prescriptions with conservation of globally important the conservation of globally relevance for the conservation biodiversity important biodiversity) of globally important biodiversity Output 3.1: Community-based rules for BD-friendly forest management Output 3.2: Mechanisms for coordination between community, municipal and central Government agencies in ensuring the application of rules for BD conservation Output 3.3: Municipal offices with capacities to support regulation of forest management in favour of BD conservation

22

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion, the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)

GEFSec comments on PIF

Comments on PIF Response at time of PIF submission GEF comment on response Implications for project design 9. Is the project design sound, its framework consistent & sufficiently clear (in particular for the outputs)? The project is basically The BD friendly practices proposed in paragraph 12 September 10,2009 Indicators of institutional capacities have been proposing the implementation of the PIF are in fact as follows: 1) leaving a certain All issues adequately addressed. included in the strategic results framework and of good practices in number of dead trees standing to benefit bird and Please ensure that capacity are detailed in Annex 17 of the Project Document, silviculture and presenting insect populations; 2) the protection and regeneration development indicators for the which consists of a capacity development these as "BDfriendly". of broadleaved species in addition to commercially- Government line agencies scorecard adapted from that developed by UNDP Promoting regeneration, important pine trees; and 3) the exclusion of responsible for forest for use in PA projects. leaving deadwood, and fire biologically vulnerable or important areas from management are included in the management are silivicultural harvesting operations. These go beyond the normal final project design. practices that have existed for silvicultural good practices mentioned by the centuries. reviewer and would confer specific BD benefits.

23

Please clarify the "no-take" It is not possible at this stage to provide a firm zones and what globally estimate of the coverage of no-take zones or precise important and threatened details of the species that they would contain; an biodiversity will be protected estimate would be generated during the PPG phase, through the no-take zones, and however their precise areas and characteristics would the extent of coverage in be defined on a case-by-case basis during the process hectares and species within of preparing management plans. As an indication, the these no-take zones. Please forest management plans currently existing in the explain the tenure status of project area include an average of 35% no-take these no-take zones, who will zones. Currently 63% of the no-take zones are on be responsible for their national land and the remainder on private or longterm protection and municipal land. These zones form a management management, and how that category within the overall forest management plan will be funded. and therefore belong to the same landholding as the area covered by the forest management plan as a whole. Responsibility for managing the no-take zones lies with the person or entity for whom the ICF has approved a management plan (on private lands, the landowner and on state lands, private timber companies or peasant timber cooperatives holding usufruct agreements). Management of these zones is stipulated in the overall management plan and is therefore a legal requisite: the costs of this management must be borne by the management plan holder and compliance is a requisite for approval by ICF of successive annual plans of operations and five-year plans within the context of the plan as a whole. Failure to comply results in cancellation of permission to operate. 15. Is the value-added of GEF involvement in the project clearly demonstrated through incremental reasoning?

24

Please provide clarification This phrase has now been modified in the PIF to September 10, 2009 PPG studies indicate strongly that NTFPs in the from a technical standpoint as “biodiversity”. This is, however, taken to include Adequate explanation provided. pine-oak region (such as epiphytes, resin and pine to the increment's investment ecological functioning, which refers in this case to At time of CEO approval needle artifacts) have limited potential to in SFM that is "compatible issues such as the maintenance of nutrient cycles, economic feasibility analysis for complement timber production and thereby the with maintenance of trophic structures, predator/prey balances and overall NTFP to be produced by the motivate SFM. In the case of epiphytes and pine biological integrity and species diversity levels. This is important in order to project is expected. needle artifacts, the potential markets are too ecological functioning". What ensure the value of the forest as a habitat for diverse limited for these to have significant impacts; resin is meant by "biological globally important species (such as insectivorous production went through a boom in the 1970s and integrity and ecological migratory birds) and on the other hand to minimize 1980s but subsequently collapsed due to unstable functioning" in this instance the risks of uncontrolled explosion of pest species in market prices. Project emphasis has therefore and how will this be the absence of predators.A key point is that the been modified from that in the PIF, and as a result manifestly different than what project will seek to manage the inter specific impacts its success will not rely substantially on NTFP is achieved through sound of forest harvests, over and above the baseline which production. These findings meant that it was not silvicultural practices? What is only concerned with the productivity of harvested considered necessary to carry out further, detailed will be the added BD benefit species (and intra specific impacts). economic feasibility analyses. generated? Please clarify. In addition, in this section the The economic viability of NTFPs and their potential project proposes BD-friendly to be compatible with BD conservation would be forms of forest management explored in more detail during the PPG phase. that will market NTFP Considerable experience already exists in Honduras harvested in a "BD-friendly" with options such as resin harvesting, the fabrication way, but the proposal does not of handicrafts from pine needles and the marketing specify what NTFPs have real of mosses and lichens for Christmas decorations and market potential to make this other handicrafts. happen. Please clarify.

25

GEFSec comments on CEO Endorsement Request, July 14, 2010

GEF Review Sheet Comment Response Reference in Document 8. Is the global July 14, 2010 The reasoning for only including one indicator species Project Results Framework in environmental The project logframe includes many proxy (Dendroica chrysoparia) at objective level was to avoid having to CEO Endorsement Request and benefit indicators that will provide an indication of global dedicate an excessive proportion of the limited GEF funds for this ProDoc. Table 30 in ProDoc. measurable? environmental benefits generated from the pine/oak MSP to biological monitoring. However, additional species from forests. the table (Bolitoglossa diaphora Nototriton barbouri Cryptotriton Please clarify why the key species identified in nasalis and Isthmohyla insolita) have now been included. These Table 25 are not being tracked in the project have been selected as they combine conservation priority with logframe as indicators of successful biodiversity easiness of measurement. During the project inception phase, it is outcomes resulting from the BD-friendly improved proposed that the utility and practicality of including additional forest management of pine-oak forests that the indicator species such as Accipiter bicolor and Glaucomys volans project proposes to achieve. will be assessed. Please review the logframe and make sure all The target surface area of forest to be under sustainable forest Project Results Framework in figures are correct. At least one is incorrect, and management compatible with biodiversity for 2014 is 10% of the CEO Endorsement Request and this is the third indicator of the project objective 135,000 ha, i.e. 13,500 ha. The wording of the target value of this ProDoc and the target for 2014. It appears that only 10% of indicator has been modified to make this clearer. This target level the 135,000 HA (a very modest target for a $13 (13,500 ha) will be achieved by the end of the project but it is million investment) will be managed under the new foreseen that as a result of the project’s activities the cumulative BD provisions for SFM, and if so the coverage area will continue to increase steadily after the end of the project, amount should be 13,500 HA not the 135,000 HA reaching an estimated 135,000ha (100% of the total area) by that is listed in the 2014 target. around 10 years after the end of the project. As explained below, the total budget of the project (including cofinancing) was overestimated at the time that that ProDoc was first submitted, and this target is now more in line with the revised level of funding.

26

9. Is the July 14, 2010 NTFPs are a very popular subject that comes up repeatedly when Paragraphs 140 and 146 and Box project design The design has made some accomodation to identifying alternative or additional income possibilities to forest 5 in ProDoc. sound, its discoveries in the PPG stage that NTFP were not a users when talking about multiple use forest management. In the Paragraph 28 in CEO framework viable option which was a concern that the case of the pine-oak ecoregion, however, PPG studies found that Endorsement Request consistent & GEFSEC had at PIF stage, thus, the revised design NTFPs alone, as a source of income from the forest, does not sufficiently seems much more pragmatic in that regard. have the potential to contribute substantially to the conservation clear (in Therefore, we do not undestand the reference to of biodiversity. Thus, these products have a limited potential to particular for NTFPs in para 10 on NTFPs in the CEO function as a catalyzer to conservation of biodiversity through the outputs)? endorsement document, Box 5 in the project market-based-strategies. The project recognizes that under current document. Please clarify. conditions, despite these limitations, a selected group of these products will continue to be extracted from the forests making it necessary to assure that their extraction is done in a sustainable manner and without negative impacts to the resource. The emphasis of the project will therefore not be on actively promoting NTFP extraction, but rather on ensuring that any NTFP extraction that is carried out is carried out in accordance with adequate management guidelines and subject to adequate regulation. Paragraph 140 of the Project Document states that “Scoping studies carried out during the PPG phase suggest that NTFPs have relatively limited potential to contribute to the viability of SFM and thereby to provide additional motivation for forest owners and users to conserve the forest instead of converting it to other uses. The project will therefore place only limited emphasis on the development of capacities for NTFP production. The project will, however, validate this on a case-by-case basis by providing support to the realization of participatory inventories of biodiversity and evaluations of the productive options of pine/oak forests”. Box 5 of the ProDoc provides examples of some of the provisions to be included in NTFP management guidelines, with the aim of minimizing the risks of negative impacts on biodiversity resulting from current and future NTFP extraction activities. The project will support community-based regulation of NTFP extraction (paragraph 146) as a complement to the formal regulatory provisions contained in the Forest Law and approved forest management plans, and implemented by Government institutions.

27

The design maintains coherence with the PIF 9b. The problem of unsustainable firewood extraction in Paragraphs 125 and 146 in overall, however, although still identified as a detriment of forest biodiversity will be dealt with by ProDoc threat, it remains unclear how fuelwood extraction incorporating provisions on its production and use in the forest is being dealt with in the project strategy. management plans. Firewood extracted for family or industrial use will be from branches and tree tops of felled trees with certain regulations. For example, the forest management plans will divert away from allowing excessive levels of extraction of branches and tree tops since such practice can instead bring negative results, for example: soils exposed to erosion, reduction of feeding and shelter material for rodents, reptiles, rabbits, some birds and other small game. On the other hand, the extraction of wood material for use as firewood will reduce the amount of fuelwood thus reducing the severity of possible forest fires. Thus the project will encourage users to create a balance between reasonable extraction rates and safeguard of biodiversity to make it sustainable. In this respect the project will work very close to community based organizations as they have the facility and the means to convey ideas and messages to the rest of the population. In addition, forest management plans will also identify areas and times of the year when firewood extraction may be permitted. This procedure will also allow authorities to keep better records on the actual extraction and use rates of firewood since existing statistics on the subject at time seem unreliable. Paragraph 125 of the Project Document explains how the project will generate information on fuelwood flows as a guide to the development of management prescriptions (Output 1.1). Paragraph 146 explains how the project will strengthen community-based regulation of fuelwood extraction, thereby complementing the activities of Government institutions and municipal authorities (Output 3.1).

28

The design and proposal does not adequately clarify The EU financing has now been reviewed and we agree with the Tables A, B, C and F and Section how the EU cofinancing is being invested per each reviewer that it should at this stage by classified as baseline D in CEO Endorsement Request. outcome. This is a considerable amount of funding, although there is a high likelihood that a significant Section IV. Total Budget and resources and the cofinancing letter (see comments proportion of it will in practice turn out to constitute cofinancing Work Plan in ProDoc below under cofinance) is also not very clear in this (“redirected baseline”) given the indications of the EU that the regard as these resources are for a project that has MOSEF project will include elements focused on biodiversity not even started yet. This is not consistent with conservation in productive landscapes. GEF procedures with cofinacing for projects. What surety can UNDP provided that the EU resources are committed and will eventuate? In addition, it appears that the EU resources will be invested in the forest sector whether the GEF project happens or not, which would make this money part of the project baseline not cofinancing. The GEF investment is designed to complement and build on this investment to generate the global biodiversity benefits. Therefore, it appears that this needs to be recalculated as baseline investments not cofinance. The structure of PIU is also somewhat confusing. The explanation of the structure of the PIU has now been Section V. Management Please clarify why the TNC-funded project reworded in the ProDoc. There will be a full-time Project Arrangements, Paragraphs 159, coordinator is only directing 25% of their time to a Coordinator, funded by TNC, based in the project area (Olancho). 160, 163 y 164 in ProDoc project that will have resource flows of $12 million? In addition, we do not understand why the The national representative of TNC will adopt a more advisory project coordinator is not a staff member or ICF role (occupying an estimated 25% of his/her time), and will given their engagement in all the donor-supported participate in the proposed Technical Advisory Committee. All forest investments in the project area that are project staff members will be based physically in ICF offices, in planned for the region. It would appear to make both Tegucigalpa and Olancho, and will have local ICF more sense that TNC be used to provide expert counterparts with whom they will work closely in order to advice rather than coordinate the GEF MSP. The maximize capacity development and ownership of project results structure of the PIU and the use of an NGO- within ICF. The position of TNC as Implementing Partner has execution modality, given the currently proposed been supported in writing by ICF. This arrangement will have the project implementation modalities for a future added benefit of maximizing the integration of the project’s project of 21 million Euros runs counter to the Paris activities and impacts at a regional level, as part of an ecoregional Declaration. Please clarify. initiative of TNC throughout the Mesoamerican pine-oak zone.

It is considered that this structure is appropriate for the revised project budget, which has now been reduced to just over US$4 million (including cofinancing) from the almost $13 million indicated in the originally submitted CEO request.

29

11. Is the July 14, 2010 Please see response to the comment under issue 9 above regarding project Please better clarify the relation of the GEF project EU cofinancing. consistent and to the EU project of 21 million EUROS given that properly the project is proposed to start in 2011. This is coordinated problematic as we are not 100% sure that the EU with other project will start on time, will be funded, etc thus related putting the entire GEF investment in jeopardy. In initiatives in addition, the EU project is presented as cofinance, the country or when it appears that this is part of the baseline in the region? needed for the GEF project to be able to focus so specifically on the BD aspects of improving forest management. 14. Is the July 14, 2010 Please refer to comment 9a project Yes, but it appears from the document that NTFPs The production and marketing of NTFP alone appears not to be a structure are still being considered even though the viable economic alternative; part of the reason may be the lack of sufficiently endorsement package notes that this was rejected as information on abundance (obtained through inventories), species close to what not being economically viable. See comments preference and identification, harvesting methods, production was presented above as well and revise accordingly. costs, marketing. Yet, this is an activity that a small part of the at PIF? population does practice in an artisanal way and benefit from and cannot be ignored. The project hopes to provide more information on aspects mentioned above about NTFP so that current disorganized production and marketing activities may be carried on in a more organized manner in the future for the benefit of those dedicated to this activity. 16. Is the July 14, 2010 Please see response to the comment under issue 9 above regarding value-added of GEF's added value is clearly presented and EU cofinancing. GEF demonstrated, however, it relies on the baseline involvement provided by the EU project which has not started in the project and is proposed to start sometime in 2011. Please clearly clarify as mentioned in other sections of the demonstrated document, the starting date of the EU project. through incremental reasoning?

30

22. Are the July 14, 2010 Please see response above to comment 16. confirmed co- The EU in-kind cofinance is coming from a project financing that has not even started. Please clarify start date amounts and whether this project is 100% guaranteed to start adequate for implementation in 2011. each project The EU cofinance, as decribed in the document and component? in the cofinance letter, appears to be the baseline which the GEF investment will serve as the increment to, therefore this needs to be clarified in a revised document. The cofinancing per source is not clear for each component, please clarify. 23. Has the July 14, 2010 Figures are correct and consistent with logframe. Tracking Please ensure that the coverage numbers in hectares Tool3 been in the tracking tool are consistent with what is included with presented in the logframe as currently there appear information to be a number of inconsistencies. for all relevant indicators?

GEF Sec Comments for Full-size Project at CEO Endorsement, September 1st, 2010 Secretariat comments at CEO Endorsement Response Reference in document DG, 1 September 2010 It is now made clear on Table 21 of the ProDoc that “This project [MOSEF] will For answers and clarifications, 9. Mainly. The explanation for maintaining information be the most significant element of the project’s baseline, and will support forms kindly refer to Table 21 and on NTFP sounds reasonable and there does not seem to of sustainable forest management that are compatible with the maintenance of paragraph 101 of the ProDoc and be contradictions with the findings from PPG any globally important biodiversity and are financially feasible.” Similarly, paragraphs 39 and 41 of the CEO more. Also, the proposal to regulate firewood exclusion paragraph 101 of the ProDoc states that “The principal element of the baseline Endorsement Request. in forest management plans is adequate. will come through the MOSEF project, which will focus on modernizing the Furthermore, we welcome the rearrangement of forest sector following the recent approval of the new Forestry Law, and as such considering financing under the proposed EU project as will contribute to the feasibility of sustainable forest management activities, with baseline investment instead of co-financing. particular the technical, institutional and governance aspects that are required for However, we do not understand why neither the CEO SFM to be compatible with biodiversity.” approval doc nor the ProDoc make adequate reference any more to this initiative. It should be a crucial Paragraph 39 of the CEO approval request (Section E) explains that coordination element in all sections explaining the project baseline between the EU (i.e., MOSEF) and the GEF projects will be facilitated by the (e.g. Part 2, section F in the CEO approval request) and fact that the Coordinators of both projects will be based physically in the coordination with other related initiatives (e.g. Part 2, Tegucigalpa offices of ICF, which will be the main institutional counterpart of section E in the CEO approval request). Please, include both of these initiatives. Furthermore, the regional staff of both projects will this information. share the ICF regional office based in Juticalpa. The MOSEF project is programmed to start on January 01, 2011, and the ICF has already named its National Project Director in early August 2010.

31

Secretariat comments at CEO Endorsement Response Reference in document

Paragraph 41 (Section F) also highlights that “The principal element of the project’s baseline will be the EU-funded Forest Sector Modernization Project (MOSEF), which will help to create the technical, institutional and governance conditions required for sustainable forest management”. DG, 1 September 2010 Please see response above to comment 9 Please refer to Table 21 and 11. No. Please see comment under No.9. paragraph 101 of the ProDoc and paragraphs 39 and 41 of the CEO Endorsement Request. DG, 1 September, 2010 The starting date of the MOSEF Project is January 01, 2011. The starting date has been 16. Please, confirm the starting date of the EU project. indicated on paragraph 39 of CEO Endorsement Request DG, 1 September, 2010 Please see response above to comment 16 Please refer to Table 21 and 22. Please, see No. 16. paragraph 101 of the ProDoc and paragraphs 39 and 41 of the CEO Endorsement Request.

32

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT USING GEF RESOURCES

$/person Estimated Position Titles week person Tasks to be performed weeks

Project Management International External project evaluation 2,500 8 - Mid-term external review of the project in accordance with UNDP and specialist GEF guidelines External project evaluation 2,500 8 - Final external review of the project in accordance with UNDP and specialist GEF guidelines Local External project evaluation 625 8 - Mid term external review of the project in accordance with UNDP and specialist GEF guidelines External project evaluation 625 8 - Final external review of the project in accordance with UNDP and specialist GEF guidelines For Technical Assistance Local Component 1 Biologist 625 12 - Support to development of applied research plan for pine-oak ecoregion (Output 1.1) (12 weeks) Training specialist(s) 500 36 - Training of forest owners, managers and users and ICF technicians on incorporation of BD considerations into forest management prescriptions (Output 1.5) (36 weeks) Environmental and forestry 500 16 - Development of materials for environmental education among forest education specialist(s) communities (Output 1.5) (8 weeks) - Development of proposals for modification of curricula in forestry education centres (Output 1.5) (8 weeks) Forestry management and 625 26 - Generation of proposals on linking local level plans and regulations to a conservation specialist regional-level planning framework (Output 1.2) (10 weeks) - Recommendation of processes for incorporating biodiversity considerations into forest management plan approval processes (Output 1.4) (16 weeks) Forest research specialist 625 20 - Review, organization and dissemination of results of previous research (Output 1.1) (8 weeks) - Support to development of applied research plan for pine-oak ecoregion (Output 1.1) (12 weeks) Municipal strengthening 625 8 - Strengthening of Intermunicipal Technical Units on incorporation of BD specialist considerations (Output 1.5) (8 weeks) Bioenergy specialist 625 24 - Baseline study on firewood use (Output 1.1) Component 2 Judicial specialist 625 8 - Training in judicial aspects related to forest management Training specialist(s) 625 24 - Training of forest owners, managers and users and ICF technicians on application of forest management prescriptions including BD considerations - Development of programme for awareness raising among forest stakeholders regarding incorporation of BD considerations into forest planning and management Specialist in forestry 625 8 - Exploration of options for forest certification certification Forestry incentives 625 8 - Development of guidelines for incorporation of biodiversity specialist considerations into forestry incentive programmes

33

Forestry marketing 625 40 - Identification of products that may be subject to sustainable management specialist and marketing - Technical support to marketing of BD-friendly NTFPs Component 3 Municipal strengthening 625 40 - Support to development of community-based models of forest specialist management and governance - Development of training programme for municipalities in aspects related to biodiversity Specialist in forestry norms 625 20 - Facilitation of the participatory definition of norms and quotas for and regulations forestry management and extraction by local communities

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.

PPG activities have been undertaken as foreseen.

B. DESCRIBE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IF ANY:

N/A

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW: GEF Amount ($) Project Preparation Implementation Amount Amount Amount Uncommitted Co- Activities Approved Status Approved Spent To Committed Amount* financing date ($) Definition of conservation Completed 15,000 7,500 7,500 0 7,500 priorities and strategies in pine-oak forests Definition of BD-friendly Completed 15,000 7,500 7,500 0 7,500 forest management options in pine-oak forests Definition of regulatory, Completed 16,000 9,000 7,000 0 22,500 planning, policy and institutional modifications required to bring about modifications in productive practices Development of Completed 34,000 29,086 4,914 0 42,500 monitoring and evaluation strategy Total 80,000 53,086 26,914 0 80,000

ANNEX E: CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS

Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF Trust Fund or to your Agency (and/or revolving fund that will be set up)

N/A

34

United Nations Development Programme Country: Honduras PROJECT DOCUMENT

Project Title: Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into the Management of Pine-Oak Forests UNDAF Outcome(s): The State of Honduras has the capacities required to reduce the vulnerability of the population through the implementation of policies that integrate environmental and risk management concerns, thereby achieving the sustainability of development, life, wellbeing and equity of all Hondurans UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome: 4. Managing energy and the environment for sustainable development UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome: Strengthened national capacities to mainstream environment and energy concerns into national development plans Expected CP Outcome(s): 5.1 By the year 2008, an appropriate integrated national environmental policy promote the equitable access, sustainable use and conservation of natural resources 5.3 From 2007 on, new sector-based policies and strategies incorporate concerns of environment and risk management. Expected CPAP Output (s) 5.1.6 Institutions responsible for the implementation of emerging plans of the Government regarding reforestation and forest protection strengthen their technical and operational capacities for their execution according to sustainability criteria. 5.3.2 Environmental management institutions and the productive sectors involved strengthen their capacities for the creation of incentives that promote practices that are compatible with the environment. Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: The Nature Conservancy Implementing Entity/Responsible Partners: SERNA/ICF

Brief Description The project will promote the sustainable management of pine-oak (Pinus-Quercus) ecosystems in the northern region of Olancho, Honduras. It will develop technical capacities of ICF technicians, members of agroforestry cooperatives, the private forestry sector and indigenous communities who are the main users of forest resources and municipalities to promote and implement participative, multiple use forest management compatible with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of national, regional and global importance. By managing this ecosystem, the project intends to conserve regionally important biodiversity in production landscapes in the remote and extensive Pine-Quercus ecosystem forests in the ecoregion. The project will support joint planning of forest management initiatives between local communities, municipal and central governments to make sure that future forest management activities implemented within this ecosystem in Olancho take into account biodiversity conservation and use.

Programme Period: 2010-2014_____ Total resources required $4,127,659

Atlas Award ID: 00060183______Total allocated resources: $2,869,091 Project ID: 00075675______ GEF $829,091 PIMS # 4210______ ICF $2,105,000 Start date: November 2010  TNC $200,000 End Date November 2014 In-kind contributions: $993,568  ESNACIFOR $993,568 Management Arrangements NGO Execution PAC Meeting Date ______1

Agreed by (Government): Date/Month/Year

Agreed by (Executing Entity/Implementing Partner): Date/Month/Year

Agreed by (UNDP): Date/Month/Year

2

Index of Contents I. Situation analysis ...... 6 General Context ...... 6 Geography, Demography and Economy ...... 6 Land tenure ...... 8 Forest Cover ...... 8 Productive Sectors ...... 8 The Forestry Sector ...... 9 Pine Forest Management ...... 11 Institutional Context ...... 12 Policy context ...... 13 Legal Context...... 13 Protected Areas ...... 15 The Pine Oak Ecoregion ...... 16 Threats and Root Causes ...... 19 Long-term solution ...... 27 Barriers ...... 27 Baseline ...... 31 Stakeholder analysis ...... 34 II. Strategy ...... 36 Project rationale ...... 36 Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities ...... 39 Key Indicators ...... 49 Risks and Assumptions...... 50 Financial modality ...... 51 Cost-Effectiveness ...... 51 Sustainability ...... 51 Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness ...... 52 Replicability ...... 52 Design Principles and Strategic Considerations ...... 52 III. Strategic results framework ...... 54 IV. Total budget and workplan ...... 59 V. Management Arrangements ...... 66 VI. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget ...... 71 Annex 1. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool ...... 77 Annex 2. Organigrams of Principal Institutional Stakeholders...... 82 Annex 3. Stakeholder Participation during Project Preparation ...... 84 Annex 4. Stakeholder Participation Plan (SPP) for the Project Implementation Phase ...... 85 Annex 5. Summary of Key Data on Honduras and Olancho ...... 87 Annex 6. Important Data on the Olancho Department, per Municipality ...... 88 Annex 7. Lead Institutions of the Environmental, Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Sectors 89

3

Annex 8. Summary of the Institutional Initiatives contributing to the Program Base Line 91 Annex 9. Evolution of the Legal and Institutional Framework of the Forest Sector of Honduras 100 Annex 10. Defining the Themes for Awareness Raising ...... 101 Annex 11. Terms of References for Project Coordinator ...... 102 Annex 12. Biodiversity of World Importance in the Project Area ...... 103 Annex 13. Charts and Graphics with Statistics and Sectorial Possession: RM ...... 104 Annex 14. Selected Forest Indicators ...... 105 Annex 15. Pinus and Quercus species present in Honduras ...... 107 Annex 16. Scorecard of the Institutional Capacities ...... 109

4

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation/acronym Definition BD Biodiversity CITES Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species CURLA Atlantic Coast Regional University Centre ESNACIFOR National School for Forest Sciences GDP Gross Domestic Product HDI Human Development Index ICF Institute for Forestry Conservation and Development INA National Agrarian Institute INE National Institute of Statistics IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature NTFP Non-timber forest product PA Protected areas SAG Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock SERNA Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment SFM Sustainable forest management SINAPH Honduran National Protected Areas System SINFOR Forestry Research System SSF Social Forestry System TNC The Nature Conservancy UNA National Agricultural University

5

I. SITUATION ANALYSIS

General Context

Geography, Demography and Economy 1. Honduras has a total area of 112,492 km². The country has a very varied topography, reaching a maximum altitude of 2,870m. Due to its broken topography, it is estimated that 87% of the land area is of forestry vocation, with soils suitable for forest growth but not for the maintenance of sustainable agriculture. 13% of the remaining area is of agricultural vocation, made up of extensive valleys whose productive potential is far from being fully realized. The country has a large number of watersheds of much importance for water production, however, despite its large overall hydrological potential it has serious problems of seasonal water shortage, particularly, in the major population centres. 2. The population in 2009 was 7,876,197, living an average density of 70 people/km², with an average annual growth rate of 2.7%. It is projected that the national population will reach 8,045,990 by the end of 2010 and 8,894,975 in 2015. In 2001, the rural and urban populations made up 54% and 46% of the total, respectively, and high levels of emigration from rural areas (to urban areas as well as to the USA, Canada and Europe) mean that this division is fast approaching 50:50. 51% of the population is female and 49% male. The country has seven indigenous or autochthonous groups that make up 6.2% of the total population and around 0.68% of the population of Olancho. Annex 5 presents key data on socioeconomic characteristics of Honduras and Olancho, which are also summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of main demographic data for Honduras

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA1 2000 2002 2004 2009 Total population 6,249,598 6,560,608 6,823,568 7,876,197 Life expectancy at birth (years) 69.93 - 66.15 70.45 Literacy rate (%) 72.7 - - 80.0 Population below poverty level (%) 50.00 53.00 53.00 50.7

3. The economically active population of Honduras is around 3.5 million, but around 39.4% of this population is without work. The literacy situation has shown some improvement in recent years, with the illiteracy rate falling from 21% in 2001 to 19% at present. The level of extreme poverty has fallen from 54.2% in 1991 to 42.3% in 2006. Newborn mortality fell from 20 per 1000 live births in 1991 to 14 in 2006. The road network has increased from 13,603 km in 2002 (of which 20% was paved) to 14,240 km at present. Coverage of telephone and internet services has also greatly increased. Linked to these improvements has been an increase in the HDI from 0.655 in 1998 to 0.725 at present, with an GDP of US$2793/year. Honduras is in 113th place for HDI out of 172 countries worldwide. Annex 6 presents detailed development and poverty data for the Department of Olancho. Table 2. Trends in GDP (US$, current prices) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 GDP (current prices)2 8,722 9,672 10,842 12,374 14,001 14,581 15,757 Growth rate (%)3 6.23 6.05 6.65 6.35 3.95 4.14 8.074

1 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/region/region_cam.html http://www.indexmundi.com/honduras/net_migration_rate.html 2 Cifras del 2003 al 2008 extraídas del sitio de Centro de Estudios Monetarios Latinoamericanos (CEPAL); proyecciones del 2009 y 2010 fueron extraídas de http://www.economyWatch.org 3 Cifras extraídas del sitio http://www.economyWatch.org

6

4. Table 3 presents key data on the gender situation in Honduras. Table 3. Comparison of poverty levels between women and men in Honduras (2006) Indicator Women Men Life expectancy at birth (years) 70.2 61.0 Literacy (%) 6.5 7.5 Women with paid work 43.05 57.0 Mean annual income (US$) 1,771.00 3,400.00

The Department of Olancho 5. Olancho, where project activities will be concentrated, is the largest of the country‟s 18 departments and has the fourth largest population, with an area of 23,905 km² and around 517,888 inhabitants (74.6% rural and 25.4% urban) in 23 municipalities. Its population density is 22/km². In common with the rest of the country, Olancho has highly broken and mountainous topography, with extensive areas of forest that cover 62% of its territory, high levels of biodiversity and is major importance for water production, as well as including a number of large valleys of major importance for agriculture (the main crops produced are maize, sugarcane, coffee, beans, rice, sorghum and tobacco) and ranching. Map 1. Municipalities of Olancho

6. Olancho is the department of Honduras with most forest under management, with an allowable annual cut of 315,492m³ on national lands, 462,954m³ on private land and 106,593m³ on municipal lands, giving a total of 885,039m³.

4 Idem 5 En 1990 este valor era 39% lo que indica que ha mejorado según: la OIT. 2009. Tendencias Mundiales del Empleo de las Mujeres: marzo de 2009. Ginebra. 2009. 305pp.

7

Land tenure 7. Land tenure is Honduras is highly skewed. Approximately 330,000 of the estimated 583,000 poor rural families have no or inadequate land (generally less than 1ha per family). In 1993, 72.3% of farmers were smaller than 10 ha, while médium and large farms, which made up 4% of the total number covered 53% of the total area6. Forest tenure is 47% national, 23% municipal and 30% private.

