Conservation Investment Strategy

2018-2021

April 2018

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents Page

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Development of the Investment Strategy ………………………………………………………………………. 6

Conservation Investment Priorities ………………………………………………………………………………… 9

Conservation Investment Modalities ……………………………………………………………………………… 13

Monitoring & Evaluation ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Governance ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

Annexes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Financial resources invested in PA system by source in 2010 ……………………………………………………….. 4

Figure 2: PACT Conservation Investment Strategy as a tool for resource mobilization ………………………………. 5

Figure 3: Criteria used to evaluate Desired Outcomes …………………………………………………………………………..…… 7

Figure 4: Protocol for data use and analysis from prioritization model ……………………………………………………… 7

Figure 5: Spatial illustration of priority ecosystems identified via Prioritization Model ……………………………….11

Figure 6: Spatial distribution of areas with highest priority for investments 18/19 ……………………………………. 12

Figure 7: Graphic illustration of PACT’s Targeted Investment modality……………………………………………………... 14

Figure 8: CIS Change Model illustrating performance targets at multiple levels …………………………………………17

Table 1: Sample priorities identified to address immediate management and PA treats ……………………………. 9

Table 2: Ecosystems and rationale for prioritization ………………………………………………………………………………….. 11

Table 3: Sample activities/programmes eligible under Targeted Investment Modality……………………………….. 13

Table 4: Internal and External guiding documents/policies providing context for CIS ………………………………… 18

3 | P a g e

Acknowledgements

The Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) would like to acknowledge various partners and

stakeholders who contributed to the development of its first Conservation Investment Strategy. Firstly,

acknowledgement to the Board of Directors, particularly the Chair and Vice Chair, for institutional

guidance, direction and technical support throughout this process. Secondly, acknowledgement must be

made to the members of the working group commissioned to provide technical support in the formulation

of its Investment Strategy. The working group had membership from the Belize Forest Department, Belize

Fisheries Department, MAFFESDI, the National Protected Areas System Secretariat and APAMO. The fact

that working group members supported PACT far beyond expectation is commendable. PACT also wishes

to thank all management and co-management agencies/organizations who contributed data for the

prioritization model via the abridged METT assessment and budgetary information. Furthermore,

individuals and organizations that participated and provided feedback to PACT during both consultation

and validation sessions on December 14th, 2017 and February 22nd, 2018 must be thanked.

4 | P a g e

Introduction In order to ensure that it is getting maximum conservation value for its investments, the Protected Areas

Conservation Trust (PACT) is modernizing and innovating how it finances the National Protected Areas

System (NPAS), i.e. other than investments via competitive grant making. In its current form, the PACT

Grants Programme provides immediate support to Protected Areas. This however does not effectively

translate to system level impacts. In its 21 years of operations, PACT has invested BZ$34 Million via 482

projects within the 103 protected areas in the system; equating to an average investment of only $330,000

per protected area over 20 years. Evaluating the contributions and impacts of PACT financing to the

various iterations of the National Protected Areas System Plan is anecdotal not sufficient in enabling long

term, system level impacts.

According to Drumm (2010) the NPAS in a basic scenario requires US$10.2 million or US$19.4 million

(optimal scenario) to remain functional. That same report noted that in 2010 an estimated US$8.9 million

was invested in the National Protected Areas System. Of this amount, PACT financing accounted for a

mere 22% (figure 1). Consequently, it has been a challenge to effectively quantify the contributions of the

Trust in implementing the National Protected Areas

System. This challenge is further compounded by the fact

that the 2015 PACT Amendment Act mandated the trust

in “setting strategic priorities for the development,

mobilization and allocation of financial resources for the

NPAS.” The Act also identified PACT as the lead entity for

moving the NPAS towards financial sustainability and

coordinating the implementation of all strategies aimed

at making the NPAS financially sustainable. In meeting its

new functions, PACT has, through a systematic and

consultative process, developed a Conservation

Investment Strategy. The strategy takes into account,

existing national priorities and strategies such as the

National Protected Areas System Plan, the Growth and

Sustainable Development Strategy, the PACT Act and the NPAS Act. The strategy also incorporates internal

guiding documents including PACT’s Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF),

Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (MEF), and PACT’s Conservation Investment Operations Manual.

The PACT Conservation Investment Strategy is slated for implementation starting April 2018 with fiscal

allocations from PACT’s 2018/2019 fiscal budget.

