|
|
|
|
|
PHASE I (Round 1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTCOME 1: Identify focal biodiversity elements (gap assessment) |
|
|
Specific actions |
Description |
Progress snapshot |
Steps taken this quarter (if any) |
|
|
Activity 1.1 |
Create ANAM website for documenting and disseminating gap assessment |
4 = activity completed |
This website is located in www.anam.gob.pa/proyectos |
|
|
Activity 1.2 |
Work with TNC to gather all data layers |
3 = significant progress, nearly complete |
3 meetings held with TNC to agree on the layers of information that will be used in the analysis. |
|
|
Activity 1.3 |
National consultation to select focal conservation elements and peer review report |
1 = just started, limited progress |
Was hired a consultant, but in the previous quarter person renounce, and started again the recruitment process. |
|
|
Activity 1.4 |
NISP working group meeting |
0 = not yet begun, no progress |
This has been delayed because it depends on the progress of the previous activity |
|
|
Activity 1.5 |
Report on selected focal conservation elements and preliminary targets |
1 = just started, limited progress |
To advance depends on recruitment of consultant for activity 1.3. |
|
|
Activity 1.6 |
Working group presents report to ANAM decision makers |
0 = not yet begun, no progress |
To advance depends on recruitment of consultant for activity 1.3. |
|
|
Activity 1.7 |
ANAM meeting to agree on targets and focal biodiversity elements |
1 = just started, limited progress |
To advance depends on recruitment of consultant for activity 1.3. |
|
|
Activity 1.8 |
Produce report on ANAM-agreed focal biodiversity elements and targets |
1 = just started, limited progress |
To advance depends on recruitment of consultant for activity 1.3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstacles faced in implementing Activity 1: |
Delays were presented in the selection of national and international consultants. The management of recruitment of national consultants was launched in twice. For lack of availability of time and dedication to the project not contracts for the follow-up to the entire project could be. International consultants are not available to work full-time in Panama, which made it difficult recruitment as well as excessive costs proposed for activities. |
|
|
Lessons learned in implementing Activity 1: |
It is required that contracts are by product in accordance with the independent terms of reference for each product. The recruitment of consultancies supported by international experts and national counterparts to decrease costs will be managed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTCOME 2: Map status and occurrence of critical biodiversity (gap assessment) |
|
|
Specific actions |
Description |
Progress snapshot |
Steps taken this quarter (if any) |
|
|
Activity 2.1 |
Create spatial database |
1 = just started, limited progress |
There is the effectiveness of protected areas management database is missing add georrefenciación field. |
|
|
Activity 2.2 |
Map remaining focal elements and threat layers |
2 = activity fully underway |
Roney Samaniego and Carmen Medina produce a map of threats/degree of loss of biodiversity based on GLOBIO 3/CLUE. |
|
|
Activity 2.3 |
Working group prepare all maps and elements to NISP working group |
0 = not yet begun, no progress |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstacles faced in implementing Activity 2: |
There are several initiatives related to protected areas database. A single information collection format has not been approved. |
|
|
Lessons learned in implementing Activity 2: |
It is required unify formats of data for updating information 89 protected areas. Foundation NATURA has offered to finance the development of georeferencing for the database fields of monitoring effectiveness of management of protected areas of Panama. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTCOME 3: Map status and effectiveness of PAs (gap assessment) |
|
|
Specific actions |
Description |
Progress snapshot |
Steps taken this quarter (if any) |
|
|
Activity 3.1 |
Map remaining gazetted PAs |
4 = activity completed |
The Department of environmental information of ANAM has produced an updated map of protected areas in Panama. With the support of other initiatives such as CBMAP 2 the forested coverage map was updated |
|
|
Activity 3.2 |
Map all private PAs |
0 = not yet begun, no progress |
There is a low level of communication between the ANAM and the private reserves network organization. |
|
|
Activity 3.3 |
Assess existing studies to report the PA management effectiveness |
4 = activity completed |
There is data/reports published official programme of monitoring effectiveness of management of protected areas 2008. Was the monitoring of protected areas which not monitoring |
|
|
Activity 3.4 |
Categorize management objectives according to IUCN and Panama system |
3 = significant progress, nearly complete |
There is the final report on the consultant management categories Maricel Santamaría has been delivered. |
|
|
Activity 3.5 |
Peer review of report and post on ANAM website |
2 = activity fully underway |
The final consultancy report will be sent to the environmental information Office of the ANAM, to be placed on the web page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstacles faced in implementing Activity 3: |
The private reserves created great expectations with regard to the project. Requested the recognition of the private reserves that contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, and some financial and tax incentives, that are outside the scope of the project. |
|
|
Lessons learned in implementing Activity 3: |
Guide of the private reserves network applications towards the objectives of the project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTCOME 4: Compare maps of biodiversity with maps of PAs (gap assessment) |
|
|
Specific actions |
Description |
Progress snapshot |
Steps taken this quarter (if any) |
|
|
Activity 4.1 |
Analyze existing PAs with mapped biodiversity elements and quantify gaps |
2 = activity fully underway |
Undertook an analysis of existing protected areas based on the global goal of protecting 10 % territory/ecosystems. A description of the published protected areas was conducted in Official Gazette which did not have those polygons defined. |
|
|
Activity 4.2 |
Use software to optimize gap filling scenarios (at expert workshop) |
1 = just started, limited progress |
Analysis tool software MARXAN promoted by TNC not pinned expectations for use. Available data do not fill requirements to successfully use the MARXAN software.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstacles faced in implementing Activity 4: |
Identified in the ecosystems of information protected persists the lack of information and empty areas evaluation report. The MARXAN software is good, but the data requirements to operate well are difficult to cover |
|
|
Lessons learned in implementing Activity 4: |
Evaluation tools should select according to the quality of available information and information needs. Is considered that MARXAN was already used for Panama in the framework of the initiative of planning ecoregional of Mesoamerica. Suggests that an analysis of overlapping layers recommended by ANAM and TNC should be used (and partners NISP as appropriate), instead of using MARXAN. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTCOME 5: Prioritize gaps to be filled (gap assessment) |
|
|
Specific actions |
Description |
Progress snapshot |
Steps taken this quarter (if any) |
|
|
Activity 5.1 |
Prioritize gaps and optimal areas |
0 = not yet begun, no progress |
|
|
|
Activity 5.2 |
Produce, print and disseminate report |
0 = not yet begun, no progress |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstacles faced in implementing Activity 5: |
Activity 5 dependent on complete all previous activities. Until not finish activities 1-4 you cannot complete the 5 activity. |
|
|
Lessons learned in implementing Activity 5: |
|