The land problem in Honduras7 The lack of access to land is an issue that affects around 250.000 rural households in Honduras. This, and the tenure insecurity of this resource, are considered serious limitations in generating assets and poverty reduction and constitute an important source of social instability (Government of Honduras 2001). Despite efforts in the past to transfer underused public or private lands with agricultural potential to owners of very small scale parcels (households with less than one hectare of land – 2.47 acres) and to farmers devoid of any land resources, the country continues to be characterized by an asymmetric distribution of lands. Almost 70% of land owners possess 10% of the land while a little over 1% of farm owners have 25 percent of the land in their possession. Of the 465.000 households registered in the Agricultural Census in 1993, 97% possessed less than 50 hectares, 80% has less than 5 hectares and 27% did not own any land. Tenure security is intimately related to property size and insecurity especially affects the small scale owners: while only 42% of all farms under 5 hectares have tenure security, this percentage is 76% for farms over 50 hectares. Furthermore, there is evidence that the complementary reforms that are needed in the credit and other input markets will not occur in the near future, keeping the poor from taking advantage of the reforms to the land market8.

Forest Cover 8. The total forest area in Honduras is 4,648,000 ha, or 41.5% of the total area9. Of this, 60.3% is broadleaved, 29.4% pine, mixed forest 9.3% and mangroves 1%10. 2.2 million ha are defined as being for conservation use. The area of plantations is growing, with 167 ha of certified private plantations in 2002, 558.5 ha im 2007 and 4,705 ha in 2008, and a total area of 10,265 ha of private plantations established between 2002 and 200811. Between 2006 y 2008 11,501 ha were planted, with funding from the National Reforestation Programme. 9. The total forest area in Olancho is 1,525,924 ha, of which 64.3% is broadleaved, dense pine forest is 20%, scattered pine forest 14% and mixed forest 1.7%. 68% of the forest in the department is national, 18% is private and 14% is municipal (ejidal)12. Broadleaved forest dominates in the north of the department, pine in the south and mixed forest (mostly pine/oak) in the centre. Productive Sectors 10. The agricultural, livestock and forestry sectors have for long been of fundamental importance for the country. Since the end of the 1990s, however, they have taken second place to the manufacturing industry (see Table 4).

6 Salgado, Ramón, junio de 1996.Tenencia de la Tierra en Honduras, Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Rural, Universidad Libre de Ámsterdam. 7 Policies for rural development and sustainable use of slope lands in Honduras: a quantitative focus on livelihoods / 2006. Hans G. P. Jansen . . . [and others 8 According to Barham, Boucher and Useche 2002. 9 FAO. 2009. Situación de los bosques del mundo 2009. FAO, Roma. 10 Anuario Estadístico Forestal, 2008. 11 Idem as above. 12 Estos dos términos se usan intercambiados; sin embargo propiedad municipal es aquella comprada a un privado con fondos del municipio; y ejidal es aquella propiedad que es cedida por el estado al momento de crea el municipio y por lo tanto es pública como lo esla propiedad nacional. En la práctica no se les diferencia.

8

Table 4. Gross Domestic Product by Productive Sector13 (US$ millions)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing 780.7 721.8 957.7 863.5 736.7 Mining and quarrying 69.9 60.0 72.1 82.8 93.0 Manufacturing industry 646.4 585.6 747.5 840.4 906.1 Construction 199.0 149.2 193.1 228.6 271.0 Electricity, gas and water 197.6 199.5 230.9 232.4 225.0 Transport and communications 171.8 143.2 193.1 224.3 240.1 Commerce, restaurants, hotels 435.0 385.1 491.0 553.0 568.8 Service industry 334.1 287.0 389.6 475.5 502.0 Housing 203.5 182.0 230.5 261.3 280.0 Public administration, defence 212.4 191.7 249.1 272.3 271.8 Communal, social and personal services 374.7 328.0 408.1 478.7 509.4 Total14 4,668 4,814 5,562 6,206 6,412

The Forestry Sector 11. GDP from the forestry sector has shown a slight increase from US$40.25 million in 2000 to US$44.2 million in 2008, despite is contribution to national GDP having fallen from 0.72% to 0.53%. The relative contribution of the forestry sector forestal compared with agriculture and livestock has fallen from 5% in 2000 to 4.0% at present15, due largely to the fact that the volume of harvested timber (pine and broadleaved) has falled from 1,082,600m³ in 1980 to 919,900m³ in 2004 and 661,500 m³ in 2008, with little increase in market price. The sector generates 63,000 jobs directly and 173,000 indirectly (COHDEFOR, 2006). 53% of households in Honduras use firewood (INE 2007, and it is estimated that the production and sale of firewood and charcoal generate around $US 86.7 million annually. 12. These figures underestimate the true contribution of the forest resource to the national economy, as they do not take into account other forest goods and services such as water. 13. The reduction in forest harvesting is due to various factors, including the fall in the internacional market for sawn timber, especially in Europe and the US, which have traditionally been the major centres of demand for Honduran timber. In addition, changes in the regulation of management plans, introduced in 1998, have affected production particularly among private owners (the largest timber producers in the country), due to limited financial and technical support from the State. There has also been much pressure from national and international groups to halt or reduce timber harvesting for environmental reasons. Only 1.25 million ha of forest have management plans (93% pine and 7% broadleaved), with an allowable annual cut of 2.41 million m³ (ICF 2009). 14. The Poverty Reduction Strategy (ERP) considers the forestry resource as an important element for economic growth and employment generation, given that around 60% of the rural population (4.2 million people) live in or near forests, of which 3.2% are beneficiaries of the Social Forestry System (SSF)16. 15. Within the SSF, the ICF has organized 212 peasant groups with 7,681 members, of which 137 are cooperatives, 75 are agroforestry groups, 43 are collective societies and 27 are small businesses. Of these, 52 have had access to comercial forestry management through usufruct and management agreements, covering around 283,000 ha, in national forests.

13 Cifras del PIB por sector productivo más recientes encontradas en Lempiras (HNL) en la Sub-Gerencia de Estudios Económicos (www.Banco Central.hn) y convertidas a USD al tipo de cambio histórico a junio de cada año: http://www.OAnda.com/lang/es/currency/converter. 14 Cifras extraídas del sitio http://www.economyWatch.org 15 Anuario Forestal Nacional, 2008. La FAO reporta que la contribución del sector forestal al PIB en el 2006 fue de 1.8%. En FAO. Situación de los Bosques del Mundo 2009. FAO, Roma. 16 CEPAL. 2007. Honduras: tendencias y desafíos.

9

Table 5. Agroforestry Organizations Registered by the ICF in the Social Forestry System. Production Type of Organization and/ or Cooperative Companies Associativ Anonymous Agroforestr Transformatio Collectiv Total Conservation s e Societies y Groups n Industries e Zone Companie Societies s Atlántida 1 7 29 37 Comayagua 17 2 6 3 28 El Paraíso 13 5 18 Fco. Morazán 16 5 21 La Moskitia 4 1 5 NE Olancho 16 16 Northwest 2 2 West 2 2 Olancho 27 1 4 1 33 Pacific 1 1 Río Plátano 11 3 14 Yoro 11 24 35 Total 121 1 47 6 1 1 35 212

16. The current history of forest management in Honduras ítems from the 1950s and 1960s, where the main focus was on the installation of industrial forestry infrastructure, and the issuing of forest exploitation permits over large areas, with little or no attention paid to conservation or sustainability. Until 1974, the control of forestry activities was the responsibility of a third level institutional attached to the Natural Resources Ministry. Concessions were given out to timber companies, in some cases foreign, with much timber exported in the round. In 1974 the Honduran Corporation for Forest Development (COHDEFOR) was established, and a new phase began in which the forests were nationalized and forest commercialization was carried out by the State. In 1992 the Law for the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector returned the forest resource to private owners and municipalities. In 2007, the Institute for Forest Conservation and Development, Protected Areas and Wildlife (ICF) was established, under the new Forestry Law of that year, which aimed to revive the SSF. Table 6. Use of Firewood in Honduran Households, According to the INE Permanent Household Survey (2007) Households % of rural or urban % of national total area Rural households that use firewood 657,967 82.3 42 Urban households that use firewood 184,692 23.25 11 Total households that use firewood 890,659 ------53 Total households 1,614,906

17. Forestry has been identified by the Government as one of four priority sectors in the country. Its development is provided for in the National Competitiveness Strategy, with the technical and financial support fom the Foundation for Investment and Export Development (FIDE). There are 191 primary forestry companies in the country, with an annual investment of US $150 million, an installed capacity of 1.5 million m³/year that processes an annual average of 840,000 m3 of round timber, producing an average of162 million board feet of timber per year. There are in addition other primary forestry industries producing veneer and plywood, with an average annual production of 3.7 million board feet and three resin processors with an average annual production over the last 5 years of 5.2 million pounds of colofonia, turpentine, pine oil and other sub-products (ICF 2008). 18. However, at least 50% of the timber produced in Honduras comes from only 10 large industries (5% of the total of registered forestry companies), which are also the principal exporters. The timber industry is

10

principally supplied by the timber lots offered under public auction by the State, in ejidal as well as private forests. The legal responsibility for implementing management plans is the forest owner, under Government supervision. Table 7. Volume of Round wood Used Annually per Forest Type, According to the Production and/or Conservation Zone (Thousands of m³) Production 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 and/ or Pine BL Total Pine BL Total Pine BL Total Pine BL Total Pine BL Total Conservation Zone Atlántida 0 9.0 9.0 0 3.2 3.2 0 6.9 6.9 0.7 7.3 8.0 9.5 2.9 12.4 Comayagua 45.8 0.2 46.0 45.8 0.1 45.9 58.0 0.2 58.2 66.2 1.7 67.9 51.9 0.5 52.4 El Paraíso 41.1 1.8 42.9 32.9 1.0 33.0 29.4 1.3 30.7 35.6 1.1 36.7 43.5 1.5 45.0 Fco. Morazán 251. 0 251. 208. 0 208. 285. 0 285. 243. 0.1 243. 191. 0.3 191. 0 0 8 8 8 8 6 7 6 9 La Moskitia 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.6 0.2 2.8 2.4 0.5 2.9 2.2 0.4 2.6 1.4 0.9 2.2 NE Olancho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 0.1 29.1 67.3 0.2 67.5 Northwest 30.3 3.8 34.1 33.4 3.6 37.0 24.4 3.3 27.7 22.9 2.8 25.7 24.8 3.4 28.2 West 10.6 0.2 10.8 6.8 0.1 6.9 12.6 1.1 13.7 19.7 0.8 20.5 18.5 1.0 19.5 Olancho 339. 1.0 340. 461. 0.1 461. 206. 0.9 307. 288. 1.3 289. 167. 0.2 167. 7 7 8 9 6 5 2 5 0 2 Pacific 6.7 0.4 7.1 6.0 0.5 6.5 5.9 0.8 6.7 6.5 0.8 7.3 7.4 0.8 8.2 Río Plátano 12.9 3.1 16.0 12.7 3.9 16.6 0 3.3 3.3 0 1.0 1.0 0 1.2 1.2 Yoro 157. 1.5 159. 109. 2.6 112. 127. 2.6 129. 86.3 3.6 89.9 63.2 2.6 65.8 8 3 4 0 1 7 Total 897. 22.0 919. 920. 15.3 935. 852. 20.9 873. 800. 21.0 821. 645. 15.6 661. 9 9 2 5 2 1 9 9 9 5

19. There are an estimated 1500 industries carrying out secondary transformation of timber, the largest 500 of which have an annual investment of $US 200 million. In general, this industry accounts for 15% of the volume of timber exported and more than 50% of the total value of forest exports. With the aim of technological modernization and improving competitiveness, the country has developed forestry clusters or conglomerates within the framework of the National Competitiveness Programme. In relation to the potential for adding value, ICF (2008) reports that of the total of sawn timber produced between 2002 and 2006, 60% was sold on the internal market and the remaining 40% for the production for export of finished forest products such as furniture and furniture pieces, boards and toothpicks. Around 76% of the transformed forest products, especially furniture, were exported to the USA, and the rest to Latin America and Europe. The main consumers of Honduran sawn timber are Caribbean countries (70%), USA (13%), Europe (10 %) and other countries (7 %).

Pine Forest Management 20. 9.8 million ha, or 87% of the national territory, is classified as being of forestry vocation17 . Of this 47% is under national tenure, 23% ejidal and 30% private. However, only 1.25 million ha of forest have management plans, of which 93% is pine forest and 7% broadleaved and mangrove, with an allowable annual cut of 2.41 million m³ (Table 8). 13.3% of round timber comes from ejidal forests, 33.3% from national forests and 53.45% from private forests.

17 The area that by its features of high slopes, shallow soils and low fertility is more suitable for growing trees for agriculture or livestock.

11

Table 8. Summary of Management Plans According to Area and Volume per Production Zone, 1993- 2008 Production and/ Number of Plans Area under Management (ha) Allowable Annual Cut (m3) or Conservation Ejid Private National Total Ejido Private National Total Ejido Private National Total Zone o Atlántida 0 5 40 45 0 2,525 33,169 35,693 0 178,462 50,566 229,027 Comayagua 33 117 23 173 94,312 48,703 41,521 184,537 84,185 113,889 45,727 243,801 El Paraíso 3 102 10 115 6,199 19,773 41,670 67,641 11,940 41,993 56,063 109,995 Fco. Morazán 37 288 1 326 52,226 100,287 342 152,855 100,912 281,101 1,689 383,702 La Moskitia 0 0 4 4 0 0 107,788 107,788 0 0 124,121 124,121 NE Olancho 0 106 1 107 0 12,433 354 12,786 0 37,711 1,170 38,880 Northwest 3 28 0 31 2,285 5,386 0 7,670 2,361 13,436 0 15,797 West 30 322 12 364 48,561 173,376 133,453 355,391 101,256 436,376 315,492 853,123 Olancho 2 21 6 29 2,088 8,094 171,758 181,940 5,337 26,578 159,034 190,950 Pacific 0 60 0 60 0 3,401 0 3,401 0 11,093 0 11,093 Río Plátano 0 0 8 8 0 0 43,448 43,448 0 0 8,453 8,453 Yoro 3 83 7 93 9,857 70,165 17,059 97,080 13,306 144,235 40,217 197,757 Total 111 1,132 112 1,355 215,527 444,142 590,562 1,250,23 319,297 1,284,87 802,530 2,406,669 1 2 Source: ICF 2008

Institutional Context 21. The lead Governmental institution in the forestry sector is the Institute of Forest Conservation and Development (ICF), which in 2008 replaced the AFE/COHDEFOR as State forest authority. The ICF, which is a dependency of the Ministry of the Presidency, is divided into directorates of forest management and forest conservation. Through the former, it is responsible for supporting and supervising forest management, and through the latter for the management of protected areas and the control and supervision of wildlife trade. It also is responsible for promoting the Social Forestry System, whereby community-based cooperatives are issued usufruct rights to carry out forest management on national forest lands, subject to the provisions of management plans approved by the ICF. ICF is also responsible for maintaining a registry of inalienable State forest land and for „regularizing‟ the tenure situation of forest lands (i.e. clarifying ownership and land use rights). On land which is not considered to be exclusively of forestry vocation, the National Agrarian Institute (INA) is responsible for issuing titles once occupancy and tenure rights have been clarified. The Property Institute (IP) is responsible for registering land titles. 22. The lead Governmental institution in the environmental sector is the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SERNA), which is also home to the GEF technical focal point and the CBD focal point. SERNA is responsible for formulating and implementing environmental policy and for the preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The Directorate of Environmental Management (DGA) of the SERNA is responsible for promoting territorial land use planning (a responsibility that is shared with the Ministry of Governance) and for supporting the environmental capacities of municipal governments, while the Directorate of Environmental Control is responsible for supervising environmental impact assessment procedures as provided for in the General Environment Law. 23. The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG) is the lead institution in the agriculture and livestock sector. The National Directorate for Sustainable Rural Development (DINADERS) is a dependency of the SAG (although it has a Director of ministerial rank), which executes rural development projects nationwide. The Ministry of Social Development is responsible for matters related to the national Poverty Reduction Strategy. 24. The Forestry Law of 2008 created the Forestry Research System (SINFOR) to develop and support forestry research, including that related to improvements in management practices. The Law also provides for the participation of municipal organisms and other organizations with capacity to carry out forest research. The roles assigned to SINFOR consist of the transfer of technology based on the results of forestry research, and the training of human resources in relation to protected areas, wildlife and forestry development. SINFOR is also

12

made responsible for generating scientific information on the status and condition of national ecosystems. The law stipulates that SINFOR is presided and coordinated by ESNACIFOR, with international organisms as observers.

Policy context 25. In 2007, prior to the creation of the new ICF (the successor institution to COHDEFOR), a national forest policy document was developed, which provides guidelines for the protection and economic development of forest resources and protected areas, the promotion, recovery and sustainable management of conifer forests; the integrated control of illegal harvesting and commerce of timber and wildlife; the integrated management of micro-catchments; the promotion of environmental conservation and national reforestation; the incorporation of community organizations in sustainable forest management, and the institutional modernization of the forest sector. This policy document has been adopted in practical terms by ICF but has not been made official by the Government. 26. The current policies for the forest sector refer to biodiversity within the context of protected areas, rather than explicitly. However, the new Forest Law recognizes that the rational and sustainable management of forests is of high priority and must be carried out in ways that are compatible with the conservation of ecosystems, biodiversity, genetic resources and the reduction of environmental and anthropic vulnerability. 27. The ICF, in its new position as Secretariat of State (Ministry) is entitled to formulate policies, although this opportunity has not been fully realized to date, given that the institution continues to be technically and financially weak. 28. Within this unofficial policy framework, the ICF has formulated a Strategic Plan for 2009-2011, which is based in addition on the guidelines established in the National Forestry. Protected Areas and Wildlife Programme (PRONAFOR). The targets proposed for 2010 and 2011 require to be aligned with those of the Country Vision for 2010-2038 and the National Plan for 2010-2022, recently approved by Congress and sanctioned by the Executive. The National Plan includes the goal of increasing to 80% the level of participation of renewable energy to the electricity generation sectors, an increase in the level of hydroelectric dams of 25%”, 1,000,000ha of forestry vocation lands under ecological and productive restoration, linked to the international market for carbon, and raising of the Global Climatic Risk Index to more than 50%. 29. The National Biodiversity Strategy (SERNA, 2001) sets out among its policy guidelines the conservation of biodiversity through the sustainable management of its components, and as a strategy proposes the establishment of technical and legal mechanisms aimed at achieving sustainable use in harmony with the practices and traditional knowledge of ethnic groups and local communities. The strategy proposes the use of biodiversity components and tourism attractions, the consideration of the carrying capacity of ecosystems, and the development of projects aimed at sustainable agroforestry and ranching practices. 30. The strategic guidelines related to technology generation and transfer consider the issues of research and training, including the promotion and dissemination of scientific research for the generation of knowledge and conservation of biodiversity.

Legal Context 31. The Forestry Law of 2007 aims to stimulate forestry activity, particularly by community-based forestry cooperatives on national lands, under the Social Forestry System (which was first established in 1974 and has been re-launched under the new law). This law also raised the status of forestry from a sub-sector (of the agricultural, forestry, fisheries and hunting sector) to a sector in its own right, and created the Institute of Forest Conservation and Development (ICF) as successor to COHDEFOR. The process of drafting the law regulations has been participatory, but after more than a year it has not yet been approved by the executive.

13

32. If there are no existing occupants with competing claims, the Forest Law allows the ICF to enter into usufruct contracts18 with community-based peasant forestry cooperatives formed under the Social Forestry System, allowing them to carry our forest management subject to the provisions of ICF-approved forest management plans. Such plans are typically defined for the length of a silvicultural rotation period, and include more detailed 5-yearly plans and annual plans of operations. Landowners are responsible for funding the preparation of management plans, however when the ICF enters into usufruct contracts with cooperatives on national land, the cooperatives assume this responsibility. Through ministerial resolution, the ICF currently limits peasant cooperatives to an annual extraction volume of 200m3 of timber from broadleaf species per year, or 1,000m3 of pine timber: in reflection of the policy reflected in the new Forest Law to promote the Social Forestry System, this is expected to be increased in the near future to 400m3 and 1,500m3 respectively. 33. Table 9 summarizes the main actors involved in the process of preparation and review of forest management plans.

Table 9. Summary of the Role Played by the Stakeholders in Preparing and Reviewing the Forest Management Plans Main Stakeholders Roles ICF  Prepares the guide, or Terms of Reference, prepares the draft (or contracts consultant)  Leads the socialization and approval process  Trains the stakeholders  Applies the instruments Justice Operator Organisms:  Review and give opinion on the draft  Environmental Prosecutor, and  Enforce the law in their field of specialization  Environmental Attorney Other stakeholders  Review and give opinion on the draft  SERNA  They observe the instrument to which they correspond  SAG  INA  NGOs  Private Sector  Municipalities  Forestry Consultative Councils  Associations of Forestry Professionals

34. The participation of actors related to the forestry sector, protected areas and wildlife in the formulation of the Forestry Law resulted in it including provisions for biodiversity conservation, such as leaving hollow trees standing as nesting sites for birds, and the use of directed felling to minimize damage to remnant vegetation. This last provision is particularly important in the case of pine/oak forests given that harvesting typically focuses exclusively on the pine component and leaves the oak component. According to the Forest Law, management and operational plans should take into account techniques for reduced impact logging, the protection of fauna and wildlife, forest protection, impact mitigation, forest regeneration, and corresponding activities of technical evaluation and monitoring. Management plans provided for under the Law normally include specific provisions for no-take zones, normally in order to protect hydrological processes by preventing the disturbance of areas with fragile soils, steep slopes or in proximity to water courses. On national lands, the Government can enter into usufruct agreements with cooperatives allowing them to carry out forest management, or can auction lots of standing timber.

18 These replace the usufruct agreements provided for in the previous forestry legislation, and have more legal weight and longer duration.

14

35. Specifically, the Law includes seven articles related to BD. It establishes the need to protect BD, water and soils, for the maintenance of forest ecosystems. Additionally, it emphasizes the presence of BD in biological corridors and considers that the protection and conservation of BD are part of the environmental services provided by forests to society. The Law also requires the ICF to carry out an inventory of BD as part of its register of Inalienable Public Forest Land. 36. The Forest Law also makes provisions for the Sub-Directorate of Protected Areas and Wildlife and orders the ICF to coordinate and execute policies for the protection and promotion of BD. Regarding biological corridors, it instructs the ICF to take into account BD in the planning and use of ecosystems and natural resources, in accordance with principles of sustainability. Finally, the Law delegates responsibility for forest and related research to the Forest Research System (SINFOR). 37. The 1992 Law for the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector (LMDSA) entitled the National Agrarian Institute (INA) to provide land titles on public land and land with undefined tenure. Such titling was prohibited, however, on land that is under forest cover or considered to be of exclusively forestry vocation (by virtue of slope and soil characteristics), which is considered by default to be public. This situation is upheld by the 2007 Forestry Law (however the Property Law of 2004 does allow the titling of small areas). The ICF is responsible for investigating and delimiting the limits of such State forest land and for maintaining a catalogue of inalienable Public Forest Land, and the Property Institute is responsible for maintaining a Special Register of State Property in which State land is inscribed once its title is formalized. 38. In practice, the legislative situation with regards to land titling in forest lands is subject to varying interpretations, regarding whether the prohibition of titling applies only to forested land, or also to non-forested land which by virtue of its physical characteristics is considered to be of exclusively forestry vocation; and whether land is truly free from competing claims and therefore eligible for titling or usufruct contracts. The form of titling provided for in the current legislation is individual in nature, which indigenous groups consider to be incompatible with their traditions of communal tenure. 39. The Law for Territorial Land Use Planning specifies that territorial land use planning is a State policy that promotes the integrated and strategic management of all natural resources through the application of effective policies, strategies and plans that promote dynamic, homogenous, equitable and sustainable human development. One of the cornerstones of the law is the concept of sustainable development, that provides for environmental conservation.

Protected Areas 40. The General Environment Law and its Regulations provide for the categories of protected areas shown in Table 10. Table 10. Protected Area Categories in Honduras SINAPH Category IUCN equivalent National Park II Natural Monument III Wildlife Refuge I Cultural Monument Water Production Zone (I) Biological Reserve I Anthropological Reserve V Forestry Reserve (I) Botanical Garden (I) Ecological Reserve Zone (I) Habitat Management Area IV

15

Marine Reserve I Multiple Use Area VI Biosphere Reserve VI Source: Informe Nacional Estado de Las Áreas Protegidas de Honduras (2006)

Table 11. Protected Areas and Planning Units in Olancho, within the Pine-Oak Ecoregion Area/Unit Area (ha) Sierra de Agalta National Park 73,923.8 La Muralla Wildlife Refuge 24,626.5 El Armado Wildlife Refuge 3,572.1 Water Production Zones 88,220.+ Private Reserves 207.0 TOTAL 190,549.4+ Prepared based on information available.

The Pine Oak Ecoregion 41. The pine-oak ecoregion, which covers a total area in Mesoamerica of around 111,400 km2 and is classified by WWF as “Critical/Endangered”, is part of the “Tropical and Subtropical Conifer Forests Biome”; given the similarity of the ecological requirements of pine and oak, the two forest types occupy very similar niches and often make up intricate mosaics with complex successional relations. The dominant species are those in the genera Pinus and Quercus, and represent the southernmost limit of boreal floristic influence in the New World. In Honduras the ecoregion is dominated by three pine species: Pinus caribaea, mainly on hills in the north of the country; P. oocarpa, between 700 and 1.400m, either pure or in mixture with diverse Quercus spp; and Pinus oocarpa and P. pseudostrobus between 1,500 and 1,900 m, together with Liquidambar styraciflua and Quercus spp. 42. Table 12 shows the level of ecological integrity of the 6 regions identified by the Nature Conservancy in the Honduran portion of the pine-oak ecoregion.

Table 12. Ecological Integrity Condition of Honduran Regions in the Pine-Oak Eco-regions Selected for Evaluating the Land Systems, According to the TNC (2008)

Region Size Context Condition Integrity Comayagua Poor Good Good Regular Olancho Very Good Very Good Good Very Good Higuito-Jicatuyo Poor Good Very Good Regular Balfate-Limón Regular Good Good Good Montaña Verde- Poor Good Very Good Regular Otoro Choluteca Poor Good Good Regular

16

Map 2. Current situation of the pine-oak ecoregion, by condition of ecological integrity (TNC, 2009)19 (dark green = very good, light green = good, orange = regular, red = poor)

Main area of project focus (northeast Olancho)

43. In Honduras, the ecoregion corresponds to mixed forests of the lower montane altitudinal stratum and the upper stratum of the evergreen tropical forests, at altitudes of between 1000 and 2300 m. In its northern part, the ecoregion forms part of the Central American Atlantic moist forests and montane forests. In the south it is located between montane and dry forests20. In Honduras the ecoregion covers approximately 4.5 million ha, including 12 of the country‟s 70 ecosystems21. The ecoregion occurs naturally in 17 of the country‟s 18 departments. Its largest extensions occur in Olancho and Yoro Departments. 116 sites with potential for the conservation of the golden- cheeked warbler have been identified, covering a total area of 486,262.36 ha, with an average area per site of 4.2 ha. 44. The ecoregion includes ecosystems such as mixed lower and upper montane tropical evergreen forest, mixed seasonal and lower montane, submontane and upper montane evergreen forest, and seasonal tropical evergreen pine forest22. Global importance

19 Ecoregional Assessment of the Terrestrial Systems from Chiapas to Panama. Regional Science Program, Region of Mesoamerica and the Caribbean (The Nature Conservancy, San Jose, Costa Rica. 600 pp.). 20 Presentation "Pine and Oak in Honduras", House, 2008. 21 House (op.cit.). 22 T. Mejia & P. House, 2002. Reference Manual of the Map of Vegetation Ecosystems in Honduras. PARA Project, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.

17

45. The global significance of this ecoregion stems from its high levels of biodiversity (BD) and endemism, and its importance as a migration route for neotropical migrant birds such as the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), which is classed in the IUCN Red List as “Endangered”. The North Central American Highlands Endemic Bird Area, of which the pine-oak forests of Honduras form a part, contains 20 extant restricted range species23. The most outstanding characteristic of the pine-oak forests is the richness of the genus Pinus: Honduras has a total of 9 pine species, most of which are confined to this ecoregion. In Honduras this forest type, including both pine and mixed forest, covers 21,563 km2, equivalent to around 46% of the forested area of the country. 46. 853 species of terrestrial vertebrates have been found in the ecoregion, which makes it the fourth richest ecoregion in fauna in Mesoamerica. These include mammals such as the “cacomiztle” (Bassariscus sumichrasti) and the bats Molossus aztecus, Macrotus waterhousii, Glossophaga leachii, Hylonycteris underwoodi, Carollia subrufa, Dermanura aztec, which are restricted range species. It also includes endangered species such as the jaguar (Panthera onca), puma (Puma concolor), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), tapir (Tapirus bairdii), “grisón” or “tejón” (Galictis vittata), “tayra” or “tolomuco” (Eira barbara), the spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) and the howler monkey (Alouatta palliata). 47. 107 amphibian, 194 reptile and 349 bird species have been found, of which 27, 33 and 19 species respectively are endemic. The ecoregion is of particular importance for migratory birds, particularly as a wintering habitat for the goleen-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the Chiapas tanager (Tangar cabanisi). In addition, it contains restricted range bird species such as the Santa Bárbara owl (Otus barbarus), the black crowned jilguero (Carduelis atriceps), the ocellated quail (Cyrtonyx ocellatus), the Guatemalan cárabo (Strix fulvescens), and the black-breasted jay (Cyanocorax melanocyaneus). 48. Lichens and mosses are common, but vascular epiphytes are scarce, probable due to toxicity from the pine and oak trees; however in Chiapas at least 720 species have been found. The Chiapas Range includes endemic flora such as Alfaroa aff. mexicana, Ficus crassicuscula, Anthurium ovandensis, Zamia soconuscensis, Ceratozamia matudai and Quercus ovandensis. Priority species for conservation 49. The oak species Q. gracilor is endemic to the Mesoamerican region and has only been reported in Honduras and Nicaragua24. The pine oak forests include pure oak forests with a range of epiphytes such as orchids, including Rhyncholaelia digbiana that ocurrs in pure forests of Q. oleoides. There are in addition virtually pure forests of Q. segoviensis and Q. sapotefolia. Q. bumelioides is CITES listed and classified as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List. 50. The CITES list published by the national forestry authority25, includes Abies guatemalensis in Appendix I, which shares habitat with Quercus species above 1900m. The orchid family is included in Appendix II. The List of Species of Special Concern published by SERNA in 2008 includes 3 species of Quercus (Q. bumelioides, Q. purulhana and Q. skinneri) described as vulnerable and under decline, as are Abies guatemalensis and Pinus tecunumanii. 51. The frog Isthmohyla melacaena was reported as a new species to science in 200526. The snake Tantilia lempira is limited to this habitat type. It is estimated that 24% of the amphibian species found in Honduras are found in pine/oak forests, including 3 endemic salamanders (Bolitoglossa penanti, B. diaphora and Cryptotriton nasalis), and the frog I. insolita27. B. decora, Nototriton lignícola and B. longisima have all been recorded in Olancho. Two frog species (Plectrohyla guatemalensis and Leptodactylus silvanimbus) are reported to be in decline and two are reported to be extinct (Craugastor anciano and C. emleni). Given the limited studies that have been carried out in this ecoregion, it is likely that endemism levels are actually far higher than indicated by

23 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/search/ebas_search.html?action=EbaHTMDetails.asp&sid=14&m=0 24 The Nature Conservancy, 2009. Preliminary report of current status and management of pine-oak forests in Honduras. 25 AFE-COHDEFOR, 2007. List of CITES species in Hondura. 26 James R. McRaine y F. Castañeda, 2005. The herpetofauna of Parque Nacional Pico Bonito, Honduras. Phyllomedusa 4(1):3-16. 27 Según se deriva del trabajo de Wilson y Townsend (op.cit.)