This 3-year Conservation Investment Strategy will guide investments made by PACT in the National

Protected Areas System where it may have the greatest potential for achieving several desired outcomes.

Furthermore, it is designed to guide PACT, regulatory agencies, co-management organizations and other

conservation partners understand and contribute to the achievement of agreed long-term Conservation

Returns on Investments (ROI). Whereas the long-term approach will be to respond to the needs of the

National Protected Areas System, as opposed to individual sites, the desire is for investments to respond

to current critical needs, and meet corresponding desired outcomes, for the NPAS. As determined via

formal consultation, these initial critical needs, include:

• Investments towards Biodiversity and Ecosystem Protection enabling improved Ecosystem Health

Figure 1: Financial resources invested in PA

system by source in 2010

5 | P a g e

• Financial Sustainability/ Revenue Generation for the NPAS guiding the improved financial

sustainability of the system

• Development and/or expansion of socio-economic benefits from the NPAS to support community

development and local economy

The strategy shall ensure that the limited financial resources available to PACT are appropriately invested

to achieve the desired impacts. Moreover, as illustrated in figure 2 below, the strategy shall serve as a

resource mobilization tool for PACT and partners alike to consolidate efforts in meeting the financial

shortfall within the NPAS. As a final consideration, while the priorities shall constitute the main focus of

the strategy, it has to be flexible in allowing annual reassessments of critical needs of the system and

redirect investments where critical needs of the system have change.

To this end, the specific objectives identified for the PACT Conservation Investment Strategy include:

1. Identifying thematic funding windows to support desired CROI for the NPAS;

2. Identifying investment allocations that will support effective implementation of strategy;

3. Identifying new and innovative investment modalities enabling more effective resource

mobilization and allocation;

4. Establishing performance targets enabling systematic assessment of CRIO for the NPAS;

Allocations will be made in a manner that is transparent, equitable and can provide for optimum

conservation return on investments (ROI). The identification of critical ecosystems and protected areas,

management functions and threats, financing gaps and the probability of success were determined via a

Prioritization Tool. Following review of results of the prioritization tool, an initial envelop of BZ$3,500,000

should be made for the 2018-2019 fiscal year to support the implementation of the strategy. Additional

financial resources shall be made available by PACT periodically to support the implementation of its

Conservation Investment Strategy.

Figure 2: Graphic illustrating rationale for PACT Conservation Investment Strategy as a tool for

resource mobilization

6 | P a g e

Development of the Investment Strategy The Protected Areas Conservation Trust designated a working group (WG) to support the process of

designing and developing its Conservation Investment Strategy. The working group constituted

representation from regulatory and conservation partners in the Belize Forest and Fisheries Departments,

the National Protected Areas System Secretariat, Policy and Finance experts from the Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, the Environment, Sustainable Development and Immigration,

representatives from the Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations (APAMO), and PACT.

The working group supported the efforts of PACT in defining thematic funding windows, investment

priorities and investment modalities.

The initial task of the Working Group included the exploration of potential approaches for identifying

investment priorities. These approaches are briefly described below:

a. Investments based on Protected Areas Coverage.

This approach consists of investments made solely on the geographic coverage of each protected

area irrespective of whether terrestrial or marine, governance structure, conservation value and

levels of threats. With this approach, the WG determined that there would be no guarantee that

desired Returns of Investments may be achieved but that investments would be made relatively

equitable across the system.

b. Investments to meet Threshold of Sustainability

This approach utilizes the Threshold of Sustainability Framework defined in the Sustainable

Financing Strategy and Plan for Belize Protected Areas System. This approach would enable

managers to define the minimum investment in tourism management capacity to support high

quality tourism in Protected Areas. The WG determined that this approach would expand the

revenue generation potential of the system but would limit investments in PAs not designated for

tourism & recreation.

c. Investments based on Agreed Criterion/Criteria

The approach agreed by the WG is based on the use of multiple criteria identified based on

national priorities. Utilizing this approach ensures PACT investments are being made where most

needed. Furthermore, given time, data a resource limitations, this approach presented a fast and

systematic process for identifying investment priorities.

Upon identification of an approach, the WG developed investment priorities utilizing a prioritization

model. This model systematically provides scores to ecosystems and protected areas based on five phases

of analysis (criteria). The phases of analysis utilized in the prioritization model as described below:

1. Phase 1: Prioritization based Biodiversity, Economic & Social (BES) desired outcomes

During this phase of analysis, the working group rated the ecological, social, cultural and economic

objectives of ecosystems (assuming that all are weighted as being equally important in this exercise). The

7 | P a g e

rating of ecosystems/conservation areas were based on

prioritized areas from the 2012 Rationalization Exercise, the

National Protected Areas System Plan 2015 and the Growth and

Sustainable Development Strategy 2016. Rating for each desired

outcome were based on the criteria outlined in the 2012

Rationalization Exercise (figure 3).