18

existing data28. The List of Species of Special Concern includes the salamander Oedipina ígnea as a species with very reduced populations (Category IV). The frogs Plectrohyla guatemalensis, Leptodactylus silvanimbus and Hypopacus barberi are also included, as these are considered to be endemics with reduced population levels, as are the lizards Celestus bivittatus, C. scansorius, Phylodactilus tuberculosus, Coritophanes percarinatus and Anolis sminthus. The frog genus Craugastor is considered one of the most threatened, of which G. olanchanas and G. epochthidius occur in Olancho. 52. The golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) is one of the highest profile species in the ecoregion, given its limited range and globally threatened status. Two monitoring studies of the species have found 18 individuals in 2008 and 21 in 2009. At least 38 bird species occur in the pine-oak habitat where D. chrysoparia occurs 53. Four shrew species (Cryptotis gracilis, C. hondurensis, C. nigrescens and C. parva) are included in the List of Species of Special Concerní, and all have reduced population levels, as do the cacomiztle (Bassarycion gabii), the ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus sumichrasti), the “cadejo” (Eira barbara), the “comadreja” (Mustela frenata) and the puma (Puma concolor). The puma and the collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) are included in CITES Appendix II, while the porcupine (Sphiggurus mexicanus), the tepescuintle (Agouti paca), the “guatuza” (Dasyprocta punctata), the mico de noche (Potos flavus) and the pizote (Nassua narica) are included in Appendix III. 54. Ecosystem gap analyses have revealed that at leat 2 ecosystem types, submontane pines in general and submontane pines specific to Olancho, as well as 5 pine forest sites, are absent from the national protected areas system.

Threats and Root Causes 55. The main threats to this ecoregion arise within the forestry sector. P. oocarpa forests are the mainstay of the country‟s forestry industry; although they are capable of being managed sustainably for timber in a manner that is compatible with BD conservation, large areas are subject to inadequate methods of harvesting, timber extraction and silviculture. Table 13 shows the main forms of threat that affect different parts of the ecoregion throughout Mesoamerica. The overall threat level in Honduras is classified as High, and the two most significant threats are forest fires and illegal timber harvesting. Table 13. Most Significant Threats to the Pine-Oak Forest in the Region29 Threats Chiapas Guatemala El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Global hierarchical value of threat Forestry practices High Medium High Medium High High Forest fires High High Medium High Medium High Advance of agricultural and Medium High Medium Medium High High ranching frontier Extraction of firewood and High High Medium Medium Medium High roundwood Illegal timber harvesting Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Forest pests Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium Housing and infrastructure Medium Medium - - - Medium Product extraction Medium Low - - - Low Open-cast mining Low - - - - Low Threat status for High High Medium High High High conservation objects and site

28 Presentation by Castañeda (op.cit.). 29 Conservation Plans for the Pine-Oak Forest is Central America and the Dendroica chrysoparia Migratory Bird; Foundation for the Defense of Nature – Technical Series 5. Guatemala 2008.

19

56. The national deforestation rate is estimated at 85,000 ha/year: in addition, forest fires affect around 65,000 ha/year. The deforestation rate in Olancho is between 0.9 and 1.1%/year. 57. Poor forest management, combined with limited levels of environmental awareness and limited compliance with environmental legislation, are also connected to other environmental problems such as poor air quality, soil erosion and water contamination. In Honduras, soil erosion rates are estimated at 20- 40 t/ha/year.

1) Timber harvesting 58. Although timber harvesting in the pine-oak ecoregion can be carried out in a perfectly sustainable manner, with minimum impact on biodiversity, at present it constitutes one of the major threats to the ecoregion, especially when carried out illegally.. 59. The impacts of timber harvesting can be both intra- and interspecific in nature. In the first case, inadequately applied silvicultural operations such as the removal and poor selection of seed trees, the failure to protect and promote natural regeneration, the compaction of soil during harvesting operations and the extraction of more than the silviculturally permissible annual yield, lead to progressive thinning out of the forest canopy, reduction in the genotypic quality of the remaining trees, and in some cases eventual complete forest loss. Degradation in this way of the growing stock of commercial species such as P. oocarpa also reduces the benefits that it is able to generate for forest stakeholders, thereby tending to increase its rate of conversion to other more profitable land uses such as ranching and the production of staple grains or vegetables, and reducing local people‟s motivations to participate in its protection against threats such as illegal logging and fire. 60. Even when sustainable in silvicultural terms, timber harvesting also has the tendency to modify the vertical structure of the canopy, its plant species composition and the temperature, light and humidity regimes under the forest canopy. These changes reduce the habitat value of the forest for mammal, bird and plant species that are sensitive to disturbance and changes in light and moisture regimes. The elimination of the understorey of broadleaved species in the course of forestry operations, whether intentionally, with the aim of preferentially promoting the regeneration of the commercial pine component of the ecosystem, or unintentionally, in the course of dragging logs through the forest during harvesting operations, reduces its habitat for rodents and herpetofauna, such as the globally rare shrews and salamanders mentioned in the previous section. The tendency, in silvicultural operations, to favour the regeneration of commercially valuable species such as pine and to suppress less valuable species such as oak, reduces the habitat value of the ecosystem for some species: the globally rare migrant warbler D. chrysoparia ideally requires a balance of pine and oak (in proportions of around 70%:30%) rather than pure pine. Two surveys carried out in 2008 concluded that the main threats to the habitat of this species were timber harvesting, ranching, agriculture and to a lesser degree firewood extraction, infastructural development, fires and pests30. Felines such as the puma (Puma concolor) also prosper best in diverse rather than monospecific landscapes. Harvesting operations also commonly lead to the elimination of trees used by bird groups such as woodpeckers for nesting, particularly overmature and decaying trees which also provide important habitats for insects which are of biodiversity value in their own right and also as food sources for birds. Damage to riparian vegetation during harvesting operations, meanwhile, reduces ecosystem connectivity, given that these riparian strips are commonly used as corridors for mammals such as felines. 61. Inappropriate silvicultural practices, such as the opening of large canopy gaps, also lead to outbreaks of pests such as the southern pine beetle Dendroctonus frontalis, which have required the application of drastic sanitary measures involving the elimination of overmature and dead trees that are important nesting sites for birds, as well as providing habitats for epiphytes and other insects. These forms of non-BD friendly forest management

30 Moreno, M. and Marvin M. 2008. Setting priorities for the winter habitat conservation of Dendroica Chrysoparia in Honduras. The Nature Conservancy / Honduras Nicaragua Program, U.S. Forest Service, Alliance for Pine Oak Forest Conservation in Mesoamerica.

20

are carried out largely by private companies, driven by the high demand for timber and the limited supervisory capacities of forestry authorities. 62. Access and timber extraction routes are commonly constructed to a poor standard, due largely to the short term vision of most forest users and managers (a situation discussed in the barriers section below). Design deficiencies include the use of excessive gradients, inadequate provision for road drainage and the fording rather than bridging of streams. These practices lead to high levels of soil erosion and increased sediment loads in forest streams, which has negative impacts on aquatic biodiversity: for example, reproduction of the rare salamander Isthmohyla insolita is affected given that this species requires crystalline water in which to deposit its young.

2) Forest fires 63. The whole of the ecoregion is subject to repeated wildfires: in Honduras, the ecoregion is the where most wildfires have been reported. Table 14 shows that the Department of Olancho, where project activities will be focused, has shown the greatest frequency of fires between 1997 and 2008 of all of the forest conservation and production zones in the country: in 2008, 22,077 ha were affected by wildfires in Olancho and, specifically, 7,602 ha in north-eastern Olancho (0). Table 14. Forest Fires Attended Annually, per Conservation and/or Production Zones (1997 – 2008) (ha)

*PROM AQ/INC = Average area burnt per fire (ha)

21

Table 15. Forest Fires Attended and Affected Area Reported, per Land Tenure According to Conservation and/or Production Zone (2008)

64. The number of forest fires combated has not declined markedly over the years, but the average area per fire has (from 99.1 to 39.6ha). The greatest number of fires occurs in private lands, but the average area per fire is greatest in national lands. Most heat events detected by satellite (see Map 3) occur in the north and north-east of Olancho. March, April and May are the months with greatest frequency of fires.

22

Map 3. Fires in the period 2001-2006 in the pine-oak ecoregion (source: TNC)

65. P. oocarpa is to a certain degree fire tolerant and the persistence of the ecosystem as a whole is dependent on the occurrence of periodic fires, without which it is likely that the species composition would change and become increasingly dominated by broadleaved species. Fires repeated at excessively short intervals, however, do not permit natural regeneration to become established, leading to a simplification of the species composition and vertical structure of the forest and associated loss of habitat value, and an eventual thinning out of canopy cover. 66. Uncontrolled fires occurring after excessively long intervals can cause major mortality of adult trees due to the heat generated by the accumulated undergrowth, causing wholesale loss of forest cover and in particular the loss of overmature and dead trees that are important nesting and habitat sites. Most fires probably originate from agriculture and pasture areas, where they are used to clear fallows and eliminate cattle ticks, though others originate from the careless burning of rubbish and in some cases arson. 67. Many of the impacts caused by fire are similar to those caused by silvicultural and harvesting operations, as described above, namely the elimination of understorey vegetation and leaf litter, which reduces the habitat value of the forest for rodents and herpetofauna (including a number of globally rare and threatened species, as described above), the loss of gallery and other riparian forest and the mortality of overmature trees that providing bird nesting sites and insect habitat. Fires also lead to the displacement of fauna, such as jaguars, pumas and coyotes, which, although it may be temporary, can expose them to additional threats such as hunting, and disturb their feeding and reproductive patterns.

23

68. ESNACIFOR carried out a study of the effects of fire on vegetation in 36 plots31. The results showed that sites with lower incidence of fires tended to have high numbers of species and individuals. 69. Table 16 summarizes the positive and negative impacts typically caused by forest fires, and summarizes impacts on specific groups of fauna. Table 16. Positive and Negative Effects Caused by Forest Fires Effects Component Positive Negative  Increase in pH, phosphorous, potassium,  Loss of P, K, Ca, Mg and N, but in high calcium, magnesium and symbiotic and non concentration either by filtering or trawling. symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Death of fungus and bacteria Soil  Alteration of micro organism populations  Loss of seed banks  Sterilization to favor plant growth  Loss of the cation exchange capacity  Erosion depends on the type of soil, the slope and intensity of the fire.  Loss of P, K, Ca, Mg and N, but in high  Extinction of species concentration either by filtering or trawling.  Reduces the population of a species Death of fungus and bacteria  Development of an undesired secondary Vegetation  Loss of seed banks forest  Loss of the cation exchange capacity  Invasion of persistent weeds  Regulates the development of harmful species.  Loss of seed trees  Interruption of the vegetable succession.  Favors new habitat conditions  Death of some wild animals  Favors the amount of browsing matter  Elimination of damage to nesting sites,  Colonization of herbivores including hollow trees  Opening new ecological niches.  Elimination of feeding and breeding grounds  The displaces animals can provoke certain Fauna reproductive or other types of tension in the existing animal populations in the unburned forest  Elimination of rare and endemic species  Displacement of herbivores can cause dependency on agricultural crops for food.

Box 1. Typical impact of forest fires, per fauna group • Invertebrates: After a fire, a significant reduction of the insect population can be observed. • Amphibians and reptiles: There are no immediate significant results given their capacity to seek refuge. But through time there is a population diminishment due to the lack of food. • Fish: Fires produce indirect effects on fish since there is an increase in the amount of deposits in the water and the subsequent contamination. • Birds: The richness of the species diminishes in the short term (the first 2 years); then there is an increase when the vegetation is recovered. The broad food web or trophic spectrum species are maintained. • Micro-mammals: these depend on the type of food and habitat; the omnivore species are not affected since they change diet according to availability. Later, and with the development of the herbaceous vegetation, there is the appearance of species that consume it but they disappear when the woody species appear. The insectivore micro- mammals are affected due to the reduction of the insect population • Big herbivores: depend on the structure that results after the fire; if spots of vegetation are produced then positive effects are generated because they use the burnt areas where herbaceous make their appearance and become food, and the unburned areas become resting zones.

31 Ávila, Z. 2008. Diversidad de especies de flora emergentes después de diferentes periodos de incendios en bosque de coníferas. Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Forestales. Proyecto Fortalecimiento de la Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Forestales (ESNACIFOR) en el manejo y conservación de los bosques de pino-encino. The Nature Conservancy.

24

70. Table 17 shows that the cause of most fires is classified by ICF as criminal (which may include accidental fires caused, for example, by burning of domestic wastes), followed by pasture burning (to reduce parasite incidence and rejuvenate grass) and agricultural burning (to eliminate fallow vegetation prior to sowing). Table 17. Number of Forest Fires Attended Annually, Average Land Area Affected, for All Types of Forest in Honduras (1997 - 200832)33 Year Number of Average Criminal Ranching Agriculture Night Others fires area/fire % % walkers (ha) 1997 1,850 99.1 54 16 10 4 16 1998 2,260 42.7 59 9 9 4 19 1999 1,418 28.2 55 13 10 4 18 2000 1,920 28.6 54 17 12 5 12 2001 2,336 35.2 57 13 12 4 14 2002 2,152 29.5 62 13 11 3 11 2003 1,316 43.1 60 11 11 2 16 2004 542 15.5 57 13 11 4 15 2005 1,479 105.6 58 12 12 3 15 2006 1,922 31.2 40 18 20 4 18 2007 1,692 37.8 49 16 13 2 20 2008 1,655 39.6 50 11.5 16.2 2.1 20.2 Average 1,712 45 55 14 12 3 16

3) Conversion of forests to other uses 71. Large areas of forest are being lost through conversion to other land uses, principally pasture, staple grains and vegetables. Pine and mixed forests suffered a 28% loss of area over the 10 years up to 2006, equal to an annual loss of 85,546ha. This conversion is motivated by the high demand for beef and the convenience of ranching as a source of income and capital accumulation; demand for staple grains among the growing population, and demand for vegetables, largely in areas within relatively easy reach of cities. This forest loss constitutes a significant global impact in its own right as it reduces the overall area of this globally important ecoregion: in addition, it affects the conservation status of species which are dependent on pine-oak forests as habitat, such as the flying squirrel Glaucomys volans, for which the pine forests of Honduras constitute the southern extremity of its natural distribution, and the hawk Accipiter bicolor, which only nests in P. oocarpa forests. 4) Firewood extraction 72. Quercus is highly valued as firewood, both for domestic and commercial use, for example in restaurants and in rural bakeries. 73. Harvesting of firewood is typically carried out by a limited number of members of rural communities, who then sell the firewood either directly to the end users (restaurants and bakeries) or to intermediaries. As in the case of the extraction of pine timber, the extraction of oak firewood can in theory be carried out in a sustainable manner without significant impacts on biodiversity: however when carried at intensities that exceed the regenerative capacity of the resource in specific locations it can lead to changes in species composition and a progressive thinning out of the vegetation, reducing its habitat value for species such as D. chrysoparia which, as

32 (a) The statistics are for all types of forest and are differentiated. AQ = Total burned area; INC = total of fires or frequency; (b) Night Walker is a person that goes from one community to another during the night and uses a torch to light the way; fires can be started sporadically because of a spark or because the nightwalker throws it on the ground while it is still lit; differentiated from criminal hand because the latter provoke the fires on purpose. 33 A night Walker is a person in the rural area that travels from one house to another at night or from one community to another and who uses a torch instead of a flashlight, and sparks fall from the torch and a fire is generated.

25

explained above, depend on the existence of a significant proportion of oak forests in the landscape. ICF considers that firewood collectors are responsible for 16% of forest fires. 74. Reliable data on firewood extraction levels are scarce: at national level, it has been estimated that 90% of the wood cut is for firewood, but there is no reliable basis for this estimate, nor are there reliable assessments of the proportion of the firewood that is harvested in sustainable or unsustainable manners. A study carried out in the west of the country suggests that the impacts of firewood collection on forest cover are limited by the Fac. that around 62% is collected from tree branches, 25% from dead trees and only 13% from live standing trees34; in addition, of the 33 species reported as being used, only 3 were reported as under particular pressure, representing 36% of the total consumption. 75. Table 18 presents estimates of the volumes of firewood and charcoal harvested from forests by production and conservation zone in Honduras. Although these data are probably unreliable and incomplete, it appears that the extraction of firewood and the production of charcoal are principally concentrated around the capital Tegucigalpa (which lies in the Department of Francisco Morazán) and that these phenomena are of relatively limited significance in the Department of Olancho. 76. Official firewood statistics in Honduras do not take into account domestic consumption, which accounts for the greatest volumes. The ICF only reports a few permits for comercial firewood harvesting. In 2008 ICF only reported around 85,00035 firewood loads in the whole country (11,000 m³) and there were 5 production zones where no firewood consumption was reported at all. FAO reports that in 2006 wood energy extraction was 8.7 million m³, versus 811,000m³ of round timber for industry. INE, however, estimates that 890,000 households use fuelwood, which, assuming an annuual consumption of 13.52 m³/family36 with tradicional stoves, and 10.14m³ with improved stoves, is equivalent to a total consumption of between 9.02 and 12.03 million m³/year. Table 18. Reported Use of Forest Sub-Products, According to Production and/or Conservation Zone (2008) Production and/or Firewood (loads*) Pine charcoal Conservation Zone Pine Broadleaf Total (sacks) Atlántida 0 1,810 Comayagua 1,358 2,422 3,780 200 El Paraíso 1,490 756 2,246 Fco. Morazán 40,922 14,031 54,953 55,060 La Moskitia NE Olancho Northwest 20 1,071 1,091 West 13,320 1,706 14,936 Olancho 100 5 105 Pacific 8,503 8,503 Río Plátano Yoro 7,481 Total 57,120 28,494 85,614 64,551 *1 load = 60 pieces of firewood = 0.13m3

5) Collection of non-timber forest products 77. A number of non-timber products have been subject to exploitation to date; as with timber and firewood, explained above, most of these products are in theory able to be exploited in a sustainable manner, but in practice

34 Benítez, R.F. (sin año). Anexo VII. Diagnóstico sobre uso racional y sostenible de la leña. Parte del Estudio “Diagnóstico energético nacional: uso sostenible de la leña como un insumo a la política nacional, integral y sostenible de energías renovables y de eficiencia energética para promover el crecimiento económico, reducción de la pobreza y el desarrollo sostenible de Honduras”. 35 El Anuario Estadístico Forestal del ICF (2008) reporta 85,614 cargas de leña (200 unidades) vendidas en todo el país pero diferencia por especies. 36 FHIA 2007.Construyamos la estufa ahorradora de lena.32 pp.

26

the extraction of excessive quantities, in excess of the regenerative capacity of the resource, or the use of damaging extraction techniques, can lead to degradation of the populations of the species in question. 78. P. oocarpa resin has for long been extracted for the production of turpentine. This activity gained particular importance during the 1970s and 1980s, when it was carried out by campesino cooperatives under the provisions of the Social Forestry System. At that time it appeared to have major potential to generate income for local communities and at the same time to motivate their participation in the protection of the forest against conversion and wildfires. When carried out using correct extraction methods, involving careful scoring of the bark in a chevron pattern, this practice has limited or no impact on tree health; when inadequately supervised, however, a common practice was to slash large blazes in the tree bark, permitting infection by fungi and insects and leading in to severe weakening of the tree and in some cases eventually lead it to die or to fall. 79. The collection of the bromeliad Tillandsia uesnoides (Spanish moss) for sale as Christmas decorations can in some cases lead to localized population decline. While this species is not in itself globally rare or threatened, this can have local impacts on ecosystem functions and services, given that the plant plays an important role in capturing mist-borne water and is also used by a number of bird species as a nesting material.

Long-term solution

80. The long term solution to the threats described above would involve the owners and managers of pine/ oak forests having access to, and ability to implement, management prescriptions that are viable in productive, economic and biological terms and at the same time maintain or increase levels of biodiversity.

Barriers

1. Forest managers and owners do not have access to management prescriptions and instruments that provide for the incorporation of BD considerations in management planning 81. Norms for forest management in Honduras have been subject to intensive processes of discussion and modification over recent years. Although they make general provision for biodiversity considerations to be taken into account in forest management, in practice the norms and consequently the forest management plans provided for under the Forestry Law focus mainly on silvicultural aspects such as standing volumes, class sizes, growth rates and regeneration rates, and make little specific reference to biodiversity conservation. As a result, little importance is accorded, for example, to maintaining over-mature trees, which are typically important nesting sites and food sources for birds such as woodpeckers, or to maintaining a diverse understorey, which provides shelter for reptiles and small rodents such as shrews. The legislation does provide for set-asides, but these normally have the objective of protecting water sources and preventing soil erosion, rather than conserving biodiversity directly. 82. This failure to take the biodiversity of the pine-oak ecoregion into account has a number of causes. In general, the interests and capacities of foresters in Honduras tend to focus principally on silvicultural and productive considerations, which in turn is a function of the curricular content of the forester training schools in the country (particularly the National School for Forest Sciences ESNACIFOR and the North Coast Autonomous University CURLA) and much of the rest of the region. There is in addition limited information available on the forest ecology of this ecoregion to guide foresters, regarding for example the implications of different forest management regimes for the status of its biodiversity. What knowledge does exist is largely focused on the management of pure stands of mainly P. oocarpa, and there is little experience of, or interest in, the management of the broadleaved (oak) component of the ecoregion. 83. Forests in the ecoregion produce a number of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), such as pine resin, orchids and bromeliads (for example the Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides, which is sold for Christmas decorations). These have the potential, in theory, to be exploited in a sustainable manner and thereby to contribute to the valuation of the forest by local people, resulting in increased motivation on their part to conserve it; in

27

practice, there is limited knowledge among either foresters or community members regarding how to manage such NTFPs in a sustainable manner, and the maximum levels of extraction that are possible without affecting the long term regenerative capacity of the growing stock. 84. These limitations are compounded by the fact that there is at present limited receptivity among forest stakeholders at institutional and local levels to taking additional factors, such as biodiversity conservation, into account in forest management planning. Forest owners and users already have concerns regarding the complexity, duration and cost of the procedures through which they have to pass in order to have forest management operations legally approved, and there is a perceived risk that the incorporation of biodiversity considerations would make the procedures even slower and more costly. 85. At institutional level, forestry institutions such as ICF lack effective mechanisms for incorporating emerging information, for example regarding biodiversity, into planning and decision-making; the 2007 Forestry Law formally established a Forestry Research System (SINFOR), but this has yet to generate significant impacts in practice. The mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into the production and review of management plans is further hindered by the institutional dichotomy that exists within the ICF between the Forest Management Directorate, which is responsible for approving and supervising forest management plans, and the Protected Areas and Wildlife Directorate, which focuses principally on the preparation of management plans for PAs and has little incidence in management plans for production forests. There is a recent legal provision that requires biologists (as well as watershed management experts and sociologists) to be involved in the preparation of forest management plans, but the practical arrangements for this to be put into practice are yet to be resolved. Furthermore, there is a long standing institutional distance between the ICF and the SERNA, which is the lead institution in the environment sector. 86. A further shortcoming of the current system is that management plans are developed on a site-specific basis. This means that region-wide implications of forest management for biodiversity fail to be taken into account, and opportunities are not taken for maximizing region-wide benefits. This shortcoming is particularly important for migratory species, such as nearctic warblers, or resident species which habitually range widely throughout the landscape, such as felines, for which landscape-wide habitat diversity and connectivity are of importance. 2. Forest owners, managers and users have limited capacities for undertaking sustainable forest management that contributes to biodiversity conservation 87. In order for the pine-oak ecoregion and its constituent biodiversity to be conserved effectively, it is necessary for forest owners, managers and users to have the means and motivation to maintain forest cover, by combating threats such as uncontrolled wildfires and illegal logging, and avoiding the temptation to convert the forest to other, potentially more profitable, uses. It is also necessary for them to have the capacities to take biodiversity considerations specifically into account within the overall context of sustainable forest management. At present, capacities are deficient at both of these levels. 88. Although advances have been made with raising awareness regarding sustainable forest management (SFM), it is evident that motivation to participate in such processes is still lacking among a number of forest owners and users, who continue to apply a short-term vision focused principally on extraction rather than sustainability. 89. Capacities to carry out sustainable forest management are most lacking among the campesino forestry cooperatives which, according to the provisions of the Forestry Law and within the framework of the Social Forestry System, are allowed to carry out productive management of State owned forests. These cooperatives are typically lacking in the technical capacities required to carry out silvicultural and harvesting operations, and to add value locally to the timber and other forest products through product transformation; the marketing capacities required to maximize the prices received for their products; and the organizational and administrative capacities required to function effectively as businesses and to feed the benefits generated in an equitable manner to their members.

28

90. The motivations of forest stakeholders to invest in sustainable forest management are also limited by their lack of confidence regarding their long term legal rights over the resources, which leads them to adopt a short- term approach to forest management. Forestry legislation does in fact make provision for secure long term access to be granted to forest resources, however in practice there are many conflicts over rights between competing forest stakeholders: large areas of forest that, in strict legal terms, should form part of the public forest estate, are in practice held by private stakeholders who have established de facto occupancy by fencing and introducing livestock. There is in addition widespread ignorance regarding what forestry legislation actually says. 91. Forest owners and users, particularly community-based cooperatives, have limited access to the financial resources required for the preparation of management plans and for investments in equipment, both of which are prerequisites for them to be able to carry out sustainable forest management and thereby to have the means and motivation to maintain forest cover. The new Forestry Law makes provision for a Fund for Forestry Reinvestment, however to date this is unproven (provisions for forestry incentives under earlier legislation have not been applied in practice). There is no provision at present for this fund specifically to reward forms of management that are compatible with BD conservation, beyond a general requirement that eligible forestry activities must be carried out in compliance with ICF-approved forest management plans. 92. Finally, limited economic value or consideration has been given to the environmental goods and services generated by forests in the region, such as water and recreation, which have always been considered “free”. 3. Forest management is hindered by the existence of inadequate conditions of regulation and enforcement. 93. Forest products harvested illegally present forest owners with unfair competition, given that they are produced without paying taxes and royalties and are therefore able to undercut the prices offered by legitimate producers. This represents a disincentive to forest owners to manage forests in accordance with laws and regulations, and to invest in sustainable forms of harvesting and management. 94. Laws, regulations and norms in Honduras are generally of a high standard in silvicultural terms (although they include limited specific provision for biodiversity conservation); the main problem lies in the inadequate supervision of their application. There has been little interest in ICF in establishing a register of legal information that would allow correct decisions to be taken with regard to illegal activity. The most common forms of legal infractions are the illegal harvesting and transport of timber (sawn or round), forest fires and administrative infractions. 95. There is limited knowledge among the institutional actors (particularly ICF and the police) who are in direct contact with those responsible for infractions of the law, regarding how to gather evidence and bring about convictions. This is in part due to the fact that the Forest Law is relatively recent, in part to the limited level of investment by the State in raising awareness and knowledge regarding the legislation, and in part to the perception that biodiversity issues are the exclusive domain of biologists and ecologists rather than foresters or jurists. 96. There are deficiencies in this regard in a number of institutions in particular, including the following: (i) ICF: financial limitations impede the consolidation of legal teams with presence in forest regions and with legal competence to pursue legal processes regarding infractions; there is also limited knowledge among technicians within that institution of the content of the Forest Law; and the regulations of the law, particularly those related to the Forest Investment Fund, are yet to be approved. (ii) SERNA: although SERNA is backed up by a range of regulations, it is lacking in the legal professionals required to put them into practice; (iii) The Public Ministry (Environmental Prosecutor): this institution has limited operational capacity and is typically show to process cases. 97. Table 19 shows the numbers of offices and staff of SERNA and ICF in the project area.

29

Table 19. Staffing levels in ICF and SERNA offices in the project area Office Area covered Staff ICF Regional Forest Office for - Gualaco and San Esteban 5 forestry technicians and 1 Northeast Olancho, Gualaco municipalities biologist ICF Regional Forest Office for - Catacamas, La Unión and Patuca 9 forestry technicians Olancho, Juticalpa Local Forest Offices (LFOs) - Juticalpa, San Fco. de La Paz, San Fco. de Becerra, Manto, Guarizama, Campamento and Guayape municipalities ICF Local Forest Office, Catacamas - Catacamas, Culmi and Santa 3 forestry technicians Maria del Real municipalities ICF Local Forest Office, La Unión - Mangulile, La Unión, Esquipulas 3 forestry technicians del Norte, Jano, Guata, Yocón, El Rosario, Salamá and Silca municipalities ICF Local Forest Office, Patuca - Patuca municipality 2 forestry technicians SERNA regional office, Juticalpa - Olancho 3 technicians

98. Centralization of responsibilities for the application of forestry legislation in the ICF means that little advantage is taken of the opportunity to complement the institution‟s limited enforcement capacities by involving local communities or municipal Governments in the definition and implementation of norms for forest use and management. 99. In addition to the limited availability of human, financial and logistical resources, the control in practice of activities with negative implications for the condition of biodiversity is hindered by the limited technical knowledge among the members of the institutions responsible for enforcing the law, regarding biodiversity issues, given that these have traditionally been seen as the responsibility of the Directorate of Protected Areas and Wildlife of ICF, or of SERNA. Table 20. Summary of Current Status of Institutional Capacities (see Annex 16 for detailed institutional capacity scorecard) Parameter Base Maximum 1. Capacity for conceptualizing and drafting policies, legislation, strategies and programs 1 3 2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programs 15 27 3. Capacity for promoting and reaching consensus among all key stakeholders 3 9 4. Capacity for mobilizing the information and knowledge 5 9 5. Capacity for supervising, evaluating, circulating and learning 4 12

30

Baseline

100. There is a large amount of baseline activity related to forest use and management in the ecoregion. Details of relevant projects supported recently by international cooperation agencies are provided in Annex 8, and these are summarized in Table 21. Table 21. Summary of baseline activities Name Main Funding Summary of the Objectives Source Program to Promote the Sustainable Management Government of the Sustainable management of natural resources of Natural Resources and Local Development of Federal Republic of Honduras (PRORENA OLANCHO) Germany Program to Promote the Sustainable Management Government of the Development of the local economy based on the of Natural Resources and Local Development of Federal Republic of sustainable management of their natural Honduras (PRORENA WESTERN REGION) Germany resources. Program to Promote the Sustainable Management Government of the Conservation and sustainable management of the of Natural Resources and Local Development of Federal Republic of natural resources, with the communities´ Honduras (PRORENA RIO PLATANO Germany participation BIOSPHERE) Strengthening the Forestry Information and International Establishment of an integral forestry information Statistics Center – CIEF Organization of and statistics system Tropical Woods (OIMT) Multi Stage Sustainable Forest Development Inter-American Sustainable development of forest lands, enhance Program (PROBOSQUE) Development Bank the business competitiveness and productivity of (IDB) the sector. Support Program for Food Security in Honduras European Reduction of rural poverty and diminish infant (PASAH), of which the ICF is the Co-executing Community mal nutrition Unit. Strengthen the Local Management of Natural European Improve the management of forest areas and of Resources in the basins of the Patuca, Choluteca Community the ICF Central Level Offices and Negro rivers (FORCUENCAS) Border Area Biosphere Reserve Project “Corazón GEF/WB; Improve the National and bi-national management del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano” (Heart of Honduras and Nicaragua. of the Meso American Biological Corridor) Three Border Region Project: Integrated GEF-IDB Support the implementation of the Integrated Management of the Tri-nation Protected Area of Management Plan (PMI, Spanish acronym) in the Montecristo (APTM). Montecristo Tri-national Protected Area (APTM) in the tri-national region bordering El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. PROCORREDOR: Sustainable Management of European Union Maintain and restore the ecological and economic the Natural Resources and Basin in the Meso functions of the Biological Corridor of the American Biological Corridor in the Honduran Honduran Caribbean region as an integral part of Atlantic region. the Meso American Biological Corridor. Land Planning and Environmental Protection in KFW/GTZ Germany Improve the active participation of the local the Rió Plátano area (PROTEP) and the GoH municipalities and stakeholders in conserving and managing the Natural Resources of the Biosphere Reserve. Modernization of the Forestry Sector in Honduras European Consolidation of a participatory and decentralized (MOSEF). Commission. forest management model. This project will be the most significant element of the project‟s baseline, and will support forms of sustainable forest management that are compatible with the maintenance of globally important biodiversity and are financially feasible.

31

Promotion of sustainable forest management 101. The ICF has carried out a process of promotion of the benefits of SFM among diverse stakeholders, with support from international cooperation organizations (see Table 21). This process has benefited agroforestry groups, sawmill owners, forestry technicians in the public and private sectors, forest owners and municipal authorities. This has had significant impacts in terms of the receptiveness of forestry businesses and cooperatives to SFM and to the role of forestry technicians, and awareness among the population in general regarding the requirement for forest management plans. The principal element of the baseline will come through the MOSEF project, which will focus on modernizing the forest sector following the recent approval of the new Forestry Law, and as such will contribute to the feasibility of sustainable forest management activities, with particular the technical, institutional and governance aspects that are required for SFM to be compatible with biodiversity. The MOSEF project is programmed to start on January 01, 2011 and a National Director has already been named since August 2010. 102. Despite this, there is a long way to go before the full potential of SFM is realized. According to the ICF, by 2008 there were 1.2 million ha with management plans. To date only 212 agroforestry groups have been incorporated in the Social Forestry System, including 7,681 direct beneficiaries and 55,500 indirect beneficiaries, equivalent to 3.4% of the 4.2 million people living in forest areas. Development of Planning and Regulatory Framework for SFM 103. At present there are 24 forestry norms with direct or direct application to the management, conservation and sustainable use of BD. Of these, 11 contribute directly to BD conservation, specifically aspects of management of buffer zone management and wildlife. There are in addition regulations for the declaration of protected areas, micro-catchments and private reserves, as well as technical and administrative norms to regulate management; a manual for the control of the pine weevil (Dendroctonus sp.); and strategies for the management of fire and the control of illegal felling. In general terms, the current norms are flexible and applicable in all forest types, although in some cases silvicultural modifications are required to adapt them to specific ecosystems, for example in relation to cutting intensity, number of seed trees to be left, thinning regimes and needs for canopy opening in order to promote forest regeneration. 104. The planning and regulatory framework is ample in scope, but also complex. Approval of management plans at present involves around 30 steps, or around 60 days, but in some cases can take up to a year. 105. A Technical Commission has reviewed and updated the manual for the administration of operational plans. The Commission generated 9 recommendations that have implications for improving BD conservation, including leaving live or dead trees with cavities standing for bird nesting; leaving vegetation untouched for 10m around an inhabited nest; leaving all fruit trees standing; leaving brash from felling on site; especially hollow trees and branches, as habitat for small mammals, amphibians, insects and reptiles; maintaining and protecting natural clearings; protecting animal burrows; and not permitting the hunting or extraction of wildlife in areas under forest management. Norms for fire management 106. The technical norms on integrated fire management, emitted by ICF (2009), recognise the effects of high intensity and high frequency fires on flora and fauna, but do not quantify them. Existing norms allow fire to be used in fire-adapted ecosystems as a means of reducing fuel buildup and favouring natural regeneration. In protected areas, fire is only allowed to be used in buffer zones, in protected areas that contain pine or pine-oak ecosystems. The use of fire in PAs must be provided for in the management plan and subject to consultation with municipal authorities and Community Consultation Councils, and approval by the ICF. If there is no comanager, administrative organization or up-to-date management plan in the PA, the decision on burning must be taken on the basis of a national map of ecosystems adapted to fire, provided by the ICF. Fire in PAs must be carried out using “back burning” and permission can be denied by ICF if it is shown that it would be contrary to the management objectives of the PA, or if there is an imminent risk of fires escaping into vulnerable ecosystems.

32

Development of Economic Instruments for MFS 107. Incentives for investing in forest management in Honduras have been very limited. A Law for Incentives for Afforestation, Reforestation and Forest Protection was passed in 1993, but was never implemented. In 2006, the Executive determined that 1% of the National Budget would be destined to the National Reforestation Programme: this is also provided for in the 2007 Forestry Law. It is established that these resources will be used in a Forestry Reinvestment Fund. There is, however, a high level of subjectivity regarding how and by which institution these funds will be manager and used. It was intended that these funds would be assigned to ICF, once consolidated, however in reality the amount assigned does not correspond to 1% of the National Budget, but rather a fixed amount of US$5.2 million, of which 70% are transferred to the Armed Forces for fire control and 30% to SERNA to finance small reforestation projects. The new Forest Law goes into some detail regarding the types of incentives that are to be made available to different actors (such as forest owners, members of the SSF and others). Forest Certification 108. A small number of forestry operators have begun to explore the possibility of forest certification, without specifically taking into account BD conservation. The process of development of national standards for voluntary forest certification commenced in 2003. The “Rainforest Alliance/SmartWood Interim Standards for Forest Management Evaluations”, were formulated and their application was authorized in June 2008. Certification initiatives have largely been concentrated on the north coast. To date 5 forests have been certified (4 pine and 1 broadleaved), covering 37,009 ha (19,588 ha or 53% broadleaved and 17,421 ha or 47% pine), and 7 chains of custody. There are currently three operations in Honduras that export and sell certified furniture on the international market and one national initiative accredited by the FSC, through the Honduran Council for Voluntary Certification. (CH-CFV), in La Ceiba. Although one of the main objectives of forest certification is to gain access to improved prices for timber products, there has been limited success in this regard to date in Honduras. Regularization of tenure and occupancy rights 109. The Government has made advances with the “regularization” of tenure and occupancy rights on national forests, with support from the recently-finished Forests and Rural Productivity Project (PBPR), funded by the World Bank, and the ongoing Land Assignation Project (PATH). To date formal title has been established over around 40% of national forests (the remaining areas are assumed to be national as agrarian law prevents private titles being issued on such forest lands), and around 12% of national forests have „informal‟ occupants whose occupancy rights need to be clarified before usufruct agreements are entered into. Research 110. During the 1970s and 1980s, the then UK Overseas Development Administration supported an intensive programme of research into fire management in pine forests in Honduras, centred on the National School for Forest Sciences (ESNACIFOR) in Siguatepeque. This resulted in a large number of technical recommendations and documents, which are however not widely available to foresters, today due to limitations in information management capacities and the deficient institutional mechanisms for incorporating research results into forest management. As a result, formal fire management practices such as prescribed burns are only carried out on a very limited basis. 111. ESNACIFOR and CURLA have also been responsible for supporting research into other aspects of forest management in the pine oak ecoregion. This has included, for example, the establishment of a number of permanent sample plots. This research has largely been in the form of thesis studies by students of these institutions, however, and has had little centralized coordination and its results are not widely distributed.

Box 2. Controlled or Prescribed Burning Every year, Honduras quantifies the number of prescribed burning and quantifies the total land area by region that is affected yearly by this system but these numbers are not officially published. The reason behind this lack of

33

documentation is that the full attention regarding forest fires in on the fires themselves due to their extension and the damage they cause to the entire ecosystem, including the pine-oak ecosystem, the country´s economy and the health of its population. Tables 11, 12 and 13 provide clear evidence of the importance that is placed on forest fires; on the contrary, the reported statistics do not segregate the number of calamities per type of forest or ecosystem. The pine ecosystems in Honduras (including pine-oak and others) have been intentionally submitted to the consequences of fire, some areas more frequently and intensively than others, but fire has always been present at one time or another in the life of the ecosystem. No matter which pine or pine-oak ecosystem a person walks in, the scar from dire can be observed on the bark of trees, indicating that a fire was also there. Fortunately, the use of fire as a tool to support forest management is a practice in the country since 1979 and since then prescribed or controlled fires have been used to reduce the fuel at ground level and to avoid larger and more intense fires. Nevertheless, the cultural aspects in the use fire and its ecology must still be understood so that by integrating all the elements the underlying causes of fire, the ecological vulnerability and the dependency on fire of certain ecosystems can be comprehended. Without this understanding, the desired results of using fire will not obtained, the undesired changes in vegetation will continue to be generated and the loss of biodiversity will persist; all of this at an economic and biological cost that is alarming and impossible to calculate. The country needs more scientists or technicians devoted to studying the ecology and/or research on fires, dedicated to planning, executing and assessing on attending forest fires and controlled burning. The emphasis of this research should be on studying the effects of fire on the biodiversity of the ecosystem, especially the pine-oak that prevails in the Olancho municipalities included in this project. Concerning the economic evaluation of the damages or benefits of fire on management activities, the country does not have any documented field experiences. However, there is some information regarding ecological evaluations of fire on the forest37. Several national level newspapers have occasionally published economic numbers of the damaged caused by fires, for example, when the intensity of the smoke produced by fires has obligated authorities to close the airports. Speculations have been made about the cost to the State from respiratory and skin diseases, and other problems caused by the smoke from fires but these numbers are not scientifically sustained. But what can be asserted is that the economic and health damages can be enormous, making it necessary to place much more interest and attention to fires and their consequences.

Summary of the baseline situation 112. This baseline activity is insufficient to ensure protection of the ecoregion. The population as a whole (both members of rural communities and private forest owners) continues to realize limited benefits from the forests, with the result that they lack motivation to protect them from fires or illegal felling; much of the management that is carried out is sub-standard and leads to degradation of the resource in productive and biological terms; and regulation of the threats affecting the resource is largely ineffective. Stakeholder analysis 113. There is a wide diversity of stakeholders with interests in the management of forests in the pine-oak ecoregion, the most important of which are summarized in Table 22. Table 22. Summary of forest stakeholders Stakeholder Description/relation with forest management ICF Forestry authority, responsible for promoting SFM, reviewing and supervising forest management plans, ensuring forest governance, managing protected areas and protecting wildlife SERNA Head of environment sector, GEF focal point, responsible for development, implementation and supervision of biodiversity conservation strategies and for definition of protected areas ESNACIFOR, CURLA and Principal forestry training and research centres in the country UNA Municipal authorities Responsible by law for protection and management of natural resources within their geographical limits, and owners of ejidal forests

37 For example, work done on the ecology of fires by technicians from DFID in the eighties, mainly in the pine forest belonging to ESNACIFOR.

34

Agroforestry cooperatives Peasant organizations permitted under the Social Forestry System to carry out forest management Communal and Municipal Local bodies established under the provisions of the recent Forestry Law to allow social Forestry Consultative participation and auditing of forestry planning and management activities Councils Private forest owners Owners of a large proportion of the forest resource, in many cases contract the management and harvesting of their forests to the private sector Private timber companies Dominate the commercial timber sector, carrying out harvesting on national, private or ejidal lands in accordance with forest management plans approved by the ICF Private timber Produce sawn timber, plywood and derivatives: dominated by a small number of private transformation industry companies Forestry technicians Qualified foresters contracted by forest owners and managers to develop forest management plans Environmental NGOs and Have been highly active in recent years in calling for controls or prohibitions on extractive pressure groups forest management due to concerns over damage to water sources on which local communities depend. Local communities Depend on forests for subsistence products (principally firewood and building materials) and also carry out limited levels of extraction of firewood and NTFPs for sale

35

II. STRATEGY

Project rationale

114. Under the baseline scenario, forest management would be carried out by forest owners and usufruct holders in ways that would, in many cases, protect the productive potential of the growing stock, but would fail to maintain its ecological functioning and biological diversity; in addition, significant levels of forest management and use would be carried out that is not sustainable in either productive or biological terms. Significant levels of support would be provided to owners and forestry cooperatives by the Government and externally-funded projects and NGOs, in order to increase the financial, organizational and technical feasibility of forest management for timber but limited support would be provided to specifically BD-friendly forms of management and production such as the sustainable management of non-timber forest products. The major co-financing associated with the project (which is largely re-oriented baseline) would be used principally to ensure that forms of sustainable forest management that are also compatible with the maintenance of globally important biodiversity are practically and financially feasible. 115. GEF incremental support would focus principally on mainstreaming BD considerations into management tools and providing technicians and local communities with the ability to develop and apply BD- friendly management prescriptions. Under the GEF alternative, therefore, major global benefits for biodiversity would be generated, in the form of improved ecological functioning (for example the maintenance of nutrient cycles, trophic structures, predator/prey balances and overall species diversity levels), which is important in order to ensure the value of the forest as a habitat for diverse globally important species (such as insectivorous migratory birds) and on the other hand to minimize the risks of uncontrolled explosion of pest species in the absence of predators. The project will generate improvements in the conservation status of rare ecosystems and habitats (including the pine-oak region as a whole), increased species richness within habitats of the pine-oak ecoregion, and improved conservation status (measured in terms of population numbers) of rare and endemic species of fauna and flora. A key point in the rationale of the project is that it will seek to manage the interspecific impacts of forest harvests, over and above the baseline which is only concerned with the productivity of harvested species (and intra specific impacts).

36

Table 23. Relation between threats, overall solution, barriers and strategies Threats Overall Solution Barriers Baseline Strategies - Timber harvesting: Owners and managers of Barrier 1: Forest managers and owners - 24 forestry norms with direct or Outcome 1: Forest owners, managers application of poor pine/ oak forests have access do not have access to management direct application to the and users and forestry authorities have practices leads to to, and ability to implement, prescriptions and instruments that management, conservation and access to forest management degradation of the growing management prescriptions provide for the incorporation of BD sustainable use of BD, of which 11 prescriptions that maximize the habitat stock and its habitat value, that are viable in productive, considerations in management planning relate to PA buffer zone value of pine/oak forests for globally and simplifies species economic and biological management important flora and fauna composition, and poor terms and at the same time - Limited attention of norms and forest management plans to BD aspects. - Technical Commission generated 9 - Support to highly focused research construction of access maintain or increase levels of recommendations on manual for roads leads to erosion and - Focus of foresters and forestry to fill specific gaps in knowledge biodiversity. training curricula on silvicultural and operational plans, with implications regarding management options for consequent degradation of for BD aquatic habitats productive considerations pine/oak forest types - Limited information on implications - Research carried out into fire - Facilitation and consolidation of - Forest fires: frequent fires management in 1970s and 1980s, impede tree regeneration of different forest management inter-institutional cooperation in regimes for BD status and of NTFP but results not widely accessible knowledge generation and adaptive and lead to eventual forest - Ongoing research by educational loss, and remove the management possibilities management regarding pine/oak - Limited receptivity among forest institutions, but largely dispersed forests, under SINFOR understorey which is a and uncoordinated with inadequate habitat for fauna, while stakeholders to BD issues in forest - Development of regional planning management planning. dissemination mechanisms framework for forest management occasional hot fires cause - ICF has emitted technical norms on widespread tree mortality - Lack of effective mechanisms in and conservation integrated fire management, but Development and dissemination of - Conversion of forests to forestry institutions for incorporating - information on BD and management limited incorporation of BD management prescriptions that other uses leads to forest considerations and habitat loss options favour BD conservation Development of awareness - Firewood extraction leads - Limited integration between - to reduction of Quercus institutional actors responsible for regarding the adoption of BD- populations and reduced productive and BD aspects of forest friendly management prescriptions habitar value for species management such as Dendroica - Site-specific approach to management chrysoparia plan development - Collection of non-timber Barrier 2: Forest owners, managers and - Promotion of technical and Outcome 2: Forest owners, managers forest products: excessive users have limited capacities for organizational capacities of and users have the capacities required collection can lead to local undertaking sustainable forest community groups for forest for the application of forms of forest population declines management that contributes to management within the SSF use and management that are biodiversity conservation - Legal establishment of Forestry compatible with biodiversity Reinvestment Fund conservation - Short-term vision of forest owners - Pilot experiences on regularization and managers focused principally on Development of technical of tenure and occupancy rights - extraction. capacities among forest owners, - Some dispersed experiences with Limited technical, organizational, users and managers for the - forest certification but limited administrative and marketing application of BD-friendly economic benefits as yet capacities of forestry cooperatives management prescriptions - Limited confidence regarding long- - Support to development of BD- term security of resource use rights related criteria for financial

37

Threats Overall Solution Barriers Baseline Strategies - Limited knowledge of provisions of incentives for forest management forestry legislation. - Support to forest owners, users and - Limited access among forest owners managers for gaining access to and managers to financial resources financial incentives in support of for forest management BD-friendly management - Limited consideration paid to - Exploration of opportunities for environmental goods and services diversifying forest incomes generated by forests. Barrier 3: Forest management is - ICF has Regional and Local Offices Outcome 3: Forest management hindered by the existence of inadequate in Olancho practices are subject to regulation and conditions of regulation and - ICF collaborates with police and enforcement that permits the enforcement. public prosecutors conservation of globally important - Grassroots movements against biodiversity Limited knowledge among - illegal logging institutional actors regarding how to Support to community-based - gather evidence and bring about development of norms for BD convictions on BD-related issues. management and use - Limitations in financial, logistical and - Support to development of human resources in institutions of mechanisms for coordination central Government between community, municipal and - Excessive centralization of central Government agencies in responsibilities for the application of ensuring application of rules for BD forestry legislation conservation - Development of capacities of municipal offices to support regulation of forest management in favour of BD conservation

38

Policy conformity 116. The project will contribute to the objectives of the Biodiversity Focal Area, within the context of the framework strategy on the Sustainable Forest Management. Within this Focal Area, it will contribute specifically to Strategic Objective 2, “To Mainstream Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors”. Its main emphasis will be on Strategic Priority 4, “Strengthening the Policy and Regulatory Framework for Mainstreaming Biodiversity” as it will focus on mainstreaming BD into the management prescriptions and plans which are legal prerequisites for the approval of forest management activities, and on strengthening local capacities for planning and regulation of forestry activities. It will also include elements of Strategic Priority 5, “Fostering Markets for Biodiversity Goods and Services” as it will orient the provision of marketing support to NTFPs produced in accordance with BD principles. The cross-cutting theme of the project will be the promotion of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The project will contribute to Strategic Objective 2 of the SFM framework strategy, “Sustainable management and use of forest resources” as it will focus on the sustainable management of production forests.

Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities

117. The objective of the project is to mainstream biodiversity conservation into sustainable forest management in the pine-oak ecoregion, in conformity with the livelihood support needs of the local population. 118. It is beyond the scope of this medium sized project directly to address landscape level sector-based threats such as cattle ranching and market gardening. The project, in association with other funding sources, would however significantly affect the balance of attractiveness between retaining forest and removing it for other uses. Once forests (especially those on state land) have long term management plans and are subject to active commercial management, they cease to be an open access resource subject to illegal appropriation and conversion. 119. The project will focus directly on 10 municipalities in the north of Olancho (see Table 24). This area contains the most extensive areas of pine-oak in the country, covering 4,471km2 or around 20% of the national total. In this area, 72% of the forest is national, 23% is private and 5% is municipal or ejidal. It will have major replication potential throughout the rest of the ecoregion in Honduras and Mesoamerica. Table 24. Target municipalities, with areas of pine and pine/oak forests Municipality Pine and mixed forest (ha) Campamento 33,613 Concordia 7,210 Catacamas 33,613 Gualaco 99,276 Guata 40,851 Jano 25,309 La Unión 29,639 Salamá 26,231 San Esteban 46,247 Silca 10,270 Total 352,260

120. The substantial cofinancing that has been identified for the project during the Project Preparation phase will maximize the probability of the project achieving sustainable and widespread impact throughout pine-oak forests nationally: it is estimated that, by the end of the project, forest management plans and/or annual plans of

39

operation covering an area around 230,000ha (approximately 10% of the area currently covered by such plans) will have incorporated BD considerations. This replication effect will be ensured by the fact that the main source of cofinancing, the EU-supported MOSEF project, will have national scope, rather than focusing solely on the forests of northeast Olancho. The Coordinator of the current project will be based physically in the Tegucigalpa offices of ICF (which will also be the principal counterpart institution of MOSEF), a situation which will greatly facilitate replication opportunities. 121. The project would maintain and improve the conservation status of the Critically Endangered Central American Pine Oak Forests Ecoregion (much of which is an Endemic Bird Area) and improve the habitat quality of existing forest. Improvements in forest management practices (such as avoiding the creation of large canopy gaps, designating set asides, controlling and managing fires and respecting the regenerative capacity of the forest when carrying out extraction) would lead to reductions in the rate of the thinning out of forest canopy and thereby maintain the stability of light and moisture regimes, maintain structural and plant diversity, and avoid the wholesale loss of forest areas (see Table 25). This would benefit, for example, globally important species such as the endemic Horned guan (Oreophasis derbianus), endangered neotropical migrants such as the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), and numerous orchids and other epiphytes. D. chrysoparia would particularly benefit from the improved protection of oak forests which constitute its preferred habitat. Table 25. Examples of pine-oak biodiversity, threats and management strategies Species Global significance Current threats Management and conservation strategies Puma concolor CITES Appendix II Decreasing landscape diversity Maximization of diversity of landscapes due to deforestation and focus and ecosystems (e.g. maintenance of on narrow range of high proportion of oak relative to pine) Dendroica chrysoparia IUCN Red List commercially important timber Maintenance of an oak/pine ratio in the „Threatened‟ species, and uncontrolled landscape of at least 30/70 harvesting of oak firewood Cryptotis hondurensis Vulnerable on 1996 Structural simplification of Maintenance of soil coverage and (shrew) IUCN Red List – forests, including loss of ground understorey, through the application of currently Data cover and understorey as a appropriate fire regimes Deficient result of fires and timber Trochylidae (6 sp.) Various regional extraction practices Modification of thinning and felling (hummingbirds) endemic species regimes in order to maintain structural Quails diversity Parulidae Bolitoglossa diaphora Endemic to Honduras Omoadiphas texiguatensis Rhadinaea tolpanorum Nototriton barbouri Regional endemic regional Cryptotriton nasalis Endemic to Honduras (salamander) Loss of bromeliad host plants Protection of bromeliads host plants for due to fire salamanders, through the application of Isthmohyla melacaena appropriate fire regimes (salamander)

Bromeliohyla bromeliacia Endemic to Honduras Glaucomys volans (flying Extreme southern Conversion of pine forests to Sustainable management and squirrel) limit of natural range agriculture and pasture conservation of pine forests Accipiter bicolor CITES Appendix II (biciloured hawk) Picidae (6 sp) Possibly agents of Timber harvesting, drastic Maintenance of overmature and dead (woodpeckers) biological control of sanitary measures and high trees insect pests temperature wildfires Increased tolerance of occasional low Psittacidae CITES listed, also temperature burns and use of deliberate seed dispersers prescribed burns Isthmohyla insolita (frog) Endemic to Honduras Destruction of gallery forests during timber operations Protection of gallery forest Increased sediment load in Designation of no take zones to avoid

40

streams due to poor increases in sediment loads in water construction of access routes courses where it reproduces

122. The no-take zones that are foreseen, which have the potential to guarantee habitat conditions for certain species with limited tolerance to disturbance, are explained in Box 3.

Box 3. No take zones The no-take zones would be provided for in forest management plans. The normal justification for their definition is the avoidance of damage to soil and watercourses by avoiding extractive forestry activities on excessively steep slopes or near to streams and rivers. The project would expand the criteria for their establishment to include considerations of globally important habitats and species with low tolerance to disturbance. In theory, no take zones would last as long as the management plan, which normally have a period equal to the silvicultural rotation of the main forestry species to be managed (normally 40 years). Once the current management plans elapse, they would normally be replaced with others (an indefinite number of times, each one having the same 40 year duration). This would continue to be a legal prerequisite for carrying out forest management and the norms and regulations that govern management plan preparation would continue to require no-take zones to be established in vulnerable areas. In practice, therefore, the Forestry Law and the norms and regulations on management plans would provide for the no-take zones to be permanent. including additional information such as their potential benefit for endemic salamanders as a means of ensuring the crystalline waters that these species need. As an indication, the forest management plans currently existing in the project area include an average of 35% no-take zones. Currently 63% of the no-take zones are on national land and the remainder on private or municipal land. These zones form a management category within the overall forest management plan and therefore belong to the same landholding as the area covered by the forest management plan as a whole. Responsibility for managing the no-take zones lies with the person or entity for whom the ICF has approved a management plan (on private lands, the landowner and on state lands, private timber companies or peasant timber cooperatives holding usufruct agreements). Management of these zones is stipulated in the overall management plan and is therefore a legal requisite: the costs of this management must be borne by the management plan holder and compliance is a requisite for approval by ICF of successive annual plans of operations and five-year plans within the context of the plan as a whole. Failure to comply results in cancellation of permission to operate.

Table 26. Comparison of baseline scenario and GEF alternative Baseline Scenario GEF Alternative GEF increment There is a wide range of forestry norms, A range of economically and technically Forest management prescriptions include and a recent Forest Law that provides for viable forest management prescriptions specific consideration of how to combine community participation in forest are available for diverse vegetation types the conservation of globally important BD management. Due to inadequate in the pine/oak ecoregion, that enable with productive forest management; forest knowledge of the characteristics of forestry production to be combined with management planning incorporates a pine/oak forests, forest management BD conservation, and permanent landscape-wide perspective on BD (e.g. would result in unintentional and capacities exist to generate, adopt and priority setting and connectivity); forest unnecessary impacts on BD and would implement such forest management owners, managers and technicians have fail to realize the full productive potential prescriptions. increased receptiveness to modifying of the forest, leading to limited forest management in order to favour BD motivations to maintain forest habitat instead of converting it to other land uses. Forest owners and managers would lack Private forest owners and community Incentives for forest management are the capacities required to manage their cooperatives have the capacities required provided subject to specific conditions forests in an optimum manner (in either to manage pine/oak forests in such a way regarding their implications for the productive or BD terms) and as a result as to ensure the maintenance of forest conservation status of BD would have limited motivations to retain cover and to optimize conditions for its forest cover, and also would not be able to constituent BD, while delivering social implement any alternative (BD-friendly) and economic benefits management options that may be generated Even if forest owners, managers and users Forest owners and users work in close Community-based and municipal norms

41

had access to viable BD-friendly collaboration with Government entities in and developed and applied in such a way management options and the capacities to ensuring the existence of the conditions of that threats to BD are combated with the implement them, their initiatives would forest governance required for threats to maximum of effectiveness face unfair competition from illegal BD to be combated effectively, and for felling, which (together with fires) would BD-friendly SFM practices to be also result in direct negative impacts on technically and economically feasible BD.

Outcome 1: Forest owners, managers and users and forestry authorities have access to forest management prescriptions that maximize the habitat value of pine/oak forests for globally important flora and fauna Output 1.1 Programme for generation of knowledge on management options for the pine-oak ecoregion 123. The project will contribute to generating and disseminating knowledge on the pine oak ecoregion, beyond the aspects silvicultural and timber production aspects on which research has focused principally to date. This support will be highly focused and applied in nature, with the aim of determining and demonstrating alternative management options that are more compatible with BD conservation than those that prevail at present, and alternative products that have the potential to be exploited in a sustainable manner and to increase the motivation of forest owners and users to conserve the forest and its constituent BD. Box 4 provides examples of some of the issues on which such activities may focus. 124. The support to the project will result in the generation and publication, in formats accessible to decision- and policy-makers in central and local Government as well as to forest owners and managers, of concrete information on the ecoregion, its products and management options. It will also establish the bases for collaboration between the members of SINFOR (and others, as appropriate) for the realization of a programme of applied research in the long term, with the aim that this will feed in a continuous manner into the policies, legal instruments and management norms developed by the Government and other forest stakeholders at diverse levels: agreements on such collaboration will be formalized through a strategic planning document for research into BD aspects of the pine-oak ecoregion. 125. The project will support short term studies into specific aspects of the ecoregion, such as the location of BD of high conservation priority and the population levels and management potential of diverse forest products. These will combine formal, highly targeted studies by biologists and foresters, and participatory inventories and studies carried out in selected local communities. Understanding of the magnitude, nature and implications of firewood extraction will be furthered through a multi-year study that may, as appropriate, integrate methodologies such as the FAO WISDOM approach for modeling wood flows. The project will in additional generate maps of BD hotspots and key connectivity routes, that will function as guides for planning at regional level of forest management and conservation. 126. It will also support the establishment of permanent sample plots that will permit the monitoring of the long term implications of different management prescriptions (such as alternative thinning, felling and fire regimes) on forest condition and the status of different components of the flora and fauna. Close attention will be paid to ensuring the institutional sustainability of these trials, by developing management agreements with ICF, national forestry education centres (such as UNA, ESNACIFOR and EAP El Zamorano) and other members of SINFOR, taking advantage of the potential of the trials to function as permanent educational resources to be visited by students of these institutions during field trips and specific thesis research projects. 127. These activities of the project will build upon a significant baseline of research activity that has been developed over the last few decades, for example that supported by DFID into fire management during the 1970s and 1980s, and the permanent sample plots established and managed by ESNACIFOR to date. An important initiative of the project will be to bring together the currently dispersed results of such research, in the form of a website and publication(s) in easily accessible format for present-day researchers and decision makers.

42

Box 4. Proposals for research subjects that will be approved by the Project - Study the relationship between the migratory behavior of the Dendroica chrysoparia in the eco-region and the forest fires or controlled burning; or the response and/or regeneration of the Quercus spp to fire; ages in which they better withstand or survive a fire; - Regarding the propagation of Quercus: the best way the seed is spread or what fauna species benefit from them; or what is the behavior and management of the new shoots after a burning. Other suggestions for topics to test include: compare the amount and viability of seeds produced before and after an exploitation; treatments of seeds to improve their germination and propagation of the species; and establishment of plantations with different planting densities per hectare; - The effects of clear cutting: response of the species in area where clear cutting was used; common damages to the natural regeneration and remnant trees in a pine-oak area after a clear cutting; the relationship between the succession population and fauna species affected by this practice; - Related to processing oak with commercial ends (Wood floors, for example), with the purpose of making the sustainability of Quercus forest management feasible, following the concept generally applied to the pine forests under the Social Forest System, and using the facilities of the Center for the Use of Forest Products (CUPROFOR). - The perception of the local population on managing the pine-oak ecosystem with biodiversity components - The response of the Quercus spp to some of the silviculture treatments; - The effects of exploiting the pine on the oak remnants; - Reproduction of the Quercus spp in nurseries and in establishing plantations; - The effects of forest fires on areas of Quercus spp. and in the population of certain fauna species; - The current situation of the oak and pine populations; - The succession dynamics of pine and oak trees; - The scope of the distribution and use of habitat by species of fauna that indicate the occurrences in the eco-region. . Output 1.2 Regional planning framework for BD conservation in management of pine oak ecoregion 128. The definition and application of effective strategies for forest management and conservation in the pine- oak ecoregion that maximize the possibility of integrating the achievement of productive goals with biodiversity conservation requires the adoption of a perspective that goes beyond that of individual management plans, and takes into account biological processes and priorities and a whole landscape level. Based on solid scientific evidence, which will be brought together from existing sources and complemented with specific highly targeted studies, the project will generate regional planning documents for BD conservation in the pine oak ecoregion. The number of such separate documents that are required will be determined during the course of the project, on the basis of what the information available reveals about the degree of uniformity or distinctiveness that exists between different parts of the ecoregion throughout the country. These documents will take into account regional and municipal development priorities and, at the same time, will constitute a planning framework that will guide the formulation, modification and application of such plans in the future. 129. In complement to this, the project will develop the capacities of Intermunicipal Technical Units (UTIs), where these exist, enabling them in turn to provide ongoing guidance and information support to their member municipalities. This capacity development will consist, for example, or the provision of training to UTI staff in biological and legal aspects, and the provision of databases and mapping tools. 130. One result of the formulation of this broader planning framework will be, for example, that the no-take zones (see Box 3) provided for in individual management plans will be located and designed on the basis of

43

landscape-wide as well as site-specific considerations, permitting the development of regional corridors consisting of chains of such strategically-located zones. Output 1.3 Prescriptions for BD-friendly management of pine-oak forests 131. One of the most important outputs of the project will be a set of management prescriptions that will detail how forests in the pine-oak ecoregion should be managed, in such a way as to combine the realization of their productive potential and the conservation of biodiversity. These prescriptions will be based on the results of existing scientific evidence which the project will bring together, and new information generated through the applied studies which the project will support; they will complement, rather than replace the existing norms that have been generated by ICF, which focus primarily on productive concerns rather than biodiversity conservation. 132. Examples of the types of management prescriptions that are likely to emerge from this process are presented in Table 25: in summary, it is expected that they will include the establishment of local level biological corridors and no-take zones based in part on BD criteria; the modification of harvesting and extraction practices in order to allow for overmature trees to be left and damage to understorey to be minimized; the definition of the location of trees to be felled in order to optimize light and humidity regimes and the structural diversity of the forest; and the application of fire regimes that allow the development of an adequate understorey while avoiding the accumulation of excessive quantities of vegetation that might result in damaging high temperature fires.