2. Phase 2: Prioritization based on Management strengths

& deficiencies

This phase included the administration of an abridged

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) among

protected areas management organizations between November

and December 2017. This assessment was useful in identifying

management strengths/deficiencies that would support or

affect successful implementation of subsequent investments. The information gathered via this

assessment tool was used to undertake a second round of evaluation and rating based on management.

In future iterations of such prioritization exercise, Management Effectiveness Assessments and Scores

(using the nationally recognized methodology) will be utilized.

3. Phase 3: Prioritization based on Protected Areas Threats

This phase also incorporated information from the METT assessment administered. This phase evaluated

and rated the severity of various forms of threats to particular ecosystems/protected areas. Threats

evaluated included, but not limited to, biological resource use and harm, climate change and natural

systems modifications, human intrusion and development.

4. Phase 4: Defining Financial Gaps within the NPAS

This is listed as a separate phase but was also administered concurrently with phases 3 and 4. The

objective is that funding would be invested in functional areas that would lead to addressing the threats

and expected conservation outcomes. However, where other funding sources are already available the

potential for leveraging PACT funding has to be evaluated. Likewise, where sufficient funding is already

available, PACT resources may then be utilized for other priorities.

5. Phase 5: Likelihood of Success/Risks to Successful Implementation

During this phase of the prioritization model the potential for meeting the desired outcomes is evaluated

and a final score is provided. The

phases utilized in the

prioritization model is illustrated

in figure 4.

Figure 3: Criteria used to evaluate Desired

Outcomes

Figure 4: procedure for data and analysis

from prioritization model

8 | P a g e

The methodology utilized in the development of the prioritization model and preliminary priorities for

PACT investment were presented and validated by stakeholders during an open consultation session on

December 14th, 2017.

The remaining tasks of the working group completed between January and February 2018 included the

finalization of investment priorities, the design of investment modalities and establishment of

performance target that enables efficient administration and management of PACT’s Conservation

Investment Portfolio. The investment priorities, in particular, were assessed by the Working Group at

various levels. The output from the prioritization model for the BES, Management and Threats phases

produced specific prioritization that will serve PACT as a guide on the type of activities and programmes

to finance through this strategy. Thereafter, the WG undertook an assessment of ecosystems across the

NPAS that were deemed to have highest potential for attaining the desired outcomes through the

actions/programmes identified. With Ecosystems prioritized, the WG using spatial mapping tools,

undertook an overlay of priority ecosystems with the NPAS to identify conservation areas with the highest

potential for achieving the specified Conservation Returns on Investments. The investment priorities,

modalities and performance targets were presented to conservation stakeholders for consultation and

validation on February 22nd, 2018.

9 | P a g e

Conservation Investment Priorities Following the completion of the prioritization exercise, there were several layers of prioritization results

that were considered by the Working Group in the identification of priority ecosystems and conservation

areas with the highest priority for investments. These priorities are discussed in the sections below.

Prioritization at Programme Level

After running the various phases of the Prioritization Model, there were priorities recognized From the

Biodiversity, Economic and Social phase, there were various ecosystems or conservation blocks identified

as key areas for investments that would result in the highest potential for attaining the specific parameters

described in figure 1 above. As it relates to Biodiversity, the model demonstrated that the highest

potential for meeting this desired outcome include the Belize Barrier Reef System (WHS), Maya Mountain

Pine Ridge Massif, Central Northern Coastal Plain and the Central Belize Corridor. As it relates to the

Financial sustainability and Socioeconomic desired outcomes, the areas with highest potential were

deemed to be the Marine Reserves, Forest Reserves and Tourism sites within the NPAS.