Box 5. Examples of provisions to include in the NTFP management guidelines The following provisions are proposed as the basis for developing the guidelines tending to reduce the damage to the biodiversity at the time of exploiting the NTFPs: (i) collection site: if the products that will be potentially harvested for example bromeliads, ferns, orchids and moss) are within the area under management, it will be necessary to first know the geographic position or where they are growing and to what other species are they associated with; (ii) harvest season: the best season to harvest some flora species may not necessarily coincide with the felling period of lumber yielding trees and it would therefore be necessary to design guidelines that allow changing the logging period so that the harvest of non lumber yielding products can be carried out simultaneously; (iii) amount that will be exploited: in order for a species harvest to be sustainable, it is necessary to have the knowledge of its biology in order to know which are the best times for its exploitation (for example, season of seed production, or root stock production of regeneration season). It is also necessary to know the existing population of the species in the area to learn how intense or to what level the exploitation impact will be and how much exploitation the species can withstand, and (iv) chain of exploitation: this refers to the fact that there should be a market for the targeted products and also know ahead of tie what is the “demand” and the “supply”. In case there is no market, then the product should not be promoted; and (v) if the product is included or not in Appendixes CITES, UICN Red List if the species is of special concern. There are 14 species of orchids in the country that are on the Red List and all orchid species are in the framework of the CITES Convention. This situation puts the attention on harvesting given that its management must be governed under the concepts of the “precautionary principle” or using practices that do not endanger this and other species.

133. The process of generation of management prescriptions will be participatory, in order to ensure that the interests of diverse stakeholders (particularly forest owners, managers and users) are taken into account and thereby to minimize the risk of unnecessary social and economic impacts. The results of this process will be presented through workshops and publications produced jointly with ICF and other key institutional stakeholders.

44

Output 1.4: Mechanisms for facilitating mainstreaming of BD into management plans 134. The project will support studies on the costs, benefits and alternative strategies for achieving the incorporation of BD considerations into forest management plans, in order to overcome the opposition to this that may be encountered among forestry technicians and forest owners and users. Meetings will be held with these stakeholders and with ICF in order to review how the process of management plan formulation functions in practice at present, and to identify key entry points where mechanisms for considering BD issues can be introduced without furthering complicating or slowing the process. Output 1.5: Programme of capacity development and outreach programme on BD mainstreaming 135. An essential fifth part of the process of making BD-friendly management prescriptions available is the development of capacities and awareness among those institutional actors responsible for ensuring that the prescriptions are applied by forest managers. The target audiences for this outreach are provisionally proposed in Table 27.

Table 27. Identification and Quantification of the Target Audience for Raising Awareness and Developing the Capacities of ICF Technicians Linked to the Pine-Oak Project. Sub- Unit Quantity Discipline Directorate Forestry Biology Forestry Forestry management and development (central) 3 3 Development Community forestry development (central) 2 2 Forest regions (Juticalpa and Gualaco) 7 7 Local offices (La Unión, Patuca and Catacamas 2 2 Protected Areas Protected areas (central) 2 1 1 and Wildlife Wildlife (central) 2 1 1 Watersheds and environment 1 1 Forest region 3 2 1 Local office 1 1 Total 23 20 3

136. Of the actors listed in Table 27, it will be of particular importance to convince the higher level decision- makers in ICF of the value and feasibility of these management prescriptions. This will need to be followed up by a programme of awareness-raising and training among forestry technicians in ICF, as well as individual technicians who under the Forestry Law are responsible for formulating the management plans that would include the proposed prescriptions. 137. In practice, the outreach and awareness-raising programme would involve a range of different approaches, ranging from workshops to field visits and also exchange visits between members of different forest communities.

Outcome 2: Forest owners, managers and users have the capacities required for the application of forms of forest use and management that are compatible with biodiversity conservation Output 2.1: Capacity development programme for forest owners and users 138. In addition to the overall outreach programme proposed above, the Project will support a programme of training and awareness raising into specific aspects of forest management and biodiversity conservation, through a combination of training workshops, field visits and accessible publications. Box 6 presents examples of some of the technical issues that may be included in the training programmes.

45

Box 6. Examples of technical topics for capacity development The Project‟s sustainability will largely depend on how its resources are used to train the forestry technicians, forest users and owners, especially for the ICF forest personnel and the municipalities in the region. Below is a suggestion on a series of topics that should be addressed in the capacity building, with the purpose of attaining a better forest management while contributing to conserving the biodiversity: (i) Adequate use of techniques for fire management in pine-oak forests in accordance to the established minimum norms; (ii) Techniques for managing the natural regeneration of pine and oak; (iii) Techniques for low impact exploitation in order to know how and when to exploit without damaging the regeneration or the capacity for recuperating the population; (iv) Design the forest paths and where to place the extraction routes; (v) Biology of species with a conservationist and economic value to learn their basic behavior and the requirements of these species for their survival in nature; (vi) Identification of animal and plant species in danger of becoming extinct; (vii) Techniques to gather and handle seeds as well as establishing and managing a nursery for Quercus spp.; (viii) Techniques for establishing Quercus plantations; (ix) How to prepare market studies for non-traditional products with the purpose of seeking alternatives to the traditional exploitation (firewood, lumber and resin).

139. The target audiences for this training are proposed in Table 28: these will include, for example, private forest owners, the forest industry, and agroforestry cooperatives operating within the SSF, as well as institutions responsible for biodiversity and forest management issues. Table 28. Target audience for capacity development and awareness raising regarding management prescriptions Institution Amount Stakeholder Users Forestry ICF (forest workers in the main office and in Olancho) 17 - 17 Municipal Offices (9 in the Project area) 18 18 - Private forest owners 20 20 - Lumber entrepreneurs 20 20 - Agro-forestry organizations 12 12 - Independent forest workers 20 - 20 State forest workers outside the ICF 44 - 44 Department level Consultative Council 8 8 Municipal Consultative Councils (9) 36 36 Local Consultative Councils 27 27 Total: 222 141 81 Source: Table prepared according to estimates made by the author related to Private Forest Owners, Consultative Councils, agro forestry organizations and UMAs.

140. Scoping studies carried out during the PPG phase suggest that NTFPs have relatively limited potential to contribute to the viability of SFM and thereby to provide additional motivation for forest owners and users to conserve the forest instead of converting it to other uses. The project will therefore place only limited emphasis on the development of capacities for NTFP production. The project will, however, validate this on a case-by-case

46

basis by providing support to the realization of participatory inventories of biodiversity and evaluations of the productive options of pine/oak forests. Table 29. Identification and Quantification of the Target Audience for the Development of Technical and Marketing Capacities for the Sustainable Use, Commercialization and Regeneration of Non Lumber Forest Products Organization Link Number of stakeholders Private Forest Owners Supplier of stumpage and potentially of non lumber forest products 20 Agro forestry Organizations Demanders of non lumber products at extraction level and suppliers of forest sub products such as resin, seeds, liquidambar 12 oil, etc. Micro entrepreneurs Demanders of raw materials and suppliers of handcrafts (for 10 example, pine needles). Municipalities Suppliers of stumpage, non lumber products and regulators of forest activities 10 Association of Municipalities Financial resources management to fund productive, conservation and technical assistance projects. 2 Handcraft merchants (Souvenir Demanders and suppliers of forest handcrafts 10 shops) Total 64

141. In addition, the project will provide advice and facilitation support to forest owners and managers in order to assist them in resolving forest tenure and occupancy issues which in many cases prevent ICF from approving usufruct contracts and management plans. It will be beyond the abilities and resources of the core team of the project to address this issue directly; the team will, however, support forest owners and users in this regard, by providing them with information and guidance on the legal context and assisting them to make contact with representatives of ICF and IP responsible for forest regularization. Output 2.2 Mechanisms for channeling financial incentives in support of BD conservation 142. A number of the modifications to management practices, required to favour BD considerations, may imply financial costs for forest owners and managers, such as the maintenance of Quercus in species mixes (rather than just the commercially more attractive Pinus spp.) in order to favour species such as the Golden- Cheeked Warbler, the maintenance of a broadleaved understorey to favour small mammals and insects, which may inhibit pine regeneration, and the designation of specific no-take zones. 143. The 2007 Forestry Law makes specific prevision for the establishment of a Forestry Reinvestment Fund, however this is yet to be made operational. The project will have a highly incremental role in supporting the development of detailed criteria for the provision of funding to forest owners and managers through the Forestry Reinvestment Fund, based on considerations of biodiversity conservation: for example avoidance of vulnerable sites with high biodiversity importance, application of fire management and thinning regimes that favour canopy diversity and maintenance of diverse mixes of tree species. It is foreseen that this support, which will be carried out with the full participation of ICF, SERNA and other relevant stakeholders, will provide an ideal opportunity to reactivate the process of making the Fund operational. In addition to this “supply-side” support, the project will work with the potential beneficiaries of the Fund (forest owners and managers) in order to raise awareness among of its existence and functioning, to facilitate their participation in the process of making it fully operational and to assist them in going through the administrative steps that will be required to gain access to it.

47

Output 2.3 Mechanisms for increasing and diversifying forest incomes 144. The project will investigate and, where appropriate, support, opportunities for increasing and diversifying forest incomes in ways that favour biodiversity conservation and increase the motivations among forest owners and users to continue managing and maintaining forests rather than converting them to other uses. Options to be investigated include forest certification, payment for environmental services and the marketing of non-traditional (including non-timber) forest products. 145. The project will not place major emphasis on certification as a strategy for bringing about BD-friendly forest management, given the limited evidence to date of its potential to generate additional income for forest owners and users, and the levels of investment that would be required to overcome the barriers to this becoming viable in a widespread manner. It will, however, work with ICF and, as appropriate, academia centres such as ESNACIFOR, UNA, CURLA and EAP El Zamorano in exploring opportunities for certification and defining strategies for its promotion in the future. A similarly pragmatic approach will be applied in the case of payments for environmental services: possible approaches include payment by water users for the conservation of forests in micro-catchments that may harbour important BD, and REDD; the project will systematize experiences with such approaches to date and monitor future developments, and, if the evidence suggests that they have significant promise to contribute to BD conservation, will provide advice and facilitation to forest owners and managers in order to link into them. The project will also support forest owners and users in investigating other markets for forest products that have the potential to be produced in ways that are compatible with, or contribute to, the conservation of biodiversity in the ecoregion. The range of products on which this support will focus will depend in part on the findings of the participatory inventories and evaluations proposed under Output 2.1.

Outcome 3. Forest management practices are subject to regulation and enforcement that permits the conservation of globally important biodiversity

Output 3.1: Community-based rules for BD-friendly forest management 146. In addition to the technical prescriptions that will be developed and modified under Outcome 1, the project will support the development and application of rules for forest management and use in the pine-oak ecoregion. These will complement, and be integrated with, the provisions of forest management plans: the forest management plans will provide for site-specific management prescriptions and off-take levels for timber, whereas the community-based rules will provide more general, community-wide limitations on the amount of forest products (e.g. firewood and NTFPs) that can be extracted, periods of the year in which different activities (e.g. forest product collection and burning) can be carried out, and overall zoning of activities with implications for forest status within the area covered by the community. Similarly, the project will support municipal authorities in developing rules, to be contained within the municipal regulations (Plan de Arbitrios) of each. Community and Municipal Consultative Councils, which according to the new Forestry Law must be informed of decisions and agreements made by ICF and oversee legal compliance in forest management), will play an important role in the formulation of these norms, and in linking them to the provisions of management plans prepared in each community or municipality. 147. The development of such rules at community level will help to minimize the generation of unnecessary negative social impacts: it is foreseen, for example, that regulations on firewood extraction would not necessarily lead to reductions in the overall quantities of firewood extracted, in order to avoid affecting the livelihoods of the local people who are involved in this activity; rather, they would stipulate where, how and by whom the extraction could be carried out in order to avoid ecologically vulnerable areas and to maximize the benefits accruing to local communities. 148. At field level, the support by the project to the development of these rules and regulations will be inserted into the pilot initiatives of community-based forest management currently being supported by ICF in association with GTZ, within the context of the PRORENA programme.

48

Output 3.2 Mechanisms for coordination between community, municipal and central Government agencies in ensuring the application of rules for BD conservation 149. There is much potential for community-based actors and municipal authorities to complement the efforts of central Government institutions (such as ICF and SERNA) in ensuring compliance with laws, norms and other rules regarding forest management. Building on the capacity development activities carried out to date by ICF and its partners, the project will facilitate and advise on the development of coordination mechanisms between these actors: in this way, community-level actors will be in a position to report apparent infringements to the authorities, who in turn will be able to provide support in a more informed way that reflects local priorities. This coordination will also help to ensure that ICF norms, forest management plans, and rules developed by local communities and municipal authorities are fully harmonized. Output 3.3: Municipal offices with capacities to support regulation of forest management in favour of BD conservation 150. The project will provide training to the members of municipal Governments in order to raise their awareness of the legal context in relation to forest management and the incorporation of BD considerations. This will be complemented by training aimed at raising their awareness of the implications of different forms of forest management and use for BD status, in order to equip them to interpret and apply the law in a more relevant and effective manner.

Key Indicators

Table 30. Summary of key indicators Indicator Measurement Location of frequency measurement Frequency of sightings of the Golden-cheeked warbler Dendroica Annual 19 previously chrysoparia measured transects and new transects to be established in target municipalities Frequency of sightings of the salamanders Bolitoglossa diaphora, Annual Pine/oak forests in Nototriton barbouri, Cryptotriton nasalis and the frog Isthmohyla 10 target insolita in 10 target municipalities municipalities Area of pine/oak forest affected by damaging forest fires (that cause Annual Pine/oak forests in severe tree mortality, reductions in canopy density and changes in 10 target the vertical structure of the forest) municipalities Area of pine/oak forest being managed in practice in conformity Annual Pine/oak forests with principles of biodiversity conservation (leaving no take zones, with forest promoting regeneration of broadleaved species, leaving dead wood management plans and applying integrated fire management) approved by ICF in 10 target municipalities Area of pine/oak forest covered by forest management plans and/or Annual Pine/oak forests annual plans of operation that incorporate improved/new provisions nationwide for biodiversity conservation (leaving no take zones, promoting regeneration of broadleaved species, leaving dead wood and applying integrated fire management) Existence of specific norms for the conservation of globally Continuous Nationwide important biodiversity within the context of the management of pine/oak forests

49

Area (outside of protected areas) in the 10 target municipalities that Annual Pine/oak forests in is formally excluded from productive activities with potentially 10 target negative implications for the status of globally-important municipalities biodiversity Institutional capacity to mobilize information and knowledge Prior to mid-term and ICF central and final external regional offices evaluations Institutional capacity to supervise, evaluate, disseminate and learn Prior to mid-term and ICF central and final external regional offices evaluations Number of forest owners, managers and users with awareness and Prior to mid-term and 10 target knowledge of options for the integration of biodiversity final external municipalities conservation principles into forest management evaluations Numbers of forest owners, managers and users in the 10 target Annual 10 target municipalities who are complying with targets established in annual municipalities plans of operations Percentage of forest owners, managers and users in the 10 target Annual 10 target municipalities who are receiving incentives that reward the municipalities application of forest management practices in accordance with biodiversity conservation principles Number of municipalities with installed capacities for the effective Annual 10 target regulation and monitoring of the status of biodiversity and forest municipalities management practices Levels of firewood extraction in 10 target municipalities, relative Annual 10 target regenerative capacity of the resource municipalities Levels of NTFP extraction in 10 target municipalities, relative Annual 10 target regenerative capacity of the resource municipalities Proportion of no-take zones that are in reality free from significant Annual 10 target disturbance in the 10 target municipalities municipalities Percentage and area of forest management plans without reports of Annual 10 target infractions of management prescriptions with relevance for the municipalities conservation of globally important biodiversity

Risks and Assumptions Risk Level Mitigation measures Limited Medium Public policies strongly recognize the role of forest protection and SFM in reducing commitment to environmental risk. The project will focus on identifying management strategies which addressing BD allow the combination of BD conservation with maintained economic viability, such as the issues within the modification of felling practices in order to minimize canopy disturbance, integrated fire context of SFM management that will protecting timber growing stock as well as BD, and the sustainable extraction of NTFPs that will provide additional income-earning opportunities from forests and thereby maximize the economic attractiveness of conservation. Weak institutional Medium The ICF is being re-launched, with institutional strengthening support from EU and framework, others, which also focus on municipal strengthening. This support would be included in particularly in ICF the co-financing of the project. The project would provide complementary support to the and municipalities. technical capacities of these institutions. Increased Medium The project would contribute to increasing the value of the forest to local people relative profitability of to alternative land uses, through the promotion of sustainable forest management (which alternative land will be largely cofinanced). It would also support local schemes of social auditing, which uses have weight in the area due to the importance of the forest to local people as a source of water.

50

Limited economic Low The ICF is strengthening technical, administrative and marketing capacities of forestry viability of SFM cooperatives and supporting the development of the forestry sector in general. GEF funds under existing would be used to complement these initiatives by promoting additional income sources marketing and such as NTFPs and identifying BD conservation strategies that minimize negative impacts organizational on economic viability. Markets for timber from the project area, which are principally in conditions. the utility (non-luxury) sector, are likely to remain relatively stable despite possible occasional fluctuations in reflection of the overall economic climate. Climate change Low The most significant potential implication of climate change for the achievement of the project‟s objectives is a possible increase in the frequency of forest fires due to modifications of rainfall patterns. The project‟s emphasis on promoting community-based use of forest resources will provide motivation for local communities to invest efforts in combating such fires. In addition, the project will make specific provision for developing fire management strategies as an element of forest management plans.

Financial modality 151. The project will be funded by the GOH and GEF funds will act as a grant to complement national support for the development of sustainable forest management capacities among national institutions and local stakeholders. In addition, the project will strengthen administratively the Comite de Credito del Fondo de Reinversión Forestal to compensate and incentivate conservation measurements. The project will also support forest users and owners in accessing certification benefits. Furthermore, the project will work in alliance with national and international institutions and agencies in the region and will carry cost shared activities related to the management of forests compatible with biodiversity. Cost-Effectiveness 152. This Medium Sized Project will result in changes in how forestry management is carried out across the biologically most important part of the pine-oak ecoregion in Honduras. The models applied in the direct area of influence of the project will subsequently be mainstreamed into the regulations and strategies affecting management of the ecoregion nationwide. The project‟s SO2 approach is a more feasible and cost-effective means of achieving conservation of globally important BD than the strengthening on protected areas, given the importance of the timber industry in the ecoregion for the national and local economies (which would make a prohibitive approach hard to enforce), the presence of large numbers of stakeholders already involved in forest management (who can be enlisted for the application of BD-friendly SFM, at their own expense in the long term) and the limited coverage of PAs at present (which would imply major investment in new areas if a PA approach were to be effective). Given the modest scale of the project and the need to maintain focus, it would not be cost effective for it to attempt directly to address landscape level sector-based threats such as cattle ranching and market gardening; rather, it would focus on shifting the balance of attractiveness towards retention rather than conversion of forest and creating conditions wherein forests (especially those on State land) would cease to be an open access resource. The project would include explore forest certification as a complementary approaches to SO2, however it will receive secondary emphasis due to its relatively high transaction costs and therefore possibly low cost-effectiveness (at least in the short term until procedures are further ground-tested and streamlined). Likewise, payments for REDD were considered but not included, given that mechanisms for putting this into practice are as yet unproven in Honduras.

Sustainability

- Environmental: the project‟s impacts will be assured by incorporating biodiversity and environmental considerations into the location and design of community-based forest management and considering the landscape as the main management unit, the location of vulnerable globally-important biodiversity and the ecological characteristics and regenerative capacity of the resource.

51

- Financial: the project‟s impacts will be assured by managing the project on a business-based approach to SFM and to energy efficiency technologies, where feasible and appropriate, which will make such activities self-supporting, and by the investigation and development of alternative financing mechanisms such as the Forestry Reinvestment Fund and forest certification. - Institutional: impacts of the project will be promoted by the strengthening of technical capacities of the management of local agroforestry cooperatives as well as permanent government institutions, which will be closely involved in project activities by developing financial mechanisms through certification which have the potential to help cover at least part of the recurrent costs of private forest owners in relation to SFM, and by working with and strengthening existing local organizations and institutions. - Social: equity in benefit sharing will be promoted by ensuring the community-based SFM activities are developed on the basis of fully participatory exercises of situation analysis, planning, monitoring and management. The participation of women and other minorities will be encouraged.

Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness 153. Honduras ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on the 21st February of 1995 (Decree number 30-95, published in the official publication La Gaceta on 10th June 1995). It is also a signatory to Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and the Protection of Priority Wild Areas in Central America. 154. The pine-oak forests in northern Olancho were prioritized for conservation in the National Biodiversity Strategy. The Biodiversity Directorate of the Environmental and Natural Resources Ministry 8SERNA), with support from The Nature Conservancy, also identified a number of specific priority sites for conservation within the region, on the basis of an analysis of the national distribution of ecosystems and critically threatened species38. Replicability 155. Lessons learnt from the project activities and results will be replicable in other areas of the pine-oak forest subject to agricultural frontier pressures throughout the region and selective logging. There is specific provision in the budget for the systematization of lessons learnt, largely through the production of documents and through forest management field visits of one forest community to another. The main focus of replication efforts will however be within the project area, ensuring that project lessons and impacts are not confined to the ten selected municipalities. In addition to the specific planning and training events in these communities, a number of events will be carried out in the department to which representatives of communities, indigenous federations and municipal Governments from throughout the region will be invited. These will include events specifically focused on the systematization and dissemination of lessons learnt prior to and during the project. These will be complemented by a series of systematization documents that will be produced throughout the project period and for which specific budgetary provision is made. 156. The project will generate and promote models of community-based forest management compatible with the management, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity that will be replicated at national level. The pilot areas on which activities under Component 1 will focus will be carefully selected by virtue of their potential for the generation and demonstration of such models, due to the diversity of biological, physical and social conditions, the existence of a solid and diverse baseline of activities in relation to community-based forest management and conservation and the presence of diverse institutional actors. Design Principles and Strategic Considerations 157. The main principles underlying the design of this project are as follows: - The project will promote effective conservation of biodiversity in the pine-oak ecoregion through a combination of active, extractive management (in order to maximize social acceptance and sustainability,

38 MARXAN analysis of ecosystem coverage gaps.

52

and to provide forest stakeholders with the incentive to conserve the forest resource) and stricter protection in order to safeguard species that are intolerant to disturbance (in the form of no-take zones within areas covered by forest management plans) - The project will work within the existing, generally favourable framework of forestry legislation, norms and administrative procedures, facilitating the mainstreaming of BD considerations into these rather than proposing entirely new mechanisms - The project will take advantage of the fact that the new Forestry Law emphasizes community-based forest management and social control, but, given that a large proportion of the forest estate is in the hands of private owners and a large proportion of commercial timber activity is carried out by the private sector, it will work with these sectors as well. - The project recognizes that for forest management to be truly sustainable, it needs to be supported through a multi-pronged approach, which simultaneously provides forest owners, managers, users and authorities with technical prescriptions for forestry management and conservation, develops their technical, administrative, organizational and other capacities to put these prescriptions into practice, and ensures that adequate conditions of governance exist to allow them to operate effectively, in compliance with the law and without unfair competition from illegal activities.

53

III. STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP or CPD: 5.1 By the year 2008, an appropriate integrated national environmental policy promote the equitable access, sustainable use and conservation of natural resources 5.3 From 2007 on, new sector-based policies and strategies incorporate concerns of environment and risk management. Country Programme Outcome Indicators: . Área under community-based forest management . Área under forest protection . Percentage of area affected by forest fires Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area (same as that on the cover page, circle one): 4. Managing energy and the environment for sustainable development Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program: SFM-SP4-Policy, BD-SP4-Policy SFM-SP5-Markets, BD-SP5-Markets Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes: . Policy and regulatory frameworks governing the forest sectors incorporate measures to conserve biodiversity . Global certification systems for forest products include technically rigorous biodiversity standards Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators: . The degree to which forest polices and regulations include measures to conserve biodiversity as measured by GEF tracking tools . Published certification standards for biodiversity friendly forest products

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of Risks verification Project Objective Frequency of sightings of the Golden- Previous surveys (in 19 An average of 20 individuals Reports of results of Climate change, To mainstream cheeked warbler Dendroica transects in the pilot observed per year in the monitoring carried extreme environmental biodiversity chrysoparia in 10 target municipalities) found 19 original 19 transects out in biological events, pests, conservation into municipalities individuals in 2008 and 21 in Frequencies of observations in transects inadequate governance sustainable forest 2009 (additional surveys will new transect sites remain stable conditions management in the be carried out in the target throughout the project pine-oak ecoregion, in municipalities at project start conformity with the up) livelihood support Frequency of sightings of the Baseline survey to be carried Frequencies of observations in Reports of results of needs of the local salamanders Bolitoglossa diaphora, out at project startup target municipalities remain monitoring carried population Nototriton barbouri, Cryptotriton stable throughout the project out in biological nasalis, and the frog Isthmohyla transects insolita in 10 target municipalities Area of pine/oak forest in the 10 An average of 23,033ha of Area affected by fires that ICF statistics, field target municipalities affected by forest (6.9% of the total) in the cause little or no severe damage visits by project staff damaging forest fires (that cause 10 municipalities has been remains stable

54

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of Risks verification severe tree mortality, reductions in burnt annually over the last 6 Area affected by fires that canopy density and changes in the years. The proportion of these cause severe damage is reduced vertical structure of the forest) fires that caused severe damage by 25% (figures in hectares to will be estimated at project be estimated at project start) start. Area of pine/oak forest in the 10 100% of existing forest 10% (13,500 ha) of forest Review of a sample target municipalities that are covered management plans and/or in management plans and/or of management plans by forest management plans and/or annual plans of operation in annual plans of operation in and annual plans of annual plans of operation which pine/oak forest nationwide pine/oak forest nationwide operation incorporate improved/new provisions (covering approximately incorporate improved/new for biodiversity conservation (leaving 135,000 ha) contain provisions provisions for biodiversity no take zones, promoting regeneration stipulated in current norms conservation by the end of the of broadleaved species, leaving dead project. wood and applying integrated fire management) Area of pine/oak forest in the 10 All of the existing management 100% of the area of Field inspections and target municipalities with forest plans in the 10 target management plans in the 10 ICF files management plans approved by ICF municipalities (covering municipalities (62,000ha) is that are being managed in practice in approximately 62,000ha) are being managed in conformity conformity with principles of currently being implemented in with biodiversity conservation biodiversity conservation (leaving no conformity with existing principles take zones, promoting regeneration of norms. The area being broadleaved species, leaving dead managed in conformity with wood and applying integrated fire biodiversity conservation management) principles will be determined at the start of the project Area of pine/oak forest nationwide 100% of existing forest 10% of forest management Review of a sample covered by forest management plans management plans and/or in plans and/or annual plans of of management plans and/or annual plans of operation that annual plans of operation in operation in pine/oak forest and annual plans of incorporate improved/new provisions pine/oak forest nationwide nationwide in the country operation for biodiversity conservation (leaving (covering approximately 2.3 (covering 230,000ha) no take zones, promoting regeneration million ha) contain provisions incorporate in addition of broadleaved species, leaving dead stipulated in current norms improved/new provisions for wood and applying integrated fire biodiversity conservation management)

55

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of Risks verification Outcome 1: Existence of specific norms Norms exist regarding fire Norms are updated and Norms and approval Limited institutional Forest owners, nationwide for the conservation of management, pests, thinning, approved for fire and pest documents commitment in ICF managers and users and globally important biodiversity within extraction and road management, thinning, Limited political will forestry authorities have the context of the management of construction, but they do not extraction, forest road pine/oak forests incorporate adequate provisions construction and use and Limited receptiveness access to forest of forest technicians management for biodiversity conservation management of non-timber forest products, making due to concerns over prescriptions that possible reductions in maximize the habitat specific and adequate provision for the conservation of globally productivity of pine value of pine/oak timber forests for globally important biodiversity important flora and Area (outside of protected areas) in Approximately 35% of existing Approximately 40% (35,000ha) Review of fauna the 10 target municipalities that is management plans in the north of the area included in forest management plans formally excluded from productive east of Olancho (an area of management plans is excluded activities with potentially negative 30,285ha) is excluded from from forms of extractive implications for the status of globally- extractive timber management, management with potentially important biodiversity but not on the basis of negative implications for the considerations of the status of globally-important conservation of globally biodiversity (including Wildlife important biodiversity, nor Sites) (the precise figure will placing limitations on forms of be defined during the project activity rather than timber on the basis of conservation harvesting needs) Institutional capacity to mobilize Score Score Institutional capacity information and knowledge (see Institutions have 2 Institutions have 3 analysis consultancy Annex 16 of the Project Document – information and strategies information and strategies maximum score per criterion is 3) needed to supervise action needed to supervise action plans plans Institutions have 2 Institutions have 3 information and strategies information and strategies needed to carry out their needed to carry out their other responsibilities other responsibilities Individuals who work in 1 Individuals who work in 3 biodiversity conservation biodiversity conservation in pine/oak work in pine/oak work effectively in teams effectively in teams Institutional capacity to supervise, Score Score Institutional capacity evaluate, disseminate and learn (see Frequency of updating of 1 Frequency of updating of 3 analysis consultancy Annex 16 of the Project Document – policies policies maximum score per criterion is 3) Adaptability and 1 Adaptability and 3 responsiveness responsiveness

56

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of Risks verification Internal mechanisms for 1 Internal mechanisms for 3 supervision, evaluation, supervision, evaluation, dissemination and learning dissemination and learning Individual capacity to 1 Individual capacity to 3 adapt and learn adapt and learn Output 1.1: Programme for generation of knowledge on management options for the pine-oak ecoregion Output 1.2: Regional planning framework for BD conservation in management of pine oak ecoregion Output 1.3: Prescriptions for BD-friendly management of pine-oak forests Output 1.4: Mechanisms for facilitating mainstreaming of BD into management plans Output 1.5: Programme of capacity development and outreach programme on BD mainstreaming Outcome 2 Number of forest owners, managers In general forest owners, 50% of forest owners, Consultancy/ Forest Reinvestment Forest owners, and users in the 10 target managers and users are aware managers and users in the 10 questionnaire Fund fails to function as managers and users municipalities with awareness and of the provisions of current target municipalities (including including rankings foreseen have the capacities knowledge of options for the norms (the baseline will be private landowners and Limited interest in required for the integration of biodiversity characterized and quantified in agroforestry cooperatives, forest owners and users application of forms of conservation principles into forest more detail at project start) responsible for approximately due to concerns over forest use and management 40 management plans) have possible reductions in management that are adequate knowledge of options profitability of forest- compatible with for the integration of based businesses biodiversity biodiversity conservation conservation principles into forest management (precise criteria and target values will be defined at project start) Numbers of forest owners, managers Baseline to be defined at Target to be defined at project Review of reports of and users in the 10 target project start start inspections carried municipalities who are complying out by ICF with targets established in annual plans of operations Percentage of forest owners, 0 50% ICF registers of managers and users in the 10 target incentives municipalities who are receiving incentives that reward the application of forest management practices in accordance with biodiversity conservation principles Output 2.1: Capacity development programme for forest owners and users Output 2.2: Mechanisms for channeling financial incentives in support of BD conservation Output 2.3: Mechanisms for increasing and diversifying forest incomes Outcome 3. Number of municipalities with 0 (responsibility for regulation 10 municipalities have staff Inspections of Local governance

57

Indicator Baseline Targets (2014) Means of Risks verification Forest management installed capacities for the effective and monitoring is centralizad in members formally designated municipal offices conditions en general practices are subject to regulation and monitoring of the ICF) and trained to support forestry Limited technical and regulation and status of biodiversity and forest regulation and monitoring financial capacities in enforcement that management practices municipal and ICF permits the Levels of firewood extraction in 10 Baseline levels of extraction Extraction levels do not exceed Standardized field offices conservation of globally target municipalities, relative and regenerative capacities to the regenerative capacity of the studies important biodiversity Resistance of ICF to regenerative capacity of the resource be defined at project start resource (to be defined at decentralization of project start) responsibilities to Levels of NTFP extraction in 10 Baseline levels of extraction Extraction levels do not exceed Standardized field municipalities target municipalities, relative and regenerative capacities to the regenerative capacity of the studies Resistence among forest regenerative capacity of the resource be defined at project start resource (to be defined at owners to the project start) establishment of no take Proportion of no-take zones that are To be defined 80% (28,000ha) Standardized field zones in reality free from significant studies disturbance in the 10 target municipalities Percentage and area of forest To be defined (ICF inspection 80% of ICF inspection reports, Reports of ICF management plans without reports of reports do not currently make covering 496,000ha, make no technicians carrying infractions of management specific mention of mention of infractions of out inspections of prescriptions with relevance for the management prescriptions with management prescriptions with management areas conservation of globally important relevance for the conservation relevance for the conservation biodiversity of globally important of globally important biodiversity) biodiversity Output 3.1: Community-based rules for BD-friendly forest management Output 3.2: Mechanisms for coordination between community, municipal and central Government agencies in ensuring the application of rules for BD conservation Output 3.3: Municipal offices with capacities to support regulation of forest management in favour of BD conservation

58

IV. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

Award ID: 00060183 Project ID(s): 00075675 Award Title: Honduras: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into the management of pine-oak forests Business Unit: HND10 Project Title: Honduras: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into the management of pine-oak forests PIMS no. 4210 Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) The Nature Conservancy

Atlas Source GEF Outcome/Atlas Responsible Budgetary ERP/ATLAS Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total of Activity party Account Description/ Input funds Code US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ 1. Forest owners, TNC GEF 71300 Local Consultants 24,750 35,500 15,500 6,500 82,250 1 managers and users and 71400 Contractual Services - Individ 23,788 24,847 12,847 11,788 73,270 2 forestry authorities have 71600 Travel 7,698 7,698 - - 15,396 3 access to forest 72100 Contractual Services-Companies 4,000 - - - 4,000 4 management 72200 Equipment and Furniture 21,264 - - - 21,264 5 prescriptions that 73400 Rental&Maint - Other Equipment 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 11,800 6 maximize the habitat 74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 1,250 12,893 2,050 7,489 23,682 7 value of pine/oak 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,179 1,179 1,179 1,179 4,716 8 forests for globally 75700 Training 20,836 23,948 25,535 26,052 96,371 9 important flora and Total Outcome Cost 107,715 109,015 60,061 55,958 332,749 fauna 2. Forest owners, TNC 71300 Local Consultants 27,500 17,500 10,000 - 55,000 10 managers and users 71400 Contractual Services - Individ 9,474 9,474 21,474 9,474 49,896 11 have the capacities 71600 Travel - - 7,696 - 7,696 12 required for the 73400 Rental&Maint - Other Equipment 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 11,800 13 application of forms of 74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs - 6,000 - - 6,000 14 forest use and 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 178 178 178 178 712 15 management that are 75700 Training 21,141 17,141 21,141 17,141 76,564 16 compatible with Total Outcome Cost 61,243 53,243 63,439 29,743 207,668 biodiversity conservation 3 Forest management TNC 71300 Local Consultants 15,000 11,250 11,250 - 37,500 17 practices are subject to 71400 Contractual Services - Individ 9,474 9,474 9,474 21,474 49,896 18

regulation and 71600 Travel - - - 7,696 7,696 19 enforcement that 72200 Equipment and Furniture 15,000 - - - 15,000 20

59

permits the conservation 72500 Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 21 of globally important 73400 Rental&Maint - Other Equipment 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950 11,800 22 biodiversity 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 178 178 178 178 712 23 75700 Training 15,790 15,790 15,790 15,791 63,161 24 Total Outcome Cost 63,392 44,642 44,642 53,089 205,765 4 Project Management TNC GEF 71200 International Consultants - 20,000 - 20,000 40,000 25 71300 Local Consultants - 6,250 - 3,750 10,000 26 71600 Travel - 6,672 - 6,672 13,344 27 72100 Contractual Services-Companies 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 12,000 28 72200 Equipment and Furniture 3,360 - - - 3,360 29 74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs - - - 1,245 1,245 30 74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 740 740 740 740 2,960 31 Total Project Management 7,100 36,662 3,740 35,407 82,909 Totals by GEF 239,450 243,562 171,882 174,197 829,091 source CoF 842,736 831,263 813,763 810,806 3,298,568 Totals 1,082,186 1,074,825 985,645 985,003 4,127,659

60

Summary Atlas Budget

Atlas Budgetary account Code Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total International Consultants 71200 0 20,000 0 20,000 40,000 Local Consultants 71300 67,250 70,500 36,750 10,250 184,750 Contractual Services - Individ 71400 42,736 43,795 43,795 42,736 173,062 Travel 71600 7,698 14,370 7,696 14,368 44,132 Contractual Services-Companies 72100 7,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 16,000 Equipment and Furniture 72200 39,624 0 0 0 39,624 Supplies 72500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Rental&Maint - Other Equipment 73400 8,850 8,850 8,850 8,850 35,400 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 74200 1,250 18,893 2,050 8,734 30,927 Miscellaneous Expenses 74500 2,275 2,275 2,275 2,275 9,100 Training 75700 57,767 56,879 62,466 58,984 236,096 Total 239,450 243,562 171,882 174,197 829,091

Co-financing sources by outcome Project Source Type Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Total Management GEF 332,749 207,668 205,765 82,909 829,091 TNC Cash 58,750 - - 141,250 200,000 ESNACIFOR In kind 993,568 - - - 993,568 ICF Cash 631,500 421,000 421,000 631,500 2,105,000 Totals 2,016,567 628,668 626,765 855,659 4,127,659

Summary of funds Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total GEF 239,450 243,562 171,882 174,197 829,091 TNC 68,094 56,621 39,121 36,164 200,000 ESNACIFOR 248,392 248,392 248,392 248,392 993,568 ICF 526,250 526,250 526,250 526,250 2,105,000 Totals 1,082,186 1,074,825 985,645 985,003 4,127,659

61

Budgetary account Atlas 4 year Budget notes code total Outcome 1: Forest owners, managers and users and forestry authorities have access to forest management prescriptions that maximize the habitat value of pine/oak forests for globally important flora and fauna 1 Local Consultants 71300 82,250 Consultant Rate Weeks Responsibilities Biologist 625 12 - Support to development of applied research plan for pine-oak ecoregion (Output 1.1) (12 weeks) Training 500 36 - Training of forest owners, managers and users and ICF technicians on specialist(s) incorporation of BD considerations into forest management prescriptions (Output 1.5) (36 weeks) Environmental and 500 16 - Development of materials for environmental education among forest communities forestry education (Output 1.5) (8 weeks) specialist(s) - Development of proposals for modification of curricula in forestry education centres (Output 1.5) (8 weeks) Forestry 625 26 - Generation of proposals on linking local level plans and regulations to a regional- management and level planning framework (Output 1.2) (10 weeks) conservation - Recommendation of processes for incorporating biodiversity considerations into specialist forest management plan approval processes (Output 1.4) (16 weeks) Forest research 625 20 - Review, organization and dissemination of results of previous research (Output 1.1) specialist (8 weeks) - Support to development of applied research plan for pine-oak ecoregion (Output 1.1) (12 weeks) Municipal 625 8 - Strengthening of Intermunicipal Technical Units on incorporation of BD strengthening considerations (Output 1.5) (8 weeks) Support to development of applied research specialist plan for pine-oak ecoregion (Output 1.1) (12 weeks) Bioenergy specialist 625 24 - Baseline study on firewood use (Output 1.1) 2 Contractual Services - 71400 73,270 - 24 months salary for administrative assistant @ $1,000/month Individ - 16 months salary of field coordinator/technician @ $2,368/month - 200 days community-based paratechnicians for participatory inventories of BD and NTFPs (Output 1.1) 3 Travel 71600 15,396 - 96 nights DSA for project technicians on work travel to Tegucigalpa @ $93 - 36 nights DSA for project administrative assistant on work travel to Tegucigalpa @ $93 - 390 days field allowance for project technicians @ $8 4 Contractual Services- 72100 4,000 - Design and establishment of the project web page Companies 5 Equipment and Furniture 72200 21,264 - Forest inventory and fire management equipment 6 Rental&Maint - Other 73400 11,800 - Fuel ($8,000) Equipment - Vehicle maintenance ($3,333) - Tyres ($467)

62

7 Audio Visual&Print Prod 74200 23,682 - Publication of guidelines for the management of NTFP and firewood production ($1,343) (Outputs 1.1/1.3/1.5) Costs - Publication of results of baseline study on firewood ($3,000) (Output 1.1) - Publication of synthesis of research results to date ($3,000) (Output 1.1) - Publication of interinstitutional studies by SINFOR members ($2,400) (Output 1.1) - Publication of regional plan for forest management and conservation ($1,500) (Output 1.1) - Publication of guidelines for management plan preparation ($5,500) (Output 1.5) - Publication of guides for field trips ($1,000) (Output 1.5) - Publication of materials for environmental education ($5,000) (Output 1.5) - Publication of manuals on forest management prescriptions ($939) (Output 1.1) 8 Miscellaneous Expenses 74500 4,716 - 16 months support to thesis studies by students from national forestry training institutions @ $250 (Outputs 1.1/1.5) - Vehicle insurance ($716) 9 Training 75700 96,371 - Training courses, seminars and field trips to raise awareness and knowledge among forest owners, managers, users and technicians regarding BD mainstreaming (Output 1.5) Total 332,749 Outcome 2: Forest owners, managers and users have the capacities required for the application of forms of forest use and management that are compatible with biodiversity conservation 10 Local Consultants 71300 55,000 Consultant Rate Weeks Responsibilities Judicial specialist 625 8 - Training in judicial aspects related to forest management (Output 2.1) Training specialist(s) 625 24 - Training of forest owners, managers and users and ICF technicians on application of forest management prescriptions including BD considerations (Output 2.1) - Development of programme for awareness raising among forest stakeholders regarding incorporation of BD considerations into forest planning and management (Output 2.1) Specialist in forestry 625 8 - Exploration of options for forest certification (Output 2.3) certification Forestry incentives 625 8 - Development of guidelines for incorporation of biodiversity specialist considerations into forestry incentive programmes (Output 2.2) Forestry marketing 625 40 - Identification of products that may be subject to sustainable management specialist and marketing (Output 2.3) - Technical support to marketing of BD-friendly NTFPs (Output 2.3) 11 Contractual Services - 71400 49,896 - 12 months salary for administrative assistant @ $1,000/month Individ - 16 months salary of field coordinator/technician @ $2,368.50/month 12 Travel 71600 7,696 - 48 nights DSA for project technicians on work travel to Tegucigalpa @ $92.50 - 18 nights DSA for project administrative assistant on work travel to Tegucigalpa @ $92 - 200 days field allowance for project technicians @ $8 13 11,800 - Fuel ($8,000) Rental&Maint - Other - Vehicle maintenance ($3,333) Equipment 73400 - Tyres ($467)

63

14 Audio Visual&Print Prod 74200 6,000 - Documents of rules and criteria for forestry incentives ($2000) (Output 2.2) Costs - Documents of marketing opportunities for forestry (Output 2.3) 15 Miscellaneous Expenses 74500 712 - Vehicle insurance ($712) 16 Training 75700 76,564 - Training courses, seminars and field trips to raise awareness and knowledge among forest owners, managers, users and technicians regarding options for application of BD-friendly management prescriptions in practice (Output 2.1) Total 207,668 Outcome 3: Forest management practices are subject to regulation and enforcement that permits the conservation of globally important biodiversity 17 Local Consultants 71300 37,500 Consultant Rate Weeks Responsibilities Municipal strengthening 625 40 - Support to development of community-based models of forest specialist management and governance (Output 3.1) - Development of training programme for municipalities in aspects related to biodiversity (Output 3.3) Specialist in forestry 625 20 - Facilitation of the participatory definition of norms and quotas for norms and regulations forestry management and extraction by local communities (Output 3.1) 18 Contractual Services - 71400 49,896 - 12 months salary for administrative assistant @ $1,000/month Individ - 16 months salary of field coordinator/technician @ $2,368.50/month 19 71600 7,696 - 48 nights DSA for project technicians on work travel to Tegucigalpa @ $92.50 - 18 nights DSA for project administrative assistant on work travel to Tegucigalpa @ $92 Travel - 200 days field allowance for project technicians @ $8 20 72200 15,000 - Radio equipment for municipal offices ($10,000) (Output 3.3) Equipment and Furniture - Digital cameras for municipal offices ($5,000) (Output 3.3) 21 Supplies 72500 20,000 - Signs for demarcation of no-take zones (Outputs 3.1/3.3) 22 Rental&Maint - Other 11,800 - Fuel ($8,000) Equipment - Vehicle maintenance ($3,333) 73400 - Tyres ($467) 23 Miscellaneous Expenses 74500 712 - Vehicle insurance ($712) 24 75700 63,161 - Training courses, seminars and field trips to develop and promote options for forest governance and interinstitutional Training coordination (Outputs 3.1/3.2) Total 205,765 Outcome 4: Project Management 25 International Consultants 71200 40,000 - Fees for international consultants contracted for mid term evaluation ($20,000) - Fees for international consultants contracted for final evaluation ($20,000) 26 Local Consultants 71300 10,000 - Fees for national consultants contracted for mid term evaluation ($3,750) - Fees for national consultants contracted for final project evaluation ($3,750) - One consultant month to evaluate installed institutional capacities ($2,500)

64

27 Travel 71600 13,344 - Air ticket for international consultant for the mid term evaluation ($2,000) - DSA for the International consultant mid term evaluation ($2,820) - DSA for national consultant, mid term evaluation ($1,852) - Air ticket for international consultant for final project valuation ($2,000) - DSA for the International consultant, final evaluation ($2,820) - DSA for national consultant, final project evaluation evaluation ($1,852) 28 Contractual Services- 72100 12,000 - Project auditing tasks Companies 29 Equipment and Furniture 72200 3,360 - Computers, printers, digital cameras and external hard drives for project office 30 Audio Visual&Print Prod 74200 1,245 - Systematization of project documents Costs 31 Miscellaneous Expenses 74500 2,960 - Project staff insurance Total 82,909

65

V. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Execution Modality 158. This 4 year project will be executed under NGO Execution modality, according to the standards and regulations for UNDP cooperation in Honduras. The Project IP will be The Nature Conservancy, for the following reasons: - TNC is coordinating a regional programme for the conservation of the pine-oak ecoregion in Mesoamerica, of which the present project would form an integral part. - TNC has human and logistical resources installed in the project area, and has worked in conservation of the pine-oak ecoregion in the project area for a number of years. - TNC has led and cofinanced the PPG phase - TNC has committed to providing significant cofinancing to the project and, as IP, it will have the opportunity of levering additional resources.. 159. The organizational structure of the project is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Organizational structure of the project

Project Board Senior ExecutiveDirector/a Beneficiaries (SETCO, Supplier (Vice-MinisterGeneral SERNA, Local Steering (UNDP) ICF) Committee)

Intersectoral Advisory National Project Director (Director Committee of Protected Areas and Wildlife, ICF) (ICF, SERNA)

Technical Juticalpa ICF Office Advisory

Committee National Project Coordinator Technical/Policy Advisor (TNC, (TNC, full time) SERNA, ICF, (TNC, part time UNDP, assignment to Project, AMADHO, located in ICF FEHCAFOR) Headquarters) Field specialist (TNC, full time) Local Steering Committee

160. As IP, TNC will be responsible for implementing the project in operational, administrative and financial terms, subject to oversight and monitoring by UNDP, the National Project Director and the Project Board. TNC

66

will appoint a full time National Project Coordinator (see below), who will be based physically in the offices of ICF in Olancho. TNC and ICF will be responsible for ensuring the following: - The implementation of project activities in accordance with Annual Budgets and Workplans and Quarterly Plans, approved by UNDP and the Project Board as appropriate; - The delivery of the project outputs foreseen in the Project Document; - The achievement of project outcomes, in accordance with the indicator targets specified in the project Strategic Results Framework; - The monitoring and evaluation of project impacts; - The effective participation of project partners and other stakeholders in project implementation, in accordance with the project participation plan; - The conformity of project activities with national policies and priorities; - The effective, efficient and transparent use of project funds.

Project Director 161. The project will be under the overall leadership of a National Project Director (NPD), who will be the Director of Protected Areas and Wildlife in ICF and will be responsible for orienting and advising the National Project Coordinator on Government policy and priorities. The NPD will also be responsible for maintaining regular communication with the lead institutions in the forestry sector, the ICF and Directorate of Biodiversity in SERNA and ensuring that their interests are communicated effectively to the National Project Coordinator.

Project Implementation Unit 162. Project implementation will be the responsibility in practice of a Project Implementation Unit (PIU), led by a National Project Coordinator (NPC). The NPC will: - Be the signing authority of requests to UNDP for disbursements of project funds. - Ensure the logistical, administrative and financial effectiveness of the IP in fulfilling its roles set out above - To this end, provide monitoring, supervision and guidance to the technical team based in the Juticalpa office - Promote incidence in and coordination with the ICF and the donor agencies that are supporting it

163. In addition, the national representative of TNC in Honduras (who will be based in the headquarters of ICF in Tegucigalpa) will dedicate approximately 25% of his/her time to the project (this time will be entirely funded by TNC), as Technical/Policy Adviser, and will also be responsible for promoting coordination of the project‟s activities with activities of TNC elsewhere in the Mesoamerican pine-oak ecoregion. 164. The PIU office in Juticalpa will be located in the regional office of ICF, which is shared by staff of ICF and the GTZ and EU forestry projects. 165. In addition to the specific positions underlined above, a series of sub-contracts will be necessary in order to ensure and complement the technical capacity of the members of the PIU. These contracts will be entered into in accordance with the guidelines of UNDP and terms of reference defined by the NPD, during the first month of the implementation phase or annually, in accordance with the project‟s work plan.

Project Board 166. The duration of the project would be 4 years. Implementation of the project will be carried out under the general guidance of a Project Board (Steering Committee), specifically formed for this purpose. The composition, responsibilities and rules of operation of the Board will be confirmed during its first meeting. Subject to the decision of this meeting, it is proposed that the Board will be responsible for approving the operational plans and annual reports of the project as well as the terms of reference and appointments of key members of staff, and will be composed of representatives of ICF (chair), UNDP (secretary), the Ministry of Planning (SECPLAN), the

67

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SERNA), and a representative of the Local Steering Committee made up of local stakeholders. TNC, as IP, will normally be invited to participate in Board meetings, at the discretion of the Board Executive. The Board will meet at least two times per year and in addition could be convened extraordinarily by the Chair, on the request of individual members. 167. The Project Board will be responsible for making executive decisions for the project, in particular when guidance is required by the Project Coordinator. The Project Board will play a critical role in facilitating inter- ministerial coordination, project monitoring and evaluations by quality assuring these processes and products, and using evaluations for performance improvement, accountability and learning. It will ensure that required resources are committed and will arbitrate on any conflicts within the project or negotiate a solution to any problems with external bodies. In addition, it will approve the appointment and responsibilities of the Project Manager and any delegation of its Project Assurance responsibilities. Based on the approved Annual Work Plan, the Project Board will also consider and approve the quarterly plans and will also approve any essential deviations from the original plans. 168. In order to ensure UNDP‟s ultimate accountability for the project results, Project Board decisions will be made in accordance to standards that shall ensure management for development results, best value for money, fairness, integrity, transparency and effective international competition. In case consensus cannot be reached within the Board, the final decision shall rest with the UNDP. 169. The Board will consist of the following members: 1) The Executive, who will chair the Board. This role will be filled by the Vice Minister of ICF or his/her representative. 2) A representative of the Senior Supplier, who will provide guidance regarding the technical feasibility of the project. This role will be filled by UNDP. 3) Senior Beneficiaries, who will represent the interests of those who will ultimately benefit from the project and ensure the realization of project results from the perspective of project beneficiaries. The following beneficiaries will be represented on the Project Board: - SERNA - SECPLAN - The Local Steering Committee.

Other committees 170. Local stakeholders will have an additional mechanism for influence on the project through a Local Steering Committee (LSC) which will be appointed, and whose composition, responsibilities and functioning will be determined, by the stakeholders themselves. 171. The LSC will advise the members of the PIU on the interests of local stakeholders. The LSC will meet as a minimum before each meeting of the Project Board, in order to ensure that local interests are taken into account in the decisions of the Board: to this end, minutes of LSC meetings will be read to each Project Board meeting. The members of the LSC will include, as a minimum, representatives of the Association of Municipalities of Olancho, AMADHO, FEHCAFOR (or its local equivalent body), and environmental NGOs and/or environmental community-based organizations. 172. Subject to confirmation at project startup, the LSC may also designate sub-committees to discuss specific issues such as the mainstreaming of gender considerations into project operations. 173. Communication between the NPD and partners institutions will be carried out through an Inter-sectorial Advisory Committee (IAC) on which ICF and SERNA will be represented. 174. A Technical Committee will meet on an ad hoc basis to discuss and formulate technical aspects of proposed modifications to forest management norms and regulations. Subject to negotiations to be carried out at

68

project start up, the Committee will include representatives of UNDP, SERNA, ICF, cooperation agencies, AMADHO and FEHCAFOR. 175. Project staff will participate in meetings of the multi-stakeholder Mesa Forestal, which includes UNDP members of cooperation agencies, NGOs and FEHCAFOR. The Mesa Forestal will be used as a mechanism for advocacy, regarding proposed modifications to policy and regulatory instruments.

UNDP 176. UNDP will provide Project Assurance, supporting the Project Board Executive by carrying out objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions.

Summary of the inputs to be provided by all partners

Partner Inputs TNC - Implementing Partner - Provision of cofinancing, logistical and administrative support ICF - Executive of Project Board - Provision of office space in Tegucigalpa and Juticalpa - Forestry authority, responsible for promoting sustainable forest management and conservation and ensuring forest governance UNDP - Implementing Agency and Senior Supplier SERNA - GEF Focal Point, - Definition and monitoring of national strategies for biodiversity conservation Municipal Governments - Forest planning and governance at local level - Management of ejidal forests Community and Municipal - Social auditing and forest governance Consultative Councils Forest owners, managers and - Application of sustainable forest management practices users

Coordination with related projects 177. The recently approved project “Conservation of Biodiversity in the Indigenous Productive Landscapes of the Moskitia” (GEF ID 3592) focuses strongly on forest management of pine (P. caribaea) forests in indigenous landscapes of the Moskitia lowlands: while this is a different species to the predominant pine species in the current project (P. oocarpa) there are some ecological similarities between these two ecosystems and the teams implementing the two projects will interchange lessons and experiences. This is particularly relevant in the case of fire management, which is a major issue in both projects: the major partner in the present project, The Nature Conservancy, has major experience with research into fire management in the Moskitia, and will be constitute an obvious channel for communication of lessons on this issue. 178. The project will also be closely coordinated with the EU-funded Forest Sector Modernization Project (MOSEF), which is its main source of cofinancing, and the expected next phase of the GTZ-funded Natural Resources Programme (PRORENA), which is currently under discussion. This coordination will be furthered by the fact that the Project Coordinator will be based physically in the Tegucigalpa offices of ICF, which will be the main institutional counterpart of both of these initiatives, and that the regional staff of the project in Juticalpa are expected to share the ICF regional office there with regional staff of those initiatives.

Audit arrangements 179. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be

69

conducted by a special and certified audit firm. UNDP will be responsible for making audit arrangements for the project in communication with the Project Implementing Partner. 180. UNDP and the project Implementing Partner will provide audit management responses and the Project Manager and project support team will address addit recommendatios. 181. As a part of its oversight function, UNDP will conduct audit spot checks at least two times a year.

Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables 182. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo should appear on all relevant GEF project publications, including among others, project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF.

Prior Obligations and Prerequisites N/A

Results of capacity assessment of implementing partner 183. To be carried out by UNDP Honduras.

70

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN AND BUDGET

184. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Results Framework provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built. 185. The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities. 1. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1.1. Project Inception Phase 186. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted soon after its approval with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as appropriate. 187. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project‟s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed and, on the basis of this exercise, finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. 188. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings. 189. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party‟s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase. 1.2. Monitoring responsibilities and events 190. A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities. 191. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator, Director or CTA (depending on the established project structure) based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its

71

indicators. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. 192. The Project Coordinator and the Project GEF Technical Advisor will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years will be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team. 193. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in Table 30. The measurement, of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions (e.g. vegetation cover via analysis of satellite imagery, or populations of key species through inventories) or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities (e.g. measurement carbon benefits from improved efficiency of ovens or through surveys for capacity building efforts) or periodic sampling such as with sedimentation. 194. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. 195. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception Report / Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the SC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all SC members, and UNDP-GEF.

196. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments. 197. The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The project proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.

Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)

198. The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The project proponent is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LAC-GEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

72

199. The TTR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks will be developed at the Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs. 1.3. Project Monitoring Reporting 200. The Project Coordinator in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation. (a) Inception Report (IR) 201. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year/Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan will include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. 202. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation. 203. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF‟s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document. (b) Annual Project Report (APR) 204. The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP‟s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management. It is a self -assessment report by project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key input to the Tripartite Project Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. 205. The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following: . An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome. . The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these. . The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results. . AWP, CAE and other expenditure reports (ERP generated). . Lessons learned. . Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress. (c) Project Implementation Review (PIR) 206. The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-June) and ideally

73

prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing agency, UNDP CO and the concerned RC. 207. The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF M&E Unit analyse the PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The TAs and PTAs play a key role in this consolidating analysis. 208. The focal area PIRs are then discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task Forces in or around November each year and consolidated reports by focal area are collated by the GEF Independent M&E Unit based on the Task Force findings. 209. The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both APR and PIR, UNDP/GEF has prepared a harmonized format for reference. (d) Quarterly Progress Reports 210. Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team.

(e) Periodic Thematic Reports 211. As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team. (f) Project Terminal Report

212. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project‟s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project‟s activities. (g) Technical Reports 213. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels. (h) Project Publications 214. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.

74

2. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

215. The project will be subjected to maximum two independent external evaluations as follows: (a) Mid-term Evaluation 216. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project‟s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

(b) Final Evaluation 217. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

Audit Clause 218. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government. 3. LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING 219. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:  The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.

 The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.

220. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

75

Table 31. Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and corresponding Budget Type of M&E Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time Frame activity . Project Coordinator Within first two months of Inception Workshop . UNDP CO 3,974 (CF) project start up . UNDP-GEF RCU Inception Report . Project Team None Immediately following IW . UNDP CO Measurement of . Project Coordinator will To be finalized in Start and end of project Means of Verification oversee the hiring of Inception Phase and for Project Purpose specific studies and Workshop. Indicative cost Indicators institutions, and delegate 5,000 GEF, 5,000 CF responsibilities to relevant team members Measurement of . Oversight by Project GEF No separate M&E cost: to Annually prior to APR/PIR Means of Verification Technical Advisor and be absorbed within and to the definition of annual for Project Progress Project Coordinator routine salary and travel work plans and Performance . Measurements by regional costs of staff personnel field officers and local IAs APR and PIR . Project Team; UNDP-CO; None Annually UNDP-GEF TPR and TPR report . Government Counterparts None Every year, upon receipt of . UNDP CO; Project team APR . UNDP-GEF RCU Steering Committee . Project Coordinator None Twice yearly Meetings . UNDP CO Periodic status . Project team None To be determined by Project reports team and UNDP CO Technical reports . Project team None To be determined by Project . Hired consultants as needed Team and UNDP-CO Mid-term External . Project team; UNDP- 30,422 GEF At the mid-point of project Evaluation CO;UNDP-GEF Regional implementation. Coordinating Unit . External evaluation consultants Final External . Project team; UNDP-CO; 30,422 GEF At the end of project Evaluation UNDP-GEF Regional implementation Coordinating Unit . External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Terminal Report At least one month before the . Project team; UNDP-CO None . External Consultant end of the project Lessons learned . Project team 5,000 CF Yearly . UNDP-GEF RCU Audit . UNDP-CO 12,000 (average 3000 per Yearly . Project team year) (GEF) Visits to field sites . UNDP Country Office Yearly (UNDP staff travel . UNDP-GEF Regional costs to be charged to Coordinating Unit (as No separate M&E cost IA fees) appropriate) . Government representatives TOTAL INDICATIVE COST (Excluding project team GEF 77,844 staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses ) CF 13,974 Total 91,818

76

Annex 1. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

I. Project General Information

1. Project Name: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into the management of pine-oak forests 2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): MSP 3. Project ID (GEF): 3996 4. Project ID (IA): 4210 5. Implementing Agency: UNDP 6. Country: Honduras

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program Inclusion Adrian Barrance Project Design UNDP Honduras Consultant Project Mid-term

Final Evaluation/project completion

7. Project duration: Planned __4__ years Actual _____ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

9. GEF Strategic Program:

SFM-SP4-Policy, BD-SP4-Policy, SFM-SP5-Markets, BD-SP5-Markets

10. Production sectors and/or ecosystem services directly targeted by project:

10. a. Please identify the main production sectors involved in the project. Please put “P” for sectors that are primarily and directly targeted by the project, and “S” for those that are secondary or incidentally affected by the project.