From the perspective of prioritizing based on Protected Areas Management, the highest necessities across

the NPAS included investments in monitoring and evaluation systems, protection and resource use,

budget management and equipment maintenance. Furthermore, the review of management threats also

highlighted a third layer of priorities. These priorities include activities to address climate change and

natural system modification, biological resource use within the NPAS, human intrusion and development

Further details of these top priorities are highlighted in table 1 below:

Management Priorities Priorities for addressing PA Threats

1) Monitoring and Evaluation Systems

a) Enforcement and Biodiversity data b) Spatial Monitoring and Reporting

Tool c) Management Effectiveness

1) Climate Change and Natural System

Modification a) Fire, Droughts, Storm damages b) Coral Reef degradation c) Erosion d) Deforestation

2) Protection Systems (assess/resource use) a) Enforcement & patrols b) Multi-sectoral engagement

2) Biological resource use and harm within NPAS a) Illegal Extraction b) Poaching c) Species/biodiversity loss

3) Management of Budget a) Appropriate financial procedures b) Budget meets management needs

3) Human Intrusion & Development a) Community/Infrastructure expansion b) Vandalism c) Commercial Development

4) Maintenance of Equipment a) Inventory System b) Adequate maintenance

Table 1: Sample priorities identified to address immediate management and PA treats

10 | P a g e

Prioritization at Ecosystem Level

While the prioritization at the programme level will be useful for PACT to identify the type of activities

and programmes to finance, prioritization at the ecosystem level identified specific ecosystems that are

deemed to have the highest potential for yielding the desired outcomes and CROI. Following analysis of

Belize’s Ecosystems Map, a total of 7 ecosystems were identified as highest priority under PACT’s 2018-

2021 Conservation Investment Strategy. Table 2 below outlines these ecosystems and provides the

rationale for their selection. Furthermore, figure 5 illustrates the spatial extent of the priority

ecosystems for the PACT Conservation Investment Strategy.

Priority Ecosystem Rationale for Selection

Coral Reefs Coral reefs are one of the most biodiversity rich ecosystems in Belize and contribute substantially to the tourism and fisheries industry at the national and local level. Furthermore, coral reefs are sensitive to climate change impacts and human intrusion effects.

Mangrove and Littoral Forests Mangroves also serve as important ecosystems supporting marine biodiversity. They contribute valuable ecosystem services such as shoreline protection, filtration, storm surge/wave damage mitigation. In the growing reality of climate change, such ecosystems will become valuable tools in securing natural assets within the Meso-American Reef System.

Seagrass Beds Same as mangroves. Along with mangroves and coral reefs, this ecosystem form an important part of various enforcement and biodiversity monitoring programmes and thus a priority for investments to ensure that best data is available to support management.

Wetlands Wetlands are also deemed as biodiversity rich ecosystems. They are also important for flood mitigation and erosion control. Furthermore, wetlands hold many socio-economic benefits to many local communities.

Lowland Savanna Lowland savannas are important ecosystems as they constitute significant portions of priority areas identified by the BES assessment, i.e Maya Mountain Pine Ridge Massif, Central Northern Coastal Plain and the Central Belize Corridor. Additionally, these areas are also prone to climate induced droughts and fires.

Sub montane broad-leafed Forests These forests house many of Belize’s terrestrial biodiversity with some areas such as the Maya Mountain Pine Ridge Massif identified as a key Biodiversity Areas (KBA). These forests are also

11 | P a g e

critical to Belize’s tourism, forestry and agriculture industries thus play important role in the local economy of communities. Sub montane broad-leafed forests, particularly along the western border, are also under high treats from illegal extraction, deforestation and biodiversity loss. As such, investments in improved enforcement and protection remains paramount.

Sub montane Pine Forests Like Broad-leaf forests, this ecosystem form part of the KBA and important to the forestry and tourism industries.

Table 2: Ecosystems and rationale for prioritization

Figure 5: spatial illustration of priority

ecosystems identified via Prioritization

Model

12 | P a g e

Prioritization at NPAS level

Following prioritization at the ecosystem level, the National Protected Areas System map was overlaid on

the ecosystems map to determine the specific conservation sites that may provide highest conservation

returns on investments. The prioritization model identified 22 protected areas as the final prioritization

output, highlighted in figure 6 below. This exercise takes into account the results of the various phases of

analysis used in the model as well as prioritization at the two levels previously described.

Protected Areas

Corozal Bay WS

Bacalar Chico MR & NP

Caye Caulker MR

Crooked Tree WS

Swallow Caye NP

Turneffe Atoll MR

Half Moon Caye NM

Blue Hole NM

Billy Barquedier NP

Mayflower Bocawina NP

South Water Caye MR

St. Herman’s Blue Hole NP

Cockscomb Basin WS & Victoria Peak NM

Chiquibul NP

Bladen NR

Laughing Bird Caye NP

Gladden Spit & Silk Cayes MR

Payne’s Creek NP

Port Honduras MR

Sapadilla Cayes MR

Figure 6: spatial distribution of areas with highest priority for investments 18/19

13 | P a g e

Conservation Investment Modalities The Conservation Investment Programme will be implemented via two main funding window as described

below.