Forestry: P

II. Project Landscape/Seascape Coverage

11. a. What is the extent (in hectares) of the landscape or seascape where the project will directly or indirectly contribute to biodiversity conservation or sustainable use of its components? An example is provided in the table below.

77

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen at project Achievement at Achievement at Project Coverage start Mid-term Final Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project Landscape/seascape area 620km2 directly covered by the project Landscape/seascape area 45,000km2 indirectly covered by the project

Explanation for indirect coverage numbers: The direct coverage figure corresponds to the area of northeast Olancho covered by forest management plans, in which the project would directly support the incorporation of biodiversity considerations. The indirect coverage figure corresponds to the approximate total area of the pine-oak ecoregion in Honduras.

11. b. Are there Protected Areas within the landscape/seascape covered by the project? If so, names these PAs, their IUCN or national PA category, and their extent in hectares.

Name of Protected Areas IUCN and/or national category of PA Extent in hectares of PA Sierra de Agalta National Park 73,923.8 La Muralla Wildlife Refuge 24,626.5 El Armado Wildlife Refuge 3,572.1 Water Production Zones Not formally recognized 88,220.5 Private Reserves Not formally recognized 207.0

11. c. Within the landscape/seascape covered by the project, is the project implementing payment for environmental service schemes? If so, please complete the table below. An example is provided.

Targets and Foreseen at Project Start Achievement at Mid-term Achievement at Final Timeframe Evaluation of Project Evaluation of Project Coverage Extent in Payments Extent in Payments Extent in Payments Environmental hectares generated hectares generated hectares generated Service (US$) (US$) (US$) N/A

III. Management Practices Applied

12.a. Within the scope and objectives of the project, please identify in the table below the management practices employed by project beneficiaries that integrate biodiversity considerations and the area of coverage of these management practices. Please also note if a certification system is being applied and identify the certification system being used. Note: this could range from farmers applying organic agricultural practices, forest management agencies managing forests per Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines or other

78

forest certification schemes, artisanal fisher folk practicing sustainable fisheries management, or industries satisfying other similar agreed international standards, etc. An example is provided in the table below.

Specific management Name of Area of Achievement at Achievement at practices that integrate BD certification coverage Mid-term Final Evaluation of system being foreseen at start Evaluation of Project used of project Project Maintenance of an oak/pine N/A 62,000ha ratio in the landscape of at (precise area for least 30/70 each practice to Maintenance of soil coverage be determined and understorey, through the during the course application of appropriate fire of the project) regimes Modification of thinning and felling regimes in order to maintain structural diversity Maintenance of overmature and dead trees Increased tolerance of occasional low temperature burns and use of deliberate prescribed burns Protection of gallery forest Designation of no take zones to avoid increases in sediment loads in water courses where it reproduces Limitation of the amount of forest residue (branches, tree tops etc produced by the logging operations) to be used for fire wood

IV. Market Transformation 13. For those projects that have identified market transformation as a project objective, please describe the project's ability to integrate biodiversity considerations into the mainstream economy by measuring the market changes to which the project contributed.

Name of the market Unit of measure of Market Market Market that the project market impact condition condition at condition at seeks to affect at the start midterm final (sector and sub- of the evaluation evaluation of sector) project of project the project N/A

79

V. Policy and Regulatory frameworks

For those projects that have identified addressing policy, legislation, regulations, and their implementation as project objectives, please complete the following series of questions: 14a, 14b, and 14c.

An example for a project that focused on the agriculture sector is provided in 14 a, b, and c.

14. a. Please complete this table at CEO endorsement for each sector that is a primary or a secondary focus of the project. Please answer YES or NO to each statement under the sectors that are a focus of the project.

Sector Forestry Statement: Please answer YES or NO for each sector that is a focus of the project. Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy YES Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy through specific legislation YES Regulations are in place to implement the legislation NO The regulations are under implementation NO The implementation of regulations is enforced NO Enforcement of regulations is monitored NO

14. b . Please complete this table at the project mid-term for each sector that is a primary or a secondary focus of the project. Please answer YES or NO to each statement under the sectors that are a focus of the project.

Sector Forestry Statement: Please answer YES or NO for each sector that is a focus of the project. Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy through specific legislation Regulations are in place to implement the legislation The regulations are under implementation The implementation of regulations is enforced Enforcement of regulations is monitored

14. c. Please complete this table at project closure for each sector that is a primary or a secondary focus of the project. Please answer YES or NO to each statement under the sectors that are a focus of the project.

Sector Forestry Statement: Please answer YES or NO for each sector that is a focus of the project. Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy through specific legislation Regulations are in place to implement the legislation The regulations are under implementation

80

The implementation of regulations is enforced Enforcement of regulations is monitored

All projects please complete this question at the project mid-term evaluation and at the final evaluation, if relevant:

14. d. Within the scope and objectives of the project, has the private sector undertaken voluntary measures to incorporate biodiversity considerations in production? If yes, please provide brief explanation and specifically mention the sectors involved.

No

VI. Other Impacts

15. Please briefly summarize other impacts that the project has had on mainstreaming biodiversity that have not been recorded above. N/A

81

Annex 2. Organigrams of Principal Institutional Stakeholders

Institute of Forest Conservation and Development

INSTITUTO DE CONSERVACIÓN FORESTAL ICF

Presidente de la República

Auditoria Interna Dirección Ejecutiva Secretaria Asesoría Legal Asesoría Técnica General

Gerencia Unidad de sub. Dirección Desarrollo Administrativa Planificación y Sub. Dirección AP y VS Forestal Central eval. Gestión

Comunicación Centro de Desarrollo Manejo y Institucional Cuencas Información y Vida Áreas Forestal Desarrollo Hidrográficas Patrimonio Silvestre Protegidas Comunitario Forestal y ambiente Forestal Informatica

Zonas de producción y/o Conservación

Francisco El Nor Comayagua Gualaco Olancho Atlántida Yoro Rio Plátano La Mosquitia Occidente Pacifico Morazán Paraíso Occidente

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

Órganos Colegiados MSA, CODA, GABINETES Secretaria de Estado Organismos Descentralizados

UPEG Secretaria General Auditoria Interna

Subsecretaria de Estado de Subsecretaria de Estado de Servicios Programas

Serv. Nac. De Sanidad Progr. Nac. Desarr. Rural Agroal. Sost. SENASA PRONADERS

Progr. Nac. Desarrollo Serv. Nac. de. Infraest. Riego Agroalimentario. SENINFRA PRONAGRO

SNITTA

Serv. Nac. de. Inform. agroal. INFOAGRO Progr. Nac. De Pesca y Acuicultura PRONAPAC Serv. Nac. de. Invest. Transf. De Tecnologia DICTA Progr. Nac. Desarr. Forestal PRONAFOR

Serv. Nac. de. Educ. cap y Desar. Agroempresarial SEDUCA

82

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

83

Annex 3. Stakeholder Participation during Project Preparation Project preparation has been highly participatory at all stages. The principal mechanisms whereby stakeholder participation has been ensured have been the following: The principal steps in the project design process, aimed at ensuring participation of local stakeholders, have been the following: 1) Initial formulation of project ideas The initial concept of the project was proposed by SERNA, in discussion with UNDP, in accordance with the priorities expressed in the National Biodiversity Strategy and the letter sent to GEF expressing priorities for the use of the country‟s RAF allocation. 1) Initial introductory and scoping workshop in Juticalpa. In this workshop, which was attended by a wide range of local stakeholders from across the project area, the overall idea of the project was presented and validated within the framework of the priorities of GEF, UNDP and the Government, and permission was requested from the participants to proceed with project design. Workshop participants carried out an initial problem analysis and identified broad brush strategies, as well as identifying priority sectors for project attention (forestry). The results of this workshop were used as the basis for the PIF. 2) Appointment of PPG Coordinator PPG activities have been carried out under the coordination and supervision of a TNC PPG Coordinator with extensive knowledge and experience of the whole project area. . 3) Meetings between PPG team and Local Committee Prior to commencing their fieldwork, the team of PPG consultants held a meeting with the Local Committee to validate their proposed methodologies. Following initial scoping, the team proposed a list of study communities, which was approved by the Local Committee. At the end of their principal phase of fieldwork, the PPG team met again with the Local Committee to feed back initial results to its members. 4) Project Socialization Workshop Following receipt of the first drafts of the PPG consultants‟ reports, a Project Design Workshop was held in Tegucigalpa, in which the results of the consultants‟ studies were fed back in summarized form to the participants, who in turn validated them and developed further proposals for project activities.

84

Annex 4. Stakeholder Participation Plan (SPP) for the Project Implementation Phase

The establishment of a Project Board will guarantee stakeholder participation in the project, formed by: ICF, SETCO, SERNA, UNDP and a representative of the Local Project Committee (CLP) who will be incorporated once this local committee is organized. The Board will advise and approve important decisions for the Project´s functions in addition to approving the work plans, budgets and quarterly and annual reports. For this purpose it will draft a work plan and schedule that will clearly define the Board´s objectives, participation mechanisms, periodicity of the meetings, area of concern and links to the Project Coordinator. The Local Project Committee (CLP) will be another instance once it is established and will have the representation of the Head of the Local ICF Office, a representative of the Private Forest Owners, one from the municipalities of the Project´s area of influence and a representative from the participating agro-forestry groups. The CLP will be represented in the CDP and will form part of the Advisory Team during the stage of Project´s execution. The CLP will have the main role of ensuring the incorporation in the Project of a social variable, circulating the scope and outreach of the forest law and policies and ensuring that forest management incentives are kept in harmony with conserving the biodiversity.

Another role the CLP could play is that of a social auditor who participates in the periodic follow-up and evaluation processes of the planned activities and informing the communities regarding their behaviour. This would the Project implementation another level of transparency.

Stakeholder Analysis/Participation Plan Description of Stakeholders Forms of Participation Agro forestry Cooperatives - Sustainable management of lumber yielding and non lumber yielding products under the forest management scheme with a focus on conserving the biodiversity - Participation in the planning processes for land use and monitoring the measures to protect the biodiversity during the Project´s implementation - Beneficiaries participating in the training processes Private Forest Owners - Promoting change in the focus for traditional forest management for the one incorporating the biodiversity conservation in the management plans - Beneficiaries of support in the form of incentives for promoting investments in forest Municipal Mayors´ Offices - Promoting change in the focus for traditional forest management for the one incorporating the biodiversity conservation in the management plans - Beneficiaries of support in the form of incentives for promoting investments in forest - Staff from the Mayors‟ Offices participating in the capacity building processes Forest Exploitation Contractors - Contractors participating in the capacity building processes - Subjected to regulations to avoid the negative impacts to the biodiversity Lumber yard owners - Regulate the origin of raw forest materials assuring the application of the management norms, with the variable for biodiversity conservation - Proprietors participating in the capacity building processes Owners of Wood transformation - Regulate the origin of raw forest materials assuring the application of the management businesses norms, with the variable for biodiversity conservation - Proprietors participating in the capacity building processes ICF - Recipient of technical assistance to strengthen the norms related to biodiversity conservation - Participation in the processes for planning, preparing and applying the regulations related to biodiversity conservation - Participation in the processes to review, modify and approve the models for forest management plans with the biodiversity variable - Participation in the processes to approve the contracts or agreements for usufruct, by agro forestry groups in the zone with designated areas - Promotion and management of incentives for promoting biodiversity in forest management - Supervision of the forest management activities

85

- Recipient of the capacity building processes on the issue of biodiversity SERNA - Inter-institutional coordination with ICF and other stakeholders for the support and application of norms related to biodiversity in the forest management plans Secretariat of Planning - Participation in the processes to plan the use of land at the regional level, under the new (SEPLAN) schemes and with focuses on the development planning promoted by the State - Participation in the processes to follow-up and evaluate the Project´s activities - Recipient of the capacity building processes on the issue of biodiversity ESNACIFOR|CURLA|UNA - Participation in the processes to design, direct,, evaluate and replicate the research carried out by the project Independent Forest Technicians - Beneficiaries of the capacity building processes - Subjected to the regulations to avoid the negative impacts on the biodiversity Environmental NGOs and - Partners in the process to implement the management of the biodiversity variable projects with area presence - Recipient of the capacity building processes on the issue of biodiversity TNC - Project implementation agency and for raising financial resources for the Project

86

Annex 5. Summary of Key Data on Honduras and Olancho

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA39 2000 2002 2004 2009 Population Total (millions) 6.249,598 6,560,608 6,823,568 7,876,197 Median age (years; Women / Men) - - - 20.7/20.0 Rate of population growth (%) - - - 2.70 Rate of fertility (children per woman) 4.26 - - 3.27 Gross birth rate (per 100 thousand people) 32.65 - - 26.27 Gender proportion (Man to Woman) - - - 1.01 Life expectancy at birth (years) 69.93 - 66.15 70.45 Gross mortality rate (per 100 thousand people) 5.1 6.44 6.64 4.96 Child mortality rate (every 1000 born alive) 31.29 - - 21.68 Age group structure (%): 0 a 14 years - - - 38.1 15-64 years - - - 58.3 ≥ 65 years - - - 3.6 Literacy rate (%) 72.7 - - 80.0 Work force (millions) 2.30 - - 2.99 Unemployment rate40 (%) 28.0 28.0 27.5 3.541 Unemployment rate in youths (15 to 24 years, - - 11.2/5.2 - W/M) Population below the poverty line (%) 50.00 53.00 53.00 50.7 Urbanization: Urban / Rural (%) - 46/54 - 47/5342 Net migration (No. migrants/1000 people) -2.17 - - -1.3 Rate of HIV/AIDS in adults (%) 1.92 - - 0.70 Persons affected by HIV / AIDS (thousands) 63 - - 28 Deaths due to HIV/AIDS 4200 - - 1900 GNP/capita (US$) 2050 - - 4200 National GNP (thousands of millions US$) 14.1 - - 30.5 Export/imports (thousands of millions, US$) 1.60/2.7 - - 6.05/10.4 Telephones (cellular) - 1,4427 326,500 4,185,000 Telephones, land lines/mobiles (per each/ 100 - 25.0 / 4.3 25.0/ 21.0 9.3 / 29.3 people) Number of Internet servers 0 - 1944 4672 Number of Internet users - 20,000 - 424,200

39 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/region/region_cam.html http://www.indexmundi.com/honduras/net_migration_rate.html 40 Unemployment rate: % of the work force that is not employed. 41 Background of numbers reported by www.indexmundi.com and by the CIA World Fact Book but not confirmed by the Ministry of Labor. 42 FAO. 2009. Situation of Forests Around the World 2009. FAO, Rome.

87

Annex 6. Important Data on the Olancho Department, per Municipality

MUNICIPALITY HDI43 HPI44 Extension Population Persons Forest - 2004 2004 km² per km² ha 1. Juticalpa 0.647 31.5 2606.2 84,259 32.22 135,445.31 2. Salamá 0.643 27.1 337.8 6,289 18.61 28,688.41 3. Sta María del Real 0.643 26.2 230.8 8,936 38.72 10,436.47 4. Campamento 0.632 39.8 391.5 14,689 14.70 31,770.38 5. Silca 0.626 25.9 255.6 6,908 27.03 16,112.14 6. La Unión 0.626 30.5 556.3 6,320 11.36 46,477.37 7. San Fco. de La Paz 0.622 31.3 533.7 15,465 28.98 29,845.24 8. Catacamas 0.621 37.3 7174.0 79,060 11.02 468,677.38 9. Sn Fco. de Becerra 0.619 32.9 332.9 6,915 20.77 9,370.45 10. San Esteban 0.603 34.9 1953.3 19962 10.22 112,800.10 11. Guarizama 0.599 29.6 16.9 6,640 392.70 7,022.41 12. Manto 0.595 35.8 523.5 10,210 19.50 36,521.84 13. Guayape 0.586 35.3 422.5 11,300 26.75 32,452.24 14. Patuca 0.585 43.3 1095.0 21,667 19.78 19,316.73 15. Concordia 0.581 35.1 267.8 6,308 23.55 17,532.39 16. El Rosario 0.579 45.3 143.1 3,766 26.32 9,940.79 17. Gualaco 0.579 41.5 2343.7 17,272 7.37 148,831.18 18. Dulce Nombre de Culmí 0.564 45.1 2925.0 22,301 7.62 229,603.34 19. Jano 0.557 49.5 362.7 3,043 8.39 34,317.72 20. Manguilile 0.513 49.7 432.2 7623 17.63 31,770.86 21. Yocón 0.506 47.2 243.2 9,123 37.25 12,959.05 22. Esquipulas del N. 0.505 44.9 523.3 6,461 12.35 1,668.59 23. Guata 0.475 50.9 680.0 9,460 13.91 54,363.61 Average HDI 0.608 Average HPI 36.0 Total Mixed forest, Broad leaf, Dense Pine, Sparse Pine 1,525,924.0

43 Based on the following development levels: (i) estimated life expectancy; (ii) Literacy rate; (iii) Years of schooling; (iv) per capita income. 44 Based on: (i) probability of being born and not living past 40 years; (ii) Literacy rate in the population over the age of 15; (iii) Percentage of population without Access to good quality water; (iv) percentage of children under the age of 5 with undernourishment per weight; and (v) level of worthy life.

88

Annex 7. Lead Institutions of the Environmental, Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Sectors SECTOR MAIN PUBLIC PRIVATE SECTOR EDUCATION SECTOR SOCIAL SECTOR NGOs AND OTHERS PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS FORESTRY ICF, AMADOH ESNACIFOR FEHCAFOR, FOHPRIDE (Network COLPROFORH Municipal Mayors´ ANETRAMA CURLA, Forest Independent of forestry NGOs) CIFH Offices Private forest owners Engineering School Cooperatives Fundación Vida Forest Technician Schools Forestry Agenda AMHON ENVIRONMENT SERNA, Public Investors ESNACIFOR, Local citizens GRUPOS, Foundations, COLPROFORH Ministry APERH CURLA (Agricultural and Co-management CIFH (Environmental Small enterprises, Forest Engineers), Environmentalists Biologists Prosecutor), Private protected areas U. JCV, U. SPS (Environmental Environmental Environmental (Reserves) Zamorano; Catholic journalists, MAO, engineers and other Attorney University, Forestry Alliance, related fields Municipal Mayors´ Institutes: Catholic FOPRIDE: Protected Offices University, technician Area Network, others, levels, environmental, etc.) AMHON AGRICULTURE SAG Producers EAP; UNA Producer and FOHPRIDE COLPROCA INA Input and Service CURLA-Agronomist Farmer Associations ASONOG CINAH IHCAFE Providers U. JCV; U. SPS BANADESA Agricultural Bank Agricultural technician BANPROVI FHIA careers INA FENAG Organized and non FUNDER organized reformed FAO-WB sector (ANACH, UNC, CNTC, COCOCH, etc.) FECORAH IHCAFE ANACAFEH AHPROCAFE Honduran Coffee Fund Coffee processors Coffee grower Co- ops WATER SANAA Agua de San Pedro; U-Eng Civil; Water AMHON Not defined Municipal Mayors Water bottlers ESNACIFOR Administration Offices CURLA; Catholic Boards University Inst. Luis Bográn

89

SECTOR MAIN PUBLIC PRIVATE SECTOR EDUCATION SECTOR SOCIAL SECTOR NGOs AND OTHERS PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ENERGY ENEE Thermal U-Civil engineer Local citizens GTZ School of APERH U. Electrical Engineer GEF Projects Mechanical, FHIA ESNACIFOR; CURLA Electrical and Catholic University; Inst. Chemical Engineers Luis Bográn, Honduras, (CIMEQ) Germany, Vocational level

90

Annex 8. Summary of the Institutional Initiatives contributing to the Program Base Line

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) Program for the Government Starts II MAMMSA local and - Declared micro basins Municipalities that comprise Promotion of of the Federal stage: April regional stakeholders - Co-management of Protected MAMSA in the Olancho Sustainable Republic of 2008 implement the Area - Agalta Department (Gualaco, Catacamas, Management of Germany Finalizes: sustainable - Co-management of Forest Areas Dulce Nombre de Culmí, Natural Resources November management of under the concept of Community Guarizama, Manto, San Estebán, and Local 2010 natural resources Forestry and Agro Forest San Francisco de la Paz Development in Cooperatives. Honduras - Protection Plan against Forest (PRORENA Fires is being implemented. OLANCHO) Program for the Government Starts II Stakeholders in the - Municipal Protection Plans are Copan Department: Corquin and Promotion of of the Federal stage: April Buffer Zone of the developed. San Pedro, Ocotepeque: Belén Sustainable Republic of del 2008 Celaque-Mirona - Social and Gender Inclusion Gualcho Intibucá: Management of Germany Finalizes: National Park and the Strategy in the sustainable Colomoncagua, Dolores, San Natural Resources November San Juan sub-basin management of the natural Marcos de la Sierra, San and Local 2010 area develop their resources and Environmental Miguelito, Yamaranguila and en Development in local economy based Education (EISG) Lempira, Gracias, Candelaria, Honduras on the sustainable - Co-management of the Protected Herandique, Gualcinze, La (PRORENA management of their Areas. Campa, Las Flores, Piraera, San OCCIDENTE) natural resources. - Co-management of the micro Andrés, San Manuel Colohete, basins. San Sebastián, Santa Cruz and - Institutional technical Talgua. strengthening Program for the Government Starts II The Municipalities - Municipalities, FFAA and other Gracias a Dios Department: Brus Promotion of of the Federal stage: April and Community stakeholders are trained on the Laguna, Ahuas, Juan Francisco Sustainable Republic of del 2008 Organizations Forest Protection in the Bulnes and Wampusirpe, in Management of Germany Finalizes: participate actively in Biosphere. Colón: Iriona Natural Resources November the conservation and - Norms for preparing the PNMB and Local 2010 sustainable prepared and circulated with the Development in management of the stakeholders. Honduras natural resources of - Forest Certification has been (PRORENA RIO the Biosphere achieved for the Río Plátano PLATANO Reserve. Biosphere. BIOSPHERE) - The cadastre and Land Possession

91

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) system is functioning and regularized - Municipalities are advised on the citizen participation mechanisms. - UMAS trained on Municipal Environmental Management. - Municipalities are advised on the environmental decentralization process. - Local Economic Development is functioning. Strengthening of the International January 2009 Establish a system for - An integrates system on a data Headquarters and the Production Forestry Information Organization to December integral forest base of forest and spatial statistics and Conservations Zones and Statistics Center of Tropical 2010 information and is functioning – CIEF Woods statistics that leverage - Statistical analysis studies of the (OIMT) the contribution and system´s data is executes, for each value of the forestry of the thematic areas. sub-sector in the - Statistical yearbook and 4 country´s social, bulletins are prepared and economic and circulated, related to the thematic environmental areas. development by - Alliances established and strengthening the operating. local, regional and - Talented CIEF human resources institutional capacity. team from the ICF Department, Regional and Project levels, and of the Institutions and associated professional organizations that cooperate in establishing the system is integrated and trained, according to the scope of their responsibilities - Users are trained on use of the system. - Teams and Programs are established. - A network is established and functioning.

92

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) Multi-Stage Inter- Starts: Increase the - Component 1. Institutional Fco. Morazán, Olancho Norte, Sustainable Forest American March 2004 economic, social and political framework: Re-proposal Teupasenti Danli, North Atlántida Development Development and environmental of the management plans; (PROBOSQUE) Bank (IDB) Finalizes: benefits of the forest Simplification or elimination of December sector in Honduras the processes; onset of the 2009 through a sustainable National Forestry Program development of forest (PRONAFOR); vehicles are lands and improving acquired; 12 university level the commercial forest technicians have graduated; competitiveness and Research Plan is ready; productivity of the Monitoring Missions for sector. controlling the logging and illegal traffic of forest products; Technical Audits to verify the compliance to norms and procedures for forest management. - Component 2. Public Management for Development: 3 COIZPS are organized; 4 referential strategic forest development plans and 3 institutional projects. Program for the European Starts: 2007 Contribute to - Contribute so that the land will Headquarters and the Lempira Support of Food Community Finalizes: reaching the overall continue its natural and vocational Department with 28 Security in December 31 objectives of the PRS, use - agriculture and forestry, municipalities, Valle with 9 Honduras (PASAH), 2009 especially reducing protected areas, micro basins. municipalities and 13 ICF is its Co- the rural poverty and Reforestation areas - in a municipalities in the south of

Execution Unit. child sustainable manner through Francisco Morazán undernourishment, preparing land vocation maps with the purpose of with the active participation of the promoting economic municipalities communities and and social other local stakeholders development in the - Water supplier micro basins for population that is in a human consumption are declared state of food and demarcated as protected areas insecurity, and in the of forest vocation, located in the rural economy in Municipalities and communities

93

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) general according to the local petitions with the purpose of sustainably improving the water quality and quantity. - The social and environmental vulnerability is reduced by incorporating the generated instruments for territorial planning and micro basin management into the Municipal Development Plans (PDM). - Monitoring and follow-up of the actions needed to comply with the conditions and objectives established in the agreement are executed. Strengthening the European Starts: Improve the - Five forest zones area Headquarters and the Forest areas Local Management community August 2007. management of the strengthened with the logistics of Francisco Morazán, Olancho, for Natural Finalized: forest zones and the from the Office and Technical El Paraíso, Rió Plátano biosphere Resources in the December 31 ICF Headquarter Team that specializes in forest and El Pacifico. Basins of the Patuca, 2008. Offices, in protection and management Choluteca and Extended compliance to the - 30 technicians are directly trained Negro Rivers through institutional programs on diverse for natural resources (FORCUENCAS) Addendum for protected areas, management, wildlife, protected No.2 forestry development, areas and geographic information Finalizes: and wildlife and systems (GIS). June 30 water basins in order - 9 studies have been conducted on 2009. to facilitate the issues for operational application management of forest of the ICF institutional programs areas in the (Protected Areas, etc.). municipalities. - A campaign for circulating the institutional information has been developed in accordance to the Project´s institutional objectives. - The main stakeholders are the Municipal Mayors´ Offices and organized groups for the protection of natural resources in

94

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) their surrounding areas. Project for Border Funds from Starts: 2007 Improve the national - Conservation in the reserve areas In Honduras, in the Gracias a Area Biosphere GEF/WB; Finalizes: and bi-national has been improved; Dios, Olancho and El Paraíso Reserve Project CCAD 2013 management of - The local populations have a Departments; and en Nicaragua, “Corazón del (Executing Honduras and better administration of their in the Departments of Jinotega Corredor Biológico Unit); Nicaragua, in the natural resources; and Raan. Mesoamericano” Counterparts zone proposed for the - Deforestation has been reduced; (Heart of the Meso of the Border Area - The national systems for American Biological Honduran and Biosphere Reserve Protected Area has been Corridor) or Nicaraguan “Corazón del improved; Proyecto Corazón). Governments Corredor Biológico - Local institutions are Mesoamericano” or strengthened; Heart of the Meso - Improved management of and American Biological access to information. Corridor, respecting the ancestral and traditional rights of the inhabitants. Three Border GEF-IDB and 48 months Support the - Legal, Territorial and Institutional a) The Montecristo National Park Region Project: local in kind implementation of the consolidation of the APTM: in El Salvador; b) the hub area, Integrated counterparts of Integrated - Integrated APTM management Biosphere Reserve, La Management of the Guatemala, Management Plan for conservation of the Fraternidad in Guatemala; c) The Tri-nation Protected Honduras and (PMI) in the Tri- biodiversity hub area, Montecristo National Area of Montecristo El Salvador in National Montecristo - Sustainable use of natural Park in Honduras, located (APTM (APTM). the Protected Area resources and environmental between the municipalities of Framework of (APTM) in the Three management; Sinuapa and Ocotepeque in the the Tri- Border Region of El - Monitoring and research of the Ocotepeque Department, 16 Km. National Salvador, Guatemala ecological and socio economic West of the Ocotepeque city. Commission and Honduras conditions in the buffer zones and of the Plan through a tri-national biological corridors Trifinio institutional (CTPT). framework that operates in a participatory, integrated and effective manner as a means to conserve the

95

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) biodiversity, the natural processes and environmental services that are of importance at the local, regional and global levels rendered by the APTM, as well as to facilitate its integration into the Meso American Biological Corridor. Sustainable European Starts: June Contribute to - The Regional System for Honduran Atlantic Coast, from Management of the Union/GOH 2007. improving the life Protected Areas in the Caribbean the Guatemalan border (Cortes Natural Resources in Finalizes: quality of the Corridor are strengthened through Department) to the Rió Plátano the Meso American November population through and efficient and participatory Biosphere Reserve in the Gracias Biological Corridor 2012 maintaining and administration of the areas a Dios Department (does not in the Honduran improving the - The water basins in the include the Bay Islands), Atlantic region. The ecological and connection areas are managed in a attending a total of 14 protected Secretariat of economic function of sustainable manner, with the full areas located in 24 municipalities. Natural Resources the Biological participation of the municipalities and the Environment Corridor of the and local citizens, generating is the Executing Honduran Caribbean ecological, economic and social Entity (SERNA). area as an integral benefits. part of the Meso - The municipalities in the project´s American Biological area of intervention have Corridor. territorial planning based on territorial planning projections, and lands that are curly registered (cadastre), regulated and legalized. - Government institutions from the Environment Sector have strengthened their capacities at the central and local levels in order to have more efficient management. Program for Land KFW/GTZ Four years; 1) Overall Goal: - Establishment and operation of a The Project´s area of influence

96

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) Planning and Germany and In the Pre- Compliance to the Co-management Unit and for will cover an area measuring Environmental GOH Feasibility functions related to Territorial Management. 833,674.81 hectares, located Protection in the Rió Study (done the Rio del Hombre - Territorial Planning and between the municipalities of Plátano (PROTEP) in 2007) Reserve and the Rió Municipal Strengthening. Juan Francisco Bulnes, Bruss Start/Finalize Plátano Biosphere has - Cadastre and Regularization of Laguna and Wampusirpi in the dates for the been improved at the the Land Possession in the Gracias a Dios department; Iriona Program are national level and project‟s area of influence in the Colon department and not noted within the territories - Local Economic Development in Dulce Nombre de Culmí in the pertaining to the the Project´s area of influence department of Olancho; becoming surrounding the Rió Plátano Biosphere municipalities. Region. 2) Project Objective: The municipalities and local stakeholders have improved their active participation in conservation and in the sustainable management of the Natural Resources in the Biosphere Reserve. MODERNIZATION European Five years Contribute to - The Honduran forest sector At national level OF THE FOREST Commission (2010-2015): improving the operates through a modern forest SECTOR IN in the governance of the administration model that is HONDURAS Framework of Honduran forest participatory, decentralized and (MOSEF) Support from sector by agreed by consensus the European consolidating, with - The Honduran forest sector has Union to the the participation of the instruments and mechanisms Honduras the local communities for the participation and/or Forest Sector. and other local incorporation of the country´s stakeholders, a rural communities, municipalities participatory and and civil society for the decentralized model conservation, use and for forest management of the forest management, resources in the country. protected areas and - The private, public and social

97

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) wildlife, in order to segments of the forest sector halt the degradation participate in a coordinated processes, promoting manner in the planning, their appreciation and administrating, and integrated sustainable management of the water basins management by and in actions to protect and optimizing their reforest the country´s forestry contribution to the ecosystems. socio economic - The forest sector has instruments development, and mechanisms for the reduction of rural coordinated participation of the poverty and public, private and social sectors improving the for planning, administrating, country´s managing and conserving the environmental country´s protected areas and quality. wildlife. - The Honduran forest sector operates through a modern forest administration model that is participatory, decentralized and agreed by consensus - The Honduran forest sector has the instruments and mechanisms for the participation and/or incorporation of the country´s rural communities, municipalities and civil society for the conservation, use and management of the forest resources in the country. - The private, public and social segments of the forest sector participate in a coordinated manner in the planning, administrating, and integrated management of the water basins and in actions to protect and reforest the country´s forestry

98

Name Agency Amount Duration General Objective Main Expected Results Geographic area of Influence ($) ecosystems - The forest sector has instruments and mechanisms for the coordinated participation of the public, private and social sectors for planning, administrating, managing and conserving the country´s protected areas and wildlife. - The Honduran forest sector has the instruments and mechanisms to maximize the forest productivity and competitiveness and improve its contribution to the country´s integrated and sustainable development.