Targeted Investments

This investment modality will constitute a maximum of 80% funding effort or BZ$2.8 Million of 2018/2019

envelop. This modality will support PACT’s efforts in meeting the desired priorities and outcomes. As

such, investments must directly support biodiversity and ecosystem protection, revenue generation and

financial sustainability, and socio-economic benefits to communities. Funding may also support activities/

initiatives that create enabling conditions, inclusive of staff training and capacity building, for the

achievement of these desired outcomes.

Sample activities/programmes that may be considered under such investments include; but are not

limited to:

Biodiversity and Ecosystems Financial Sustainability Socio-Economic Benefits

Forest & Ecosystem Management

Recreation/ Tourism Infrastructure

Community resource use schemes

Illegal Extraction (poaching & Biodiversity loss)

Capital investments Managed Access Fisheries

Enforcement Capacity Marketing & Product Development

Community enforcement & monitoring

Biodiversity monitoring & research

Business Planning & Training Employment Opportunities

Table 3: Sample activities/programmes eligible under Targeted Investment Modality

As described previously, the Conservation Investment Strategy utilizes outputs from its prioritization

model as a guide in assessing the potential for specific investments to produce desired Conservation

Returns on Investment. The assessments in each phase are used to produce cumulative scores across all

sites in the NPAS. These cumulative scores take into account the potential for meeting desired outcomes,

existing management functions, addressing threats, filling financial gaps and the probability of

successfully achieving desired ROI. This score, as a percentage of the aggregate of all prioritized areas,

suggests an allocation for any one area. The exact investment amount to be made by PACT however is

determined following proper engagement and planning with the PA manager/co-manager, regulatory

agencies and other partners.

The Targeted Investment process for execution is described below (with illustration in figure 7).

1) The process will require eligible managers/co-managers to submit an “expression of partnership” to

PACT. This expression shall be in a format agreed to by PACT outlining the scope of the proposed

investment, potential sources for leveraging, alignment with PACT CIS priorities as well as alignment

to management plans, NPAPSP 2015, GSDS 2016, etc.

2) While expression of partnerships can be submitted from all 22 priority areas over the course of the

fiscal year, PACT must identify the best practical approach for reviewing and processing requests to

support an efficient process. PACT shall ensure that it remains fair and open to all potential partners

and will serve primarily on a first come first serve basis. However, where multiple expressions are

14 | P a g e

submitted and reviewed, PACT will utilize the prioritization tool as a guide for developing a schedule

for engage potential partners as detailed in the steps below. Therefore, where multiple expressions

are received, PACT will first consider partnerships for areas found to have the highest potential for

success. Other considerations that will also be taken into account however shall be the level of

interest shown by respective managers/ co-managers and expressions (concepts) that consolidate

areas under the same management structure or from multiple partners/PAs within a geographical

node critical to the NPAS.

3) Upon acceptance of the Expression of Partnership, PACT will schedule a Planning Mission (based on 2

above) with the manager/co-manager to jointly discuss and draft an application package. Critical

components of these missions shall be to assess priorities identified by the PA manager/co-manager

against the priorities identified by PACT through its CIS, identify sources for leveraging, compliance

with PACT’s Environmental and Social Management Framework, Policy on Gender & Equality,

Procurement Policy and any other internal policy. The expected outputs from such missions shall be

the development of a Logical Framework Matrix outlining the goals, objectives, SMART indicators,

risks and assumptions. PACT shall ensure that such matrices directly correlate to the CIS Theory of

Change (TOC) highlighted in the Monitoring and Evaluation section below. Other outputs of the PACT

Missions shall be fully developed workplan and budget corresponding to the Investment logframe. In

improving reporting efficiency across the system, missions may also entail the participation of the

Fisheries Department, Forestry Department, the National Protected Areas System Secretariat,

APAMO and any other relevant support agency/organization. PACT will aim to execute planning

mission within its scheduling guidelines (described in 2 above) and where possible within 3 weeks of

the acceptance of an expression of partnership. The length of time designated for a mission, agenda

and accompanying parties will be mutually agreed prior to execution.

4) An Environmental, Social and Gender Risk Assessment must also be undertaken jointly by PACT and

the applicant. This assessment will entail a review of all potential environmental risk that may result

from the planned intervention. The assessment must also undertake a review of potential social and

gender risks inclusive of positive and negative impacts to direct stakeholder groups, resource users,

and indigenous people. Where such risks have been identified, the applicant shall be required to

present mitigation measures. In its review, PACT may require further consultation with appropriate

authorities and partner organizations/ groups. Where necessary PACT may also require applicants to

undertake a process of free, prior and informed consultation with affected indigenous peoples and

other stakeholders. The timeframe for such assessments shall be dependent of the extent of

consultation required. Nonetheless, applicants will be encouraged to complete within 3 weeks from

the execution of the PACT Missions.

5) The screening phase proceeds with internal review of all investment documents, screening against

the PACT ESMF, external expert opinion (where necessary), and a final review and approval by the

PACT Board of Directors. PACT shall aim to complete the screening phase within 5 weeks of the

submission of all documentation. Upon approval, a partnership agreement outlining the terms and

conditions governing the investment being made by PACT to the Protected Area/s.

6) The implementation phase shall entail continuous monitoring of the investment logframe,

environmental, social & gender risk and mitigation measures, contributions of the investments to the

desired outcomes and ROI for the NPAS. For the success of this process, it shall be imperative that

the investment partner collaborate effectively with the PACT Conservation Investment Department

15 | P a g e

(CID) in data collection, analysis and sharing. Furthermore, Technical and Financial reports, specific

to the PACT Conservation Investment shall be required periodically.

7) The evaluation phase will entail a

thorough review of the conservation returns

achieved from PACT’s Investments. This process,

by its nature, may extend beyond

implementation timeline but shall be equally

reliant on the support from PACT’s investment

partner/s. Such evaluations shall entail a review

of the contributions of the investment made to

specific site plans and strategies but also at the

national scope of the National Protected Areas

Policy and System Plan, Growth and Sustainable

Development Strategy and any other relevant

strategic tool. The evaluation will also

determine the feasibility of re-investment.

Secondary Investments

This investment modality will constitute a maximum of 20% of PACT’s funding efforts or BZ$700,000 of

the 2018/2019 envelop. Funding will be made available via this window to support General PA

management and operations of PAs and programmes outside of priority areas/ecosystems. Support may

also include management processes and institutional strengthening tools for Protected Area managers

inclusive of the development of Management Plans, Strategic Plans, etc. Additionally, funding may also

be provided for short-term, emergency or unplanned conservation relevant activities, training or

initiatives from eligible organizations. Investments via this modality shall remain available year-round

depending on the availability of funding.

The execution process for Secondary Investments is outlined below.

1) Interested applicants shall submit a completed Investment Request Statement (in a format provided

by PACT). This statement will outline the details of the investment sought by the applicant; inclusive

of a basic logical framework indicating activities, objectives and benchmarks, rationale and alignment

with site and system level planning tools. As part of the submission package, an investment workplan

and budget (in a PACT format) must be included. Interested applicants are expected to also complete

an Environmental, Social and Gender Checklist. This will assist in identifying any potential risks and

appropriate mitigation measures

2) The screening and approval process shall include PACT’s standard internal review and screening for

technical quality and compliance with PACT’s ESMF and other policies. This process may or may not

require external expert review. The decision to seek external expert opinion shall be at the discretion

of PACT but sought prior to approval being granted.

3) The implementation phase shall, like the process for targeted investments, require monitoring by

both awardee and PACT against the project logframe, workplan and budget, and ES&G safeguards.

This shall entail formal technical and financial reporting in a format provided by PACT.

4) Evaluation of secondary investments shall entail the joint preparation of a Completion and

Assessment Report.

Figure 7: Graphic illustration of PACT’s Targeted Investment

modality

16 | P a g e

While the information presented in this strategy remains a concise review of the investment modalities

and application process, more detailed information can be sought from the PACT Conservation

Investment Department.

Monitoring and Evaluation The process to be utilized by PACT in monitoring and evaluating the efficiency and impacts of its

Conservation Investment Strategy will be in accordance with PACT’s Monitoring and Evaluation

Framework.

The PACT M&E Framework illustrates the need for M&E at two levels. The first is M&E at the institutional

level of PACT to determine and demonstrate efficiencies and progress towards PACT achieving its

mandate. The second level of the framework is at the NPAS level. For the purpose of its Conservation

Investment Strategy, the definitions, best practice principles, and M&E structure at the NPAS level shall

be utilized by PACT.