99

Annex 9. Evolution of the Legal and Institutional Framework of the Forest Sector of Honduras YEAR DECREE ACTIONS AND MEASURES 1972 Decree No. 85; Forestry Law Policies for managing and promoting the multiple use of forest, under the principle of sustained yield, recognition of the ecological, economic and social functions 1973 Decree No. Lay 103; Law of the Creation of COHDEFOR. Nationalization of all forest in the country, Honduran Corporation for Forestry with the responsibility of administrating, managing, exploiting and Development (COHDEFOR) commercialization of the same. The Social Forest system promoted the sustained use of forests with the participation of agro-forestry small scale farmers organized into cooperatives or other forms of association 1991 Decree No. 74 The Secretariat of Natural Resources transferred the management and administration of all protected areas and wildlife to COHDEFOR 1992 Lay for the Modernization and Return of forest soil to the land owners, with the responsibility of Development of the Agricultural Sector assuming the management and protection of the natural resources. Management plans were instituted as tools for forestry planning. In this stage, the industrialization and commercialization of wood and other forest products were liberated 1993 Decree No. 104-93; General Creation of the Secretariat of the Environment (SEDA), with the Environment Law responsibility of formulating, coordinating and evaluating the policies related to the environment, the ecosystems, protection of flora and fauna, coordination of the National System of Protected Areas in Honduras (SINAPH) and the National System for Evaluating Environmental Impacts (SINEIA) 1996 Decree No. 218-96; Creation of the Creation of the Secretariat of Natural Resources and the Environment SERNA 1996 Creation of the Honduran Forestry Forum for consulting and consensus that promotes the intra and inter Agenda sectorial dialogue among the actors in the Forestry Sector, including the international cooperation to orient the sustainable development of the country´s forestry resources and through which the National Forestry Plan is prepared (PLANFOR 1996-2015) 2000 Forestry Policy Formulación de la Política Forestal, Áreas Protegidas and Vida Silvestre (2000-2025) 2003 Sectorial Tables The Sectorial Tables with instances to dialogue among the Government, Civil Society and Cooperants, in order to follow-up the principles set forth in the Stockholm Declaration and the National Plan for Reconstruction and Transformation 2004 State Policy for the Agro-Food Sector and This policy defines four Sectorial Programs: National Program for the Rural Setting in Honduras Sustainable Rural Development (PRONADERS); National Agricultural and Livestock Program (PRONAGRO); National Program for fish and Aquiculture (PRONAPAC) and the PRONAFOR 2006 Creation of the PRONAFOR National The PRONAFOR National Committee is established (CONAPROF), Committee for the execution of PRONAFOR 2007 Decree No. 98-2007; Law for Forest Creation of the National Institute for Forest Conservation and Areas and Wild Life Development and Protected Areas and Wild Life (ICF); while creating the Consultative Forest Councils (National, Department, Municipal and Community levels) Protected Ares and Wild Life,; National System for Forest Research , Protected Areas and Wildlife (SINFOR); and the National Committee for Forest Protection (CONAPROFOR) 2007 Executive Agreement No. 990-2007 Creation of the National Committee for Environmental Goods and Services of Honduras (CONABISAH) that supports actions oriented toward identifying and systematizing the experiences to assess the natural resources and that recently approved the National Strategy for Environmental Gods and Services

100

Annex 10. Defining the Themes for Awareness Raising Theme Justification 1. The natural setting of the northern region of The specialists involved in preparing and executing the management Olancho and its interaction with the plans are familiar with the themes since these have been briefly biodiversity of the meso American region addressed in the forest management plans and the AP. Some forestry regions do not have a specialist on the topic and therefore the approach is done marginally. 2. Forestry Sector, Protected Areas and Wildlife, There is still a much focalized vision on the forestry topic, one that scope and perspectives under the new does not consider the interaction with other themes, limiting the legislation dimension of what the Forestry Sector, Protected Areas and Wildlife should be. The vision is often limited to the Public Sector, without taking into consideration the remaining stakeholders in society that are related to the theme. 3. Forest management and its importance in There is a worldwide consensus that the climate fluctuations are mitigating the effects lf climate change provoked mainly by the interventions of man. Activities such as the indiscriminate logging of trees, high consumption of firewood, bad use of potable water and overexploitation of the land resource come together to feed this phenomena that increases with every passing day. Data from the SERNA Office for Climate Change indicates that between 25% and 40% of the GEG emissions are caused by actions related to the forest activity; therefore forest activities help to maintain a forest cover and the biodiversity provoked positive results for capturing the carbon (CO2) and reverting the GEG effects. 4. The importance of Integrated Management of The integrality in preparing and applying the sectorial policies is Natural Resources at the inter-sectorial important for the appropriate management of the natural resources. operations level (forestry, wildlife, tourism, As a sector leader, the ICF must play a very decisive role to interact with other related sectors that address the issue and endeavor to agriculture, infrastructure, energy, hydrology, establish a balance in where each one assumes their corresponding mining) role under a systemic focus.

5. Harmonization, application of concepts and It is necessary to institutionalize the importance of biodiversity quantification of the biodiversity in the intra conservation and obtain uniform criteria among the technicians of institutional level (ICF) the two ICF Sub-Directions: i) Forest Management and Development, and ii) Protected Areas and Wildlife. This will allow the establishment of a balance on the focus that should exist among those responsible for managing the forest with productive purposes or economic interests, and forest management with conservation purposes. 6. The level of compatibility between the Forest owners should be taught that the incorporation of biodiversity biodiversity conservation and the economically conservation in the forest management will produce economic viable forest management viability. 7. The long term dependency of forest The number of population groups against the lumber exploitation of sustainability on the application of an eco- the forest increases every day and therefore the incorporation of the system approach (incorporating biodiversity forest conservation topic is important. In addition to the importance considerations) on the ecosystem, it can contribute to increase the level of awareness in the population and provide greater sustainability to the forest management. 8. The economic possibilities offered by the The diverse alternative services that are offered by a forest must be biodiversity conservation promoted among the forest owners and technicians given that these generate economic income through tourism, the sale of environmental services and others.

101

Annex 11. Terms of References for Project Coordinator

Under the overall supervision of the National Project Director (NPD, the Director of Protected Areas and Wildlife of ICF) and the Director of Biodiversity (SERNA), the Coordinator will have the following responsibilities: - Coordination of project actions, in compliance with Annual Work Plans and Budgets (APWBs). - Supervision of the activities of the technical members of the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), thereby ensuring their relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. - Preparation of terms of reference for external consultants contracted by the project, supervision and coordination of their work, and review and approval of their products. - Ensuring that the project is implemented with the full participation of local actors and that functioning mechanisms exist that ensure that their interests are taken into account, communicated and reflected in the implementation of the project. - Promotion of the coordinated participation of Government institutions and NGOs, at central and local levels, in project implementation. - Realization of continuous and periodic monitoring of project impacts, in relation to the achievements foreseen in the APWBs and the impacts foreseen in the project results framework. - In communication with the NPD, ensuring that the project is implemented in accordance with the policies and plans of the TNC, as Executing Agency. - In communication with the Programme Official of UNDP, ensuring that the project is implemented in accordance with the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) in Honduras. - Identification and promotion opportunities for actions by other agencies of the UN system in the project areas. - Ensuring that a cross-cutting gender focus is incorporated into the actions of the project. - Together with UNDP, preparation of Periodic Implementation Reports (PIRs), detailing project progress, to be presented to GEF. - Together with UNDP and the project team and in discussion with local stakeholders, preparation of APWBs for approval by the NSC and the GEF. - With support from the project administrative team, ensuring efficient and transparent execution of financial and physical resources, in conformity with the rules of the Government, GEF and UNDP. - Design and implementation of professional development plans for the members for the PIU. - Identification of risks that could affect the achievement of the foreseen impacts of the project, and the definition and application of corresponding mitigation strategies. - Support to the functioning of the PSC, through the provision of advice and logistics. - Preparation and oversight of the implementation of the operational manuals for the implementation of the project. - Organization and support of external evaluations of the project. -

102

Annex 12. Biodiversity of World Importance in the Project Area

Biodiversity element with worldwide Situation Reference importance in the Project area Ecosystems Sub montane pine forest Analysis study of bio-physical Only 2% of the pine voids in SINAPH, in the Inferior montane pine forest forests in the SINAPH framework of the CBD Flora SERNA, Species of special Stenocereus yunckerii Threatened concern, in the framework of the CBD. Endemic in the eco- Analysis study of bio-physical region, known only for voids in SINAPH, in the Quercus gracilor Honduras and framework of the CBD. Nicaragua SERNA, Species of special Abies guatemalensis Vulnerable concern, in the framework of the CBD, UICN Red List SERNA, Species of special Pinus tecunumanii Vulnerable concern, in the framework of the CBD, UICN Red List Fauna Nototriton lignícola Bolitoglossa longisima B. decora Critical danger Craugastor olanchano SERNA, Species of special C. epochthidius concern, in the framework of the Norops muralla Threatened CBD Endemic for Amazilia luciae Honduras; Threatened Ibycter americanus Rare Tapirus bairdii Threatened CITES, UICN Red List Tamandua mexicana Of lesser concern UICN Red List, CITES Ap.III

103

Annex 13. Charts and Graphics with Statistics and Sectorial Possession: RM

Estimated Area of Forests Based on Types of Forests Type of Forest Area Hectares Kms2 Percentage Broadleaf forest 2,565,010 25,6600 24.9 Pine Forest 1,679,735 16,797 16.3 Mixed forest 536,601 5,366 5.2 Mangrove forest 47,682 477 0.4 Total 4,830,010 48,300 46.9 Source: National Forestry Evaluation (2006).

Categories of Current Land Use Category of Use Area Hectares Kms2 Percentage Forests * 4,830,010 48,300 46.9 Other lands with woody plants45 1,330,843 13,308 12.9 Other lands46 3,784,925 37,849 36.8 Interior bodies of water 341,829 3,418 3.3 Total 10,287,608 102,876 100.00 * Forests includes broad leaf species, pine, mixed and mangrove swamps. Source: National Forestry Evaluation (ENF, 2006)-

Change in the Forest Cover and Rate of Deforestation Estimated for the Broad Leaf and Pine Forests (1996 to 2006) Estimated Forest Cover Estimated Annual Millions of Hectares Reduction Deforestation Rate Type of Forest 1996 1/ 2006 2/ ha 3/ ha 4/ % 5/ ha % ha % Broadleaf forest 2.91 25.93 2.56 24.9 351,808 35,180 1.2 Pine forests 3.07 27.30 2.21 21.5 855,466 85,546 2.7 Prepared by Author: In the pine forest the Mixed Forest formations were included due to the prevalence of pine trees. 1/ Data from the Honduras Forestry Map from 1996 2/ National Forest Evaluation from 2006 3/ Based on a mathematical subtraction of the period (1996-2006) 4/ Based on the annual estimate 5/ Percentage rate of annual according to the procedures used

45 This category includes large extensions of grazing land with certain coverage of fragmented forest mass and also isolated trees. Can include agricultural areas with strips of boundaries and forests close to rivers and their affluent. 46 Area without cover, especially lands devoted to extensive and intensive agriculture and livestock. Also includes the settlement and infrastructure zones.

104

Annex 14. Selected Forest Indicators

Territorial Area 112,249 kms2 Population 6.535,000 inhabitants

Forest Area Forest vocation lands 48.822.0 kms2 Forest cover 48,300.0 kms2 Broadleaf forest 25,660.0 kms2 Pine forest 16,797.0 kms2 Mixed forests 5,366.0 kms2 Mangrove forest 477.0 kms2

Existence per Volume Forest Production47 73,100.00 m3 Production of Broadleaf forest 20,900.00 m3 Production of Pine forests 852,200.00 m3

Production per Possession: Broadleaf forest National 12,900.00 m3 Community 1,100.00 m3 Private 6,900.00 m3

Pine forest National 192,800.00 m3 Community 135,200.00 m3 Private 524,200.00 m3 Area Under Forest Management 1,317,705.0 ha Allowed annual logging 2,682,910.0 m3 Number of management plans 1222 Broadleaf forest 61 Pine forest 1161

Area of Forest Possessions National Forests 2,207,240.00 ha Private Forests 1,827,857.00 ha Community Forests 335,171.00 ha Number of Plans per Possession Broadleaf forest National 61 Community - Private - Pine forest National 51 Community 140 Private 970

47 Anuario Estadístico Forestal 2006. Administración Forestal del Estado. AFE, (2007)

105

Rate of deforestation 85,000 ha/year Plantations 5,001.1 ha Number of areas under conservation 98 Recognized agro forestry groups48 282 Assigned volume 63,777 m3

Type of Possession and Area National 137,082.00 ha Community 25,845.00 ha Private 1,953.00 ha

Declared Protected Areas 62 Proposed Protected Areas 36 Area Under Conservation 3,279,047.00 ha Reserves - El Hombre and La Biosfera 2 National Parks 23 Biological Reserves 22 Forest Reserves 3 Wildlife Refuge 13 Multiple habitat/Species Area 8 Multiple Use Areas 5 Water Producing Zones 3 Anthropological Reserve 2 Ecological Reserve Zone 1 Natural Monuments 5 Cultural Monuments 5 Botanical Garden 1 Marine Reserves 4 Resources Reserve 1 Ecological Reserve 1

Area of Certified Forests49 49,151.45 ha Broad leaf Forest 34,602.45 ha Pine forest 14,549.00 ha GNP of the forest sector50 9.7 % Total value of forest exports51 USD 54,500.000.00 Main Forest Products: Lumber, furniture, seeds, rosin, turpentine, pine resin, liquidambar oil, broom sticks, stakes, profiles and molding, creels, doors and windows, posts, fencing, plywood.

48 Includes cooperatives, companies, agro forestry groups, micro enterprises, community committees and collective associations. 49 According to data provided by the Honduran Council of Voluntary Forest Certification (CHCFV – Spanish acronym) 50 Based on data from the CIEF - 2006 51 For the year 2006

106

Annex 15. Pinus and Quercus species present in Honduras

Species of the Pinus genus present in Honduras

Scientific Name Growth Height (m) (Altitude) Meters Above Sea Level (MASL) Pinus caribaea var. Hond. 15 - 35 20 – 700 Pinus oocarpa 12 - 25 600 – 1 600 Pinus maximinoi 35 - 40 1 100 – 1 800 Pinus ayacahuite 25 - 40 1 800 – 2 700 Pinus pseudostrobus 20 - 45 2 000 – 2 800 Pinus tecumumanii 30 - 45 1 700 – 2 400 Pinus hartwegü 20 - 35 2 300 – 2 800 Source: State of the biological diversity of trees and forests in Honduras. 2003.

Distribution of the Quercus Genus in the Honduran cloud forests Species Synonym Approximate National Distribution Quercus Q. baruensis, Q. gemmata, Q. Cloud forest and pine forest, Celaque National benthamii lowilliamsii, Q. rapurah uensis, Q. Park and Montesillos Biological Reserve 1 140 – A.D.C. Undulate 2 580 masl Q. oleoides S& Q. lutescens, Q. retusa, Q. oleoides Dry forest and pine forest, rodales puros, Valle in C. var. Australis. southern region, Comayagua Valley, Otoro Valley, East margin of the Celaque National Park, El Carrizal, about 15 km from Siguatepeque, Taulabe, San Marcos de Colón, Highway between Cofradía and Copán Ruinas, Sabana Grande, Highway between Zamorano and El Paraiso, 700 – 1 420 masl Q. segoviensis Q. achoteana, Q. achoteana var Pine forest and pure forest stands. East of the Liebm. sublanosa, Q. matagalpana, Q. Celaque National Park, La Esperanza, Highway peduncularis var sublanosa. between Siguatepeque and surrounding area, West of the Montesillos Biological Reserve, Highway between the Yojoa Lake and Taulabe, San Marcos de Colón, highway between Tegucigalpa and El Paraiso, 700 – 1 420 masl Q. salicifolia Q. acalpulensis, Q. acherdophylla, Q. Montesillos Biological Reserve, Agalta National Nee boquetensis, Q. borucasana, Q. Park, and Guisayote Biological Reserve, 1 140 – citrifolia, Q. duratifolia, Q. 2 060 masl eugeniifolia, Q. granulata, Q. mulleri, Q. pediodola, Q. rubramenta, Q. seemannii, Q. tahuasalana. Q. xalapensis Q. grandis, Q. monserratensis, Q. Cloud forest, Montesillos Biological Reserve,

107

H. and B. trichodonta, Q. skinneri. Agalta National Park and Guajiquiro Biological Reserve 1 310 – 2 000 masl Q. cortesii Q. brenesii, Q. anglohondurensis, Q. Cloud forest, Montesillos Biological Reserve, Liebm. renuiaristata. 1 800 – 2 000 masl Q. eliptica Nee Q. comayaguana, Q. Guayabalana, Pine Forest, Celaque National Park, and Q. Hondurensis, Q. Linguaefolia, Q. Montesillos Biological Reserve, 1 350 – 1 450 Ojacana, Q. Yoroensis. masl Q. laurina H. Q. lanceolata, Q. barbinervis, Q. Cloud forest, Celaque, Guisayote Biological and B. caeruleocarpa, Q. tlapuxahuensis, Q. Reserve, Guajiquiro Biological Reserve, 2 000 – ocoteaefolia, Q. roseovenulosa. 2 847 masl Q. lancifolia S. Q. aata, Q. boqueronae, Q. Cloud forest, Montesillos Biological Reserve, and C. corrugata, Q. cyclobalanoides, Q. 1 800 – 2 000 masl excelsa, Q. leiopylla, Q. molinae, Q. ovandensis, Q. pilarius, Q. pilgeriana, Q. reevessi, Q. yousei. Q. purulhana Q. aguana, Q. barbeyana Cloud forest and pine forest, Agalta National Trel. Park, Montesillos Biological Reserve, 1 280 – 2 000 masl Q. bumelioides Q. copeyensis, Q. pacayana. Cloud and pine forest, 1 490 – 2 600 masl Liebm. Q. insignis M. Q. davidsonae, Q. oocarpa, Q. Cloud and pine forest, Celaque National Park, and G. schippii, Q. seibertii, Q. Montesillos Biological Reserve, Agalta National strombocarpa, Q. tomentocaulis, Q. Park, Guajiquiro Biological Reserve and La warscewiczii, Q. yuncheri Tigra National Park, 1 135 – 2 000 masl Q. castanea Q. circummontana, Q. rossii, Q. Cloud forest, Guajiquiro Biological Reserve, Nee serrulata 1 930 masl Q. conspersa Q. uruapanensis Cloud forest, Guajiquiro Biological Reserve, Benth 1 900 masl Q. sapotifolia Q. amissaeloba, Q. apanecana, Q. Cloud and pine forest, Celaque National Park, Liebm. donnellsmithii, Q. microcarpa, Q. Montesillos Biological Reserve, La Muralla parviglans, Q. siguatepequeana. National Park, Guajiquiro Biological Reserve, La Esperanza, Montaña la Germania, northwest of Siguatepeque, 1 400 – 2 282 masl

Source: Kappelle, Maarten . Neotropic Cloud Forests / Edition 1, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica, National Institute for Biodiversity - INBIO, November 2001.

108

Annex 16. Scorecard of the Institutional Capacities

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area 1. Capacity for conceptualizing and writing policies, legislation, strategies and programs Institutional There is an 0 – The pine-oak ecosystem does not have any General Promote There are currently institution with management plan or strategy; 1 Strategy and incentives with 3 no incentives to the responsibility 1 – The pine-oak ecosystem has strategies and management the purpose of incorporate for managing the management plans, but these are outdated or plans that are incorporating the biodiversity elements pine-oak were prepared vertically from top to bottom; coherent and biodiversity in the pine-oak ecosystem duly prepared variable in the ecosystem. 2 -- The pine-oak ecosystem has mechanisms capable of and management to update its strategies and management plans, preparing plans implemented plans for the but these are done irregularly or from top to and strategies for pine-oak bottom without the appropriate consultation; forest ecosystem 3 - The pine-oak ecosystem has relevant management management strategies and plans prepared in a participatory manner and these are regularly updated. 2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programs Institutional The State 0- The entities responsible for managing the 2 The leadership Strengthen the 3 It is necessary to institutions pine-oak ecosystem lack any kind of direction; of entities technical teams identity and limit the responsible for 1- There are entities responsible for managing responsible for responsible for pine-oak ecosystem preparing and the pine-oak ecosystem but their leadership is managing the managing the areas. implementing weak and they provide little direction; pine-oak pine-oak the policies, laws, ecosystem is ecosystem 2 – Some of the entities responsible for strategies and consolidated. managing the pine-oak ecosystem have a programs that reasonable strong leadership but it can still be intervene in the strengthened; pine-oak ecosystem 3– The entities responsible for managing the perform their pine-oak ecosystem perform their duties in an duties in an efficient manner. efficient manner

109

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area Institutional The pine-oak 0 – The pine-oak ecosystem has no The The plans are duly The emphasis on ecosystem management plan; 1 management prepared and 3 management has management 1 – Some forests in the pine-oak ecosystem plans have been updated been adopted by plans have been have management plans that are updated but prepared in a owners of private updated and were prepared in a participatory and integral participatory forests prepared in a manner; manner participatory 2 – The majority of the management plans manner with an whose areas have a pine-oak ecosystem, have integral focus been prepared under traditional norms without considering the biodiversity elements; 3 – Each of the pine-oak ecosystem forests has its own management plan that has been prepared and updated in a participatory and integral manner Institutional The human 0 – The human resources are insufficiently 1 The personnel Train and The personnel is not resources qualified and are unmotivated; has been trained motivate the 3 sufficiently motivated responsible for 1 – The staff members duly qualified on the and is motivated technical and shows a low the management topic of biodiversity conservation are few and personnel level of commitment are well trained are unmotivated; and motivated 2 – The overall human resources are reasonable qualified, although they lack motivation; 3 – The human resources are trained and motivated. Institutional The institutions 0 – The institutions/units responsible for the 2 The Activate the 3 There is a low level responsible for pine-oak ecosystem are not totally transparent, participation committees of community managing the are not considered reliable and are not and follow-up participation and pine-oak audited; committees are experience in ecosystem are 1 - The institutions/units responsible for the functioning. supervising and highly pine-oak ecosystem are not transparent but are controlling the transparent, fully eventually audited although not publically activities audited, and acknowledged as reliable; publicly 2 -- The institutions/units responsible for the acknowledged pine-oak ecosystem are regularly audited,

110

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area for the reliability have a fair level of public accountability but the system is not completely transparent; 3 -- The institutions/units responsible for the pine-oak ecosystem are highly transparent, fully audited and are publically acknowledged as reliable Institutional There are 0 – There is no institution with a clear Institutional Design and There are institutions, institutions mandate or responsibility to attend the pine- 2 strengthening implement the 3 the competencies are responsible for oak ecosystem; for the ICF and institutional defined, but there is a the pine-oak 1 – There is one or more institutions or SERNA strengthening shortcoming in ecosystem that agencies that address the pine-oak ecosystem programs ensuring the have the but the roles and responsibilities are confusing compliance. authority to fulfill and there are voids and overlaps regarding the their mandate responsibilities; 2 -- There is one or more institutions or agencies that address the pine-oak ecosystem, the responsibilities of each are pretty well defined, but there are still some voids and duplicity; 3 -- The institutions responsible for the pine- oak ecosystem have clear legal and institutional mandates and the necessary authority to implement them. Individual The forestry 0 – The career paths are not developed and There are clear Develop systems There has been no professionals that is no training opportunity given; 2 possibilities of for the staff´s 3 clarity regarding the (individually) can 1 – The possibilities of making a career are making a career personal careers establishment of advance and be weak, the training is limited and it is not that will favor and development careers strengthen in managed transparently; and strengthen their professions the different key 2 – The possibility of making a career is clear areas in the and training is available; nevertheless, the institution. human resources unit has inappropriate systems for measuring performance; 3 -- The individual persons can advance and develop in their professions

111

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area Individual The individual 0 – The skills of individuals do not correspond Trained staff Trained staff Optimize the system persons have the to the work requirements; 2 3 to recruit and select appropriate 1 -- The individual persons have skills that are the new staff competencies to either scant or poor for their positions; members, develop the fulfill their training plans and 2 -- The individual persons are reasonable functions career development experts but could improve the proportion that allows related the requirement needed for the minimizing the gap position; between the 3 -- The individual persons are experts in their individual and the positions position Individual The individual 0 -- No motivation; Personnel that is Programs for Greater motivation persons are 1 – The motivation is uneven, some are 1 motivated and personal 3 and commitment highly motivated motivated but the majority are not; committed development, from the personnel is motivation and required. 2 – Many individuals are motivated but not acknowledgement all; of work 3 -- The individual persons are highly performance motivated Individual There are 0 – There is no system in place; Adequate Detect the needs 3 There is no training appropriate 1 – There are some mechanisms but these are 2 adjustment/ for training, plan; however, the systems for incapable of adequately developing and placement of capacity building staff members training, providing a complete range of the necessary the personnel and orientation as participate in the orientation and skills; for the positions well as a training events, capacity building systematic process sometimes on their 2 – There are general mechanisms to develop in the location for recruiting and own initiative. professional experts but often these are not and there is a selecting the enough or they are incapable of covering the continual flow of personnel complete range of needed skills; the required new personnel 3 – There are mechanisms to develop the adequate amount and complete range of the highly skilled professionals required 3. Capacity for promoting and building consensus among the key stakeholders Systemic The pine-oak 0 – There is practically no political Awareness Sensitize and Very Little awareness ecosystem has willingness, or worse yet, the prevailing 1 among the form the decision 3 on the importance of

112

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area the political political willingness ends up opposing the decision makers making agents the pine-oak commitment it interest of the pine-oak ecosystem; ecosystem requires 1 – There is a certain level of political willingness but it is not strong enough to make a difference; 2 – There is political willingness but not always sufficient to completely support the pine-oak ecosystem; 3 – There are high levels of political willingness to support the pine-oak ecosystem Systemic The pine-oak 0 – The general public has little interest in the - Awareness Campaigns through There is not enough ecosystems have pine-oak ecosystem; 1 raising is the massive 2 awareness in the the public 1 – There is a limited support for the pine-oak promoted communication general public support they ecosystem; through massive media regarding the require sensitizing importance of the 2 – There is support from the general public de campaigns pine-oak ecosystem. for the pine-oak ecosystem, and several among the groups – such as NGOs – are strong general public supporters;

3 – There is a strong public support in the country for the pine-oak ecosystem - Consolidation of alliances among the key stakeholders Institutional The institutions 0 – The institutions that manage the pine-oak Alliances with Establishment of The communities responsible for ecosystem function in isolation 1 NGOs and the inter-institutional 3 directly related to the managing the 1 – There are some institutions but there are surrounding alliances pine-oak ecosystem pine-oak also significant voids and the existing communities must be turned into ecosystem can alliances accomplish very little; allies and service establish the providers. 2 – There are many institutions, NGOs, etc., necessary but there are also several voids; the alliances to reach institutions are not always efficient and do not their objectives always allow the efficient achievement of the objectives; 3 – The institutions for managing the pine-oak

113

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area ecosystem establish efficient alliances with other agencies and institutions, including the local governments, NGOs and the private sector in order to allow reaching the objectives in and efficient and effective manner

4. Capacity for mobilizing the information and knowledge Systemic 0 – Information is virtually non existing; The available Design and The information does 1 – There is certain information but of poor 2 information will access to a Web 3 not flow quickly quality and with limited use, or very difficult be used and page of available enough to obtain access; applied information on the pine-oak 2 – There is much good quality information ecosystem that is easily available but there continues to be some voids in quality, coverage and availability; 3 -- The institutions responsible for applying the norms for managing the pine-oak ecosystem have availability of the information they need to develop the action plans and follow-up strategies for adequate management Institutional 0 -- Information is virtually non existing; The available - Establishment of There is no adequate 1 -- There is certain information but of poor 2 information will the mechanisms to 3 system for quality and with limited use, or very difficult be used share the management control to obtain access; information. and there are important limitations 2 -- There is much good quality information - Base line studies in the follow-up and that is easily available but there continues to of the ecological control mechanisms be some voids in quality, coverage and and socioeconomic availability; parameters 3 – There is enough high quality and updated - Establishment of information for planning and supervision, and geographic

114

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area what there is readily available on a broad scale information systems (GISs)

Individual 0 -- The individual persons work in isolation The technicians Enable the There is good and do not interact; 1 interact in a mechanisms to 3 willingness to 1 -- The individual persons interact to a coordinated share information interact. limited degree and occasionally work as a manner team but this is not always efficient and functional; 2 -- The individual persons interact regularly and form teams but this is not always efficient or functional; 3 -- The individual persons interact with efficiency and effectiveness and form functional teams

Systemic The policy for 0 – There is no policy or it is outdated and An updated Permanent The planning work is managing the regularly reviewed; 1 policy is ready update of the 3 slow. pine-oak 1 – the policy is only reviewed at irregular and has the policies ecosystem is intervals; mechanisms for continually updating on a 2 – The policy is reviewed regularly but not reviewed and regular basis annually; updated 3 –The national policy on the pine-oak ecosystem is reviewed annually

115

Strategic Output Support Results Results Indicators (Scorecard) Baseline Activities Goal Comments Expected Area Institutional The institutions 0 – the institutions are reluctant to change; 1 An organization Development of The structures and are highly 1 – The institutions change but very slowly; with the updated and 3 procedures are not adaptable, capacity to flexible adjusted to the 2 –The institutions tend to respond to change responding respond, and structures and current needs but not always in an efficient manner, but with efficiently and that functions procedures some delays; changing quickly with an early 3 – The institutions are highly adaptable and warning system respond efficiently and change immediately Institutional The institutions 0 – There are no mechanisms for supervision, An internal - Development of The follow-up and have efficient evaluation, circulate or learning; 1 management a personnel 3 control systems are internal 1 – There are some mechanisms for control system evaluation not very effective and mechanisms to supervision, evaluation, circulate and learning for supervision, system there are no supervise, but these are limited and weak; evaluation, computerized and evaluate, circulation has updated tools or a 2 – There are reasonable mechanisms for - Training for the circulate and been developed platform for culture, supervising, evaluating, circulate and learning management learn and applied follow-up and control but they are not as solid or integral as they team that favors the could be; learning of past 3 – The institutions have internal mechanisms - Implant an lessons. for supervising, evaluating, circulate and efficient learning management control system based on indicators Individual The individual 0 – There is no measure of performance or 1 The personnel is - Detect the 3 There are individual persons are feedback of adaptability; updated and training needs and institutional adaptable and 1 – Functioning is irregular and badly competent in initiatives for training continue to learn the key areas the personnel but measured, there is little use of feedback; - Prepare the these are not yet 2 – There are good measures on functioning integral training systematic. and a certain level of feedback of the plan information but it could be more precise and - Train the integral; personnel 3 – Functioning is measured and the feedback is efficiently used

116

117