In accordance with the PACT M&E Framework (2018) “Monitoring” and “Evaluation” are defined as

follows:

Monitoring is a continuous process that uses systematic collection of data on specific indicators to assist

timely decision making, ensure accountability, improve performance, and provide the basis for evaluation

and learning, and is inclusive of independent evaluations and self-evaluation processes. It provides

indications of the extent of achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds.

Evaluation is the systematic and impartial assessment of an activity, project or program, aimed at

determining the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the results. It is

evidence-based and allows for the incorporation of lessons learned into decision-making processes.

The M&E process to be utilized shall be guided by the following Best Practice Principles, as described in

the PACT M&E framework:

1) Commitment to simplicity, timeliness and cost effectiveness;

2) M&E Frameworks should be coherent and fit-for-purpose;

3) Should seek to address whether directly or indirectly, the following criteria: relevance, efficiency,

effectiveness, impact and sustainability;

4) M&E should be regular and systematic, and should target processes, performance, intended and

unintended consequences, and context;

5) M&E need to be responsive and appropriate to the situation and the operation undertaken, and

should be integrated with implementing partners’ systems as far as possible;

6) M&E results should provide useful data to inform continuous improvement and decision making at

multiple levels.

For the purpose of the Conservation Investment Strategy, PACT shall undertake M&E at various levels, as

described by the Change Model presented in figure 8 below.

a) At the level of the Conservation Investments, PACT and perspective partners will identify specific

actions/activities/programmes that will contribute to the three desired outcomes, ie,

17 | P a g e

Biodiversity/ Ecosystem conservation, Income Generation, and boost in the Socio-Economic

benefits. Specific performance indicators and benchmarks shall be identified for each investment

via the Logical Framework Matrix. PACT shall ensure investment logframes are consistent and

contributory to the CIS Change Model and PACT M&E Framework.

b) At the output level, PACT and perspective partners shall ensure that the outputs of each

investment correlate and effectively demonstrate achievement or progress towards the outputs

defined in the Change Model. Assessments of these outputs shall be executed by PACT via its

internal M&E function but with reporting and data support from partner organizations.

c) The recognized outputs from the previous level shall be used by PACT and its partners to monitor

and evaluate progress towards achievement of the Conservation Returns on Investments defined

at the outcome level of the Change Model. Results attained via PACT M&E Framework shall be

used to evaluate achievement of the ROI and indicators at the NPAS Level.

d) At the NPAS level, the indicators identified in the Change Model directly correlate to several key

attributes and performance indicators of the PACT M&E framework (outlined below). As such,

the data collected during M&E at the investment and outputs level, and that collected in

fulfilment of its M&E framework shall be used to quantify and illustrate impacts of the PACT

Conservation Investment Strategy on the National Protected Areas System.

For consistency, the PACT M&E Framework and tools shall be utilized in assessing the performance of the

Conservation Investment Strategy and evaluation of the Conservation Returns on Investments.

Specifically, NPAS Performance Attribute 1: Investment Impact on the NPAS and NPAS Performance

Attribute 3: Management Effectiveness of the M&E framework shall support evaluation of the first ROI,

improved protection and conservation of priority ecosystems. NPAS Performance Attribute 4: Level of

Investment in the NPAS and NPAS Performance Attribute 5: Reduction of the financing gap of the NPAS

shall support evaluation of the second ROI, increase in public/private investments (leveraging) and

Figure 8: CIS Change Model illustrating performance targets at multiple levels

18 | P a g e

reduction of the NPAS financial gap. Lastly, evaluation of the third ROI, increase in employment and

community economy via investments, shall be consistent with assessment of NPAS Performance Attribute

2: Investment Impact on Communities.

Governance The development and management of the PACT Conservation Investment Strategy shall ultimately be

governed by the PACT Board of Directors, whose composition is detailed in the PACT Amendment Act

2015. The implementation of the strategy shall be guided by the PACT Executive Director but direct

responsibility shall be that of the Conservation Investment Department (CID) lead by a Conservation

Investment Manager with technical support from Conservation Programme Officer/s and a Monitoring

Officer. The implementation of the strategy however must be done in the context of several external and

internal strategies and policies. These guiding documents are listed in table 4 below.

External Strategies/Policies Internal Strategies/ Policies

National Protected Areas System Plan 2015 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Growth and Sustainable Development Strategy 2016

PACT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

PACT Act Amendment 2015 PACT Conservation Investment Programme Operational Manual 2018

PACT Act Amendment 2017 PACT Procurement Policies and Procedures Manual

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2020

PACT Accounting and Investment Manual

Biodiversity Finance Initiative Policy on Gender and Equality

UNCBD, UNFCCC, and other International Conventions

PACT Anti-Fraud Policy and Procedures

Strategic Plan for the PACT 2017-2021 Table 4: Internal and External guiding documents/policies providing context for CIS

The investments being made through this Strategy shall be governed by a Partnership Agreement. This

agreement will stipulate the terms and conditions of the partnership as well as expected roles and

responsibilities of both PACT and its partner/s as it relates to implementation, resource allocation and

leveraging, monitoring and reporting, data collection and management, and evaluation.

As it relates to Monitoring and Evaluation, PACT shall be reliant on Investment Partners and Conservation

stakeholders on the collection and sharing of relevant data and datasets. The management of this data,

once provided to PACT, shall be that of PACT’s Monitoring Officer and used solely for the purpose of

assessing its investments, contributions to defined CROI and NPAS level M&E as designated in annex 4.

This strategy, the partnership agreements, data and products formulated through this process may also

be used by PACT in the development of profiles for all protected area were investments have been made.

These profiles will support PACT in long term M&E, prioritization and governance of its conservation

investments.

19 | P a g e

Annex 1

PACT Conservation Working Group Members List and Credentials

Name Organization Title

Dr. Percival Cho Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, the Environment, Sustainable Development and Immigration PACT Board of Directors

Chief Forest Officer Chairperson

Mr. Ansel Dubon National Protected Areas System Secretariat

Director

Mr. Wilber Sabido Belize Forest Department Chief Forest Officer

Ms. Beverly Wade Belize Fisheries Department Fisheries Administrator

Mr. Adriel Castaneda Belize Fisheries Department Capture Fisheries Unit, Belize Fisheries Department (alternate)

Mr. Jose Perez Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations

Executive Director

Mr. Valdemar Andrade Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations Turneffe Atoll Sustainability Association

Member Representative Executive Director

Dr. Kenrick Williams MAFFESDI Policy Expert (BIOFIN)

Mr. Christopher Magan MAFFESDI Finance Expert (BIOFIN)

Mrs. Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT Executive Director

Mr. Darrel Audinette PACT Ag. Associate Director Grants

Mrs. Mary-Joyce Tun PACT Conservation Programme Officer

20 | P a g e

Annex 2

Attendance sheets for PACT validation sessions December 14th, 2017 and February 22nd, 2018

PACT Conservation Investment Strategy

Stakeholder Consultation & Validation Session

December 14, 2017

21 | P a g e

PACT Conservation Investment Strategy Launch

Stakeholder Consultation Session

February 22, 2018

22 | P a g e

Annex 3

The key NPAS attributes and performance indicators identified in the M&E framework

(1) Investment Impact on the NPAS

(a) Percentage of PAs of the NPAS showing improved management effectiveness as a

consequence of PACT investments

(b) Number of unrepresented ecological systems incorporated to the NPAS as a

consequence of PACT funding

(2) Investment Impact on Communities

(a) Level of increase in visitor spending in buffer communities of the NPAS supported

through PACT investments

(b) Level of Job creation in buffer communities of the NPAS supported through PACT

investments

(3) Management Effectiveness of the NPAS

(a) Number and percentage of PAs in the NPAS benefitting from PACT investments which

include dedicated funding for enforcement and/or evaluation of Management

Effectiveness

(b) Percent of PACT Investment budget dedicated to building management capacity

(4) Level of Investment in the NPAS

(a) Percent of PACT revenues invested in NPAS

(b) Percent of NPAS financing leveraged through PACT

(5) Reduction of the financing gap of the NPAS

(a) Percent increase in PA financial sustainability as a consequence of PACT support

(b) Percent reduction of the annual NPAS funding gap as a consequence of PACT funding

and leveraging

(6) Partners & Stakeholders in NPAS implementation

(a) Number of PA management agencies with formal agreements with PACT to assist in

monitoring of the NPAS

(b) Number of management plans with updated indicators aligned with management and

monitoring priorities of the NPAS through PACT support

23 | P a g e

An

nex 4

PA

CT C

on

servation

Investm

ent Strategy

Prio

ritization

Too

l – Dash

bo

ard